Advancements in Civil Engineering

CRIMSON PUBLISHERS
C Wings to the Research & Technology

ISSN 2639-0574 Research Article

Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response

Omer JR* and Ben Eghan A

Kingston University, UK
*Corresponding author: Omer JR, Kingston University, London, UK
Submission: May 23, 2018; Published: August 24, 2018

Abstract

Nowadays powerful computer programs are available which can implement sophisticated mathematical models to analyze the response of a
pavement structure under traffic loading. This paper describes a collection of test data from real pavements and analyses them using various numerical
and analytical models to predict pavement deflections and compare against field measurements. A commercial program “KENLAYER”, which is based
on multi-layer elastic systems, was used to predict pavement deflections for comparison with measurements from Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD) methods. Six pavement sections were modelled with KENLAYER under various wheel load repetitions. For single loads, KENLAYER deflection
predictions matched FWD values at pints of load application and at 60 inches away. Discrepancies in KENLAYER predictions were judged to arise from
the inability of the program to model the interaction between base and subbase layers. Comparisons with Burmister’s solutions showed both FWD and
KENLAYER predictions were up to 20% higher than those obtained from analytical equations. Using back-calculated material parameters, it was found
that a multi-layer theory-based program “EVERCALC” produced the most accurate deflection predictions.

Keywords: Pavements; Dynamic loading; Finite element methods; Back-analysis; Numerical modelling

Introduction
computer programs capable of predicting pavement responses has
The road pavement design process has in recent years, developed
increased since their introduction and application in highway and
from a purely empirical approach, to more sophisticated methods
materials engineering. There is need to test these programs with
requiring a detailed knowledge of the behaviour of materials and
existing classical analytical equations and field measurements
their changing characteristics under external loads [1]. Deflections
to determine the level of accuracy of predicted results. The study
serve as an early indication of potential deterioration that leads to
investigates the accuracy of KENLAYER, a program based on the
structural defects in a pavement system. Never the less deflections
elastic layer analysis which model’s pavement responses given
alone may not account for eventual failure, but initiate deformation
some loading and layer properties. Results are compared with field
in combination with the accumulation of unrecoverable strains that
measurements obtained using the FWD, as well those calculated
develop when surfaces are subjected to traffic loads [2]. Excessive
with analytical equations as proposed by Boussinesq [6] &
tensile strains at the bottom of an asphalt surfacing layer, as well as
Burmister [7].
the compressive strains on the subgrade account for fatigue cracking
and rutting of surfaces, which are the main failure modes in flexible Design Concepts and Structural Models
pavements. The magnitude of these responses depends among
The main structural response models used in pavement analysis
other things, on the magnitude of loading, some environmental
are the finite element and layered elastic analysis. The KENLAYER
factors and individual layer properties [3]. Currently, deflection
program is a software package that relies on mathematical models
measurements are a reliable source of data that help assess the
to predict road pavement structural responses by using the layered
structural integrity and variability of highway pavements [4].
elastic theory. This theory is based on Burmister’s [7] equations
Close monitoring of pavement surface deflections during routine
for the solution of stresses, strains and deflections in layered
maintenance is a plausible way to delay, and possibly avoid the
systems under external loads. Using input parameters such as
cost- intensive processes of reconstruction by early introduction of
material properties, loading and layer thicknesses, predictions of
overlay designs.
surface deflections can be made and compared with field values.
The newly evolved mechanistic-empirical design process The layered elastic theory incorporates certain generalisations
investigates the relationship between physical effects (wheel and assumptions including material isotropy and homogeneity.
loading, material properties) and responses (stress, strains, A result of these assumptions is manifest as differences between
deflections) and develops mathematical models to relate the physical predicted structural responses of finite element programs such as
effects to a failure mode [5]. The tendency of over-reliance on these MICH-PAVE and the KENLAYER program. In finite element analysis,

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
Copyright © All rights are reserved by Omer JR. 1/9
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

materials are viewed as discrete bodies subjected to stresses and variations in measured and predicted deflections depending on
strains with some non-linear properties [8]. the whether back-calculated or laboratory-derived moduli were
used. On average, prediction errors for surface deflections using
Deflections on the pavement surface are more practical to
back-calculated and laboratory-derived moduli were 9% and 12%
measure and are not considered a critical failure mode, although
respectively.
they may be used as a pavement design criterion [3]. Excessive
tensile strains at the bottom of the asphalt surface layer, as well Methodology of Analysis
as the compressive strains on the subgrade account for fatigue
In the context of this research, pavement deflections were
cracking and rutting of surfaces, which are the main failure modes
considered as the main structural responses and were used in the
in flexible pavements. A subsequent study by Evdorides et al.
comparison of different methods of surface deflection evaluation.
[9] mention cracking as a principal distress occurrence, which
Deflection data sourced from case studies formed the basis of
results from continual surface loading or environmental factors.
assessment of the level of accuracy between field measurements
The deflected vertical distance, , of the of the pavement surface
and software-derived values. A third method of evaluation, using
measured under static or dynamic loading, together with multiple
theoretical equations for the solution of surface deflections was
radial deflection measurements forms the deflection basin.
also used in the comparison. The FWD device first developed in
Generally, values are highest along the centre of the applied load,
France to overcome the limitations of the Benkelman beam, works
decreasing in magnitude the farther a measurement is taken away
on the principle of the propagation of a response in the form of
from the point of application of the load.
recoverable deformations in pavement layers on the application
The FWD is the most commonly used method of determining of a load [11]. The device is made up of a 300mm diameter steel
field deflection values without affecting the structural integrity of plate through which a known load is applied [12]. Sensors fixed at
the pavement structure. This non-destructive method also offers radial distances from the loading plate record vertical deflections
the opportunity to use field deflection data in the estimation of as a result of applied loads. The plot of the distances and recorded
the elastic modulus of the material layers in a pavement. The deflection forms the deflection basin of the pavement structure at
FWD is able to simulate the effect of axle loading of a vehicle by that location. An analysis of the deflection basins gives an indication
producing a similar load intensity and duration [10]. Furthermore, of the structural integrity of underlying pavement layers, as well
the effect of vehicle speed is well accounted for by the FWD, as help in the determination of the elastic moduli of the material.
although there is only an instantaneous drop load duration. Higher Generally, higher deflection values are recorded at sensors closer
surface deflections are recorded at lower vehicle speeds. This to the loading plate with a gradual reduction observed farther
inverse proportionality of surface deflection and vehicle speeds up away from the loading plate. Steep curves are indicative of weaker
to 15mph was also established from the WASHO field test in the flexible pavements whereas shallower curves are associated with
United States [3]. To obtain results similar to that caused by moving stiffer underlying layers [13].
vehicles, the FWD should have load levels in the region of 9000 lb
The KENLAYER program was developed at the University of
(40kN) which is the design load used in field testing. The elastic
Kentucky, USA and is comes packaged together with the second
modulus and Poisson’s ratio are two important material properties
edition of the book “Pavement Analysis and Design” written by
that affect deflection values with the former being considered as
Huang [3]. The software, together with its data input interface
the most critical. Differences in measured and predicted deflection
LAYERINP and graphic program LGRAPH form part of the software
values occur when back-calculated or laboratory-obtained results of
suite KENPAVE. It also includes KENSLABS a similar program
elastic modulus are used in the computation of surface deflections.
used for the analysis of rigid pavements. The program can analyze
In an attempt to further understand the sources of differences pavements consisting of up to 19 layers and provide outputs
between measured field data and predicted performance, Stoffels (stresses, strains, deflections) at 10 different radial coordinates or
2008 used a three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D FEA) 19 different vertical coordinates. Account is also taken of tandem
and FWD data to evaluate pavement responses. The main strength and tridem wheel configuration by using superposition and an x
properties of the Asphalt Concrete (AC) layer, the modulus, were and y coordinate system of referencing [3]. A generalization of the
back-calculated from the measured deflection basin obtained from layered systems as incorporated in the KENLAYER program for the
FWD readings and on the assumption that the bituminous layer solution of stresses, strains and deflections is based on a fourth
performed as a fully linear elastic material. Laboratory derived order differential equation:
modulus values were adjusted for temperature and load duration. ∇ 4φ =
0 (1)
For the bituminous surface layers, the laboratory modulus
where
values were consistently lower than those derived through back-
calculation, usually about 70% of the back-calculated values.  ∂2 1 ∂ ∂2   ∂2 1 ∂ ∂2  (2)
∇4 =  2 + +  + + 
Conversely, the laboratory modulus values for the intermediate
 ∂r r ∂r ∂z 2   ∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z 2 
bituminous base layers were about 10% higher than the back-
calculated values. Both sets of data were used to predict pavement 1 +ν  ∂ 2φ 1 ∂φ 
ω
= (1 − 2ν ) ∇ 2
φ + +
responses (stresses, strains and deflections) with a 3D FE model
E  ∂r 2 r ∂r  (3)
and subsequently compared to measured field data. Results showed

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018.
2/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

Although several equations have been developed for the the contact surface [7]. Material properties used in these models
resolution of strains and stresses, emphasis will be placed on were sub dived into three aspects; the stress-strain relationship,
those relating to deflections caused by a rigid plate as in the case ability to recover strain after stress is removed and the temperature
of the FWD. Boussinesq [6] introduced a structural response model dependency of strain. Based on this, pavement materials can be
from which a set of equations was developed for calculating the labelled as linear or nonlinear, elastic or plastic, viscous or no
stresses and strains in a homogenous mass due to loads applied at viscous [2]. Only linear elastic characteristics of the pavement will
the surface or at depth. With these equations, stresses, strains and be considered as part of this study.
deflections may be calculated given certain material and loading
For the application of loads using rigid plates as in the case of
parameters. At the time, this simple generalization was considered
the FWD;
to be the most accurate way of representing a loaded pavement
characterized by an elastic half-space. 1.18qa (4)
ω0 = F2
It is known that road pavements are made up of layers of
E2
varying thicknesses and properties rather than a homogenous For two-layer systems, vertical stress is determined by the
mass as represented in Boussinesq’s [6] generalization. To adapt ratio of / and thickness-radius ratio /a. The surface deflections are
Boussinesq’s [6] equations for pavement response calculation to however determined in terms of a deflection factor . The graph in
the layered nature of road pavements, Burmister [7] developed Figure 1 shows the deflection factor on the y-axis determined by
equations for the solution of a flexible two-layer system. The matching the /a ratio (x-axis) to the curve corresponding to the
strength parameters of the materials were an integral part of the / ratio. The complexity of multi-layered systems however led to
magnitude of generated responses. In Burmister [7] two-layer the development of computer programs for the analysis of flexible
theory, the stresses and deflections were dependent on the ratio pavements. Currently, the layered elastic theory forms the basis for
of the elastic modulus of the two layers and height to area ratio of most structural response programs [14].

Figure 1: Vertical deflections for two-layer systems [7].

Result of Computer Analyses matched more closely directly under the loading plate (sensor 1),
and at the outermost sensor (sensor 7) (Table 2). The MODULUS
To assess the accuracy of KENLAYER, various combinations of
back-calculation program combined with a single load application
pavement layers were analysed using EVERCALC 5.0 and the back-
produced curves similar to those for linear relationships with a
calculated moduli obtained as shown in Table 1. The results in Table
consistent difference in KENLAYER and FWD deflection values.
1 show that the prediction of surface deflection by the KENLAYER
Comparison with analytical equations using deflection charts also
program is dependent on a variety of factors, among which is the
showed a better agreement with KENLAYER deflection values
elastic modulus and its mode of generation. The compatibility of the
directly under the loading plate. The best set of results were
KENLAYER program with some back-calculation programs shows
obtained with the repeated application of loads in the region of
that results correspond well with EVERCALC, which is also based
6000 lb, 9000lb and 12000lb and modulus values back-calculated
on linear elastic analysis. Differences occurred especially from the
from EVERCALC (Table 3). In most cases, KENLAYER values were
2nd to the 6th sensors in most cases. In Table 1 deflection values
higher than those derived through the FWD field testing [15].

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018. 3/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

Table 1: Back-calculated moduli from EVERCALC 5.0.

Estimated Resilient Modulus (ksi)

Station Number RMS Error (%)
AC Surface AC Intermediate Asphalt Base Aggregate Subgrade
1 1153.4 269.4 544.8 3 86.7 1.13
2 622.9 316.1 673.3 3 84.8 0.8
3 270.2 382.7 1005.7 3 86.8 0.47
4 262.6 408.7 837.6 3.6 73.9 0.46
5 270.5 486.4 662.6 4.2 68.7 0.47
6 260.2 407.6 982.2 3.3 81.7 0.53
7 303.1 379.2 942.3 3.2 87.5 0.34
8 276.1 445.2 639.6 4.5 69.8 0.47
9 268.5 427.9 939.4 3.8 74.4 0.66
10 332.6 450.3 998.9 3.1 88.3 0.46
11 281.9 431.5 1098.2 3.2 86.3 0.58
12 240.6 500.3 905.4 3.4 86.1 0.34
13 412.3 392.6 888.9 3.5 84.8 0.38
14 388.3 456.2 1095.5 3 88.6 0.54
15 381.3 417.5 840.4 3.7 70 0.54
16 329.7 467.7 797.6 3.6 73.6 0.31
17 276.9 454.8 871.2 4 70 0.59
18 562.8 354.5 1006.2 3.1 75.9 0.23
19 246.3 386.5 1100 4.8 58.4 0.6
20 305.6 383.7 1099.3 5.1 52 0.35
21 224.1 559 897 4.4 48.8 0.66
22 230.2 723.9 685.9 3 56.3 0.9
23 210.9 582.3 789.6 3 61 0.64
24 314.8 429.7 903.1 3 64.9 0.58

Table 2: KENLAYER predictions for a 5-layer perpetual Table 3: KENLAYER predictions for a 4-layer system, with
pavement system (Section 1). E-values back-analyzed using from MODULUS program
(Section 2 referred to).
Method of Deflection Calculation (in)
Method of Deflection Calculation (in)
Geophone Distance
FWD KENLAYER % Difference
Geophone Distance (in)
FWD KENLAYER % Difference
(in)
0 0.0179 0.0208 15.7
8 0.0145 0.0177 21.5
0 0.0035 0.0034 -3.1
12 0.0124 0.0156 26.6

8 0.0026 0.0026 0 18 0.0095 0.0131 38.2

24 0.0072 0.0111 55.2
12 0.0022 0.0023 5.5
36 0.0045 0.0085 89.5
18 0.0019 0.002 5.3
60 0.0023 0.0045 94.4

24 0.0016 0.0017 8.7 Pavement section 1 for analysis

The pavement section (Figure 2) consisted of 1.5-inches of a
36 0.0011 0.0012 10.9 12.5mm stone mastic asphalt surface course, a 1.75-inch 19mm
SUPERPAVE intermediate section, a 9-inch large stone mix asphalt
60 0.0006 0.0006 0
base, a 4-inch large stone mix of fatigue resistant layer and a

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018.
4/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

6-inch densely graded aggregate base with under-drain. The FWD to the subgrade. The computed results are illustrated in Table 2.
data taken at various locations on US Route 30 was used as the A good agreement is observed between both the FWD deflection
control conditions for this study. Using increasing load levels of readings and the KENLAYER values. Typical of deflection basins,
approximately 6000lb (27kN), 9000lb (40kN) and 12000lb (54kN) highest values were recorded along the axis of symmetry of the
at each test site, the vertical surface deflections were recorded drop load with a gradual reduction depicted by the lower values
using the FWD. A series of seven sensors were used positioned at 0, recorded by the outer sensors. Although the two results correspond
8-inches, 12-inches, 18-inches, 24-inches, 36-inches and 60-inches well, the FWD readings are slightly higher than those predicted
from the line of action of the loading plate. A Poisson’s ratio of by KENLAYER. Between the second and last sensors however, the
0.35 was assumed for all the layers and a value of 0.4 assigned KENLAYER deflection values are observed to be higher.

Figure 2: Pavement section 1 for present analysis.

Pavement section 2 for analysis KENLAYER methods. The results reveal a general decrease with
increasing distance from the center of the applied load. However,
A single load application of approximately, 11000lb (50KN)
the shape of the deflection basins are steep almost similar to curves
was applied along various points on a 4-layer system. The
characteristic of linear relationships. Deflection values for both the
pavement was made up of a 4.2-inch asphalt surface course, 8.4-
FWD and KENLAYER although still consistently linear, increase
inch base course and a 12-inch granular subbase (Figure 3). Table
with lighter load levels (Table 4).
3 shows the deflection basins produced for both the FWD and

Figure 3: Pavement section 2 for present analysis.

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018. 5/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

Table 4: KENLAYER prediction accuracy in a 4-layer Pavement sections 3 & 4

system with granular subbase (Section 3). Single load drops were also applied to 4-layer and 3-layer
systems (Figure 4 & 5) to check for consistency of surface deflection
Sensor (in) FWD (in) KENLAYER (in) Difference (in) values. Section 3 was made of a 5-inch thick asphalt concrete
surface course, 8-inch crushed limestone base and an 8-inch
0 0.0064 0.0064 0 cement stabilized subbase over a clay subgrade. Section 4 was
made up of a similar composition, without the cement-stabilized
8 0.0033 0.0043 0.001
subbase material. The subgrade in this case was a sandy clay
material. A load level of approximately 9000lb was used in both
12 0.0024 0.0035 0.0011
instances and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35, 0.4 and 0.45 was used for
the respective layers. As seen in Figure 4 & 5, deflection values from
18 0.0021 0.003 0.0009
the FWD and KENLAYER correspond well at the 1st and 7th sensors
under both load levels. There is however less agreement of surface
24 0.0019 0.0027 0.0008
deflection values in-between the 1st and the last sensors in both
cases Figure 4 & 5 show that the differences in deflection values
36 0.0015 0.0022 0.0007
between sensors 2 and 6 are much closer in the 4-layer system than
under the 3-layer system although the deflection values predicted
60 0.0013 0.0015 0.0002
by KENLAYER are consistently higher for both load levels (Table 5).

Figure 4: Pavement section 3 analysed.

Figure 5: Pavement section 4 analysed.

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018.
6/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

Table 5: KENLAYER prediction accuracy in a 3-layer approximately 8000lb. The computed results presented in Table 6
system (Section 4). show that the FWD curves appear much steeper than that of the
KENLAYER owing to the significant difference in deflection values
Sensor(in) FWD (in) KENLAYER (in) Difference (in) between the first and second sensors (within 10 inches of the
loading plate). FWD values are also observed to be higher than
0 0.0093 0.0096 0.0003 KENLAYER at sensor 0.
8 0.0055 0.0071 0.0016
Table 6: KENLAYER prediction for a 2-layer system with a
12 0.0031 0.0054 0.0023
thin wearing course (section 5).
18 0.0021 0.004 0.0019
Method of Deflection Calculation (in)
24 0.0017 0.0031 0.0014
Geophone Distance
36 0.0013 0.002 0.0007 FWD KENLAYER % Difference
(in)
60 0.0009 0.0011 0.0002
0 0.0152 0.0146 -3.9
Pavement section 5
8 0.0061 0.0079 28.9
The test site was in Texas, United States, along State Highway 12 0.003 0.0055 83.3
152 in District 25. The pavement being a 3-layer system had a 1-inch
hot mix asphalt surface, 16-inch crushed limestone base over a 18 0.002 0.0042 107.5

sandy gravel subgrade. A Poisson’s ratio of 0.35, 0.40 and 0.45 were 24 0.0018 0.0032 80
assumed for the surface, base and subgrade layers respectively. For 36 0.0019 0.0022 17.4
a thin surface course, the shape of the deflection basins is similar
60 0.0014 0.0013 -6.4
to that for a 4-layer and 3-layer system. The load levels used were
Correlation between FWD and KENLAYER derived parameters

Figure 6: Pavement section 5 analysed.

An approximation of the vertical surface deflection was 16-inch base material over a sandy gravel subgrade as shown in
undertaken using analytical equations to determine any correlation (Figure 6&7). In order to determine the vertical surface deflection,
with FWD and KENLAYER-derived values for pavement section 5. Burmister’s deflection curves for two layer systems were used to
Due to the relative thickness of the surface layer in comparison determine the deflection factor F2 and incorporated into equation
with the base layer, the former was removed from the analysis. (4). Both sets of values were observed to be higher than results
This resulted in the analysis of a 2-layer system comprising of a calculated with Burmister’s equation by up to 20%.

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018. 7/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

Figure 7: A 2-layer system for correlating parameters from FWD and KENLAYER.

1.18qa somewhat better with values being between 12-18% higher than
ω0 = F2 (5) calculated results.
E2
References
Conclusion 1. Ekwulo EO, Eme DB (2009) Fatigue and rutting strain analysis of
flexible pavements designed using CBR methods. African Journal of
From the case studies analyzed, the following are the Environmental Science and Technology 3(12): 412-421.
conclusions may be drawn:
2. Yoder EJ, Witczak MW (1975) Principles of pavement design. (2nd edn)
a) In order to accurately replicate FWD field results, John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.

KENLAYER requires the application of three load levels of 3. Huang, Yang H (2004) Pavement analysis and design. (2nd edn), Prentice
increasing intensity. Ideally, this should be of a magnitude Hall, New Jersey, USA.
above, below and including the 9000 lb (40 kN) design load. 4. Applied Pavement Technology Inc (2010) Using Falling Weight
In the evaluation carried out as part of this study, loads levels Deflectometer with Mechanistic-Empirical Design and Analysis’, Final
Report. Federal Highway Administration, New jersey, Washington DC,
of approximately 6000 lb, 9000 lb and 12000 lb when applied USA.
to the pavement were observed to provide the best fit for FWD
5. Mathew TV, Rao KVK (2007) Introduction to transportation engineering.
and KENLAYER- derived deflection basins. NPTEL Web Course, pp. 1-8.
b) EVERCALC was found to produce modulus values that 6. Boussinesq M J (1885) Application des potentiels a l’etude de l’equilibre
closely matched FWD deflection basins when input into et du movement des solides elastiques, principalement au calcul des
deformations et des pressions que produisent, dans ces solides, des
KENLAYER. EVERCALC is suggested to be the most compatible
efforts quelconques exerces sur une petite partie de leur surface ou de
back-calculation program with KENLAYER, although both leur interieur: Memoire suivi de notes etendues sur divers points de
programs are based on the assumptions of the linear elastic physique mathematique et d’analyse. Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1: 721.
theory. 7. Burmister DM (1945) The general theory of stresses and displacement
in layered soil systems. Journal of Applied Physics 16(2): 89.
c) For single load applications, KENLAYER shows good
correlation with FWD deflections directly under the loading 8. Akbulut H, Aslantas K (2004) Finite element analysis of stress
distribution on bituminous pavement and failure mechanism. Materials
plate (sensor 1) and at the outermost sensor (sensor 7) and Design 26(4): 383-387.
although some marginal differences were observed. Significant
9. Evdorides HT, Snaith MS, Anyala M (2006) An analytical study of road
differences were however observed between 12 and 18 inches pavement fatigue: Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers. Paper
(sensors 3 and 4) from the base of the loading plate. Predicted 12370: 93-100.
deflection values by KENLAYER are consistently higher than 10. Ullidtz P, Stubstad RN (1985) Analytical-empirical pavement evaluation
FWD values by up to 20-80%, between 8 and 36 inches from using the falling weight deflectometer. Transportation Research Record
the loading plate. 1022, TRB, Washington DC, USA.
11. COST 336 (2005) Use of falling weight deflectometers in pavement
A pavement section with a thin wearing course was transformed evaluation. European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical
to a two-layer system for analysis with Burmister’s [7] deflection Research.
equations. An evaluation of deflection values directly under the 12. PCS/Law Engineering and Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc (1993) Manual
load plate for varying load levels showed the FWD and KENLAYER for FWD testing in the long-tern pavement performance program.
values to be between 11-21% higher than values calculated using Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council,
Washington DC, USA, pp. 1-175.
the deflection equations. However, KENLAYER values correspond

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018.
8/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531
 Adv Civil Eng Tech Copyright © Omer JR

13. Tutumluer E, Pekcan O, Ghaboussi J (2009) Nondestructive pavement Research Board Bulletin 114, Highway Research Board, Washington, DC,
evaluated using finite element analysis based soft computing models. USA.
USDOT Region V Regional University Transportation Center Final
Report. 15. Asphalt Institute (1982) Research and development of asphalt institute’s
thickness design manual. (9th edn), Research Report, pp. 82-92.
14. Hveem FN (1955) Pavement deflections and fatigue failures. Highway

Advancements in Civil Engineering & Technology

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License Benefits of Publishing with us

• High-level peer review and editorial services

For possible submissions Click Here Submit Article
• Freely accessible online immediately upon publication
• Authors retain the copyright to their work
• Licensing it under a Creative Commons license
• Visibility through different online platforms

Volume - 2 Issue - 2
How to cite this article: Omer J, Ben E A. Numerical Analysis of Road Pavement Response. Adv Civil Eng Tech .2(2). ACET.000531.2018. 9/9
DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2018.02.000531