A state-of-the-art review on geosynthetics in

low-volume asphalt roadway pavements

Seth Flutcher*1 and Jonathan T. H. Wu2
A majority of the applications to incorporate geosynthetics into pavements exist in low-volume
asphalt roadways. This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of geosynthetics in pavements for
low-volume asphalt roadways. Within that realm, the use of geosynthetics is grouped into three
categories for the purpose of this review. The categories are sub-pavement reinforcement, interlayer
reinforcement, and other non-reinforcing applications; each has been found to incorporate
geosynthetics into pavements with some degree of success. In this paper, selected case studies
and major findings of each case study are summarized in the form of a table for each category. From
this review, it is clear that geogrids are especially useful as sub-pavement reinforcement. Field
experience suggests that geogrids installed into low-volume pavement sections at one-third depth
from the top of an aggregate sub-base course have had very good success. Interlayer reinforcement
with geosynthetics has been geared to reduce or retard reflective cracking in pavement overlays.
This application has been found to be valuable; however, the benefits realized are circumstantial.
Geosynthetics as interlayers should only be incorporated when a pavement’s main failure mode is
fatigue or age cracking, and should be carefully prescribed based on economics. Other uses of
geosynthetics in roadways have been focused on moisture transportation or mitigation of moisture
movement. It was found that most of these geosynthetic applications are well developed and can be
employed as needed by design engineers.
Keywords: Geosynthetics, Pavement, Asphalt roadway, Low volume, Review

Introduction involves lower quality crushed aggregate, can be placed

Flexible pavements are layered pavement systems that
include materials with diminishing quality from the top
layer toward the bottom layer to accommodate the
gradually decreasing contact stresses from top to bottom
in pavements. Adherence to this principle makes possible
the use of local materials and usually results in an
economical design (Huang, 1993). A typical flexible
pavement system includes four distinct layers: asphalt
concrete, base course, sub-base, and subgrade (Fig. 1).
The surface layer is typically asphalt concrete, which is
obtained by the hot mixing of aggregate and bitumen, a
heavy distillate obtained from refining crude oil. The
asphalt concrete is underlain by a layer of base course,
typically consisting of 0?2–0?3 m of unbound coarse
aggregate. An optional sub-base layer, which generally
1
Engineering Consultant, 5404 Fox Run Blvd. Frederick, CO 80504, USA
2
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado Denver, Denver,
CO 80217, USA
*Corresponding author, email sethflutcher@gmail.com
under the base course in order to reduce costs or to
minimize capillary action under the pavement. The
constructed layers are placed directly onto a prepared
subgrade, which is generally graded and compacted
natural in situ soil (Zornberg and Gupta, 2010).
Due to traffic loads, local differential settlement may
occur and horizontal stresses tend to be induced between
layers of flexible pavements, both often lead to formation
of cracks in the pavements. A technique that involves
embedding polymeric geosynthetics in pavement structure
has received considerable attention as a viable solution to
these problems.
Geosynthetics are planar synthetic products manufac-
tured for soil-related applications. Many different types of
geosynthetics have been developed to serve functions such
as reinforcement (stabilization), filtration, drainage,
separation, moisture barrier, and cushion (stress relief).
For applications in flexible pavements, geotextiles, geo-
grids, and geocomposites have been used most often.
Use of geosynthetics in flexible pavements was first
tested in the 1960s with geotextiles (also referred to as
‘‘paving fabric’’). Regular testing and usage of geotextiles

ß 2013 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd

Received 10 May 2013; accepted 11 June 2013 International Journal of
DOI 10.1179/1939787913Y.0000000002 Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 4 411
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
1 Cross-section of flexible pavement system a higher contact stresses in top layer and b lower contact stresses in bottom
layer (Muench, 2006)
began in the mid 1970s. The test reports and numerous test
sections conclusively proved its value. Since then usage has
increased to over 100 million square yards annually in the
United States, and approximately double the amount
worldwide according to the Industrial Fabrics Association
International (Barazone, 2010).
It has been stated that the most pertinent area for
geosynthetics in pavements is centered on flexible, or
asphaltic pavements, which can be considered as medium
to low volume (Al-Qadi et al., 2011). The above statement
may be oversimplifying; however, rigid pavements and
their design are such that the effects of geosynthetic
inclusion as reinforcement are clearly not as pronounced
as in flexible pavements. The high stiffness in rigid
pavements generally makes the inclusion of subgrade
reinforcement an area of less interest. A majority of the
applications to incorporate geosynthetics into pavements
exist in low-volume asphalt roadways. Consequently, high
volume flexible pavements are also designed and built at
very high stiffness. This stiffness comes from the increased
pavement thickness, and not because of variables in
material or methods. Therefore, similar to rigid pave-
ments, many high volume or high load flexible pavements
will become thick enough, or stiff enough, to reduce the
interest in geosynthetic reinforcement. That does not mean
that there is no use or benefits in these fields, but most
research and highest potential for civil engineering benefit
lie elsewhere.
Therefore, weaker or lower volume flexible pavements
seem to have the most potential. Supporting that notion is
the fact that early applications, and even current applica-
tions, of geosynthetics are common in unpaved roadways.
To simplify, the weaker the pavement section, the higher
the potential for a geosynthetic material to improve
performance. Since the investment in unpaved roads is
far lesser than that of paved roadways, the interest in
geosynthetics in the former can be somewhat complex and
arguable. The point is that research and practice have
essentially narrowed a great deal of geosynthetic interest
to lower volume asphaltic pavements, with still some
interest in applying geosynthetics to certain unpaved
roads.
The reason that a state-of-the-art review on the subject
is needed is twofold. Firstly, the subject is relatively new
412 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013
and active in the research arena. Geosynthetic research in
general has only come to the forefront of civil engineering
practice over the past three decades. Many applications
are still under investigation and the ideology and
methodology on how pavements can be improved with
geosynthetics are currently evolving as new work comes to
light and the experience in the field matures. Secondly,
neither researchers nor practitioners have come to a
consensus on geosynthetics in pavement. Even when cost
considerations are removed, opinions vary considerably
by those familiar in the field.
The purpose of this study was to investigate both the
current state, along with historical consideration of the
applications and research of geosynthetics in the field of
pavement engineering. The literature on the subject was
reviewed and organized to help achieve a good under-
standing of both current state and relevant history of the
topic at hand. At conclusion of the research, this paper
was compiled to describe the review and provide relevant
commentary.
In this study, two major types of reinforcement are
considered: sub-pavement reinforcement and interlayer
reinforcement, and are presented separately. In pavement
engineering, these two types of reinforcement are often
treated differently. The first and most fundamental
reinforcement application is the inclusion of geosynthetic
materials in sub-pavement material. The placement of
geosynthetic materials within a subgrade, sub-base (or
aggregate base course, ABC, etc.), or an interface between
pavement section layers has been done. Extensive research
on the location, geosynthetic type, and effectiveness are
available and many of the ideas and conclusions are still
debatable in today’s engineering community. However,
the general idea is to stiffen the pavement section to
enhance its performance.
The second reinforcement type, i.e., interlayer reinforce-
ment, is almost exclusively used when the overlay of older
pavement is performed. The reason for this is that the
purpose of interlayer reinforcement is to reduce or retard
the propagation of cracks. One should understand that
when a geosynthetic product is applied in this manner, it is
most often accompanied by a bituminous coating, which
enables another important engineering factor. The combi-
nation of the bituminous tack coat to the geosynthetic
VOL 7 NO 4

(normally a geotextile) creates an impermeable layer. This
impermeability is a desired effect to prolong the life of a
pavement by reducing the amount to water infiltration
into the pavement system.
While the interest in this topic lies on reinforcement of
pavements, there are many other types of pavement
enhancement through the use of geosynthetics. Since this
is a review of geosynthetics in pavements, and because
some of these applications are of practical importance, a
section of this paper is devoted to non-reinforced uses of
geosynthetics in pavement engineering.
In this paper, several fundamental ideas were reviewed
first. Then, many newer concepts and conclusions drawn
from theory, modeling, or most often experimentation were
evaluated and compared. Upon completion of review, the
materials gathered were categorized and organized. And
finally, the summary of many relevant materials previously
circulated, alongside with commentary, is included herein.
Geosynthetic sub-pavement
reinforcement
This section begins with a discussion of the fundamental
method of applying geosynthetics to pavement.
Reinforcement within the subgrade, within an aggregate
base course, or at the pavement-grade interface is the most
fundamental way in which reinforcement to a flexible
pavement can be effective. It is common knowledge,
especially in the realm of the moderate to low-volume
flexible pavements, that the ability of a pavement to
perform is directly related to the geostructure it lies upon.
More simply stated, pavement is only as good as the
material beneath it.
Since pavements are often built on soft subgrades, and
also commonly include an aggregate base course layer
between subgrade and pavement, the opportunities and
methods to reinforce with a geosynthetic are numerous.
Varieties on base course types, subgrade types, geosyn-
thetics types, location, and many combinations of those
have been used and studied with variable results. In this
application type, the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforce-
ment has almost always shown improvement from a
performance aspect (United States National Research
Council, 1989).
As noted earlier in the Introduction section, moderate
to low-volume flexible pavements seem to have the
greatest potential to successfully use geosynthetic reinfor-
cement. This is again, because the lower volume flexible
pavements are thin enough to allow stress distribution
from the traffic loading into a reinforcing material.
Furthermore, the investment in an asphalt road is high
enough to garner the added technology. In reference to the
idea, Abu-Farsakh and Chen (2011) point out that the
weaker the subgrade, the higher the percentage improve-
ment in relation to the rutting action in pavements.
The ideology of sub-pavement reinforcement with
geosynthetics can also be merged with the application in
unpaved roads. Similar to thinner pavement sections,
sometimes the environment of a dirt roadway will be such
that the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement is
beneficial. Not only that, but one can also consider that
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
pointed out by Hawkins (2012), the fact that many
unpaved roads will eventually become paved. If an
unpaved roadway has favorable properties, it would be
suitable to be paved with minimal construction effort on
the existing surface. Since Hawkins’ point is accurate, and
the engineering aspect of reinforcement is equivalent in
sub-pavement reinforcement, the two scenarios are
merged for purpose of discussion herein.
The mechanism in which reinforcement should work to
prolong a pavement in the methodology is far from simple.
Shukla (2002) offers a good summary on the effects that
the inclusion of reinforcement will offer a pavement. First,
the overall bearing capacity is increased by the shear stress
reduction effect. This is the reduction of outward shear
stress from soil over the reinforcement to the soil
underneath. Next, the slab or confinement effect is
discussed. This is due to the restraint put on the soil
section due to the reinforcement. Friction at the geosyn-
thetic introduces a countering force to lateral displace-
ment, somewhat confining (Shukla, 2002).
Another effect commonly discussed in pavement rein-
forcement is the effect of a deformed geosynthetic that is
withstanding normal and shear stress. The deformed
material will have a resisting force in the opposite
direction to the displacement (like a trampoline or
membrane). Hence, this is known as the membrane effect.
Finally, an anchoring effect is realized in geogrid applica-
tions. Since soil or aggregate base may interlock through
the apertures of grids, a stress mobilization may occur in
the cross direction of the grid. There is also a separation
effect, which will be discussed later (Shukla, 2002).
Other researchers have paraphrased the reinforcing
benefits by stating that reinforcement can minimize
displacements. Deterioration in a granular base will occur
due to the lateral displacement that may occur at the
bottom of a base course. The inclusion of reinforcement
will minimize these lateral deformations (Al-Qadi et al.,
2011). General fatigue of materials is also combated in the
reinforced section (United States National Research
Council, 1989). Additionally, intuition allows us to
understand that if a base becomes more solid through
reinforcement, any pavement would perform better and
essentially resist all of the failure modes.
Although the mechanisms in which pavements become
stronger are complex, and materials such as geogrids
receive attributes from stress reduction, anchoring, etc.,
the enhancement of a pavement section is indisputable.
Figure 2 shows reduction of permanent deformation of
pavement sections due to reinforcement at different depths
when subject to cyclic dynamic loads. After 20 000 cycles
of load applications, for example, the permanent deforma-
tion in the unreinforced section was 25 mm, and reduced
to 15–18 mm in the reinforced sections.
Finally, it should be noted that a great majority of the
applications and the study of reinforcement in subgrade
and sub-base have been focused on geogrids. Geotextiles
have been used; however, the engineering community
seems to be convinced that for this application especially,
geogrids hold the highest potential. Partly the reason for
this is the unique interface that occurs with a perforated
material within soil or gravel. The apertures of the geogrid
2013 VOL 7 NO 4 413
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
2 Permanent deformation in unreinforced and reinforced
pavement sections with reinforcement at different depths
of aggregate bases (modified after Abu-Farsakh and
Chen, 2011)
may allow for greater interlocking of base and soil, which
again mobilizes stress into the reinforcement during
deformation. Also, the overall strength of the geogrid is
beneficial and it is well documented that improvement in a
pavement is proportional to the tensile modulus of
reinforcement (Abu-Farsakh and Chen, 2011). This trend
does have a point of diminishing return. In fact, some of
the most recent theories on reinforcement of unbound
aggregate base with geogrid clearly show that the
mechanism in which the geogrid can reinforce is complex
and does not always hinge on the strength of the
geosynthetic (Giroud and Han, 2012). Note that in this
application, the geogrid has emerged as the geosynthetic of
choice, and even earlier studies have found that an open
mesh geogrid within an aggregate base course would have
a similar reinforcing capacity to a geotextile which would
exhibit a strength of 2?5 times that of the grid (United
States National Research Council, 1989).
In today’s culture, it is agreed that reinforcing with
geosynthetics, most often geogrids, brings a certain
amount of attributes. Reinforcement can serve as a
platform over soft soils, in a type of bridging mode. It
can extend the projected service life of pavement. A
reduction in base course thickness can be realized, and the
ultimate bearing capacity of a soil will be increased. Also,
a delay and reduction of rutting is realistic (Al-Qadi et al.,
2011). It is also generally acknowledged that a more
favorable stress distribution will be realized (IGS, 2012).
A summary of selected case studies of geosynthetics for
sub-pavement reinforcement is given in Table 1.
Geosynthetic interlayer reinforcement
Of great importance in pavement engineering is the
longevity of a given pavement. Almost any design or
application of pavement requires some maintenance in
order to fully reap the investment of a roadway or runway.
This is especially true in the case of asphalt pavements. It
should also be realized that the proponents of asphalt as a
414 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL
pavement material magnify the ability, cost effectiveness,
and importance of these maintenance functions.
Often the maintenance of a pavement is required when
cracks have originated within a pavement. Cracks can be
considered a failure mode, or just an inconvenience that
requires attention. Cracks do not generally reduce the
structural capacity of a given pavement (Button and
Lytton, 2003). But, as Shukla and Yin (2004) point out,
the presence of cracks can also reduce safety, comfort,
increase degradation, and allow for water infiltration and
pumping. In essence, some cracks can cause pavement
failure to propagate through a positive feedback, and be
extremely destructive if not addressed.
Cracks come from a variety of origins. Primary sources
of cracking are fatigue, shrinkage and/or consolidation
(due to temperature cycles), construction joints, and age
(Zamora-Barraza et al., 2011). In all instances, it is
relevant that cracks most often appear prior to any other
failure mode of a flexible pavement. Therefore, if cracks
can be mitigated, the overall life of a pavement can most
likely be prolonged.
The overlay of an existing asphalt pavement is the most
common renovation method (Shukla and Yin, 2004). In
fact, the asphalt overlay, which can be used atop both
flexible and rigid pavements, was originally proposed in
the 1920s (Button and Lytton, 2003). For those unfami-
liar, overlays consist of adding a relatively thin pavement
layer to an existing pavement structure. Sometimes a
comparable removal is done via milling. Removals can be
done at full width, or only at edges (where drainage points
are critical), or in some cases not at all.
This overlay operation offers great opportunity to
utilize geosynthetics. It has long been used and researched
with somewhat arguable results. Cleveland et al. (2002)
paraphrases that research on the topic ranged from
‘‘highly successful to disastrous failures.’’ This is in part
due to the vast variable in pavements, construction
material costs, environmental conditions, and the like.
One may wonder why this stage in a pavements life is so
opportunistic for geosynthetics. This is due to the
engineer’s effort to eliminate or retard the propagation
of cracking from the older pavement into the newer
overlay.
The inclusion of geosynthetics directly between layers of
the pavement is often coined ‘‘interlayer’’ or ‘‘interlayer
reinforcement.’’ The installation of interlayer geosyn-
thetics is fairly straight forward. The paving surface
should be completely cleaned and dried prior to tack coat.
After that, the tack coat should be applied at the
prescribed rate. This quantity is dependent on the fabric,
surface conditions, and type of tack coat. For reference, a
common application of 0?90 L m22 (0?20 gallons/yd2) can
be assumed for straight bitumen tack coats.
Immediately after tack coat is applied, the geosynthetic
should be laid down directly on top. It should be relatively
tight, but not stressed. Overlap between sheets should be
sufficient and wrinkles to be avoided. In any case the
manufactures instructions should be referenced for best
practices. After the fabric is spread, normal paving
operations can commence. Low temperatures should be
avoided for both tacking and paving operations.
7 NO 4
 Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements

Table 1 Selected case studies of geosynthetics for sub-pavement reinforcement

Agency or authors (Year) Subject Method of study Major findings

US National Research Pull-out in geosynthetic- Laboratory testing - Pull-out is highly variable and
Council (1988) reinforced base depends on geometry, soil density,
angle of internal friction, etc.
US National Research Geosynthetic-reinforced base Repeated load tests - Optimum location of reinforcement
Council, Hass (1988) is at the bottom of base course
US National Research Geosynthetic-reinforced base Accelerated pavement tests - Reinforcement reduces deformation
Council, Barksdale (primarily with pre-stressed or rutting by 20–40%
(1989) reinforcement)
- Base course/fill can be reduced by
25–50 mm (1–2 in.) when reinforcement
is introduced
- Fatigue is reduced when
reinforcement is utilized
Duskov (1997) Reinforcement with geofoam Full-scale/in situ testing of - Geofoam is ineffective for pavement
geofoam reinforcement
Gurung (2003) Tensile response of Laboratory test using - Reinforcing yields favorable results in
reinforced base specialized ‘‘pavement sub-pavement application
tensile test box’’
- Geogrids tested show high peak stress
at low displacement, which is good
Raymond and Ismail Optimum location and number -Static and repeated - Ultimate bearing capacity is increased
(2003) of reinforcement layers load testing (lab) when reinforcement is near the surface
(effect diminishes with depth)
- Finite element analysis - Second layer of geosynthetic can be
beneficial when introduced at the base
course-subgrade interface
- Finite element analysis can successfully
predict behavior of reinforced
pavement section
Kamel et al. (2004) Optimum location of - CBR tests (lab) - Maximum strength increases at a depth
reinforcement of 72–76% (from top)
- Static and dynamic
triaxial tests (lab)
Kazimierowica- Settlement of reinforced Computer modeling - Modeling successfully predicted
Frankowska pavement settlement on reinforced section
(2007)
- Geosynthetics at subgrade interface
reduce settlement
- Little is known about two-layer system
Tang et al. (2008) Rutting in reinforced 1/3 scale accelerated - Strength, aperture size, junction strength,
pavement pavement testing and flexural rigidity are most important
in geogrids
- Pavement performance in
geogrid-reinforced sections is favorable
Al-Qadi et al. (2011) Effectiveness of geogrids in Full-scale accelerated - Any geogrid improves response
low-volume pavements and pavement testing by 23–31%
optimum placement
- Adding a second reinforcing layer has
only circumstantial benefits
- Geogrid minimizes lateral deformations
Abu-Farsakh and Chen Investigation of benefits from Cyclic load testing (lab) - Pavement performance improvement is
(2011) geogrid reinforcement proportional to increased tensile modulus
of a given geogrid
- No clear relationship between
reinforcement performance and aperture
size of the geogrid
- Performance of pavement is optimized
when reinforcement is inserted at the
upper 1/3 of the base course layer

The inclusion of a geosynthetic as interlayer reinforce- stress relieving layer, or a tensile reinforcement, or a
ment is the second largest application of geosynthetics in combination of both (Khodaii et al., 2009). In all cases,
North America reported in 1993 (Cleveland et al., 2002). the objective is for the geosynthetic layer to absorb or
In this application, the geosynthetic can act by either a redistribute stress, so the crack propagation, or reflective

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 4 415

Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
3 Increase in stiffness and strength of a non-woven geotex-
tile due to bituminous impregnation (modified after
Correia and Bueno, 2011)
cracking, is minimized. Since the existing pavement is
assumed to have cracks, the discontinuity alone creates
stress concentrations, which are obviously undesirable
(Correia and Bueno, 2011).
Additional to the stress concentrations are the driving
forces that initiated the crack. The common contributors
would be the applied wheel loads from traffic, and the
expansion and contraction experienced from temperature
cycles (Correia and Bueno, 2011). Temperature cycles are
complex within themselves, and both daily temperature
swings, as well as seasonal ones are influential (Cleveland
et al., 2002). Also noteworthy, moisture presence or lack
thereof can in many cases drive volumetric deviations in
the subgrade of a soil. This cyclic type action additionally
will promote cracking in pavement. In any case, when the
stresses experienced in an overlay exceed the fracture
stresses, the crack will obviously continue (Correia and
Bueno, 2011).
Although reflective cracking is normally the primary
reason for an interlayer reinforcement, there may be some
different or at least accompanying benefits. First would be
the extension of pavement life due to reduced fatigue.
Second is the consideration to the limitation or elimina-
tion of deformations (Virgili et al., 2009).
In fact, a geosynthetic’s usefulness in pavement extends
to the ideology of limiting deformation. Pavement rutting
is considered to be a type of failure mode. Many of the
uses of geosynthetics as reinforcement below the pavement
layer focus on rutting or permanent deformations. This
benefit should not be ignored, but the general ideology is
prevalent while discussing the subject of sub-pavement
reinforcement (Geosynthetic sub-pavement reinforcement
section), and this discussion is focused on the interlayer
geosynthetics as crack inhibitors.
In the report of Cleveland et al. (2002), it is stated that
reflective cracking treatments are certainly not exclusive
to a geosynthetic interlayer. Ideas as simple as increasing
the asphalt overlay thickness have been employed and
researched for the purpose of reducing reflective cracking.
Also, stress-absorbing membrane interlayers (or SAMI’s)
416 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL
have been used between the layer of existing cracked
pavement and new maintenance overlays. Surface treat-
ments, such as hot scarification are also optional, and
finally treating individual cracks is possible. This can be
done with simple rubber crack sealing methods. There are
instances where individual cracks are also given a
geosynthetic treatment, but overall the ideology of that
method is synonymous with the general discussion herein
(Cleveland et al., 2002).
While considering the reinforcement interlayer, there
are a few applicable generalizations. It is common practice
to include a liquid asphaltic layer of some type in
conjunction with the geosynthetic. In these instances, the
tack coat, or liquid asphalt is applied to the pavement
surface, and then the geosynthetic is laid down. This is
done primarily to bond the geotextile to the pavement,
however, the inclusion of this asphalt barrier can in itself
contribute favorably to the pavement section. First, it acts
as a moisture barrier, which will reduce the amount of
water infiltration beneath the pavement. Second, it adds
stiffness to the interlayer. Finally, the liquid asphalt can
act as a cushion, or stress absorber within the pavement.
Pavement designers should note that this procedure is
unique and the inclusion of the bituminous tack signifi-
cantly affects how the pavement section will behave. An in
depth study was released in 2011 by Correia and Bueno
who specifically addressed the properties of non-woven
geotextiles after impregnation with bituminous liquid.
The two part material will become less permeable with
increased tack, but more interesting is that the strength of
the geotextile is pronouncedly increased. Figure 3 shows
the load deformation relationships of a non-woven
geotextile due to bituminous impregnation. The increase
in stiffness and strength is sometimes ignored by designers
when prescribing geotextiles for interlayer reinforcement.
Moving on, the overlay of pavement follows immedi-
ately after the tack coat has been applied to the fabric. The
method of inclusion of liquid asphalt usually eliminates
woven geotextiles for use. This is because the woven
geotextiles have no interior plane, hence do not hold any
liquid. Also for this reason, the commonly selected
geotextiles are non-woven lightweight fabrics in the range
of 120–200 g m22 (Shukla and Yin, 2004). The lightweight
non-wovens are good absorbers of liquid asphalt and also
are preferred due to their constructability in the field
(Correia and Bueno, 2011).
It should be noted that the above description applies to
practice, and the interest of including geosynthetics within
the pavement are not limited to the methodology
described above. In fact, many of the references used to
create this review, expand and explore alternate methods
and materials for this type of application.
Some recent research studies have investigated the
optimal location of the interlayer, similar to studies on
reinforcement of unbound aggregates. Khodaii et al.
(2009) concluded that, if a leveling course of asphalt was
first applied, followed by the geosynthetic installation, and
finally succeeded by the remaining overlay, the best
performance was observed. Supporting data from the
group is shown in Fig. 4, which shows how the permanent
deformation and vertical crack growth are affected by
7 NO 4
 Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements

4 a Permanent deformation v. number of cycles and b vertical crack growth versus number of cycles, for overlays with
differing locations of interlayer reinforcement (modified after Khodaii et al., 2009)

different locations of interlayer reinforcement. This
recommendation also allows for an increase in smoothness
(due to a two layered approach) and a new clean surface
for geotextile installation. This technique counters cynical
outlooks that point to improper application from ‘‘dirty’’
surfaces, improper tack coat rates, and lack of tightness of
geosynthetics.
Another common occurrence in the art of retarding
reflective cracking is that it is not effective against all types
of reflective cracking. Both practitioners and engineers
agree that using any method to retard or reduce reflective
cracking from the large thermal cracks is ineffective
(Shukla and Yin, 2004). These cracks are normally found
as transverse cracks (perpendicular to roadway alignment)
and have developed due to large movements.
A summary of selected case studies for pavement
interlayer reinforcement is given in Table 2.
Non-reinforcing applications of
geosynthetics to pavements
Though the primary focus of this study is to evaluate and
review the applications of geosynthetics as reinforcement
of a pavement structure, there are other applications of
geosynthetics in pavements that are relevant. The use of
geosynthetics in non-reinforcing applications as they apply
to pavements are reviewed and discussed in this section.
Most common among non-reinforcing categories in
pavement are geotextiles for drainage. The purpose of a
geotextile in a roadway drainage system would be to carry
water from the pavement section to the edge of the
roadway, normally into an edge drain or to a sloped
embankment. This in-plane water transmissivity increases
water movement in planar directions. The promotion of
lateral flow is significant, because surface water will most
often enter a pavement section at a much higher rate than
it will drain (Murty et al., 1994).
Another interesting drainage mechanism that geotex-
tiles have been attributed to help mitigate is the capillary
rise (Meccai and Hasan, 2004). Perhaps as important as
minimizing the surface or rainwater infiltration is the
intentions of a geotextile to drain from an upward flow
sub-pavement path. The capillary rise of pore water in a
soil in itself is not complex, but to inhibit the action with a
geotextile is certainly far from simple. In either case, it
should be noted that under the right conditions, the
usefulness of a geotextile in pavement could lie solely in its
ability to move moisture.
One qualification on the topic of drainage and
geosynthetics that has not yet been mentioned is that

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 4 417

Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements

some of the best examples do not solely involve the sheet
like structures that have been discussed thus far. Sub-
surface drainage by use of perforated pipes, or other
geocomposite drains, with and without a fabric lining, is a
common utilization. In any event, one should note that the
benefits of geosynthetics in drains are not only to maintain
drainage, but also can aid in dissipation of pore water
from clays to improve constructability, accelerate con-
solidation, or both.
Somewhat similar to a geosynthetics use in drainage is
their utilization as water inhibitors. Geomembranes can be
placed in several configurations that will eliminate, or at
least minimize the ability of a pavement to take on
moisture from certain sources. Again, according to the
idea that water is especially detrimental to pavements, one
can see the benefits potentially exist with moisture
barriers. Geomembranes have also been applied in areas
of swelling soils to reduce damage to pavement (Holtz,

Table 2 Selected case studies of geosynthetics for pavement interlayer reinforcement

Agency or authors Topic Method of study Major findings

US National Research Benefits of reinforcement Review/compilation - Interlayer reinforcement is not

Council (1989) interlayer
Cleveland et al. (2002) Geosynthetics in
pavement overlays
Button and Lytton Guidelines for using
(2003) geosynthetics with
HMA overlays
James (2004) Reinforcement interlayer
Shukla and Yin Reinforcement interlayer
(2004)
Khodaii et al. Reflective crack
(2009) propagation
Virgili et al. (2009) Flexural strength of
reinforced asphalt
Correia and Bueno Effects of bituminous
(2011) impregnation of
geosynthetics
Zamora-Barraza Crack propagation in
et al. (2011) reinforced interlayers
Crack propagation tests
using ‘‘overlay tester’’
Review of research and
recommendation to
practitioners
Presentation
Review
Repeated load
testing (lab)
Four-point bending
tests (lab)
Lab procedures to measure
asphalt retention and
stress/strain relation after
impregnation
Repeated load testing
recommended based on contractor’s
inexperience and cost analysis
- In place cost of geosynthetics had
improved, but economic benefits are
only marginal at the time
- Stiffer geosynthetics yield more
favorable results
- Includes a discussion on the
potential for treated non-woven
geotextiles as moisture barriers
- The in place cost of fabric installation
is roughly equivalent to the cost of
12?5–15 mm (0?5–0?6 in.) of asphalt
- Including reinforcement has only
60–65% success rate
- When successful, interlayer
contribution is comparable to an
additional 30 mm (1?2 in.) of asphalt
- Interlayer reinforcement with geogrids
leads to dramatic reduction of
reflective cracking
- Proper use of geosynthetics could
waterproof, delay reflective cracking,
and improve service life of pavements
- Including reinforcement can potentially
decrease pavements by approx.
50 mm (2 in.) for similar performance
- Any geogrid inclusion can significantly
enhances performance
- Interlayer reinforcement is less
effective at higher temperatures
- Optimum location of reinforcement is
at mid-depth of overlay
- Mathematical methods are able to
define pavement failure points
- At 0?03% strain, geotextile stiffness
will increases between 500% and 2230%
- Impregnated non-woven geotextiles
had permeability comparable to
geomembranes (on the order
of 1022 cm s21)
- All interlayer reinforcement leads to
favorable results
- Interlayer reinforcement with
polypropylene geotextiles can offer
a 2–3 times increase in pavement
durability
- Geogrid-reinforced pavements show
increased durability and increased
bearing capacity

418 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 4


2004). Membrane usage may be a topic that does not
require extensive or technical study, but the benefits in
pavement functions are certainly apparent.
While consistent with the promotion of, or mitigation
of, water movement, the next common act for geosyn-
thetics is filtration. Shukla (2002) defines filtration as the
ability of a fabric to filter out soil fines contained in pore
water. This of course refers to water movement in normal
to the plane of a geosynthetic, or permittivity. The most
popular geosynthetics for filtration are non-woven needle-
punched fabrics. Slit film woven geotextiles are also
common, and both are less susceptible to blinding or
clogging than the other types of geosynthetics (Black
and Holtz, 1999). Key in filtration is the ability of a
geosynthetic to not become plugged, because trapped soil
particles will change the way a geotextile will function over
time. Designers and engineers must be cognizant and
proceeded accordingly. Many of the difficulties (like
plugging or poor permeability) exist in other types of
filters used in engineering, and at least one study found
that the soil–geotextile filter system could be more
effective than those that are more conventional (Murty
et al., 1994).
The balance of non-reinforcing, non-drainage, uses of
geotextiles lies in categories of sealing, protection, and
separation. As for the sealing function, the primary
application of geosynthetics is in the asphalt impregnated
pavement interlayer (Meccai and Hasan, 2004). This
subject accompanies the reinforcement interlayer men-
tioned earlier in the Geosynthetic interlayer reinforcement
section. Also, the protection category is the one that needs
little elaboration. In short, there are situations where a
geosynthetic might be used to prevent damages. In pave-
ment, a likely scenario would be to place a cheap geotextile
over a surface that might need protection from traffic or
natural elements.
The separation function is more difficult to analyze.
Most often, separation with a geotextile is achieved when
placed between a subgrade layer and an aggregate base
layer. If separation is achieved in this scenario, the design
strength and thickness of the base course will be
maintained. If not, the base course may lose some of its
bearing capacity or general strength, due to loss of
material, or the infiltration of fines.
The reason this subject is difficult is twofold. First, it is
hard to quantify how much a material is affected by
contamination. Black and Holtz (1999) noted that limited
information about the long-term performance of separa-
tors was available. Second, the contamination is a duplex
system, where one material should demonstrate unfavor-
able contamination, and where the other should become
stronger.
Another difficulty with the subject of separation is the
fact that it is most often combined with reinforcement
applications. It is deemed both popular and effective to
include even weaker geotextiles in subgrades and sub
bases of pavement structures. So, when a geosynthetic is
included, the separation function is achieved in combina-
tion with the function of reinforcement. Most experimental
procedures would quantify the benefits of reduced rutting
or increased bearing capacity on the reinforcement. It is
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
well understood that under deformation a geotextile can
take on stress and reinforce. But, the separation ideology
begs the question whether the reinforcement application
might at times get credit for the benefits being provided by
separation.
Since geogrids are most popular and proven to be
superior to geotextiles, and the separation effect will be
reduced when apertures are present, it is reasonable to
assume that the reinforcing effect is of far greater
magnitude than separation. The marriage between separa-
tion and reinforcement, especially in a pavement section,
mimics that of the sealant and reinforcement function as
an interlayer to a pavement overlay. In summary, the
reinforcement is the primary function, but benefit can be
realized by separation at the same time.
The case studies used for this literature review are
summarized in Table 3.
Issues with studies of geosynthetics
inclusion in flexible pavements
Upon completing this review of geosynthetics in flexible
pavements, a few items have become apparent. While
conducting any type of experiments or modeling, there
are inevitably variables that are unaccounted for or not
simulated in a realistic manner. For this reason, a dis-
cussion on some of the unfavorable scenarios that
surround the field of pavement engineering and the
difficulties that may arise are discussed.
Theories, modeling, and testing of pavement perfor-
mance all depend on assumptions that could be difficult
to accommodate. The way stresses dissipate deep into
pavement layers, soil and other variable materials, aging
and cracking of pavements, and random traffic patterns
can all affect engineering methods and theoretical
assumptions. The following discusses a few of the most
apparent obstacles in the field of pavement engineering
and the use of geosynthetics inclusions.
One issue is with the angle at which loads disperse into
the pavement and sub-pavement. Even modern research
has not resolved the question about how to accurately
determine the way loads are distributed (Kazimierowicz-
Frankowska, 2007). When layered soil systems with
pavement, aggregate, in situ materials, and now geosyn-
thetics are included, the load distribution becomes even
more complex. In computer modeling using finite element
methods of analysis, the results are often unreliable. The
reliability of finite element analysis is highly dependent
upon the ability to characterize the constitutive relation-
ships of the materials involved in the problem. The
constitutive relationships of soils have been a subject with
great uncertainties and numerous different opinions. The
theory behind the finite element methods is sound, but the
inability to correctly simulate the constitutive behavior
under changing environmental and loading conditions
remains problematic.
Another issue is with complex stress distribution in
soils of differing densities, strengths, moistures, tempera-
tures, etc. Considering the topic at hand, the pavement only
adds complexity to stress distribution. For interlayer rein-
forcement, pavement cracks contribute to the complexity of
2013 VOL 7 NO 4 419
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements

stress distributions to the already complex problem. This

5 Stresses from wheel over crack (Cleveland et al., 2002)
is illustrated by Fig. 5, which shows how a single wheel
load might distribute stress in the longitudinal direction
of a transverse crack. Moreover, the dynamic traffic load-
ing makes the stress distribution even more difficult to
analyze.
Cracks in pavements involve other issues as well. One is
how cracking relates to aging. Pavement aging is a main
cause of asphalt cracking (Zamora-Barraza et al., 2011).
This may be due to more than one reason, however it is
well known that the bituminous binder in asphalt
pavement will oxidize over time. The oxidation results in
stiffer pavement (Jung, 2006). Neither cracking nor aging
of pavements are well understood as of today.
Many of these issues extend to a common laboratory
practice known as accelerated pavement tests, or APTs.
APTs are experiments where pavements are subjected to
numerous and intense repeated traffic loads over a short
period of time. The purpose of APTs is to evaluate how a

Table 3 Selected case studies for non-reinforcing applications to pavements

Agency or authors Subject Method of study Major findings

US National Research Geomembranes in Review - Geomembranes are functional for

Council, Koerner (1989)
US National Research
Council, Koerner and
Highlands (1991)
Murty et al. (1994)
Black and Holtz (1999)
Henry and Holtz (2001)
transportation
Geocomposite drainage
Pavement edge drains
Geosynthetics as
separators, durability
v. time
Geosynthetics as capillary
barriers to reduce frost heave
frost heave mitigation and can be used
to protect materials susceptible to
weathering, such as limestone
- Geomembranes should be
well protected
Review - Basic recommendations on
geosynthetic types and applications
provided
- Edge drains are adequately
permeable, but are not strong enough
and are too porous
- Preventing damage from drainage
issues greatly outweighs cost of
resources used to install
geocomposite drains
Lab tests of drainage - Non-woven geotextiles perform best
functions
- Apparent opening size is important
- Clogging resistance needs to be
considered per-soil
Full-scale in situ test - Durability of geosynthetics is adequate
- Consolidation of subgrade is greater
when separators are utilized
- Migration of fines across geosynthetic
layers is successfully mitigated
- Clogging more likely in heat-bonded
geotextiles
- Rutting will decrease when geosynthetic
separator layer is employed
Lab tests for moisture - Geotextiles containing fines are
migration not effective
- Geocomposites can be an effective
capillary barrier when water level is at
or below the geosynthetic, and the
barrier is saturated
- The application of geosynthetics as
capillary barriers requires more
attention and is a complex topic

420 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 4


pavement would perform in its service live, in a much
shorter amount of time, therefore enabling the experiment.
However, aging (or oxidizing) that results in stiffer
pavement over are not accounted for in these sophisticated
laboratory exercises. Since the goal of APTs is to evaluate
pavement section in a short amount of time, the aging
process is often ignored. It can be argued that the
evaluation of the geosynthetic reinforcement can be done
apart from detailed analysis on this, but the pavement
system in general is interactive and relationships between
the elements are not simple.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in interpreting accelerated
pavement tests is due to the variations in traffic from
experiment. Two very sophisticated APT devices in the US
are the ATLAS full-scale-loading assembly in Illinois and
the one-third scale MMLS3 in Pennsylvania. They both
have some shortcomings for simulation of actual traffic. In
fact, the author who wrote on the ATLAS test notes that
exerted torque from vehicle axles is not simulated.
Similarly, the driving gear or braking is not simulated and
those actions are known to drastically increase the shear
stresses experienced by pavements (Al-Qadi et al., 2011).
Finally, these difficulties in representative tests also
extend to minor nuances. Stresses in pavement, and the
subsequent layers that make up the pavement system, are
affected by tire tread, speed, and inflation pressure, among
other things. Different tire configurations like super
singles or dual tires also will alter the stress distribution
(Al-Qadi et al., 2011). These state-of-the-art tests,
especially those investigating rutting, have another issue.
The ideology of simulating pavement ruts with the devices
will likely magnify the effect due to the lack of wheel path
wander. When APTs are conducted, loads are usually
repeated at the exact same location. In reality, the area
affected by random traffic is wider and somewhat random,
and some of the negative effects might be washed out or at
least reduced in true traffic settings.
When considering rutting failure, two-dimensional
permanent deformations are considered the criteria for
performance. This is clearly relevant since traffic-induced
rutting follows that pattern. On the other hand, many are
of the opinion that longitudinal strain in pavements is
greater than the transverse strain that results in rutting
(Al-Qadi et al., 2011). That begs the question as to
whether another failure criterion is being missed or should
at least be considered. The above-mentioned stiffness
change due to oxidation may also play a role in rutting. If
a pavement becomes stiffer over time, its resilience to
rutting may increase, hence some APT results may be
unfair to the pavements performance.
The stiffening of asphalt with age can shed light on
another issue. Pavement performance can often be tied to
an asphaltic concrete’s ability to withstand flexural strain.
As asphalt becomes stiffer with age, it becomes more
brittle, and therefore the flexural stress–strain behavior
will be altered.
Moving on, it can be said that asphalt materials can be
much more difficult to test using standard materials testing
methods than many other materials. Typical cylindrical
specimens, especially in the case of including a geosyn-
thetic, are difficult to create. In addition, their accurate
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
portrayal of field conditions is questionable, and for these
reasons bending or tensile tests have been employed
(Cleveland et al., 2002).
All the discussions on asphalt stiffening over time do
not necessarily create a unique situation. Not different
from other engineering materials, a stiffer specimen will
likely have some increased strength, but perhaps at the
expense of decreased ductility. In the field of evaluating
asphaltic pavement, a material that has stiffened, may
resist failure modes such as rutting, while it would be more
susceptible to failure modes such as cracking or breaking,
when in a less ductile state.
While the above discussion points out some sources of
potential error, oversight, or just the imperfections that
are inevitable in any type of research, the discussion is not
intended to discount or detract from the field. Those issues
are acknowledged to provide proper perspectives of the
results obtained, and to help researchers improve their
studies.
In most instances, modern and technical accelerated
pavement tests provide valuable research. Central to the
case in point is the comparison of a pavement section
with geosynthetic inclusion versus one without. For this
reoccurring theme, difficult variables such as pavement
stiffness, stress, and load distributions should be equally
applied to both the control and the experimental
circumstances. Not to say there would be no effect, but
overall the reported test results would identify a trend
which would be dependent on the controlled variable and
minimally affected by others factors.
This ideology has been reported by some of the research
studies that have been topical thus far. For example, Abu-
Farsakh and Chen (2011) state, while considering a field
environment against the popular cyclic loading plate, the
wheel loads are much more damaging. But, the research,
in a like for like scenario shows that the various sections
subjected to cyclic plate testing indicate that the perfor-
mance is the same using either cyclic plates or wheel loads.
Although this section points out some of the glaring
difficulties in the study of pavement performance, it can be
said that methods utilized can be very effective on side-by-
side analysis of many sorts. In the topic of pavement
reinforcement, especially the idea that a theory, model, or
APT could be used to evaluate a reinforced pavement
versus a non-reinforced pavement, many of these obstacles
are less influential.
Because there are however undoubted issues with
almost any geotechnical testing techniques and engineer-
ing, the field is dependent on intelligent and experienced
engineers. When considering the difficult nature of the
dynamic traffic loading, it really becomes interesting. The
use of accelerated pavement testing contributes greatly to
the field. The same could be said about finite element
modeling. Issues could be discussed and arguments made,
but our modern engineering research as it applies to
pavements and geosynthetics is indeed state-of-the-art.
The methods that are available and used may not always
offer perfect answers, but the knowledge gained from
experiments is invaluable to the pavement engineering
community.
2013 VOL 7 NO 4 421
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
Summary and concluding remarks
Summary
A state-of-the-art review of geosynthetics for low-volume
roadways is performed. The review divides the use of
geosynthetics inclusion into three categories: sub-pavement
reinforcement, interlayer reinforcement, and non-reinfor-
cing applications. Selected case studies and major findings
are summarized in the form of a table for each category.
Geosynthetic sub-pavement reinforcement
Geosynthetic sub-pavement reinforcement is a fundamen-
tal use of geosynthetics as reinforcement of unbound
aggregate bases. Studies have evaluated materials and
methods to understand how geosynthetics may improve
a roadway, and most research promotes geosynthetic
utilization in one form or another.
Geogrids have largely dominated sub-pavement rein-
forcement. Overall strength, stiffness, and the existence of
apertures all improve upon a geosynthetics ability to take
on stress. Furthermore, the stress–strain behavior of the
geogrid is very favorable for pavements where large
deformation is not tolerable.
Large variability in soils, loading, configurations, and
geosynthetics have inspired differing opinions on depth of
reinforcement. However, it is relevant that two recent
studies have had similar findings (Abu-Farsakh and Chen,
2011; Al-Qadi et al., 2011) that support placement of
reinforcing geogrid at the upper 1/3 of the aggregate base
layer (as seen in Fig. 2).
Many have considered a second layer of geosynthetics
at times. Most have found that this can improve
performance, but on a much lower magnitude than the
first layer. If conditions and economics dictate that a
second geosynthetic is reasonable, it should be placed at
the bottom of the aggregate base course (or the subgrade
base interface).
Geosynthetic interlayer reinforcement
Geosynthetic interlayer reinforcement is intended to
reduce the propagation of reflective cracking in overlays
of older pavements. Overall experience and recommenda-
tions suggest that reinforcement for large thermal cracks is
not effective. However, it is effective for retardation of
crack propagation for common fatigue cracks found in
pavements. It has been recommended that non-woven
geotextiles with the inclusion of a bituminous tack coat be
utilized. Cost benefit analyses are necessary, because in
these applications the improvement is often marginal.
When maintaining old pavements a judicious selection is
needed by the designer.
Additionally, because effectiveness of this interlayer
reinforcement is dependent upon crack type, the identifi-
cation of the failure modes is crucial and the pavement
must be in a condition susceptible to maintenance. When
the proper situation is identified, interlayers should be
applied (when determined to be cost effective).
Similar to the sub-pavement reinforcement, the opti-
mum location for interlayer reinforcement has been
identified. It has been found that the best performance is
achieved when a leveling course of pavement is applied
422 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013
prior to geotextile installation. It is suggested when the
leveling layer is installed; the geosynthetic should be
placed at about 1/3 depth from the bottom of the overlay.
The two layered approach could add expense, so it also
must be cautiously recommended.
Geogrids are not recommended for interlayer reinforce-
ment because they do not facilitate the bituminous tack
layer. The desired water barrier and cushion effect are
important factors for geosynthetic interlayer applications.
Non-woven needle-punched geotextiles with desired prop-
erties should be utilized. When considering geotextiles, the
condition of the fabric after bituminous impregnation is
most important. The properties of geotextiles improve
dramatically after impregnation (Correia and Bueno, 2011).
Finally, the ability for geogrid–geotextile composites to
both accept bituminous impregnation, along with high
strength, means that they should be considered too. It is
foreseeable that these geocomposites will garner more
interest in both research and practice in future pavement
interlayer scenarios.
Non-reinforcing applications of geosynthetics in roadways
Non-reinforcing applications of geosynthetics in roadways
are most notably for the functions of separation, filtration,
drainage, sealing, and/or protection. Most research topics
have been concluded, and empirical designs are in use
today. It is important to note that moisture presence in
pavement is of great importance; therefore, many of these
application methods can be effectively utilized.
Additionally, when geosynthetics are used in reinforce-
ment applications, some of these alternate applications
incidentally come into play. Using bituminous impregnated
non-woven geotextiles as an interlayer will create added
benefit as a moisture barrier. Using sub-pavement reinfor-
cement can create a separation effect between fine subgrade
and aggregate bases, which adds to the effectiveness.
The separation function of geosynthetics in pavement
engineering is probably the most beneficial, aside from
reinforcement. A second geosynthetic layer included as
sub-pavement reinforcement at the subgrade sub-base
interface is possible, and could be recommended in
situations where very soft subgrade soils existed.
Capillary barriers were considered, but using geosyn-
thetics as capillary barriers are not practical. Perhaps
future research would yield a situation more favorable, but
common practitioners should direct resources elsewhere
for the time being.
Concluding remarks
For successful applications of geosynthetics in low-volume
asphalt roadway pavements, assessment of the suitability
of a project and selection of appropriate geosynthetic type
are most important. The ultimate strength of geosynthetics
used in pavement design is only of secondary importance.
Specifically, with respect to pavement reinforcement, the
major areas for consideration are, whether geosynthetics
are effective improvers of pavement, where the optimal
locations are (for placing geosynthetics), and what proper-
ties of geosynthetics govern their performance.
When considering geogrids as a reinforcement material,
a possible contributor to the interaction of geogrids with
VOL 7 NO 4

soil is geogrid aperture properties. Some agree that the
overall geogrid strength is of less importance, but also say
aperture stability is very influential. Opening size could be
(and has been) evaluated for given materials when
considering the interaction. However, others believe that
the aperture stability is not relevant to the geogrid
performance in reinforced roads. It can reasonably be
said that with today’s understanding, it is difficult to make
definitive conclusions concerning the aperture properties
that affect pavement performance; however, the mere
presence of apertures in geogrids have been found to
enhance pavement strength.
A section in this paper was devoted to the issues with
studies of geosynthetics inclusion in flexible pavements. An
important remark is that a design engineer must carefully
interpret any test results or measured data. Most of the results
coming out of research communities are of great value, even
though pavement testing is very difficult to quantify.
However, anyone in the field must continue to make good
judgments based on experience, local conditions, in addition
to practices recommended in technical documents.
Although the benefits to utilizing geosynthetics in low-
volume asphalt roadways are apparent in almost all cases,
the technology is relatively new and prospective needs
have to be always applied. New knowledge will certainly
come to light in the years to come, and past engineering
experience is invaluable. Since roadway projects are
dependent on sub-soil, environmental conditions, traffic
loading, and other unpredictable or unquantifiable fac-
tors, the application of geosynthetics will always need to
be evaluated judiciously.
References
Abu-Farsakh, M. Y. and Chen, Q. 2011. Evaluation of geogrid base
reinforcement in flexible pavement using cyclic plate load testing.
Int. J. Pavement Eng., 12, (3), 275–288.
Al-Qadi, I. L., Dessouky, S., Tutumluer, E. and Kwon, J. 2011. Geogrid
mechanism in low-volume flexible pavements: accelerated testing of
full-scale heavily instrumented pavement sections. Int. J. Pavement
Eng., 12, (2), 121–135.
Barazone, M. 2010. The definitive guide to paving synthetics and
installation. http://www.pavingfabric.com (5th Feb., 2012).
Black, P. J. and Holtz, R. D. 1999. Performance of geotextile separators
five years after installation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 21, (5),
404–412.
Button, J. W. and Lytton, R. L. 2003. Guidelines for using geosynthetics
with HMA overlays to reduce reflective cracking, 1–40; College
Station, TX, Information and Technology Center, Texas
Transportation Institute.
Cleveland, G. S., Button, J. W. and Lytton, R. L. 2002. Geosynthetics in
Flexible and Rigid Pavement Overlay Systems to Reduce Reflection
Cracking, 1–283; College Station TX, Texas Transportation Institute.
Correia, N. D. S. and Bueno, B. D. S. 2011. Effect of bituminous
impregnation on nonwoven geotextiles tensile and permeability
preperties. Geotextiles Geomembr., 2, (2), 92–101.
Duskov, M. 1997. Measurements on a flexible pavement structure with an
EPS geofoam sub-base. Geotextiles Geomembr., 15, (1), 5–27.
Giroud, J. P. and Han, J. 2012. The Giroud-Han design method for
geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads. Geosynthetics, Vol. 30, Issue
1, pp. 40–49.
Gurung, N. 2003. A laboratory study on the tensile response of unbound
granular base road pavement model using geosynthetics. Geotextiles
Geomembr., 21, (1), 59–68.
Hawkins, W. M. 2012. Geotextiles in unpaved roads: a 35-Year case
history. http://www.typargeotextiles.com/PDFs.TG-35yrcasehistory.
pdf (5th Feb., 2012).
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Flutcher and Wu Geosynthetics in low-volume asphalt roadway pavements
Henry, K. S. and Holtz, R. D. 2001. Geocomposite capillary barriers to
reduce frost heave in soils. Can. Geotech. J., 38, (4), 678–694.
Holtz, R. D. 2004. Geosynthetics R&D – The ‘‘Early’’ Days (1960s to Circa
1985). www.geosynthetica.net/tech_docs/KoernerSympBobHoltz.pdf
(19th Feb., 2012).
Huang, Y. H. 1993. Pavement analysis and design, Englewood Cliff, New
Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
IGS, (International Geosynthetic Society). 2012. Various leaflets used
for general information. ‘‘Geosynthetics Classification’’, ‘‘Geosyn-
thetics Functions’’, ‘‘Geosythetics in Road Engineering’’, ‘‘Geos-
ynthetics in Unpaved Roads.’’ http://www.geosyntheticssociety.org/
Resources.aspx (21 Jan. 2012).
James, G. M. 2004. Geosynthetic Materials as Asphalt Reinforcement
Interlayers: The Southern African Experience. Proc. 8th Conference
on ‘Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa’, Sun City, South
Africa, 1–13, Kaytech Engineered Fabircs, Pinetown.
Jung, S. H. 2006. The effects of asphalt binder oxidation on hot mix
asphalt concrete mixture rheology and fatigue performance,
Doctoral Dissertation Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies
of Texas A&M University, 1–172.
Kamel, M. A., Chandra, S. and Kumar, P. 2004. Behaviour of subgrade
soil reinforced with geogrid. Int. J. Pavement Eng., 5, (4), 201–209.
Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, K. 2007. Influence of geosynthetic reinfor-
cement on the load-settlement characteristics of two-layer subgrade.
Geotextiles Geomembr., 25, (6), 366–376.
Khodaii, A., Fallah, S. and Nejad, F. M. 2009. Effects of geosynthetics on
reduction of reflection cracking in asphalt overlays. Geotextiles
Geomembr., 27, (1), 1–8.
Meccai, K. and Hasan, E. A. 2004. Geotextiles in transportation
applications. Proc. 2nd Gulf Conference on ‘Roads’, 1–13; Abu
Dhabi, UAE.
Muench, S. (2006). http://pavementinteractive.org/ (22 Jan., 2012).
Murty, A. V. S. R., Mathur, S., Chandra, D. and Rao, K. N. 1994.
Selection of geotextile filters wrapped around pipes in pavement
edge drains. Geotextiles Geomembr., 13, (8), 519–529.
Raymond, G. and Ismail, I. 2003. The effect of geogrid reinforcement on
unbound aggregates. Geotextiles Geomembr., 21, (6), 355–380.
Shukla, S. K. 2002 (ed.). Geosynthetics and their applications. London,
Thomas Telford Ltd
Shukla, S. K. and Yin, J. H. 2004. Functions and installation of paving
geosynthetics, GeoAsia 2004, Seoul Korea., 314–321. http://
www.geosynthetica.net/tech_docs/GeoAsia04Shukla.pdf (21 Jan.,
2012).
Tang, X., Chehab, G. R. and Palomino, A. 2008. Evaluation of geogrids
for stabilizing weak pavement subgrade. Int. J. Pavement Eng., 9,
(6), 413–429.
United States National Research Council, Transportation Research Board
1988. Effects of geosynthetics on soil properties and of environment
on pavement systems. Transportation Research Record 1188, 1–73;
Washington, DC, Transportation Research Board.
United States National Research Council. Transportation Research
Board. 1989. Geosynthetics, Geomembranes, and Silt Curtains in
Transportation Facilities. Transportation Research Record 1248, 1–
56; Washington, DC, Transportation Research Board.
United States National Research Council. Transportation Research
Board. 1989. Potential Benefits of Geosynthetics in Flexible
Pavement Systems. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 315, 1–62; Washington, DC, Transportation
Research Board.
United States National Research Council. Transportation Research Board.
1991. Geocomposite Pavement Drain Systems. Transportation
Research Record 1329, 1–61; Washington, DC, Transportation
Research Board.
Virgili, A., Canestrari, F., Grilli, A. and Santagata, F. A. 2009. Repeated
load test on bituminous systems reinforced by geosynthetics.
Geotextiles Geomembr., 27, (3), 187–195.
Zamora-Barraza, D., Calzada-Perez, M. A., Castro-Fresno, D. and Vega-
Zamanillo, A. 2011. Evaluation of anti-reflective cracking systems
using geosynthetics in the interlayer zone. Geotextiles Geomembr.,
29, (2), 130–136.
Zornberg, J. G. and Gupta, R. 2010. Geosynthetics in Pavements: North
American Contributions, 9th International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Brazil, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX,
379–398.
2013 VOL 7 NO 4 423