DETERMINATION OF ASPHALT LAYER THICKNESS FOR TOP-DOWN CRACKING

INITIATION

Athanasios Nikolaides
Professor, Highway Engineering Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
University Campus, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece anik@civil.auth.gr

Evangelos Manthos *
Assistant Professor, Highway Engineering Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece emanthos@civil.auth.gr

ABSTRACT: Top-down cracking is a well-recognized pavement deterioration mechanism where cracks initiate
at the pavement surface and propagate downwards with time. This paper, adopting the principal of Foundation
Surface Modulus (FSM), determines the thickness of the asphalt layer above which top-down cracking is the
only pavement deterioration mechanism in comparison to the bottom up cracking. The study considered FSM
ranging from 50 MPa to 400 MPa which covers the flexible and flexible with hydraulically bound base (semi -
flexible) type of pavements. It also considered asphalt layer stiffness ranging from 2,000 MPa to 12,000 MPa
which covers low, medium, or high stiffness asphalts and indirectly asphalt’s stiffness variation due to air
temperature or oxidization of asphalts with time. As for the type and magnitude of axle loading four different
configurations have been considered. For the above mentioned axle loads the findings concluded that when the
thickness of the asphalt layers is greater than, approximately, 210 mm, 250 mm, 220 mm and 330 mm,
respectively, the flexible or semi-flexible pavement will fail only due to top down cracking and not due to
bottom up cracking regardless of the magnitude of FSM and asphalt stiffness. However, top down cracking also
occurs at lesser thicknesses of asphalt layers depending on the magnitude of FSM and asphalt stiffness. This
finding is extremely useful for engineers carrying out or planning pavement maintenance works.

KEY WORDS: Top-down cracking, Thickness determination, Flexible pavements, Semi-flexible pavements,
Strain induced cracking, Foundation Surface Modulus

1. INTRODUCTION

Cracking is one of the major pavement distress mechanisms. Cracking initiation and propagation characterizes
the pavement fatigue life. Almost all the past and current flexible design methodologies determine pavement
fatigue life considering the tensile strain or stress at the bottom of the asphalt layers. The above determination is
made under the assumption that the maximum tensile strain occurs at the bottom of the asphalt layers and hence
cracking initiates and propagates from asphalt layer bottom towards the pavement surface. However, research
and practice of the last decades has shown that cracking can also initiate from the pavement surface or near the
pavement surface and propagate towards the bottom of the asphalt layers. This type of cracking was notified as
top down cracking (TDC). According to Uddin [1], the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) was the first to
identify TDC in the late 1970s. In the 1980s TDC was also identified in South Africa [2], the Netherlands [3, 4]
and France [5]. In 1992, a detailed field investigation and numerical study on top down cracking was conducted
in Japan [6]. In USA TDC was observed in the late 1990s [7, 8, 9, 10]. Since then other countries such as
Portugal [11, 12], India [13] and China [14] have also studied and analyzed TDC failures. Lastly, TDC has been
listed as one of the most significant distresses, in the European study of climate change impacts on asphalt
pavements in regions north of the Alps [15].

2. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED IN THE CURRENT STUDY

The scope of the current study was to determine the thickness of the asphalt layer above which top-down
cracking (TDC) is the dominant pavement deterioration mechanism in comparison to bottom-up cracking
(BUC). In order to do the latter, the load induced tensile strains at the surface of the pavement and at the bottom
of the asphalt layer were determined and compared. The determination of the tensile stains was carried out with

Page 1
the use of BISAR 3.0 software assuming an elastic multi-layer system. For this study, a two-layer system was
selected. The two distinct layers were the asphalt layer and the foundation layer (unbound layer and sub-grade
combined), see paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 below. The software inputs needed for calculating the relevant strains
were: the axle loads and tire structure, the positions at which the strains will be calculated, the asphalt layer
thickness and the stiffness of the asphalt layer, and the stiffness of the foundation layer expressed in Foundation
Surface Modulus (FSM).

2.1 Axle loads and tire structure

Four axle loads of a single axle with either dual or single tire were considered in this study. Details of the axle
and tire loads, the radius of contact area and the type of tire surface for each type of loading are also shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Type, axle load and tire structure characteristics.
Loading Type Axle load Tire load Radius of Type
type of axle (kN) (kN) contact area (m) of tire 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

Loading type (i) corresponds to the most common standard loading adopted by many countries and pavement
design methodologies, known as equivalent standard axle load (ESAL). This is a single axle with dual tires
carrying an axle load of 80 kN (ESAL80). Loading type (ii) corresponds to a heavier axle load adopted by some
countries and used in their pavement design methodologies, France in particular. The axle load in this case is
130 kN and the axle caries two sets of dual tires as before (ESAL130). Loading type (iii) corresponds to a single
axle with single tires carrying an axle load of 40 kN (SL40). Loading type (iv) corresponds to a single axle with
single tires carrying a much heavier axle load, 140 kN, and will be called as super single axle (SSL140). In all of
the above types of loading the circular surface of the tires was considered to be smooth, see Table 1.

2.2 Positions at which stresses-strains determined

The horizontal stresses and strains, in all cases, were determined at the surface (z=0) and at the bottom of the
asphalt layer (z=t, where t=total thickness of asphalt layer) at different positions. For the dual tire pattern the
strains were determined at three positions; the axis of symmetry of the loading areas of the one set of the dual
tires (i.e. middle point between one set of dual tires, x=0, y=0), at the edge of the circular loading area (x=0, y=a,
a=distance from axis of symmetry to the perimeter of the circular loading area), and at the center of the center of
one of the loading areas (x=0, y=b, where b=a+r, r=radius of tire). For the single tire pattern the strains were
determined at the center of the loading area (x=0, y=0) and at the edge of the circular loading area (x=0, y=r,
where r=radius of the circular loading area.

2.3 Asphalt layers and stiffness

The asphalt layers were considered to be as one homogeneous layer. The minimum thickness of the asphalt layer
was selected to be 100 mm. Different values of asphalt layer stiffness (modulus of elasticity) were considered for
the calculation of the strains at different positions. In particular, the asphalt layer stiffness ranged from 2,000
MPa to 12,000 MPa which covers low, medium, or high stiffness asphalts. The wide range of stiffness
considered, indirectly covers asphalt’s stiffness variation due to air temperature or oxidization of asphalts with
time. The asphalt layer stiffness was assumed to be the ‘representative’ asphalt layer stiffness value throughout
pavement’s design life.

2.4 Foundation layer (unbound layers & subgrade)

The unbound layers and the subgrade were considered as one layer called the foundation layer, which stiffness is
represented by the Foundation Surface Modulus (FSM). The principle of FSM was adopted from the British
design methodology [16], which considers all layers under the asphalt layers as foundation layers. The
Foundation Surface Modulus can be 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”

Page 2
[17]. Hence, the strength of the subgrade and strength of the unbound layers is incorporated into the FSM value.
The British Design methodology uses four classes of FSM [17]; Foundation class 1 with FSM ≥50 MPa,
Foundation class 2 with FSM ≥ 100 MPa, Foundation class 3 with FSM ≥ 200MPa and Foundation class 4 with
FSM ≥ 400 MPa. This range covers the flexible pavements (Foundation classes 1 and 2) and semi-flexible
pavements (Foundation classes 3 and 4).

3. RESULTS

After extensive number of calculations with the BISAR software (runs) the results obtained have been tabulated
and are as shown in Tables 2 to 5. Tables 2 to 5 show the thickness of the asphalt layers, per foundation class-
type of pavement and asphalt layer stiffness, above which top down cracking (TDC) will be the only pavement
deterioration mechanism (fatigue cracking) in comparison to bottom up cracking. In other words, above the
determined asphalt layer thickness the pavement will fail due to top down cracking and not due to bottom up
cracking. The criterion for determining the TDC development was the value of horizontal strain developed at the
surface of the pavement and at the bottom of the asphalt layer. After repeated runs of the software using
increments of 1 mm of asphalt layer thickness, the absolute value of the stress induced horizontal strains
developed at the pavement’s surface and at the bottom of the asphalt layer were determined and compared.
When the absolute value of the strain at the surface was greater than the absolute value of the strain at the
bottom, 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 at
which the above change was observed it was taken as the critical thickness above which top-down cracking will
be the predominant tensile fatigue failure mechanism. It is interesting to notice in a few cases, depending on the
combination of FSM and asphalt layer’s stiffness, TDC may also initiate at a thinner layer thickness than the
above mentioned (exclude the layer thickness of 100 mm), see explanatory notes of Tables 2, 3 and 4. It is
needleless to say that in-between the thickness quoted in the explanatory notes and the layer thickness above
which top down cracking occurs, bottom-up cracking is predominant. However, in some cases (shaded areas of
Tables 2 and 3), TDC will be dominant at any thickness of asphalt layer ≥100 mm.

3.1 Results for ESAL80

Table 2 shows the thickness values of the asphalt layer above which TDC is dominant when the pavement is
loaded with a single axle dual tire load of 80 kN (ESAL80).

Table 2. Asphalt layer thickness for TDC, for ESAL80.

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

3.2 Results for ESAL130, for SL40, and for SSL140

The thickness values of asphalt layer above which TDC is dominant when the pavement is loaded with a heavier
single axle dual tire loads of 130 kN (ESAL130 type), for a single axle, single tire, load of 40 kN (SL40) and for a
single axle, single tire, load of 140 kN (SSL140) are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5.

Page 3
 Table 3. Asphalt layer thickness for TDC, for ESAL130

a= Also for thickness ≤ 122 mm initiation of TDC
b= Also for thickness ≤ 152 mm initiation of TDC
c= Also for thickness ≤ 107 mm initiation of TDC
d= Also for thickness ≤ 116 mm initiation of TDC
e= Also for thickness ≤ 102 mm initiation of TDC
f= Also for thickness ≤ 121 mm initiation of TDC
g= Also for thickness ≤ 105 mm initiation of TDC
h= Also for thickness ≤ 109 mm initiation of TDC
i= Also for thickness ≤ 137 mm initiation of TDC
j= Also for thickness ≤ 119 mm initiation of TDC
k= Also for thickness ≤ 110 mm initiation of TDC
l= Also for thickness ≤ 104 mm initiation of TDC
m= Also for thickness ≤ 142 mm initiation of TDC
n= Also for thickness ≤ 112 mm initiation of TDC
o= Also for thickness ≤ 132 mm initiation of TDC

Table 4. Asphalt layer thickness for TDC, for SL40.

Table 5. Asphalt layer thickness for TDC, for SSL140.

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

Page 4
3.5 Equations derived
Considering the data obtained from the four different loading patterns examined and using multiple linear
regression analysis, four equations were derived for each type of axle loading in order to determine the asphalt
layer thickness above which TDC is dominant. The equations derived are as follows:

For single axis-dual tire loading of 80 kN:

AT=177.46 – 0.205FSM+0.0042Smix, (R2=0.85) (1)
For single axis dual tire loading of 130 kN:
AT=210.55 – 0.243FSM+0.0050Smix, (R2=0.83) (2)
For single axis load-single tire loading of 40 kN:
AT=200.88 – 0.08FSM+0.0027Smix, (R2=0.83) (3)
For single axis-single tire loading of 140 kN:
AT=301.61 – 0.12FSM+0.0040Smix, (R2=0.83) (4)
where:
AT = asphalt layer thickness above which TDC is dominant (mm)
FSM = Foundation Surface Modulus (MPa)
Smix = Stiffness of asphalt layer (MPa).

It is noted that equations (1) and (2) derived without considering the thickness values of 100 mm shown in the
shaded area. As it can be seen all the derived equations have very good correlation coefficient (R2). Therefore,
they can be used so to predict the asphalt layer thickness above which top-down cracking (TDC) is the dominant
tensile fatigue deterioration mechanism and not the bottom up cracking. The above in turn is a useful tool for the
engineer to plan more precisely and effectively future maintenance programs, since he can estimate the thickness
af the asphalt layers above which TDC is expected to develop.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the assumptions and considerations made the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. 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.
2. 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,
hence of the asphalt layer.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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. 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.
6. In flexible or semi-flexible pavements and for the wide range of asphalt layer stiffnesses considered, 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. The value of the asphalt layer thickness
depends on the FSM, the asphalt layer stiffness, and the type and magnitude of the axle loading. However, there
are cases, more in the semi-flexible than in the flexible type of pavements, where top down cracking is dominant
even when the asphalt layer thickness is 100 mm.
7. 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. Needless to say, that
when the asphalt layer thickness is below the range of values mentioned in (6), tensile fatigue failure will occur
only due to bottom up cracking.
8. Top down cracking in comparison to bottom up cracking can be detected almost at its initiation; hence it is

Page 5
much easier, quicker and less costly to be repaired.
9. Therefore, based on the above statement, pavements with thick asphalt layers (effectively long life
pavements) should always be encouraged to be designed.

REFERENCES:

[1] Uddin, W. A synthesis study of noncontact nondestructive evaluation of top-down cracking in asphalt
pavements, Mississippi DOT state Study 255, Mississippi, USA: Mississippi DOT.
[2] Hugo, F., P.J. Strauss, G.P. Marais, T. W. Kennedy. Four asphalt pavement case studies using a
mechanistic approach. Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on the Structural design of asphalt
pavements, Delft, The Netherlands,1982, Volume 1, pp. 275-284.
[3] Pronk, A.C. and R. Buiter. Aspects of the interpretation and evaluation of falling weight deflection (FWD)
measurements. Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on the structural design of asphalt
pavements, Delft, The Netherlands, 1982, Volume 1, pp. 461-474.
[4] Groenendijk, J. 1998. Accelerated testing and surface cracking of asphaltic concrete pavements, PhD
dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, 1998.
[5] Dauzats, M. and A. Rampal Mechanism of surface cracking an wearing courses. Proceedings, Sixth
International Conference on structural design of asphalt pavements, Michigan, USA, 1987, Volume 1, pp.
231-247.
[6] Matsuno, S. and T. Nishizawa. Mechanism of longitudinal surface cracking in asphalt pavements. Seventh
International Conference on asphalt pavements. Nottingham, UK, 1992, Vol. 2, pp. 277-291.
[7] Craus, J., A. Chen, J. Sousa C. Monismith. Development of failure curves and investigation of asphalt
concrete pavement cracking from super-overloaded vehicles. Report to Division of New Technology,
Materials, and Research, California Department of Transportation. Sacramento, USA, 1994.
[8] Myers, L. A., R. Roque, B.E. Ruth. Mechanisms of surface-initiated longitudinal wheel path cracks in
high-type bituminous pavements, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 1998, Vol.
67, pp. 401-432.
[9] Uhlmeyer, J.S., K. Willoughby, L.M. Pierce, J.P. Mahoney. Top-down cracking in Washington State
asphalt concrete wearing course. Transport Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board
1730: 2000, pp. 110-116.
[10] Myers, L. A., R. Roque, B. Birgisson, Propagation mechanisms for surface-initiated longitudinal
wheelpath cracks. Transport Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board 1778: 2001,
pp. 113-122.
[11] Freitas, E., P. Pereira, L. Picado-Santos. Assessment of Top-down cracking causes in asphalt pavements.
Proceedings, Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements and Technological Control Conference
(MAIREPAV3), Guimaraes, Portugal, 2003, pp. 555-564.
[12] Freitas, E., P. Pereira, L. Picado-Santos, A.T. Papagiannakis. Effect of Construction Quality, Temperature
and Rutting on Initiation of Top-Down Cracking. Transport Research Record: Journal of Transportation
Research Board 1929: 2005, pp. 174-182.
[13] Raju, S., S. Satya Kumar, K. Sudhakar Reddy, S. Bose, B.B. Pandey. Analysis of Top-Down Cracking
Behavior of Asphalt Pavements, 87th TRB Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC., 2008, pp. 1-15.
[14] Miao, Y., T.G. He, Q. Yang, J.J. Zheng. Multi-Domain Hybrid Boundary Node Method for Evaluating
Top-Down Crack In Asphalt Pavements. Journal of Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 2010,
pp. 755-760.
[15] Dawson A. Pavement performance & remediation requirements following climate change (P2R2C2).
Summary final report, ERA-NET ROAD, University of Nottingham, 2010.
[16] Highways England, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol. 7, Pavement design and maintenance,
Section 2, Pavement design and Construction. Part 3, HD 26/06, Pavement Design. London: Highways
England, 2006.
[17] Highways England, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol. 7, Pavement design and maintenance,
Section 5, Pavement design and Construction. Part 2, IAN 73/06, Design Guidance for Road Pavement
Foundation. London: Highways England, 2009.

Page 6