Effect of geocomposite reinforcement on the performance of thin asphalt

pavements: Accelerated pavement testing and laboratory análisis

Julian Pedraza, Jordin Barrera, Juan Mancilla

Description of the test section

unreinforced reference, with a sticky-layer interface.
Each test fi The field, 8 m long and 3 m wide, was divided into two sections to study
performance in terms of fatigue cracking and effective cracking, called FC and RC,
respectively. The existing pavement consisted of 9 cm of asphalt concrete and a 30 cm thick
granular subbase layer. For the construction of the test section, 6 cm of asphalt concrete was
milled. In each CR section, the milled surface was then cut with a 20 cm square mesh to
simulate a pre-existing crack network.
materials
12.5 mm and bitumen content of 4.4% by weight added. Three geocomposites were used as
reinforcement. R1 and R2 were 2.5 mm thick and were made from a styrene-butadiene-
styrene polymer modified bitumen. The lower surface featured a fi lm self-adhesive, while
the upper surface was a polypropylene non-woven fabric. According to the product data
sheet, the upper side was characterized by a melting temperature of approximately 130 140
C. The main difference between R1 and R2 was the type of geosynthetic within the
geomembrane. In fact, R1 was reinforced with a continuous stabilized fi berglass fabric,
characterized by a nominal tensile strength of 40 kN / m, while R2 was reinforced with a
non-woven and multidirectional polyester fabric berglass, characterized by a nominal
resistance tensile strength of 35 kN / m.
Testing program and procedures
The test program was divided into two parts. In the first part, the on-site investigation of the
large-scale trial fi The field was carried out by APT tests, performed using a FastFWD device,
developed by Dynatest in 2015 in order to accelerate the experimental procedures by means
of a loading rate 5 to 7.5 times faster than traditional FWD device. The FastFWD was
scammed fi measured with a 30 cm diameter load plate and nine geophones positioned at 0,
20, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 cm from the center of the load plate. For each field test,
two APT sessions were carried out in both the FC section and the RC section, as summarized
in Table 1. During the two APT sessions, the FastFWD device was removed at regular
intervals to take photographs of the tested area with a standard camera and a thermal camera,
with the aim of evaluating the evolution of the damage pattern. The fi final permanent set
was measured with a caliper at the end of APT session 2 to evaluate the furrow performance
of each test section.
Given that in the present test the thickness of the asphalt pavement was only composed of
only 8 cm of material, the high values are attributed to a plastic deformation of the unbonded
layers. The consideration is confirmed by the measured bulk density values, which have been
varying very little to obtain the permanent deformation values.
In general, the results show that geocomposites could improve resistance to permanent
deformation, with the knowledge that these same compounds affect the distribution of
vertical loads.
The mitigation coefficient can be considered taking into account the values of the APT results
under similar study conditions.
Bending behavior
The results of the three-point bending test usually express load terms, where the area under
the curve represents the crack initiation energy, while the area under the PAGS max curve
shows the crack propagation energy. It is easy to determine these contributions knowing the
geometry of the sample.
This study corresponds to previous research on compacted laboratory slabs, based on the
assumption of (supported by experimental observations
Given the results, it is mentioned that the tests can be applied to both reinforced and
unreinforced pavement, emphasizing the use of geocomposites, which in this case study
represents a considerable increase in crack propagation. For them, the study compares the
different stresses analyzed in order to determine which of these provides the best efficiency
in terms of delaying crack propagation.
In order to use an optimal mechanism that mitigates pavement fatigue, a large-scale test
section was built with four different types of interfaces: reinforced with geocomposites
formed by the combination of a bituminous membrane with a fabric or grid (R1, R2, R3) and
unreinforced (UN), however, it should be taken into account that specimens prepared in the
laboratory present a higher strength and a higher coefficient of performance, so the results of
resistance to shear in-situ will be lower to that observed in laboratory slabs.
Factors such as the propagation of cracks in the samples, reveal that the implementation of
the reinforcement in the pavement is what contributes the most to the failure pattern, since
unlike the unreinforced specimen, it presents sub-horizontal cracks parallel to the interface,
without However, these differences may be due to the fact that the in-situ samples were taken
directly from the pavement area, which were already affected by a certain degree of damage.
In addition, the IN-SITU shear resistance was lower than that observed in laboratory slabs,
probably due to the high melting temperature and / or a non-perfect IN-SITU compaction,
since low-quality compactions may imply a higher content. of air gaps for IN-SITU samples
compared to LAB samples.
In general, the results obtained in the tests indicate that, although the reinforcement cannot
provide greater rigidity to the pavement structure, it can achieve a considerable prolongation
in the useful life of thin asphalt pavements in terms of cracking, because they allow the delay
in the propagation of cracks in the upper layer.
On the other hand, it should be noted that all geocomposites improved the resistance to
permanent deformation of the pavement by reducing the deformation by vertical compression
in the upper part of the subgrade; this reduction was approximately 5% for R1 and 10% for
R2 and R3 compared to the unreinforced pavement.
One of the main characteristics of the implementation of these geocomposites in the
pavement is that they increase the energy necessary for the propagation of the crack from
three times (R1) to eight times (R2) compared to unreinforced pavement (R3 showed
intermediate performance.
As a general conclusion, it can be determined that geocomposites can extend the life of thin
asphalt pavements in terms of accumulation of permanent deformations and cracking.