Geotechnical Special Publication No.

213 © ASCE 2011 72

Assessment of Reflective Cracking Models for Asphalt Pavements

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Luis Loria1, Elie Y. Hajj2 and Peter E. Sebaaly3

1
PhD Candidate, Center, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557-0152. [email protected]
2
Research Assistant Professor, Western Regional Superpave Center, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada 89557-0152. [email protected]
3
Director, Western Regional Superpave Center, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557-0152.
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The research effort documented in this paper is directed toward identifying an

analytical model that can be used to predict the resistance of HMA overlays to
reflective cracking and predict their long-term performance. Various models were
identified and three models were studied and compared in this research effort: 1)
Virginia Tech Simplified Overlay Design Model, 2) Rubber Pavements Association
(RPA) Overlay Design Model, 3) the New AASHTO model for Reflective Cracking.
The identified models were assessed by the research team based on their ability to
predict the performance of HMA overlays subjected to reflective cracking. An
overlay design was conducted for three different HMA overlay mixes using the three
identified overlay design methods. The overlay mixes were manufactured using
different aggregate gradations from the Sloan pit in Southern Nevada and a PG76-22
polymer modified asphalt binder. The overlay was designed for 7,000,000 ESALs
over the 20 years analysis period. Finally, a comparison was exerted among the
various HMA overlay thicknesses required by each method and the material
properties associated to such determination to accomplish the design traffic.

Keywords: Reflective Cracking, Hot mix asphalt, Overlay, Flexible Pavements.

INTRODUCTION

One major type of distress influencing the life of an overlay is reflective cracking.
When asphalt overlays are placed over jointed rigid pavements or severely cracked
flexible pavements, cracks will reflect to the surface in a relatively short period of
time. Physical tearing of the overlay occurs because of movements under heavy
wheel loads at joints and cracks in the underlying pavement layer. Therefore, the
long-term performance of the HMA overlays will depend on their ability to resist
reflective cracking (Elsefi and Al-Qadi, 2003). Reflective cracking in the overlay

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance

 Geotechnical Special Publication No. 213 © ASCE 2011 73

allows water to percolate into pavement structure and weakens the HMA and the
supporting layers, hence contributing to many forms of pavement deteriorations.
Moisture can damage the HMA mix by promoting the stripping of the asphalt binder
from the aggregate. It can also significantly reduce the strength of the base and
subgrade materials, which would lead to the total failure of the flexible pavement
structure (Sousa et al., 2001 and MEPDG, 2004). Various methods have been
developed to assess the reflective cracking through HMA overlays.
Several research (Jacobs et al., 1996 and Molenaar and Nods, 1996) suggested the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

use of a power law (Paris’ law) to calculate the rate of crack propagation through the
new overlay thickness:

dC
= AK n (1)
dN

dC
where, = Crack propagation rate per number of load cycles,
dN
K = stress intensity factor, and
A,n = experimentally obtained constants.

In 2007, the Saint-Gobain Company developed equations for helping in the design
of HMA overlays (Saint Goban, 2007). Another method has been proposed by the
National Highway Institute (NHI) (Koerner, 2005), based on the Geotextile Industry
efforts to provide a design method against reflective cracking in HMA overlays by
means of the use of geosynthetics.
The research effort documented in this paper was directed toward identifying an
existing analytical model that can be used to predict the resistance of HMA overlays
to reflective cracking and predict their long-term performance. Various models were
identified and three models were studied and compared in this research effort:

• Virginia Tech Simplified Overlay Design Model

• Rubber Pavements Association (RPA) Overlay Design Model
• The New AASHTO model for Reflective Cracking

The identified models were assessed by the research team based on their technical
merit and their ability to predict the performance of HMA overlays subjected to
reflective cracking. The technical merit of the models was assessed directly based on
the mechanistic theory of pavement structures. An overlay design was conducted for
three different HMA overlay mixes using the three identified overlay design methods.
The overlay mixes were manufactured using different aggregate gradations from the
Sloan pit in Southern Nevada and a PG76-22 polymer modified asphalt binder. The
overlay was designed for 7,000,000 ESALs over the 20 years analysis period.
Finally, a comparison was exerted among the various HMA overlay thicknesses
required by each method and the material properties associated to such determination
to accomplish the design traffic.

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance

 Geotechnical Special Publication No. 213 © ASCE 2011 74

REVIEW OF SELECTED OVERLAY DESIGN METHODS

Virginia Tech Simplified Overlay Design Model

In 2003, Elseifi and Al-Qadi developed an overlay design procedure to predict the
service life of rehabilitated flexible pavement structures against reflective cracking.
The researchers used the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) principles to
derive a simple equation based on three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

analysis that can be used to predict the number of cycles to failure against reflective
cracking for rehabilitated flexible pavements.
The total number of load repetitions (Ntotal) to produce the crack reflection to the
pavement surface was defined as the sum of the number of load repetitions for crack
initiation and the number of load repetitions for crack propagation.
In order to avoid the time consuming FE analyses, the researchers developed a
regression model to predict the number of cycles in ESALs as a function of the
significant variables as shown in Equation 2. The developed design equation was
based on the results of all the considered cases in this study. The interaction between
the different variables was also considered, but was found statistically insignificant.

1
log Wt 80 = ( 255 H overlay + 2.08 E overlay + 45.3H HMA + 8.73E HMA
10 4
1.34 H Base + 6.93E Base + 1.49 E subgrade ) (2)

where, Wt80 = total number of 80-kN single-axle load applications,

Hoverlay = thickness of HMA overlay (mm),
Eoverlay = resilient modulus of HMA overlay (MPa),
HHMA = thickness of existing HMA layer (mm),
EHMA = resilient modulus of existing HMA layer (MPa),
Hbase = thickness of base layer (mm),
Ebase = resilient modulus of base layer (MPa), and
Esubgrade = resilient modulus of subgrade (MPa).

Rubber Pavements Association Overlay Design Model

In 1999, the Rubber Pavements Association (RPA) contracted with Consulpav to

develop a mechanistic overlay design method for reflective cracking in HMA
overlays that are applied to existing cracked HMA pavements (Sousa et al., 2001).
The research project involved the development of mathematical and statistical models
based upon 3D finite element method (FEM) to determine the stresses and strains in
the HMA overlay above the crack.
This mathematical-statistical model was converted into a practical pavement design
method for reflective cracking by reviewing considerable actual field cracking data
and material layer properties. The method consists of the seven steps summarized
below. For more detailed information refer to “Development of a Mechanistic

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance

 Geotechnical Special Publication No. 213 © ASCE 2011 75

Overlay Design Method Based on Reflective Cracking Concepts, Final Report for
Rubber Pavements Association (Sousa et al., 2001)”:
1. Determination of the moduli and thicknesses of the pavement section layers.
2. Determination of representative air temperatures: It is necessary to compute
the weighted mean annual air temperature (w-MAAT) as proposed by the
Shell design method.
3. Selection of design cracking percentage.
4. Determination of adjustment factors:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a. Aging Adjustment Factor: The Aging Adjustment Factor (AAF) is

determined from the maximum air temperature.
b. Temperature Adjustment Factor: To take into consideration the
combined action of the wheel loads on a daily basis above (or near) the
crack and the overlay material above the crack being under tension due
to rapidly decreasing or low temperatures.
c. Field Adjustment Factor: The Field Adjustment Factor (FAF) was
introduced to relate the predictions obtained using the empirical-
mechanistic reflective cracking model with the actual (reported and
observed) field performance.
5. Selection of overlay material modulus.
6. Determination of the design value “Von Mises” strain. With the appropriate
modulus and thickness for each layer, the “Von Mises” strain (εVM) is
calculated.
7. Determination of design equivalent single axle load (ESAL’s).

The New AASHTO model for Reflective Cracking

In the new AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG),

the design procedure for HMA overlays of existing HMA surfaced pavements
considers distresses developing in the overlay as well as the continuation of damage
in the existing pavement structure. However, it should be noted that the reflective
cracking models incorporated in the MEPDG were based strictly on empirical
observations and were not a result of rigorous mechanistic-empirical analysis
(MEPDG, 2004).
The percentage of reflective cracks through the overlay for a cracked HMA
pavement is predicted as a function of time using the sigmoidal function shown in
Equation 3.

100
RC = (3)
1 + e a + bt

where, RC = Percent of cracks reflected,

t = Time in years,
a = 3.5 + 0.75×hac
b = – 0.688584 – 3.37302×(hac)-0.915469, and
hac = HMA overlay thickness in inches.

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance

 Geotechnical Special Publication No. 213 © ASCE 2011 76

HMA OVERLAY DESIGN USING THE VARIOUS ANALYSIS MODELS

An HMA overlay was designed for a typical flexible pavement section using all
three analysis models described before. The existing pavement structure consisted of
a 4.0 inch (100 mm) HMA layer with a modulus of 360 ksi (EHMA = 2500 MPa) and a
10 inch (250 mm) base layer with a modulus of 30 ksi (Ebase = 210 MPa) on top of a
subgrade with a modulus of 12 ksi (Esubgrade = 83 MPa).
The traffic ESALs are estimated as function of years for an annual average daily
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

traffic (AADT) of 30,000 and a truck percentage of 3.85 percent. The following
summarizes the design ESALs over the 20 years analysis period using a truck factor
of 0.912, an annual growth rate of 7%, a directional distribution factor of 50%, and a
lane distribution factor of 90%: Year 1: 172,600; Year 3: 554,800; Year 5: 992,400;
Year 10: 2,384,250; Year 15: 4,337,000; and, Year 20: 7,075,000 ESALs.
The analysis was conducted for three different HMA mixes that were designed
using different aggregate gradations from the Sloan pit in Southern Nevada and a
PG76-22 polymer modified asphalt binder. The three mixtures consisted of:

• Nevada DOT Type 2C intermediate gradation, designated as T2C.

• Caltrans gradation used for intersections, designated as CT.
• No Rut Mixture gradation, designated as NRM.

Table 1. Pavement Layers Material Properties

Thickness Modulus at
Layers Fatigue characteristics*
(inch) 70°F (ksi)

NDOT T2C --# 790

HMA
CT --# 1,045
overlay

NRM --# 1,375

Cracked HMA 4.0 360 N.A.

Unbound base 10.0 30 N.A.

Subgrade -- 12 N.A.
*Nf is the number of repetitions to failure, ε is the flexural strain in microns
#
to be designed according to all three reflective cracking design methods

All three mixes were designed according to the Nevada department of transportation
(NDOT) Hveem Mix Design Method as outlined in the NDOT Testing Manual. The
optimum asphalt binder contents were 4.2, 4.0 and 3.7 by dry weight of aggregate for
the T2C, CT and NRM mixtures, respectively. It should be noted that all mixtures
were treated with 1.5% of hydrated lime by dry weight of aggregate following the
NDOT specifications.

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance

 Geotechnical Special Publication No. 213 © ASCE 2011 77

The dynamic modulus test (AASHTO TP62) was used to develop the dynamic
modulus master curve of the various HMA mixtures. Table 1 shows the dynamic
modulus (Eoverlay) of the various overlay mixtures at a temperature of 70°F and a
loading frequency of 10 Hz. The fatigue characteristics of the HMA mixtures were
evaluated using the flexural beam fatigue test “AASHTO T321-03.” The fatigue
models were determined using the MEPDG constitutive relationship shown in
Equation 4 which correlates the number of cycles to failure (Nf) to the tensile strain (ε
in microns) and the mixture’s stiffness (E in ksi). k1, k2, and k3 constants are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

experimentally determined coefficients. Table 1 shows the fatigue constitutive

models of the various evaluated mixes. It should be noted that the fatigue
characteristics of the various mixes can only be incorporated in the RPA Overlay
Design Method.

k2 k3
⎛1⎞ ⎛1⎞
N f = k1 ⎜ ⎟ × ⎜ ⎟ (4)
⎝ε ⎠ ⎝E⎠

Summary of Design Example

Figures 1.a to 1.c compare the required overlay thickness determined from the
Virginia Tech, Rubber Pavements Association, and the new AASHTO analysis
methods for all three types of mixtures. The Virginia tech and the Rubber Pavements
Association models resulted in a relatively comparable overlay design thicknesses
with the Virginia tech method being more conservative. On the other hand, the
AASHTO method overestimated the overlay thickness compared to the Virginia Tech
and the Rubber Pavements Association methods.
The data in Table 2 show that for the same design ESAL’s, a thicker overlay
thickness is required for the T2C mix followed by the CT mix and the NRM mix
when designing using the Virginia Tech method. On the other hand, the opposite was
found when designing using the RPA method where a thinner overlay thickness is
required for the T2C mix followed by the CT mix and the NRM mix to reach the
same selected percentage of cracking. For example, in the case of 0% reflected
cracks, the overlay thicknesses required were respectively 3.60, 4.90 and 15.25 inch
(91, 229 and 387 mm) for the T2C, CT and NRM mixtures. Same behavior occurred
for the 2%, 5% and 15% reflected cracks.
This analysis shows that the T2C mixture requires a lower thickness than the CT
and the highly stiffer NRM mixture. This trend can be explained by the fact that the
NRM mixture is designed for rutting resistance and its stiffness is much higher than
the other two mixtures. Due to such high stiffness, this mix can be very close to its
brittleness limit and the required flexibility for the reflective cracking resistance is
reduced. On the other hand, the more flexible T2C mix has the ability to better
withstand the reflective cracking effect. The AASHTO MEPDG design method
resulted in a 12 inch (305 mm) overlay thickness to reach 100% reflected cracking
after 20 years design period regardless of the type of the overlay mix.
In summary when only the stiffness of the overlay mix is considered (i.e., Virginia
Tech method), a thinner overlay thickness was found for the stiffer mix whereas,

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance

 Geotechnical Special Publication No. 213 © ASCE 2011 78

when both the stiffness and the fatigue characteristic of the mix are considered (i.e.,
RPA method), the overlay thickness depended on the interaction between the two
material properties.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) T2C (b) CT

(c) NRM
FIG. 1. Required overlay thicknesses using the various analysis models

Table 2. Overlay Design Thicknesses for 20 years Design Period

Overlay thickness (inches)

HMA overlay Rubber Pavements Association
Virginia AASHTO MEPDG (100%
mix % reflected cracking
Tech reflected cracks)
0% 2% 5% 15%
NDOT T2C 4.50 3.60 2.40 2.00 0.75 12.00
CT 4.00 4.90 4.00 3.00 1.00 12.00
NRM 3.25 15.25 12.50 9.25 3.25 12.00

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance

 Geotechnical Special Publication No. 213 © ASCE 2011 79

CONCLUSIONS

The following are the general conclusions concerning the three methods evaluated
and compared in this research. For the Virginia Tech Simplified Overlay Design
Model the overlay thickness is undoubtedly the major factor in dictating the overlay
performance against reflective cracking failure, followed by the thickness of the
existing HMA layer. Additionally, it appears that the base thickness and subgrade
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 09/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

modulus has the least effect on the overlay performance in resisting reflective
cracking.
For the Rubber Pavements Association Overlay Design Model: currently the model
has been calibrated for only two materials: Dense graded mixes with PG70-10 binders
(HMA-DG) and gap graded mixes with asphalt rubber modified binders (AR-HMA-
GG). However, the model can be calibrated for other mixtures by using the
appropriate dynamic modulus and fatigue relationship. Also, the various adjustment
factors can be calibrated in order to account for other site conditions.
Finally, the AASHTO MEPDG design method resulted in a constant overlay
thickness to reach 100% reflected cracking after 20 years design period regardless of
the type of the overlay mix and regardless of the mechanic properties of either the
HMA overlay or the existing pavement structure.

REFERENCES

Elseifi, M., and Al-Qadi, I. (2003). “A Simplified Overlay Design Model Against
Reflective Cracking Utilizing Service Life Prediction,” Paper No. 03-3285
presented at the TRB 82nd Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement
Structures (2004). Final Report, Part 3 Design Analysis, Ch 6, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council.
Jacobs, M. M., Hopman, P. C., and Molenaar, A. A. A. (1996). “Application of
Fracture Mechanics Principles to Analyze Cracking in Asphalt Concrete.” In
Proceeding Annual Meeting of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
AAPT, Vol. 65, Baltimore, MD, pp. 1–39.
Koerner, R. (2005). “Designing with Geosynthectics”. Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall.
Molenaar A., and Nods, M. (1996). “Design Method for Plain and Geogrid
reinforced Overlays on Cracked Pavements”. In Reflective Cracking in
Pavements: Design and Performance of Overlay Systems, Proceedings of the Third
International RILEM Conference, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2 – 4 October,
1996. pp. 311-320.
Sousa, J., Pais, J., Saim, R., Way, G., and Stubstad, R. (2001). “Development of a
Mechanistic Overlay Design Method Based on Reflective Cracking Concepts,”
Final Report for Rubber Pavements Association, Consulpav International.
The Saint-Gobain Company. (2007). “Technical Manual: Advanced Fiber Glass
Technology for Asphalt Pavement Overlays”. From website:
http://www.glasgrid.com/.

Road Pavement and Material Characterization, Modeling, and Maintenance