Sunteți pe pagina 1din 24

DETERMINATION OF ASPHALT LAYER

THICKNESS ABOVE WHICH AXLE LOAD-


INDUCED STRAINS INITIATE
TOP-DOWN CRACKING

HIGHWAY ENGINEERING
LABORATORY

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI, GREECE

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea
FATIGUE CRACKING

Fatigue cracking is one of the major pavement distress mechanisms.


Bottom up cracking (BUC) ? or Top down cracking (TDC) ?

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 2
Almost all past and current flexible pavement design
methodologies consider bottom up cracking as one of the criteria
to determine thickness of asphalt layers.

Research and practice over the last couple of decades has shown
that cracking can also initiate from top and propagate towards the
bottom.

From: L. Myers, Explanation of top-down cracking, Presentation for Northeast Asphalt User/Producer Group, 2002 meeting,
FHA, USA (based on L. Mayers Ph.D. thesis 2000, University of California, USA)

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 3
Details for a radial tire

From: L. Myers, Explanation of top-down cracking, Presentation for Northeast Asphalt User/Producer Group, 2002 meeting,
FHA, USA (based on L. Mayers Ph.D. thesis 2000, University of California, USA)

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 4
Causes for top down cracking
• Load induced tensile strains

• Thermal stresses

• Binder aging

• Stiffness gradients induced by temperature gradients


along the depth of the pavement

• Construction issues such as segregation of the asphalt


mixture.

• A combination of the above

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 5
Scope of the study

The scope of the study was to determine the thickness of the


asphalt layer above which top-down cracking is the dominant
pavement deterioration mechanism in comparison to bottom-
up cracking.

Factors considered:
Load induced horizontal strains

in conjunction with
variability of asphalt stiffness and strength of layers
underneath the asphalt layers.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 6
METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED

In order to determine whether top-down cracking (TDC) or bottom-


up cracking (BUC) is the dominant pavement deterioration
mechanism, the load induced horizontal strains at the surface of the
pavement and at the bottom of the asphalt layer were determined and
compared.

The determination of the horizontal stains was carried out with the
use of BISAR 3.0 software assuming an elastic multi-layer system.

Four different load patterns were examined in the present study.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 7
The four different load patterns

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 8
Details of axle loads and tire structure

Tire Radius of contact Type


Type Axle load
Loading type load area of tire
of axle (kN)
(kN) (m) surface

i ESAL80 80 20 0.105 smooth

ii ESAL130 130 32.5 0.125 smooth

iii SL40 40 20 0.105 smooth

iv SSL140 140 70 0.1575 smooth

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 9
A two layer system was used. The two distinct layers were the
asphalt layer and the foundation layer (base, sub-base and sub-
grade taken as one layer).

The asphalt layer is represented by its Stiffness modulus (Smix)


and the foundation layer by its Foundation Surface Modulus
(FSM).

The FSM is determined by dynamic plate tests using either Light


Weight Deflectometer (LWD) or Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD) measured at the surface of the foundation layer.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 10
Stiffness of asphalt layers
The asphalt layers considered to be as one homogeneous layer.
The minimum thickness of the asphalt layer to start with was
selected to be 100 mm.

Different values of asphalt layer stiffness (modulus of elasticity)


were considered ranging from 2,000 MPa to 12,000 MPa in steps
of 2,000 MPa. The above range covers low, medium, or high
stiffness asphalts.

The wide range of stiffnesses considered also covers indirectly


asphalt’s stiffness variation due to air temperature or oxidization of
asphalts with time.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 11
Foundation Surface Modulus (FSM)
The Foundation Surface Modulus is defined as “a measure of ‘Stiffness
Modulus’ based on the application of a known load at the top of the
foundation; it is a composite value with contributions from all underlying
layers” (Highways England 2009).

Four different classes of FSM where used, as adopted by The British Design
methodology (Highways England 2009). The four different classes are:
Foundation class 1, FSM ≥ 50 MPa, for Flexible pavements with selected granular
or stabilized granular material
Foundation class 2, FSM ≥ 100 MPa , for Flexible pavements with unbound
crushed selective granular, or cement bound material with at
least C3/4
Foundation class 3, FSM ≥ 200MPa, for Semi-flexible pavements with cement
bound granular material with at least C8/10
Foundation class 4, FSM ≥ 400 MPa, for Semi-flexible pavements with cement
bound material achieving the required minimum FSM
International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of
Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 12
Combinations for obtaining horizontal stains at each selected
position per type of loading, Smix and FSM values

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 13
The criterion for determining TDC development
The criterion for determining the TDC development was the value of
horizontal strain developed at critical positions (bottom of the asphalt layer
and surface of the pavement).

For a given asphalt stiffness and FSM value, when the absolute value of
the horizontal strain developed at the surface of the pavement was
greater than the absolute value of the horizontal strain developed at the
bottom of the asphalt layer, and this remained so for any further
increase of asphalt layer thickness, the pavement was assumed to fail
due to top-down fatigue cracking (TDC) rather than due to the bottom-
up fatigue cracking.

The thickness of the asphalt layer at which the above was observed was
taken as the critical thickness above which top-down cracking is the
predominant tensile fatigue failure mechanism.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 14
RESULTS
The results of asphalt layer thickness above which TDC will be
the only pavement deterioration mechanism for fatigue
cracking have been tabulated in terms of asphalt stiffness
(Smix) and foundation classes (Foundation surface modulus-
FSM).

The results obtained are shown in the following tables.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 15
Results for 80 kN axle load with dual tire (ESAL80)
Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements
Foundation class
Asphalt Class 1: ≥ 50 Mpa Class 2: ≥ 100 Mpa Class 3: ≥ 200 Mpa Class 4: ≥ 400 Mpa
stiffness, Foundation surface modulus (FSM), MPa
MPa 50 70 90 100 150 190 200 300 390 400
Asphalt layer thickness above which TDC is expected to develop, mm (For dual tire load of 40 kN)
2000 171a 144b 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4000 193 185 176 172c 100 100 100 100 100 100
6000 200 196 190 187 172c 156d 153f 100 100 100
e a
8000 206 200 195 193 182 173 171 100 100 100
10000 209 204 200 198 189 182 180 160g 100 100
12000 211 207 203 201 193 187 186 171a 100 100
Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements
a=Also for thickness ≤ 102 mm initiation of TDC e= Also for thickness ≤ 101 mm initiation of TDC
b= Also for thickness ≤ 131 mm initiation of TDC f= Also for thickness ≤ 123 mm initiation of TDC
c= Also for thickness ≤ 103 mm initiation of TDC g= Also for thickness ≤ 112 mm initiation of TDC
d= Also for thickness ≤ 117 mm initiation of TDC

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 16
Results for 130 kN axle load with dual tire (ESAL130)
Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements
Foundation class
Asphalt Class 1: ≥ 50 Mpa Class 2: ≥ 100 Mpa Class 3: ≥ 200 Mpa Class 4: ≥ 400 Mpa
stiffness, Foundation surface modulus (FSM), MPa
MPa 50 70 90 100 150 190 200 300 390 400
Asphalt layer thickness above which TDC is expected to develop, mm (For dual tire load of 65 kN)
2000 204a 169b 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4000 231 220c 209d 203f 100 100 100 100 100 100
e g a i m
6000 240 232 226 222 204 187 181 100 100 100
8000 245 239 233 230 217h 206j 203f 100 100 100
e k n o
10000 249 243 238 235 225 216 214 191 100 100
12000 251 244 241 239 230 223l 221g 203f 100 100
Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements
a= Also for thickness ≤ 122 mm initiation of TDC i= Also for thickness ≤ 137 mm initiation of TDC
b= Also for thickness ≤ 152 mm initiation of TDC j= Also for thickness ≤ 119 mm initiation of TDC
c= Also for thickness ≤ 107 mm initiation of TDC k= Also for thickness ≤ 110 mm initiation of TDC
d= Also for thickness ≤ 116 mm initiation of TDC l= Also for thickness ≤ 104 mm initiation of TDC
e= Also for thickness ≤ 102 mm initiation of TDC m= Also for thickness ≤ 142 mm initiation of TDC
f= Also for thickness ≤ 121 mm initiation of TDC n= Also for thickness ≤ 112 mm initiation of TDC
g= Also for thickness ≤ 105 mm initiation of TDC o= Also for thickness ≤ 132 mm initiation of TDC
h= Also for thickness ≤ 109 mm initiation of TDC

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 17
Results for 40 kN axle load, single tire (SL40)

Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements


Foundation class
Asphalt Class 1: ≥ 50 MPa Class 2: ≥ 100 Mpa Class 3: ≥ 200 MPa Class 4: ≥ 400 MPa
stiffness, Foundation surface modulus (FSM), MPa
MPa 50 70 90 100 150 190 200 300 390 400
Asphalt layer thickness above which TDC is expected to develop, mm (Single tire load: 20 kN)
2000 209 204 200 198 189 182 181 167 155 154
4000 215 212 210 208 203 199 198 189 182 181
6000 218 216 214 213 208 205 205 198 192 192
8000 220 218 216 215 212 209 208 203 198 198
10000 221 219 218 217 214 212 211 206 202 202
12000 222 220 219 218 215 213 213 208 205 205

Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 18
Results for 140 kN axle load, super single tire (SSL140)
Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements
Foundation class
Asphalt Class 1: ≥ 50 MPa Class 2: ≥ 100 MPa Class 3: ≥ 200 MPa Class 4: ≥ 400 MPa
stiffness, Foundation surface modulus (FSM), MPa
Mpa 50 70 90 100 150 190 200 300 390 400
Asphalt layer thickness above which TDC is expected to develop, mm (Super single tire load of 70 kN)
2000 313 306 300 297 283a 274b 271b 250c 233d 231e
4000 324 321 315 314 304 298 297 283f 272g 232g
6000 327 324 320 319 312 308 307 296 288h 287h
8000 329 326 324 323 317 313 312 304 297 296
10000 331 329 326 325 320 317 316 309 303 302
12000 332 330 328 327 323 320 319 312 307 307

Flexible pavements Semi-Flexible pavements

a=also for thickness ≤ 105 mm initiation of TDC e= Also for thickness ≤ 128 mm initiation of TDC
b= Also for thickness ≤ 110 mm initiation of TDC f= Also for thickness ≤ 106 mm initiation of TDC
c= Also for thickness ≤ 120 mm initiation of TDC g= Also for thickness ≤ 111 mm initiation of TDC
d= Also for thickness ≤ 127 mm initiation of TDC h= Also for thickness ≤ 103 mm initiation of TDC

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 19
Equations derived
After multiple linear regression analysis four equations derived, for each
type of axle loading, so to determine the asphalt thickness above which
TDC is dominant for any value of FSM or/and Smix. The equations
derived are as follows:
For 80 kN single axle load, dual tire:
AT=177.46 – 0.205FSM+0.0042Smix (R2=0.85)
For 130 kN single axle load, dual tire:
AT=210.55 – 0.243FSM+0.0050Smix (R2=0.83)
For 40 kN single axle load, single tire:
AT=200.88 – 0.08FSM+0.0027Smix, (R2=0.83)
For 140 kN super single axle load, single tire:
AT=301.61 – 0.12FSM+0.0040Smix, (R2=0.83)
AT = asphalt layer thickness above which TDC is dominant (mm)
FSM = Foundation Surface Modulus (MPa)
Smix = Stiffness of asphalt layer (MPa).
International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of
Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 20
CONCLUSIONS
 Above a certain asphalt layer thickness the top down cracking (TDC), and not the
bottom up cracking, is the dominant tensile fatigue failure mechanism of flexible or
semi-flexible pavements.
 The thickness of the asphalt layer above which TDC becomes dominant depends on
the stiffness of the foundation layer, expressed as foundation surface modulus (FSM),
and the effective stiffness of the asphalt layer.
 Regardless of the pavement type (flexible or semi-flexible), for the same FSM, as the
stiffness of the asphalt layer increases, the thickness of the asphalt layer above which
TDC is dominant also increases.
 Similarly, regardless of the pavement type (flexible or semi-flexible), for the same
asphalt stiffness, as the stiffness of the foundation layer increases, the thickness of
the asphalt layer above which TDC is dominant decreases.

 The application of heavier single axle loads with wider contact surface areas,
regardless of having dual or single tires, also result in higher asphalt layer
thickness above which TDC failure is expected to occur.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 21
 The use of single instead of dual tire, for the axle loads used in this study, result in
greater asphalt layer thickness above which TDC is dominant, for any combination
of FSM and asphalt stiffness

 In flexible or semi-flexible pavements, when the thickness of the asphalt layer is


greater than a value falling within the range of approximately 150 mm to 330 mm,
TDC is expected to be the only tensile fatigue failure mechanism.

 However, there are cases where top down cracking is dominant even when the
asphalt layer thickness is 100 mm.

 For a semi-flexible type of pavement with FSM ≥ 390 MPa TDC develops when
the thickness of asphalt layer is ≥ 100 mm, in all cases regardless of asphalt layer
stiffness and type of loading.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 22
Top down cracking in comparison to bottom up cracking can be
detected almost at its initiation. Hence the distress is much easier and
less costly to be repaired.

Therefore, pavements with thick asphalt layers (effectively long life


pavements) should always be encouraged to be designed.

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 23
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!

International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of


Constructed Infrastructure Facilities, July 2017, Seoul, South Korea 24