Article

Shear-Torque Fatigue Performance of

Geogrid-Reinforced Asphalt Interlayers
Davide Ragni 1,*, Francesco Canestrari 1, Fatima Allou 2, Christophe Petit 2 and Anne Millien 2
1 Department of Civil and Building Engineering and Architecture, Università Politecnica delle Marche,
via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy; [email protected]
2 Laboratoire GC2D, Université de Limoges, Bd J. Derche, 19300 Egletons, France;

[email protected] (F.A.); [email protected] (C.P.); [email protected] (A.M.)

* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 5 May 2020; Accepted: 25 May 2020; Published: 27 May 2020

Abstract: Interlayer reinforcement systems represent a valid solution to improve performance and
extend the service life of asphalt pavements, reducing maintenance costs. The main issue is that the
presence of reinforcement may hinder the full transmission of stresses between asphalt layers,
reducing the overall pavement bearing capacity. This study aimed at evaluating the mechanical
behavior of geogrid-reinforced asphalt interlayers under cyclic shear loading. To this purpose, a trial
section, characterized by three types of interface (reinforced with carbon fiber grid, reinforced with
glass fiber grid and unreinforced), was built. Cores were taken from the trial section to carry out shear-
torque fatigue tests. Static Leutner shear tests were also performed on cored specimens having the
same interface configuration. From data gathered in the present study, shear-torque fatigue tests have
proved to be a powerful tool for investigating reinforced specimens. Results clearly ranked the
investigated materials, showing that the glass fiber grid has the lowest shear fatigue performance in
comparison with the other two interfaces at 20 °C. However, the shear fatigue resistance of glass fiber
grid increases significantly at 10 °C. Finally, an interesting correlation was found between cyclic and
static shear test results that should be better investigated in future studies.

Keywords: maintenance; reinforced asphalt pavement; geogrid; interlayer bonding; static shear test;
cyclic shear test; fatigue properties

1. Introduction
In recent decades, highway agencies are facing a twofold problem. Pavement construction costs
are shooting up due to the scarcity of pavement materials along with strict environmental
regulations. The intensification of traffic and the increase in axle loads on road pavements are
generating premature failure processes and rapid loss of structural and functional pavement
characteristics. This degradation process is drastically accelerated by extreme weather conditions
connected to climate changes [1,2]. Therefore, the reduced budgets for pavement rehabilitation
coupled with the scarcity of raw materials are leading to the need for adopting maintenance strategies
as effective and durable as possible.
The conventional method for pavement rehabilitation is the construction of asphalt overlays
usually applied as partial replacement of existing cracked layers. As a consequence, asphalt overlay
represents a cost-effective method, but it is rarely durable because of the propagation of pre-existing
cracks from the lower old pavement (not replaced) to the upper new asphalt overlay. This mechanism
of distress is well-known as reflective cracking.
In recent years, maintenance and rehabilitation processes in the road networks are often
performed by inserting reinforcement systems within pavement layers. The idea of introducing

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381; doi:10.3390/su12114381 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 2 of 21

interlayer reinforcement systems in road pavements dates to the 1950s and 1960s, when first attempts
were carried out placing metal meshes between asphalt layers to improve pavement performance
and durability. The results of these initial experiences were not encouraging because the installation
system was too rudimentary, and the reinforcing material was not suitable for road pavement
applications [3]. The use of new technologies and materials, such as geosynthetics, has provided new
incentives for the use of interlayer reinforcement systems in pavement engineering. Contrarily to
asphalt overlays, geosynthetics are able to significantly increase the maintenance intervals of road
pavements, resulting in a cost-effective and long-lasting pavement rehabilitation method. Less
frequently, reinforcement systems can be also used for new pavement construction. The use of
geosynthetics also allows a reduction in the thickness of the old layers to be milled and of the new
asphalt layers to be built above the reinforcement, leading to a reduction in materials to be disposed
of, lower exploitation of raw materials, lower energy consumption (transport, laying and
compaction), lower damage and inconvenience to secondary roads. Moreover, certain types of
geosynthetics can be also milled and recycled [4]. Therefore, the pavement industry may benefit from
adopting these interlayer systems by constructing more sustainable infrastructures.
Geosynthetics can fulfil various functions as separation, filtration, reinforcement, stiffening and
drainage [5]. Several types of geosynthetics are available on the market produced by many
manufacturers worldwide and can be grouped into four categories: geotextile, geomembrane,
geogrid and geocomposite [4]. Among all, geogrids are the most used geosynthetics for reinforcement
applications where no waterproofing functions are required.
The primary ability of a pavement reinforced with geosynthetics is to distribute the applied load
to a wider area on top of the unbound layers, thus resulting in smaller strain–stress values, as shown
in Figure 1. However, the efficiency of the interlayer reinforcement system strongly depends on the
proper choice of the geosynthetics, correct installation, and characteristics of the asphalt concrete
layers.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Distribution of vertical stress: (a) unreinforced pavement; (b) reinforced pavement.

Before the reinforcement installation, the underlying layer must be devoid of structural defects
(e.g., rutting, depressions, etc.,) and tack coat can be applied to improve the bonding of the layers,
paying attention both to the application rate and curing time [6]. Regarding the reinforcement
installation, the reinforcement has to be perfectly laid, avoiding any possible corrugation, and must
remain flat during the laying of the upper layer [7–11]. It is good practice to follow the
recommendations of the manufacturers when installing the products, otherwise, the application of
reinforcements at the interface can be technically and economically ineffective or even harmful.
Although considerable studies have been conducted to investigate the behavior of reinforced
asphalt pavement, there are still many open issues to be investigated. Different studies performed
both in the laboratory and on real pavements showed that geosynthetics can extend the pavement
fatigue life and improve resistance to reflective cracking and rutting [12–21]. Therefore, the extra
endeavors and costs associated with the application of geosynthetics are justified by the longer
service life and lower lifecycle costs of the pavement.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 3 of 21

On the other hand, the presence of geosynthetics inevitably causes a significant reduction in the
shear resistance between asphalt layers, this phenomenon is known as the debonding effect [18,22–
28]. Since a good bonding between the pavement layers is essential to maintain the structural
integrity, the debonding effect considerably influences the pavement response in terms of the stress–
strain distribution, and, therefore, negatively impacts the pavement lifespan [9,20,29,30]. Graziani et
al. [31] built a reinforced asphalt pavement instrumented with pressure cells and strain gauges. In
this study, falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests along with a layered elastic theory (LET) model
analysis showed that certain geogrids cause a noticeable interface slip, and this could lead to an
increase in the tensile strain within the pavement due to the debonding effect. Therefore, if the shear
resistance excessively decreases due to the presence of the reinforcement, the overall pavement
performance would be negatively affected, and slippage could occur at the pavement surface due to
shear stresses produced by traffic loads.
In the laboratory, the interlayer bonding of double-layered reinforced specimens is typically
evaluated by measuring the interlayer shear strength (ISS or ) by means of static (i.e.,
monotonic) shear tests [32,33]. Nevertheless, road pavements are subjected to cyclic traffic loads with
magnitudes considerably lower than those that cause the interface failure during static shear tests. In
this sense, static (i.e., monotonic) shear tests can be used for quality assessment of the interlayer
bonding properties at failure, whereas the adoption of cyclic shear tests can offer a more complex
evaluation of interlayer bonding [34–37]. Moreover, cyclic shear test results can be used for modeling
or pavement design purposes. The first cyclic shear tests used to investigate the shear fatigue
performance of asphalt interlayers were conducted in the early 2000s [38–40]. So far, only a few
studies were addressed to characterize the reinforced asphalt systems under cyclic shear loading
[28,40–42] and, consequently, the shear fatigue behavior of reinforced asphalt pavement is not yet
fully understood. This lack of exhaustive scientific knowledge regarding the shear fatigue behavior
of reinforcements is also an obstacle for innovation and industrial practice.
Lastly, another crucial aspect that should be considered is that laboratory tests carried out on
reinforced specimens fabricated in the laboratory may lead to results that do not occur with in situ
cored specimens [18,43]. This may be due to the different compaction methods and reinforcement
installation techniques used in the laboratory and in situ. Consequently, the construction of full-scale
trial sections is more appropriate for evaluating the effect of reinforcement systems [44,45].

Objective and Scope

Given this background, this study focuses on the analysis of the interlayer bonding between
asphalt layers and reinforcements. The main goal of this study was to evaluate the behavior of
reinforcement systems and their effects on the interlayer mechanical properties under cyclic shear
loading at the interface. To accomplish the objective of this study, a full-scale trial section,
characterized by three types of interfaces (two reinforced with different geogrids and one
unreinforced for comparison purposes), was built. Shear-torque fatigue tests were performed on in
situ cored specimens to evaluate the fatigue performance of the reinforcement. Different fatigue
failure criteria were adopted to select the most appropriate fatigue approach in order to determine
the failure of each specimen. Besides, static (i.e., monotonic) direct shear tests were also performed
on the same cored specimens by using the Leutner device to search for a possible correlation between
cyclic and static shear tests in order to get useful insights for the future deepening of such an
interesting goal.

2. Experimental Program

2.1. Reinforcing Materials

Two different geosynthetics (coded as CF and FG) were used as reinforcements in this
experimental study. The CF geogrid (Figure 2a) was composed of carbon fiber rovings with a square
15 mm mesh pre-coated with bitumen in conjunction with a burn-off film applied on the underside,
characterized by a tensile strength of 200 kN/m (in both directions), whereas, the FG geogrid (Figure
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 4 of 21

2b) was composed of glass fiber yarns with a square 25 mm mesh in conjunction with a light polyester
knitted veil applied on the underside, characterized by a tensile strength of 100 kN/m (in both
directions). Besides, the CF geogrid was characterized by a lower tensile elongation at failure with
respect to the FG geogrid (1.75% in both directions for CF vs. 3% in both directions for FG).

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Detail of the installed geosynthetics: (a) CF carbon fiber geogrid; (b) FG glass fiber geogrid.

2.2. Trial Section and Specimen Preparation

A full-scale trial section (8 m long, 3 m wide, and 2 m deep) was built at the Laboratoire GC2D
of the University of Limoges (Egletons, France) in July 2017, in a pit installed in a building with the
possibility to control several conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity). The trial section was
characterized by different interfaces as follows:
• unreinforced with a tack coat interface used as a reference for comparison purposes (coded as
UN);
• tack coat and carbon fiber geogrid (coded as CF);
• tack coat and glass fiber geogrid (coded as FG).
The main construction activities of the pavement section are summarized below (Figure 3a–c):
• 20/40 gravel with a thickness of 20 cm on the bottom of the pit;
• subgrade course, having a thickness of 140 cm, prepared with decomposed granite;
• subbase course, having a thickness of 30 cm, prepared with untreated gravel GNT 2 (GNT stands
for “Grave Non-Traitée” in French) [46] of maximum diameter 31.5 mm;
• base course, having a thickness of 9 cm, prepared with asphalt concrete GB 3 0/14 (GB stands for
“Grave Bitume” in French) [47];
• accurate cleaning and preparation of the upper base course surface and application of the tack
coat (bituminous emulsion of pure bitumen) with a residual dosage of 0.5 kg/m2;
• application of the geogrids directly on the fresh emulsion right after spreading (except for the
unreinforced section);
• application of the tack coat with a residual dosage of 0.5 kg/m2 only above the FG geogrid;
• wearing course, having a thickness of 5 cm, with asphalt concrete BBSG 3 0/10 (BBSG stands for
“Béton Bitumineux Semi Grenu” in French) [47], once the tack coat emulsion was fully cured.
Figure 3d shows the cross-section of the full-scale trial section. More details regarding the trial
section are available in the references [48,49].
In May 2018, several cores with a nominal diameter of 100 and 150 mm and a thickness of
140 mm were extracted from the experimental pavement section (Figure 4). Each core was marked
by an identification code (ID) defining its location in the trial section; for example, UN_2 represents
the specimen number 2 taken from the unreinforced section (UN). In the laboratory, each core was
sawed in order to obtain a total thickness of 90 mm (both layers of 45 mm). The average bulk density
of the specimens, measured according to [50], was 2.23 g/cm3.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 5 of 21

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 3. Full-scale trial section: (a) installation of CF carbon fiber geogrid; (b) installation of FG glass
fiber geogrid; (c) completed trial section; (d) cross-section of the trial section.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a) Detail of the trial section after coring; (b) cored specimen.

2.3. Testing Methods

2.3.1. Shear-Torque Fatigue Test

Shear-torque fatigue test carried out in stress-controlled mode consists of measuring the
sinusoidal torsional rotation angle (α), when a sinusoidal torque (T) is applied along with a small
axial compression load (N) on a cylindrical asphalt concrete specimen through a servo-hydraulic
(MTS) device (Figure 5). The torsional rotation angle is measured with a magnetic non-contact
angular sensor (accuracy 0.001°), which is located on the upper steel plate (Figure 5). The load cell
measures the torque up to ±1 kNm and the axial load up to ±100 kN. During the test, small axial load
amplitude is applied to ensure a good alignment of the specimen and steel plates, to guarantee the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 6 of 21

homogeneity of the stress states in the specimen. The sinusoidal evolution with time of the two
measured values is defined by the following equations:
= sin (1)

= sin (2)
where is the amplitude of the applied torque, ω is the torque pulsation (ω = 2πf with f the load
frequency), t is the time, is the amplitude of the torsional rotation angle, and φ is the phase angle
related to the lag between stress and strain.
Considering complex notations, where j is the complex number defined by j2 = −1, the measured
values can be written as follows:
∗
= exp (3)

∗
= exp j (4)
The correspondence principle allows the application of known solutions for linear elastic
structures also for geometrically identical bodies made of linear viscoelastic materials. Therefore, for
cylindrical specimens, the applied torque (T) generates shear stress ( ) which varies linearly with the
radius of the specimen (R) (Figure 5). From cyclic torque tests, complex shear modulus ∗ of
materials can be calculated with the following equation:

∗
exp j ∗|
= = | exp j (5)
exp j
where H is the specimen height, | ∗ | is the norm (or absolute value) of the complex shear modulus,
and is the polar moment of inertia of the circular section.
The apparatus is placed in a climatic chamber to control the temperature during the test. Prior
to testing, the specimen is glued between two steel plates using an epoxy resin (Figure 5) and care
must be taken to avoid eccentricity of the specimen during gluing which could affect the test results.
More details of the shear-torque fatigue test can be found in the references [37,51,52].

Figure 5. Shear-torque fatigue test.

By analyzing fatigue test data, the choice of fatigue criterion has paramount importance for the
understanding of material behavior. The fatigue life value ( ) at a selected stress level is defined as
the number of cycles corresponding to the failure point calculated by adopting a given specific
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 7 of 21

criterion for the tested specimen. Different approaches for the prediction of fatigue life can be found
in the literature. Usually, the traditional approach defines failure as the point at which the decrease
in the material modulus reaches a certain value (Figure 6a). The most classical fatigue criterion ( =
) uses a threshold value of 50% of the initial modulus values [53]. As an alternative to the
traditional approach, Reese [54] suggested a new failure approach based on the evolution of the phase
angle (φ) considering the viscoelastic behavior of asphalt materials. During cyclic loading, the
measured phase angle of asphalt concrete generally shows a steady increase followed by a sudden
decrease (Figure 6b). The cycle corresponding to this sudden decrease is defined as the number of
cycles to failure ( = ). Compared to the traditional approach, this approach seems to have a
more theoretical underpinning, as the sudden reduction in the phase angle represents a viscoelastic
behavior modification of the material probably due to the formation of macro-cracks. However, the
real mechanism governing the phase angle evolution (e.g., nonlinear viscoelasticity, fatigue damage)
is not yet fully understood. Fatigue failure criterion that can accurately define the effective failure of
the double-layered asphalt concrete specimens during cyclic shear-torque tests has yet to be
developed. A recent study [51] adopted the acoustic emission (AE) technique to investigate the
fatigue behavior of asphalt interlayers in cyclic torque tests, highlighting that the damage evolution
phase occurs in the specimen when the norm of its complex shear modulus | ∗ | decreases by about
70% (Figure 6a). According to these results, the 70% decrease in the stiffness initial value can be used
as fatigue criterion ( = ) for this type of test.

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Determined failure point by different criteria: (a) material modulus approach; (b) phase
angle approach.

2.3.2. Leutner Test

The Leutner test [55], which is a static (i.e., monotonic) shear test compliant with prEN 12697-48
[56], consists of measuring the shear force when a constant shear displacement rate is applied across
the interface of a double-layered specimen, without applying a normal load perpendicular to the
interface. A specimen with a nominal diameter of 100 or 150 mm is clamped in the test equipment
between two shear rings, taking care to ensure that the specimen interface is correctly aligned with
the shear plane. The Leutner device is installed into a servo-mechanic press frame able to apply
displacement rates up to 50 mm/min. An external linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) is
used to measure the shear displacement of the specimen at the interface. The shear force and
displacement are recorded during the test. By plotting instant by instant the shear stress at the
interface ( ), calculated as the ratio between the shear force and the specimen cross-sectional area, as
a function of shear displacement, it is possible to determine the maximum shear stress (i.e., interlayer
shear strength ISS or ). Lower implies lower interlayer bonding.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 8 of 21

2.4. Testing Program

The experimental program consisted of evaluating the shear fatigue performance of reinforced
and unreinforced cylindrical specimens by performing shear-torque fatigue tests in stress-controlled
mode. Static Leutner tests were carried out in strain-controlled mode on the same specimens. A
summary of the testing program is reported in Table 1. Prior to testing, all specimens were
conditioned at the testing temperature in a climatic chamber for at least 4 h.

Table 1. Testing program.

Interface Diameter
Shear-Torque Fatigue Test Replicates (#) Static Leutner Test Replicates (#)
Type (mm)
20 °C; 10 Hz 10 °C; 10 Hz 20 °C; 50.8 mm/min 10 °C; 50.8 mm/min
100 5 - - -
UN
150 - - 3 3
CF 100 4 - - -
100 5 3 - -
FG
150 - - 3 3
Total 14 3 6 6

As shown in Table 1, shear-torque fatigue tests were carried out only on 100 mm nominal
diameter specimens applying a sinusoidal torque at the frequency of 10 Hz. In this study, an alternate
cyclic loading (signal centered at zero) was adopted to simulate the stress–strain state induced by a
moving wheel in a straight pavement section (without braking and acceleration conditions), whereas
the frequency of 10 Hz was chosen to simulate a traffic speed of roughly 80 km/h on a pavement at a
depth of 10–20 cm [57]. Shear-torque fatigue tests were conducted at a temperature of 20 °C for each
interface type as usually suggested for static shear tests [32]. For FG specimens, tests were also carried
out at 10 °C. A preliminary test was conducted on an unreinforced specimen (UN), considering two
different torque amplitudes ( = 20 and 40 Nm), to select the suitable loading range to apply during
this experimentation. Different torque amplitudes ( ) ranging from 20 to 80 Nm were chosen to
obtain a wide range of the number of cycles to failure ( ).
Static Leutner tests were carried out only on 150 mm nominal diameter specimens applying the
standard displacement rate of 50.8 mm/min. Tests were conducted at 10 and 20 °C on UN and FG
interface types. Three repetitions were performed for each test condition.
After each test, the specimen was visually inspected to determine the mode of shear failure:
break at the interface, break within the asphalt layer or mixed break (both at the interface and within
the asphalt layer).

3. Results

3.1. Shear-Torque Fatigue Test Results

3.1.1. Viscoelastic Properties

The relationship between the applied shear stress amplitude ( , ) and the corresponding
initial value of the norm of the complex shear modulus (| ∗ | ) is depicted in Figure 7. The equation
used for calculating the amplitude of the applied shear stress ( , ) is shown in the following:

2
, = (6)
π
The initial value | ∗ | is assumed as the norm of the complex shear modulus evaluated at the
50th cycle, because at this stage of the test, the double-layered specimen is not damaged yet and, at
the same time, the induced stress–strain field can be considered not affected by the initial
perturbation (i.e., steady). The results presented in Figure 7 show that the initial norm of the complex
shear modulus (| ∗ | ) depends on the applied shear stress amplitude ( , ), i.e., the interface
displays nonlinear viscoelastic behavior within this loading range. In particular, the measured | ∗ |
decreases as the applied shear stress amplitude increases. It can be also observed that the presence of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 9 of 21

a geogrid at the interface leads to smaller initial values of the norm of the complex shear modulus
( | ∗ | ). Besides, due to the presence of the asphalt concrete layers, | ∗ | increases as testing
temperature decreases (from 20 to 10 °C) for the FG interface type.

∗|
Figure 7. Initial norm of the complex shear modulus | vs. applied shear stress amplitude , .

The damage of the specimen was analyzed by using the evolution of the phase angle (φ) and the
normalized norm of complex shear modulus (| ∗ | ). The latter is given by the following equation:
| ∗|
| ∗|
= (7)
| ∗|

where | ∗ | is the norm of the complex shear modulus calculated at any given number of loading
cycles (N).
The results of specimen FG_7 tested with a torque amplitude = 55 Nm at 10 Hz and 10 °C are
presented herein as a typical example. In Figure 8, the normalized norm of complex shear modulus
(| ∗ | ) and the phase angle (φ) are presented as a function of the number of cycles. It is interesting to
observe in Figure 8 that | ∗ | decreases with the number of cycles, indicating a progressive
weakening of the interface properties during the test characterized by a typical three-phase fatigue
curve [51,52,58,59], whereas the phase angle (φ) increases during the cyclic test and drops suddenly
approaching the end of the test. Four phases can be identified for the phase angle curve. The first
phase consists of a quick increase in the phase angle; this is attributable to bulk reversible phenomena
(e.g., self-heating) that tend to appear during the initial test cycles. The second phase is associated
with a quasi-linear increase in the phase angle. In the third phase, irreversible phenomena (e.g.,
fatigue damage) appear and the phase angle quickly increases until a sudden drop (fourth phase).
During the fourth phase, macro-cracks propagate at the interface, generating a not homogeneous
distribution of stresses and strains. According to Reese [54], the maximum point of the phase angle
defines the point at which the location of the damage begins.
Figure 9 shows the evolution of the normalized norm of complex shear modulus (| ∗ | ) of the
FG interface type at various torque amplitudes ( ) at 10 Hz and 10 °C. It is possible to note that | ∗ |
decreases faster with the number of loading cycles as the applied torque amplitude increases.
Figure 10 shows the evolution of the phase angle (φ) of the FG interface type at 10 Hz and two
testing temperatures (10 and 20 °C). It is possible to note that, for both temperatures, φ increases
faster with the number of loading cycles by applying higher torque amplitude values. Besides, the
phase angle values at 20 °C are greater than those at 10 °C because, as expected, asphalt materials are
more viscous at higher temperatures. This observation is in agreement with a previous study [60],
and the measured values of the phase angle are also comparable.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 10 of 21

After the test, the failure occurred exactly at the interface for all the specimens, i.e., a complete
detachment between the two layers of the specimen was observed. In particular, the failure for the
FG interface type was on the polyester knitted veil side, denoting that the veil could be an obstacle to
bonding the two layers in contact (Figure 11).

∗|
Figure 8. Evolution of normalized norm of complex shear modulus | and phase angle φ of
specimen FG_7 during the shear-torque fatigue test at 10 Hz and 10 °C.

Figure 9. Evolution of normalized norm of complex shear modulus | ∗ | of FG interface at various

torque amplitudes during the shear-torque fatigue test at 10 Hz and 10 °C.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 11 of 21

Figure 10. Evolution of phase angle φ of FG interface during the shear-torque fatigue test at 10 Hz
and two temperatures (10 and 20 °C).

Figure 11. Failure mechanism of FG reinforced specimens at the end of shear-torque fatigue test.

3.1.2. Interlayer Shear Fatigue Curve

The interlayer shear fatigue curves of the tested interface types are shown in a log–log plane
from Figures 12–15. A typical power-law model was used to obtain the relationship between the
amplitude of the applied shear stress amplitude ( , ) and the number of cycles to failure ( )
according to the following equation:

, = ∙ (8)
where parameters a and b are regression coefficients. In particular, b represents the slope of the linear
regression in a log–log plane.
In each plot, interlayer shear fatigue curves obtained by using the classical fatigue criterion ( )
were compared to those established by considering more appropriate failure criteria ( and
). The corresponding regression coefficients for the power-law model (a and b) are also
presented in Table 2, as well as the coefficient of determination (R2).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 12 of 21

Table 2. Parameters a and b for all interface types according to Equation (8).

Interface Type Temperature (°C) Failure Criterion a b R2

1.124 −0.152 0.987
UN 20 1.000 −0.137 0.981
1.028 −0.139 0.979
1.259 −0.162 0.986
CF 20 1.355 −0.166 0.988
1.280 −0.162 0.991
0.712 −0.158 0.874
FG 20 1.018 −0.184 0.911
0.937 −0.176 0.889
0.861 −0.105 0.984
FG 10 0.900 −0.107 0.991
0.909 −0.108 0.992

Figure 12. Interlayer shear fatigue curves for UN interface type at 20 °C.

Figure 13. Interlayer shear fatigue curves for CF interface type at 20 °C.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 13 of 21

Figure 14. Interlayer shear fatigue curves for FG interface type at 20 °C.

Figure 15. Interlayer shear fatigue curves for FG interface type at 10 °C.

Looking at the experimental results, it can be seen that the obtained interlayer shear fatigue
curves are very similar by applying the failure criteria and , whereas in some cases, the
failure criterion is not always in agreement with the previous ones (UN and FG interface types
at 20 °C, Figures 12 and 14, respectively). As a consequence, the traditional failure criterion ( ) can
probably lead to a misleading ranking, since it is not capable of quantifying the damage mechanisms
that occur within the interface. Meanwhile, the maximum phase angle ( ) and the 70% failure
criterion ( ) can better correlate the number of cycles to failure with the damage process at the
interlayer because they are related to a change in the inner behavior of the specimen. For example,
once the specimen becomes severely damaged at the interface, the strain response curve in a stress-
controlled test varies significantly from an actual sinusoidal function and this distortion is
responsible for the drop in phase angle. These results also confirm the effectiveness of the 70% failure
criterion already highlighted in a previous study carried out on unreinforced asphalt interlayers [51].
Thus, considering the weakness of the traditional approach, these results illustrate that the maximum
phase angle and the 70% failure criterion provide similar results and can offer an accurate shear
fatigue life prediction.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 14 of 21

Several interesting findings can be drawn also looking at the results listed in Table 2. By
comparing the fatigue law parameters at 20 °C for the and criteria, it is possible to
observe that the FG interface shows the lowest and highest values for a and b, respectively. In general,
coefficients of determination (R2) are greater than 0.9 for all the interface types, which indicates a very
good correlation between measured data and the linear fatigue law. Nevertheless, R2 values increase
as the temperature decreases (greater than 0.99) for the FG interface, indicating that the specimen-to-
specimen interlayer shear variability increases at higher temperatures. Meanwhile, the parameter b
values decrease as the testing temperature decreases, indicating a clear thermo-dependency for the
interlayer shear fatigue properties.
In order to rank the different interface types (UN, CF and FG) and to investigate the influence of
testing temperature on the FG interface, interlayer shear fatigue curves are represented in Figure 16
according to 70% norm of the complex shear modulus reduction criterion ( ). Since the asphalt
mixture and compaction method of the tested specimens are the same, it can be asserted that the
resistance to shear fatigue damage is only a function of the interface type.
Figure 16 shows that UN and CF interfaces provide very similar results in term of interlayer
shear fatigue life, although it appears that UN interface guarantees slightly higher performance at a
lower shear stress level than the CF interface. Moreover, for a given shear stress amplitude, FG
reinforced specimens are characterized by a number of cycles to failure considerably lower than
unreinforced and CF reinforced specimens (Figure 16). For example, with , = 0.15 MPa (i.e.,
= 30 Nm) as input level (orange dotted line in Figure 16), the FG interface requires less than 30,000
cycles to failure at 20 °C, whereas the other CF reinforced interface undergoes more than 700,000
cycles at the same temperature.

Figure 16. Interlayer shear fatigue curves for all interface types.

Starting from these results, it is expected that the CF geogrid is able to perform well in the field
since the debonding effect highlighted by shear-torque fatigue loading is not so evident compared to
the unreinforced interface UN. The fairly good performance of this type of geogrid has already been
observed in previous studies by performing static shear tests on specimens reinforced with a similar
geogrid [13,45]. This could be due to the presence of the pre-coating and the fact that the grid knots
are not fixed, which allows the grid structure to move freely during the laying and compaction of the
asphalt mixture ensuring the achievement of an optimal interlocking. Besides, the presence of the
film applied on the underside of the CF geogrid, which is burned before installation, further improves
the bonding properties on the underlying layer. On the contrary, the FG geogrid provides the lowest
performance with respect to the other two interface types (UN and CF). This could be due to the
presence of the polyester knitted veil and the fixed knots of the FG geogrid (unlike the CF geogrid),
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 15 of 21

which probably hinder the achievement of an optimal bonding and interlocking between the two
asphalt layers in contact as already observed in Figure 11.
As far as the testing temperature is concerned, the FG interface at 10 °C provides higher shear
fatigue performance compared to those at 20 °C for the same reinforcement (Figure 16). This is in
accordance with previous investigations carried out with various shear tests in cyclic modality on
unreinforced specimens [34,39,61] and in static modality on reinforced specimens [45], where an
improvement of interlayer resistance was measured at low temperatures. Therefore, it can be
assumed that as the temperature decreases, since the asphalt concrete is a thermo-dependent
material, the interlayer becomes stiffer and more loading cycles of the same stress intensity are
needed to cause the failure of the specimen.
To allow a better comparison between the different interface types (UN, CF and FG), it is possible
to calculate, from the power-law models reported in Figure 16, the parameter shown in Figure 17.
The parameter is defined as the shear stress level that leads to a fatigue life of 1 million cycles (
= 106) in a cyclic shear test and it is inspired by , defined as the strain level leading to specimen
failure for 1 million cycles, which is used to calculate the admissible strain in asphalt pavement layers
in the French pavement design method [34,62]. Lower implies lower shear fatigue performance.
As shown in Figure 17, the values of confirm the outcomes previously discussed in Figure 16, but
the comparison of allows to easily rank the different interface types (UN, CF and FG), denoting
that it can be a useful parameter to characterize the interlayer bonding in cyclic shear tests.

Figure 17. values for all interface types.

In synthesis, the obtained results demonstrate that an appropriate choice of the most suitable
interlayer reinforcement system could increase the cyclic shear fatigue resistance strictly linked to the
debonding effect. Moreover, shear-torque fatigue tests could provide useful guidance for the
selection of the most appropriate reinforcement because the results are clearly sensitive to the testing
parameters (i.e., type of interface and testing temperature). However, further work is needed to adopt
a method for selecting effective torque levels because different reinforcement and/or type of interface
experience different levels of sensitivity to changes in stress level. Furthermore, another shortcoming
is that shear-torque fatigue tests are highly time-consuming, especially at very low stress–strain
levels. On the other hand, the analysis of failure of fatigue curves could help for a better
understanding of the experimental results obtained with routine testing protocols such as static (i.e.,
monotonic) shear tests for the evaluation of the interlayer shear strength (ISS or ).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 16 of 21

3.2. Static Leutner Test Results

Figure 18 shows the results of static Leutner test, in terms of average interlayer shear strength
( ), for UN and FG specimens with a diameter of 150 mm at 10 and 20 °C. The value
decreases with increasing testing temperature for both interface types but the reduction (in
percentage) is greater for the UN system compared to the FG system (i.e., 45% and 22%, respectively).
Figure 18 also shows that the presence of the FG geogrid at the interface leads to lower
compared to the corresponding unreinforced system (UN) for both temperatures according to the
results of shear-torque fatigue tests. The reduction (in percentage) of by comparing UN and
FG systems is of 59% and 42% at 10 and 20 °C, respectively. These results allow remarking that the
interlayer reinforcement worsens the interlayer properties by decreasing the adhesion between the
two asphalt layers [45].

Figure 18. Average interlayer shear strength ( ) from static Leutner tests at 10 and 20 °C for UN
and FG specimens with a diameter of 150 mm (error bars provide the variability of the results).

3.3. Comparison between Cyclic and Static Shear Tests

As explained in the introduction, cyclic shear tests allow the determining of accurate parameters
closely linked to field performance, but they are more time-consuming and require more effort to
process the data compared to the static shear tests. In this sense, there is a need to find links between
cyclic and static shear test to correlate different laboratory results and to predict interlayer shear
fatigue performance from rapid and simple static shear tests. In the wake of this discussion, a possible
interrelationship between cyclic and static shear tests can be found by calculating the cyclic–static
shear ratio resistance (C2S2R) parameter as follows:

C2S2R = (9)

where is the shear stress level that leads to a fatigue life of 1 million cycles ( = 106) determined
in a cyclic shear test, and is the interlayer shear strength determined in a static shear test.
Based on the shear-torque fatigue tests results reported in Figure 17 and the static Leutner test
results reported in Figure 18, C2S2R values were calculated for the UN and FG interface types at
20 °C, as shown in Table 3.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 17 of 21

Table 3. Cyclic–static shear ratio resistance (C2S2R) parameter.

Interface Type Temperature (°C) (MPa) (MPa) C2S2R (-)

UN 20 0.15 1.31 0.12
FG 20 0.08 0.76 0.11

The C2S2R values in Table 3 are roughly the same for UN and FG interfaces at 20 °C, specifically
is almost 10% of . From a practical point of view, an empirical correlation between static
Leutner test and shear-torque fatigue test results could consist of multiplying the interlayer shear
strength ( ) of the static Leutner test by 0.10 to obtain the cyclic shear strength at 1 million cycles
( ) for this interface type at 20 °C. This means that an interface type characterized by of 1 MPa
can withstand 1 million cycles at a cyclic shear stress level of 0.10 MPa. Bearing in mind the very
limited number of tests, it can be concluded that the C2S2R parameter can be assumed approximately
equal to 0.1 for GB/BBSG interface, with pure bitumen emulsion as the tack coat (with and without
reinforcement), but a larger number of testing specimens is required to obtain statistically significant
results.
However, it is expected that C2S2R values could depend on the interface type (i.e., interlocking
effect and tack coat contribution). For example, the higher the interlocking effect, the higher the
interlayer shear strength ( ) with static shear tests, but the same effect is not yet clear with cyclic
shear tests because of their recent development. Therefore, further investigation on different interface
types, different asphalt mixtures and with a larger number of repetitions are needed to find
correlations between cyclic and static shear tests and confirm these interesting results. In the future,
this would allow the use of the static Leutner test to evaluate shear fatigue performance, applying
simple empirical correlations to the test results.

4. Conclusions
This study was performed to investigate the shear fatigue performance of geogrid-reinforced
asphalt interlayers. To this end, a full-scale trial section was built with three different types of
interface: unreinforced (UN), reinforced with a carbon fiber geogrid (CF) and reinforced with a glass
fiber geogrid (FG). Cores were taken directly from the trial section to carry out shear-torque fatigue
tests. Three different failure criteria (50% and 70% stiffness modulus value reduction and maximum
phase angle) were used to analyze shear fatigue life of test data. Besides, static (i.e., monotonic) shear
tests were carried out with the Leutner device on the same specimens in an attempt to find a
relationship between cyclic and static shear tests.
Based on the experimental results, the following main conclusions can be drawn:
• Shear-torque fatigue test results clearly ranked the studied materials, showing that the carbon
fiber geogrid (CF) reinforced interface provides similar shear fatigue behavior to the
unreinforced interface (UN). In contrast, a significant reduction in shear fatigue behavior is
evident with the glass fiber geogrid (FG) reinforced interface.
• As far as the temperature effect is concerned, it was observed that shear fatigue resistance
significantly increases with decreasing temperature for the FG interface. Further research is
needed to investigate the influence of temperature also for the CF interface.
• Good correlations were found between maximum phase angle and 70% stiffness modulus value
reduction failure criteria. The results indicate that even though these fatigue failure criteria were
not originally developed to be used with double-layered reinforced specimens, they may still be
useful in ranking the different reinforced interfaces and appear to be able to predict the actual
interlayer shear fatigue life.
• Static Leutner test results showed that the interlayer shear strength ( ) decreases with
increasing temperature and with the presence of the FG geogrid.
• A promising correlation was found between the shear-torque fatigue test and the static Leutner
test results. Such an approach is worthy of further investigation but needs to be validated
through extensive research activity.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 18 of 21

In conclusion, these findings showed that a correct choice of geogrid could reduce the debonding
effect that inevitably occurs by introducing a reinforcement system within asphalt pavement. Shear-
torque fatigue tests have proved to be powerful tools for investigating the damage progress in
double-layered reinforced asphalt specimens. Considering the crucial importance to properly select
and assess the reinforcement system to be inserted in asphalt pavements, this test method could
provide useful information on the interlayer bonding condition and interlayer fatigue failure of
reinforced systems under stresses and strains similar to those existing in a real pavement. However,
the presented evaluation is very limited and needs to be deepened with an extended investigation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.C. and C.P.; formal analysis, D.R., F.C., F.A., C.P. and A.M.;
investigation, D.R., C.P. and A.M.; resources, F.A., C.P. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.R.;
writing—review and editing, F.C., C.P. and A.M.; supervision, C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: The authors truly acknowledge S&P Clever Reinforcement Company and AfiTexinov for
providing the reinforcing materials.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gudipudi, P.; Underwood, B.S.; Zalghout, A. Impact of climate change on pavement structural
performance in the United States. Transp. Res. D Trans. Environ. 2017, 57, 172–184.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.022.
2. Underwood, B.S.; Guido, Z.; Gudipudi, P.; Feinburg, Y. Increased costs to US pavement infrastructure from
future temperature rise. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 704–707. doi:10.1038/nclimate3390.
3. Al-Qadi, I.L.; Elseifi, M.A. Field installation and design considerations of steel reinforcing netting to reduce
reflection of cracks. In Proceedings of the 5th International RILEM Conference on Reflective Cracking in
Pavements, Limoges, France, 5–8 May 2004, pp. 97–104.
4. Button, J.W.; Lytton, R.L. Guidelines for using geosynthetics with hot-mix asphalt overlays to reduce
reflective cracking. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2007, 2004, 111–119. doi:10.3141/2004-12.
5. Zornberg, J.G. Functions and applications of geosynthetics in roadways. Procedia Eng. 2017, 189, 298–306.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.048.
6. Ferrotti, G.; Canestrari, F.; Virgili, A.; Grilli, A. A strategic laboratory approach for the performance
investigation of geogrids in flexible pavements. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2343–2348.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.032.
7. Bocci, M.; Grilli, A.; Santagata, F.A.; Virgili, A. Influence of reinforcement geosynthetics on flexion
behaviour of double-layer bituminous systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advanced Characterisation of Pavement and Soil Engineering Materials, Athens, Greece, 20–22 June 2007,
pp. 1415–1424.
8. Francken, L. Prevention of cracks in pavements: Achievements and open questions. Road Mater. Pavement
Des. 2005, 6, 407–425. doi:10.1080/14680629.2005.9690014.
9. Shukla, S.K.; Yin, J.-H. Functions and installation of paving geosynthetics. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asian
Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, Seoul, Korea, 21–23 June 2004.
10. Uijting, B.G.J.; Jenner, C.G.; Gilchrist, A.J.T. Evaluation of 20 years experience with asphalt reinforcement
using geogrids. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Bituminous Mixtures and Pavements,
Thessaloniki, Greece, 21–22 November 2002, pp. 869–877.
11. Vanelstraete, A.; De Visscher, J. Long term performance on site of interface systems. In Proceedings of the
5th International RILEM Conference on Reflective Cracking in Pavements, Limoges, France, 5–8 May 2004,
pp. 699–706.
12. Brown, S.F.; Thom, N.H.; Sanders, P.J. A study of grid reinforced asphalt to combat reflection cracking. J.
Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 2001, 70, 543–569.
13. Canestrari, F.; Belogi, L.; Ferrotti, G.; Graziani, A. Shear and flexural characterization of grid-reinforced
asphalt pavements and relation with field distress evolution. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 959–975.
doi:10.1617/s11527-013-0207-1.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 19 of 21

14. Correia, N.S.; Zornberg, J.G. Strain distribution along geogrid-reinforced asphalt overlays under traffic
loading. Geotex. Geomembr. 2018, 46, 111–120. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.10.002.
15. Ferrotti, G.; Canestrari, F.; Pasquini, E.; Virgili, A. Experimental evaluation of the influence of surface
coating on fiberglass geogrid performance in asphalt pavements. Geotex. Geomembr. 2012, 34, 11–18.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.02.011.
16. Ingrassia, L.P.; Virgili, A.; Canestrari, F. Investigating the effect of geocomposite reinforcement on the
performance of thin asphalt pavements through accelerated pavement testing and laboratory analysis. Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 12, e00342. doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00342.
17. Nejad, F.M.; Asadi, S.; Fallah, S.; Vadood, M. Statistical-experimental study of geosynthetics performance
on reflection cracking phenomenon. Geotex. Geomembr. 2016, 44, 178–187.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.09.002.
18. Ragni, D.; Montillo, T.; Marradi, A.; Canestrari, F. Fast falling weight accelerated pavement testing and
laboratory analysis of asphalt pavements reinforced with geocomposites. Lect. Notes Civil Eng. 2020, 48,
417–430. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29779-4_41.
19. Saride, S.; Kumar, V.V. Influence of geosynthetic-interlayers on the performance of asphalt overlays on pre-
cracked pavements. Geotex. Geomembr. 2017, 45, 184–196. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.01.010.
20. Sobhan, K.; Tandon, V. Mitigating reflection cracking in asphalt overlay using geosynthetic reinforcements.
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2008, 9, 367–387. doi:10.1080/14680629.2008.9690124.
21. Zofka, A.; Maliszewski, M.; Maliszewska, D. Glass and carbon geogrid reinforcement of asphalt mixtures.
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2017, 18, 471–490. doi:10.1080/14680629.2016.1266775.
22. Caltabiano, M.A.; Brunton, J.M. Reflection cracking in asphalt overlays. J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol.
1991, 60, 310–330.
23. Canestrari, F.; Grilli, A.; Santagata, F.A.; Virgili, A. Interlayer shear effect of geosynthetic reinforcements.
In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Québec City, QC, Canada, 12–
17 August 2006.
24. Canestrari, F.; Pasquini, E.; Belogi, L. Optimization of geocomposite for double layer bituminous system.
In 7th RILEM International Conference on Cracking in Pavements; Scarpas, A., Kringos, N., Al-Qadi, I.A.L.,
Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 1229–1239. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4566-7_117.
25. Pasquini, E.; Bocci, M.; Ferrotti, G.; Canestrari, F. Laboratory characterisation and field validation of
geogrid-reinforced asphalt pavements. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2013, 14, 17–35.
doi:10.1080/14680629.2012.735797.
26. Pasquini, E.; Bocci, M.; Canestrari, F. Laboratory characterisation of optimised geocomposites for asphalt
pavement reinforcement. Geosynth. Int. 2014, 21, 24–36. doi:10.1680/gein.13.00032.
27. Raab, C.; Partl, M.N. Interlayer shear performance: Experience with different pavement structures. In
Proceedings of the 3rd Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress, Vienna, Austria, 12–14 May 2004; pp. 535–
545.
28. Zamora-Barraza, D.; Calzada-Peréz, M.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Vega-Zamanillo, A. New procedure for
measuring adherence between a geosynthetic material and a bituminous mixture. Geotex. Geomembr. 2010,
28, 483–489. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.010.
29. Canestrari, F.; Santagata, E. Temperature effects on the shear behaviour of tack coat emulsions used in
flexible pavements. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2005, 6, 39–46. doi:10.1080/10298430500068720.
30. Jaskula, P.; Rys, D. Effect of interlayer bonding quality of asphalt layers on pavement performance. IOP
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 236, 012005. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/236/1/012005.
31. Graziani, A.; Pasquini, E.; Ferrotti, G.; Virgili, A.; Canestrari, F. Structural response of grid-reinforced
bituminous pavements. Mater. Struct. 2014, 47, 1391–1408. doi:10.1617/s11527-014-0255-1.
32. Canestrari, F.; Ferrotti, G.; Lu, X.; Millien, A.; Partl, M.N.; Petit, C.; Phelipot-Mardelé, A.; Piber, H.; Raab,
C. Mechanical testing of interlayer bonding in asphalt pavements. In Advances in Interlaboratory Testing and
Evaluation of Bituminous Materials, RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports; Partl, M., Bahia, H.U., Canestrari, F., de
la Roche, C., Di Benedetto, H., Piber, H., Sybilski, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013;
Volume 9, pp. 303–360. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5104-0_6.
33. Petit, C.; Chabot, A.; Destrée, A.; Raab, C. Interface debonding behavior. In Mechanisms of Cracking and
Debonding in Asphalt and Composite Pavements: State-of-the-Art of the RILEM TC241-MCD, RILEM State-of-the-
Art Reports; Buttlar, W.G., Chabot, A., Dave, E.V., Petit, C., Tebaldi, G., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 103–153. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76849-6.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 20 of 21

34. Petit, C.; Diakhaté, M.; Millien, A.; Phelipot-Mardelé, A.; Pouteau, B. Pavement design for curved road
sections: Fatigue performance of interfaces and longitudinal top-down cracking in multilayered
pavements. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2009, 10, 609–624. doi:10.1080/14680629.2009.9690216.
35. Ktari, R.; Millien, A.; Fouchal, F.; Pop, I.-O.; Petit, C. Pavement interface damage behavior in tension
monotonic loading. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 106, 430–442. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.020.
36. Ragni, D.; Graziani, A.; Canestrari, F. Cyclic interlayer testing in bituminous pavements. In Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference Bituminous Mixtures and Pavements, Thessaloniki, Greece, 12–14 June
2019; pp. 207–212. doi:10.1201/9781351063265-31.
37. Canestrari, F.; Attia, T.; Di Benedetto, H.; Graziani, A.; Jaskula, P.; Kim, Y.R.; Maliszewski, M.; Pais, J.; Petit,
C.; Raab, C.; et al. Interlaboratory test to characterize the cyclic behavior of bituminous interlayers: An
overview of testing equipment and protocols. In Proceedings of the RILEM International Symposium on
Bituminous Materials, Lyon, France, 14–16 December 2020.
38. Romanoschi, S.A.; Metcalf, J.B. Characterization of asphalt concrete layer interfaces. Transp. Res. Rec. J.
Transp. Res. Board 2001, 1778, 132–139. doi:10.3141/1778-16.
39. Diakhaté, M.; Phelipot, A.; Millien, A.; Petit, C. Shear fatigue behaviour of tack coats in pavements. Road
Mater. Pavement Des. 2006, 7, 201–222. doi:10.1080/14680629.2006.9690033.
40. Donovan, E.P.; Al-Qadi, I.L.; Loulizi, A. Optimization of tack coat application rate for geocomposite
membrane on bridge decks. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2000, 1740, 143–150.
41. Cho, S.H.; Safavizadeh, S.A.; Kim, Y.R. Verification of the applicability of the time–temperature
superposition principle to interface shear stiffness and strength of GlasGrid-reinforced asphalt mixtures.
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2017, 18, 766–784. doi:10.1080/14680629.2016.1189350.
42. Safavizadeh, S.A.; Kim, Y.R. DIC technique to investigate crack propagation in grid-reinforced asphalt
specimens. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 2017, 29. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001839.
43. Raab, C.; Arraigada, M.; Partl, M.N.; Schiffmann, F. Cracking and interlayer bonding performance of
reinforced asphalt pavements. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 14–26. doi:10.1080/19648189.2017.1306462.
44. Arraigada, M.; Perrotta, F.; Raab, C.; Tebaldi, G.; Partl, M.N. Use of APT for validating the efficiency of
reinforcement grids in asphalt pavements. In The Roles of Accelerated Pavement Testing in Pavement
Sustainability; Aguiar-Moya, J., Vargas-Nordcbeck, A., Leiva-Villacorta, F., Loría-Salazar, L., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 509–521. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42797-3_33.
45. Canestrari, F.; D’Andrea, A.; Ferrotti, G.; Graziani, A.; Partl, M.N.; Petit, C.; Raab, C.; Sangiorgi, C.
Advanced interface testing of grids in asphalt pavements. In Testing and Characterization of Sustainable
Innovative Bituminous Materials and Systems, RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports; Partl, M., Porot, L., Di
Benedetto, H., Canestrari, F., Marsac, P., Tebaldi, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2018; pp. 127–202. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71023-5_4.
46. NF EN 13285. French Standards for Unbound Mixtures–Material Specifications.
47. NF EN 13108-1. French Standards for Bituminous Mixtures–Material Specifications–Part 1: Asphalt Concrete.
48. Petit, C.; Lesueur, D.; Millien, A.; Leguernevel, G.; Dopeux, J.; Picoux, B.; Allou, F.; Terhani, F. Smart
geosynthetics for strain measurements in asphalt pavements. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Fortaleza, Brazil, 19–21 June 2018.
49. Petit, C.; Lesueur, D.; Millien, A.; Leguernevel, G.; Dopeux, J.; Picoux, B.; Allou, F.; Terhani, F. Des
géosynthétiques intelligents pour renforcer et suivre les déformations de chaussées bitumineuses. In
Proceedings of the 12th Rencontres Géosynthétiques, Nancy, France, 11–13 March 2019.
50. EN 12697-6. European Standards for Bituminous Mixtures–Test Methods for Hot Mix Asphalt–Part 6:
Determination of Bulk Density of Bituminous Specimens.
51. Ragni, D.; Takarli, M.; Petit, C.; Graziani, A.; Canestrari, F. Use of acoustic techniques to analyse interlayer
shear-torque fatigue test in asphalt mixtures. Int. J. Fatigue 2020, 131, 105356.
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105356.
52. Ragni, D.; Ferrotti, G.; Petit, C.; Canestrari, F. Analysis of shear-torque fatigue test for bituminous pavement
interlayers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 254, 119309. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119309.
53. Shen, S.; Lu, Z. Energy based laboratory fatigue failure criteria for asphalt materials. J. Test. Eval. 2011, 39,
313–320. doi:10.1520/JTE103088.
54. Reese, R. Properties of aged asphalt binder related to asphalt concrete fatigue life. J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving
Technol. 1997, 66, 604–632.
55. Leutner, R. Untersuchung des schichtenverbundes beim bituminosen oberbau. Bitumen 1979, 41, 84–91.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4381 21 of 21

56. prEN 12697-48. European Pre-Standard for Bituminous Mixtures–Test Methods for Hot Mix Asphalt–Part 48:
Interlayer Bonding.
57. Boudabbous, M.; Millien, A.; Petit, C.; Neji, J. Energy approach for the fatigue of thermoviscoelastic
materials: Application to asphalt materials in pavement surface layers. Int. J. Fatigue 2013, 47, 308–318.
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.09.013.
58. Di Benedetto, H.; de la Roche, C.; Baaj, H.; Pronk, A.; Lundström, R. Fatigue of bituminous mixtures. Mater.
Struct. 2004, 37, 202–216. doi:10.1007/BF02481620.
59. Pérez-Jiménez, F.; Botella, R.; López-Montero, T.; Miró, R.; Martínez, A.H. Complexity of the behaviour of
asphalt materials in cyclic testing. Int. J. Fatigue 2017, 98, 111–120. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.01.026.
60. Diakhaté, M.; Millien, A.; Petit, C.; Phelipot-Mardelé, A.; Pouteau, B. Experimental investigation of tack
coat fatigue performance: Towards an improved lifetime assessment of pavement structure interfaces.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1123–1133. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.064.
61. Collop, A.C.; Sutanto, M.H.; Airey, G.D.; Elliott, R.C. Development of an automatic torque test to measure
the shear bond strength between asphalt. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 623–629.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.07.030.
62. Corte, J.-F.; Goux, M.-T. Design of pavement structures: The French technical guide. Transp. Res. Rec. J.
Transp. Res. Board 1996, 1539, 116–124. doi:10.3141/1539-16.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).