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.