This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]

On: 28 December 2014, At: 15:20

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Pavement Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Rutting performance evaluation of asphalt mix with

different types of geosynthetics using MMLS3
a b c
Jusang Lee , Y. Richard Kim & Jaejun Lee
a
Division of Research and Development, Indiana Department of Transportation, P.O. Box
2279, 1205 Montgomery Street, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA
b
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Campus Box 7908,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju-City, Jeonbuk,
Republic of Korea
Published online: 29 Oct 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Jusang Lee, Y. Richard Kim & Jaejun Lee (2014): Rutting performance evaluation of asphalt
mix with different types of geosynthetics using MMLS3, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2014.972916

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.972916

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.972916

Rutting performance evaluation of asphalt mix with different types of geosynthetics

using MMLS3
Jusang Leea*, Y. Richard Kimb1 and Jaejun Leec2
a
Division of Research and Development, Indiana Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 2279, 1205 Montgomery Street, West
Lafayette, IN 47906, USA; bDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Campus Box 7908, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, USA; cDepartment of Civil Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju-City, Jeonbuk,
Republic of Korea
(Received 30 July 2013; accepted 16 July 2014)

This paper presents an evaluation of the rutting performance of geosynthetics in asphalt pavements. The rutting performance
of both a fibreglass geogrid and a sheet reinforcement material were evaluated using the third-scale model mobile loading
simulator (MMLS3). The surface profile of each type of reinforced slab (and a control slab) was monitored and compared.
To investigate movement of the mixtures caused by MMLS3 loading as well as the interfaces of the reinforcements in the
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014

asphalt slabs, trench cuts were made once the MMLS3 rutting tests were complete. The results demonstrated that
reinforcement can reduce downward ruts and that different types of reinforcement exhibited different shear flow behaviour.
The geogrid-reinforced slabs showed the shallowest ruts and the most shear flow resistance due to the tension resistance of
the geogrid. They exhibited confinement and increased friction due to the aggregate particles that were locked in the geogrid
openings. The sheet-reinforced slabs exhibited the highest shear flow humps due to the lack of interlocking and bonding
strength at the rutting test temperature. In addition, the geogrid openings, which were supposed to provide interlocking and
anchoring, in fact generated a relatively high volume of voids at the interface between lifts. Further research is needed to
evaluate the effects of high air voids at the lift interface on pavement performance.
Keywords: fibreglass geogrid; fibreglass sheet; geosynthetic; accelerated pavement testing; third-scale model mobile
loading simulator; rutting

Introduction strength and the strand thickness. Bonding of the

With the availability of many types of geosynthetic
reinforcement products on the market and a wide variety
of design conditions, the reinforcement of asphalt
pavement has become a feasible alternative to current
paving practices that do not incorporate such products.
In general, the intended functions of reinforcement are to
reduce cracking and rutting in order to extend the life of a
pavement and/or to decrease the asphalt layer thickness.
The use of geogrids to reinforce asphalt pavements can
result in reduced surface rutting by a factor of two or more
and can increase the fatigue life up to four or five times
(Hozayen et al. 1993).
Different types of reinforcement have different
reinforcing mechanisms. Geogrid and sheet types of
reinforcement are governed primarily by confinement/
interlocking and bonding mechanisms, respectively. The
confinement/interlocking mechanism originates from
resistance created between the mesh openings and the
aggregate of the asphalt mixture. This mechanism is
affected mainly by the size of the geogrid openings with
respect to the maximum aggregate size, the ratio of the
strand area to the total area of the geogrid, the strand
reinforced layer is generated by the adhesion between
the surface of the reinforcement and the asphalt cement of
the mixture or in the tack coat (Hozayen et al. 1993).
Geosynthetics have been used successfully in new
pavements and in reconstruction in order to improve the
condition of the subgrade (Ling and Mohri 2001). In terms
of rehabilitation and maintenance, mainly including
structural or functional asphalt overlays, the general
purpose of the geosynthetic application is to retard
reflective cracks from moving from an existing or milled
surface to a new asphalt overlay. For such an application,
the geosynthetic reinforcement is located at an interface
between the existing layer and the asphalt overlay. Many
literatures have supported the geosynthetic effectiveness
and mechanism for retarding cracks. However, the new
American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials (AASHTO) Design Guide has not
considered the use of geosynthetics in pavement structural
designs without local calibration (2008).
In addition to cracking, rutting and shear flowing
(hump) are other major distresses found in asphalt
pavements. Most of literatures for the rutting performance

*Corresponding author. Email: jlee@indot.in.gov

q 2014 Taylor & Francis
 2 J. Lee et al.
with the geosynthetics are related to unbound materials in
pavements. There is little information for the asphalt rutting
performance and no information for the asphalt shear flow
performance with the geosynthetics. Chang et al. (1998)
evaluated the rutting performance using a hydraulic load on
geogrid-reinforced asphalt beams on a rubber plate at 228C
and found that the rutting of the geogrid-reinforced beams
was greater than that of an unreinforced beam. Virgili et al.
(2009) proposed the rutting performance model for
geogrids based on the flexural behaviour of bilayer
bituminous systems and tested the model by means of a
four-point bending test under repeated load cycles at 20 and
608C. Khodaii et al. assessed the effects of geogrid
inclusion using a hydraulic dynamic loading on an asphalt
pavement overlaid on top of a crack in a concrete or asphalt
pavement at 208C. The study found a significant reduction
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014
in the rutting in reinforced samples compared to
unreinforced samples (Khodaii et al. 2009).
It is well known that critical temperature and stress
conditions for the asphalt rutting and shear flowing are
present near the pavement surface. Thus, understanding
the effects of geosynthetics on the performance of overlay
under wheel loads is imperative to assist in the selection of
appropriate geosynthetic types and in the design of a
geosynthetic-reinforced asphalt overlay.
The primary objective of this research was to evaluate
the rutting and shearing performance of the geogrid and
sheet materials used to reinforce asphalt overlays using a
one-third scale accelerated pavement testing. A rutting test
protocol developed at North Carolina State University was
utilised (Lee 2004). The interface mechanisms of the
reinforcements were investigated by observing digital
images obtained from trench cuts.
Materials and slab construction
Materials
An S9.5B mix obtained from Carolina Sunrock in Apex,
North Carolina was reheated to fabricate the asphalt test
slabs. It should be noted that even though this study
comparatively evaluated the geosynthetic effects on the
single mix source, there is an effect of the reheating
process possibly causing the mix to have greater modulus
and rutting resistance (Al-Qadi et al. 2012). This mix is
Table 1. Coefficients of dynamic modulus master curve.
Parameters of the binder
viscosity temperature Shift function
relationship coefficients
A VTS c d
10.55788 2 3.52561 1.30928
one of the most commonly used surface course mixes in
North Carolina for traffic , 3 million equivalent single
axle load and is composed of aggregate with a 9.5-mm
nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and perform-
ance grade (PG) 64-22 binder. The mix contained 5.7% of
binder content and 16.7% of VMA@Ndes. A dynamic
modulus of the mix was performed and its master curve
was developed in accordance with AASHTO R 62-13
(2014) as shown in Table 1. Cationic rapid setting-2 (CRS-
2) emulsion, one of the tack coat materials recommended
in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
standard specifications, was selected and obtained from
Asphalt Emulsion, Inc. in Dunn, North Carolina.
For the reinforcing materials in the asphalt overlays,
two geosynthetic products, a fibreglass geogrid and a
sheet, were employed. The geogrid was knit manufactured
and composed of fibreglass strands coated with an acrylic
polymer and self-adhesive glue. The sheet was a multi-ply
sheet reinforcement composed of asphalt, silica sand and
fibreglass resin. Their properties are summarised in
Table 2.
Asphalt slab construction
Figure 1 presents a schematic diagram of the laboratory-
fabricated slab used for accelerated testing with the
third-scale model mobile loading simulator (MMLS3).
In order to determine dimensions of an asphalt test slab,
trial MMLS3 tests and a stress analysis using a multilayer
elastic solution were performed in consideration of
preventing the boundary effects of the mould from
affecting the stress distribution in the slab. Stress influence
width and depth by a static MMLS3 load in the analysis
and by moving MMLS3 loads in the trial tests were
similarly observed to be approximately 400 and 80 mm,
respectively. The slab dimensions were determined to be
559 mm wide, 1473 mm long and 114 mm thick based on
the influence zone, test sample collections and MMLS3
test slab constructability. Each slab consisted of three lifts.
Lift thickness was determined to be 38.1 mm by a good
rule-of-thumb that the depth of the compacted lift should
be at least twice the maximum aggregate size and three
times the NMAS (The asphalt handbook 2007).
Typical functional asphalt overlay works are milling
25 mm of existing surface and overlaying on it with
Sigmoidal coefficients
a b g
3.71015 2.94808 2 1.69297 0.510854
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 3

Table 2. Properties of reinforcement.

Property Geogrid Property Sheet

Tensile strength (MD XD) 115 115 KN/m Tensile strength (ASTM Standard D 412 2013) 68 KN/m
(ASTM Standard 6637 2011)
Elongation (ASTM Standard 6637 2011) 2.5% Elongation (ASTM Standard D 412 2013) 20%
Thickness 1.0 mm Thickness 2.0 mm
Grid aperture opening 25 mm
Notes: MD, machine direction tensile strength; XD, cross-machine direction tensile strength.

8.1
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014

MMLS3 Wheel

30.0

Reinforcement + Tack coat

Thermocouple

3.8

11.4 3.8

3.8

Tack coat
1.3 55.9

Figure 1. Cross-section of pavement structure (unit: cm, not to scale).

36.1 mm of new asphalt surface course (9.5 mm NMAS).
Accordingly, the geosynthetics were installed between the
top two lifts as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2 presents the procedures for the asphalt slab
construction and reinforcement installation. The asphalt
slabs were constructed and tested directly on a steel plate.
The amount of loose mixture using 2.534 of theoretical
maximum specific gravity and 2.357 of bulk specific
gravity for 7% of air voids was calculated to be 73.93 kg
for filling a mould which is 559 mm wide, 1473 mm long
and 38.1 mm thick. The asphalt mix was heated to 1458C
in an oven, placed in the 15 divided areas of the mould and
raked to level the mixture. A steel drum MMLS3 roller
was used for the mix compaction. Eight static roller passes
set at a lowered level and two passes with vibrating
compaction were applied in order to make an even surface
level between the compacted asphalt and the mould
top. For the second lift, the compacted asphalt was cured
for about 24 h, and 0.22 l/m2 of CRS-2 emulsion, heated to
708C, was sprayed on the first lift using a hand gun sprayer.
For the control slab (without reinforcement), the top lift
was constructed using the same compaction procedure
used for the second lift. For the reinforced slabs, either the
geogrid or the sheet was installed between the top and
second lifts in each slab and adhered with adhesive on the
bottom of each slab type. Then, the CRS-2 tack coat was
applied on top of the second lift. To monitor the
temperature of the slabs, four thermocouples were
 4 J. Lee et al.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014
Figure 2. MMLS3 rutting test: (a) installation of geogrid; (b) installation of sheet; (c) slab in MMLS3 chamber; (d) top view of slab after
MMLS3 rutting test; (e) MMLS3; and (f) MMLS3 test set-up.
installed at each interface, from the steel base to the top
lift, as shown in Figure 2.
MMLS3 test procedure
The MMLS3 is a scaled-down accelerated pavement-
testing device that has been used successfully to evaluate
the performance of various asphalt pavements. It is a third-
scale unidirectional vehicle load simulator that uses a
continuous loop for trafficking, as shown in Figure 2(e).
It comprises four bogies with only one wheel per bogie.
These wheels are pneumatic tires that are 30 cm in
diameter, approximately one-third the diameter of a
standard truck tyre.
The wheels were circulated at a rate of 1.67 Hz, which
was equivalent to 5500 wheel applications per hour.
On the other hand, the dynamic loading frequency of
3.3 Hz, where one period consisted of loading of 0.3 s and
rest of 0.3 s, in action was measured by strain gauge
responses (Lee 2004). The mean value of the maximum
dynamic loads from the four wheels was approximately
3.57 kN. The contact area was approximately 30 cm2 from
the footprint of one MMLS3 wheel inflated to 700 kPa.
Previous study on the MMLS3 similitude showed that
differences of viscoelastic and dynamic inertia effects
between the MMLS3 and full-scale load conditions are
nearly negligible (Lee 2004). It is noteworthy that in order
to minimise the potential scale influence on a material
geometry, including the aggregate, the reinforcements and
the asphalt slabs, this study mainly performed comparison
tests of relative rutting developments for the different
reinforcement conditions.
PG design temperature using binder selection soft-
ware, LTPPBIND 3.1 was determined to be 52.98C at 50%
reliability at 38.1 mm depth of pavement from mean
average maximum air temperature for the hottest 7-day
period from longer than 20 years of weather station data at
Raleigh-Durham International Airport. Two testing
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
temperatures of 40 and 52.98C were selected to study their
rutting performance differences. However due to a limited
capacity of the MMLS3 chamber heater, target testing
temperature of 52.98C was reduced to 508C.
Five slabs were constructed and tested: two slabs with
and without the geogrid at 408C and three slabs with and
without the geogrid and the sheet at 508C. The test
temperature was controlled by using the temperature
measured from the interface between the top and middle
lifts. The transverse profiles were measured periodically at
five different locations (see Figure 2(c)), expressed by a
range of points from C0 to C4, from G0 to G4 or from P0
to P4 for the control, the geogrid and the sheet slabs,
respectively. The profilometer provided a comparison of
the initial measurements taken at the surface of the asphalt
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014
concrete layer with the measurements taken at intervals
during testing. In this study, a Mitutoyo profilometer with
RS-232C communication was used and consisted of a
measurement stand and a vertical reader unit. The stem of
the vertical reader slid freely in a slot to obtain the rut
depth reading. The transverse profile measurements were
taken every 10 mm with a tolerance of ^ 2 mm. The
loading histories and the profile measurement periods were
kept constant amongst the different slabs.
Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram of a typical cross-
section of an asphalt test slab after the rutting test. The
trafficked area is the wheel path area. The shear flow area
represents the area on either side of the rut, where humps
normally appear. Humps are created as the material is
displaced outwards from under the wheel load due to shear
flow of the material. The edge area is the area where no
vertical displacement is observed.
Figure 3. Schematic of cross-section of rutted asphalt slab (not to scale).
5
Two different rut depths were measured: the down-
ward rut depth was measured from the downward
displacement on the surface of the trafficked area, and
the total rut depth was measured from the top of the shear
flow hump to the bottom of the downward displacement.
The total rut depth provided a more realistic indication of
the pavements rideability than the downward rut depth.
At the end of the MMLS3 testing, cores 152 mm in
diameter were sampled from different areas: 10 samples
were taken from outside the shear flow area, 10 samples
were taken from the shear flow area and 5 samples were
taken from the trafficked area. The bulk-specific gravities
of these cores were measured using the Corelock vacuum
method in accordance with ASTM Standard D 6752
(2011).
To investigate the mechanisms of the reinforcements,
digital images were obtained from trench sections. After
the MMLS3 rutting tests, three trench cuts were made for
each slab as well as additional sample cuts for the air void
tests. An image scanner was used to maintain consistent
quality of the digital images.
Results and discussion
Air void distribution
After the MMLS3 testing was conducted, the air void
distribution was studied in order to evaluate slab-to-slab
variability. Fifteen samples were obtained from the top
lifts of the trafficked area, shear flow area and edge area at
the five transverse profile locations, as shown in Table 3.
The slabs were constructed with 7% target air voids. After
approximately 380,000 MMLS3 wheel loads at 508C, the
slabs average air void percentages at the edge areas where
 6 J. Lee et al.

Table 3. Air void distribution of slabs. not statistically different (P-value 0.588), indicating
relatively consistent slab construction quality.
Shear Shear
Edge flow Wheel flow Edge Table 3 clearly shows each mixtures densification
Location area area path area area with the reduction of air voids in the trafficked areas.
Slab ID (left) (left) area (right) (right) Another observation is the air void contents were lower in
the shear flow area than in the edge areas, except the air
Control C0 7.1 7.3 3.7 6.2 6.1
C1 7.6 6.6 3.3 6.8 7.7 voids in the case of the sheet slab. In order to confirm the
C2 6.9 6.6 3.2 6.9 8.4 observation, air void differences of the shear flow area
C3 5.9 5.6 3.1 7.5 8.1 from the edge area were calculated. Averages and ranges
C4 7.1 6.6 3.0 7.0 7.5 of the differences were plotted in Figure 4. P-value
Geogrid G0 8.0 7.8 3.9 7.3 8.2 (, 0.05) confirms that the air void difference of the sheet
G1 8.4 7.6 3.6 7.2 7.7
G2 7.2 6.8 3.6 6.3 6.4 slob is significantly different from the other slabs. The
G3 7.5 7.6 4.7 7.2 7.0 increased air void content in the shear flow area of the
G4 7.8 7.5 4.5 6.7 7.0 sheet slab may be explained by the tall humps in the shear
Sheet P0 7.4 8.2 4.0 7.8 6.5 flow area. Too much shear flow over the sheet slab and the
P1 7.5 8.9 3.7 8.5 7.1 resulting disturbance of the material may have caused
P2 6.9 7.9 3.7 7.7 7.1
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014

P3 6.9 8.0 4.3 8.1 7.0 micro- and macro-cracking, which would increase the air
P4 7.6 8.0 4.3 8.4 8.6 void content.

wheel loads were not applied were 7.2%, 7.5% and 7.3% Effect of reinforcements on rutting performance at 408C
for the control, geogrid and sheet slabs, respectively. The downward rut performance of both the control and the
These air voids at the edge areas among three slabs were geogrid slabs was evaluated at 408C. Figure 5 presents the

Figure 4. Air void differences of the shear flow area from the edge area.

Figure 5. Comparison of rut depth growth at 408C.

 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 7

average downward rut depths of the five locations.
In general, slightly more severe rutting was observed in the
control slab than in the geogrid slab, although the
variability among the measurements made the difference
statistically insignificant (P-value 0.067).
The rutting with respect to the depth of the slabs tested
at 408C was investigated from the trench cut sections of the
slabs as shown in Figure 6. There was no clear
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014
demarcation of the interface between the lifts on the cut
section of the control slab. However, the geogrid slab
showed visible interface at the geogrid location, and a
geogrid interface deformation was minimal.
Thus, the top layer above the reinforcement mainly
contributed to the rutting measured on the geogrid slab
surface. Accordingly, the testing conditions including the
408C test temperature and the 38-mm top lift thickness

Figure 6. Section views of slab tested at 408C: (a) control slab and (b) geogrid slab.

Figure 7. Comparison of average rut depth growth at 508C: (a) downward rut depth and (b) total rut depth.
 8 J. Lee et al.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014

Figure 8. Comparison of transverse profiles of slabs at 380K MMLS3 loads at location 3 (not to scale).

simulating the typical thickness and the geogrid location Effect of reinforcements on rutting performance at 508C
resulted in a rutting influence depth that was too shallow to Figure 7(a) presents the average downward rut depths of
reach the reinforcement. In other words, the depth of the the five locations on the slabs in terms of MMLS3 loads.
geogrid cannot fully activate the stresses and strains and The geogrid slab and the control slab showed the best and
hence its true function. Therefore, the effectiveness of the the worst performance for the downward rutting,
grid on rutting performance could not be properly respectively. However, the downward rutting performance
evaluated at 408C. between the geogrid slab and the sheet slab was not
significantly different (P-value 0.071). In the total rut
depth performance as shown in Figure 7(b), the geogrid
Table 4. Effectiveness of reinforcements at 508C.
slab showed the best performance and the others
Control Grid Sheet performed similarly (P-value 0.536). Figure 8 indicates
the typical transverse profile of rutting on the slabs at
Downward rut ratio 1.00 0.74 0.85
Total rut depth ratio 1.00 0.75 0.97 380,000 MMLS3 loads. The geogrid slab presented the
shallowest depression in the wheel path area and the

MMLS3 wheel

Shear flow with

Shear flow without
reinforcement
reinforcement

Reinforcement

Figure 9. Diagram of shear flows for reinforcements.

 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 9

Table 5. Comparison of shear flow and rut areas. rutting but higher humps than seen in the control slab.
These findings caused a significant reduction in downward
Control Grid Sheet
rut depth (15% reduction) with the use of the sheet
Shear Shear Shear reinforcement, but an insignificant reduction in the total
flow Rut flow Rut flow Rut rut depth (3% reduction). In conclusion, a comparison of
area area area area area area the data presented in Figure 8 and Table 4 clearly
(mm2) (mm2) (mm2) (mm2) (mm2) (mm2)
demonstrated the beneficial effect of the geogrid
Average 458 1021 252 792 544 810 reinforcement in reducing the rut depth, regardless of the
Ratio 0.45 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.67 1.00 method used for taking the rut depth measurements such as
downward rut depth versus total rut depth.
These observations can be explained by the different
shortest humps. The control slab and the sheet slab mechanisms that were integral to the geogrid and sheet
performed the deepest depression and the tallest humps, reinforcement methods. The rutting of asphalt is caused by
volume densification and shear flow. A major cause of
respectively.
rutting is the shear flow of the material under the load,
The effectiveness of the reinforcements is summarised
which in turn causes humps on either side of the rut. With
in Table 4, using the ratio of control to reinforcement in
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014

the sheet slab, the downward rutting is reduced by the

terms of rut depth at approximately 380K MMLS3 loads.
The geogrid reinforcement not only reduced the downward
rutting (26% reduction), but also reduced the height of the
humps in the shear flow area and, therefore, the total
downward rut depth (25% reduction). In contrast, the
transverse profile of the sheet slab showed less downward
reinforcements tension resistance. In this case, the sheet
completely separates the top and middle lifts and relies
only on the bonding mechanism between the surface of the
sheet and the asphalt cement of the mixture to prevent
shear flow. However, at a rutting test temperature of 508C,
a reinforcement sheets bond may not be sufficient to resist

Figure 10. Cross-sections of control slab after MMLS3 loading.

 10
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014
High air voids at the interface
Figure 11. Cross-sections of geogrid slab after MMLS3 loading.
the shear flow. Thus, the weak resistance to horizontal
movement allows greater shear flow in the sheet slab than
in the geogrid slab.
The shear flow of sheet slab caused relatively narrow
but tall humps compared to the ones observed in the
control slab because the shear flow zone was shallow due
to the confinement provided by the sheet. This
confinement effect is depicted in Figure 9. The sheet
reinforcement between the top and middle lifts blocked the
shear flow, reduced the size of the shear influence zone and
reduced the amount of material available for shear flow.
Because the geogrid location versus the sheet location was
the same, the widths of their humps were also about the
same, as seen in Figure 8.
In the geogrid slab, the vertical support from the
tension resistance of the geogrid reduced the rutting
somewhat, although this benefit may not be as great as in
the case of the sheet reinforcement due to the openings in
the geogrid. However, in the geogrid slab, the asphalt
material was accommodated inside the grid openings
during the materials densification, and anchor resistance
could then develop. The anchors served to confine the
aggregate particles within the openings, and the rough
interface that was created between the aggregate particles
J. Lee et al.
Dense condition at the interface
locked them inside the openings. Then, the aggregate
particles that sheared off provided resistance to the shear
flow of the material. These beneficial mechanisms resulted
in less downward rutting, smaller humps in the shear flow
area and less total rutting, as seen in Figure 8.
Shear flow resistance was evaluated using the ratio of
rut area to shear flow area that was obtained from the
transverse profiles (see Figure 3). As indicated in Table 5,
the geogrid slab had the smallest rut area, the smallest
shear flow area and the smallest shear flow area ratio of the
three slab types. These observations indicated that the
geogrid slab also exhibited the most shear flow resistance
of the three slabs. It is noteworthy that the sheet slab had a
smaller rut area than the control slab, but a greater shear
flow area than the control slab. A concern with this
observation is that tall humps can cause more safety
hazards, even though with its relatively small downward
rut depth. The tall hump problem of the sheet slab can be
solved by installing the sheet at greater depths. However,
this solution may negate the benefit of using the sheet
reinforcement because a thick overlay is needed on the
sheet and more downward rutting can occur at shallower
depths.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014
Figure 12. Cross-sections of sheet slab after MMLS3 loading.
Interface observations
To evaluate the interfaces of each slab tested at 508C, their
cross-sections were observed using trench cuts. A clear
demarcation of the interface between the lifts in the control
slab (Figure 10) was not evident, which indicates that a
proper aggregate particle interlock was formed during the
compaction and the MMLS3 test. The shear flow hump is
not clearly visible in Figure 10 due to its relatively wide
shear flow area compared to the low hump height (around
2.0 mm).
Figure 11 shows the cross-section of the geogrid slab
with the longitudinal rib locations indicated by arrows.
Because some ribs were invisible, the arrows were placed
based on the spacing between adjacent apertures (25 mm)
and visible rib locations. The wheel load area had a dense
interface condition. This observation confirms the
existence of an anchor effect using the geogrid. However,
loose lift connections on the non-wheel path area were
observed, indicating that the MMLS3 compaction method,
which yielded continuous lift connections with the control
slab, could form relatively large voids at the interfaces of
the geogrid. Further research is needed to assess the effects
11
of these voids on pavement performance, which may
include cracking, delamination and damage due to water
infiltration. In addition, the trench cut of the geogrid slab in
Figure 11 does not show the clear shear flow hump
because of its relatively low height (around 1.3 mm).
As shown in Figure 12, the sheet interface completely
separates the asphalt materials and does not allow any
interlock between aggregate particles. However, the sheet
slab has a denser interface than the geogrid in the non-
wheel path area. The hump in Figure 12 is noticeable
because the sheet slab has the narrowest and highest hump
(around 3.0 mm) as shown in Figure 8.
Conclusions
This study evaluated rutting in asphalt pavements using
the MMLS3 to test a control slab (without reinforcements),
a geogrid-reinforced slab and a sheet-reinforced slab. The
following conclusions were drawn based on the limited
experimental work presented in this paper.
. The results from the reinforced slabs not only
confirmed that reinforcement reduces downward rut
 12 J. Lee et al.
depths, but also showed that different types of
reinforcement exhibit different types of shear flow
behaviour.
. The geogrid-reinforced slab exhibited the shallow-
est rut depth and the greatest shear flow resistance of
the three slab types, possibly due to the tension
resistance of the geogrid, and it also exhibited
confinement and increased friction due to the
aggregate particles that were locked in the grid
openings.
. The sheet-reinforced slab reduced the downward
rutting, but produced the highest shear flow humps
of the three slabs and a total rut depth similar to that
of the control slab. The tension resistance of the
sheet-reinforced slab could be the major factor in
reducing downward rutting; however, the bond
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 15:20 28 December 2014
between the asphalt and the sheet may not be strong
enough to reduce the shear flow at the rutting test
temperature of 508C used in this study.
. The grid openings that were supposed to provide
interlocking and anchoring effects actually gener-
ated relatively high air void percentages at the
interface between the lifts. Further research is
needed to assess the effects of these interface air
voids on pavement performance.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the financial support provided by Saint-
Gobain ADFORS.
Notes
1. Email: kim@ncsu.edu
2. Email: lee2012@jbnu.ac.kr
References
Al-Qadi, I., et al., 2012. Short-term performance of modified
stone matrix asphalt produced with warm mix additives.
Illinois Center for Transportation. Available from: https://
www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/45813
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), 2008. Mechanistic-empirical pave-
ment design guide a manual of practice (Interim Edition).
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO R 62-13, 2014. Standard practice for developing
dynamic modulus master curves for asphalt mixtures. In: The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials standard specifications for transportation materials
and methods of sampling and testing. 34th ed. Washington,
DC: AASHTO, R621 R628.
ASTM D6637-11, 2011. Standard test method for determining
tensile properties of geogrids by the single or multi-rib
tensile method. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Inter-
national. Available from: www.astm.org
ASTM D412-06a, 2013. Standard test methods for vulcanized
rubber and thermoplastic elastomers tension. West Con-
shohocken, PA: ASTM International. Available from: www.
astm.org
ASTM D6752 / D6752M-11, 2011. Standard test method for bulk
specific gravity and density of compacted bituminous
mixtures using automatic vacuum sealing method. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. Available from:
www.astm.org
Chang, D.T., et al., 1998. Effect of geogrid in enhancing the
resistance of asphalt concrete to reflection cracks. In: ASTM
STP 1348, P.S. Kandhal and M. Stroup-Gardiner, eds.
Flexible pavement rehabilitation and maintenance. West
Conshohocken, PA: American Society of Testing and
Materials, 39 52.
Hozayen, H., et al., 1993. Analytical and experimental
investigations of operating mechanisms in reinforced asphalt
pavement. Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1388, 80 87.
Khodaii, A., Fallah, S., and Nejad, F.M., 2009. Effects of
Geosynthetics on reduction of reflection cracking in asphalt
overlays. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, 1 8.
Lee, S., 2004. Long-term performance assessment of asphalt
concrete pavements using the third-scale model mobile loading
simulator and fiber-reinforced asphalt concrete. Ph.D.
Dissertation. North Carolina State University.
Ling, H.I. and Mohri, Y., 2001. Performance of geosynthetic
reinforced asphalt pavements. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 127 (2), 177 184.
The Asphalt Handbook, Asphalt Institute Manual Series No. 4
(MS-4), 2007. 7th ed. Lexington, Kentucky: Asphalt
Institute.
Virgili, A., et al., 2009. Repeated load test on bituminous systems
reinforced by geosynthetics. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 27, 187 195.