See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316219192

Evaluation of shear bonding and reflective crack propagation in a

geocomposite reinforced overlay

Article in Geosynthetics International · April 2017

DOI: 10.1680/jgein.17.00007

CITATIONS READS

6 227

3 authors:

Alireza Noory Fereidoon Moghadas Nejad

Amirkabir University of Technology Amirkabir University of Technology (Polytechnic)
42 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS 270 PUBLICATIONS 5,333 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ali Khodaii
Amirkabir University of Technology
102 PUBLICATIONS 2,397 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soil Stabilization Using Waste Materials View project

‫ ﺗﺎﻟﯿﻒ ﮐﺘﺎب ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﻧﺮم اﻓﺰارﻫﺎی ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﯽ ﺗﺮاﻓﯿﮏ‬View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alireza Noory on 24 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4

Evaluation of shear bonding and reflective crack

propagation in a geocomposite reinforced overlay
A. Noory1, F. Moghadas Nejad2 and A. Khodaii3
1
Faculty of civil and environmental engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (AUT), Tehran,
Iran, E-mail: Alireza.noory@aut.ac.ir
2
Faculty of civil and environmental engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (AUT), Tehran,
Iran, E-mail: f.moghadas@aut.ac.ir (corresponding author)
3
Faculty of civil and environmental engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (AUT), Tehran,
Iran, E-mail: akhodaii@aut.ac.ir

Received 28 April 2016, revised 05 August 2016, accepted 13 February 2017, published 18 April 2017

ABSTRACT: Geocomposites can be employed with an asphalt overlay to improve the service life of
pavements and reduce reflective cracks. However, similar to other geosynthetic solutions, geocomposites
can cause de-bonding between asphalt layers, thus reducing pavement longevity. This research focuses
on factors that influence the initiation and propagation of shear bonding and reflective cracks in an
asphalt overlay. Laboratory double-shear and pull-out tests are conducted, and the shear bonding and
pull-out strength of geocomposites in asphalt specimens are calculated. The performance of each
specimen in terms of reflective crack initiation and propagation are investigated. A power law model
that relates crack propagation to the number of loadings is developed and verified. Observations of
geocomposite sliding on the asphalt layer reveal that this phenomenon contributes less than 40% to the
overall shear bonding. Analyses reveal that the number of required loading cycles to initiate reflective
cracking and crack propagation varies exponentially with the shear bonding between the overlay and
the existing layer. Therefore, overlay longevity declines rapidly with decreasing shear bond strength. The
exponential relationship is valid irrespective of whether or not the normal load is applied on the
interlayer surface. Moreover, the results indicate that temperature is the parameter with most influence
on the shear bonding between the layers and the initiation and propagation of reflective cracks, while
the tack-coat application rate and geocomposite grid size are less critical. Finally, this study reveals that
the decrease in shear bonding between layers both increases the stress relief ability in the interlayer zone
and decreases the reinforcement capacity of geocomposite grids. Increased shear bonding between the
overlay and existing pavement increases the resistance to reflective cracking.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Shear bonding, Reflective crack, Pull-out test, Double-shear

REFERENCE: Noory, A., Moghadas Nejad, F. and Khodaii, A. (2017). Evaluation of shear bonding
and reflective crack propagation in a geocomposite reinforced overlay. Geosynthetics International, 24,
No. 4, 343–361. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgein.17.00007]

geosynthetics. When geosynthetics are used, pavement

1. INTRODUCTION
Asphalt pavements are subject to various types of damage,
including cracking. Cracked pavement can be rehabili-
tated by covering it with a new layer of asphalt, which is
referred to as an overlay (Baek 2010; Lytton et al. 2010;
Moghadas Nejad et al. 2014; Fallah and Khodaii
2015; Moghadas Nejad et al. 2016). Reflective cracking
can create moisture damage in the asphalt layer, overlay
and interlayer and thus accelerate pavement damage
(Kandhal et al. 1989; Chen et al. 2004; Masad et al.
2006; Caro et al. 2008; Hamedi and Moghadas Nejad
2016; Hamedi et al. 2016).
Several methods can delay the initiation and propa-
gation of reflective cracks, including the application of
1072-6349 © 2017 Thomas Telford Ltd
lifespan and reflective crack growth rate are determined by
the type of geosynthetic and its characteristics (Komatsu
et al. 1998; Al-Qadi et al. 2003; Cleveland et al. 2003;
Brown 2006; Al-Qadi 2007; Khodaii et al. 2009;
Moghadas Nejad et al. 2014). Geosynthetics are com-
monly used because they can increase the number of
loading cycles that pavement can tolerate. In addition,
empirical evidence indicates that these materials can
extend pavement fatigue life (Mallick et al. 2015; Nithin
et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016).
Previous studies have adopted different methods to
simulate the initiation and propagation of reflective cracks
in the laboratory. For example, Moghadas Nejad et al.
(2016) studied the geogrid and geotextile performance in
343

Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 344
an asphalt overlay. Their results indicated that glass
grids were the most effective at improving overlay
performance. These tests were performed on a 450 mm ×
150 mm × 120 mm two-layered beam with a cut in the
lower layer that simulated a crack in the existing pave-
ment. The specimen surface was subjected to pressures
from 1 kPa to 690 kPa and a loading frequency of 10 Hz
to simulate high-speed traffic. These tests terminated
when the crack length reached the full specimen overlay
depth (50 mm). A load was applied on the side of the
crack to simulate the passing of traffic loads on Mode II
(shearing) plus Mode I (bending) cracking (Moghadas
Nejad et al. 2016). The same method was used by Fallah
and Khodaii (2015), Moghadas Nejad et al. (2014) and
Khodaii et al. (2009).
In an earlier study, a laboratory methodology was
developed by Gonzalez-Torre et al. (2015). Available data
indicated that geosynthetics could retard crack propa-
gation. Graziani et al. (2014) evaluated the response of
grid-reinforced bituminous pavement by using a falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) and an instrumented full-
scale geosynthetic-reinforced pavement that was loaded
by a truck. The layered elastic theory was used to develop
an effective model to predict the initial response of the
reinforced pavement.
Solaimanian (2013) evaluated the resistance of hot mix
asphalt (HMA) to reflective cracking by using geocom-
posites. He used the one-third scale model mobile load
simulator (MMLS3) to show that the geocomposite
significantly improved the resistance of the overlay
against reflective cracking (Solaimanian 2013). Yu et al.
(2013) used a Hamburg wheel tracking tester (HWTT)
to simulate load-induced reflective cracking. The
stress-absorbing interlayer membrane that was used in
these tests prolonged the fatigue life of the specimens.
In studies that were conducted from 1989 to 2009,
researchers used similar methods to simulate and evaluate
the initiation and propagation of reflective cracks in the
laboratory. Although several laboratory studies have
been performed during the past two decades, no standard
method exists for the laboratory simulation of reflective
cracking. Thus, the testing methods that are employed in
each research activity must be described in detail. The
majority of these setups were based on a two-layer beam
with a cut in the lower layer to simulate a crack in the
existing pavement. Loads were typically applied by using a
universal testing machine (UTM) device on a circular
or rectangular plate, and cracks were visually detected.
Most of the aforementioned studies indicated that geo-
synthetics could improve the lifespan of overlays and serve
as protection against reflective cracks. Moreover, the
reported findings suggested that the temperature, crack
width, geosynthetic type, tack-coat application rate, geo-
synthetic location, loading frequency, overlay thickness
and modulus of the existing layer and overlay are the most
influential factors for the initiation and propagation of
reflective cracks (Vanelstraete and Francken 1996; Kim
et al. 1999; Brown et al. 2001; Elseifi and Al-Qadi 2004;
Montestruque et al. 2004; Sobhan et al. 2004; Khodaii
et al. 2009; Virgili et al. 2009).
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4
Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Noory, Moghadas Nejad and Khodaii
Although geosynthetics can decelerate reflective cracks,
these materials can accelerate other types of distress.
Using geosynthetics noticeably affects the fatigue life of
the overlay, but can also reduce the shear bonding strength
between the overlay and the old asphalt layer.
Distress can develop from de-bonding between layers.
In the early 1970s, several failures from de-bonding were
reported (Peattie 1980; Shaat 1992). In addition, available
findings suggested that bonding failure affects 5% of
the French highway network and 44% of the overlay
projects in Nevada (Lepert et al. 1992; Charmot et al.
2005). A lack of adherence between the two layers changes
the strain and stress near the interface, causing some
parabolic cracks in the vehicle turning or breaking zone
(Zamora-Barraza et al. 2010). Moreover, simulations by
Collop et al. (2009) indicated that the bonding between
layers noticeably affects pavement life. The shear bonding
between asphalt layers can be measured by direct shear,
which has been extensively studied. Similarly, the bonding
of geocomposites to the adjacent asphalt layer can be
measured by the pull-out strength, which has been studied
by de-Bondt (1995). The ductile post-peak behaviour and
the effect of bond displacement on the pull-out curve in
different loadings have been also studied by this author
(de-Bondt 1999).
From 1978 to 2012, many researchers used various
types of shear bonding test devices that applied shear
loads in different loading forms. Monotonic loads
with user-defined rates and cyclic loads with user-defined
shapes have been applied on specimens. The testing
methods that are employed in each study should be
described by the researchers, because no standard is avail-
able to measure the shear bonding of geosynthetic-
reinforced layers. For example, Diakhaté (2007) developed
and described an approach called a double-shear test.
More recently, Zamora-Barraza et al. (2010) improved
upon this approach by developing a double-shear test
device to measure the shear bonding between asphalt
layers that are strengthened by geosynthetics. These
authors showed that geosynthetics could significantly
reduce the shear bonding between overlays and under-
lying layers (Uzan et al. 1978; Grzybowska et al. 1993;
Donovan et al. 2000; Romanoschi and Metcalf 2001;
Sholar et al. 2004; Woods 2004; Diakhaté 2007; Al-Qadi
et al. 2008; Bae et al. 2010; Zamora-Barraza et al. 2010;
Hasiba 2012; Vaitkus et al. 2012).
Importantly, shear bonding is adversely affected by the
use of geosynthetics, which tend to reduce the fatigue life.
Although several authors have examined the reduction of
reflective cracks through the application of geosynthetics
(stress relief or reinforcement) and have measured shear
bonding between layers, the relationship between inter-
layer shear bonding and the initiation and propagation of
reflective cracks has not been investigated (Solaimanian
2013; Yu et al. 2013; Graziani et al. 2014; Correia and
Zornberg 2015).
In this work, the factors that affect the initiation and
propagation of reflective cracks and the shear bonding
between layers are examined. These factors include the
temperature, tack-coat application rate and geocomposite
 Evaluation of shear bonding and reflective crack propagation in a geocomposite reinforced overlay
(a)
UTM25 actuator
Normal load sensor
Fixed clamp
(c)
Figure 4. Double-shear test (AUT-SLT) setup. (a) Schematic of the shear test; (b) shear test plus normal loading; (c) details of the
AUT-SLT device
three-layered specimen is placed inside the apparatus, the
middle layer of the specimen is positioned directly inside
the movable clamp. This portion of the specimen can
move with the clamp and thus is subjected to the force
from the UTM25 actuator onto the clamp. The two
remaining specimen layers in the fixed clamps can be
completely fixed by using clamp bolts. This arrangement
ensures that potential variations in the middle layer
thickness would not affect the test results because a
5 mm gap is provided between the movable and fixed
clamps.
The pavement was simulated in the laboratory to
determine a suitable assumption for the displacement
rate in the double-shear test. The laboratory-simulated
pavement consisted of a two-layered beam on a neoprene
layer, which played the role of underlying soil layers (this
setup was also used to test the initiation and propagation
of reflective cracks). The shear displacement between the
overlay and underlying asphalt pavement was measured
using a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT),
and a graph of the displacement versus time was drawn.
According to these graphs, the slope of the shear displace-
ment versus the loading time became constant in some
areas, with a rate of 0.2096 mm/s or 12.57 mm/min. A
similar method was used by Diakhaté et al. (2007). Thus,
the displacement rate for the movable clamp was set to
12.5 mm/min.
The specimens were kept in a temperature chamber for
12 h before testing to ensure that the entire specimens were
maintained at the desired temperature.
The setup also permits the application of normal loads.
These loads simulate vehicle weight, and can be applied
in tensile or compressive form. The normal loading com-
ponent of the apparatus consists of two load distribution
plates, a load measurement load-cell, a data logger, a
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4
Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
347
(b)
Movable body
Load stabilizer spring
Normal loading
screw jack
Movable clamp
screw jack and six load stabiliser springs. Before fixing
the specimen in the clamps, the specimen moves and
contacts one of the load distribution plates, which trans-
fers the load onto the load-cell. The other load distri-
bution plate is moved by the screw jack until it contacts
the side of the specimen. When the screw jack starts
loading, the movable body is set in motion, which then
compresses the loading stabiliser springs. Without these
springs, the normal load declines dramatically during
the test because of dilation. Hence, these springs reduce
the decrease in the load, retaining this value within the
2.5% limit. Depending on the stiffness of the springs,
the loading capacity of the normal loading system can be
increased to 2 t. In this research, tests were conducted with
and without normal loads (229 kg) to cause a tension of
102.22 kPa at the interlayer zone.
3.2. Reflective crack initiation and propagation test
In this study, we employed a typical test for overlay
fractures in bending mode (Mode I) that has been used by
other researchers (Sobhan et al. 2005; Khodaii et al. 2009;
Zamora-Barraza et al. 2011; Moghadas Nejad et al. 2014;
Fallah and Khodaii 2015).
The specimen in the reflective crack initiation and
propagation tests consisted of two asphalt layers. The
lower layer, which simulated the existing pavement,
comprised a 450 × 150 mm ((length × width) HMA
beam with 75 mm thickness. This layer was built in
PReSBOX and was cut in two segments, thus simulating a
3 mm wide crack in the existing pavement. A hot vessel on
a sensitive scale (with 0.01 g accuracy) was used to place
the hot AC (85–100) tack-coat, thus ensuring that the
exact amount of hot AC was poured according to
each tack-coat application rate. Next, the tack-coat was
poured onto the asphalt beam surface and very quickly
 348
Loading
Asphalt
Existing
Crack
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. Reflective crack initiation and propagation test. (a) Schematic of the test setup; (b) view of the test setup; (c) image that was
captured by a digital microscope
distributed by using a hot spatula to form a uniform
tack-coat layer. The asphalt beam was weighed before and
after placing the tack-coat to ensure that the correct
amount was applied. The geocomposite layer was placed
onto the tack-coat before reinserting the asphalt beam
into the compactor mould, whereby a hot mix was poured
inside the mould and compacted. This 50 mm thick layer
simulated the asphalt overlay. Similar to the double-shear
test, the target void content was 4.1% and the specific
weight of each specimen layer was 2398 kg/m3.
The chosen test setup comprised a 40 mm neoprene
layer with an elastic modulus of 90 000 kPa to simulate
the sublayer, the two-layered specimen and the loading
plate. The load was applied onto the crack axis to test the
overlay fracture characteristics in bending mode, as shown
in Figure 5a.
In preparation, the specimen was placed onto the neo-
prene inside the UTM chamber, as shown in Figure 5b. A
circular loading plate with a 113 mm diameter was used
to distribute the load onto the specimen surface. In this
work, a haversine load from 0.1 kN to 6.9 kN was applied
at a frequency of 10 Hz. The deflection of the specimen
surface was measured using the actuator LVDTs and a
load cell.
A camera that was connected to a computer recorded
images at 10 s intervals. A digital microscope was used at
its lowest zoom to adequately monitor the initiation of
cracks. This lowest zoom increased the depth of the field
for the microscope and prevented images from blurring
because of the subject movement. Moreover, cracks may
originate in close proximity to the specimen boundary,
so the microscope could capture a wider scope. Figure 5c
illustrates one of the images that were captured by the
digital microscope.
Direct observations and video footage and images from
a camera and microscope were analysed, and the required
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4
Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Noory, Moghadas Nejad and Khodaii
Geocomposite and
tack coat
50 mm
75 mm
40 mm
(c)
number of loading cycles for crack initiation was
calculated. In addition, the required time for the crack
to reach 25%, 50%, 75% and full overlay thickness was
determined. The required number of loading cycles for
crack initiation and the commencement of each crack
propagation stage were calculated based on the 10 Hz
loading frequency.
3.3. Pull-out test
Specimen observations in the double-shear bonding tests
revealed that the geocomposite slid between the two
asphalt layers. A pull-out test was designed and imple-
mented to evaluate the sliding strength of the geocompo-
site between these asphalt layers. The chosen pull-out test
conditions ensured that the test results would be com-
parable to the double-shear test results. Similar to the
previously described test specimens, PReSBOX was
used to prepare the specimens for this test. As shown in
Figure 6a, the first step in the specimens’ preparation
included the compaction of an asphalt beam (with dimen-
sions of 445 × 145 × 120 mm (length × width × height)),
which was then cut into two beams. Next, a geocomposite
was placed transversally onto the asphalt beam. The
tack-coat application was similar to that in Sections 3.1
and 3.2. However, the geocomposite was 250 mm longer
than its width. This 125 mm of additional geocomposite
length that protruded from the asphalt ensured that the
material could be attached to the movable clamp of the
test apparatus.
In the next step, the slab was placed into the com-
pactor mould and the geocomposite was folded under
the slab, as shown in Figure 6b. Next, a hot mix was
applied to the geocomposite and compacted (Figure 6c)
to reach the target specific weight of 2398 kg/m3 and
void content of 4.1%. Subsequently, the two-layered
 Evaluation of shear bonding and reflective crack propagation in a geocomposite reinforced overlay 349

Geocomposite is folded under HMA

the cold asphalt layer Cold asphalt slab

(a) (b) (c) (d)

147 mm

65 mm

120 mm
(e)

Figure 6. Specimen preparation for the pull-out tests. (a) Cutting the main beam in two; (b) geocomposite layer placed on the beam;
(c) beam and geocomposite are returned to the mould and HMA is placed on top; (d) longitudinal cuts and transect provide the final
specimen; (e) final specimen

(a) (b) (c)

(d)

Figure 7. Pull-out test setup. (a) Geocomposite protrudes from slot and is attached to the clamp; (b) specimen is fixed in the pull-out
device; (c) the geocomposite is pulled out of the specimen; (d) pull-out device inside the UTM chamber

slab was cut into six specimens by performing two
longitudinal and three transversal cuts, resulting in speci-
mens with dimensions of 147 × 65 × 120 mm (length ×
width × height) (Figure 6d and 6e). This size was suitable
for this type of geocomposite in the temperature
range that was employed in this research. According to
the pilot test results, the geocomposite may begin to fail
when the shear resistant surface exceeds 147 mm × 65 mm
and when the temperature declines below 11°C, which
would make the pull-out test unfeasible. Thus, the pilot
test findings confirmed that the pull-out test could be
performed using the criteria chosen for this research.
The test apparatus was designed and manufactured at
the Amirkabir University of Technology. This setup
consists of two main components. The first component
was designed to be fixed to the UTM device crosshead
and to fix the asphalt layers while allowing the geocom-
posite to freely protrude from its slot. The other
component is a clamp to hold the geosynthetic with
minimal sliding. The desired clamp functionality is
achieved through the friction of its jaw, which acts with
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4
two to seven screws. This jaw was fixed to the UTM
actuator (Figure 7).
The loading rate is one of the most important
parameters that can affect the results of pull-out tests.
To compare the pull-out test results to those from the
double-shear test, these two tests must be comparable in
terms of the materials used, specimen preparation proto-
col, conditioning and testing temperature. In addition,
the normal load was identical (zero) for both tests.
Furthermore, the displacement rate for the pull-out test
was selected so that the geocomposite sliding rate on the
asphalt layer could be the same for the pull-out and
double-shear tests. The sliding of the geocomposite on the
asphalt layers was observed during the double-shear test
to select the loading rate for the pull-out test. More
specifically, when the movable clamp moved the middle of
the specimen, each asphalt layer slid on the adjacent
geocomposite layer (Δ1ds), also moving this layer relative
to the asphalt layer on the other side (Δ2ds). Careful
inspection of the failed specimens in the double-shear test
revealed that these two sliding movements were similar

Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 358
demonstrates the strong dependence of reflective cracking
and shear bonding.
According to the R 2 value, the equation provided a
better fit to the experimental data irrespective of whether
normal loading was applied at low temperatures. This
phenomenon was caused by the visco-elastic behaviour of
the tack-coat, where the predominantly elastic properties
at lower temperatures resulted in simpler behaviours than
those at higher temperatures, when the viscosity properties
became more influential.
A comparison of the forecasted results revealed that the
specimens that were tested at 15°C required a greater
number of loading cycles to reach each of the cracking
stages, as shown in the initial portions of the above
graphs. Under ideal conditions, 859 loading cycles should
be applied on the specimen for cracks to emerge in the
absence of shear bonding between the overlay and the
existing asphalt pavement (τFFDS = 0,measured without a
normal load) at 15°C. Once initiated, the crack reached
the surface after 123 600 loading cycles. Thus, the crack
extended by 0.4 mm per 1000 loading cycles.
At 30°C, only 63 cycles were required for crack
initiation, and the crack extended to the surface after
38 700 loading cycles. These results are equivalent to
a crack propagation rate of 1.3 mm/103 cycles. In other
words, a 100% increase in temperature corresponded to
an approximately 92% reduction in the required number
of loading cycles for crack initiation and a 62% decrease
in the number of loading cycles to induce failure without
shear bonding. In addition, the cracking rate at 30°C was
3.25 times greater than that at 15°C.
When the τFFDS was measured under a normal load and
τFFDS = 0 at 30°C, the first loading cycle resulted in crack
initiation and the crack reached the surface after 2700
loading cycles. At 15°C, 269 and 71 240 loading cycles
were sufficient for crack initiation and failure, respectively,
and the cracking rate was 0.7 mm per 1000 loading cycles.
At 30°C, a crack propagation rate of 18.5 mm per 1000
loading cycles was observed, which corresponded to a
26-fold increase compared to that at 15°C.
In the absence of shear bonding, an overlay should
tolerate loading cycles without any support from existing
pavement. Thus, the role of a material’s cracking proper-
ties becomes more pronounced without shear bonding.
The temperature-dependent cracking properties of overlay
materials enhance the role of temperature in the cracking
of overlays in the absence of shear bonding between layers.
When shear bonding between layers is increased, the role
of a material’s cracking properties and the effect of tem-
perature on the material become less pronounced because
of both better support from the existing pavement and
better reinforcement of the overlay with geocomposite
strands.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This research employed a double-shear test device, reflec-
tive crack test setup and a special pull-out test device to
test geocomposites in asphalt layers. The tests were
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4
Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Noory, Moghadas Nejad and Khodaii
performed based on the full factorial experimental
design to assess the effects of the temperature, tack-coat
application rate and geocomposite mesh size on the initi-
ation and propagation of reflective cracks. The exper-
imental results were subjected to statistical analyses, which
enabled the three groups of tests to be compared. The
following conclusions can be summarised.
(1) The Mohr-Coulomb model factors were calculated
based on the double-shear test results. According
to the general linear model of the double-shear test
results, both with and without normal loads, the
temperature was the most decisive factor determining
the cohesion and shear bonding between layers.
The second most important factor that determined
the shear bonding and cohesion was the tack-coat
application rate. The peak failure angle parameter
was calculated for each FFDS specimen. The value
of this parameter was shown to mostly depend on
the geocomposite grid size. More specifically, a
greater grid size increased the shear bonding between
the layers because of more effective interlocking
between the aggregates.
(2) An analysis of the reflective crack initiation and
propagation results revealed that a power law
regression could provide an acceptable fit to the
experimental data in terms of the crack length against
the number of loading cycles. The fit was better at
lower temperatures. According to a statistical analysis
of the reflective crack test results, the temperature was
the most influential parameter, followed by the
tack-coat application rate and geocomposite mesh
size. Moreover, the tack-coat application rate, the
geocomposite mesh size and their interactions became
less effective once a crack formed compared to before
crack initiation, which revealed the lesser importance
of the interlayer after crack initiation.
(3) The pull-out test results showed that the graphs of the
pull-out strength versus geocomposite displacement
consisted of four phases. Phase I included the slight
slippage of the geocomposite in the jaw, which is
indicated by a gentle slope in the graph. During
Phase II, the geosynthetic material resisted the
asphalt layer being pulled out. During Phase III, the
resistance began to decline because of the initiation
of movement throughout the geocomposite.
Finally, Phase IV exhibited a downward trend
after the curve’s maximum (failure or peak point).
(4) The most influential factors on the pull-out test peak
point were the temperature, tack-coat application
rate and geocomposite grid size. According to the
experimental results, the pull-out strength
constituted less than 40% of the shear bonding
strength, as measured by the double-shear test.
This finding suggests that geocomposite sliding on
the asphalt layer was an integral component of the
interlayer shear failure and that another term played
a more decisive role, which was denoted as the shear
difference (τdif ). Although pull-out strength did not
exhibit a linear correlation with the shear bonding
 Evaluation of shear bonding and reflective crack propagation in a geocomposite reinforced overlay 359

strength, especially at higher temperatures, τdif was b additional regression constant

strongly and linearly correlated with the shear (dimensionless)
bonding strength. Ck reflective crack length (m)
(5) Different trend lines were fitted. Graphs of the c cohesion parameter (Pa)
obtained reflective crack growth versus the shear c (N ) crack length as a function of the
bonding revealed that the best correlation could be number of loading cycles (m)
achieved when using the exponential trend line. The d regression constant that represent the
resulting fit was suitable for specimens both with and average crack length at the start of the
without normal loading for all the reflective crack first cycle (m)
initiation and propagation steps. Regression constants e slope of the log c versus log N curve
were calculated, and the determination coefficient (dimensionless)
exceeded 0.95%. The results revealed that reflective Fpo Pull-out force (N)
cracks formed and propagated after fewer loading G1, G2 & G3 Types of geocomposites used
cycles, even though the separation distance between (dimensionless)
the layers increased the capacity of the geocomposite N number of loading cycles
to relieve the stress that was induced on the specimen (dimensionless)
and decreased the overlay stress concentration above NCK required number of loading cycles
the old crack. Moreover, the lowest overlay strength to reach the reflective crack length
against reflective crack initiation and propagation was Ck (dimensionless)
obtained in the absence of shear bonding between the Ni required number of loading cycles
layers. When the separation between the asphalt layers to initiate the reflective crack
increased, greater deflection was observed on top of (dimensionless)
the asphalt beam and at the bottom of the overlay. P percentage contribution of the design
This phenomenon enhanced the effects of loading and parameters to the response
fatigue on the overlay and increased the reflective (dimensionless)
crack initiation and propagation rate under a constant Ssb Shear bonding force (N)
temperature. SSk Sum of squares for each design factor
(6) Although a decrease in shear bonding between layers (dimensionless)
can increase the stress relief ability in the interlayer SST Total sum of squares (dimensionless)
zone, this phenomenon also decreases the Δ1ds & Δ2ds asphalt layer movement (slid) on the
reinforcement capacity of geocomposite grids. An adjacent geocomposite layer (m)
increase in shear bonding between an overlay and Δpo, Δ1po & Δ2po geocomposite movement during the
existing pavement increases the resistance to pull-out test (m)
reflective cracking because of the much more φ peak failure angle of the interface (°)
pronounced effect of reinforcement action. τ & τFFDS shear bonding between layers in a
(7) The cracking properties of the overlay material are specimen manufactured based on full
temperature dependent. The absence of shear bonding factorial design (Pa)
between layers enhances the role of temperature in the τdif shear difference (Pa)
cracking of overlays. The role of the material cracking
properties and the effect of the temperature on the ABBREVIATIONS
materials become less pronounced with increasing
shear bonding between layers. AC Asphalt cement
ANOVA Analysis of variance
AUT-SLT Amirkabir University of Technology-Shear
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Lab Test
FFDS Full factorial design specimen
We wish to acknowledge the support and assistance of the
FWD Falling weight deflectometer
Research and Planning Center of Tehran, which was
HMA Hot mix asphalt
instrumental in conducting this study.
HWTT Hamburg wheel tracking tester
LVDT Linear variable differential transformer
MMLS Model mobile load simulator
NOTATION UTM Universal testing machine
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.

a regression constant that represents the

required number of loading cycles for
crack initiation or propagation to
reach the crack length of ck when
the shear bonding strength at the
interlayer is zero (dimensionless)
REFERENCES
Al-Qadi, I. L. (2007). Reflective cracking: Initiation and propagation
mechanisms. Presented at the 5th International Conference on
Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements and Technological
Control (MAIREPAV5), Park City, UT.

Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4

Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 360
Al-Qadi, I. L., Elseifi, M. A. & Leonard, D. (2003). Development of an
overlay design model for reflective cracking with and without steel
reinforcement. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, 72, 388–423.
Al-Qadi, I. L., Carpenter, S. H., Leng, Z., Ozer, H. & Trepanier, J. S.
(2008). Tack-coat Optimization for HMA Overlays: Laboratory
Testing, Final Report No. FHWA-ICT-08-023. Illinois
Department of Transportation, Illinois Center of Transportation,
Rantoul, IL, USA.
Bae, A., Mohammad, L. N., Elseifi, M. A., Button, J. & Patel, N. (2010).
Effects of temperature on interface shear strength of emulsified
tack-coats and its relationship to rheological properties.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2180, 102–109.
Baek, J. (2010). Modeling Reflective Cracking Development in Hot Mix
Asphalt Overlays and Quantification of Control Techniques,
PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Champaign, IL,
USA.
Brown, S. F. (2006). Reinforcement of pavements with steel meshes and
geosynthetics, keynote presentation. COST Action 348,
Dissemination International Symposium, London, UK.
Brown, S. F., Thom, N. H. & Sanders, P. J. (2001). A study of grid
reinforced asphalt to combat reflection cracking. Journal of
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 70, 543–569.
Canestrari, F., Belogi, L., Ferrotti, G. & Graziani, A. (2015). Shear and
flexural characterization of grid-reinforced asphalt pavements and
relation with field distress evolution. Materials and Structures, 48,
No. 4, 959–975.
Caro, S., Masad, E., Bhasin, A. & Little, D. N. (2008). Moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures, part 1: mechanisms. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 9, No. 2, 81–98.
Charmot, S., Romero, P. & Dunning, M. (2005). Forensic analysis of
slippage cracking. Proceedings of the 84th TRB Annual Meeting,
Washington, DC.
Chen, J. S., Lin, K. & Young, S. (2004). Effects of crack width and
permeability on moisture-induced damage of pavements. Journal of
materials in civil engineering, ASCE, 16, No. 3, 276–282.
Cleveland, G. S., Lytton, R. L. & Button, J. W. (2003). Reinforcing
Benefits of Geosynthetic Materials in Asphalt Concrete
Overlays using Pseudo Strain Damage Theory, Paper
03-2198. Transportation Research Board for Publication
in Transportation Research Record, Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, TX, USA.
Collop, A. C., Sutanto, M. H., Airey, G. D. & Elliott, R. C. (2009). Shear
bond strength between asphalt layers for laboratory prepared
samples and field cores. Construction and Building Materials, 23,
No. 6, 2251–2258.
Correia, N. S. & Zornberg, J. G. (2015). Mechanical response of flexible
pavements enhanced with geogrid-reinforced asphalt overlays.
Geosynthetics International, 23, No. 3, 183–193.
De-Bondt, A. (1995). Theoritical Analysis of Reinforcement Pullout,
Report 7-95-203-16. Road and Railways Research Laboratory Delft
University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
De-Bondt, A. (1999). Anti Reflective Cracking Design of Asphaltic
Overlays. Ponsen & Looijen, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, ISBN:
90-6464-097-1.
Diakhaté, M. (2007). Fatigue et comportement des couches d’accrochage
dans les structures de chaussées, PhD thesis, University of Limoges,
Limoges, France (in French).
Donovan, E. P., Al-Qadi, I. L. & Loulizi, A. (2000). Optimization of
tack-coat application rate for geocomposite membrane on bridge
decks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 1740, 143–150.
Elseifi, M. A. & Al-Qadi, I. L. (2004). A simplified overlay design
model against reflective cracking utilizing service life prediction.
Road materials and pavement design 5, No. 2, 169–191.
Fallah, S. & Khodaii, A. (2015) Reinforcing overlay to reduce reflection
cracking; an experimental investigation. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 43, No. 3, 216–227.
Gonzalez-Torre, I., Calzada-Perez, M. A., Vega-Zamanillo, A. &
Castro-Fresno, D. (2015). Evaluation of reflective cracking
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4
Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Noory, Moghadas Nejad and Khodaii
in pavements using a new procedure that combine loads with
different frequencies. Construction and Building Materials, 75,
368–374.
Graziani, A., Pasquini, E., Ferrotti, G., Virgili, A. & Canestrari, F.
(2014). Structural response of grid-reinforced bituminous pave-
ments. Materials and Structures, 47, No. 8, 1391–1408.
Grzybowska, W., Wojtowicz, J. & Fonferko, L. (1993). Application of
geosynthetics to overlays in Krakow Region of Poland. Proceedings
Reflective Cracking in Pavements, State of the Art and Design
Recommendations, International RILEM Conference, Liege,
Belgium, pp. 290–298.
Haghshenas, H. F., Khodaii, A. & Saleh, M. (2015a). Long term
effectiveness of anti-stripping agents. Construction and Building
Materials, 76, 307–312.
Haghshenas, H. F., Khodaii, A., Khedmati, M. & Tapkin, S. (2015b).
A mathematical model for predicting stripping potential of
Hot Mix Asphalt. Construction and Building Materials, 75,
488–495.
Hamedi, G. H. & Moghadas Nejad, F. (2016). Use of aggregate
nanocoating to decrease moisture damage of hot mix asphalt.
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 17, No. 1, 32–51.
Hamedi, G. H., Nejad, F. M. & Oveisi, K. (2016). Estimating the
moisture damage of asphalt mixture modified with nano zinc oxide.
Materials and Structures, 49, No. 4, 1165–1174.
Hasiba, K. I. Q. (2012). Development of a Testing Approach for Tack-coat
Application Rate at Pavement Layer Interfaces. Master’s thesis,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Champaign, IL, USA.
Kandhal, P. S., Lubold, C. W. & Roberts, F. L. (1989). Water Damage to
Asphalt Overlays: Case Histories, Report No. 89-1. National Center
for Asphalt Technology, Nashville, TN, USA.
Khodaii, A., Fallah, S. & Moghadas Nejad, F. (2009). Effects of
geosynthetics on reduction of reflection cracking in asphalt over-
lays. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, No. 1, 187–195.
Kim, K. W., Doh, Y. S. & Lim, S. (1999). Mode I reflection cracking
resistance of strengthened asphalt concrete. Journal of Construction
and Building Materials, 13, No. 5, 243–251.
Komatsu, T., Kikuta, H., Tuji, Y. & Muramatsu, E. (1998). Durability
assessment of geogrid-reinforced asphalt concrete. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 8, No. 5, 217–237.
Lepert P., Poilane J. P. & Villard-Bats M. (1992) Evaluation of various
field measurement techniques for the assessment of pavement
interface condition. In. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements vol. 3, pp. 224–237.
Li, P., Liu, J. & Zhao, S. (2016). Performance of multiaxial paving
interlayer–reinforced asphalt pavement. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 28, No. 7, 04016039.
Lytton, R. L., Tsai, F. L., Lee, S. I., Luo, R., Hu, S. & Zhou, F. (2010).
Models for Predicting Reflection Cracking of Hot-Mix Asphalt
Overlays, NCHRP Report 669, Transportation Research
Board. Transportation Institute ofTexas A&M University, College
Station, TX, USA.
Mallick, R. B., Li, H., Harvey, J., Myers, R., Veeraragavan, A. &
Reck, N. (2015). Pavement life extending potential of
geosynthetic-reinforced chip seal with high-reflectivity aggregates.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2474, 19–29.
Masad, E. A., Zollinger, C., Bulut, R., Little, D. N. & Lytton, R. L.
(2006). Characterization of HMA moisture damage using surface
energy and fracture properties. Journal of the Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists, 75, 345–380.
Moghadas Nejad, F., Asadi, S., Fallah, S. & Vadood, M. (2016).
Statistical-experimental study of geosynthetics performance on reflec-
tion cracking phenomenon. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 44, No. 2,
178–187.
Moghadas Nejad, F., Noory, A., Toolabi, S. & Fallah, S. (2014). Effect of
using geosynthetics on reflective crack prevention. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16, No. 6, 1–6.
Montestruque, G., Rodrigues, R., Nods, M. & Elsing, A. (2004). Stop of
reflective crack propagation with the use of pet geogrid as asphalt
overlay reinforcement. RILEM Meeting, Limoges, France,
pp. 231–238.
 Evaluation of shear bonding and reflective crack propagation in a geocomposite reinforced overlay 361

Nithin, S., Rajagopal, K. & Veeraragavan, A. (2015). State-of-the art
summary of geosynthetic interlayer systems for retarding the
reflective cracking. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 45, No. 4,
472–487.
Peattie K. R. (1980) The incidence and investigation of slippage failures.
The Performance of Rolled Asphalt Road Surfacings. The
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK, pp. 3–15.
Romanoschi, S. A. & Metcalf, J. B. (2001). Characterization of asphalt
concrete layer interfaces. Transportation Research Record, 1778,
132–139.
Shaat A. A. (1992) Investigation of slippage of bituminous layer in
overlaid pavement in Northern Ireland. Consultancy report sub-
mitted for the DOE in Northern Ireland.
Sholar, G. A., Page, G. C., Musselman, J. A., Upshaw, P. B. &
Moseley, H. L. (2004). Preliminary investigation of a test method
to evaluate bond strength of bituminous tack-coats. Asphalt Paving
Technologists, 73, 771–801.
Sobhan, K., Crooks, T., Tandon, V. & Mattingly, S. (2004). Laboratory
simulation of the growth and propagation of reflection cracks in
geogrid reinforced asphalt overlay, Cracking in pavement –
mitigation, risk assessment and prevention. RILEM Meeting,
Limoges, France, pp. 589–596.
Sobhan, K., Genduso, M. & Tandon, V. (2005). Effects of geosynthetic
reinforcement on the propagation of reflection cracking and
accumulation of permanent deformation in asphalt overlays.
Third LACCET International Latin American and Caribbean
Conference for Engineering and Technology (LACCET 2005),
Advances in Engineering and Technology, Cartegena, Columbia,
pp. 1–9.
Solaimanian, M. (2013). Evaluating resistance of hot mix asphalt to
reflective cracking using geocomposites, Transportation Research
Building, Report No. PSU-2008-04, The Pennsylvania State
University, City of State College, PA, USA.
Uzan, J., Livneh, M. & Eshed, Y. (1978). Investigation of adhesion
properties between asphalt concrete layers. Journal of Association of
Asphalt Paving Technologists, 47, 495–521.
Vaitkus, A., Čygas, D., Laurinavičius, A., Vorobjovas, V. &
Kleizienė, R. (2012). Research of asphalt layer bonding in
Lithuanian pavement structures, Grad‐ evinar. UDK 64, No. 11,
915–921.
Vanelstraete, A. & Francken, L. (1996). Laboratory testing
and numerical modelling of overlay systems on cement concrete
slabs. Proceeding of the Third International RILEM Conference,
Reflective Cracking in Pavements (Design and Performance of
Overlay Systems), Brussel, Belgium, pp. 211–220.
Virgili, A., Canestrari, F., Grilli, A. & Santagata, F. A. (2009). Repeated
load test on bituminous systems reinforced by geosynthetics.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, No. 3, 187–195.
Wang, Y. Q., Afsar, A. M. & Song, J. I. (2009). Optimization of brazing
conditions for OFHC Cu and ASTM A501 low carbon steel by
Taguchi method. International Journal of Precision Engineering and
Manufacturing, 10, No. 3, 97–104.
Woods, M. E. (2004). Laboratory Evaluation of Tensile and Shear
Strengths of Asphalt Tack-coats, Master’s thesis, Mississippi State
University, MS, USA.
Yu, B., Lu, Q. & Yang, J. (2013). Evaluation of anti-reflective cracking
measures by laboratory test. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, 14, No. 6, 553–560.
Zamora-Barraza, D., Calzada-Perez, M. A. & Castro-Fresno, D. (2010).
New procedure for measuring adherence between a geosynthetic
material and a bituminous mixture. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
28, No. 5, 483–489.
Zamora-Barraza, D., Calzada-Perez, M. A. & Castro-Fresno, D. (2011).
Evaluation of anti-reflective cracking systems using geosynthetics
in the interlayer zone. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29, No. 2,
130–136.

The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 February 2018.

Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 4

Downloaded by [ Dokuz Eylul University] on [29/10/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
View publication stats