Evaluating Influence of Thickness and Interface Bonding on Overlay Service Life Using 3D FEM
Publication: International Journal of Geomechanics
Volume 19, Issue 4
Abstract
The use of structural and nonstructural overlays has gained popularity in recent years due to financial and environmental constraints; however, the impact of overlay thickness and the type of applied tack coat on induced strains, where overlay interfaces with an existing surface layer, has not yet been extensively evaluated. In this study, the three-dimensional (3D) finite-element modeling technique was used to evaluate existing pavements of varying thicknesses with various overlay thicknesses, and different interface bonding strengths that were modeled in Abaqus. The results of this study verify that the impact of interface bonding strength on the overlay durability and structural characteristics of pavement changes drastically by changing the overlay thickness. For nonstructural overlays with a thickness of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) or 25.4 mm (1 in.), interface bonding strength (tack coat) was found to play a prominent role in overlay durability, whereas overlay thickness was found to have a negligible impact. Increasing the thickness of the overlay from 25.4 mm (1 in.) to 50.8 mm (2 in.) significantly decreased the impact of interface bonding strength, whereas the influence of overlay thickness increased.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support for this project received from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Center for Transportation Infrastructure Systems (CTIS) at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP).
References
Al-Qadi, I. L., A. Loulizi, M. A. Elseifi, and S. Lahouar. 2004. “The Virginia smart road: The impact of pavement instrumentation on understanding pavement performance.” Assoc. Asphalt Pavement Technol. J. 73: 427–465.
Al-Qadi, I. L., P. J. Yoo, M. A. Elseifi, and S. Nelson. 2009. “Creep behavior of hot-mix asphalt due to heavy vehicular tire loading.” J. Eng. Mech. 135 (11): 1265–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2009)135:11(1265).
De Beer, M. 1996. “Measurement of tyre/pavement interface stresses under moving wheel loads.” Int. J. Heavy Veh. Syst. 3 (1–4): 97–115.
Elseifi, M. A., I. L. Al-Qadi, and P. J. Yoo. 2006. “Viscoelastic modeling and field validation of flexible pavements.” J Eng. Mech. 132 (2): 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2006)132:2(172).
Hua, J., and T. White. 2002. “Study of nonlinear tire contact pressure effect on HMA rutting.” Int. J. Geomech. 2 (3): 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:3(353).
Huang, C. W., R. K. Abu Al-Rub, E. A. Masad, and D. N. Little. 2011. “Three-dimensional simulations of asphalt pavement permanent deformation using a nonlinear viscoelastic and viscoplastic model.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (1): 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000022.
Huang, Y. H. 2003. Pavement analysis and design. 2nd ed. London: Pearson.
Hunter, A. E., G. D. Airey, and O. Harireche. 2007. “Numerical modeling of asphalt mixture wheel tracking experiments.” Int. J. Pavement Eng. Asphalt Technol. 8: 1–19.
Korkiala-Tanttu, L. 2008 “Stress studies for permanent deformation calculations.” In Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Transportation Geotechnics, 201–206. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Liu, L., and N. G. Gharaibeh. 2014. “Bayesian model for predicting the performance of pavements treated with thin hot-mix asphalt overlays.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2431 (1): 33–41. https://doi.org/10.3141/2431-05.
Mohammad, L. N., M. Raqib, and B. Huang. 2002. “Influence of asphalt tack coat materials on interface shear strength.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1789 (1): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.3141/1789-06.
Romanoschi, S. A., and J. B. Metcalf. 2001. “The characterization of asphalt concrete layer interfaces.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1778 (1): 132–139. https://doi.org/10.3141/1778-16.
Romanoschi, S. A., and J. B. Metcalf. 2003. “The errors in pavement layer moduli backcalculation due to improper modeling of the layer interface condition.” In Proc., Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. CD-ROM. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Saad, B., H. Mitri, and H. Poorooshasb. 2005. “Three-dimensional dynamic analysis of flexible conventional pavement foundation.” J. Transp. Eng. 131 (6): 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:6(460).
Salinas, A., I. L. Al-Qadi, K. I. Hasiba, H. Ozer, Z. Leng, and D. C. Parish. 2013. “Interface layer tack coat optimization.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2372 (1): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.3141/2372-07.
Williamson, M. J. 2015. “Finite element analysis of hot-mixed asphalt layer interface bonding.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Kanas State Univ.
Yoo, P. J., I. L. Al-Qadi, M. A. Elseifi, and I. Janajreh. 2006. “Flexible pavement responses to different loading amplitudes considering layer interface condition and lateral shear forces.” Int. J. Pavement Eng. 7 (1): 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298430500516074.
Zhao, Y., C. Zhou, and Y. Tan. 2009. “Effects of layer interface conditions on fatigue behavior of asphalt pavements with semi-rigid bases.” In Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Chinese Transportation Professionals, 2426–2435. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
International Journal of Geomechanics
Volume 19 • Issue 4 • April 2019
Copyright
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 19, 2018
Accepted: Sep 6, 2018
Published online: Jan 24, 2019
Published in print: Apr 1, 2019
Discussion open until: Jun 24, 2019
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.