Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0609-4

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessing artificial neural network performance for

predicting interlayer conditions and layer modulus
of multi-layered flexible pavement
Lingyun YOUa,b, Kezhen YANa* , Nengyuan LIUa
a
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: yankz@hnu.edu.cn

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
ABSTRACT The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of the artificial neural network (ANN) approach
for predicting interlayer conditions and layer modulus of a multi-layered flexible pavement structure. To achieve this goal,
two ANN based back-calculation models were proposed to predict the interlayer conditions and layer modulus of the
pavement structure. The corresponding database built with ANSYS based finite element method computations for four
types of a structure subjected to falling weight deflectometer load. In addition, two proposed ANN models were verified
by comparing the results of ANN models with the results of PADAL and double multiple regression models. The
measured pavement deflection basin data was used for the verifications. The comparing results concluded that there are no
significant differences between the results estimated by ANN and double multiple regression models. PADAL modeling
results were not accurate due to the inability to reflect the real pavement structure because pavement structure was not
completely continuous. The prediction and verification results concluded that the proposed back-calculation model
developed with ANN could be used to accurately predict layer modulus and interlayer conditions. In addition, the back-
calculation model avoided the back-calculation errors by considering the interlayer condition, which was barely
considered by former models reported in the published studies.

KEYWORDS asphalt pavement, interlayer conditions, finite element method, artificial neural network, back-calculation

1 Introduction pavement performance as many environmental and

Asphalt pavement (flexible pavement) structure is a multi-
layered composite system, so the performance of pavement
depends on both individual material of each layer and
interlayer condition [1–7]. The interlayer conditions
between the adjunct layers of pavement structure are
usually determined by a large variety of parameters and are
often considered the weak Achilles’ heel of a pavement
structure where horizontal water propagation of unbonded
and cracks could easily occur [8–11]. In the application of
pavement performance evaluation and pavement structural
design, the layers are assumed to be completed bonded to
the adjacent structural layers, however, complete and total
bonding should be considered an overestimation as of
Article history: Received Jan 13, 2019; Accepted May 17, 2019
material conditions are likely to vary. There are various
studies from all over the world evaluated the performance
of the pavement interlayers, especially the interlayer bond
strength between pavement layers [12–19]. In the
laboratory, the interlayer conditions are commonly deter-
mined and investigated by applying coaxial shear test and a
layer-parallel direct shear test [8,20–23]. For example, in
Italy, Canestrari and Santagata [24] used the Ancona Shear
Testing Research and Analysis to determine the effects of
different variables on the shear behavior of tack coat.
Sholar et al. [25] at the Florida Department of Transporta-
tion (located in the USA) developed a simple direct shear
device that could be used in a universal testing machine or
a Marshall press. The test evaluated the impact of
temperature and loading rate on the performance of
interlayer bonding. Raab and Partl [26] investigated the
2 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
influence of tack coats on the interlayer adhesion of
gyratory specimens in the laboratory using a layer-parallel
direct shear test. Mohammad et al. [27] evaluated the
influence of tack coat types, application rates, and test
temperature on the interface shear strength using the
Superpave Shear Tester. West et al. [28] developed a new
test method, National Center for Asphalt Technology Bond
Strength Test (BST), the interlayer bond strengths could be
measured at different temperatures and normal pressure
levels. Although there are so many studies reporting the
laboratory approaches for the investigations of interlayer
conditions, the useful methods to define or evaluate the
interlayer conditions of situ pavement structures are
seriously insufficient [3,15,29–32]. Therefore, the
approaches for investigating interlayer conditions of situ
pavement structures need further developments.
The nondestructive testing and back-calculation meth-
ods provided ideal means to evaluate the performance of
pavement structure in a rapid and convenient manner [33–
37]. Back-calculation is a mechanistic investigation of
pavement surface deflection basins generated by various
pavement deflection devices. Back-calculation takes a
measured surface deflection and attempts to match it with a
calculated surface deflection generated from an identical
pavement structure using assumed layer stiffness, which is
exactly the opposite of the forward calculation [38]. In the
last few decades, significant developments have been
applied in the situ pavements. The back-calculation
method could be considered to assess the interlayer
condition in addition to the pavement layer stiffness,
from falling weight deflectometer (FWD) test results, since
the shear bond stiffness at the interlayer were considered as
a variable affecting the FWD deflections and therefore
back-calculated in a similar manner to a surface layer
modulus [39]. It should be noted that FWD is a pavement
analysis technique that is now widely used in pavement
engineering to test the structural performance of pavements
nondestructively. The impulsive load is applied to the
surface of the pavement structure, and sensors are set at a
group of radical points to record the deflection response
[40]. The FWD method can back-calculate the layer
modulus of asphalt pavement and predict the residual life
of the pavement structure [41]. Bilodeau and Dore [42,43].
back-calculated the layers modulus and analyzed the
mechanistic of pavement structure based on the data of
the deflection basin and estimated the vertical strain at the
top of the subgrade layer on the basis of the FWD basin
results. Grenier et al. [44,45] used both back-calculation
and forward calculation to analyze the dynamic response
of flexible pavements under FWD loads based on the
spectral element method. However, these studies rarely
considered the effect of interlayer conditions on the
pavement performance, most of which treated the inter-
layers as bonded. Therefore, it is necessary to further
consider the different interlayer conditions in the back-
calculation of pavement performance, and a reliable back-
calculation model is also very important for this item.
Artificial neural network (ANN) method is a useful
computation tool to analyze complex multi-layered
structures, which include different evaluation parameters,
and it has the ability to tolerate relatively imprecise tasks,
approximate results, and even has less sensitivity to
outliers [46–48]. ANN enable to tolerate relatively
imprecise tasks, approximate results and even has less
sensitivity to outliers [46,49]. Anitescu et al. [50] reported
one approach for solving partial differential equations
using ANNs and an adaptive collocation strategy. The
provided method increased the robustness of the neural
network approximation and resulted in obvious computa-
tional savings. In the applications of ANN in civil
engineering, Tarefder et al. [51] developed one four-
layered ANN model to determine to map by associating the
design and testing factors of asphalt mixtures with their
performance in repetitive rutting tests and observed
excellent agreement between simulations and the test
data. They also used a developed ANN technique to
estimate the optimum asphalt content of a Superpave mix.
In addition, the fatigue life of asphalt mixtures, structure
layer modulus and the interlayer bonding performance of
pavement also can be predicted with ANN models [52–
55]. Hadidi and Gucunski [56] analyzed the response of
pavement under FWD loads and assessed the in situ
pavement layer modulus with the back-calculation of the
FWD test, an optimal back-calculation method was
proposed according to test results. Among these back-
calculation methods, increasing interest was observed for
the ANN method due to the advantages and disadvantages
of coexistence characteristics. ANN method is capable of
learning directly from examples and finding a relation
between input and output variables, however, ANN has
some limitation such as long training time, difficulty in
selecting sets of input variables and a large amount of
training data [57–60]. Considering above-mentioned
features, the developed ANN techniques will be adopted
into this study to predict the interlayer conditions and
structure modulus for the multi-layered flexible pave-
ments.
The objectives of this study are to assess the
performance of the ANN based back-calculations for
predicting the interlayer conditions and layer modulus of
multi-layered flexible pavements. This study employed the
ANN method to provide two models for predicting the
interlayer conditions and surface layer modulus in the
pavement with four types of structure. The application of
ANN based on the database built with finite element
method computations for four types of structures under
FWD load. The ANN models were also verified by
comparing with the multiple regression and PADAL
models by using the measured deflection basin data.
 Lingyun YOU et al. ANN in predicting interlayer conditions & layer modulus of pavement 3

2 Effect analysis for interlayer conditions of 5.0, 7.0, 9.0, and LX (referred as to fully bonded in this
a pavement structure study) to demonstrate the different interlayer conditions
[32].
2.1 Numerical computation model
2.2 Verification of ANSYS model
Asphalt pavement is a multi-layer system composed of the
asphalt concrete (AC) layer, base layer, and subgrade layer. The ANSYS model used in this study was verified with an
The different interlayer conditions between layers have a existing exact analytical solution. To verify the results
great influence on the mechanical response of the from half-space, the calculated results based on ANSYS
pavement structure. Four types of pavement structures model in this study are compared with those obtained by an
were investigated in this study to represent the influence of analytical solution [66]. The cited article provided an
interlayer condition between the AC layer and base layer analytical solution for the mechanical behavior analyses of
on the surface deflection basin. The basic technique the multi-layered medium under FWD load. Here, an
indexes of proposed pavement structures are shown in efficient computational tool of Fourier-Hankel transform
Table 1. The commercial computing software ANSYS was was used in the solving process. The structural parameters
applied to analyze the influence of interlayer conditions on of the cited article were inputted in the proposed ANSYS
the pavement structures. model. Then, the vertical displacements (r = 0.0 m) of
pavement structure from ANSYS model and cited article
Table 1 Geometrical and materials properties of pavement were compared in Fig. 1(c). As shown in Fig. 1(c), the
type layer elastic modulus (MPa) thickness (m) Poisson’s ratio calculated results via the proposed ANSYS model are
A AC 1000 0.1 0.25 almost identical with the results mentioned in the cited
article. Therefore, the proposed ANSYS model for the
base 1000 0.2 0.25
database building is effectively available.
subgrade 100 infinite 0.35
B AC 3000 0.1 0.25
base 1500 0.2 0.25
subgrade 100 infinite 0.35
C AC 5000 0.3 0.25
base 1000 0.2 0.25
subgrade 150 infinite 0.35
D AC 5000 0.3 0.25
base 1500 0.2 0.25
subgrade 150 infinite 0.35

In ANSYS, the considered pavement structure was

assumed to be 4.7 m in the horizontal direction and 5.0 m
in the vertical direction. The geometry of ANSYS model
was calculated using SOLID45, while the interlayer
condition between the AC layer and the base layer was
simulated by CONTA170 and TARGE173 [61–63].
Rayleigh damping was adopted in the finite element
model with a damping ratio of 0.05 [64,65]. FWD load was
idealized as a half-sin dynamic load uniformly distributed
over a circular region with a radius of 0.15 m, the peak
magnitude of 0.72 MPa and duration of 0.03 s. This FWD
load was applied on the top surface of the pavement
structure model, in the z-direction, and it can be illustrated
as p(t)= 0.72sin(πt/0.03). The details of the boundary
conditions, circular loading, and element meshes of
ANSYS model were depicted in Figs. 1(a)–1(b). It is Fig. 1 Illustration of ANSYS model and the comparison of the
worth noting that the friction between the two layers is vertical displacement with the Ref. [66]. (a) Boundry conditions,
expressed by friction coefficients, and the friction circle loading, and element meshes; (b) comparison of the verticle
coefficient values include 0.05, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.0, 3.0, displacement (r = 0.0 m).
4 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
2.3 Numerical results and discussion
The deflection (or vertical displacement) is an important
technique index because it reflects the pavement strength
and is the basis for back-calculating of pavement
structures. Prior to the investigation of the relationship
between distribution regularity of the pavement deflection
and the interlayer condition, Fig. 2 illustrated the
comparisons of pavement deflection at various friction
coefficients and locations. The bigger interface friction
coefficients between the AC and base layer corresponding
to a better interlayer condition and LX represented a
continuous interlayer state. The selected measuring points
from load center were 0.0, 0.6, 1.2, and 1.5 for each type of
the pavement structure, and the corresponding measuring
points were referred as to d0.0, d0.6, d1.2, and d1.5 in this
study, respectively.
It can be seen that the influence of friction coefficient on
pavement deflections of each measuring points could be
ignored when the interlayer condition was partially or
completely smooth (f£0.2), the deflection decreases
gradually with the increase in friction coefficient when
the friction coefficient was greater than 1.0 (close to the
complete continuous state), and the deflection was stable
when the friction coefficient increased to values higher
Fig. 2 Asphalt pavement deflection at different interlayer conditions. (a) Type-A; (b) Type-B; (c) Type-C; (d) Type-D.
than 7.0. Additionally, when the friction coefficient varied
between 0.2 and 1.0, the change in the interlayer state had a
great influence on pavement deflection. Therefore, the
numerical results demonstrated in Fig. 2 concluded that the
change in friction coefficient between AC and base layer
did not obvious influence on the deflection values with the
increase in distance between the load center and the
measuring points. For the distance greater than 1.5 m away
from the load center, the reflection will not change with the
change in friction coefficient.
3 Back-calculation models of interlayer and
layer modulus based on ANN
3.1 ANN model
ANN is a flexible mathematical structure capable of
identifying complex nonlinear relationships between input
and output data, the neural networks are composed of
simple elements operating in parallel [67,68]. In the back-
calculation application by using ANN, the neural network
can be trained to perform a particular function by adjusting
the values of the connections (weights) between these
elements. ANN modeling consists of two steps: the first
 Lingyun YOU et al. ANN in predicting interlayer conditions & layer modulus of pavement
step is to train the network; the second step is to test the
network with data, which are not used for training [69].
However, it is well known that training of ANN is an
optimization task since it is desired to find the optimal
weight set of a neural network in the training process.
Traditional training algorithms have some drawbacks, such
as computational complexity, so it is necessary to find
better training algorithms to replace it. The back-propaga-
tion (BP) algorithm is one type of training multilayer Feed-
Forward ANNs, and the gradient of BP training algorithms
descent with momentum is often too slow for practical
problems because they require small learning rates for
stable learning [70–72]. In addition, the success in
algorithms depends on the user-dependent parameters of
learning rate and momentum constant. There are some
faster algorithms, for example, Yan and You [70] applied
standard numerical optimization techniques. Therefore, in
order to improve the effectiveness of the proposed model,
the network training in this study applies the specific
algorithms to minimize the network output error through
determination and updating of the connection weights and
biases.
3.2 Back-calculation of interlayer conditions
Creating a reasonable sample database is the first and the
most important and crucial step in ANN based back-
calculation. In the present study, the pavement structures of
each group were divided into six forms, which correspond
to the friction coefficients of 0.2, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 5.0, and 7.0.
The sample data of AC layer modulus were in the range of
1000 to 21000 MPa, those of the base layer were from 500
to 4000 MPa, and in the range of 50 to 300 MPa for the
subgrade. In addition, the computational deflection
database was established by using ANSYS. According to
the mentioned steps, the summary of the pavement
parameters used in back-calculation as shown in Table 2.
There are 1800 groups of computation samples achieved
from ANSYS. The prepared sample database was divided
into two parts, which include 1500 groups for model
training (83.3% of total data) and 300 groups for the
verification of model (16.7% of total data). The group of
training was used to build the relationship between the
inputs and outputs, while the verification group was
applied to prevent over-fitting in ANN. It is noteworthy
that the proposed division was according to the require-
ment of the training and verification groups that had almost
similar distributions [68]. The numerical discussion in
section depicted that the pavement deflection did not
obvious change with the change in friction coefficient
Table 2 Summary of pavement parameters used in back-calculations
layer elastic modulus (MPa) thickness (m)
AC 1000 to 21000 0.1 to 0.3
base 500 to 4000 0.2 to 0.5
subgrade 50 to 300 infinite
5
when measuring point away from the load center greater
than 1.5 m. Therefore, in order to make the back-
calculation model more sensitive for the predictions, the
measuring point whose distance from the load center is less
than 1.5 m was selected as input parameters in the model.
ANN model applied in this paper was taken as
computational deflection, AC layer thickness and base
layer thickness as the model input parameters (set as input
matrix), and the friction coefficient was taken as the output
vector (evaluation parameters). It is worth noting that two
groups of deflection data corresponding to different
measurement points were employed in the ANN model.
The group one includes seven points (distances from the
load center are 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5, and 2.1 m), while
the group two includes five points (distances from the load
center are 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, and 1.5 m).
Furthermore, the factors were inputted into a MATLAB-
based application program (i.e., ANN). To ensure the
reliability of the back-calculation results, three models
were selected for training and back-calculation compar-
ison. Model-1 and Model-2 used the deflection data from
group one and Model-3 used the deflection data from
group two for back-calculate calculation. The specific
parameters were set as shown in Table 3. The training
functions in Model-1 and Model-2 correspond to Leven-
berg-Marquardt backpropagation, gradient descent with
momentum, and one-step-secant algorithms, respectively.
Trainoss is a network training function that updates weight
and bias values according to the one-step-secant method.
Levenberg-Marquardt backpropagation algorithm is an
iterative technique that works in such a way that
performance function will always be reduced in each
iteration of the algorithm, which makes trainlm as the
fastest training algorithm for networks of moderate size.
Gradient Descent with Momentum algorithm performs like
a low pass filter, which means that the network ignores
small features in error surface with momentum. The
network could get stuck into a shallow local minimum but
with the momentum it slides via such local minimum
[73,74]. In addition, learngdm and tansig were selected as
adaption learning and transfer functions in the model
training, respectively. Learngdm is the gradient descent
with momentum weight and bias learning function, while
tansig is the hyperbolic tangent sigmoid transfer function
[75].
Model evaluation is the utilization of the test data in a
trained network to determine the prediction capability to
compare the predicted and measured results [70]. The
good-fit statistics for ANN model prediction in the
logarithmic scale were performed using statistical para-
Poisson’s ratio interlayer condition
0.25 six types of interlayer condition characterized by the
friction coefficient of 0.2, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 5.0, and 7.0.
0.25
0.35
6 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Table 3 Training parameter setting for back-calculation of interlayer

conditions
item Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
training functions trainlm traingdm trainoss
adaption learning functions learngdm learngdm learngdm
number of layers 3 2 3
number of neurons 10 15 15
transfer function tansig tansig tansig
trainparam epochs 5000 2000 3000
trainparam goal 1E–5 1E–5 1E–5
trainparam IR 0.1 0.1 0.1
trainParam Max_air 5 7 5
trainParam Min_grad 1E–9 1E–9 1E–9

meters, which include the coefficient of determination (R2)

and the standard error of predicted data divided by the
standard error of measured data (Se/Sy). R2 depicts the
correlation between the predicted and measured values,
while Se/Sy indicates relative improvements in accuracy
[76]. Higher R2 and lower Se/Sy values are desired for the
better performance of a model, and the equations for R2 and
Se/Sy are shown in Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. The set of
criteria presented in Table 4, originally developed by
Pellinen [77], was also used in the evaluation.
,sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xn X n
R2 ¼ 1 – ðyti – ypi Þ2 ðyti – yti Þ2 , (1)
i¼1 i¼1

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
v" # "sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
u n
u X X n
Se =Sy¼t ðyti – ypi Þ2  ðyti – yti Þ2  ðn – PÞ,
i¼1 i¼1

(2)
where yti
is the measured value (input data), is the yPi
predicted value (output data), n is the number of samples,
and P is the number of independent variables in the model.
Table 4 Statistical criteria for the correlation between measured and
predicted values [77]
statistical criteria R2 Se/Sy
very poor £0.19 ≥0.90
poor 0.20–0.39 0.76–0.90
fair 0.40–0.69 0.56–0.75
good 0.79–0.89 0.36–0.55
excellent ≥0.90 £0.35

Fig. 3 Training process diagram of the friction coefficient back-

The training performance of the friction coefficient calculation model. (a) Model-1; (b) Model-2; (c) Model-3.
back-calculation model was shown in Fig. 3, and the back-
calculation results of the interlayer friction coefficient Figs. 4 and 5. The comparative analysis of correlation
(include training and verification group) were presented in coefficients and error ratios between the training and
 Lingyun YOU et al. ANN in predicting interlayer conditions & layer modulus of pavement 7

Fig. 4 Back-calculation results of the interlayer friction coeffi- Fig. 5 Back-calculation results of the interlayer friction coeffi-
cient (training group). (a) Model-1; (b) Model-2; (c) Model-3. cient (verification group). (a) Model-1; (b) Model-2; (c) Model-3.
8 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

verification groups of the three models were demonstrated Table 6 Training parameter setting for the back-calculation of AC
in Table 5. layer modulus
As seen in Table 5, the developed ANN back-calculation item Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
model was satisfactory for predicting the interlayer friction training function trainlm traingdm trainoss
coefficient (f). In the training group and verification group, adaption learning function learngdm learngdm learngdm
the back-calculation correlation coefficients R2 and the
number of layers 3 2 3
error ratios Se/Sy of the two methods (using two different
groups of deflection data), R2 was greater than 0.85, and number of neurons 10 15 15
Se/Sy was less than 0.55, which indicates that the data transfer function tansig tansig tansig
discretization can meet the engineering requirements on trainparam epochs 5000 2000 3000
accuracy. In addition, although the back-calculation
trainparam goal 1E–7 1E–7 1E–7
precision of using seven-point deflection values as input
parameters was better than that of using five-point, the trainparam IR 0.01 0.01 0.01

back-calculation accuracy of using five deflection values as trainparam Max_air 6 8 6

input parameters was also satisfied the requirements of trainparam Min_grad 1E–10 1E–10 1E–10
calculation.

3.3 Back-calculation of surface layer modulus
The input matrix of the back-calculation model was same
as those of Section 3.2, except that the output vector was
set to the AC layer modulus, and there are three types of
models were employed for training and back-calculation.
Figures 6, 7, and 8 depicted the back-calculation results,
while Tables 6 and 7 illustrated ANN model calculation
parameters and the evaluation results, respectively.
It can be seen from Table 7 that the accuracy of the back-
calculation of AC layer modulus was obviously higher
than that of the back-calculation of the interlayer friction
coefficient. In addition, in the training and verification
groups, the back-calculation results obtained by the two
methods were close. The correlation coefficients R2 were
close to 1.0, and the error ratios Se/Sy are less than 0.35.
The Neural Network training function, hidden layers, the
number of neural in each layer and the type of transfer
function parameters significantly impact on training
accuracy and back-calculation results in the training
process of the ANN model. Therefore, the continuously
debug and repeatedly verify the results is necessary to
determine a reasonable back-calculation ANN model.
4 Verification by using the deflection data
from field tests
In summary, the proposed ANN models can be applied to
estimate the pavement structure modulus and interlayer
condition. However, the computational deflection basin
was adopted in the former part, instead of deflection data
from a field test to conduct back-calculation. It is difficult
to keep the computational deflection basin and the
measured deflection basin consistent, due to the influence
of various parameters. Therefore, this section was used to
validate the feasibility of ANN back-calculation methods
by using the measured deflection basin.
The field data from a test section were used as the
measured data, which included the field deflection basin
data and pavement modulus [39]. Five sections with two
different pavement structures were measured, and the
measured sections were named as A, B, C, D, and E. The
structures A, B, and C have the same pavement structure
design with the structural thickness of 10, 14, and 50 cm
for the surface layer, base layer, and subgrade layer,
respectively. Moreover, the surface and base layers were
treated as the whole layer in back-calculation analysis,
which referred as to surface layer in structures D and E.
The thickness of surface and subgrade layers are 21 and
50 cm, respectively, in the structures D and E. In both of
these five sections, the Poisson’s ratios are 0.25, 0.25, and
0.35 for the surface, base, and subgrade layers, respec-
tively. The measuring sensors were set at 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9,
1.2, 1.5, 2.1 m from the loading center. The load type is
FWD with the peak of 700 kPa.
Two surveys were conducted on the five sections of the
pavement structures. The first survey was conducted when
the pavement structure was just finished, while the second
survey was conducted when the pavements were opened
after six months. The detailed test deflection basin data
were displayed in Tables 8 and 9.
Al Hakim et al. [39] tried two methods to evaluate the
performance of pavements. The first one is a pavement

Table 5 Model evaluation results of interlayer friction coefficients

friction coefficient Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
2 2 2
R Se/Sy R Se/Sy R Se/Sy
training group 0.9215 0.451 0.8909 0.515 0.8813 0.521
verification group 0.9152 0.483 0.8808 0.532 0.8753 0.546
 Lingyun YOU et al. ANN in predicting interlayer conditions & layer modulus of pavement 9

Fig. 6 Training process diagram of AC layer modulus back- Fig. 7 Back-calculation results of AC layer modulus (training
calculation model. (a) Model-1; (b) Model-2; (c) Model-3. group). (a) Model-1; (b) Model-2; (c) Model-3.
10
Fig. 8 Back-calculation results of AC layer modulus (verifica-
tion group). (a) Model-1; (b) Model-2; (c) Model-3.
deflection analysis method (PADAL), which is a computer
program for the back analysis of elastic layer stiffness of
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
pavement structures according to the deflections measured
by FWD [78]. The interlayer condition was not considered
in PADAL model, and the interlayer was assumed
completely continuous. The other one is the double
multiple regression method, in which the interlayer
condition was considered, and the layer modulus was
back-calculated. The interlayer shear stiffness was back-
calculated so as to characterize the interlayer condition of a
pavement. To validate the feasibility of the proposed ANN
back-calculation models in the evaluation of field pave-
ment structures, two ANN models were adopted to predict
the actual performance of the pavement structure, where
the deflection basin data of sensor seven (distance to the
loading center 2.1 m). The predicted values were compared
with the findings reported by Al Hakim et al. [39], and the
comparisons as shown in Tables 10 and 11, where the
interlayer shear stiffness was represented by K. It is
noteworthy that the interlayer condition is poor when
K < 10, the bond condition is intermediate when
10 < K < 105, and the bond condition is good when
K > 105.
The back-calculated modulus was underestimated for
models without considering the interlayer conditions, and
the evaluation results of the pavement structure were
obviously lower. The main reason was that the measured
deflection value was larger with bad interlayer conditions
so that the back-calculated modulus was smaller. PADAL
modeling results were not accurate due to the inability to
reflect the real pavement structure since the actual situation
was that the pavement structure was not completely
continuous. The multiple regression method and two
ANN models can better reflect the real pavement structure
condition with the consideration of interlayer.
The multiple regression method used the shear stiffness
K to represent an interlayer condition. K < 10 means that
the interlayer was close to the smooth state, K > 105 means
that the interlayer was close to the continuous state,
10 < K < 105 means that the interlayer was in the middle
state, and the change of K in this range has great influence
on the response of pavement mechanics. ANN models
used a friction coefficient to represent interlayer condi-
tions. As mentioned in Section 2.3, the smooth state of the
interlayer is an unfavorable bonding situation when the
friction coefficient is no more than 0.2, the normal
interlayer condition had a friction coefficient varying
between 0.2 and 1, and the interlayer condition was good
when the friction coefficient was greater than 1.0. The
pavement structure can be treated as continuous when the
friction coefficient is greater than 7.0. The qualitative
evaluation of the pavement interlayer condition obtained
by those three back-calculation models (double multiple
regression, ANN Model-1 and Model-2) are basically the
same. This phenomenon means that it is feasible to
evaluate the pavement interlayer conditions by using the
proposed ANN back-calculation model. Using the friction
coefficient to evaluate the interlayer condition is also
 Lingyun YOU et al. ANN in predicting interlayer conditions & layer modulus of pavement 11

Table 7 Model evaluation results for the back-calculation of AC layer modulus

AC layer modulus Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
R2 Se/Sy R2 Se/Sy R2 Se/Sy
training group 0.9828 0.167 0.9716 0.204 0.9605 0.305
verification group 0.9706 0.195 0.9669 0.245 0.9548 0.345

Table 8 First survey of the deflection basin data (mm)

pavement structure the distance between sensor position and loading center
0.0 m 0.3 m 0.6 m 0.9 m 1.2 m 1.5 m 2.1 m
A 298 244 175 122 84 59 38
B 338 277 194 134 93 65 40
C 151 132 105 82 64 48 30
D 193 162 126 98 74 56 36
E 193 159 115 82 57 42 28

Table 9 Second survey of the deflection basin data (mm)

pavement structure the distance between sensor position and loading center
0.0 m 0.3 m 0.6 m 0.9 m 1.2 m 1.5 m 2.1 m
A 295 242 177 117 80 59 39
B 332 276 197 128 85 63 41
C 173 147 119 87 65 49 31
D 201 165 134 97 73 56 35
E 188 157 117 81 56 41 28

Table 10 Pavement parameters back-calculation results of the first survey

pavement structure PADAL multiple regression ANN Model-1 ANN Model-2
3
layer modulus K (MN/m ) layer modulus friction coefficient layer modulus friction coefficient layer modulus
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
A 3900 20 12100 0.23 12850 0.25 12685
B 4500 10 18900 0.20 19447 0.21 19630
C 12000 200 18000 0.68 18568 0.76 18855
D 4600 10 11000 0.20 11430 0.26 11359
E 5100 10 18600 0.23 19057 0.20 18925

Table 11 Pavement parameters back-calculation results of the second survey

pavement structure PADAL multiple regression ANN Model-1 ANN Model-2
3
layer modulus K (MN/m ) layer modulus friction coefficient layer modulus friction coefficient layer modulus
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
A 3900 190 11300 0.73 11550 0.65 11585
B 3500 50 12100 0.28 12700 0.26 12830
C 11000 10000 12900 2.80 13490 2.60 13555
D 4800 190 12700 0.67 12900 0.72 12859
E 5900 100 14500 0.45 15250 0.51 15325
12 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
proved as a simple and direct method.
The predicted layer modulus of the two ANN back-
calculation models was also very close when the interlayer
condition was considered. There were no significant
differences between results estimated by ANN models
and the double multiple regression method. The pavement
modulus estimated by ANN was acceptable, however, if
possible, the prediction accuracy can be further improved
by increasing the training samples.
5 Summary and conclusions
The finite element method (ANSYS) was adopted to
compare the influence of pavement structure type and
interlayer friction coefficient on the surface deflection at
different mearing points. ANN model was applied to back-
calculate the surface layer modulus and interlayer condi-
tion of the pavement structures. The main findings are
displayed as follows according to the finite element
method analysis and ANN prediction results.
1) The influence of the interlayer condition on surface
layer deflection highly depended on the position of the
measuring point. The impact was greater when the position
of the measuring point was closer to the loading center,
while the influence can be neglected when the distance
between loading center and the measuring point was
greater than 1.5 m.
2) The proposed back-calculation model developed
with ANN can be used to accurately predict the pavement
modulus and the interlayer condition using finite element
method test results. The back-calculation model avoided
the back-calculation errors by considering the interlayer
condition, which was barely considered by former models
reported in the published studies.
3) The layer modulus and interlayer conditions esti-
mated by ANN models were acceptable, while the
accuracy and back-calculation results highly depended
on the parameter setting of models. The limitation of the
method is that the model needs to be adjusted and verified
repeatedly to acquire suitable back-calculation models.
Acknowledgements This work was financially supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51278188, 50808077, and
51778224) and the Project of Young Core Instructor Growth from Hunan
Province. The first author also acknowledges the financial support from the
China Scholarship Council (CSC) under No. 201606130003. The authors are
sincerely grateful for their financial support. In addition, the manuscript has
received the written quality improvement assistance from Michigan Tech
Multiliteracies Center during the revisions. The views and findings of this
study represent those of the authors and may not reflect those of NSFC,
Hunan University, and CSC.
References
1. Chen Y, Lopp G, Roque R. Effects of an asphalt rubber membrane
interlayer on pavement reflective cracking performance. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 2013, 25(12): 1936–1940
2. Blankenship P, Iker N, Drbohlav J. Interlayer and design
considerations to retard reflective cracking. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2004,
1896(1): 177–186
3. Lv S, Fan X, Xia C, Zheng J, Chen D, You L. Characteristics of
moduli decay for the asphalt mixture under different loading
conditions. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2018, 8(5): 840
4. Mehta Y, Roque R. Evaluation of FWD data for determination of
layer moduli of pavements. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineer-
ing, 2003, 15(1): 25–31
5. Nazzal M, Abu-Farsakh M, Alshibli K, Mohammad L. Evaluating
the light falling weight deflectometer device for in situ measurement
of elastic modulus of pavement layers. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016, 1: 13–
22
6. Liu K, Zhang X, Guo D, Wang F, Xie H. The interlaminar shear
failure characteristics of asphalt pavement coupled heating cables.
Materials and Structures, 2018, 51(3): 67
7. Liu K, Li Y, Wang F, Xie H, Pang H, Bai H. Analytical and model
studies on behavior of rigid polyurethane composite aggregate under
compression. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2019, 31(3):
04019007
8. Kim H, Arraigada M, Raab C, Partl M N. Numerical and
experimental analysis for the interlayer behavior of double-layered
asphalt pavement specimens. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 2011, 23(1): 12–20
9. You L, Yan K, Hu Y, Zollinger D G. Spectral element solution for
transversely isotropic elastic multi-layered structures subjected to
axisymmetric loading. Computers and Geotechnics, 2016, 72: 67–
73
10. Fardad K, Najafi B, Ardabili S F, Mosavi A, Shamshirband S,
Rabczuk T. Biodegradation of medicinal plants waste in an
anaerobic digestion reactor for biogas production. Computers
Materials and Continua. 2018, 55(3): 318–392
11. Ai Z Y, Cheng Y C, Zeng W Z. Analytical layer-element solution to
axisymmetric consolidation of multilayered soils. Computers and
Geotechnics, 2011, 38(2): 227–232
12. Uzan J, Livneh M, Eshed Y. Investigation of adhesion properties
between asphaltic-concrete layers. Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists Proc, 1978, 47: 495–521
13. Kruntcheva M R, Collop A C, Thom N H. Properties of asphalt
concrete layer interfaces. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
2006, 18(3): 467–471
14. You L, Yan K, Hu Y, Ma W. Impact of interlayer on the anisotropic
multi-layered medium overlaying viscoelastic layer under axisym-
metric loading. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2018, 61: 726–
743
15. You L, Yan K, Liu N, Shi T, Lv S. Assessing the mechanical
responses for anisotropic multi-layered medium under harmonic
moving load by Spectral Element Method (SEM). Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 2019, 67: 22–37
16. Yoo P, Al-Qadi I L, Elseifi M, Janajreh I. Flexible pavement
responses to different loading amplitudes considering layer interface
condition and lateral shear forces. International Journal of Pavement
 Lingyun YOU et al. ANN in predicting interlayer conditions & layer modulus of pavement
Engineering, 2006, 7(1): 73–86
17. Kruntcheva M R, Collop A C, Thom N H. Effect of bond condition
on flexible pavement performance. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 2005, 131(11): 880–888
18. You L, You Z, Dai Q, Xie X, Washko S, Gao J. Investigation of
adhesion and interface bond strength for pavements underlying
chip-seal: Effect of asphalt-aggregate combinations and freeze-thaw
cycles on chip-seal. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 203:
322–330
19. Peng Y, He Y. Structural characteristics of cement-stabilized soil
bases with 3D finite element method. Frontiers of Architecture and
Civil Engineering in China, 2009, 3(4): 428
20. You L, You Z, Dai Q, Guo S, Wang J, Schultz M. Characteristics of
water-foamed asphalt mixture under multiple freeze-thaw cycles:
Laboratory evaluation. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
2018, 30(11): 04018270
21. Ktari R, Millien A, Fouchal F, Pop I O, Petit C. Pavement interface
damage behavior in tension monotonic loading. Construction &
Building Materials, 2016, 106: 430–442
22. Zak J, Monismith C L, Coleri E, Harvey J T. Uniaxial shear
tester—New test method to determine shear properties of asphalt
mixtures. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2017, 18(sup1):
87–103
23. Lv S, Wang S, Liu C, Zheng J, Li Y, Peng X. Synchronous testing
method for tension and compression moduli of asphalt mixture
under dynamic and static loading states. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 2018, 30(10): 04018268
24. Canestrari F, Santagata E. Temperature effects on the shear
behaviour of tack coat emulsions used in flexible pavements.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2005, 6(1): 39–46
25. Sholar G A, Page G C, Musselman J A, Upshaw P B, Moseley H L.
Preliminary investigation of a test method to evaluate bond strength
of bituminous tack coats (with discussion). Electronic Journal of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 2004, 73: 771–806
26. Raab C, Partl M N. Interlayer shear performance: Experience with
different pavement structures. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Eurasphalt
and Eurobitume Congress Held Vienna. Vienna: Foundation
Eurasphalt, 2004
27. Mohammad L, Raqib M, Huang B. Influence of asphalt tack coat
materials on interface shear strength. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1789,
2002: 56–65
28. West RC, Zhang J, Moore J. Evaluation of Bond Strength between
Pavement Layers. NCAT Report 2005:05–8. 2005
29. Wheat M. Evalutation Of Bond Strength at Asphalt Interfaces.
Kansas: Kansas State University, 2007
30. Baek J, Al-Qadi I, Xie W, Buttlar W. In situ assessment of interlayer
systems to abate reflective cracking in hot-mix asphalt overlays.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2008, 2084(1): 104–113
31. Ozer H, Al-Qadi I L, Wang H, Leng Z. Characterisation of interface
bonding between hot-mix asphalt overlay and concrete pavements:
modelling and in-situ response to accelerated loading. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2012, 13(2): 181–196
32. You L, You Z, Yan K. Effect of anisotropic characteristics on the
mechanical behavior of asphalt concrete overlay. Frontiers of
13
Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(1): 110–122
33. Goel A, Das A. Nondestructive testing of asphalt pavements for
structural condition evaluation: A state of the art. Nondestructive
Testing and Evaluation, 2008, 23(2): 121–140
34. Xue W, Wang L, Wang D, Druta C. Pavement health monitoring
system based on an embedded sensing network. Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 2014, 26(10): 04014072
35. Garbowski T, Pożarycki A. Multi-level backcalculation algorithm
for robust determination of pavement layers parameters. Inverse
Problems in Science and Engineering, 2017, 25(5): 674–693
36. Levenberg E. Backcalculation with an implanted inertial sensor.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2015, 2525(1): 3–12
37. Liu P, Wang D, Otto F, Oeser M. Application of semi-analytical
finite element method to analyze the bearing capacity of asphalt
pavements under moving loads. Frontiers of Structural and Civil
Engineering, 2018, 12(2): 215–221
38. Fwa T, Chandrasegaran S. Regression model for back-calculation of
rigid-pavement properties. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
2001, 127(4): 353–355
39. Al Hakim B, Cheung L W, Armitage R J. Use of FWD data for
prediction of bonding between pavement layers. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1999, 1(1): 49–59
40. You L, Yan K, Hu Y, Liu J, Ge D. Spectral element method for
dynamic response of transversely isotropic asphalt pavement under
impact load. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2018, 19(1):
223–238
41. Sharma S, Das A. Backcalculation of pavement layer moduli from
failing weight deflectometer data using an artificial neural network.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2008, 35(1): 57–66
42. Bilodeau J P, Dore G. Estimation of tensile strains at the bottom of
asphalt concrete layers under wheel loading using deflection basins
from falling weight deflectometer tests. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2012, 39(7): 771–778
43. Bilodeau J P, Dore G. Direct estimation of vertical strain at the top of
the subgrade soil from interpretation of falling weight deflectometer
deflection basins. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2014,
41(5): 403–408
44. Grenier S, Konrad J M. Dynamic interpretation of failing weight
deflectometer tests on flexible pavements using the spectral element
method: Backcalculation. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
2009, 36(6): 957–968
45. Grenier S, Konrad J M, LeBœuf D. Dynamic simulation of falling
weight deflectometer tests on flexible pavements using the spectral
element method: Forward calculations. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2009, 36(6): 944–956
46. Shafabakhsh G H, Ani O J, Talebsafa M. Artificial neural network
modeling (ANN) for predicting rutting performance of nano-
modified hot-mix asphalt mixtures containing steel slag aggregates.
Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 85: 136–143
47. Far M S S, Underwood B S, Ranjithan S R, Kim Y R, Jackson N.
Application of artificial neural networks for estimating dynamic
modulus of asphalt concrete. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2009, 2127(1): 173–
186
48. Lacroix A, Kim Y, Ranjithan S. Backcalculation of dynamic
14 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
modulus from resilient modulus of asphalt concrete with an artificial
neural network. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2008, (2057): 107–113
49. Ismail A. ANN-based empirical modelling of pile behaviour under
static compressive loading. Frontiers of Structural and Civil
Engineering, 2017, 12(4): 1–15
50. Anitescu C, Atroshchenko E, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Artificial
neural network methods for the solution of second order boundary
value problems. Computers, Materials & Continua., 2019, 59(1):
345–359
51. Tarefder R, White L, Zaman M. Development and application of a
rut prediction model for flexible pavement. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1936, 2005:
201–209
52. Kim S H, Yang J D, Jeong J H. Prediction of subgrade resilient
modulus using artificial neural network. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2014, 18(5): 1372–1379
53. Nazzal M D, Tatari O. Evaluating the use of neural networks and
genetic algorithms for prediction of subgrade resilient modulus.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2013, 14(4): 364–
373
54. Park H I, Kweon G C, Lee S R. Prediction of resilient modulus of
granular subgrade soils and subbase materials using artificial neural
network. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2009, 10(3): 647–
665
55. Grenier S, Konrad J M, LeBœuf D. Dynamic simulation of falling
weight deflectometer tests on flexible pavements using the spectral
element method: forward calculations. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2009, 36(6): 944–956
56. Hadidi R, Gucunski N. Comparative study of static and dynamic
falling weight deflectometer back-calculations using probabilistic
approach. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2010, 136(3):
196–204
57. Duan Z H, Kou S C, Poon C S. Using artificial neural networks for
predicting the elastic modulus of recycled aggregate concrete.
Construction & Building Materials, 2013, 44: 524–532
58. Baughman D R, Liu Y A. Neural Networks in Bioprocessing and
Chemical Engineering. San Diego, California: Academic press,
2014
59. Shafabakhsh G, Ani O J, Talebsafa M. Artificial neural network
modeling (ANN) for predicting rutting performance of nano-
modified hot-mix asphalt mixtures containing steel slag aggregates.
Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 85: 136–143
60. Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A
software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for
computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Soft-
ware, 2016, 100: 19–31
61. Chaudhari YA, Katti G. Finite Element Analysis of Effect of
Punching Shear in Flat Slab Using Ansys 16.0. 2016
62. Shankar S, Nithyaprakash R. Effect of radial clearance on wear and
contact pressure of hard-on-hard hip prostheses using finite element
concepts. Tribology Transactions, 2014, 57(5): 814–820
63. Simões G J, Almeida C A, dos Reis N R S. Numerical simulations of
damage and repair of thin wall pipes resulting from lateral denting.
In: 2004 International ANSYS Conference. Pittsburgh, 2004
64. Wang H, Al-Qadi I. Combined effect of moving wheel loading and
three-dimensional contact stresses on perpetual pavement responses.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2009, 2095(1): 53–61
65. Schubert S, Gsell D, Steiger R, Feltrin G. Influence of asphalt
pavement on damping ratio and resonance frequencies of timber
bridges. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(10): 3122–3129
66. Liu N, Yan K, Shi C, You L. Influence of interface conditions on the
response of transversely isotropic multi-layered medium by impact
load. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials,
2018, 77: 485–493
67. Hsu K, Gupta H V, Sorooshian S. Artificial neural network
modeling of the rainfall-runoff process. Water Resources Research,
1995, 31(10): 2517–2530
68. Hamdia K M, Lahmer T, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. Predicting
the fracture toughness of PNCs: A stochastic approach based on
ANN and ANFIS. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 102:
304–313
69. Saltan M, Terzi S. Comparative analysis of using artificial neural
networks (ANN) and gene expression programming (GEP) in
backcalculation of pavement layer thickness. Indian Journal of
Engineering and Materials Sciences, 2005, 12(1): 42–50
70. Yan K, You L. Investigation of complex modulus of asphalt mastic
by artificial neural networks. Indian Journal of Engineering and
Materials Sciences, 2014, 21: 445–450
71. Karaboga D, Akay B, Ozturk C. Artificial bee colony (ABC)
optimization algorithm for training feed-forward neural networks.
In: International Conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial
Intelligence. Springer, 2007, 318–329
72. Badawy M F, Msekh M A, Hamdia K M, Steiner M K, Lahmer T,
Rabczuk T. Hybrid nonlinear surrogate models for fracture behavior
of polymeric nanocomposites. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics,
2017, 50: 64–75
73. Sharma B, K. Venugopalan P. Comparison of Neural Network
Training Functions for Hematoma Classification in Brain CT
Images. IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering, 2014, 16(1): 31–
35
74. Beale M H, Hagan M T, Demuth H B. Neural Network Toolbox
User’s Guide. Natick, MA: The MathWorks. Inc., 2010
75. Priyadarshini R, Dash N, Swarnkar T, Misra R. Functional analysis
of artificial neural network for dataset classification. Special Issue of
IJCCT, 2010, 1(2): 49–54
76. Liu J, Yan K, You L, Liu P, Yan K. Prediction models of mixtures’
dynamic modulus using gene expression programming. Interna-
tional Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2016, 18(11): 1–10
77. Pellinen T K. Investigation of the use of dynamic modulus as an
indicator of hot-mix asphalt performance. Dissertation for the
Doctoral Degree. Arizona: Arizona State University, 2001
78. Bush A J, Baladi G Y. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and
Backcalculation of Moduli. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM
International, 1989