Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-015-0744-x
Numerical evaluation of pavement design parameters
for the fatigue cracking and rutting performance of asphalt
pavements
Amirhossein Norouzi . Dahae Kim .
Y. Richard Kim
Received: 26 May 2015 / Accepted: 13 November 2015
 RILEM 2015
Abstract Over recent years, significant research has
been conducted to investigate ways to predict fatigue
cracking and permanent deformation (rutting), which
are two common distresses found in asphalt pave-
ments. These distresses are affected by material
properties, environmental conditions, and the pave-
ment’s structure. This paper investigates common
pavement design parameters, including surface mix-
ture type, base layer thickness, base layer type, sub-
base layer thickness, and an anti-frost layer, with
regard to the asphalt pavement performance of the
Korea Expressway Corporation (KEC) test road. Test
roads are often regarded as the most realistic tools for
evaluating the effects of various parameters because
they are subjected to real traffic and environmental
factors. The KEC test road is 7.7 km long and was
constructed with the aim of developing a Korean
mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide.
According to the findings, the surface layer type, base
layer thickness, and base layer material type were
found to affect the fatigue cracking and rutting
A. Norouzi  D. Kim (&)  Y. Richard Kim
Department of Civil, Construction, & Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State University,
Campus Box 7908, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, USA
e-mail: dkim15@ncsu.edu
A. Norouzi
e-mail: anorouz2@ncsu.edu
Y. Richard Kim
e-mail: kim@ncsu.edu
performance, whereas the sub-base thickness and
anti-frost layer were found not to affect the amount
of distress significantly. The newly developed ‘layered
viscoelastic pavement analysis for critical distresses’
(LVECD) program was able to capture the effects of
the changes in the aforementioned parameters on the
amount of cracking and rut depths. Reasonable
agreement was found between the LVECD predictions
and the field distress measurements. However, it
remains necessary to develop a laboratory-to-field
transfer function in order to obtain more accurate field
performance predictions.
Keywords Asphalt  Pavement  Pavement design 
Fatigue cracking  Rutting  LVECD program  Field
condition
1 Introduction
For decades, the pavement industry has been endeav-
oring to improve pavement construction practices,
extend the life of new pavements, and minimize the
need for pavement rehabilitation efforts. It is now well
accepted that fatigue cracking and rutting are two major
distresses that occur in hot mix asphalt pavements.
These distresses have been reported in many parts of the
United States as well as Europe and other countries.
Two primary types of models that are essential to
predict these distresses in mechanistic-empirical

pavement design and analysis are pavement response
models and performance prediction models. Pavement
response models determine the stresses and strains in a
pavement system and in turn are used in the perfor-
mance prediction models to determine the evolution of
the critical distresses. Numerous studies have been
conducted to determine the effects of different pave-
ment design parameters (e.g., thickness and material
type) on pavement responses and performance. For
example, a study by [1] showed that the base layer
type, base layer thickness, and the subgrade resilient
modulus are the key elements that control the strain
levels at critical locations in the pavement structure.
Therefore, the key step for performance predictions
and design purposes is to utilize accurate methods that
consider pavement structure, layer material type,
traffic loading, and temperature variations to obtain
reasonable stress–strain analysis results for both the
vertical and horizontal directions throughout the depth
of the pavement.
Generally, in order to predict asphalt perfor-
mance, effective models that can reliably represent
fatigue damage growth and permanent deformation
are still in demand in addition to efficient tools for
strain and stress calculations. The Simplified Vis-
coElastic Continuum Damage (S-VECD) model is a
mechanistic approach that has been applied effec-
tively to predict the performance of asphalt concrete
mixtures during pre-localization stages under differ-
ent modes of loading [2–5]. Zhang et al. [6]
developed an energy measure that represents the
rate of damage growth using the S-VECD model
and can predict fatigue failure. Based on Zhang
et al.’s work, [7] proposed a new energy-based
failure criterion called the GR method, which is
independent of mode of loading, test temperature,
and strain amplitude. The term GR is the pseudo
strain energy release rate and is defined as the term
that considers both stress and strain within asphalt
concrete specimens. This new criterion has been
verified successfully for multiple mixtures that
contain reclaimed asphalt pavement, warm mix
additives, and modified binders [7, 8].
In this study, the rutting performance of the study
mixtures was evaluated using a permanent deforma-
tion model developed at North Carolina State Univer-
sity by Choi and Kim [9]. This so-called shift model is
capable of expressing the permanent strain growth of
asphalt concrete in both the primary and secondary
Materials and Structures
regions as a function of deviatoric stress, load time,
and temperature, and is based on the time–temperature
and time-stress superposition principles [10]. These
three factors (deviatoric stress, load time, and tem-
perature) are important in predicting rut depths in
asphalt pavements because they vary throughout the
depth of the asphalt layer. The triaxial stress sweep
(TSS) test used in this study was developed to predict
the rutting performance of the study mixtures by
calibrating the shift model.
However, performance predictions that are based
solely on material testing cannot provide a compre-
hensive picture of the pavement’s behavior. Because
pavement is a layered structure, the stress and strain
distributions vary from point to point, which results in
complicated shear and flow zones [11]. The state-of-
the-practice approach for stress–strain analysis is
layered elastic analysis, where the pavement layers
are considered to be the elastic material under
stationary axisymmetric loading [12]. However, lay-
ered elastic analysis is not an accurate tool for asphalt
pavement because asphalt concrete exhibits viscoelas-
tic behavior, especially under traffic loading. Layered
viscoelastic moving load analysis, which is an
improvement over layered elastic analysis, is consid-
ered also to be more reliable than linear viscoelastic
analysis in the viscoelastic domain due to its efficient
functions that account for the effects of moving loads
and viscoelasticity [13]. The newly released ‘layered
viscoelastic pavement analysis for critical distresses’
(LVECD) software program is able to calculate linear
viscoelastic pavement responses that can be used for
both the shift model and the S-VECD model to predict
rutting and fatigue cracking, respectively, under
moving loads. Norouzi and Kim [14] verified the
LVECD program for multiple pavement sections in
the United States and found strong agreement between
the simulation results and the field observations. A
comparison of pavement performance prediction
results from the LVECD program and the Pavement
ME software is presented in [15] using the perfor-
mance data from 33 pavement sections in the US,
Canada, South Korea, and China.
Given the above considerations, the purpose of
this study is to gain a better understanding of the
effects of the pavement design parameters, i.e.,
surface layer type, base layer material properties,
base layer thickness, sub-base thickness, and sub-
grade properties, on the fatigue and rutting
Materials and Structures
resistance of asphalt pavements using experimental
material characteristics and the LVECD software.
This study used the following test protocols to find
the required parameters for the performance pre-
dictions: dynamic modulus tests (AASHTO TP 79),
uniaxial fatigue tests using the S-VECD model
(AASHTO TP 107), and TSS tests for permanent
deformation. To verify the LVECD analysis results,
field data were collected from the test sections and
compared with the program simulations.
2 Test protocols
2.1 Dynamic modulus testing
Asphalt material is considered to be linear viscoelastic
material at specific strain levels; clearly, viscoelastic
materials have both viscous and elastic components.
The dynamic modulus, |E*|, can be expressed in the
form of a mastercurve that exhibits frequency- and
temperature-dependent behavior. In this study,
dynamic modulus testing was performed in load-
controlled mode with axial compression following
AASHTO TP 79. The tests were carried out for all the
study mixtures at 4, 20, 40, and 54 C and at
frequencies of 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz. The load
levels were specified by trial and error so that the strain
amplitudes were between 50 and 75 microstrains to
prevent damage to the specimens. The dynamic
modulus values were used to develop the dynamic
modulus mastercurve by simultaneously optimizing
the sigmoidal function of the mastercurve and the
quadratic time–temperature shift function. After
determining the shift factors, the dynamic modulus
was converted to the relaxation modulus. Finally, a
power term, alpha (a), used in viscoelastic continuum
damage (VECD) theory, was calculated from the
maximum log–log slope, m, of the relaxation modulus
and time using the relationship, a ¼ 1 þ m1 .
High temperature binder PG grade þ Low temperature binder PG grade
Tð CÞ 
2
2.2 Cyclic testing using the S-VECD model
The S-VECD fatigue performance model is the
simplified form of the more rigorous VECD model
and can be used to characterize the fatigue behavior of
asphalt concrete using the elastic–viscoelastic corre-
spondence principle, continuum damage mechanics,
and time–temperature superposition principle. The S-
VECD model has been proven to be independent of
mode of loading. Controlled crosshead (CX) cyclic
direct tension tests were performed at 10 Hz at
different temperatures based on the binder perfor-
mance grade (PG) following AASHTO TP 107. All
the tests were performed at three different strain
amplitudes (high, medium, and low). The strain
amplitudes were selected in such a way to create a
spread of numbers of cycles to failure (Nf) in the range
of 1000–100,000 cycles. In addition to taking air void
measurements, in order to check the variability of the
fatigue test specimens more precisely, fingerprint
dynamic modulus tests were conducted at 10 Hz and
50 cycles before running the CX cyclic direct tension
tests. The dynamic modulus value measured from this
test is specified as |E*|fingerprint and is used to calculate
the dynamic modulus ratio (DMR) via Eq. (1). A
DMR value in the range of 0.9–1.1 guarantees that the
linear viscoelastic properties obtained from the
dynamic modulus tests can be used effectively in S-
VECD analysis.
jE jfingerprint
DMR ¼ ð1Þ
jE jLVE
To determine failure for each sample, the corre-
sponding cycle that is related to the sudden drop in the
phase angle, which typically happens around the
failure point, has been specified based on the Reese
approach [16]. In order to minimize the effects of
viscoplasticity, [7] suggested using the PG of the base
binder to determine the proper testing temperature, as
shown in Eq. (2).
 3  19 C ð2Þ

2.3 Fatigue failure criterion (GR method)
According to the S-VECD failure criterion (the GR
method), the maximum stored pseudo strain energy at
each cycle represents the material’s ability to store
energy at that particular time. The material loses its
stored energy as the damage grows for the same
magnitude of applied pseudo strain due to the reduc-
tion in pseudo stiffness. The difference between the
maximum stored pseudo strain energy and the corre-
sponding undamaged state is referred to as the total
released pseudo strain energy and is denoted as WRC.
Sabouri and Kim [7] defined the energy term, GR, as
the rate of change of the averaged released pseudo
strain energy (per cycle) throughout the entire history
of the test. Sabouri and Kim found that a characteristic
relationship exists between the GR during fatigue
testing and the final fatigue life (Nf). This failure
criterion combines the advantages of the S-VECD
model and this characteristic relationship, which both
originate from fundamental mixture properties.
Details regarding the GR method and its corresponding
calculations can be found in the paper by [7]. The GR
can be calculated using Eq. (3).
RNf RNf  R 2
WCR 1
2 e0;ta ð1  Fi Þ
0 0
GR ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
Nf2 Nf2
where (eR0,ta)i is the pseudo strain amplitude at cycle
i and, Fi is the pseudo stiffness at cycle i.
2.4 Permanent deformation (triaxial stress sweep
testing)
The TSS test is composed of two type of tests: a
reference test at the high temperature (TH) followed by
three multiple stress sweep (MSS) tests at three different
temperatures of low, intermediate, and high (TL, TI, and
TH), respectively. The reference test in this study utilizes
a 0.4-s pulse with a 10-s rest period. This reference test
provides permanent strain mastercurves by fitting the
incremental model, which is expressed as Eq. (4).
e0  Nred
evp ¼ ; ð4Þ
ðNI þ Nred Þb
anp ¼ p1 logðnp Þ þ p2 ;
ð5Þ
arv ¼ d1 ðrv =Pa Þd2 þ d3 :
Materials and Structures
where evp is the viscoplastic strain (i.e., permanent
strain), e0, NI, b is the coefficients of the incremental
model, Nred is the reduced number of cycles at
reference loading conditions (N  10atotal ), N is the
physical number of cycles of a certain loading
condition, atotal is the total shift factor, which is the
summation of two shift factors (anp þ arv ), anp is the
reduced load time shift factor, p1, p2 is the coefficients
of reduced load time shift factor, np is the reduced load
time, arv is the vertical stress shift factor, d1, d2, d3 is
the coefficients of vertical stress shift factor, rv is the
vertical stress, and Pa is the atmospheric pressure to
normalize stress.
The MSS tests consist of three loading blocks with
increases in the deviatoric stress level (70, 100, and
130 w) while the other loading conditions are kept
constant. In this study, the shift factors were obtained
by shifting the permanent strain of an individual
loading block toward the permanent strain master-
curve, which was obtained from the reference test. The
reduced load time shift factor and deviatoric stress
shift factor are shown in Eq. (5). The physical number
of cycles at a given condition was converted into a
reduced number of cycles using the total shift factor,
which is the sum of the deviatoric stress shift factor
and the reduced load time shift factor. These two shift
functions utilize temperature, load time, and vertical
stress to calculate the shift factors. Details regarding
the TSS test method and shift model can be found
elsewhere Choi and Kim [9].
3 Materials and pavement sections
3.1 Description of the KEC Test Road
The KEC test road was constructed in December 2002.
This test road is composed of 33 types of asphalt
pavement; Fig. 1 schematically presents the KEC
pavement structures. The field performance data
obtained from the test road allow researchers to
compare different types of pavement structures and
different mixtures under various climate conditions
and real traffic loads. ARAN (Automatic Road Ana-
lyzer, ROADWARE) has been used to conduct annual
pavement condition surveys of the test road [17].
Asphalt concrete overlays were applied to some of the
pavement sections in 2006. Therefore, the
Materials and Structures

A1 A2 A2-2 A3 A4 A5 A5-2 A6 A7 A8 A8-2 A9 A10 A10-2 A11 A11-2 A12 A12-2 A13 A13-2 A14 A14-2 A15 A15-2

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

8 8 8

18 18 18

28 28 28

30
30 30

40
30 30 30

30 30 30

40

40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30

20 20 20 20

10

PMA ASTM BB5 BB3 BB1 Aggregate Sub-Base Anti-Frost Subgrade

Fig. 1 Asphalt pavement sections at the KEC test road

performance data obtained in 2005 were used for the NMAS) and BB3 (40 mm NMAS), which are frequently
LVECD analysis, because direct comparisons used in South Korea, were used for the base layers.
between field measurements and LVECD predictions Table 1 summarizes the volumetric properties of the
are only possible using performance data prior to the mixtures used in the KEC test road sections. The
overlay construction. sublayers below the base layer are composed mostly of
sub-base and anti-frost layers that are placed on top of the
3.2 Mixtures subgrade. An anti-frost layer often is used to compensate
for the level difference due to the base; however, the anti-
For this study, experiments were performed using five frost layer was omitted from some sections for compar-
laboratory-produced mixtures. Of these mixtures, two ative purposes to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-frost
types of asphalt mixtures were used at the surface to layers on pavement performance. Figure 1 schemati-
compare the rutting and crack propagation; these cally presents the KEC pavement structures.
mixtures were an ASTM mix and a 19-mm nominal
maximum aggregate size (NMAS) polymer-modified 3.3 Specimen fabrication
styrene butadiene styrene (SBS) mix, which is desig-
nated as PMA throughout the study. The intermediate To prepare the specimens, aggregate stockpiles were
layer consisted of a 25-mm NMAS BB5 mixture with dried and sieved for batching. The aggregate particles
70 mm thickness. Mixes designated as BB1 (25 mm were then heated to the mixing temperature for more
 Materials and Structures

Table 1 Volumetric Type Surface Base Intermediate

properties of the KEC
mixtures Mixture ASTM PMA BB1 BB3 BB5

Binder type Unmodified Styrene butadiene styrene Unmodified

Binder grade PG 64-22 PG 76-22 PG 64-22
Binder content (%) 5.2 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.3
NMAS* (mm) 19 25 40 25
% Air void (S-VECD) 5.9 5.7 7.6 7.5
% Air void (Rutting) 5.9 6.0 8.0 9.9
Sieve size Gradation, % Passing
37.5 (mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
25.0 (mm) 100.0 100.0 88.6 100.0
19.0 (mm) 99.6 92.5 71.0 91.0
12.5 (mm) 84.9 72.9 51.1 67.5
9.5 (mm) 71.1 63.9 44.1 55.1
4.75 (mm) 49.3 48.5 38.1 31.2
2.36 (mm) 36.2 36.1 29.1 23.0
0.60 (mm) 18.1 18.0 15.1 12.8
0.30 (mm) 11.6 11.6 10.1 9.2
* The numbers in the 0.15 (mm) 7.4 7.3 6.8 6.7
figure are all in centimeters 0.075 (mm) 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.6
(cm)

than 6 h before mixing. The asphalt binder and
aggregates were mixed together using a bucket mixer.
Then, the mixtures were short-term oven-aged for 4 h
at the compaction temperature.
All the test specimens were compacted to a height
of 178 mm and a diameter of 150 mm using the
Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC). To obtain
specimens of uniform air void distribution, these
samples were cored to a diameter of 100 mm and cut
to a height of 130 mm [18] for direct tension cyclic
testing, and to a diameter of 100 mm with the height of
150 mm for the dynamic modulus and permanent
deformation (TSS) testing.
The air void contents were measured using the
CoreLok method for each specimen prior to testing.
All the test samples met the target air void content by
±0.5 %. The direct tension test specimens were glued
to metal plates using Devcon steel putty. Vertical
deformations were measured using four linear variable
differential transducers (LVDTs) with the gauge
length of 70 mm at intervals of 90 degrees for both
the dynamic modulus and direct tension cyclic tests
and a 100-mm gauge length for the TSS tests.
4 Test results and discussion
4.1 Dynamic modulus values
Figure 2a, b present the averaged dynamic modulus
values of the replicates for the KEC mixtures on the
same graph in semi-log space and log–log space,
respectively. The comparison between the PMA and
ASTM mixes clearly shows that the PMA mix
exhibits lower stiffness values at high reduced
frequencies (low temperatures) and higher stiffness
values at low reduced frequencies (high tempera-
tures). In other words, it seems that the PMA mix
presents favorable characteristics for fatigue resis-
tance at low temperatures and for rutting resistance
at high temperatures. In general, the other unmod-
ified mixtures have similar stiffness values, given
the sample-to-sample variability, except for the
ASTM mix that shows low stiffness values at high
temperatures. Table 2 presents the time–temperature
shift factors and Table 3 presents the dynamic
modulus Prony coefficients for the KEC mixtures
as obtained from experimental analysis.
Materials and Structures

25000 compared to the PMA mix. Another reasonable

(a)
explanation for this observation may be related to
20000
the physical nature of the base binder and SBS
modifier used in the PMA mix. The other important
|E*| (MPa)

15000
point to make from Fig. 3 is that the curve for the BB1
10000 ASTM mix is below the other curves, which could be due to
PMA its low asphalt content and large aggregate size.
BB1
5000 Generally, a comparison of damage curves cannot
BB3
BB5 yield reliable information about different mixtures’
0
1E-08 1E-06 1E-04 1E-02 1E+00 1E+02 fatigue behavior, because the energy that is input by
Reduced Frequency (Hz) mechanical force is consumed not only in creating and
propagating the cracks, but also in deforming the
100000
(b) material. Therefore, it is important to include both
stiffness and damage characteristics of the material
when determining a mixture’s fatigue cracking
10000
|E*| (MPa)

resistance.

4.3 Fatigue failure criterion lines

1000

The S-VECD failure criterion was applied to all of the

mixtures in this study, and the results are presented in
100
1E-08 1E-06 1E-04 1E-02 1E+00 1E+02 Fig. 4. The position of the failure criterion line can be
Reduced Frequency (Hz) used to make a relative comparison of a mixture’s
expected fatigue resistance. That is, a line that has a
Fig. 2 Dynamic modulus mastercurves for KEC test road
larger Nf value for the same GR value indicates more
mixtures: a semi-log space and b log–log space
resistance to fatigue cracking. Also, not only the
position but also the slope of the failure criterion line
plays an important role in the pavement system’s fatigue
Table 2 Time–temperature shift factors for KEC mixtures behavior. For example, the slopes of the three BB mixes
Time–temperature shift factors are steeper than those of the surface mixes, and
therefore, the poorer cracking resistance of the BB
Mixture a1 a2 a3
mixes demonstrated by the lower position of their GR
ASTM 8.02E-04 -1.64E-01 7.99E-01
lines becomes even worse when the GR values are lower
PMA 1.08E-03 -1.77E-01 8.58E-01 (e.g., when the pavement thickness becomes thicker).
BB1 6.75E-04 -1.62E-01 7.94E-01 As observed in Fig. 4, the line for the PMA mix is
BB3 7.80E-04 -1.61E-01 7.85E-01 parallel and slightly above that of the ASTM mix,
BB5 4.69E-04 -1.43E-01 7.03E-01 indicating better fatigue cracking resistance of the
PMA mix than the ASTM mix. Because these two test
mixtures follow the same gradation, the difference in
4.2 S-VECD characterization curves their failure criterion lines, which also was observed in
their damage characteristic curves (Fig. 3), is due to
Figure 3 presents the averaged damage characteristic the modified binder that is used in the PMA mix. The
curves for the KEC test mixtures. As shown, the BB5 mix curve is located above the BB3 mix curve
corresponding curve for the ASTM mixture is slightly and has a lower slope than the BB3 mix, which
above that of the PMA mixture. It can be concluded indicates that mixtures with smaller aggregate parti-
that both the PMA and ASTM mixes follow the same cles perform better than ones with larger aggregate
behavior even though their dynamic modulus values particles. Table 4 presents the KEC mixture fatigue
are considerably different. This outcome could be performance in terms of the number of cycles to failure
related to the higher asphalt content in the ASTM mix for different GR values.
 Materials and Structures

Table 3 Prony series Prony coefficients Mixtures

coefficients for the KEC
mixtures ASTM PMA BB1 BB3 BB5

E0 1.44E?05 1.91E?05 1.60E?05 2.39E?05 1.56E?05

E1 3.52E?03 2.98E?03 9.55E?03 5.98E?03 4.98E?03
E2 3.77E?03 3.20E?03 8.41E?03 6.17E?03 5.11E?03
E3 7.90E?03 6.71E?03 1.62E?04 1.27E?04 1.05E?04
E4 1.69E?04 1.42E?04 3.21E?04 2.66E?04 2.22E?04
E5 3.77E?04 3.09E?04 6.65E?04 5.77E?04 4.90E?04
E6 8.97E?04 7.02E?04 1.47E?05 1.32E?05 1.16E?05
E7 2.35E?05 1.71E?05 3.50E?05 3.24E?05 3.00E?05
E8 6.67E?05 4.48E?05 8.59E?05 8.38E?05 8.27E?05
E9 1.80E?06 1.17E?06 1.93E?06 2.02E?06 2.10E?06
E10 3.67E?06 2.50E?06 3.45E?06 3.69E?06 3.95E?06
E11 4.93E?06 3.75E?06 4.45E?06 4.85E?06 4.91E?06
E12 4.26E?06 3.53E?06 4.20E?06 3.90E?06 4.27E?06
E13 2.70E?06 2.31E?06 3.40E?06 2.41E?06 2.80E?06
E14 1.47E?06 1.26E?06 2.26E?06 1.29E?06 1.60E?06
E15 7.41E?05 6.29E?05 1.41E?06 6.41E?05 8.44E?05
E16 3.61E?05 3.01E?05 8.25E?05 3.09E?05 4.31E?05
E17 1.72E?05 1.41E?05 4.72E?05 1.46E?05 2.16E?05
E18 8.19E?04 6.57E?04 2.66E?05 6.88E?04 1.07E?05
E19 3.87E?04 3.04E?04 1.48E?05 3.23E?04 5.29E?04
E20 1.83E?04 1.40E?04 8.23E?04 1.51E?04 2.61E?04

1.0 10000
ASTM ASTM
PMA
PMA
0.8 BB1
1000 BB1
BB3
BB3
0.6 BB5
BB5
GR
C

100
0.4

10
0.2

0.0 1
0.0E+00 2.5E+05 5.0E+05 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
S Nf (Cycle)

Fig. 3 Averaged damage characteristic curves for KEC test Fig. 4 Fatigue failure criterion lines for the KEC test road
road mixtures mixtures

4.4 Triaxial stress sweep tests Table 4 Mixture performance for different GR values
Nf (number of cycles to failure)
The TSS test method requires four tests with two
replicates for each test to calibrate the shift model. The GR PMA ASTM BB1 BB3 BB5
TSS test temperatures for the KEC mixtures are 10 53,948 37,867 14,059 9106 25,767
specified as follows: 22 C as the low temperature 100 10,447 7608 3664 2675 5471
(TL), 36 C as the intermediate temperature (TI), and 1000 2023 1528 955 786 1162
Materials and Structures

46 C as the high temperature (TH). Details regarding
the temperature selection method can be found
elsewhere Choi and Kim [9].
Figure 5 presents the results of the TSS tests. The
dotted lines show the reference curves and the solid
lines correspond to the averaged permanent strains of
the MSS tests at each temperature. The first important
observation regarding the surface mixtures is the
difference in permanent strain levels between the
ASTM and PMA mixtures. The corresponding curves
for the ASTM mix indicate higher permanent defor-
mation levels than the PMA mix because the PMA mix
contains SBS-modified asphalt binder (PG 76-22).
Also, the temperature susceptibility of the PMA mix,
which can be evaluated by the amount of increase in
the permanent strain from the low to intermediate to
high temperatures, is much less than for all the other
mixes. These observations provide strong evidence for

2% 2%
(a) KEC-ASTM (b) KEC-PMA
Permanent Strain

Permanent Strain
Reference TH
Reference
1% 1% TH
TI
TI

TL TL

0% 0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Number of Cycles Number of Cycles

2% 2%
(c) KEC-BB1 (d) KEC-BB3
TH TH
Permanent Strain

Permanent Strain

Reference

1% 1% TI
Reference TI

TL TL

0% 0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Number of Cycles Number of Cycles

2%
(e) KEC-BB5
Permanent Strain

TH

1% Reference
TI

TL

0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Number of Cycles

Fig. 5 TSS test results of KEC mixtures: a ASTM, b PMA, c BB1, d BB3, and e BB5

the benefits of polymer modification for rutting
resistance. For the base course (BB1 mix and BB3
mix) comparison, the BB1 mix exhibits lower perma-
nent deformation levels than the BB3 mix due to the
BB1 mixture’s smaller aggregate particles (25 mm)
and lower target air void content than the BB3 mix.
The averaged permanent strain values presented in
Fig. 5 were used to characterize the shift model. The
model coefficients were then applied to the LVECD
program to evaluate the rutting performance of a
pavement structure.
5 Pavement analysis
In this study, LVECD program simulations were used
to evaluate the effects of the pavement design
parameters, i.e., the surface layer type, base layer
thickness, base layer material, sub-base thickness, and
the impact of an anti-frost layer on pavement perfor-
mance [19]. developed the LVECD program to
calculate the stresses and strains throughout the
pavement depth. The LVECD program, by combining
time-scale separation and layered viscoelastic analy-
sis, uses fast-Fourier transforms to perform three-
dimensional viscoelastic calculations under moving
loads in a rapid manner. The assumption behind using
the transforms is that loading occurs in the same
repeated manner each time, so the behavior is cyclic
and has a steady-state response.
The asphalt layer is modeled as viscoelastic mate-
rial with damage. Therefore, the asphalt layer is
represented by the Prony series of the dynamic
modulus values, time–temperature shift factors,
S-VECD model coefficients, and TSS model param-
eters. The aggregate base, anti-frost layer, and sub-
grade were modeled using linear elastic properties
with modulus values of 350 MPa, 88 MPa, and
75 MPa, respectively. The other inputs required for
the LVECD simulations are design time, pavement
structure, traffic, and climate. The design time for this
study was assumed to be 20 years. A single tire with
standard loading of 80 kN at the center of the
pavement was assumed. The average annual daily
truck traffic (AADTT) was 935 based on the traffic
data obtained from the site. Pavement temperatures
were obtained from the Enhanced Integrated Climate
Model (EICM) software. The EICM program provides
hourly temperatures of asphalt pavements in terms of
Materials and Structures
pavement depth. In order to simulate the pavement
temperature in South Korea, the climatic data for
Washington, D.C. in the United States were selected
for LVECD analysis.
5.1 Fatigue performance
In order to evaluate a pavement’s fatigue resistance,
the LVECD program calculates the damage growth
and the damage factor using Eq. (6) based on Miner’s
law. If the damage factor is equal to zero, the element
has not experienced any damage. A damage factor of
one indicates failure of the element.
XT
Ni
Damage factor ¼ ð6Þ
N
i¼1 fi
where T is the total number of periods, Ni is the traffic
for period i, and Nfi is the allowable failure repetitions
under the conditions that prevailed in period i.
It should be noted that the fatigue performance
predicted from the LVECD program has not yet been
fully calibrated with the field performance data, and
the development of a transfer function to convert the
damage in the cross-section of a pavement predicted
from the LVECD software to the percentage of surface
cracking areas is still in process. To compare the
fatigue life of the mixtures, the numbers of failure
points (elements with the damage factor of ‘1’) were
counted and divided by the total number of elements
throughout the section, and the resultant value was
specified as an index value for the amount of damage
(in percent, %) in the pavement section. To verify the
cracking data obtained from the LVECD program,
field distress data from [17] were used.
In the following subsections the impact of each
design parameter is discussed briefly. The effects of
the various parameters on fatigue cracking for the 24
pavement sections are presented in Figs. 6, 7 for the
simulation results and field-measured results,
respectively.
5.1.1 Surface layer type
The effect of the PMA mixture as a surface layer on
fatigue cracking performance is presented in Fig. 6a.
It is noted that Sections A13, A14, and A15 are
pavements with an aggregate base layer. The benefi-
cial effect of the PMA mixture on fatigue cracking
Materials and Structures

50 50
Surface Layer Type (b) Base Layer Type
45 (a) 45
BB1
ASTM
40 40 BB3
PMA Agg Base
35

Damaged Area (%)

35
Damaged Area (%)

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
A2 A5 A8 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 8 cm 18 cm 28 cm
Section Base Layer Thickness

50 50
(c) Base Layer Thickness (d) Subgrade Type
45 45
8 cm
40 40 Subgrade
18 cm
28 cm Anti-Frost
Damaged Area (%)
35 35
Damaged Area (%)

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
BB1 BB3 Aggregate 8 cm 18 cm 28 cm
Base Layer Type Base Layer Thickness

50

45
(e) Subbase Layer Thickness
30 cm
40
40 cm
Damaged Area (%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
8 cm 18 cm 28 cm
Base Layer Thickness

Fig. 6 Effects of different parameters on fatigue cracking performance as obtained from LVECD simulations: a surface layer type,
b base layer type, c base layer thickness, d subgrade material, and e sub-base thickness
 Materials and Structures

30 30
(a) Surface Layer Type (b) Base Layer Type
25 25 BB1
ASTM
BB3
PMA

Cracked Area (%)

Cracked Area (%)

Agg Base
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
A2 A5 A8 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 8 cm 18 cm 28 cm
Section Base Layer Thickness

30 30
(c) Base Layer Thickness (d) Subgrade Type
25 8 cm 25 Subgrade
18 cm
Cracked Area (%) Anti-Frost
Cracked Area (%)

28 cm
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
BB1 BB3 Aggregate 8 cm 18 cm 28 cm
Base Layer Type Base Layer Thickness

30
(e) Subbase Layer Thickness
25 30 cm

40 cm
Cracked Area (%)

20

15

10

0
8 cm 18 cm 28 cm
Base Layer Thickness

Fig. 7 Effects of different parameters on pavement fatigue cracking in the field: a surface layer type, b base layer type, c base layer
thickness, d subgrade material, and e sub-base thickness
Materials and Structures
performance is demonstrated clearly in these three
aggregate base pavements, whereas the effect of the
PMA surface layer is much less in the full-depth
asphalt pavements. However, the field observations
presented in Fig. 7a indicate the beneficial effects of
the PMA mixture for all of the pavement sections,
regardless of the base layer type, as evidenced by low
‘cracked area’ percentages for all the sections.
5.1.2 Base layer type
Figure 6b shows the amounts of damage for the
different base layers (BB1, BB3, and aggregate base
mixtures). A comparison of the results clearly suggests
better performance for the pavements that have an
asphalt base layer than the ones that have an aggregate
base layer. Between the pavements that have an
asphalt base layer, it seems that the BB1 mix, which
shows better fatigue resistance based on the GR lines,
exhibits less damage than the BB3 mix. This outcome
is in strong agreement with the field cracking data, as
presented in Fig. 7b. Also, the difference in perfor-
mance between the BB1 and BB3 mixes may be due to
the lower air void content and smaller aggregate size
of the BB1 mix.
5.1.3 Base layer thickness
Figure 6c shows the same data that are presented in
Fig. 6b, except that the data are organized to show the
effect of the base layer thickness on the fatigue
cracking performance. As expected, the BB3 mix was
not as effective in resisting fatigue cracking as the BB1
mix, because the BB3 mix performed the worst among
all of the mixtures used in the KEC test road. Another
interesting observation that can be made from Fig. 6c
is the interaction between two factors: the base layer
material type and the base layer thickness. For
example, in the case of the aggregate base pavements,
with an increase in the base layer thickness from 8 to
28 cm, the damage decreased from 36 percent to 30
percent, whereas the same increase in the BB1 mix
layer led to a corresponding decrease in damage from
20 % down to less than 5 %.
However, this trend was not found from the field
data presented in Fig. 7c. As a matter of fact, the
‘percent cracked area’ reduced from 25 percent to 6
percent when the aggregate base layer thickness
changed from 8 cm to 18 cm, whereas the ‘percent
cracked area’ decreased much less in the pavements
with asphalt base layers (i.e., the BB1 and BB3 mixes)
when the base layer thickness increased. Figure 7c
clearly shows that the reduction in ‘percent cracked
area’ (i.e., an increase in fatigue cracking resistance) is
not proportional to the increase in the aggregate base
layer thickness.
In short, the LVECD program simulations did not
capture this trend properly. It is noted that the LVECD
program treats an aggregate base and subgrade as
elastic materials with no damage. This assumption may
be the reason for the discrepancy observed between the
predicted trend and the observed trend in the field.
5.1.4 Subgrade type
The LVECD program analysis results presented in
Fig. 6d briefly indicate that the subgrade type (anti-
frost or subgrade) does not appear to play an important
role in the fatigue behavior of the different pavements.
In other words, similar pavement performance can be
expected for pavements that have either anti-frost or
subgrade material. The field observations presented in
Fig. 7d also confirm this finding.
5.1.5 Sub-base layer thickness
The effects of the sub-base layer thickness are
demonstrated in Fig. 6e. In general, the pavements
with a 30-cm sub-base layer behave similarly to the
ones with a 40-cm sub-base layer. It seems that, unlike
the case of the base layer thickness that significantly
alters fatigue resistance, the sub-base layer does not
have a major impact on the amount of cracking.
Although this observed trend was not unexpected, the
quantification of the changes in fatigue cracking can
be useful for an optimal pavement design.
The field data shown in Fig. 7e actually show an
unexpected trend; i.e., pavements with a thicker sub-
base layer performed worse than those with a thinner
sub-base layer. It is noted that the ‘percent cracked
area’ is relatively small in Fig. 7e, and thus, this
unexpected trend may be due to the variability
typically found in field experiments.
5.2 Rutting performance
In order to help determine rutting resistance, effects of
the deviatoric stress, load time, and temperature on
 Materials and Structures

permanent deformation of asphalt concrete are calcu-
lated using the LVECD program. The deviatoric stress
changes throughout the depth of the pavement
depending on the load applied. In addition, load time
and temperature change along the depth of the
pavement. In the LVECD program, each asphalt layer
is divided into multiple sublayers, and the permanent
strain is calculated for each sublayer based on the
deviatoric stress, load time, and temperature deter-
mined for that specific sublayer. Then, the permanent
strain is multiplied by the sublayer thickness to
calculate the permanent deformation in that sublayer.
The permanent deformation value that is the sum of
the permanent deformation values of all the sublayers
is the total surface rut depth.
The LVECD rutting simulation results also were
compared to the measured rut depths in the field, as
described in the following subsections for each
parameter and presented in Fig. 8.
5.2.1 Surface layer type
Figure 8a presents both the measured and predicted
rut depths and indicates better rutting resistance of the
polymer-modified mixture than the ASTM mixture.
5.2.2 Base layer type and base layer thickness
Figure 8b presents the comparison of the rut depths of
the different base layer types (BB1, BB3, and aggre-
gate base). As shown, the 8-cm aggregate base layer
exhibits extreme rutting deformation, whereas an
increase in the thickness to 18 cm resulted in a
significant decrease in rut depth. However, increasing
the thickness up to 28 cm did not lessen the rut depth
compared to the 18-cm layer. This outcome led to the
conclusion that a thicker aggregate base layer provides
additional rutting resistance for a pavement, but the
rate of the increase in rutting resistance due to the

10 20
(a) Surface Layer Type (b) Base Layer Type
Total Rut Depths (cm)

ASTM BB1
Total Rut Depths (cm)

8
PMA 15 BB3
Aggregate
6
Measured
10
4 Predicted

5
2

0 0
8 cm 18 cm 28 cm 8 cm 18 cm 28 cm
Base Layer Thickness Base Layer Thickness

10 10
(c) Subgrade Layer Thickness (d) Base Layer Thickness
20 cm 8 cm
Total Rut Depths (cm)
Total Rut Depths (cm)

8 30 cm 8 18 cm
40 cm 28 cm

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
Subgrade Anti-Frost 30 cm 40 cm
Subgrade Type Subbase Layer Thickness

Fig. 8 Effects of different parameters on rutting performance: a surface layer type, b base layer type, c subgrade type, and d sub-base
thickness
Materials and Structures
increase in aggregate base layer thickness decreases as
the aggregate base layer becomes thicker.
The LVECD program was not able to simulate the
poor prediction of the thinner aggregate base layer
because the rutting coefficient inputs in the LVECD
program were not accurate enough to capture the true
performance of the aggregate base and because the
material model used for the aggregate base layer in the
LVECD program might not be capable of capturing
the permanent deformation behavior of a granular
aggregate base layer. The asphalt base mixtures (BB1
and BB3) provided better rutting resistance than the
aggregate base layers. Overall, the BB1 mix showed
better rutting resistance than the BB3 section, as
demonstrated in Fig. 8b.
5.2.3 Subgrade layer thickness
The subgrade and anti-frost layers constituted the
sublayers of the asphalt sections. Three Sects. (1, 3,
and 6) were selected among six sections that have no
anti-frost layer (2, 4, and 8), and their rut depths were
compared against those sections with an anti-frost
layer. Figure 8c illustrates the effects (or lack thereof)
of an anti-frost layer on rutting performance. In
general, no significant correlation between the anti-
frost layers and rutting was found, even though
slightly greater rut depths were apparent at sections
that had an anti-frost layer. The LVECD prediction
results also show very close agreement with and
without anti-frost layers.
5.2.4 Sub-base layer thickness
Figure 8d presents the effect of the sub-base layer
thickness on the rutting performance of sections
without an anti-frost layer. Although the rut depth
values in the 30-cm base layer are slightly greater than
those in the 40-cm base layer, no significant relation-
ship is evident in terms of sub-base layer thickness.
The LVECD prediction results show that the rut
depths of the 30 and 40-cm sub-base layers are the
same. The rut depths increase with an increase in base
layer thickness because the deformation calculated in
a given layer is the permanent strain multiplied by the
thickness.
The total rut depth is the sum of the permanent
deformations of all the rut-susceptible layers in a
pavement, including the unbound materials for the
base and the subgrade. The rut depths of the unbound
materials are modeled using the linear elastic proper-
ties proposed by [20], which is implemented in the
current Pavement-ME software. However, it is possi-
ble that this model for unbound materials is inadequate
for capturing the relative magnitude of permanent
deformation as compared to models for asphalt layers.
Permanent deformation from each layer using trench
cut of pavement structures is needed to verify the
permanent deformation model for unbound materials.
6 Conclusions
In this study, the effects of common pavement design
parameters on asphalt pavement performance have
been investigated through laboratory-produced
asphalt mixture testing, numerical simulations, and
field verification. The fatigue cracking and rutting
performance of 24 asphalt pavement KEC test sections
with different structures were evaluated using vali-
dated models. The S-VECD model was used to
evaluate the fatigue properties of the mixtures, and
TSS tests were performed to assess the rutting
behavior of the mixtures. The results were then input
in the LVECD program to predict the long-term
performance of the test pavement sections. A sum-
mary of the findings and the conclusions that can be
drawn from this study are as follows:
• As expected, utilization of the mixtures that
contained modified binders improved the pave-
ment performance. The sections with the PMA mix
exhibited less cracking and permanent deforma-
tion than the ASTM sections due to the lower
stiffness values at low temperatures and higher
stiffness values at high temperatures of the PMA
mix. However, this improvement was not captured
well by the LVECD program for the full-depth
asphalt pavements.
• One interesting observation is that the base layer
material played the most important role in affect-
ing both rutting and fatigue cracking in the KEC
test road sections. The aggregate base layer
exhibited greater rut depths and more cracking
than the asphalt base layers.
• The data obtained from the pavement analyses of
the different base layer thicknesses briefly indicate
that an increase in the base layer thickness reduces

the pavement distresses, but the amount of
improvement is dependent on the material type.
According to the observations made from this
study, increasing the aggregate base layer thick-
ness from 8 to 28 cm can provide up to 70 %
reduction in pavement distress.
• The pavement simulations indicate no significant
change in the fatigue resistance or permanent
deformation when using an anti-frost layer or
increasing the sub-base layer thickness. The field
observations are in strong agreement with these
findings.
• The key point that has emerged from the comparison
of the field measurements and the simulation
predictions is that the pavement performance rank-
ings, which are based on the damage area (%) index
and the total rut depths predicted from the LVECD
program, are generally in good agreement with the
field observations. However, the magnitudes of
these simulated results do not correspond directly to
the observed field measurements. This finding
suggests the need for developing a laboratory-to-
field transfer function. The need for such a function
is not unexpected for a numerical simulation
program such as the LVECD software.
Acknowledgments This research is sponsored by the Federal
Highway Administration under project No. DTFH61-08-H-
00005. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the
FHWA. Also, the authors would like to thank the Korea
Expressway Corporation for providing the original materials
used in the KEC test road pavement sections, as-constructed
information, and performance data. The KEC’s help was
essential to this project.
References
1. Behiry AE (2012) Fatigue and rutting lives in flexible
pavements. Ain Shams Eng J 3:367–374
2. Chehab GR, Kim YR, Schapery RA, Witczak M, Bonaquist
R (2003) Characterization of asphalt concrete in uniaxial
tension using a viscoelastoplastic model. J Assoc Asphalt
Paving Technol 72:315–355
3. Hou T, Underwood BS, Kim YR (2010) Fatigue perfor-
mance prediction of north carolina mixtures using simpli-
fied viscoelastic continuum damage model. J Assoc Asphalt
Paving Technol 79:35–80
4. Underwood BS, Baek CMN, Kim YR (2012) Use of sim-
plified viscoelastic continuum damage model as an asphalt
concrete fatigue analysis platform. Transp Res Record: J
Transp Res Board 2296:36–45
Materials and Structures
5. Underwood BS, Kim YR, Guddati MN (2010) Improved
calculation method of damage parameter in viscoelastic
continuum damage model. Int J Pavement Eng 11:459–476
6. Zhang J, Sabouri M, Kim YR, Guddati MN (2013) Devel-
opment of a failure criterion for asphalt mixtures under
fatigue loading. Road Mat Pavement Design 14(Supplement
2):1–15
7. Sabouri M, Kim YR (2014) Development of failure criterion
for asphalt mixtures under different modes of fatigue
loading. Transp Res Record: J Transp Res Board
2447:117–125
8. Norouzi A, Sabouri M, Kim YR (2014) Evaluation of the
fatigue performance of high rap asphalt mixtures. Pro-
ceedings of 12th international society for asphalt pave-
ments, Raleigh
9. Choi Y, Kim YR (2012) Development of calibration testing
protocol for permanent deformation model of asphalt con-
crete. Transp Res Record: J Transp Res Board No. 13-2555:
34–43
10. Kim YR, Guddati M (2011) Hot mix asphalt performance-
related specifications based on viscoelastoplastic continuum
damage (VEPCD) Models. Quarterly Research Progress
Report: October–December 2011, Project Number
DTFH61-08-H-00005
11. Gibson NH, Kutay ME, Keramat D, Youtcheff J (2009)
Multiaxial strain response of asphalt concrete measured
during flow number performance test. J Assoc Asph Paving
Technol 78
12. Huang YH (2003) Pavement analysis and design. 2nd edn.
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall
13. Eslaminia M, Guddati MN (2010) Fourier-finite element
analysis of pavements under moving vehicular loading. Int J
Pavement Eng
14. Norouzi A, Kim YR (2014) Mechanistic evaluation of the
fatigue cracking in asphalt pavements. Int J Pavement Eng
1–17
15. Wang Y, Norouzi AH, Kim YR (2015) Comparison of
fatigue cracking performance predictions in asphalt pave-
ments using pavement ME and LVECD. Transp Res
Record: J Transp Res Board 1–17
16. Reese R (1997) Properties of aged asphalt binder related to
asphalt concrete fatigue life. J Assoc Asphalt Paving
Technol 66:604–632
17. Seo Y (2010) Distress evolution in highway flexible pave-
ments: a 5-year study at the Korea Highway Corporation
Test Road. ID JTE 102107. J Test Eval 38(1): 1–10
18. Lee JS, Norouzi A, Kim YR (2014) Determining specimen
geometry of cylindrical specimens for direct tension fatigue
testing of asphalt concrete. ASTM J Test Eval
19. Eslaminia M, Thirunavukkarasu S, Guddati MN, Kim YR
(2012) Accelerated pavement performance modeling using
layered viscoelastic analysis. Proceedings of the 7th inter-
national RILEM conference on cracking in pavements,
Delft
20. Tseng K, Lytton R (1989) Prediction of permanent defor-
mation in flexible pavement materials. Implic Aggreg
Design Const Perform Flex Pavements. ASTM STP
1016:154–172