Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, 53:8 | Cite as

Permeability and mechanical property measurements of reinforced asphalt overlay with paving fabrics using novel approaches

  • Ehsan SolatiyanEmail author
  • Nicolas Bueche
  • Michel Vaillancourt
  • Alan Carter
Original Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

In order to study the mechanical behavior of asphalt overlay reinforced with paving fabrics (a system composed of non-woven geotextile and asphalt cement) a new methodology was developed based on three new pieces of laboratory equipment including 3-point bending test (3-PBT) method on cylindrical specimens, crack widening device (CWD) and water-vacuum permeability device (WVPD). The 3-PBT and CWD were designed to simulate generation and propagation of thermally driven cracking from an existing discontinuity in the pavement system into a new asphalt overlay. In addition, the WVPD was assembled to accelerate the movement of water through a low porosity medium. On such basis, representative parameters have been suggested by the authors as: crack resistance index of the system to determine the reinforcement effect and coefficient of permeability (K) to evaluate the waterproofing benefit of the paving fabrics. The experimental results of two different rehabilitation strategies of bituminous pavements were compared during this research: a traditional strategy, as a reference case, in which asphalt overlay is directly attached to the existing surface with an asphalt emulsion and a new strategy with the inclusion of paving fabric as an interlayer system between two asphalt layers, as the reinforced case. The results indicate that the reinforced case has enhanced mechanical properties, in terms of lower crack width manifested at the surface and higher crack resistance index and reduced water permeability. In addition, the proposed methodology appears to be suitable to evaluate the mechanical performance of reinforced asphalt overlays.

Keywords

Asphalt overlay Paving fabric Crack resistance index Coefficient of permeability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the TEXEL Corporation and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for funding this project.

References

  1. 1.
    Baek J, Al-Qadi IL, Xie W, Buttlar WG (2008) In situ assessment of interlayer systems to abate reflective cracking in Hot-Mix asphalt overlays. Transp Res Rec 2084:104–113.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2084-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dhakal N, Elseifi MA, Zhang Z (2016) Mitigation strategies for reflection cracking in rehabilitated pavements—a synthesis. Int J Pavement Res Technol 9(3):228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hajj EY, Sebaaly PE, Loria L (2008) Reflective cracking of flexible pavements phase I and II recommendations. Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Report No. 080-07-803Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sherman G (1982) Minimizing reflection cracking of pavement overlays. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Von Quintus HL, Mallela J, Lytton RL (2010) Techniques for mitigation of reflective cracks. Presented at worldwide airport technology transfer conference. Federal Aviation Administration American Association of Airport ExecutivesGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams RC, Buss A, Chen C (2015) Reflective crack mitigation guide for flexible pavements. Tech Transfer Summaries. 91. Iowa State University, 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alvarez A (2008) Repaving principal highways in Caracas–Venezuela using nonwoven needle punched, and impregnated with asphalt emulsion geotextiles. Presented at First Pan American geosynthetics conference and exhibition, Cancun, Mexico 2008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amini F, Wen K (2016) Long-term field monitoring of paving fabric interlayer systems to reduce reflective cracking. FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-16-184. FHWA, Mississippi Department of Transportation, 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buttlar WG, Bozkurt D, Dempsey BJ (2000) Cost-effectiveness of paving fabrics used to control reflective cracking. Transp Res Rec 1730(1):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Button JW, Lytton RL (2007) Guidelines for using geosynthetics with hot-mix asphalt overlays to reduce reflective cracking. Presented at 86th annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahman M, Scofield L, Wolfe T (1989) Paving fabrics for reducing reflective cracking. FHWA-AZ-8801.FHWA, Arizona. Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shukla S, Yin J (2004) Functions and installation of paving geosynthetics. Presented at 3rd Asian regional conference on geosynthetics, Seoul, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steen ER (2004) Stress relieving function of paving fabrics when used in new road construction. Presented at 5th international RILEM conference on cracking in pavements: mitigation, risk assessment and prevention; Limoges, FranceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Souza CN, De Souza BB (2011) Effect of bituminous impregnation on nonwoven geotextiles tensile and permeability properties. Geotext Geomembr J 29(2):92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marienfeld M, Baker T (1999) Paving fabric interlayer system as a pavement moisture barrier. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zornberg JG, Azevedo M, Sikkema M, Odgers B (2017) Geosynthetics with enhanced lateral drainage capabilities in roadway systems. J Transp Geotech 12:85–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fannin J (2007) The use of geosynthetics as filters in civil engineering. J Geosynth Civ Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845692490.2.127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bhattacharjee S, Mallick RB, Daniel JS (2008) Small-scale accelerated pavement testing in the laboratory for the fatigue characterization of hot mix asphalt. In: Symposium on pavement mechanics and materials at the inaugural international conference of the engineering mechanics institute, Minneapolis, USGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dempsey B (2002) Development and performance of interlayer stress-absorbing composite in asphalt concrete overlays. Transp Res Rec 1809(1):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallego J, Prieto JN (2006) New laboratory equipment for study of reflective cracking in asphalt overlays. Transp Res Rec 1970(1):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu Z, Zhang Z, Morvant M, Paul H, Temple B (2008) Accelerated pavement testing on thin asphalt pavements with various base and subbase layers. Presented at first international symposium on transportation and development–innovative best practices (TDIBP 2008). American Society of Civil Engineers. China Academy of Transportation SciencesGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu B, Lu Q, Yang J (2013) Evaluation of anti-reflective cracking measures by laboratory test. Int J Pavement Eng 14(6):553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Joseph PE, Haas R (1989) Evaluating alternative solutions to reflective cracking through asphalt overlays. Transp Res Rec 1215:282–291Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rastegar RR, Dave E, Daniel JS (2018) Fatigue and thermal cracking analysis of asphalt mixtures using continuum-damage and cohesive-zone models. J Transp Eng 144(4):04018040Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marasteanu MO, Li X, Clyne TR, Voller VR, Timm DH, Newcomb DH (2004) Low temperature cracking of asphalt concrete pavements. MN/RC-2004-23. Submitted by University of Minnesota to Minnesota Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buttlar WG, Chabot A, Dave EV, Petit C, Tebaldi G (2018) Mechanisms of cracking and debonding in asphalt and composite pavements. State of the Art of the RILEM TC-241-MCD, 2018. ISBN 978–3–319–76848–9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pezzaniti D, Beecham S, Kandasamy J (2009) Influence of clogging on the effective life of permeable pavements. Inst Civ Eng Water Manag 162:211–220.  https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.2009.00034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fwa T, Tan S, Guwe Y (1999) Laboratory evaluation of clogging potential of porous asphalt mixtures. Transp Res Rec 1681(1):43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahn J, Jalmasco M, Suk Shin H, Jung J (2017) Test equipment and procedure to evaluate permeability characteristics of permeable pavements. J Korean Soc Hazard Mitig 17(6):359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yeo YS, Nikraz H, Jitsangiam P (2012) Tube suction test to measure moisture susceptibility of Australian pavements. Eng J 16(4):159–168.  https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2012.16.4.159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dave EV, Song SH, Buttlar WG, Paulino GH (2007) Reflective and thermal cracking modeling of asphalt concrete overlays. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advanced characterisation of pavement and soil engineering materials, Athens, Greece, pp 1241–1252. ISBN: 978-0-415-44882-6Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sheng B (2016) Evaluation of Florida asphalt mixes for crack resistance properties using the laboratory overlay test procedure. Final Report for the Florida Department of Transportation. FDOT BDV30 TWO 977-06Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dave, EV, Braham AF, Buttlar WG, Paulino GH, Zofka A (2008) Integration of laboratory testing, field performance data, and numerical simulations for the study of low-temperature cracking. In: Proceedings of the 6th RILEM international conference on cracking in pavements, Chicago, USA, pp 369–378. ISBN: 978-0-415-4757-54Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marasteanu M, Zofka A, Turos M, Li X, Velasquez R, Li X, McGraw J (2007) Investigation of low temperature cracking in asphalt pavements. National pooled fund study. Report MN/RC2007-43, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marasteanu M, Moon KH, Teshale EZ, Falchetto AC, Turos M, Buttlar W, Buss A (2012) Investigation of low temperature cracking in asphalt pavements national pooled fund study phase II. Report No. MN/RC 2012-23, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zofka A, Braham A (2009) Comparison of low temperature field performance and laboratory testing using ten test sections in the midwest. Transp Res Rec 2127:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Apeagyei AK, Dave EV, Buttlar WG (2008) Effect of cooling rate on thermal cracking of asphalt concrete pavements. Asphalt Paving Technology: Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions, January 2008Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wagnoner MP, Buttlar WG, Paulino GH (2005) Disk-shaped compact tension test for asphalt concrete fracture. Exp Mech 45(3):270–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li X, Marasteanu MO (2004) Evaluation of the low temperature fracture resistance of asphalt mixtures using the semi circular bend test. J Assoc Asph Paving Technol 73:401–426Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Monismith CL, Secor GA, Secor KE (1965) Temperature induced stresses and deformation in asphalt concrete. In: Proceedings, American Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, vol 34, pp 248–285Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim S, Sargand S, Wargo A (2009) A simple test procedure for evaluating low temperature crack resistance of asphalt concrete. Report No. FHWA/OH-2009/5, Ohio Department of Transportation, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Amini F (2005) Potential applications of paving fabrics to reduce reflective cracking. Final Report for Mississippi Department of Transportation. FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-05-174Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chowdhury A, Button JW, Lytton RL (2009) Tests of HMA overlays using geosynthetics to reduce reflection cracking. Final Report for Texas Transportation Institute. FHWA/TX-10/0-1777-3Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jenq YS, Perng JD (1991) Analysis of crack propagation in asphalt concrete using cohesive crack model. Transp Res Rec 1317:90–99Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Soares JB, Freitas FA, Allen DH (2003) Crack modeling of asphaltic mixtures considering heterogeneity of the material. Transp Res Rec 1832:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Paulino GH, Song SH, Buttlar WG (2004) Cohesive zone modeling of fracture in asphalt concrete. In: Proceedings of the 5th international RILEM conference on cracking in pavements: mitigation, risk assessment, and prevention, pp 63–70Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhou F, Soohyok I, Hu S, Newcomb D, Scullion T (2017) Selection and preliminary evaluation of laboratory cracking tests for routine asphalt mix designs. Road Mater Pavement Des 18:62–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Al-Qadi I, Ozer H, Lambros J, Khatib A, Singhvi P, Khan T, Doll B (2015) Testing protocols to ensure performance of high asphalt binder replacement mixes using RAP and RAS. Report FHWAICT-15-017, Illinois Center for Transportation, RantoulGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dave EV, Hanson CE, Helmer B, Dailey J, Hoplin C (2015) Laboratory performance test for asphalt concrete. Report MN/RC 2015-24, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    VanDeusen D, Johanneck L, Geib J, Garrity J, Hanson C, Dave EV (2015) DCT low temperature fracture testing pilot project. Report No. MN/RC 2015-20. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Research Services and Library, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhu Y, Dave EV, Rastegar RR, Daniel JS, Zofka A (2017) Comprehensive evaluation of low-temperature fracture indices for asphalt mixtures. Road Mater Pavement Des 18(sup4):467–490.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1389085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roque R, Birgisson B, Drakos C, Dietrich B (2004) Development and field evaluation of energy based criteria for top-down cracking performance of hot-mix asphalt. J Assoc Asph Paving Technol 73:229–260Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ministry des Trasnports du Québec, Recueil des méthodes d’essai LC. https://www3.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca. Accessed 12 Dec 2018
  54. 54.
    Donovan EP (2014) Determination of optimum tack coat application rate for geocomposite membrane use in roads and overlaid bridge decks. Virginia Tech. https://hdl.handle.net/10919/46071. Accessed 3 Mar 2014
  55. 55.
    Nguyen QT, Benedetto HD, Sauzeat C (2012) Fatigue cracking in bituminous mixture using four point bending test. In: 7th RILEM international conference on cracking in pavements. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4566-7.65.
  56. 56.
    Ponniah J, Haas R (1989) Evaluating alternative solutions to reflective cracking through asphalt overlays. Transp Res Rec 1215:282–291Google Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Construction Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Quebec, École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS)MontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Architecture, Wood and Civil EngineeringBern University of Applied Sciences (BFH)BernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations