160718

Inverted Pavements
A TRB Webinar
(AFP70 Mineral Aggregates)
TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 1

Why now?
The IP topic was briefly reviewed in NCHRP
Synthesis 445 Practices for Unbound
Aggregate Pavement Layers (Erol Tutumluer,
Deb Mishra and Rick Boudreau).
download from the TRB website:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp
_syn_445.pdf
We received tremendous audience feedback

following the TRB Webinar presented June
24, 2015 (Erol Tutumluer, Andrew Dawson, Deb
Mishra and Rick Boudreau).

Invited Speaker Session
TRB 95th Annual Meeting
Sponsored by AFP70 Mineral Aggregates
(E. Tutumluer Chair)
Rick Boudreau (Moderator) Boudreau Engr.
Kevin Vaughan Vulcan
Wynand Steyn South Africa
David Frost Georgia Tech
Reza Ashtiani UTEP
Bryce Symons N. Mexico

Invited Speaker Session
TRB 95th Annual Meeting
Sponsored by AFP70 Mineral Aggregates
(E. Tutumluer Chair)
Rick Boudreau (Moderator) Boudreau Engr.
Kevin Vaughan Vulcan
Wynand Steyn South Africa
David Frost Georgia Tech
Reza Ashtiani UTEP
Bryce Symons N. Mexico

Outline
Introduction and Background (Boudreau)
Design Considerations (Frost)
Construction Methods (Vaughan)
Performance Assessment (Frost)
Summary Comments (Boudreau)

Inverted Pavement - Alias
Inverted Base Pavement (IBP)
Inverted G1-Base Pavement (South Africa)
Stone Interlayer Pavement (Louisiana)
Upside Down Pavement
Sandwich Pavement

Inverted Pavement - Defined
Alternative flexible pavement structure
Relatively thin upper AC layer(s)
Layered stiffness profile does not decrease
with depth
Structure typically looks like this (from
bottom up):
Compacted Subgrade
Cement-Treated Base (CTB w/ 2-5% cement)
Unbound Aggregate Base (UAB)
Relatively thin Asphalt Concrete (AC)

Inverted Pavement Compared to
Conventional Pavement
Conventional Pavement Section
7-8 inches AC (HMA)
8-12 inches UAB
12 inches well-compacted
Subgrade Soil

Inverted Pavement Section Conventional Pavement Section
3-4 inches AC (HMA)

7-8 inches AC (HMA)
6-10 inches UAB
8-12 inches UAB

8-12 inches CTB
Subgrade Soil
Subgrade Soil

Can reach up to 25% less $ to build the inverted
compared with conventional for similar performance
3-4 inches AC (HMA)
7-8 inches AC (HMA)
6-10 inches UAB
8-12 inches UAB

8-12 inches CTB
Subgrade Soil
Subgrade Soil

Can reach up to 25% less $ to build the inverted
compared with conventional for similar performance
3-4 inches AC (HMA)
7-8 inches AC (HMA)
6-10 inches UAB
$0.75 $1.00
8-12 inches UAB
8-12 inches CTB
Subgrade Soil
Subgrade Soil

Stiffness (layer modulus)


Still trying to
minimize strains

As a result of the
stiff CTB layer,
higher densities
can be achieved in
the UAB layer
during
installation.
This results in higher
stiffness properties,
and the UAB layer
remains in
compression.

1993 AASHTO Design Guide

hypothetical example
E = 80,000psi
ai = 0.24
E = 30,000psi
ai = 0.14

Improving the Chance of Success
Unbound Aggregate Base (UAB) Layer
Equipment: Mixing should be accomplished by stationary plant such as a pugmill or
by road mixing using a pugmill or rotary mixer. Mechanical spreaders should be
utilized to avoid segregation and to achieve grade control. Suitable vibratory
compaction equipment should be employed.
Mixing and Transporting: The aggregates and water should be plant mixed
(stationary or roadway) to the range of optimum moisture plus 1% or minus 2% and
transported to the job site so as to avoid segregation and loss of moisture.
Spreading: The material should be placed at the specified moisture content to the
required thickness and cross section by an approved mechanical spreader. At the
engineer's discretion, the contractor may choose to construct a 500-ft long test
section to demonstrate achieving adequate compaction without particle
degradation for lift thicknesses in excess of 13 in. The engineer may allow thicker
lifts on the basis of the test section results.
Allen, et al. ICAR 501-5 (1998)

Improving the Chance of Success
Unbound Aggregate Base (UAB) Layer
Equipment: Mixing should be accomplished by stationary plant such as a pugmill
or by road mixing using a pugmill or rotary mixer. Mechanical spreaders should be
utilized to avoid segregation and to achieve grade control. Suitable vibratory
compaction equipment should be employed.
Mixing and Transporting: The aggregates and water should be plant mixed
(stationary or roadway) to the range of optimum moisture plus 1% or minus 2%
and transported to the job site so as to avoid segregation and loss of moisture.
Spreading: The material should be placed at the specified moisture content to the
required thickness and cross section by an approved mechanical spreader. At the
engineer's discretion, the contractor may choose to construct a 500-ft long test
section to demonstrate achieving adequate compaction without particle
degradation for lift thicknesses in excess of 13 in. The engineer may allow thicker
lifts on the basis of the test section results.
Slushing: South African method to increase packing density of layer by careful
over-watering during the compaction process (slush acts as a lubricant to increase
density while the slush or cream exudes to the surface).

Design

The US Road System is vast and suffers from
insufficient funding.
Vast network Depleted funding
Federal Funds
$2.0b
$1.0b
GDOT
$0.0b
Wikipedia.org 04 06 08 10 12
Poor condition
Solution Sources
Innovative designs
Optimal use of materials

An inverted base pavement (IBP) is an innovative technology
that can optimize the use of materials.
Conventional Flexible Pavement Inverted Base Pavement
Stiffness Stiffness
asphalt concrete asphalt concrete
unbound
aggregate base
asphalt base
cement-treated
unbound base
aggregate base
subgrade subgrade
Stiffness contrast between layers

Granular base : close to load demand for exceptional performance
(After Papadopoulos, 2015)

South Africa has developed and utilized inverted base
pavements for half a century.
Crushed stone base pavement development
No Slushing
Slushing Accelerated Testing
G1 Base
G2 Crushed Stone Bases
Crusher Run
Macadam / gravel
Jooste & Sampson (2005)
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Slushing after
compaction
Ping when
struck with
rock hammer
www.Vti.se
Kleyn, 2012

US experience with inverted base pavements had also
been long but sparse.
New Mexico (1960s)

USACE (1970s)
Georgia Tech (1980s)
Louisiana (1990s)
Morgan County GA quarry (2000s)
Lagrange GA bypass (2000s)
Bull Run VA highway (2010s)
Pineville NC quarry (2010s)
2,000 0.9
Accelerated Testing, LA
Reps. to failure [103]
FWD measurements
Deflection [mm]
1,500 Conventional
IBP
0.6 Morgan Co
1,000 0.55
IBP-Lagrange
0.3
500 IBP-Morgan Co
Conventional 0.27
pavement 0.21
0 0.0 Data from Lewis et al 2009
0 1 2 3 4 5
Structural Number SN
(Adapted from Papadopoulos, 2015)

Top quality unbound aggregate base is the
fundamental block of IBPs.
South Africa G1 base CALTRANS base GDoT GAB
Fines LL<25%, PI<4 Sand Equivalent <21 Sand Equivalent <20
Shape flakiness (sphericity) <35% N/A elongated particles <10%
86-88% of apparent solid density

Density (~102% mod Proctor)
95% of CTM 231 98% mod. Proctor
100 900
Resilient modulus [MPa]

GDOT Crushed stone
80
CALTRANS
% passing
G1 South Africa 600

60
40
300
20
Gravel
1mm=
0 39mils 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0 100 200 300 400
Grain diameter [mm] mean stress p [kPa]

Key component of Inverted Pavement construction is
slushing technique
Slushing
Process to wash away excess fines to achieve optimum fine to coarse soil matrix
Water migrates to surface by capillary action carrying excess fines

Comprehensive laboratory field numerical study that
expanded understanding of IPB component performance.
Compaction
Lab Characterization In situ testing
Inverted Base Pavements
Study completed in 2014
Mechanistic analysis (After Papadopoulos, 2015)

Field: fully documented construction project provides
basis for long-term IBP performance assessment.
LaGrange By-Pass
Test section:
0.65 miles long
2 lanes
PCC typical section
IBP test section
Construction
completed in
2009
Super Pave 3
. Portland Cement Concrete 9
Graded Aggregate Base 6
5 .
5
Cement Treated Base 1 Graded Aggregate Base
1
0 0

Subgrade Subgrade
6 6


Field: fully documented construction project provides
basis for long-term IBP performance assessment.
780
1000
760 Montmorillonite
Specific Surface
Cut
Specific Surface [m2g-1]

740
Cut 100
Elevation [ft]
Fill
720
10 Kaolinite
700
680
Fill 1
280 285 290 295 300 305 310
660 Station
640
280 285 290 295 300 305 310 120%
LL & m/c
Liquid Limit
Station In-situ
100%
80%
Water Content [ ]
60%
800 40%
20%
Elevation [ft]
0%
750 280 285 290 295 300 305 310
Station
700 2500
2000
650 1500
Dry Density [kgm-3]

280 285 290 295 300 305 310 1000
Station 500
Dry Density
0
280 285 290 295 300 305 310
Station
100%
2500
P-wave Velocity
80%
GSD
2000
Percent Passing
1500
VP [ms-1]
60%
1000
40% 500
0
20% 280 285 290 295 300 305 310
Station
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size [mm]
Laboratory Characterization of Subgrade
(Data from Santamarina, 2015)

Field: fully documented construction project provides basis
for long-term IBP performance assessment.
-1 -1 -1 -1
PR (mmblow ) PR (mmblow ) PR (mmblow ) PR (mmblow )
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20
30 30 30 30
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40
Depth (cm)
40 40 40
50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70
80 80 80 80
90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100
100000
(Data from Santamarina, 2015)

10000
Constrained Modulus [Mpa]
1000
100
10
Subgrade Stabilized Subgrade CTB GAB

1
280 285 290 295 300 305 310
Station
800
Elevation [ft]
750
700
650
280 285 290 295 300 305 310
Station
Extensive lab and field characterization studies for various layers

Field and Lab: current laboratory methods do not account
for the complex nature of aggregate base stiffness.
Inherent Anisotropy Stress-Dependent Stiffness
Stiffness
Force
Cortes 2010
In-chamber compaction.
Independent control of the 3
principal stresses.
P-wave instrumentation in
each direction.

Lab: stress ratio has small influence on the small-strain
stiffness as long as the material is away from failure.
Horizontal propagation x
2000
Isotropic Compression
1500 = =
[m/s]
1000 Triaxial Extension

= =
500
Triaxial Compression
= =
0
0 500 1000 1500
Horizontal Stress [kPa]
Characterization of unbound aggregate base stiffness:

Granular Bases: inherent & stress-induced anisotropy exist.
Mmax : function of normal stress (Adapted from Papadopoulos, 2015)
Loading conditions: almost no effect on Mmax

Field and Lab: Soil compaction is omnipresent in
construction and has known impact on performance.
Inadequate compaction results Post-placement changes in material
Pavement Interactive
Lab-field discrepancies

test-llc.com Heavyequipment.com

Lab: an extensive lab study was conducted to assess
the compaction process in terms of stiffness.
Specimens compacted using Modified Proctor (Adapted from Papadopoulos, 2015)

Stress-dependent stiffness for different water contents
Piezocrystal
Signal Generator
Digital Oscilloscope
Effect of compaction on granular base stiffness:

: not sufficient to assess compaction
Granular base stiffness not affected by water content
Water content affects permanent deformation
Velocity changes reflect accumulation of deformation

Field: Two new field tests were conceived to measure the
stiffness of as-built aggregate bases.
Measure stiffness of as-built unbound aggregate bases

Crosshole Uphole
Dump Truck Dump Truck
AC AC Accelerometer
GAB GAB
Actuator
Piezopads
CTB CTB
Subgrade Subgrade

Field: Successive forward simulations were conducted to
determine the state of stress in the pavement.
AC
GAB
CTB
Subgrade
Two configurations to capture anisotropic stiffness 2 case histories

In situ GAB: anisotropic stress-dependent stiffness
Field values lab values: Due to preconditioning and compaction
method (field versus lab)
Field-Compacted GAB: great stiffness

Modeling: Numerical simulations were conducted to
compare IBPs to conventional pavements.
Conventional Inverted Base Pavement
Low structural capacity

asphalt concrete
25mm
asphalt concrete 160 mm aggregate base
GAB 150mm
aggregate base
GAB 200mm cement-treated base
CTB 250mm
High structural capacity
Mechanistic analysis asphalt concrete

asphalt concrete 190mm 100mm
aggregate base GAB
150mm
aggregate base
GAB 305mm cement-treated base
CTB 300mm

Aggregate base stiffness in IBP is high due to the
confinement provided by the CTB.
Constitutive model:
Anisotropy, stress-dependency, shear AC
softening = 190mm
= 305mm
Inverted base pavements:

85
Unique load-bearing mechanism 105
Granular base: 130

Underutilized in conventional
pavements
Great contribution in inverted base
pavements
AC
Thin asphalt layers:
Potential for economic savings 240 90
Caution when subjected to strong shear 390
Tangent Vertical Youngs CTB = 100mm

(Adapted from Papadopoulos, 2015) modulus Ev (MPa) = 150mm
= 300mm

Construction ..

Inverted Pavement Construction
Standard construction methods may be used for
most layers in an inverted pavement
Subgrade, Cement Treated Base and Asphalt may

be constructed in the normal way
Unbound Aggregate Base course may take a little

more effort to ensure the higher density required
South African methods vs. traditional

Subgrade Construction
Generally use standard subgrade requirements
Remove/correct saturated soils, organics,

unsuitable, etc.
Typical density requirements
Variety of subgrades have been used in US inverted

pavements
Subgrade Construction
South Africa
90% to 93% Modified Proctor
Georgia
Mixed in graded aggregate base to improve CBR to 15
New Mexico
Lime treated subgrade
Luck Stone Virginia
Standard VDOT subgrade requirements
Vulcan North Carolina
Standard NCDOT subgrade

Vulcan North Carolina Subgrade

New Mexico Subgrade Construction

Cement Treated Base
Can generally use traditional CTB requirements
Relatively low level of strength & cement

South Africa requires 100 to 200 psi
Pugmill or mix in place
Recommend spreader box to reduce segregation
Typical density requirements

Cement Treated Base
Pugmill system works
well if available

Cement Treated Base

Cement Treated Base
Asphalt paver used in
NM for CTB
Good control over
depth and segregation

Cement Treated Base

Cement Treated Base

Cement Treated Base

Cement Treated Base

Cement Treated Base

Cement Treated Base

Cement Treated Base
Seal with emulsified
asphalt tack coat
Allow to cure for 7 days

Unbound Aggregate Base
Typical laydown
Spreader box should be required for thickness and
consistency
Density requirements higher than normal
How is this achieved

South Africa requires slushing
Will normal methods work?





Slushing Process
What is slushing?
After initial compaction UAB flooded with water
Rolled at high speed to suck the fines out of the UAB

Fines and water act as a lubricant
As they are removed, larger particles are consolidated for high
density and stiffness
Excess fines collect on top of the UAB
Excess fines broomed off

Slushing Process
No vibration
High speed rolling

Slushing Process
15 to 17 ton minimum
27 to 37 ton towards end of cycle
High speed rolling sucking fines from

saturated layer
Fines being expelled

Slushing Process
Notice air being expelled

= interlocking taking place

Slushing Process
Initial slush/fines same color as

parent rock
Dried fines

Slushing Process
Well-knitted mosaic being Bristles of broom should just touch surface

exposed

Slushing Process

To Slush or not to Slushthat is the question
First test section in Georgia saw no benefit to
slushing
New Mexico specified slushing
All others used traditional compaction methods
Easily achieved 102 to 103% of modified Proctor

On Vulcan section, the

UAB on the
conventional & inverted
sections compacted
same time
Density on
conventional: 99.8%
Density on inverted:
103.4%
86.4% of apparent

Used the same
compaction techniques
on both
Roller operated
commented that the
inverted section caused
more bouncing when
compacting with
vibration

Hot Mix Asphalt
Normal HMA
construction in
accordance with local
DOT requirements
Nothing new

Vulcan Final Density Comparison
Inverted Conventional
Layer Densities Layer Densities
Required Achieved Required Achieved
9.5mm A 90% of Gmm 90.8% 9.5mm B 92% of Gmm 93.2%
9.5mm B 92% of Gmm 94.3% 19.0mm 92% of Gmm 93.1%
102% of Mod. 100% of
UAB Proc. 103.4% UAB Mod. Proc. 99.8%
97% of Mod.
CTB Proc. 99.2%

Construction Summary
Subgrade standard methods
Cement Treated Base standard methods
Unbound Aggregate Base requires higher density
Standard methods have been shown to work
Slushing will work, but may not be required
Asphalt Paving standard methods
QA/QC: Stiffness-based measurements vs density-
based measurements
Intelligent Compaction (IC)
LWD, PLT, DCP ..

Performance Assessment

Test sections with well documented loading over
15 year period (Morgan County Quarry).
Seven Islands Road

Station 0+50 through Station 10+00
Conventional Haul Road
South African Base
Quarry Entrance Road Georgia Base
Construction completed in 2001

FWD evaluations of test sections (2009).
Performance Evaluation: 853,719 ESALs (63.5% design life cycle)
Lewis et al., 2012

Surface distress study using imaging and LiDAR (2016).
3D Laser Imaging System Range Image Detected Crack Map
The GDOTs Pavement Condition Evaluation System (PACES) is used for

conducting the annual asphalt pavement condition surveys in Georgia.
Ten different distress types and their severity levels are defined.
Four of them are crack related distresses: load cracking, B/T cracking,
edge distress, and reflective cracking.
(Courtesy of James Tsai)
Inverted Pavement
TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 76
Surface distress study using Imaging (2016).
Abnormal sections
due to truck
braking at main exit
Abnormal sections due to

truck braking at
temporary crossing

Surface distress study using Imaging (2016).
Georgia Inverted South Africa Inverted Conventional
Inbound
Outbound
1800 1400 1000 0
Fine transverse crack Transverse and Block cracking Alligator cracking

longitudinal crack

Pavement surface distress study using imaging.
Load cracking is caused by repeated (Courtesy of James Tsai)
heavy loads and always occurs in the
wheel paths:
Severity Level 1 usually starts as
single longitudinal cracks in the
wheel path.
Severity Level 2 has a single or (a) Severity Level 1
double longitudinal crack with a

number of 0-2 feet transverse cracks
intersecting.
Severity Level 3 shows an increasing
number of longitudinal and (b) Severity Level 2
transverse cracks in the wheel paths.

This level of cracking is marked by a
definite, extensive pattern of small
polygons.
(c) Severity Level 3
Severity Level 4 has the definite
alligator hide pattern but has
deteriorated to the point that the
small polygons are beginning to pop
out.
(d) Severity Level 4

Surface distress study using imaging (2016).
Inbound
Outbound

Surface distress study using imaging (2016).
Conventional Conventional
Severe cracking Less severe cracking
Conventional South African IP Georgia IP

Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Load 1 32.5 % 25.8% 33.8% 37.5% 20 % 32.5%
Cracking 2 0% 5. % 0 0 0 0
3 0% 12.5% 0 0 0 0
Block 1 52.5% 31.7% 32.5% 31.3% 32.5% 30%
Cracking
Max Rutting (1/8) 0 4 0 0 1 2
Average Rating 79 68.7 81.8 80.5 85.5 81.5
Rating Range 71-85 43-80 81-83 76-86 GA IBP
82-89 79-86
SA IBP

Rutting study using LiDAR (2016).
Conventional South African IP Georgia IP
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Load 1 32.5 % 25.8% 33.8% 37.5% 20 % 32.5%
Cracking 2 0% 5. % 0 0 0 0
3 0% 12.5% 0 0 0 0
Block 1 52.5% 31.7% 32.5% 31.3% 32.5% 30%
Cracking
Max Rutting (1/8) 0 4 0 0 1 2
Average Rating 79 68.7 81.8 80.5 85.5 81.5
Rating Range 71-85 43-80 81-83 76-86 82-89 79-86
Comparable rating
for SA IBP and GA
IBP far superior to
conventional design.
Less rutting with SA

IBP than with GA
IBP possible link to
benefits of slushing?

Laboratory simulation study of slushing process.
Ongoing laboratory simulation study to examine evolution of aggregate

shape, pore structure and load path during slushing
Laboratory study of slushing on cracking and rutting.

Selected References
Cortes, D. D. (2010). "Inverted Base Pavement Structures." Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Terrell, R.G., Cox, B.R., Stokoe II, K.H., Allen, J.J., and Lewis, D. (2003). Transportation Research Record, No.
1837, pp. 50-60.
Papadopoulos, E. (2014). "Performance of Unbound Aggregate Bases and Implications for Inverted Base
Pavements." Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Cortes, D.D., Shin, H.S. and Santamarina, J.C. (2012), Numerical Simulation of Inverted Pavement Systems, ASCE
J. Transportation Engineering, vol. 138, no. 12, pp. 1507-1519.
Cortes, D.D. and Santamarina, J.C. (2013), Inverted Base Pavement Case History (LaGrange, Georgia):
Construction, Characterization and Preliminary Numerical Analyses, International J. Pavement Engineering,
International Journal of Pavement Engineering vol. 14, 463-471
Lewis, D.E. and Jared, D.M. (2012). "Construction and Performance of Inverted Pavements in Georgia."
Proceedings of 91st TRB Meeting, Washington D.C., Paper # 12-1872.
Papadopoulos, E., D. Cortes, and Santamarina J.C., (2015). "In Situ Assessment Of The Stress-Dependent
Stiffness Of Unbound Aggregate Bases: Application In Inverted Base Pavements, International Journal
Pavement Engineering., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2015.1022779
Papadopoulos, E. and Santamarina J.C., (2015). "Analysis Of Inverted Base Pavements With Thin Asphalt
Layers", International Journal of Pavement Engineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2015.1007232
Papadopoulos, E., and Santamarina, J. C. (2014). "Optimization of Inverted Base Pavement Designs with Thin
Asphalt Surfacing." Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, ASCE, Atlanta, GA, 2996-3004.

In Conclusion .

Pooled fund study to leverage current knowledge to expedite
implementation of IBP design specifications for US state DOTs.
GDOT Led Pooled-Fund Study:
Closing Sept 25, 2016 IBP Test Sections
http://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Solicitation/1416
Objective:
To expedite the implementation of inverted base pavement
design specifications for state DoTs and to make IBP a
practical and reliable alternative design approach for
highway pavements.
Broad Tasks:
Further study of existing field cases with detailed construction
records and long-term performance monitoring data
Advanced material characterization and modeling with emphasis on granular base
Numerical simulation of IBP performance
Relevant calibrations for design within framework of Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement design Guide
(MEPDG)

Pooled fund study to leverage current knowledge to expedite
implementation of IBP design specifications for US state DOTs.
GAPS in knowledge:
Improved understanding of IBP component performance,
particularly of unbound granular base, through advanced
material characterization and modeling
Better understanding of relationship between
construction and long-term performance of CTB, in
particular, and IBP, in general, through continued
assessment of test sections and associated numerical
simulations
BARRIERS to implementation:
Need for reliable framework for assessment of economics
of IBP for both construction and performance stages
Need for material model calibrations and damage
functions suitable for IBP designs in MEPDG
Guidelines for implementation through all phases of
design, construction and maintenance
PROPOSED POOLED-FUND STUDY CAN RESOLVE GAPS AND ELIMINATE BARRIERS

160718

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

160718

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inverted Pavements

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 1

download from the TRB website:

We received tremendous audience feedback

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 2

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 3

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 4

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 5

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 6

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 7

7-8 inches AC (HMA)

8-12 inches UAB

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 8

3-4 inches AC (HMA)

8-12 inches UAB

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 9

8-12 inches UAB

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 10

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 11

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 12

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 13

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 14

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 15

1993 AASHTO Design Guide

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 16

Allen, et al. ICAR 501-5 (1998)

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 17

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 18

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 19

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 20

Stiffness contrast between layers

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 21

G2 Crushed Stone Bases

(After Papadopoulos, 2015)

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 22

New Mexico (1960s)

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 23

Shape flakiness (sphericity) <35% N/A elongated particles <10%

86-88% of apparent solid density

Resilient modulus [MPa]

G1 South Africa 600

(After Papadopoulos, 2015)

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 24

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 25

Lab Characterization In situ testing

Inverted Base Pavements

Study completed in 2014

Mechanistic analysis (After Papadopoulos, 2015)

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 26

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 27

Specific Surface [m2g-1]

Dry Density [kgm-3]

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 28

100 100 100 100

(Data from Santamarina, 2015)

Subgrade Stabilized Subgrade CTB GAB

Extensive lab and field characterization studies for various layers

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 29

Inherent Anisotropy Stress-Dependent Stiffness

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 30

1000 Triaxial Extension

Characterization of unbound aggregate base stiffness:

Loading conditions: almost no effect on Mmax

TRB Webinar - July 18, 2016 Inverted Pavement 31