See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324908834

REVIEW OF REFLECTIVE CRACKING MECHANISMS AND MITIGATIONS FOR

AIRPORT PAVEMENTS

Conference Paper · April 2018

CITATIONS READS

4 6,068

2 authors:

Sahar Deilami Greg White

University of the Sunshine Coast University of the Sunshine Coast
7 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS 216 PUBLICATIONS 1,512 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Greg White on 03 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

REVIEW OF REFLECTIVE CRACKING MECHANISMS

AND MITIGATIONS FOR AIRPORT PAVEMENTS
Sahar Deilami and Greg White, University of the Sunshine Coast

ABSTRACT
Many Australian airport pavement systems include old plain jointed concrete pavements near
the end of their service life. Rehabilitation by asphalt overlay is often an attractive and cost-
effective option but introduces the risk of reflection cracking. In this context, reflection cracking
is the propagation of cracks in the asphalt layer triggered by relative movement across the
joints, either as a result of traffic loading or thermal variations. A review of reflection cracking
mitigation options indicates that bituminous or geosynthetic interlayers and increased asphalt
thickness are the most common strategies, with combination treatments considered the most
likely to significantly reduce reflection cracking risk. Although the mechanisms and causes of
reflection cracking in airport pavements are generally understood, further work is required to
better understand the relative benefit of the various mitigation treatments. It is recommended
that further research be undertaken to develop a method for the objective comparison of various
mitigation options, through a combination of laboratory testing and numerical modelling,
calibrated to field-performance observations.

INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, aircraft have become considerably heavier and more frequent, resulting in
many airports handling more extreme levels of traffic compared to the aircraft they were design
for (Martín, 2016; White, 2017). This can reduce the service life of airport pavements and
therefore overlays or reconstruction of airport pavements may be required more often.
Furthermore, many airports were developed in the 1940s and 1950s. The plain jointed concrete
pavements are now 50+ years old and require reconstruction or rehabilitation.

One method of rehabilitating and upgrading existing concrete airport pavements is by

construction of an asphalt overlay. The performance of these asphalt surfaces is important for
safe aircraft operations with loose stones and water ponding of high concern. The US Army
Corps of Engineers (the Corps) developed the first design method for airfield pavements using
asphalt surfaces overlays in 1940s. This method is adopted as the basis for the majority of
airfield pavement surface designs around the world and airport asphalt is generally a Marshall
designed mixture with maximum aggregate size of 14 mm and the overlay layer thicknesses
usually of 40-60 mm (White, 2017).

The main concern of overlaying the rigid pavement with asphalt is the potential for reflection
cracking. In Australia the average temperature varies between -2.7°C to 13°C in winter and
14°C to 46.5°C in summer. This significant temperature differential, may result in decreased
pavement life of approximately 30 years (Alexander, 1996). The impact is likely to be greater for
reflective cracking of asphalt overlays over existing plain joined pavements.

The slow movement of heavy aircraft is another trigger for reflection cracking in the airport
pavements. Several factors impact the initiation and propagation of cracking or deterioration of
the concrete pavements, such as environmental conditions, joint performance, and subgrade
material. To better understand the reflection cracking mechanism in composite pavements in
addition to experimental and numerical investigations, full scale testing also needs to be
performed (Mehta, Cleary, & Ali, 2017).

This paper summarises the importance, mechanisms, mitigation options and treatment of
reflective cracking of rigid pavement joints through asphalt overlays in the context of airport
pavements. Further research and future opportunities are also described. This paper only
addresses concrete pavement joint reflection cracking. Cracks in existing flexible pavements
and cement stabilised layers are excluded.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 1

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

BACKGROUND
Pavements are generally categorised into three different types of flexible, rigid and composite
pavements (Huang Y. H., 2004). Although the composite pavement is identified as expensive
pavements by (Huang Y. H., 2004), a comparison of different pavement types by (Flintsch &
Diefenderfer, 2008) represented the composite pavement type as cost effective, which is able to
support the high volume traffic in challenging environmental conditions. Composite pavements
are also known as ‘semi-rigid’ pavement structures (NCHRP, 2004), ‘premium composite
pavements’ (Von Quintus , Finn, & Hudson , 1976); ‘long life pavements, (Nunn , Brown, Weston,
& Nicholls , 1997), and flexible composite pavements’ (Nuun, 2004) which are generally
comprised of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) on top of a Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) base layer
(Huang Y. H., 2004).

Composite Pavement Cracking

Some research has demonstrated better performance for composite pavements, when compared
to rigid pavements, in terms of thermal cracking, rutting and freezing damage when compared to
rigid pavements (Havens, 1966). However, other research has indicated that reflective cracking
introduces a weakness in composite pavements (Havens, 1966; Dave, Song , Buttlar , & Paulino
, 2007; Owusu-Antwi, Khazanovich, & Titus-Glove, 2014; Dhakala, A.Elseifi, & Zhang, 2016) that
reduces the long-term performance.

Reflection cracking is a common defect in composite pavements and occurs when the cracks
and joints in the underlying concrete pavement reflect though the asphalt surface layer (Owusu-
Antwi, Khazanovich, & Titus-Glove, 2014). The cracks are normally initiated above the concrete
joints because of the horizontal tensile or shear stresses generated within the asphalt overlay
(Cook & Ellis, 2005) caused by traffic loading and seasonal (thermal) variations (Al-Qadi, Elseifi,
& Greene, 2015). Because asphalt overlaying existing plain jointed concrete pavements is a
common treatment for aged concrete airport pavements, reflection cracking is important for
airports.

Airports and Pavements

Pavement materials are similar for both airfield and roadway pavements. But the concept
behind thickness design varies for each as the nature of loading in airfields is different to
roadway pavements. Generally, more stringent design standards and specifications are
required for airport pavements, reflecting the lower tolerance to pavement distress. Flexible,
rigid and composite pavements are the typical pavement types used for airfields. Typical cross
sections are shown in Figure 1, which are extracted from (FAA, 2016).

Figure 1 demonstrates the concept of a ‘keeled’ pavement with the middle of runway thicker
than the edges for both rigid and flexible pavements. This is because the majority of the aircraft
traffic uses the middle of the runway for landing and take-off. This effect is known as traffic
wander as illustrated in Figure 2.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 2

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

Figure 1: Typical cross sections of flexible and rigid runway pavements (FAA, 2016).

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 3

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

Figure 2: Effective tire width for airport flexible and rigid pavements (FAA, 2016).

Rigid Airport Pavements

In 1928, the first rigid airfield pavement was constructed at the Ford Terminal in Dearborn,
Michigan. Since that time, rigid pavement has been in use for construction of runways,
taxiways, and apron areas at airports all around the world. Many experiments, practice, field
trials and research have been carried out for the purpose of improving the design and
construction of rigid airfield pavements and in many countries, there is a long and successful
history of rigid pavements at airfields (Kohn & Tayabji, 2003).

In modern day, a typical airport pavement comprises 5-7 m approximately square, plain jointed
concrete slabs 300-450 mm thick, with the slab thickness primarily determined by the design
aircraft. The concrete slabs are generally supported by a granular or bound sub-base layer and
the joints are usually dowelled to facilitate load transfer. Airfield pavement concrete is
commonly specified to be a 40 mm mixture with a high content of Portland or blended cement
and a target 28-day characteristic flexural strength of 4.5-5.0 MPa.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 4

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

To achieve better rigid pavement performance, the risk of various distress modes should be
minimised. Following are the major rigid airfield pavement distress types (Kohn & Tayabji,
2003):

• Cracking (corner, longitudinal, transverse, durability/materials related).

• Joint related (spalling, pumping, joint seal damage).
• Surface defects (scaling, pop-outs, map cracking).

Minimising the early age distress in the form of cracking and spalling is a major focus during the
construction of rigid pavements (Kohn & Tayabji, 2003). Several methods have been developed
for airport rigid pavement design and majority of them determine the thickness of concrete base
by limiting horizontal stress at the bottom of concrete base slab. Common software used for
rigid airport pavement thickness design include:

• FAARFIELD. Developed by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, 2016).

• PCASE. Developed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers association (Walker RS & Mary J,
2010).
• TKUAPAV. Developed at Tamkang University in Taiwan by Shao-Tang Yen under the
supervision of professor York Ying-Haur (Yavari & Balali, 2015).

FAARFIELD is the most commonly used and it is almost exclusively adopted in the USA.
FAARFIELD considers the maximum horizontal stress at the bottom of the concrete slab and
the loading conditions at both the interior and the edge of the concrete slab (FAA, 2016).
FAARFIELD calculates the thickness of concrete by taking the aircraft traffic configuration and
supporting condition into account. The support condition is based on a combination of the
subgrade CBR and the sub-base material/thickness (FAA, 2016). However, despite its
sophistication, FAARFIELD can not reliably predict the development of reflection cracking
through asphalt overlays of existing rigid pavements.

Asphalt overlays
Asphalt overlays are common for resurfacing flexible airport pavement, usually in one layer that
is typically 40-60 mm thick. However, when an asphalt overlay is used as a rehabilitation for
rigid airport pavements, multiple layers, with a combined thickness typically 100-150 mm thick
provide better ride quality and design life (Newcomb D. E., 2009) as well as delaying the onset
of reflective cracking. In Australia, airport asphalt is usually 14 mm maximum aggregate size,
dense graded and having a high portion of premium bituminous binder. However, in Europe
and Asia, other asphalt mixtures are used, including gap graded, open graded and stone mastic
asphalt. More crack resistant mixtures and increased layer thicknesses are common when
airport asphalt is used to overlay existing concrete pavement.

REFLECTION CRACKING
As described above, in regards to asphalt over concrete pavements, reflection cracking is
defined as a transverse crack in the asphalt surface that occurs over the joints in the underlying
concrete pavement ( Chen C. , 2014). However, in practice, reflection cracking also occurs in
the longitudinal direction when longitudinal joints are present in the concrete pavement (Huang
Y. H., 2004; Beak, Al-Qadi, & Butt, 2008) which is usually the case in airport pavements. It is
also important to understand that this type of distress only occurs in jointed concrete pavements
with asphalt overlays and is distinctly different from reflection cracking initiated by cement base
courses or underlying asphalt layers (Huang Y. H., 2004). In the other literature ( Gautam ,
2009) reflection cracking is more generally defined as the propagation of existing cracks from
old existing pavements to new overlays.

Mechanisms
Reflection cracking often occurs early in the life of composite pavements. Reflection cracking
by itself does not have a serious impact on structural capacity of the composite pavements.
However, water infiltration through the reflective cracks at the joints, together with the heavy

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 5

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

traffic movements can accelerate structural pavement failure (Chen, 2015). Furthermore, when
reflection cracks start to spall, the loose material presents a risk to aircraft, which have generally
fragile and often low-slung underwing engines.

As detailed above, reflection cracking is the initiation and propagation of cracks through a
surface layer at underlying pavement joints or cracks (Owusu-Antwi, Khazanovich, & Titus-
Glove, 2014). Reflective cracks are caused by horizontal tensile or shear stresses generated by
differential movement across the concrete joint (Cook & Ellis, 2005). This movement can be
induced by traffic loading, seasonal variation in moisture and temperature (Al-Qadi, Elseifi, &
Greene, 2015) and even cracks in the old surface (Roberts, Kandhal, Brown, & Lee, 1996).

Different load conditions result in different reflective cracking mechanisms (Figure 3). Thermally
induced joint opening/closing leads to crack initiation in tension, while slab curling results in a
tensile crack that propagates in shear. Furthermore, load induced reflective cracking results
from rotatio of the slabs around the joints when load transfer is good, but the reflective cracks
initiate and propagate in shear when load transfer is poor because the two slabs move vertically
as the load moves from one slab to the other.

a) Thermally-induced reflective cracking of HMA overlays: horizontal movements

b) Slab curling-induced reflective cracking of HMA overlays

c) Traffic-induced reflective cracking of HMA overlays over good load transfer joints

d) Traffic-induced reflective cracking of HMA overlays over poor load transfer joints
(Von Quintus, Mallela, Weiss, Shen, & Lytton, 2009)
Figure 3: Mechanisms of reflective cracking of HMA overlays (Chen, 2015).

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 6

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

Prediction
Like other forms of cracking in pavements, reflective cracking is difficult to predict. Different
researchers have used different approaches to predict asphalt cracking in pavements and these
methods can be applied to reflection cracking as well as fatigue:

• Developing experimental models based on laboratory test results ( Gautam , 2009).

• Developing constitutive models which could be solved using finite element.
• Assessing the composite pavement life using the collected data from the field observations
such as Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD).
• A combination of the abovementioned approaches (Huang, Li, & Mohammand, 2003).

One of the more complex modelling approaches uses the theory of fracture mechanics together
with numerical finite element modelling (Lytton, et al., 2010). This model has been developed to
work consistently within mechanistic-empirical (ME) design methods, such as the USA’s
Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). The key component of this modelling
is using Paris’ law of fracture mechanics (Equation 1).

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (1)
= 𝐴𝐴 × (∆𝐾𝐾)𝑛𝑛
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Where:
𝑐𝑐 = The crack length

𝑁𝑁 = The number of loading cycles

𝐴𝐴 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑛𝑛 = Fracture properties of the asphalt mixtures; and

∆𝐾𝐾 = The stress intensity factor amplitude (depends on the stress level, the
geometry of the pavement structure, the fracture mode, and crack length).

The three principle fracture modes (tensile, shearing and tearing) can be modelled using Paris
law. For this purpose, the number of loading cycles for propagation of reflection cracking in an
asphalt overlay with a thickness of h and initial crack length of c0 could be calculated by using
numerical integration (Equation 2) (Lytton, et al., 2010).

ℎ (2)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓 = �
𝐴𝐴(∆𝐾𝐾)𝑛𝑛
𝐶𝐶0

Due to complexity of this distress mode, finite element models are often used to predict the
amount and extent of reflective cracking in asphalt overlays under different temperature and
loading regimes. A finite element software ABAQUS was used to simulate the reflective
cracking by employing a constitutive model (Dave, Song , Buttlar , & Paulino , 2007). The
model used the theory of viscoelasticity and a bilinear cohesive zone.

In other research ( Al-Qadi, Scarpas, & Loizos, 2008) finite element modeling was used to
simulate the effect of temperature variations, compared to traffic loading effects on the reflection
cracking performance of asphalt overlays. The research indicated the importance of
temperature variations for estimating the overlay life, as it generates tensile stresses in the
asphalt surface.

Furthermore, a three-dimensional model was developed to predict and simulate the load related
refection cracking in airport pavements, considering the effect of gear loads on crack initiation
and propagation (Garzon, Duarte, & Buttlar, 2009). A generalised finite element method
(GFEM) was used to conclude that the refection cracks in airfield pavements are the result of
mixed mode fracture, with significant channelling of cracks under specific loading conditions.
Similar attempts were also carried out by different researchers to develop 2D and 3D finite
element models for reflection cracking (Pais, 1999; Hammons, 1997; Zhou & Sun, 2000;
Bozkurt, 2002; Owusu-Antwi, Khazanovich, & Titus-Glove, 2014).

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 7

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

The major drawback of numerical models is the lack of field data to verify the models with the
real-life observations. To address this, a mechanistic model was calibrated to more than 400
overlay test sections in 28 states of USA (Tsai, 2010). To quickly estimate the number of days
taken for a reflective crack to reach the asphalt surface, an artificial neural network algorithm
was trained for different asphalt mix properties in different traffic and temperature conditions
(Tsai, 2010). The modulus of the cracked asphalt overlay was predicted using the Bari and
Witczak model (Bari & witczak, 2006) supplemented by back-calculated moduli values from
FWD results.

Despite significant advances in asphalt fracture modelling and it application to reflection

cracking prediction, there is no replacement for full-scale testing or field observations. However,
field observations are difficult to control and full-scale testing is expensive and time consuming.
Therefore, scaled-down laboratory testing provides a valuable tool and is expected to be a
focus of future research.

MITIGATION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS

A range of solutions are proposed by different researchers to mitigate reflective cracking of rigid
pavement joints through asphalt overlays. The majority of which are based on increased
asphalt thickness increase, more crack resistant asphalt, geofabric interlayers, bituminous
interlayers and combination treatments.

In the UK, asphalt overlay thickness is the primary mitigation used for reflective cracking with
cracking and seating of the existing slabs also recommended as an economical mitigation
strategy (Cook & Ellis, 2005). However, cracking and seating is not viable when performing
works in short night shift periods and returning the pavement to operational status each
morning. This limits the application of cracking and seating to pavements that can be closed for
extended periods of time. UK research, also found that using geogrids in asphalt overlay
reduced reflective cracking. Other researchers also observed a significant reduction in
reflective cracking associated with asphalt reinforcement grids or geosynthetics (Button &
Lytton, 2007; Khodaii, Fallah, & Moghadas Nejad, 2008).

Placing the geogrid at one-third depth of overlay thickness from the bottom has been found to
result in optimal performance (Khodaii, Fallah, & Moghadas Nejad, 2008). It was concluded that
the position of geogrid, temperature and relative stiffness of the overlay to existing pavement all
played a key role in the reflective cracking performance of the asphalt overlay.

To control this major distress mode, other treatment methods are also suggested, such as metal
grids, different types of geosynthetics, fractured-slab approaches (Dhakala, A.Elseifi, & Zhang,
2016), stress absorbing membrane interlays (SAMIs) and crack and seat treatment (Ellis ,
Langdale, & Cook, 2002).

Other researchers determined that SAMI’s were the more effective than fabrics and grids for
mitigation of reflection cracking (Bennert, 2009; Mahernia, 2010). In Australian airports, grids
have generally been preferred when overlaying rigid pavements, with membranes usually used
for mitigation against reflection cracking from existing flexible pavements. Different approach to
reflective cracking mitigation in airport pavements include:

• To handle the extreme loads of airplane traffic, widening of the runway and taxiway at
Sydney airport are constructed of 350 mm concrete slabs with 100 mm asphalt overlays.
Hatelit geogrid was used between the asphalt layers to reduce reflection cracking.
• Sydney airport also used Hatelit between two asphalt layers over existing concrete slabs, but
this was not successful with reflection cracking rapidly appearing at the surface. The asphalt
was also designed to contain an elastomeric binder for improved crack resistance.
• The Australian Air Force overlayed existing concrete taxiways and runway ends at Tindal
airfield (Northern Territory) placing Hatelit between two asphalt layers, each 50 mm thick.
The runway treatment was successful but the taxiway was not. The rapid reflection of joints
through the surface on the taxiway was likely the result of construction challenges
encountered during the initial stages of the work.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 8

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

• In 2006 Canberra airport pavements, Bitac was successfully used and identified as a
successful treatment option in delaying the reflection cracking within the asphalt overlays.
• To rehabilitate the aged concrete pavements Hatelit inter-layers together with Glassgrid
geogrids were used in three different projects at Melbourne airport, East Sale (Victoria) Air
Force base and Edinburgh (South Australia) Air Force base (Alexander, 1996).
• Point Cook airfield (Victoria) comprised an old plain jointed concrete pavement with 60 mm
of asphalt surfacing. The surface was badly (reflection) cracked and was treated by
excavating to expose the concrete joint, applying a Bitac tape, backfilling with asphalt in
2008 and subsequently applying a crumbed rubber SAMI (in 2012) in preparation for a future
asphalt overlay. The treatment was successful at significantly reducing reflection cracking.
The combined process of isolated treatment at the joints followed by an area-wide treatment
is commonly referred to as ‘top-hatting’.

Combination treatments appear to be the most effective mitigation against reflection cracking
associated with joints in concrete pavements with asphalt overlays. Combining mitigation
strategies adds costs but is the most effective approach. The ‘premium’ treatment would
include top-hatting, with a Bitac applied at the bottom, followed by a SAMI prior to two layers of
elastomeric modified asphalt with a Hatelit geogrid at the interface.

Maintenance of reflection cracks primarily includes the sealing of cracking with rubberised
bitumen bandages, no different to sealing other cracks in airport pavement bituminous surfaces.
Sealing cracks is often highly effective at both preventing moisture ingress as well as controlling
crack spalling. More intrusive maintenance effort requires excavation, treatment and backfilling
with asphalt, which essentially becomes a question of ‘mitigation’ rather ‘maintenance’.

FURTHER WORK AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although the mechanism and main causes of the reflection cracking are well established, there
is still a need for further research to determine the most efficient treatment options for reflection
cracking. Specifically, a laboratory test for the objective comparison of SAMIs, grids, crack
resistance asphalt mixtures and asphalt thickness would be of benefit. Future research
addressing reflective cracking in airport pavements is recommended to include:

• Experimental investigation in the laboratory to assess and determine:

– The effect of loading level and frequency in reflective cracking performance of the asphalt
overlay;
– The effect of different temperature regimes in reflective cracking performance of the
asphalt overlay;
– The optimum asphalt overlay thickness in composite pavements; and
– The relative effect of geosynthetics, SAMIs and other mitigations in reducing reflective
cracking in composite pavements.
• A constitutive prediction model using different material theories (e.g. theory of viscoelasticity
and thermo-viscoelasticity) which could be solved in a finite element model.
• Calibration and verification of experimental and numerical models for the reflection cracking
by the real-world field results and material performance.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A review of reflective cracking of asphalt overlays associated with joints in plain jointed rigid
pavements indicates that reflective cracking is an important distress mode for airports. Although
the mechanisms and causes are generally understood, further work is required to better
understand the relative benefit of various mitigation treatments. It is recommended that further
research be undertaken to develop a method for the objective comparison of various mitigation
options, through a combination of laboratory testing and numerical modelling, calibrated to field-
performance observations.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 9

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

REFERENCES
Al-Qadi, I., Scarpas, T., & Loizos, A. (2008). Pavement Cracking-Mechanisms, Modeling,
Detection, Testing and Case Histories. Processings of the 6th Rilem International
Conference on Cracking In Pavements (pp. 16-18). Chicago, USA: Taylor and Francis
Group.

Chen, C. (2014). Evaluation of Iowa asphalt pavement joint cracking. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University.

Gautam , A. (2009). Tolerable Strains for HMA Overlays over Concrete Pavements . Kansas:
Faculty of the University of Kansas School of Engineering.

Alexander, W. (1996). Geogrid Reinforcement of Asphalt Overlays on Australian Airport

Pavements. In A. M. L.Francken, Reflective Cracking in Pavements: Design and
performance of overlay systems (p. 261). Victoria: E & FN Spon.

Al-Qadi, I., Elseifi, M., & Greene, J. (2015, August 24). Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies
for Reflective Cracking in Rehabilitated Pavements. Retrieved from www.trb.org:
onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/webinars/150824.pdf

Bari, J., & witczak, M. (2006). Development of a New Revised Version Witczak E* Predictive
Model for Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, 75.

Beak, J., Al-Qadi, I. L., & Butt, W. G. (2008). Reflective Cracking Control. Sixth RILEM
International Conference on Cracking in Pavements (pp. 1-45). Chicago, Illinois:
RILEM.

Bennert, T. A. (2009). A Rational Approach To the Prediction of Reflective Cracking in

Bituminous Overlay for Concrete Pavements. New Brunswick, New Jersey: New
Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Boral. (2012, 01 01). www.boral.com.au. Retrieved from

www.boral.com.au/brochures/.../11779_SydneyAirports_LR.pdf?...SydneyAirports

Bozkurt, D. (2002). Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis to Evaluate Reflective Cracking
Potential in Asphalt Concrete Overlays. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 160
pp: Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Civil Engineering.

Button, J., & Lytton, R. (2007). Guidelines for Using Geosynthetics with Hot-Mix Asphalt
Overlays to Reduce Reflective Cracking. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 111–119.

Castell, M., & Irwin, L. (n.d.). Fatigue Crack Growth in Pavements.

Chen. (2015). Refective Crack Mitigation Guide for Flexible Pavements. Ames, IA 50010-8664:
the Iowa Highway Research Board and the Iowa Department of Transportation.

Cook, J., & Ellis, S. (2005). Reflection cracking on airfield pavement-a design guide for
assessment, treatment selection and future minimisation. West Midland: Defence
Estates.

Dave, E., Song , S., Buttlar , W., & Paulino , G. (2007). Reflective and thermal cracking
modeling of asphalt concrete overlays. Advanced Characterisation of Pavement and
Soil Engineering Materials, 1241-1252.

Dhakala, N., A.Elseifi, M., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Mitigation strategies for reflection cracking in
rehabilitated pavements – A synthesis. International Journal of Pavement Research and
Technology 9, 228–239.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 10

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

Ellis , S., Langdale, P., & Cook, J. (2002). Performance of Techniques to Minimise Reflection
Cracking and Associated Developments in Pavement Investigation for Maintenance of
Uk Military Airfields. Federal Aviation Administration Airport Technology Transfer
Confrence, (pp. 1-15). United Kingdom.

FAA. (2016). Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Adminstration.

Fallah, S., & Khodaii, A. (2015). Evaluation of parameters affecting reflection cracking in
geogrid-reinforced overlay. J. Cent. South Univ. (2015) 22: 1016−1025, 1016-1025.

Flintsch , G., & Diefenderfer, B. (2008). Composite Pavement Systems: Synthesis of Design and
Construction Practices. Charlottesville, Virginia: In Cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

Garzon, J., Duarte, C., & Buttlar, W. (2009). Analysis of Reflective Cracks in Airfield Pavements
Using a 3-D Generalized Finite Element Method. Road Materials and Pavement Design,
1-15.

Hammons, M. (1997). Advanced Pavement Design: Finite Element Modeling for Rigid
Pavement Joints Report 1 – Background Investigation, DOT/FAA/AR-95/85.
Washington D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Havens, J. (1966). Composit Pavement Design. Kentucky Department of Highways (pp. 1-6).
Washington, D. C.: Highway Research Board.

Huang , Y. (2004). Pavement Analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Education.

Huang, B., Li, G., & Mohammand, L. (2003). Analytical Modeling and experimental study of
Tensile strength of Asphalt concrete composite at low temperature. Composite, Part B:
Engineering, 705-714.

Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Education.

Khodaii, A., Fallah, S., & Moghadas Nejad, F. (2008). Effects of geosynthetics on reduction of
reflection cracking in asphalt overlays. nternational Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1-
8.

Kohale, V., & Lytton, R. (2000). Design of Asphalt Concrete Overlay to Mitigate. Florida: Project
No. 7256, Florida Department of Transportation.

Kohn, S., & Tayabji, S. (2003). Best Practices for Airport Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Construction (Rigid Airport Pavement). Washington, DC: Innovative Pavement
Research Foundation.

Lytton, R. L., Tsai, F. L., Lee, S.-I., Luo, R., Hu, S., & Zhou, F. (2010). Models for Predicting
Reflection Cracking of Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlays. College Station, TX: TEXAS
Transportation Institute.

Mahernia, H. (2010). Developmentof the Strategy to Select Optimum Reflective Cracking

Mitigation Methods forthe Hot-Mixed AsphaltOverlays in Florida. Orlando, Florida:
University of Central Florida.

Martín, J. (2016, 10 1). Long live your airport’s pavement. Spain.

Mehta, Y., Cleary, D., & Ali, A. (2017). Field cracking performance of airfield rigid pavement.
Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 380-387.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 11

28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

NCHRP. (2004). National Cooperative Highway Research Program.Guide for Mechanistic-

Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Champaign, IL:
NCHRP 1-37A.

Newcomb, D. E. (2009). Thin asphalt overlays for pavement preservation. Lanham, USA:
National Asphalt Pavement Association.

Newcomb, D. E., Mahoney, J. P., & Sharma, J. (1995). Use of NDT to Evaluate Reflection
Cracking in Airfeild Pavements. Virginia: Defense Technical Infrmation Centre.

Nunn , M., Brown, A., Weston, D., & Nicholls , J. (1997). Design of long-life pavements for
heavy traffic. U.K: Transportation Research Laboratory,TRL250.

Nuun, M. (2004). Development of a more versatile approach to flexible and flexible composite
Pavement design. UK: TRL Report TRL615. Highways Agency, Berkshire.

Owusu-Antwi, E., Khazanovich, L., & Titus-Glove, L. (2014). Mechanistic-Based Model for
Predicting Reflective Cracking in Asphalt Concrete–Overlaid Pavements. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 98-1118.

Pais, J. (1999). Reflective Cracking in Flexible Pavement Overlay Design. Portugal: Submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of Doctor of Philosophy, University of
Minho,203 pp.

Roberts, F., Kandhal, P., Brown, E., & Lee, D. (1996). Hot-mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture
Design, and Construction. NAPA Research and Education Foundation. Lanham, MD.:
NAPA Research and Education Foundation.

Tsai, F.-L. (2010). Prediction of Reflection Cracking in Hot Mix Asphalt Overlays. Texas: Texas
A&M University.

Uzarowski, L. (2012, 12 18). Why Ontario Lands on Us. HMA is the standard for Runways
Everywhere. Retrieved from
http://www.onasphalt.org/files/FAS_2012/Presentation%20on%20HMA%20at%20Airpor
ts%20Ludomir%20Uzarowski.pdf

Von Quintus , H., Finn, F., & Hudson , F. (1976). Flexible and composite structures for premium
pavements. Washington. D. C.: Federal Highway Adminstration.

Von Quintus, H., Mallela, J., Weiss, W., Shen, S., & Lytton, R. (2009). Techniques for Mitigation
of Reflective Cracks, Final Report AAPTP 05-04. Auburn, AL.: Airfield Asphalt Pavement
Technology Program,Auburn University.

Walker RS , W., & Mary J, A. (2010). PCASE User Manual . Transportation Systems Center and
Engineering Research and Development Center.

White, G. (2017). State of the art: Asphalt for airport pavement surfacing. International Journal
of Pavement Research and Technology, 1-22.

Yavari, M., & Balali, A. (2015). Evaluation of Runway Pavement Design Software and
Application of Modified Asphalt Overlay on Airfields. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Urbanism, 257-264.

Yin, H., & Ishee, C. (2015). Evaluation of Strain Relieving Interlayer to Retard Thermally-
Induced Reflective Cracking. TRB Annual Meeting and Publication in the Transportation
Research Record .

Zhou, F., & Scullion, T. (2005). Overlay Tester: A Simple Performance Test for Thermal
Reflective Cracking. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 74,
443-83.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 12

 28th ARRB International Conference – Next Generation Connectivity, Brisbane, Queensland 2018

Zhou, F., & Sun, L. (2000). Mechanistic Analysis of Reflective Cracking and Validation of Field
Test,Proceedings of the 4th International RILEM Conference The Reflective Cracking in
Pavements: (pp. 81-92). Research in Practice.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Sahar Deilami is a pavement engineer with GHD’s Brisbane office. She is also undertaking her
studies towards a PhD at University of Sunshine Coast under the supervision of Dr. Greg White.
Sahar received her MPhil from Curtin University, with a thesis on the application of recycled
material in pavement base courses. Sahar has more than six years’ experience in civil, bridge
and pavement engineering in Australia and overseas.

Greg White is the Director of the Airport Pavement Research Program at the University of the
Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia. Following a career as a RAAF Airfield Engineering
Officer, Greg worked for a number of Australia's leading engineering design consultants and
then a leading airfield asphalt and construction contractor. In 2016 Greg commenced work as a
research academic at the University of the Sunshine Coast and also provides independent,
specialists technical consulting services to the airport pavement industry.

Copyright Licence Agreement

The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 28th Australian Road Research
Board International Conference, granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:

• publish the work in printed format

• publish the work in electronic format
• publish the work online.

The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works

The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2018 13

View publication stats