Research Article

Transportation Research Record

2020, Vol. 2674(1) 68–78
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Optimal Structure Combination for Transportation Research Board 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Inverted Asphalt Pavement sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0361198119899056

Incorporating Cracks in Cement-Treated journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Subbase

Aimin Sha1, Zhenqiang Han2, Liya Jiao3, Liqun Hu1, and Hongyin Li4

Abstract
The structure design and mechanistic calculation of inverted asphalt pavements are mainly based on linear layer elastic theory
with the assumption that the cement-treated subbase (CTB) is complete without cracks. This study investigates the optimal
structure combination for inverted pavements according to calculated critical responses considering cracks in the CTB layer. A
three-dimensional finite element (3D FE) model of inverted pavement with a transverse crack through the CTB layer was
developed. Four full-scale inverted pavement sections were built, and a crack 0.01 m wide and 0.05 m deep was sawn on top of
each CTB layer after construction. The 3D FE model was validated by strain and deformation measured in falling weight
deflectometer tests and used for a parametric study of dominating structure combination factors. Variance analysis results
show that interactions with thickness or stiffness of the asphalt concrete (AC) layer presented the most significant effect on
critical responses, while CTB stiffness (12588~7668 MPa) had the least impact. Structure variation effect analysis results illu-
strated that 0.1 m aggregate base (AB) thickness is enough to prevent the CTB crack propagating to the surface. Thin AC
structures are highly sensitive to variations in AC and AB stiffness. A thin AC and AB combination (0.05 and 0.10 m) can pro-
vide low critical strains similar to a thick AC and thin AB (0.15 and 0.10 m) combination if the stiffness of AC and AB can be
maintained at 7175 and 358 Mpa, respectively, or higher. AC thickness of 0.1 m and the combination of thin AC and thick AB
are two unfavorable conditions for inverted pavements.

Inverted asphalt pavements utilize a well-constructed
aggregate base (AB) to reduce the thickness of the
asphalt concrete (AC) layer and to effectively prevent the
propagation of cracks from the cement-treated subbase
(CTB) to the pavement surface (1, 2). This pavement
structure has been researched and applied in countries
such as South Africa and the U.S.A. for several decades
and has been shown to have long service life and low
life-cycle cost (3, 4). As a key component of the inverted
pavement, the material design and nonlinear anisotropic
properties of AB have been widely studied both in
laboratories and in field tests (5). Given the close prox-
imity between the AB and traffic loads, stress-dependent
stiffness has a significant impact on the mechanistic
responses of the inverted pavement and therefore it has
been studied by many researchers (6, 7). In the
mechanistic-empirical (ME) pavement design approach,
the mechanistic responses of pavement structures to traf-
fic loads are usually important inputs for models of
material damage and distress to pavements used to pre-
dict the expected design life (8, 9). To acquire a reliable
and cost-effective design plan for highway projects, it is
of great importance to obtain the strain and stress values
close to the real responses in pavement structures. The
mechanistic analysis is especially necessary for the eva-
luation of unconventional inverted pavement structures
that lack extensive practical application and evidence
compared with conventional pavements.
Researchers have made great efforts to improve the
models of constituent materials to obtain the most accu-
rate and reliable pavement layer responses for inverted
pavements. Data on the cross-anisotropy and temperature
dependency properties of AC materials are considered to
1
Key Laboratory for Special Area Highway Engineering of Ministry of
Education, Chang’an University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
2
School of Highway, Chang’an University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
3
University of California Pavement Research Center, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Davis, CA
4
Qilu Transportation Development Group Co., Ltd., Ji’na, Shandong, China
Corresponding Author:
Zhenqiang Han, zhenqiang_han@chd.edu.cn
Sha et al
improve the accuracy of strain and stress calculations for
the AC layer (10). Different nonlinear constitutive models
have been utilized to characterize the stress-dependent
properties of AB materials in numerical simulation models
for inverted pavements (11–13). The cross-anisotropy
property has also been applied to improve the tensile strain
or stress simulation results of granular materials as tensile
forces cannot be transferred by the unbonded particles in
the AB layer (14). It should be noticed, however, that the
mechanistic analysis and numerical simulations for
inverted pavements are generally based on linear layer elas-
tic theory, with the exception of the AB layer. The CTB
layer is usually assumed to be an intact slab without any
cracks, which contradicts the fact that the cement-treated
materials are very prone to shrinkage or thermal cracking.
Moreover, the stiffness of the CTB layer will be markedly
decreased at the positions of cracks, which could affect the
deformation and strain responses of the AC and AB layers
on top of the cracks accordingly. The pavement design
model presets the CTB layer as an intact block which
would understate mechanical responses and deformation
within different layers of the pavement. Furthermore, it is
also possible that the CTB cracks will propagate through
the base if the AB layer is too thin. Hence it is necessary to
investigate the pavement responses related to the critical
distresses for inverted pavements considering that there are
cracks in the CTB layer. The optimal structure combina-
tions with proper layer thickness and stiffness can be fur-
ther determined based on the critical responses under
adverse service conditions.
Accelerated pavement testing (APT) has been utilized
as an effective way to facilitate the ME structure design
of flexible pavements in South Africa. CTB cracking is
considered in the design process by defining three crack-
ing state phases during the life cycle of inverted pave-
ments (15). The effect of CTB cracking is represented as
the reduction in stiffness in different phases, but the mod-
ulus of the CTB layer is modeled as a constant value for
the duration of a phase with a sudden change at the end
of each phase. The effect of CTB cracking on the strain,
stress, and deformation of AB and AC layers near the
cracks has not been fully considered.
Therefore, a three-dimensional finite element (3D FE)
model of inverted pavement with a transverse crack
through the CTB layer was developed to investigate the
effect of CTB cracking on the critical mechanical
responses. Four inverted pavement sections were built
and a crack 0.01 m wide and 0.05 m deep was sawn on
top of the CTB layer of each test section after construc-
tion. The 3D FE model was validated with strain and
deformation on top of the pre-sawn cracks, measured in
falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests. The validated
model was then used for a parametric study by varying
the thickness and stiffness of the AC, AB, and CTB
69
layers. Critical responses related to fatigue cracking and
rutting distresses were calculated and extracted from the
3D FE models with structure combinations designated in
the parametric study. The dominant structure combina-
tion factors and factor-level interactions were determined
according to the results of analysis of variance of the crit-
ical responses. Relations between the critical responses
and variations in the thickness and stiffness of the domi-
nant layers are further investigated and discussed to
characterize the influence of structure combination on
the mechanical response and distress of pavements.
Based on the calculation and analysis results, the optimal
structure combination and structure design strategy for
inverted asphalt pavements are recommended.
Methods
Test Sections
This study investigates the optimal structure combination
for inverted asphalt pavement based on the critical
mechanical responses when considering cracks in the
CTB layer. To facilitate this study, a 3D FE model of four
indoor, full-scale inverted asphalt pavement sections was
developed in ABAQUS (version 6.14). The structure com-
binations of the four test sections, from top to bottom,
are as follows: a 5 cm–10 cm AC layer, a 15 cm–20 cm
AB layer, a 25 cm CTB, a 15 cm aggregate improved sub-
grade (ASG), and the in-situ loess subgrade (SG). Each
test section in this study is 4 meters long and 3.5 meters
wide. To investigate the effect of CTB cracking on the
pavement response, a crack 0.01 m wide and 0.05 m deep
was sawn on top of the CTB layer in every section after
construction. Longitudinal strain gauges were embedded
at the position right on top of the pre-sawn CTB crack at
the bottom of the AC layer in each test section. Data
acquisition system DH3820 (16–18) was used to collect
dynamic strain responses from the strain gauges. Strain
data were sampled and stored at the frequency of 100 Hz.
All strain transducers were shunt calibrated and zeroed
before testing. APT with 300,000 loading repetitions was
conducted on the four test sections using the heavy vehicle
simulator (HVS). HVS traffic load of 50 kN and 9 km/h
was applied with the center of the loading wheel aligned
with the longitudinal strain gauges.
The layer stiffnesses of different test sections were
back calculated by the FWD data and were utilized as
the material properties in the FE simulation. The struc-
ture combinations and back-calculated layer stiffnesses
of the four test sections (S1~S4) are shown in Table 1.
FE Modeling
The geometry of the FE model is constructed based on
the four instrumented test sections. A quarter cube model
70
Figure 1. (a) Geometry of the 3D finite element model and meshing results and (b) simulation results of one structure case with a
transverse crack through the cement-treated subbase (CTB) layer.
is used for the 3D simulation of the inverted pavement.
The dimensions of the model were determined as 2.0 m
3 1.5 m 3 1.5 m (length, width, and depth) which
allowed adequate distance to avoid the boundary effect
on strain responses according to the response distribu-
tion in inverted pavements reported by Han et al. (19).
The moderate or small model sizes were adopted to
reduce the calculation cost. The material properties and
thickness of every layer are assigned according to the
instrumented section described above. Assumptions of
layered elastic theory and fully bonded interlayer condi-
tions are adopted in this model. The uniformly distribu-
ted load of 700 kPa was applied on the surface in the
right top corner of the quarter model. The load is a quar-
ter circle with a radius of 0.15 m for FWD tests when
doing model validation, and the load is a 24 cm 3 11.2
cm rectangle for the tire loads when evaluating the effects
of structure combination on critical responses. Since the
cracks will propagate throughout the CTB layer from the
pre-sawn position, a 2 m 3 0.25 m 3 0.005 m (x-y-z)
transverse crack instance was constructed and tied to the
CTB layer underneath the center of the load (z coordi-
nate = 0) in the FE model. The granular materials of the
AB and ASG layers in the pavement were simulated
using the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model. Tri-axial
loading tests under three confining stresses of 50, 100,
and 200 kPa were conducted to obtain the plasticity
parameters of the Mohr-Coulomb model. The friction
angles are 49.06 and 43.23 degrees, while the cohesion
yield stresses are 171.1 and 140.1 kPa for aggregate mate-
rials in the AB and ASG layers, respectively.
An eight-node, first-order brick element with reduced
integration (C3D8R) was selected for mesh generation. A
Transportation Research Record 2674(1)
mesh sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the
optimum element size for the fine mesh. The maximum
principal strain at the bottom of the AC layer became
constant when the minimum length of the meshed ele-
ment was less than 0.005 m. To further improve the con-
vergence rate, it is common practice to assign fine mesh
and coarse mesh for regions near and far away from the
loading area, respectively. An edge biased structure
meshing pattern was used to obtain a smooth transition
from fine mesh to coarse mesh. The geometry and mesh-
ing results of the model are shown in Figure 1a. The bot-
tom boundary is restrained to move along the x and y
directions and restrained to rotate around the z direction.
Movements of the vertical boundaries are restrained only
in the horizontal directions.
Since the FE model does not propagate strain and
stress effects across adjacent cracked sections, the crack in
the CTB layer was simulated as cohesive material. This
allowed vertical shear stiffness to be assigned across the
cracked region while normal stiffness was assumed to be
negligible. The vertical shear stiffness would be representa-
tive of the load transfer efficiency between cracked seg-
ments of the CTB layer and was determined when the 3D
FE model gave the most similar longitudinal tensile strain
and surface deformation at the center of the load com-
pared with those measured in the FWD tests. The average
of CTB crack shear stiffnesses obtained from the four test
sections is found to be around 40 MPa, which is adopted
as the shear stiffness for the crack instance in the following
simulations. Figure 1b illustrated the calculation results
from one structure case with a transverse crack through
the CTB layer. It can be observed that the CTB layer
deformed significantly at the cracking position and a small
Sha et al 71

Table 1. Test Section Structure Combination and Back- The validated 3D FE model is used for a parametric
Calculated Layer Stiffnesses study to investigate the effect of structure combination
variations on the critical distresses of inverted asphalt
Test section ID S1 S2 S3 S4
pavements. The layer thickness and stiffness are essential
AC thickness (m) 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 aspects of structure design which are considered as criti-
AC stiffness (MPa) 8796 7175 5186 5634 cal parameters in this study. However, the subgrade is
AB thickness (m) 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.15 far away from the surface and its stiffness is usually
AB stiffness (MPa) 361 358 349 327 adopted based on the engineering practice or specifica-
CTB thickness (m) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
CTB stiffness (MPa) 12567 12588 12574 12602 tions for the place in which it is applied. Thus, this study
ASG thickness (m) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 mainly focuses on the effect of the thickness and stiffness
ASG stiffness (MPa) 205 206 202 207 of the AC, AB, and CTB layers. The thicknesses of the
SG thickness (m) 1.5 1.55 1.55 1.6 AC, AB, and CTB layers are usually selected to be
SG stiffness (MPa) 116 118 113 117
0.05 m, 0.15 m, and 0.25 m respectively, in accordance
Note: AC = asphalt concrete layer; AB = aggregate base; CTB = cement
with the practice of inverted asphalt pavements in South
treated base; ASG = aggregate improved subgrade; SG = subgrade. Africa (20). Therefore, in this study the minimum thick-
nesses for the AC and CTB layers were selected as
portion of AB material was forced into the crack under 0.05 m and 0.25 m, respectively. Considering that the AB
traffic loads. Therefore, the AB layer plays an important is designed to prevent the propagation of CTB cracks,
role in preventing the crack from propagating to the sur- the minimum AB thickness was reduced to 0.1 m to
face. The CTB cracks also had significant impacts on the investigate how thin the AB layer can be. The maximum
performance of the CTB and AB layers, and the AB layer thickness of AC and AB were selected to be 0.15 m and
may fail if it is too thin. It is important to investigate the 0.2 m, as inverted pavements feature a thin AC layer and
critical pavement responses and the corresponding optimal selecting a very thick AB layer could reduce the overall
structure combination for inverted asphalt pavements stiffness of the pavement. The maximum CTB thickness
under the condition of CTB containing cracks. was adopted as 0.6 m. The stiffness variation of test sec-
tion #2 (S2) during the APT with 300,000 load repeti-
tions was taken as reference to determine the layer
Model Validation and Parametric Study
stiffness variation scale. Stiffnesses of AC, AB, and CTB
The 3D FE model was validated with field-measured decreased from 7175 MPa to 3870 MPa, 358 MPa to
longitudinal strains at the bottom of the AC layer and 212 MPa, and 12,588 MPa to 7668 MPa after the APT
the corresponding deformation at the center of the test, respectively. The thicknesses of ASG and SG were
300 mm loading plate in the FWD tests. The results of fixed at 0.15 and 0.8 m, while the stiffnesses were
the four test sections, calculated by the FE model and adopted as the average of the measured moduli of the
measured by FWD, are shown in Table 2. To verify the four sections. The parametric study design scheme is
validity of the 3D FE model, paired T-tests were con- shown in Table 3. There are 216 simulation cases in total
ducted between the measured and calculated longitudinal for the full parameter analysis.
strains and surface deformations. P-values of the paired The process and steps of this study are further con-
T-tests for the longitudinal strain and surface deforma- cluded and illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 2.
tion are presented in Table 2 and both are higher than
the statistical significance cutoff value of 0.05 corre-
sponding to the 95% confidence level. This indicates that Results
the data for strain and deformation do not show signifi-
cant statistical difference between the measured and cal- Variance Analysis of Structure Parameters
culated values, and the FE model can be used to conduct Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a procedure for assign-
further simulation for the inverted pavements in this ing sample variance to different sources and deciding
study. whether the variation arises within or among different

Table 2. Measured and Calculated Responses and P-value Results of Paired T-Tests

S1 S2 S3 S4 Average P-value

Calculated longitudinal strain ( 310 6 ) 164 156 200 188 177 0.077
Measured longitudinal strain ( 310 6 ) 199 159 283 260 225
Calculated deformation (mm) 0.018 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.0178 0.078
Measured deformation (mm) 0.096 0.093 0.403 0.371 0.241
72 Transportation Research Record 2674(1)

Figure 2. Process and steps of the study on the optimal structure combination of inverted pavements.

Table 3. Parametric Study Design Scheme Table 4. P-value Results of the Analysis of Variance for the
Maximum Principal Strain and Maximum Deformation
Potential impact factors Factor levels
Max. Max.
Pavement length (m) 4.0 na na principal deformation
Pavement width (m) 3.0 na na strain at the at the surface
AC thickness (m) 0.05 0.10 0.15 Source of variance bottom of AC of AC
AC stiffness (MPa) 7175 3870 na
AB thickness (m) 0.10 0.15 0.20 ACThickness 0.0000 0.0000
AB stiffness (MPa) 358 212 na ACStiffness 0.0000 0.0000
CTB thickness (m) 0.25 0.40 0.60 ABThickness 0.0000 0.0000
CTB stiffness (MPa) 7668 12,588 na ABStiffness 0.0000 0.0000
Aggregate subgrade thickness (m) 0.15 na na CTBThickness 0.0000 0.0000
Aggregate subgrade stiffness (MPa) 205 na na CTBStiffness 0.0000 0.0000
Subgrade thickness (m) 0.80 na na ACThickness*ACStiffness 0.0000 0.0023
Subgrade stiffness (MPa) 116 na na ACThickness*ABThickness 0.0000 0.0000
ACThickness*ABStiffness 0.0000 0.0000
Note: AC = asphalt concrete layer; AB = aggregate base; CTB = cement ACThickness*CTBThickness 0.0000 0.0000
treated base; na = not applicable. ACThickness*CTBStiffness 0.5247 0.3510
ACStiffness*ABThickness 0.0000 0.0000
ACStiffness*ABStiffness 0.0000 0.0000
ACStiffness*CTBThickness 0.0281 0.0000
population groups. This study conducted a six-way ACStiffness*CTBStiffness 0.9040 0.0475
ANOVA based on the main structure parameters which ABThickness*ABStiffness 0.0000 0.0000
potentially affect the mechanical response and deforma- ABThickness*CTBThickness 0.0000 0.0000
tion of the inverted asphalt pavement. The observed ABThickness*CTBStiffness 0.0491 0.0076
ABStiffness*CTBThickness 0.0001 0.0200
variables of maximum principal strain at the bottom of ABStiffness*CTBStiffness 0.5596 0.5164
the AC layer and the maximum deformation on the top CTBThickness*CTBStiffness 0.0001 0.0001
surface of the AC are affected by six factors: the thick-
nesses and stiffnesses of the AC, AB, and CTB layers. Note: AC = asphalt concrete layer; AB = aggregate base; CTB = cement
The dominant factors and the corresponding factor-level treated base; Max. = maximum.
interactions which significantly affect the fatigue crack-
ing and deformation of inverted asphalt pavement were entries in Table 4 are the P-values for the main effects
then determined. which are all less than 0.05, indicating that all six factors
The main effects and the interactions of the six factors have significant influence on both the maximum princi-
were investigated in the ANOVA and the corresponding pal strain and the maximum deformation of the AC
P-value results are presented in Table 4. The first six layer. The last 15 entries are the P-values for the two-
Sha et al
Figure 3. Multiple comparison test results of factor levels for (a) maximum principal strain at bottom of the asphalt concrete layer and
(b) maximum surface deformation.
way interactions of the six factors. The P-values of the
interactions ACThickness*CTBStiffness, ACStiffness*
CTBStiffness, and ABStiffness*CTBStiffness are higher
than 0.05, indicating that the effects of these interactions
related to CTB stiffness on the maximum principal
strain and deformation are not significant. However, the P-
values of the CTBStiffness interaction with AB and CTB
thickness are lower than 0.05 for both observed variables.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the stiffness reduction of
CTB from 12,588 MPa to 7668 MPa only has significant
interaction with the variations of thickness of AB and CTB
among all the factors investigated in this study. The P-val-
ues of all interactions related to CTB thickness are less than
0.05, indicating that the change of CTB thickness has a sig-
nificant effect on the strain and deformation of the inverted
pavement. The rest of the interactions are among the thick-
ness and stiffness of AC and AB layers whose P-values are
less than 0.05, indicating that the stiffness and thickness of
AC and AB have a significant impact on the maximum
strain and surface deformation.
Thereafter, multiple comparison tests were performed
among different levels of the dominating factors to test if
the observed responses are the same for all factor levels
and to determine the combinations of factor levels pre-
senting the highest and lowest strain and surface defor-
mation. Results of the multiple comparison tests for the
maximum principal strain at the bottom and maximum
deformation on top of the AC layer are shown in
Figure 3a and b respectively. The interpretation of the
interaction combination ID (ICI) used in Figure 3 is
documented in Table 5. Based on the strain difference
presented in Figure 3a, it can be analyzed that the AC
stiffness and thickness illustrated more significant impact
73
on the maximum principal strain than those of AB layer,
while the variation of CTB stiffness from 7668 Mpa to
12,588 MPa have little effect on the response. Factor-
level combinations of 0.15-7175–0.1-358–0.6-12588
(ACThickness-ACStiffness–ABThickness-ABStiffness–
CTBThickness-CTBStiffness) and 0.05-3870–0.2-212–
0.25-7668 presented the lowest and highest maximum
principal strain, respectively. The P-value results illu-
strated that combinations in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 illu-
strated in Figure 3a are statistically the same for each
group, indicating that increasing CTB stiffness cannot
really help reduce the strain response when the AC and
AB layers are strong and CTB is thick (group 1), or
when the AC and AB layers are weak and the CTB is
thin (group 2). By comparing groups 3 and 4, it can be
observed that the stiffness and thickness of the CTB
layer have little impact on the maximum strain when the
AB layer is thick and soft. Moreover, the combination of
thin and stiff AC (group 3) resulted in smaller strain than
the thicker and softer AC (group 4).
Therefore, as the inverted asphalt pavement features a
thin AC layer, it is essential for the AC and AB layers to
have sufficient stiffness to reduce the maximum strain at
bottom of the AC layer. Besides, increasing the stiffness
of CTB cannot effectively reduce the strain but will in
turn increase the possibility of cracking.
The multiple comparison results for the maximum sur-
face deformation are shown in Figure 3b. It can be ana-
lyzed, according to the deformation difference between
different combinations, that the thickness of the AC, AB,
and CTB layers affected the surface deformation the
most, followed by the stiffness of AC and AB layers.
CTB stiffness (7668~12,588 MPa) had the most
74 Transportation Research Record 2674(1)

Table 5. Interpretation of the Interaction Combination ID used in Figure 3

Interaction factor levels

Interaction AC thickness AC stiffness AB thickness AB stiffness CTB thickness CTB stiffness
combination ID (m) (MPa) (m) (MPa) (m) (MPa)

ICI-1 0.15 7175 0.10 212 0.25 7668

ICI-2 0.15 3870 0.10 358 0.25 7668
ICI-3 0.15 7175 0.10 358 0.25 7668
ICI-4 0.10 7175 0.10 358 0.25 7668
ICI-5 0.15 7175 0.20 358 0.25 7668
ICI-6 0.15 7175 0.10 358 0.40 7668
ICI-7 0.15 7175 0.10 358 0.60 7668
ICI-8 0.15 7175 0.10 358 0.25 12588
ICI-9 0.15 7175 0.10 358 0.40 12588
ICI-10 0.15 7175 0.10 358 0.60 12588
ICI-11 0.15 7175 0.20 358 0.60 12588
ICI-12 0.05 7175 0.20 358 0.60 12588
ICI-13 0.10 3870 0.20 212 0.25 7668
ICI-14 0.05 7175 0.20 212 0.25 7668
ICI-15 0.05 3870 0.20 212 0.25 7668
ICI-16 0.10 3870 0.20 212 0.40 7668
ICI-17 0.05 7175 0.20 212 0.40 7668
ICI-18 0.10 3870 0.20 212 0.60 7668
ICI-19 0.05 7175 0.20 212 0.60 7668
ICI-20 0.10 3870 0.20 212 0.25 12588
ICI-21 0.05 7175 0.20 212 0.25 12588
ICI-22 0.10 3870 0.20 212 0.40 12588
ICI-23 0.05 7175 0.20 212 0.40 12588
ICI-24 0.10 3870 0.20 212 0.60 12588
ICI-25 0.05 7175 0.20 212 0.60 12588
ICI-26 0.15 3870 0.10 358 0.25 12588
ICI-27 0.15 7175 0.10 212 0.60 12588
ICI-28 0.15 3870 0.10 358 0.60 12588

Note: ICI = interaction combination ID; AC = asphalt concrete layer; AB = aggregate base; CTB = cement treated base.

insignificant impact. A structure combination of thicker
and stiffer AC and CTB layers with a thinner and stiffer
AB layer illustrated smaller surface deformation.
Combinations 0.15-7175–0.1-358–0.6-12588 and 0.05-
3870–0.2-212–0.25-7668 demonstrated the lowest and high-
est surface deformation, respectively. Moreover, the differ-
ence of combinations in group 5 is insignificant according
to the P-value results, which indicates that both combina-
tions of thin and stiff AC (0.05-7175) and thick and soft
AC (0.1-3870) have similar performance regarding the sur-
face deformation. Consequently, it is important to ensure
enough stiffness for the AC layer and avoid the thick and
soft design for AC and AB in inverted pavements. Greater
thickness of CTB and stiffness of AB will also be beneficial
to reduce the surface deformation.
this study, the structure combination factors illustrated
similar effects on the maximum principal strain and the
maximum surface deformation in the variance analysis
results. Generally, the maximum tensile strain at the bot-
tom of the AC layer is selected as an essential parameter
to characterize the AC fatigue performance. The perma-
nent deformation of the AC layer is strongly related to
the maximum shear strain at the depth of 0.05 m beneath
the AC surface. Therefore, the maximum principal strain
at the bottom of the AC layer and the maximum shear
strain at the depth of 0.05 m beneath the surface are
selected as representative parameters to evaluate the
effects of structure combinations on the typical pavement
distresses, on the basis of which the optimal structure
combination can be further determined.

Structure Variation Effect Analysis
Typical distress patterns for inverted asphalt pavements
are fatigue cracking of the AC layer and excessive perma-
nent deformation of the pavement surface. However, in
Effects of AC Thickness and Stiffness Variation. The maximum
principal strain at the bottom of the AC layer and the
maximum shear strain at the depth of 0.05 m obtained
from simulation cases with different AC thickness and
stiffness are shown in Figure 4. Since the thickness and
Sha et al
Figure 4. Maximum principal strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete (AC) layer and maximum shear strain at the depth of 0.05 m
beneath the AC surface for cases with different AC thickness and stiffness; the labeling convention is ACStiffness-ABThickness-
ABStiffness-CTBThickness-CTBStiffness.
stiffness of the AC and AB layers illustrated significant
interaction in the ANOVA, a range of AB thicknesses
and stiffnesses were also considered when analyzing the
effects of the AC layer. The thickness and stiffness of
CTB were fixed at 0.25 m and 12,588 MPa. It can be seen
from Figure 4 that the maximum principal strain is inver-
sely related to AC thickness and stiffness. The combina-
tion of stiff AC with thin and stiff AB (7175–0.1-358,
ACStiffness-ABThickness-ABStiffness) presented the
lowest principal strain, and the case of soft AC with thick
and soft AB (3870–0.15-212) showed the highest princi-
pal strain. Besides, cases of 7175–0.1-385 with 0.05 and
0.1 m AC thickness illustrated similar principal strains.
Consequently, inverted pavements with thin and stiff AC
and AB layers can provide better fatigue performance
than the pavement structure with thick and stiff AC and
AB layers (7175–0.2-358). Moreover, the combination of
7175–0.1-358 also demonstrated low shear strain, and its
combination with 0.05 m AC thickness especially pre-
sented lower shear strain than other combinations. It can
be observed from Figure 4 that higher AC stiffness and
thickness resulted in lower shear strains, but the AC
thickness of 0.1 m showed much higher shear strain level
compared with other AC thicknesses. Therefore, it can
be concluded that increasing the AC thickness can
decrease the strain level, but it is also possible to use thin
AC together with a thin AB layer to achieve a lower
strain level if enough AC and AB stiffness can be pro-
vided. It should also be noted that 0.1 m seems to be an
unfavorable thickness for AC rutting.
75
Effects of AB Thickness and Stiffness Variation. The maximum
principal strain and maximum shear strain from simula-
tion cases with different AB thickness and stiffness are
shown in Figure 5. Based on the ANOVA results, the
stiffness and thickness of the AC were also considered
when studying the effects of the AB layer. Generally, the
maximum principal strain increased as the AB thickness
increased and stiffness decreased. However, as shown in
Figure 5, the combination of 358–0.05-7175
(ABStiffness–ACThickness-ACStiffness) showed princi-
pal strain very close to combinations of 358–0.1-7175
and 212–0.15-7175 when AB thickness is 0.1 m. The
maximum shear strain results also show that thin AB
(0.1 m) with a thin and stiff AC layer (0.05 m-7175 MPa)
can also provide similarly low shear strains compared
with thick and stiff AC (0.15 m-7175 MPa). Accordingly,
it is demonstrated that the structure combination of thin
and stiff AC and AB layers in inverted pavement had
very similar strain responses to the structure with a thick
and stiff AC layer. Nevertheless, the stiffness of the AB
has remarkable effects on the principal strains when the
AC thickness is 0.05 m compared with greater AC thick-
nesses. Thus, an AC layer lacking thickness is sensitive
to variations in AB stiffness, and it is very important to
maintain high stiffness for the AB layer when using a
thin AC layer in the pavement structure.
The responses of test section S2 before and after the
APT test can be found in Figure 5 as cases of 358–0.1-
7175–0.25-12588 and 212–0.1-3870–0.25-7668 when AB
thickness is 0.15 m. It can be observed that the strain
76
Figure 5. Maximum principal strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete (AC) layer and maximum shear strain at the depth of 0.05 m
beneath the AC surface for cases with different aggregate base (AB) thickness and stiffness; the labeling convention is ABStiffness-
ACThickness-ACStiffness-CTBThickness-CTBStiffness.
increase for AB thickness of 0.1 m after the APT test was
not significantly higher than those of the 0.15 and 0.2 m.
Consequently, it can be inferred that 0.1 m AB thickness
could be able to prevent the upward propagation of the
CTB layer cracks in the inverted pavement.
The maximum shear strain is not significantly affected
by AB stiffness but is greatly influenced by the thickness
and stiffness of the AC. The shear strain dramatically
increased as the AB thickness increased from 0.10 m to
0.15 m when AC thickness is 0.05 m. Therefore, it indi-
cates that thin AC with thick AB is not an ideal combi-
nation for rutting distress. Although a thinner AB layer
can provide relatively lower shear strain, it is essential to
ensure enough stiffness for the AB layer to avoid exces-
sive principal strain at the bottom of the AC layer.
Moreover, since the cost of increasing the thickness of
the AC layer is high in highway engineering, the combi-
nation of thin and stiff AC and AB (0.05-7175–0.1-358)
offers better cost-effectiveness than the combination of
thick and stiff AC with a thin and stiff AB layer (0.15-
7175–0.1-358). Therefore, it is suggested to adopt the thin
and stiff AC and AB structure combination and avoid
the thin AC and thick AB combination for inverted
pavements.
Effects of CTB Thickness and Stiffness Variation. The effects of
thickness and stiffness of CTB on the critical strain
responses of inverted pavements are shown in Figure 6.
Different AC and AB stiffnesses were considered when
Transportation Research Record 2674(1)
investigating the effect of CTB thickness and stiffness.
The CTB stiffness is found to have little effect on either
the maximum principal strain or the maximum shear
strain, which is in accordance with the ANOVA results.
The variation of CTB thickness illustrated similar
impacts on the maximum principal strain for all AC and
AB thickness and stiffness combinations. The critical
strains decreased as CTB thickness increased from 0.25
m to 0.4 m but remained constant as the thickness
approached 0.6 m. The maximum shear strain also
became stable as the CTB thickness increased from 0.4
m to 0.6 m. It can be observed from Figure 6 that the
maximum principal strain is mainly affected by the stiff-
ness of the AC and AB layers, while the maximum shear
strain is mostly affected by the AC stiffness. Therefore, it
can be inferred that 0.4 m and 7668 MPa is sufficient for
inverted pavements to acquire desirable fatigue and rut-
ting performance. It is more important to guarantee suf-
ficient AC and AB stiffness, which is 7175 and 358 MPa
in this study.
Conclusion
This paper presents a study evaluating the effects of var-
iations in structure combination on the critical strain
responses of inverted pavements incorporating cracks in
the CTB layer. FE simulation models were constructed
and validated using test results from FWD tests on full-
scale inverted test sections. The crack in the CTB layer
Sha et al
Figure 6. Maximum principal strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete (AC) layer and maximum shear strain at the depth of 0.05 m
beneath the AC surface for cases with different CTB thickness and stiffness; the labeling convention is CTBStiffness-ACThickness-
ACStiffness-ABThickness-ABStiffness.
was simulated as cohesive materials defined with vertical
shear stiffness, and the granular materials in the pave-
ment were simulated using the Mohr-Coulomb constitu-
tive model. The validated model was used for a
parametric study by varying the thickness and stiffness
of the AC, AB, and CTB layers. The maximum principal
strain at the bottom of the AC layer and the maximum
shear strain at the depth of 0.05 m beneath the AC sur-
face were selected as critical parameters to evaluate the
effects of structure combination variations on the fatigue
cracking and permanent deformation of inverted
pavements.
ANOVA results illustrate that all the six investigated
factors (thickness and stiffness of the AC, AB, and CTB
layers) and interactions including CTB thickness and
thickness and stiffness of the AC and AB layers had sig-
nificant effects on the critical strain responses. Strain
response analysis of structure combinations containing
these factors and interactions allowed further insight into
the optimal structure combination and design strategy.
Results show that combination cases with greater AC
and AB stiffness, greater AC and CTB thickness, and
smaller AB thickness generally indicated lower critical
strain responses.
Combinations with thin and stiff AC and AB layers
(0.05-7175–0.1-358) indicated low critical strain responses
similar to the structure with thick and stiff AC together
with thin and stiff AB layer (0.15-7175–0.1-358). Thus, it
is possible for designers of inverted asphalt pavements to
77
adopt thin AC and AB layers to achieve desirable fatigue
and rutting performance with better cost-effectiveness if
the stiffness of the AC and AB can be maintained at 7175
and 358 MPa or higher. Moreover, results also show that
the AB thickness of 0.1 m is sufficient to prevent the
upward propagation of CTB cracks in the pavement
compared with 0.15 and 0.2 m. The CTB thickness of
0.4 m and stiffness of 7668 MPa can provide enough
structural support for inverted pavements to obtain rela-
tively low critical strains under 50 kN loads.
Two unfavorable structure combinations are found
for inverted pavements: thin AC and thick AB, which is
prone to cause high principal and shear strains in the AC
layer, and structure with 0.1 m AC thickness which expe-
rienced higher shear strain related to rutting than thick-
nesses of 0.05 m and 0.15 m.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: A. Sha, L. Hu; data collection: Z. Han,
H. Li; analysis and interpretation of results: L. Jiao, Z. Han;
draft manuscript preparation: Z. Han. All authors reviewed the
results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
78
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This research is funded by Qilu Transportation
Development Group Co., Ltd. Maintenance Technology
Project (Grant No. 2017B0061).
References
1. Tutumluer, E. Practices for Unbound Aggregate Pavement
Layers. No. Project 20-05, Topic 43-03. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., Vol. 445, 2013.
2. Tutumluer, E., and R. D. Barksdale. Inverted Flexible
Pavement Response and Performance. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1995. 1482: 102–110.
3. Papadopoulos, E. Performance of Unbound Aggregate
Bases and Implications for Inverted Base Pavements. PhD
Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology, 2014, p.
155.
4. Kleyn, E. Successful G1 Crushed Stone Basecourse Con-
struction. Presented at 31st Annual Southern African
Transport Conference, Pretoria, South Africa, 2012.
5. Terrell, R. G. Field Evaluation of the Stiffness of
Unbound Aggregate Base Layers in Inverted Flexible
Pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
Transportation Research Board, 2003. 1837: 50–60.
6. Papadopoulos, E., D. D. Cortes, and J. Carlos Santamar-
ina. In-Situ Assessment of the Stress-Dependent Stiffness
of Unbound Aggregate Bases: Application in Inverted
Base Pavements. International Journal of Pavement Engi-
neering, Vol. 17, No. 10, 2015, pp. 870–877.
7. Austin, A. M. Fundamental Characterization of Unbound
Base Course Materials under Cyclic Loading. Master’s The-
sis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechani-
cal College, 2009.
8. Alshandah, M., Y. Huang, P. Lu, and D. Tolliver. Bot-
tom-Up Crack Detection in Concrete Pavements Using In-
Pavement Strain Sensors. Proc., SPIE 10598, Sensors and
Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and
Aerospace Systems 2018, Denver, Colo., 2018.
9. Bao, Y., and G. Chen. Strain Distribution and Crack
Detection in Thin Unbonded Concrete Pavement Overlays
with Fully Distributed Fiber Optic Sensors. Optical Engi-
neering, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2015, p. 011008.
Transportation Research Record 2674(1)
10. Ahmed, M., A. Rahman, M. Islam, and R. Tarefder. Com-
bined Effect of Asphalt Concrete Cross-Anisotropy and
Temperature Variation on Pavement Stress–Strain Under
Dynamic Loading. Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 93, 2015, pp. 685–694.
11. Park, S. W., and R. L. Lytton. Effect of Stress-Dependent
Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio on Structural Responses in
Thin Asphalt Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engi-
neering, Vol. 130, No. 3, 2004, pp. 387–394.
12. Oh, J. H., R. Lytton, and E. Fernando. Modeling of Pave-
ment Response Using Nonlinear Cross-Anisotropy
Approach. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 132,
No. 6, 2006, pp. 458–468.
13. Papadopoulos, E., and J. Santamarina. Analysis of
Inverted Base Pavements with Thin-Asphalt Layers. Inter-
national Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 7,
2016, pp. 590–601.
14. Adu-Osei, A. Characterization of Unbound Granular Layers
in Flexible Pavements. International Center for Aggregates
Research, Research Report ICAR 502-3. Texas A&M Uni-
versity, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station,
Tex., 2001.
15. Theyse, H., M. De Beer, and F. Rust. Overview of South
African Mechanistic Pavement Design Method. Transpor-
tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1996. 1539: 6–17.
16. Wang, Y., Y. Wang, B. Han, B. Wan, G. Cai, and Z. Li.
Strain Monitoring of Concrete Components Using
Embedded Carbon Nanofibers/Epoxy Sensors. Construc-
tion and Building Materials, Vol. 186, 2018, pp. 367–378.
17. Donghua Testing Technology Co., Ltd, China. DH3820
High Speed Strain Test Analysis System. http://dhtest.com/
p_and_s/pro_cont/88.htm. Accessed July 20, 2018.
18. Wu, G. X., Z. W. Qin, L. Zhang, and K. Yang. Strain
Response Analysis of Adhesively Bonded Extended Com-
posite Wind Turbine Blade Suffering Unsteady Aerody-
namic Loads. Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 85, 2018,
pp. 36–49.
19. Han, Z. Q., A. M. Sha, L. Q. Hu, R. Z. Wu, and H. Y. Li.
Full-Scale Investigation on the Traffic Load Influence
Zone and its Dimension for HMA Layer in Inverted Pave-
ment. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 219, 2019,
pp. 19–30.
20. Committee of Land Transport Officials. Standard Specifi-
cations for Road and Bridge Works for State Authorities.
South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Midrand,
Pretoria, 1998.