Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–12
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Evaluation of Crack Development Transportation Research Board 2023

Through a Bituminous Interface Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Reinforced With Geosynthetic Materials DOI: 10.1177/03611981231166002
journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

by Using a Novel Approach

Ehsan Solatiyan1 , Van Thang Ho1, Nicolas Bueche2 ,

Michel Vaillancourt1 , and Alan Carter1

Abstract
Using interlayers made of geosynthetic materials has proved its effectiveness with respect to postponing the appearance of
reflective cracking on the surface. In this regard, in a reinforced bituminous interface, the crack first propagates from its origin
upward until it reaches the interlayer. When the interlayer has higher stiffness than its surrounding bituminous material, the
crack path diverts horizontally along the interlayer plane until the whole energy of the crack dissipates. Nevertheless, this
mechanical improvement needs to be further studied to quantify the reinforcement effects of geosynthetic materials in
mechanistic-based design of reinforced sections. This study aimed to develop a laboratory test method that not only is able
to illuminate the crack resistance effect of geosynthetics but is also able to differentiate the load–displacement curves among
different types of reinforced bituminous interfaces. The results led to the advent of a new test device called the crack widen-
ing device in which reproducibility and statistical variability of the outcomes were all within the acceptable range. On this
ground, using paving fabric showed superior performance among others with respect to energy dissipation capability and
retarding the loss in the stiffness modulus during the crack propagation stage compared with the corresponding unreinforced
cases. On the other hand, using the reinforcement grids led to a higher initial stiffness of the reinforced structure, especially
when embedded between coarse hot mixtures.

Keywords
reflective cracking, geosynthetic materials, bituminous interface, crack development, crack widening device

A traditional pavement maintenance approach to deal appearance of reflective cracks on the surface by
with a deteriorated bituminous surface is to mill it up to prolonging the crack path and dissipating the energy of
a specific thickness and refill it with a new hot mix over- the crack during its propagation. In this regard, in a rein-
lay. However, one of the main concerns associated with forced bituminous interface with geosynthetic materials,
overlaying is the reflection of existing cracks caused by the crack first propagates from its origin upward until it
the movement induced by the traffic loads or moisture reaches the interlayer. When the interlayer has higher
and temperature variations in the underlying layers or stiffness than its surrounding asphaltic material, the
their combinations thereof. This in turn imposes massive crack path diverts horizontally along the interlayer plane
maintenance costs on road authorities to redo their main-
tenance and rehabilitation measures. 1
Construction Department, École de Technologie Supérieure (ÉTS),
Up until now, no solution has yet been documented Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2
in the literature to completely address the prevention of Department of Architecture-Wood-Civil Engineering, Bern University of
crack development across the overlay. Nevertheless, Applied Sciences (BFH), Burgdorf, Bern, Switzerland

using interlayers made of geosynthetic materials has Corresponding Author:

proved its effectiveness with respect to postponing the Ehsan Solatiyan, [email protected]
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

until the whole energy of the crack dissipates by stretch- restrict fatigue cracking and rutting and to delay the
ing the interlayer under the movement. Current labora- appearance of reflective cracking (10). This rehabilitation
tory test devices that permit measuring the crack solution not only acts as a stress relief and reinforcement
resistance of asphalt overlays are able to apply concur- layer in the system (11) but, also compared to a thick
rently shear, tensile, and flexural stresses in the proximity overlay, it is much more cost-effective (12) and sustain-
of the crack and provide a stable state of crack propaga- able since it allows lower hot mix materials as an overlay,
tion: the four-point bending test (1–3), wheel reflective thus decreasing the level of emissions and dissipation of
cracking (WRC) test (4, 5), wedge splitting test method natural sources of materials (7). However, the degree of
(5), direct tensile strength test (6), modified wheel tracker effectiveness of the reinforced system depends mostly on
(7), Texas overlay tester (8), and UGR-FACT (9) are just the bounding condition provided at the interface (13).
a few. However, because of demanding large-size speci- The presence of the interlayer by itself results in a discon-
mens, manipulation, and preparation of specimens, the tinuity between consecutive layers in the pavement system
complexity of the analysis of the results and less suitabil- that may lead to a loss in shear strength (14, 15). Previous
ity in incorporating the reinforced structures with geo- findings showed that a geogrid compared to paving fabric
synthetics, the universal acceptability of these tests (PF) kept the integrity of the system at the interface level
methods is limited in practice. better by giving a higher value of the coefficient of inter-
One of the limitations of testing specimens reinforced face bounding (CIB) (16), which stems from its meshed
with geosynthetics is that a large specimen would be structure that provides more contact between its adjacent
required to represent as best as possible the field condi- materials. This reduced bounding in the presence of the
tions. The strength of geosynthetic materials is highly interlayer, however, plays a barrier role in growing
dependent on the friction and surface area. One of the bottom-up cracking, as already proved by the four to five
objectives of the new test method was to produce and times higher energy dissipated in the crack propagation
test small-size specimens. The effect of the specimen size stage (J-integral) in samples including PF (17).
on the results is not discussed here. Furthermore, the position of the geosynthetic in the
To meet this objective, four different geosynthetics, pavement system is another important consideration
three types of geogrids, and one type of geotextile, with that, with respect to the aggregate size in contact with
different physical and mechanical properties along with the interlayer, affects the absorbed energy during the
reference samples without the interlayer, were embedded stretching of the geosynthetic under loading (18). To
in three different dense-graded hot mixes with respect to take advantage of the maximum benefit from the geosyn-
aggregate size to evaluate the development of the force– thetic, its location in the pavement structure should be
crack width curves from the initiation of the crack up to selected according to the type of distress that is supposed
the failure point. This study will also address the follow- to be addressed. With respect to reflective cracking, the
ing key points: minimum amount of crack propagation was observed
when the geosynthetic was located at one third of the
(a) the repeatability and variability of the proposed asphalt overlay thickness from the bottom (19). In addi-
laboratory test device; tion, in an attempt to understand the effect of the geo-
(b) fracture parameters that enable us to differenti- synthetic on the mechanical performance of a multi-layer
ate the mechanical performance of different system under bending, the optimum location of the geo-
types of interlayers during crack development; synthetic was proposed at a depth where the tensile stres-
(c) the best location of the interlayer with respect to ses resulting from bending are high (3). In a field study,
the surrounding aggregate size. the placement of the geosynthetic near the interface of
an asphalt overlay with an underlying bituminous layer
As for the organization of the paper, a review of the was found to be effective in limiting crack propagation
literature is presented in the first section followed by a (20). The results from finite-element modeling of the
description of the materials, specimen preparation proce- geosynthetic–asphalt overlay showed that the minimum
dure, and configuration of the device and test setup. tensile strain required for the crack propagation over the
Then, the results and data analysis are discussed. Finally, geosynthetic is obtained when the geosynthetic is placed
a summary of the findings along with recommendations at one-third depth of the thickness from the bottom sur-
will be given. face (21). However, only a few studies have been per-
formed to evaluate the mechanical performance of
geosynthetics during crack propagation when embedded
Research Background between different sizes of hot mixes.
Many scientific proofs encourage using geosynthetic From the above-mentioned review of the literature,
materials as an interlayer between bituminous layers to this study will first introduce a novel laboratory
Solatiyan et al 3

Figure 1. Criteria employed to differentiate among different

types of geosynthetics. Figure 2. Gradation curves for each type of hot mixture.
Note: ESG-10 = a surface course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate
size of 10 mm; ESG-14 = a binder course mix with a nominal maximum
approach to differentiate the mechanical behavior of var- aggregate size of 14 mm; GB-20 = a base course mix with a nominal
maximum aggregate size of 20 mm.
ious types of geosynthetics during reflective bottom-up
cracking under the displacement mode of loading, and
then this behavior will be compared in two different
types of interfaces composed of three hot mixes of differ- aggregate size of 20 mm (GB-20). The mechanical specifi-
ent maximum aggregate sizes. cations and the gradation curves for each type of mix are
presented in Figure 2 and Table 1.
To reinforce double-layer structures, three types of
Method reinforcement grids and one type of geotextile or PF
were employed. The mechanical properties of the geo-
To illuminate the evolution of the force–crack width curve
grids are shown in Table 2. GR and GB refer to the rein-
in the presence of different types of geosynthetics placed at
forcement grids made of carbon and a mix of glass and
two different types of bituminous interfaces with respect to
carbon fibers respectively, covered with bitumen on both
aggregate size was the main objective of this study. To
reach this target, bi-layer bituminous samples with and sides, while GV is a type of geocomposite in which one
without the interlayer were fabricated in the laboratory side is covered with bitumen but from the bottom it is
setting. By assuming that the friction developed between covered with a layer of fabric.
the interlayer and the bottom bituminous layer plays an The PF was made of two essential elements: a needle-
important role in the crack-resistant performance of the punched nonwoven fabric saturated with asphalt cement
reinforced systems, the geosynthetic was placed at two dif- type PG 64-34. The main mechanical properties of the
ferent interfaces composed of three hot mixtures. Two PF, supplied by the manufacturer, are given in Table 3.
major criteria were considered for the comparison among In general, 10 slabs of size 500 mm 3 180 mm 3 100
the cases: the energy dissipated during crack development mm, 8 slabs reinforced with geosynthetics, and 2 unrein-
up to the failure point (W) and the initial modulus of the forced slabs were manufactured. The specimen prepara-
system against crack development (E) and its evolution tion followed the procedure recommended by the
over crack opening, as depicted in Figure 1. These para- producers of geosynthetic materials utilized in this study.
meters were obtained from an innovative crack develop- It was started first with the production and compaction
ment device specifically designed for this study. of the underlying slab (ESG 14 or GB-20) in the mold of
the French roller compactor, according to LC 26-410
(MTQ standard). Thereafter, the slab was left for 48 h
Material for curing at room temperature. Then, three different
In this study, three types of hot mixes normally found in procedures based on the type of the interlayer were fol-
Quebec (Canada) were designed to comply with lowed as below.
Transport Quebec’s standard (LC 4202) (22): (I) a sur-
face course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size - For unreinforced structures and the reinforced
of 10 mm (ESG-10); (II) a binder course mix with a nom- ones with GR and GB reinforcement grids, a slow-
inal maximum aggregate size of 14 mm (ESG-14); and setting cationic asphalt emulsion, type SS-1h, was
(III) a base course mix with a nominal maximum implemented on the top surface of the bottom slab
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 1. Technical Specifications of Hot Mixes

Mixture ESG-101 ESG-142 GB-203

Binder type PG 58-28 PG 58-28 PG 58-28

Binder content (% mass) 5.45 5.22 5.14
Mean texture depth (mm) (ASTM E965) 3.6 4.4
Water sensitivity (LC 26-0011) (%) Measured 97.3 85.5 86.5
Required ø 70 ø 70 ø 70
Rutting resistance (LC 26-4101) (%) Measured After 1000 = 6.6 7.2 9.1
After 3000 = 8.2
Required (After 1000 cycles) < 10 (After 30,000 cycles) < 10 (After 30,000 cycles) < 10
(After 3000 cycles) < 15

1
ESG-10 = a surface course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 10 mm; 2ESG-14 = a binder course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size
of 14 mm; 3GB-20 = a base course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 20 mm.

Table 2. Technical Properties of Grids

Elongation
Mesh size
Abbreviated Material/transversal Material/longitudinal Protective Transversal Longitudinal (square shape)
Name name strength (kN) strength (kN) layer direction direction (mm)

Carbophalt G 120/200 GB Glass fibers/120 Carbon fibers/200 Plastic foil \3% \1.5% 20
Carbophalt G 200/200 GR Carbon fibers/200 Carbon fibers/200 Plastic foil \1.5% \1.5% 20
Glasphalt GV 120/120 GV Glass fibers/120 Glass fibers/120 Nonwoven \3% \3% 20

Note: GR = reinforcement grid made of carbon; GB = reinforcement grid mad of a mix of glass and carbon fibers; GV = a type of geocomposite in which
one side is covered with bitumen but from the bottom it is covered with a layer of fabric

Table 3. Principal Mechanical Specification of Paving Fabric

Specification Test method Unit Value

Grab tensile elongation CAN 148.1 No. 7.3 % 45–105

Grab tensile strength CAN 148.1 No. 7.3 N 550
Mullen burst CAN 4.2 No. 11.1 kPa 1585
Bitumen retention ASTM D6140 L/m2 1.15

with a syringe and the edge of a spatula. The - For the reinforced structure with the geocomposite,
dosage of the emulsion opted for was 180 g/m2 of the same procedure as previously described for the
residual bitumen, complying with the specifications reinforcement grid was pursued with two main dif-
provided by the manufacturer. Then after 3 h of ferences. The dosage was selected as 270 g/m2 and
setting time for the complete breakage of the emul- there was no delay between the application of the
sion in front of a fan, the reinforcement grid was emulsion on the surface and spreading the geocom-
applied on the emulsified surface with the steady- posite on the surface without using a blow torch.
state movement of a gas blow torch to the grid to - For the structure reinforced with PF, first the
lightly melt the bitumen that the grid contains. asphalt cement was heated up to the compaction
Since the direct exposure of the binders to the temperature and then applied on the surface, as
flame may result in excessive aging of the material, much as 110 g/m2, followed by placing the fabric
the following precautions were adopted: not using already cut at the same dimension as the slab on
the full power of the blow torch; keeping a 10 cm the bottom slab.
distance between the torch and the material; apply-
ing a constant-speed movement of the torch on After the installation of the interlayer or settling the
every single strand of the grid, once in one direc- emulsion in the unreinforced case, the specimen preparation
tion and then in the other perpendicular direction. was continued by the compaction of the top bituminous
Solatiyan et al 5

Figure 3. The shape, size, and dimensions of specimens.

Note: ESG-10 = a surface course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 10 mm; ESG-14 = a binder course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate
size of 14 mm; GB-20 = a base course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 20 mm.

layer (ESG-10 or ESG-14) over the bottom slab at 135ºC. design methods, it is necessary to measure the level of
In the final step, cubic shape samples of size 80 mm 3 80 reinforcement when the interlayer changes. To capture
mm 3 80 mm were cut from each prepared slab and their this mechanical effect, a crack performance tester
top and bottom surfaces were perfectly polished with sand- device was designed and calibrated in the lab. This
paper to have a full contact between the specimen and the device is able to realistically simulate the loss of sup-
loading plate from the top and the test device from the bot- port from underlying layers while the crack grows from
tom. It is worth mentioning that a minimum of three open- an initial notch up to the top. It was postulated that
ings from the geogrid structure is recommended for better this methodology could result in having a better vision
interpretation of the crack resistance behavior of reinforced of the fracture phenomenon in reinforced and unrein-
bituminous layers (23). The shape, size, and number of spe- forced structures. In the following section, more details
cimens used for each structure are shown in Figure 3. are presented on the configuration of the device and
test setups.
Test Setup
Using an interlayer between bituminous layers Crack Widening Device. In search of a test method to mea-
enhances the crack resistance performance of the whole sure the crack resistance performance of reinforced bitu-
system (23). However, the quality of bonding provided minous structures that could distinguish among different
at the interface plays a pivotal role in the level of rein- types of interlayers, a crack resistance performance
forcement. To quantify this effect in mechanistic-based device was designed that has low complexity, and the
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Figure 4. The crack widening device.

time and manipulation required for the specimen pre-

paration is competitive with other devices designed for
the same purpose. It also simulates the crack propaga-
tion because of loss of support from the bottom layers
under environmental and traffic loads. Figure 4 shows
the device and the test setup.
The device is made of a triangle shape base that pro-
vides support for two sliding parts at the top and the bitu-
minous specimen over it. The role of the screw and the
spring in this configuration is to keep the sliding parts in
contact with each other before the test starts. However,
during the test, there should not be resistance from the
spring. The test starts with an initial compressive contact
force of as much as 100 N applied at the top surface via
an MTS servo-hydraulic loading system and then sliding Figure 5. A typical force–displacement curve obtained from the
the movable parts under a constant rate of displacement. crack performance tester device on two samples including the
The movable parts are located on an inclined surface of reinforcement grid made of carbon at the interface surrounded by
a surface course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of
45°, which allows having the same pace of horizontal dis-
10 mm and a binder course mix with a nominal maximum
placement as the vertical one. As the test starts, the mova- aggregate size of 14 mm.
ble parts slide over the inclined surface, and with the help
of projected edges inserted in the notch of the specimen,
of 6 mm in width and 20 mm in depth, a crack gradually constant loading rate of 2 mm/min. Figure 5 illustrates a
starts to appear at the tip of the notch and propagates typical result obtained from the crack performance tester
vertically upward and after crossing the interlayer reaches device on the bituminous structure reinforced with the
the top surface of the specimen, as the movable parts slide GR type of reinforcement grid surrounded by the ESG-
over the surface. The horizontal displacement was cap- 10 and the ESG-14.
tured by a Linear Variable Differential Transformers
(LVDT) installed horizontally in contact with the side
face of the movable part. The main advantage of the
Results and Discussion
device is to have more control over the temperature and In this section, the findings from the testing program are
rate of loading. In the course of development of the first presented and then analysis and discussion of the
device, different combinations of temperatures and load- results are given. Specifically, the force–crack width curve
ing rates were tested. However, there as less dispersity of for bituminous structures with and without reinforce-
results obtained at room temperature 20 6 1ºC and a ments is evaluated. Afterward, based on the initial
Solatiyan et al 7

performance both in fine- and coarse-graded mixtures,

while the GR and the GV grids only presented an
improved performance in coarse mixtures and they had a
comparable performance in both types of structures. The
percentage of improvement in energy dissipation capability
by different types of bituminous interfaces compared with
corresponding unreinforced cases is shown in Figure 6.

Result and Discussion for Crack Stiffness Evolution

To understand how the system including different types
of interlayers reacts to the crack development, the
changes in the stiffness modulus from the initiation of
the test up until the failure point was studied by taking
the slope of the tangent on the force–displacement curve
Figure 6. Changes in energy dissipation during the bottom-up into account. Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate the evolution
crack propagation stage in two different double-layer structures. of the stiffness modulus over the crack opening for dif-
Note: ESG-10 = a surface course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate
size of 10 mm; ESG-14 = a binder course mix with a nominal maximum
ferent types of interfaces in two different structures.
aggregate size of 14 mm; GB-20 = a base course mix with a nominal In the structure composed of ESG-10 and ESG-14, a
maximum aggregate size of 20 mm; GR = reinforcement grid made of higher initial modulus was observed in the structure with
carbon; GB = reinforcement grid mad of a mix of glass and carbon fibers; the GR reinforcement grid. However, the GB reinforce-
GV = a type of geocomposite in which one side is covered with bitumen
ment grid was able to undergo higher displacement com-
but from the bottom it is covered with a layer of fabric; PF = paving fabric;
UN = unreinforced. pared with the two other reinforcement grids. Moreover,
the GB reinforcement grid kept the structural integrity of
the system almost unchanged, while in the GR and the
stiffness and energy dissipated by the interface during the GV reinforcement grids, a hardening effect was followed
crack development stage, the major mechanical differ- by a slight drop in the stiffness modulus of the system
ences among differently treated interlayers are identified. when the crack width reached 1.5–2 mm. On the other
hand, in the case of the system reinforced with the PF, a
sharp reduction in the stiffness of the system with respect
Result and Discussion for Energy Dissipation to lower crack width was experienced. Nevertheless, the
Figure 6 provides a comparison of the energy dissipated system was able to keep its structural integrity at a very
during the bottom-up crack propagation stage among large crack width because of the elasticity from the com-
different types of interlayers in two different structures, bined effect of the asphalt cement and the fabric. In addi-
that is, ESG-10 over ESG-14 and ESG-14 over GB-20. tion, in an unreinforced structure, although the system
These results are obtained from the area limited to the showed a higher crack width before failure, the stiffness
force–displacement curve up to the failure point (e.g., modulus of the system was the lowest.
Figure 5) and averaged from two replicates for each type In the structure fabricated with ESG-14 and the GB-
of interface. As can be seen, from the type of structure 20, as shown in Figure 8, a similar trend was traced with
perspective, the interfaces reinforced with different types the following differences. In the structures with the GR
of reinforcement grids and PFs show improved perfor- and GV reinforcement grids, the hardening effect was
mance when accommodated in coarse-graded mixtures. replaced by a significant improvement in the stiffness
This result is in line with previous researches in which modulus of the system in the crack width between 1.5
using a layer of geosynthetic interlayer resulted in an out- and 2 mm. This could be referred to as the activation of
standing performance against reflective cracking (5, 24– the reinforcement effect, which in the presence of the
26). On the other hand, for the unreinforced structure, coarse aggregates occurred in these two types of reinfor-
the energy required for the crack to propagate from the cement grids. However, in the GB grid, the stiffness mod-
tip of the notch to the surface is noticeable when sur- ulus was smoothly reduced from a higher initial modulus
rounded by fine-graded mixtures. to a higher crack width. On the other hand, for the sys-
As far as the type of interlayer is concerned, the inter- tem with PF, a similar pattern as the fine-graded struc-
face with the PF showed superior performance in delaying ture was observed. Nevertheless, the improvement in the
crack propagation compared with that reinforced with initial stiffness modulus of the system was tangibly lower
grids. However, in the case of the reinforcement grids, the in the coarse-graded structure. Furthermore, the unrein-
interface reinforced with the GB grid experienced the best forced structure, unlike the corresponding fine structure,
8 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Figure 7. Crack stiffness evolution in double-layer structures composed of a surface course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size
of 10 mm over a binder course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 14 mm reinforced with different types of interlayers and
the unreinforced structure.
Note: GR = reinforcement grid made of carbon; GB = reinforcement grid mad of a mix of glass and carbon fibers; GV = a type of geocomposite in which
one side is covered with bitumen but from the bottom it is covered with a layer of fabric; PF = paving fabric; UN = unreinforced.

showed a higher initial modulus. However, the crack 14/GB-20, it was the GB grid that showed the highest resis-
width at the failure point was 30% reduced. tance, while the PF had the lowest rank.
Figure 9 presents a view of changes in percentage in the Concerning maximum displacement at maximum
mechanical performance of the bituminous interface with force, in both types of structures, using a layer of PF at
respect to the maximum force, maximum displacement, and the interface led to a significant improvement in the
initial crack stiffness when reinforced with different types of structural integrity of the system, even in large crack
geosynthetics, compared with corresponding unreinforced openings. However, all types of reinforcement grids at
cases. With respect to the maximum force, in the ESG-10/ the interface surrounded by ESG-10 and ESG-14 pre-
ESG-14 structure, the interface including a layer of PF had sented inferior performance compared with the unrein-
the highest resistance against shear stresses transferred from forced interface in a similar structure.
the crack during its propagation, followed by the GB, GR, As for the initial crack stiffness, all types of geosyn-
and GV grids, respectively. Nonetheless, in the case of ESG- thetics induced a 2–2.5 times higher initial modulus at
Solatiyan et al 9

Figure 8. Crack stiffness evolution in double-layer structures composed of a binder course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size
of 14 mm over a base course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 20 mm reinforced with different types of interlayers and the
unreinforced structure.
Note: GR = reinforcement grid made of carbon; GB = reinforcement grid mad of a mix of glass and carbon fibers; GV = a type of geocomposite in which
one side is covered with bitumen but from the bottom it is covered with a layer of fabric; PF = paving fabric; UN = unreinforced.

the interface of fine-graded mixtures compared with the into the effect of the aggregate size used in the hot mix-
unreinforced case. However, this improvement was not ture on the mechanical performance of the interlayer,
of great importance at the interface of coarse-graded three different types of hot mixtures were utilized with
mixtures, while in the case of the GV grid and PF, the respect to the nominal maximum aggregate size: ESG-10,
crack stiffness on average dropped as much as 15%. ESG-14, and GB-20. Two mechanical indices were con-
sidered for understanding the differences in mechanical
performance compared with the corresponding unrein-
Conclusions
forced cases: energy dissipated during the bottom-up
In this study, an innovative laboratory approach was crack propagation stage and the evolution of the stiffness
developed to investigate the crack resistance performance modulus during the crack opening. Based on the findings
of double-layer bituminous structures reinforced with from this laboratory study, the following conclusions
different types of interlayers. To have a better insight were acquired.
10 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Figure 9. Changes in maximum force and displacement and initial crack stiffness in different interface types.
Note: ESG-10 = a surface course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 10 mm; ESG-14 = a binder course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate
size of 14 mm; GB-20 = a base course mix with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 20 mm; GR = reinforcement grid made of carbon; GB =
reinforcement grid mad of a mix of glass and carbon fibers; GV = a type of geocomposite in which one side is covered with bitumen but from the bottom it
is covered with a layer of fabric; PF = paving fabric; UN = unreinforced.

- With respect to the energy required for the crack to higher initial modulus and smoother loss of the
propagate from the bottom to the top surface, the stiffness modulus. In the case of using a geocom-
PF showed superior performance to the unrein- posite (i.e., GV) this improvement was only associ-
forced one regardless of the type of the mixture it is ated with higher displacement when applied
in contact with. However, only using the GB rein- between coarse-graded mixtures. On the other
forcement grid at the bituminous interface resulted hand, the PFs showed the lowest reduction in the
in an almost two times enhanced performance com- loss of stiffness modulus because of yielding and
pared to the corresponding unreinforced case. In significant horizontal displacement before failure
the case of GR and GV reinforcement grids, the under the imposed shear stresses.
energy dissipation performance was doubled for - For gaining the most benefits from the reinforce-
fine-graded mixtures. ment effect of the interlayers, the reinforcement
- Using the PF at the interface led to a very slow grids showed improved performance while
reduction in the rate of loss in the stiffness modu- embedded between coarse-graded mixtures,
lus of the combined system compared to the other namely, between a binder layer and a bituminous
types of interlayers. base layer. Nevertheless, in the case of using PF,
- In all the reinforced structures, the initial modulus the higher initial modulus was recorded while using
was remarkably higher than the corresponding it between a surface layer and a binder layer.
unreinforced cases. This benefit was of great impor-
tance when using the carbon-made reinforcement grid It is worth mentioning that, along with the current
(i.e., GR) at the interface. However, in the case of the results, more experimental works are required to check
geocomposite made of a layer of glass fiber grid, the the validity of the results with a larger matrix of mixes
improvement in the initial modulus was not tangible. and different gradations, binder contents, geosynthetic
- In comparison with unreinforced structures, using materials, and temperatures. In addition, the evolution
reinforcement grid types GR and GB led to a of the stiffness modulus of the reinforced systems can be
Solatiyan et al 11

modeled in finite-element-based modeling software to 4. Gallego, J., and J. N. Prieto. New Laboratory Equipment
predict the appearance of reflective cracking more pre- for Study of Reflective Cracking in Asphalt Overlays.
cisely in mechanistic-empirical pavement design methods. Transportation Research Record: Jpirnal of Transporta-
Furthermore, the test can be redone on one type of inter- tion Research Board, 2006. 1970: 215–222.
layer placed at different depths in the bituminous struc- 5. Prieto, J. N., J. Gallego, and I. Pérez. Application of the
Wheel Reflective Cracking Test for Assessing Geosynthetics
ture thickness to evaluate the claim that the best location
in Anti-Reflection Pavement Cracking Systems. Geosyn-
for the reinforcement interlayer is one-third from the bot-
thetics International, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2007, pp. 287–297.
tom of the lift. 6. Kumar, V. V., and S. Saride. Evaluation of Cracking
Resistance Potential of Geosynthetic Reinforced Asphalt
Author Contributions Overlays Using Direct Tensile Strength Test. Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 162, 2018, pp. 37–47.
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
7. Spadoni, S., L. P. Ingrassia, G. Paoloni, A. Virgili, and
conception and design: E. Solatiyan, A. Carter; data collection:
F. Canestrari. Influence of Geocomposite Properties on
E. Solatiyan, V.T. Ho; analysis and interpretation of results: E.
the Crack Propagation and Interlayer Bonding of
Solatiyan, V.T. Ho, A. Carter; draft manuscript preparation: E.
Asphalt Pavements. Materials, Vol. 14, No. 18, 2021,
Solatiyan. V.T. Ho, A. Carter, M. Vaillancourt, N. Bueche. All
p. 5310.
authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of
8. Jaskula, P., C. Szydlowski, and C. Stienss. Influence of
the manuscript.
Bitumen Type on Cracking Resistance of Asphalt Mix-
tures Used in Pavement Overlays. IOP Conference Series:
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 356, 2018,
p. 012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/356/1/012010.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
9. Moreno-Navarro, F., and M. C. Rubio-Gamez. UGR-
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
FACT Test for the Study of Fatigue Cracking in Bitumi-
article.
nous Mixes. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 53,
2014, pp. 182–189.
Funding 10. Solatiyan, E., N. Bueche, and A. Carter. A Review on
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup- Mechanical Behavior and Design Considerations for Rein-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this forced-Rehabilitated Bituminous Pavements, Construction
article: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and and Building Materials, Vol. 257, 2020, p. 119483. https://
Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and TEXEL doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119483.
Corporation. The authors gratefully acknowledge their finan- 11. Kumar, V. V., and S. Saride. Use of Digital Image Corre-
cial support. lation for the Evaluation of Flexural Fatigue Behavior of
Asphalt Beams with Geosynthetic Interlayers. Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
ORCID iDs Research Board, 2017. 2631: 55–64.
Ehsan Solatiyan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4584-3557 12. Steen, E. R. Stress Relieving Function of Paving Fabrics
Nicolas Bueche https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1922-0348 When Used in New Road Construction. In 5th 20 Interna-
Michel Vaillancourt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8363-5284 tional RILEM Conference on Reflective Cracking in Pave-
Alan Carter https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3915-8385 ments (C. Petit, I. L. Al-Qadi, and A. Millien, eds.), RILEM
Publications SARL, Limoges, France, 2004, pp. 105–112.
13. Sobhan, K., and V. Tandon. Mitigating Reflection Crack-
References ing in Asphalt Overlays Using Geosynthetic Reinforce-
1. Arsenie, I. M., C. Chazallon, A. Themeli, J. L. Duchez, ments. Road Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 9, No. 3,
and D. Doligez. Measurement and Prediction Model of 2008, pp. 367–387.
the Fatigue Behaviour of Fibre Glass Reinforced Bitumi- 14. Pasquini, E., M. Bocci, and F. Canestrari. Laboratory
nous Mixture. In 7th RILEM International Conference on Characterisation of Optimised Geocomposites for Asphalt
Cracking in Pavements (A. Scarpas, N. Kringos, I. Al- Pavement Reinforcement. Geosynthetics International, Vol.
Qadi, and A. Loizos, eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, 2012. 21, No. 1, 2014, pp. 24–36.
pp. 653–664. 15. Pasquini, E., M. Pasetto, and F. Canestrari. Geocomposites
2. Ferrotti, G., F. Canestrari, E. Pasquini, and A. Virgili. Against Reflective Cracking in Asphalt Pavements: Labora-
Experimental Evaluation of the Influence of Surface Coat- tory Simulation and Field Application. Road Materials and
ing on Fiberglass Geogrid Performance in Asphalt Pave- Pavement Design, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2015, pp. 815–835.
ments. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 34, 16. Solatiyan, E., N. Bueche, and A. Carter. Laboratory Eva-
2012, pp. 11–18. luation of Interfacial Mechanical Properties in Geogrid-
3. Virgili, A., F. Canestrari, A. Grilli, and F. A. Santagata. Reinforced Bituminous Layers. Journal of Geotextiles and
Repeated Load Test on Bituminous Systems Reinforced Geomembranes, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2021, pp. 895–909.
by Geosynthetics. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomem- 17. Solatiyan, E., N. Bueche, and A. Carter. Experimental
branes, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2009, pp. 187–195. Measurements of Interfacial Mechanical Properties
12 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

between Rehabilitated Bituminous Layers Using Innova- qc.ca/produits/ouvrage_routier/guides/guide2.en.html.

tive Approaches. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Accessed December 12, 2018.
Vol. 33, No. 5, 2021,p. 7. 23. Romeo, E., F. Freddi, and M. Antonio. Mechanical Beha-
18. Sireesh, S., and V. V. Kumar. Influence of Geosynthetic- viour of Surface Layer Fibreglass-Reinforced Flexible
Interlayers on the Performance of Asphalt Overlays on Pre- Pavements. International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
Cracked Pavements. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomem- Vol. 15, No. 2, 2014, pp. 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/
branes, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2017, pp. 184–196. 10298436.2013.828838.
19. Khodaii, A., S. Fallah, and F. Moghadas Nejad. Effects of 24. Livneh, M., I. Ishai, and O. Kief. Bituminous pre-coated geo-
Geosynthetics on Reduction of Reflection Cracking in textile felts for retarding reflection cracks. In: Proceedings of
Asphalt Overlays. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomem- the 2nd International RILEM Conference on Reflective Crack-
branes, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10. ing in Pavements, Liège, Belgium, 1993, pp. 343–350.
1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.007. 25. Gonzalez-Torre, I., M. A. Calzada-Perez, A. Vega-Zama-
20. Guo, Z., and Q. Zhang. Prevention of Cracking Progress of nillo, and D. Castro-Fresno. Experimental Study of the
Asphalt Overlayer With Glass Fabric. Proc., 2nd Interna- Behaviour of Different Geosynthetics as Anti-Reflective
tional RILEM Conference on Reflective Cracking in Pave- Cracking Systems Using a Combined-Load Fatigue Test.
ments: State of the Art and Design Recommendations, Liege, Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 43, No. 4,
Belgium, March 10–12, 1993. 2015, pp. 345–350.
21. Kuo, C. M., and T. R. Hsu. Traffic Induced Reflective 26. Zamora-Barraza, D., M. A. Calzada-Perez, D. Castro-
Cracking on Pavements with Geogrid-Reinforced Asphalt Fresno, and A. Vega-Zamanillo. Evaluation of Anti-
Concrete Overlay. In Proc., 82th Annual Meeting at the Reflective Cracking Systems Using Geosynthetics in the
Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM). 2003. Interlayer Zone. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
22. Ministry des Trasnports du Québec. Recueil des méthodes Vol. 29, No. 2, 2011, pp. 130–136.
d’essai LC. 2022. http://www3.publicationsduquebec.gouv.