UTILIZAREA GEOSINTETICELOR LA LUCRĂRI AEROPORTURI

Aeroport Berlin, Germania,

Sursa youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXJOJmWDQY8

Reabilitare pista aeroport Pula, Crotia

Sursa youtube.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A_RdgEVnV8

Extindere si reabilitare aeroport Abu Dhabi

Sursayoutube.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3hkynQIReY

Reabilitare aeroport New Mexico International Airport

Sursayoutube.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzQCo5gd5JU

http://www.viacon-technologies.ro/lang/ro/detalii-produs/geosintetice.html

2. Geotextile netesute
Acest material este confectionat din fibre de polipropilena avand rezistenta mare la elongatie, de la 6
kN/m la 110 kN/m.
Acestea sunt cel mai frecvent folosite in:

 constructia de drumuri, parcari, aeroporturi;

 constructia de canale, diguri, bazine, ranforsarea malului marii;
 protectia geomembranelor la depozite de deseuri;
 cazul diferitelor tipuri de sisteme de drenare si filtrare.

Aplicatii:

 accelereaza consolidarea solului cu capacitate portanta slaba sub caile ferate si rambleuri;
 construirea canalelor geosintetice de scurgere verticale si orizontale;
 construirea de straturi de separare intre solul granular si nisipul brut, pietris, agregate, moloz si
bucati mari de pietre;
 intarirea straturilor superioare ale fundatiilor drumurilor sau ale straturilor inferioare, pentru a
reduce folosirea materialelor si pentru a prelungi durata de viata a structurii;
 ranforsarea benzilor de refugiu, pantelor abrubte, terasamentelor, alunecarilor de teren;
 construirea straturilor protectoare in cazul gropilor de gunoi.

Avantaje:

 elasticitate si adaptabilitate ridicata la forma suprafetei;

 specificatii definite legate de rezistenta la elongatia longitudinala, sparturi si la gauri;
 rezistenta ridicata la factorii naturali ai mediului (ciuperci sau mucegai), acizi, baze, combustibil,
solventi);
 buna permeabilitate orizontala si verticala a apei sub presiune;
 ecologic.

. Geogrile din fibra de sticla

Aceste geogrile sunt fabricate din fibre de sticla tesute si sunt invelite cu un strat bituminos printr-un
proces tehnologic. Intrega gama de produse din fibra de sticla este creata pentru ranforsarea suprafetei
asfaltului.
Geogrilele din fibra de sticla garanteaza o durabilitate semnificativ mai lunga a masei de bitum.
Combinatia complexa insumeaza intr-un singur produs avantajele folosirii geogrilelor si geotextilelor.
Aplicatii:

 ranforsarea imbracamintii asfaltice;

 probleme rezultate din fisurarea suprafetei bituminoase;
 imbinarile la largirea soselelor;
 locatii cu trafic intens (aeroporturi, loturi de parcari);
 regiuni cu clima dificila.

Avantaje:

 rezistenta mare la alungire;

 felxibilitate si greutate mica;
 coeficient de elasticitate ridicat;
 tractiune pana la 3%;
 rezistenta la alunecare;
 fibra absorbanta;
 rezistenta la temperaturi ridicate;
 disponibil in marimi si cantitati diferite;
 forta de rezistenta de la 50 kN/m pana la 200 kN/m.

Geocompozit pentru armare asfalt

 Geocompozitele pentru armarea asfaltului sunt folosite pentru cresterea duratei de exploatare a unei
imbracaminti rutiere intarziind transmiterea fisurilor la straturile superioare.
Geocompozitele pentru armarea asfaltului sunt de doua feluri :

1. Geocompozite realizate dintr-o geogrila si un geotextil special fabricat in acest scop. Cele doua
componente sunt termofixate si formeaza un material robust, usor de instalat. Geogrila cu noduri rigide
este potrivita pentru cresterea rezistentei la oboseala a imbracamintilor din fundatiile slabe, reducand
aparitia fagaselor si asigurand controlul fisurilor de reflexie. Acest material este folosit pentru armarea
straturilor de acoperire cu o grosime minima de 70 mm.
2. Geocompozite formate dintr-o retea de filamente de sticla fixate pe un geotextil netesut. Se folosesc
pentru ranforsarea straturilor de acoperire cu o grosime minima de 40 mm. Aceste geocompozite sunt
potrivite pentru a absorbi sarcinile de lunga durata cum ar fi cele cauzate de ciclul inghet- dezghet si
tensiunile induse de temperatura.






Ambele produse sunt ideale pentru armarea straturilor de protectie situate deasupra:

 rosturilor dalelor de beton

 fundatiilor din balast stabilizat
 pistelor aeroporturilor si drumurilor laterale de acces
 imbracamintilor rutiere deja fisurate
 


https://www.geosynthetica.com/airport-and-runway-designs-geosynthetics-improve-safety/

Airport and Runway Designs:

Geosynthetics Improve Safety
By
Chris Kelsey
-
November 29, 2011

Wrapped Secugrid® rolls ready for installation and installed Secugrid® soil reinforcement.

In order to stay competitive and safe, airports today face a number engineering design
challenges. Capacities must be expanded and efficiencies increased without adversely
impacting safety.

Increasing environmental protections require stringent control of stormwater runoff,

strict containment of fuel resources, and, where applicable, deicing facility containment
and drainage. Also, as technology in airplane manufacture and design has advanced,
larger and stronger runways must be constructed to accommodate the vast range of
plane styles and weights.

Geosynthetics are playing a strong role in meeting these engineering design challenges,
as well as offering greener design solutions and reduced long-term maintenance needs.

Runway Requirements
Aerial photo of the Berlin-Brandenburg International runway with Secugrid® installation
and soil coverage in the subsurface area of the runway

The epicenter of safety concerns for any airport is managing traffic along the highly
complex network of runways, taxi lanes, airport service roads, and tunnels that enable
planes, baggage carts, emergency and maintenance vehicles, fuel trucks and more to
go about their necessary business. While the primary incursion and excursion safety
concerns are taken care of by tower and ground personnel, environmental protections
and runway integrity concerns are taken care of through smart construction and
engineering practices.

Runway surfaces must be kept free from contamination, to maintain the optimal surface
friction characteristics that influence an airplane’s drag and take-off and landing safety.
Ensuring these surface characteristics requires strong drainage management of
stormwater, fuel and deicing agents. Runways must also accommodate frequent,
intense cycles of compression and decompression with airplane take-offs and landings.

The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) 9157 “Aerodrome Design Manual”
provides guidance on the geometric design of runways and the aerodrome elements
normally associated with runways. These concerns include configuration, length,
pavement bearing capacity, and other performance parameters relevant to current
safety standards and the accommodation of foreseeable future runway needs.

The subsurface of the runway, ICAO 9157 notes, must be designed so that the nose
gear of an airplane does not sink more than 15cm. Therefore, the subgrade’s bearing
strength below the first 15cm must have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) between 15
and 20%. Geogrids provide that safety and support for runways, just as they do for
other intensive transportation applications such as high-speed railways.
Project Story: Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport

When Airbus and Boeing jets fly, their journeys must begin and end on a solid
foundation, which includes essential support on the edges of runways. At the state-of-
the-art Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport in Germany, NAUE Secugrid® geogrids
are being used for primary stabilization and Carbofol® geomembranes for surface
runoff protection.

The runways of the new Berlin-Brandenburg International (BBI) Airport cover an area of
approximately 1,470ha. The design of the runways is quite complex. Runways are 60m
wide but are complemented on both sides by a 75m wide strip, which is in turn divided
into several functional areas.

Immediately next to the runway is an asphalt strip with shoulder and fire protection
zones in which, among other things, runway lighting is installed. Surface water flows
from the runway onto the paved shoulder, then directly into a vegetated wetland with
coarse drainage sand for filtering elements such as de-icing agents, oils, fuels and
more. These runoff collection zones (and the groundwater and soil beneath) are
protected from seepage by 70,000m2 geomembrane, such as high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) NAUE Carbofol® 508.

Also, the filter strip area must be extremely strong and stable, in case a plane veers off
the runway. Preventing a more serious accident includes making sure the wheels do not
sink too deeply into the vegetated strip. Also, these strips must support and allow
quick, safe access for emergency personnel.

To stabilize the runway edges, Secugrid® 80/80 Q1 reinforcement geogrids were

installed above the soil filter layer. Secugrid® is characterized by exceptional durability,
high rigidity, and strong resistance to tensile forces, including at low elongation. These
factors distribute stress quickly, effectively and safely to maintain runway integrity.

Approximately 280,000m2 of Secugrid® 80/80 Q1 were installed above the filter

surface. Above the geogrid, a 30cm thick gravel layer was placed. Along with the runoff
control, runway shoulder stabilization was installed. The nearly 500,000m 2 of installed
Secugrid® 30/30 Q1 made up the bulk of the geosynthetics supplied to the project by
NAUE. This geogrid was laid on the prepared subgrade. Next came a 30cm thick gravel
layer, 15cm of top soil and then vegetation.

Construction work was carried out by a consortium of Max Bögl, Eurovia VBU and
Eurovia Beton. The collaboration was found to be both pleasant and professional.

The new, modern Berlin airport (opening June 2012) now has a transit network for
airplanes, trains, metros and busses under one roof.

NAUE Solutions

Typical tensile strength/elongation curves for Secugrid® and market available geogrids

Geosynthetics from NAUE are designed to meet the high environmental standards and
performance requirements of today’s airport designs. Secugrid® geogrids, with their
exceptional stress/strain characteristics, are ideal for subgrade stabilization beneath
fluctuating, heavy loads. The high torsional stiffness of Secugrid® and the way the
geogrid interlocks with aggregate provides greater resistance against twisting stresses.

Secugrid®’s high strength at low design elongations is vital to picking up stresses

immediately and redistributing the load so that little or no movement occurs in the
surface layer from which the stresses emanate. This is precisely what guidelines such
as ICAO 9157 call for. Beyond subgrade stabilization, the subsoils in airport drainage
zones must be protected from excessive seepage. Increasingly, geomembranes such as
NAUE Carbofol® or geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) like Bentofix® are utilized for
primary and secondary containment of stormwater detention ponds, deicing pads, fuel
tank farms and more. In the grassy strips between runways and
taxiways, geosynthetic containment technologies are even helping create sustainable
wetlands. The design of the new Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport exemplifies
how geosynthetics are being used in airports now.

Visit NAUE’s website at www.naue.com for more project stories and product
information.

https://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/2019/06/01/using-geosynthetics-in-flexible-airport-pavements/

Using geosynthetics in flexible

airport pavements
June 1st, 2019 / By: IFAI / Feature
By Benjamin Mahaffay, Jeremy Robinson, Jeffrey Gagnon and Gregory Norwood

FIGURE 1 Post-test excavated cross section

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest to improve pavement structures
through mechanical stabilization by incorporating geosynthetic products within the
structure. The Geosynthetic Materials Association (GMA) has identified eight categories
of commercially available geosynthetics: geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, geocomposites,
geosynthetic interlayers, geocells, erosion control materials and geomembranes. These
materials serve multiple functions, including separation, filtration, drainage,
reinforcement/stabilization, cushion/protection, confinement, stress relief, erosion
protection and moisture barrier (Berg et al. 2000). Geotextiles and geogrids are the two
most commonly used categories of geosynthetics for the purpose of
reinforcement/stabilization. There have been numerous studies supporting the benefits
of reinforcement/stabilization with the use of geotextiles and geogrids within a pavement
structure attributed to the three mechanisms of (1) lateral restraint, (2) increased
bearing capacity and (3) tensile membrane support. These primarily benefit the
pavement structure by extending pavement life, reducing structural thickness or
increasing rutting resistance. Studies document the benefits of how geosynthetic
products can be an efficient way to improve the strength properties of materials used in
pavement structures (Abu-Farsakh et al. 2016, Holtz et al. 1998, Perkins et al. 2005,
Zornberg 2011). However, the majority of the studies focus on thinner highway
pavement structures simulating vehicular traffic loading. Therefore, the U.S. Army
Engineer and Research Development Center (ERDC), in collaboration with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), performed a laboratory cyclic plate load test study to
collect data and verify the benefit of geosynthetic products on thicker airport pavement
under simulated aircraft loading (Figure 1).
The FAA recently issued draft Advisory Circular 150/5370-10H, Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports, which includes language regarding geotextiles and
geogrids. In a parallel effort, ERDC is conducting medium-scale laboratory research to
quantify the potential structural and performance improvements that geosynthetics
products provide within an airport pavement structure. The results of this study will
provide much-needed data examining geosynthetics in airport pavement structures
under aircraft loading. A proposed follow-up study will further examine geosynthetic
performance under full-scale accelerated pavement testing at the National Airport
Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) during Construction Cycle 09 (CC9) planned for 2019.

Objective and test layout

The technical objective of the cyclic plate load experiment was to perform cyclic plate
load testing to compare performance of geosynthetic-reinforced airport pavement
structures to non-geosynthetic-reinforced airport pavement structures under simulated
aircraft loading. Pavement performance was measured in terms of traffic benefit ratio
(TBR) through comparison of the reinforced to the non-reinforced pavement as defined
by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) R50-
09. Instrumentation was placed at several locations within the pavement to obtain
pavement deflections, stress and strain response parameters. The quantity of sensors
and specific locations are described later in the instrumentation layout.
 FIGURE 2 Representative pavement structure profile view

Representative flexible airport pavement structures were constructed within a 6 × 6 × 6

foot (1.8 × 1.8 × 1.8 m) steel test box to a design depth of 52 inches (132 cm) and
consisted of 5 inches (12.7 cm) of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) surface layer, 7 inches (17.8
cm) of P-209 crushed aggregate base course, 12 inches (30.5 cm) of P-154 subbase
and more than 28 inches (71.1 cm) of subgrade, as shown in Figure 2. Cyclic plate
loading was performed using a 50,000-pound (222.4-kN) Gilmore hydraulic actuator
controlled with an MTS System Corporation control system. A 28,800-pound (128-kN)
load was applied to pavement through a 12-inch (30.5-cm) diameter plate to achieve a
254.6 psi (1,755 kPa) load, simulating a common aircraft loading condition. Each load
pulse was applied for a total duration of 1.2 seconds. The sinusoidal load was applied
for 0.3 seconds followed by a 0.9-second rest period. Loading was applied to each
pavement test item until failure, defined as 1 inch (2.5 cm) and 2 inches (5.1 cm)
permanent surface deformation.
A total of 10 test items were completed through two phases. Phase I, completed in
2016, included four test items incorporating various geosynthetic products at the base
course/subbase interface, while Phase II, completed in 2018, included six test items
incorporating various geosynthetic products at the subbase/subgrade interface.

Pavement material placement and properties

The subgrade material was constructed using a locally available clay, known as
Vicksburg buckshot clay. The clay soil liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index were 90,
28 and 62 respectively, which classifies as a high-plasticity clay (CH) per the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS). Modified Proctor test per American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557, Method C for Phase I and Phase II, yielded a
maximum dry density of 101.4 pcf (1,624.3 kg/m3) and 102.4 pcf (1,640.3 kg/m3) at a
target optimum moisture of 19.8% and 22.8%, respectively. The material was placed
and compacted at a target moisture of 38% to achieve a desired California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) of 3.0%.

Subbase material was constructed using a locally available granular material meeting
the gradation requirements of P-154 per draft FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10H, as
shown in Table 1. Per ASTM D2487, the Phase I and Phase II granular subbase
materials were classified as poorly graded sand (SP) and well-graded sand (SW),
respectively.
Aggregate base course material was constructed using locally available material known
as 610 crushed limestone, closely representing the gradation requirements of P-209 per
draft FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10H, as shown in Table 2. Per ASTM D2487, the
Phase I and Phase II aggregate base materials were classified as a poorly graded
gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM) and well-graded gravel with silt and sand (GW-GM)
per USCS respectively. Modified Proctor compaction tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C. A summary of Phase I and Phase II
aggregate base test results are shown in Table 2.
The HMA pavement surface course was constructed using a locally available 0.5-inch
(12.7-mm) nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) mixture, using a PG 67-22
asphalt binder content of approximately 5.3%. A comparison of the mix design and the
FAA P-401 per Advisory Circular 150/5370-10H is shown in Table 3. For constructability
purposes and to reduce variability, the asphalt was placed and compacted outdoors in a
12 × 100-foot (3.7 × 30.5-m) test strip and subsequently cut to size and placed in the
box.
ERDC performed a quality control test during the construction of each of the 10 test
items to minimize construction variability and ensure target values were achieved. The
as-constructed, preloaded material properties are presented in Table 4.
Geosynthetic material properties

A total of five geosynthetic products (GP) were selected, as shown in Figures 3a–3e,
consisting of four geogrids and one geotextile, to serve the function of
reinforcement/stabilization within the pavement structure. The geogrid products
consisted of GP 1, a punched polypropylene sheet oriented in multiple, equilateral
directions to form triangular apertures; GP 2, a punched polypropylene sheet oriented in
longitudinal and transverse direction to form biaxial rectangular apertures; GP 3 and GP
4, both made up of polypropylene yarns manufactured in an interlocking longitudinal
and transverse direction to form biaxial rectangular apertures; and GP 5, a geosynthetic
comprised of polypropylene filaments formed into an innovative weave. Specific
mechanical properties published by the manufacturer of each geosynthetic product are
shown in Table 5.

Instrumentation layout
Pressure cells, linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) and pore pressure
transducers were installed throughout the pavement structure to monitor surface
deformation and quantify the response of each pavement structure during cyclic
loading. A series of six LVDTs were placed transversely along the centerline of the 12-
inch (30.5-cm) load plate to measure permanent surface deformation on the HMA
surface layer. One pressure cell was installed 1 inch (2.5 cm) below the subbase
surface. One pressure cell was installed 1 inch (2.5 cm) below the subgrade surface,
and one pressure cell was installed 2 inches (5.1 cm) above the bottom of the
subgrade. The pressure cell used in the Phase I and Phase II study were 9 inches (22.9
cm) diameter and 4 inches (10.2 cm) diameter, respectively. The pressure cells were
reduced in size to limit the area of influence considering the overall size of the
experiment. One pore pressure transducer was installed 1 inch (2.5 cm) below the
subgrade surface. Figure 4 shows a cross section schematic of the instrumentation
plan.
 FIGURE 4 Instrumentation plan

Results
Cyclic plate load tests were conducted on 10 representative flexible airport pavement
test items under a 254.6 psi (1,755 kPa) simulated aircraft load. Five different
geosynthetic products placed at two distinct locations were compared to unreinforced
control test items. Pavement surface deformation was monitored using a series of six
LVDTs, while maximum pressure was monitored at various pavement depths using a
series of three pressure cells for each test item. The pavement response data for each
of the 10 test items were compared to the control test item of its respective phase. This
is due to the significant difference in performance of Phase I and Phase II control test
items, which may be attributed to noticeable differences in the as-constructed material
properties of the HMA layer between the two phases, as shown in Table 4.
Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 5 are used to evaluate pavement behavior and quantify
performance. Permanent surface deformation data collected directly from the LVDTs is
also shown in Figure 5. Total number of cycles to achieve failure at 1 inch (2.5 cm) and
2 inches (5.1 cm) of surface deformation and TBR values are shown in Table 6.
The Phase I results shown in Figure 5 show a promising trend that a geogrid placed at
the base course/subbase interface can significantly improve rutting performance. This is
reiterated by the calculated TBR values ranging from 3.3 to 29.7 at the 1-inch (2.5-cm)
and 2-inch (5.1-cm) failure criteria. The lower TBR values reported for Test Item 2 may
be attributed to the reduced P-209 base course thickness of 1 inch (2.5 cm), as shown
in Table 4 on page 27. However, literature has shown that geosynthetics may provide a
reduced layer thickness benefit, while maintaining improved structural performance.
The Phase II results shown in Figure 5 show less consistent performance benefit when
placed deeper in the pavement structure at the subbase/subgrade interface. The Phase
II TBR values, ranging from 0.4 to 2.6, show a reduced performance benefit when
compared to the results of Phase I. This suggests that geosynthetics placed deeper in
the pavement structure reduce the realized benefit. It was identified that TBR values of
Test Item 7 and 10 exhibited an increase in TBR at the 2-inch (5.1-cm) compared to the
1-inch (2.5-cm) deformation criteria. This suggests that increased loading and
deformation may be required to engage the geosynthetic product and achieve a realized
benefit when placed deeper in the pavement structure. Therefore, placement of
geosynthetic product closer to the structural surface loading may be desirable to
achieve the maximum benefits prior to significant deformation.
The total cycles applied and the post-loading pavement layer deformations data are
shown in Table 7. The Phase I results show the geosynthetic-reinforced test items
provided an overall structural benefit by reducing individual layer deformation at
increased loading cycles. However, the Phase II individual layer deformation data was
less consistent, showing a lesser benefit.

Conclusions and recommendations

Medium-scale cyclic plate load tests were performed on 10 representative airport
pavement structure test items under simulated aircraft loading conditions. Five
geosynthetic products were tested at two distinct locations. Analyses of the results
yielded the following conclusions:
Incorporating geosynthetic products within thicker airport pavement structures provides
a performance benefit through rut resistance properties, as identified in the TBR Phase I
values greater than 1.
Incorporating geosynthetic products within airport pavement structures can provide
improved performance while reducing base course thickness, as shown in Phase I Test
Item 2.
Geosynthetic products placed at the subbase/subgrade interface in relatively thicker
airport pavements provide less performance benefit compared to geosynthetics placed
at the base course/subbase interface. Geosynthetic products placed deeper in thicker
airport pavement structure require increased loading and deformation to achieve a
realized benefit, which may be less desirable on airport pavements.
In conclusion, this research demonstrates geogrids and geotextiles properly designed
and selected for the function of reinforcement/stabilization within flexible airport
pavements can provide an improved pavement performance benefit. However, there
seems to be a consensus among existing literature and industry professionals that
quantifying these pavement performance benefits attributed by a specific geosynthetic
product at a given location remains a challenge. Therefore, it is recommended that the
FAA continue to incorporate various geosynthetic products in future research and
construction cycles to further investigate the pavement performance benefits.

Acknowledgments
The work described in this article was funded by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Airport Technology Research and Development Branch and performed at the
U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC). The authors would
like to acknowledge support of the ERDC staff for test item construction and
data collection.

Disclaimer
The contents of this article reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the official views and policies of the FAA or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The article
does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
References
Abu-Farsakh, M., Hanandeh, S., Mohammand, L., and Chen, Q. (2016). “Performance
of geosynthetic reinforced/stabilized paved roads built over soft soil under cyclic plate
load.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 44(6), 845–853.
Berg, R. R., Christopher, B. R., and Perkins, S. (2000). “Geosynthetic reinforcement of
the aggregate base/subbase courses of pavement structures.” AASHTO Committee 4E,
June.
FAA Airport Technology Research and Development Branch Home Page. (2017). FAA
William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, N.J.
http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov (July 25).
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (1998). “Geosynthetic design and
construction guidelines.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., FHWA-HI-98-038.
Norwood, G. J. (2016). “Cyclic plate testing of geogrid reinforced airport pavement,”
FAA Draft Report DOT/FAA/AR-xx/xx (February).
Perkins, S. W., Howders, J. J., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (2005).
“Geosynthetic reinforcement for pavement system: US perspectives.” International
Perspective on Soil Reinforcement.
Robinson, W. J., and Norwood, G. J. (2018). “Cyclic plate testing of geosynthetic
reinforced airfield pavement–Phase II,” FAA Draft Report DOT/FF/AS-xx/xx (June).
Zornberg, J. G. (2011). “Geosynthetic-reinforced pavement systems.” Keynote
Paper, Fifth European Geosynthetics Conference, EuroGeo5 (September).

Benjamin Mahaffay, P.E., PMP, is research civil engineer with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Airport Pavement R&D Section at the William J. Hughes Technical
Center.

Jeremy Robinson, P.E., is research civil engineer at the U.S. Army Research
and Development Center.

Jeffrey Gagnon, P.E., is pavement R&D manager at the Federal Aviation

Administration’s Airport Pavement R&D Section at the William J. Hughes Technical
Center.

Gregory Norwood, P.E., is research civil engineer at the U.S. Army Research
and Development Center.
All photographs, illustrations and tables courtesy of the authors.