Sherif M. El-Badawy et al.

/ (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

Assessment and Improvement of the Accuracy of the

Odemark Transformation Method
Sherif M. El-Badawy*, Ph.D

Mostafa A. Kamel, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Public Works Department

Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University
Mansoura, Egypt
sbadawy@mans.edu.eg

Assistant Professor, Public Works Department

Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University
Mansoura, Egypt
Mostafakamel2000@yahoo.com

Abstract Flexible pavement structures are very complex

systems usually consist of multi-layers with each layer having
different properties (elastic modulus and Poissons ratio). In
order to simplify these complex systems for stress and strain
calculations, Odemark has developed a method to transform
these multi-layer systems into an equivalent one-layer system
with equivalent thicknesses but one elastic modulus. This method
has been used in many advanced research studies and design
methods including the newly developed Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). This paper investigates the
accuracy of the Odemark method and presents a methodology to
increase its accuracy. A two-layer system with different modular
ratios and thicknesses was extensively analyzed. The results
showed that a correction factor must be used with Odemarks
method in order to produce highly accurate stress and strain
results. This correction factor is not constant and depends not
only on the modular ratio and the thickness of the layer but also
on the depth of interest.

For the transformed section shown in Fig. 1 the equivalent

thickness he can be calculated as follows:

Keywords; Odemark; stress; stiffness; elastic modulus, MEPDG

Comparing stresses and strain calculated using the

Odemarks method with those from the elastic theory led to the
conclusion that they are relatively different. In order to achieve
a better agreement between Odemarks method and the elastic
theory, a correction factor f was applied to the above
equation as follows.

INTRODUCTION

T
he

h1 3

IJ
A

Odemark has developed an approximate method to

calculate stresses and strains in multiplayer pavement systems
by transforming this structure into an equivalent one-layer
system with equivalent thicknesses but one elastic modulus.
This concept is known as the method of equivalent thickness
(MET) or Odemarks method. MET assumes that the stresses
and strains below a layer depend only on the stiffness of that
layer. If the thickness, modulus and Poissons ratio of a layer is
changed, but the stiffness remains unchanged, the stresses and
strains below the layer should also remain (relatively)
unchanged. According to Odemark, the stiffness of a layer is
proportional to the following term [1]:

(2)

E1 1 u 22
E 2 1 u12

ES

I.

h13 E1 he3 E 2
; or
1 v12 1 v 22

For the case of a two-layer system with equal Poissons

ratio, the equivalent thickness can be calculated using the
following formula:

he

he

h1 3

E1
E2

f h1 3

(3)

E1
E2

(4)

Researchers reported that the value of the correction factor

f depends on the layer thicknesses, modular ratios, and the
number of layers in the pavement structure. Furthermore, they
mentioned that using a value of 0.8 to 0.9 for f leads to a
reasonably good agreement between the two methods [2].

h3 E

1 v2

where:

h = thickness of the layer

E = elastic modulus
v = Poissons ratio

ISSN: 2230-7818

(1)

h1 E1
E2

he E2

E2

Figure 1. Odemarks Transformation of a Layered System

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Page 105

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

For a multi-layer system the equivalent thickness of the

upper n-1 layers with respect to the modulus of layer n, may be
calculated as follows:
n 1

f hi 3
i 1

Ei

En

Where:
he,n

= equivalent thickness of the layer of interest

(layer n).
f
= correction factor
hi
= thickness of layer i
Ei,,En = elastic moduli of layers i and n, respectively.

fl
t
vs
Leff

Figure 3.

Equivaent Thicnkess Calculation

= frequency of load, Hz
= time of load, sec
= velocity (mph)
= effective length of the stress pulse, inch

IJ
A

where:

1 17.6vs
fl

t
Leff

ES

Odemark transformation method has been utilized and

implemented in many applications [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Subagio et al used this method to calculate the residual life and
overlay thickness required based on deflection data measured
using the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) [2]. Senseney
and Mooney also used this method in the characterization of a
two-layer soil system using lightweight deflectometer [3]. The
newly developed mechanistic empirical pavement design guide
(MEPDG) implemented this method to transform a multi-layer
pavement system into an equivalent one layer system. This
equivalent system is used to determine the frequency of loading
based on the effective length of the stress pulse and vehicle
velocity using the following relationship [6].

Figure 2. Effective Length Concept in MEPDG [6]

he,n

The effective length concept which has been employed in

MEPDG defines the stress pulse at a specific depth within the
pavement system as shown in Fig. 2. In this Figure, the line AA
shows the length of the stress pulse at the mid-depth of the AC
layer, whereas line BB shows the length of the stress pulse in
the granular base layer. The sloped lines along with the depth
of interest define the effective length of the stress pulse.
Because the slope of the stress distribution shown in Fig. 2
is a function of the stiffness of the layer and since there is no
present relationship exists to relate them together, a multi-layer
pavement system is transformed into an equivalent one layer
system in order to estimate the effective length. The
transformed section using MET is shown in Fig. 3. The
transformed section has the modulus of the subgrade and has
an equivalent thickness of he. In MEPDG, for simplicity, the
stress distribution for a typical subgrade soil is assumed to be at
45 degree as shown in Fig. 4. Using this stress distribution, the
effective length can be calculated at any depth within the
transformed pavement system.

ISSN: 2230-7818

Figure 4. Effective Length Calculation using the Transformed Section [6]

In MEPDG, for any pavement layer, the effective length of

the stress pulse is computed at the effective depth (Zeff). The
effective depth is the transformed depth at which the loading
frequency is needed. The effective depth for the transformed
section (as shown in Fig. 4) is calculated with the help of
Equation. 8 [6]:
n 1
E
E
Z eff hi 3 i hn 3 n
E SG
E SG
i 1

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Page 106

(8)

The computed loading frequency at the effective depth is

then used to determine the complex modulus (E*) of the
asphalt layer. Thus the accuracy of the MET affects the
accuracy of the E* which in turn influences the MEPDG
predicted rutting, load associated cracking and roughness.
II.

OBJECTIVES

This paper has two primary objectives. The first objective is

to investigate the accuracy of the Odemark transformation
method (MET). The second objective of this research is to
improve the accuracy of the MET, if warranted.

125
100
75
50

25
Line of Equality

0
0

STUDY METHODOLOGY

9000 lb
120 psi

2a = 9.772 in
E1,

150

Figure 6. Comparison of the Two-Layer and the Equivalent One-Layer

Pavements Computed Stresses

A correction factor f was then introduced into the equation

to calculate the corrected equivalent depth. First, a unique f
value was applied to all points of interest for each modular
ratio. The results showed good agreement only for the vertical
stresses calculated at the interface between the two layers when
using f of 0.8 to 0.9. However, at any depth other than the
interface between the two layers the results showed a
significant difference between the two solutions. This means
that the correction factor f is also dependent on the depth.
In order to verify that, the Solver function in Excel
spreadsheet was used for each modular ratio, to calculate the f
factor at each depth such that:
vzi vzti = 0

(9)

where:

vz

E2,

vzti

IJ
A

Figure 5. Two-Layer Pavement System used for the Analysis

First a linear elastic solution was performed on the twolayer structure using the KENPAVE software to calculate the
vertical and radial stresses at different depths measured from
the surface of the upper layer under the centerline of the load.
Then Odemark transformation concept was used to convert the
two-layer problem into one layer with equivalent thicknesses
and one modulus. A comparison between stresses calculated
from both systems was made. The influence of the correction
factor term on the computed stresses of the transformed system
using MET method was studied.
IV.

25
50
75
100
125
Two-Layer Calculated Stress using KENPAVE, psi

ES

An extensive study is introduced to quantify the influence of

layer thickness, depth, and modular ratios on the correction
factor f of the Odemarks transformation method. A twolayer system with the first layer thickness (h) values of 2, 6, 10,
and 15 inches was used in the analysis. A total of 5 different
modular ratios of E1/E2 = 3.33, 16.67, 33.33, 50.00, and 66.67
for each thickness were analyzed. A Poissons ratio of 0.35 was
assumed in all computations. Fig. 5 shows the applied load and
the properties of the two layer system used in the analysis.

150

III.

Equivalent Transformed Section

Calculated Stress, psi

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Comparing Odemark solution, without using a correction

factor (f=1), to KENPAVE solution yielded different stress
values at the points of interest. This is clearly shown in Fig. 6.
This figure only shows the stresses calculated at different
depths underneath the centerline of the load (radial distance
=0).

ISSN: 2230-7818

= vertical stress calculated from a two-layer

system at depth zi using KENPAVE.
= vertical stress calculated from Odemark
transformed depth zti (One layer system) using
Boussinesq or KENPAVE.

The results showed that f depends not only on the modular

ratio and the thickness of the upper layer in the two-layer
pavement system but also on the depth of interest.
Figs. 7 through 9 depict the relationship between the
correction factor f and depth at different modular ratios for
the investigated two layer system with h1 = 6, 10, and 15 inches
respectively. For the points (Z values) in the first layer the
relationship between f and Z was found to be a 3rd degree
polynomial. The values of the R2 were 0.99+ for all investigated
modular ratios as well as the different structures considered in
the analysis. For the points (Z values) in the second layer the
relationship between f and Z was found to be a 2rd degree
polynomial. The values of the R2 were also found to be 0.99+
for all different modular ratios and the different structures
considered in the analysis. The relationships between f and Z
for the two layers are shown in Fig. 9 for the pavement system
with h1=15 inch. Examples of these relationships are shown in
Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 for the two layer system with h1=6 inch and
a modular ratio of 50.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Page 107

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

1.00
0.90
E1/E2 = 3.33

0.80

E1/E2 = 10.00
E1/E2 = 16.67
E1/E2 = 33.33
E1/E2 = 50.00
E1/E2 = 66.67

Interface between layers 1 and 2

Correctin Factor, f

E1/E2 = 6.66

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0

10

12

Depth, Z (in)

Figure 7. Relationships between the Correction f and Depth (Z) for the system with (h1 = 6 in.)
1.00
0.90

E1/E2 = 3.33

0.70

E1/E2 = 16.66
E1/E2 = 33.33

ES

0.60

Interface between layers 1 & 2

Correction Factor, f

0.80

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0

10

E1/E2 = 66.66

Depth, Z (in)

15

20

25

Relationships between the Correction f and Depth (Z) for the system with (h1 = 10 in.)

IJ
A

Figure 8.

E1/E2 = 50.00

1.00

Correction Factor (f)

0.90

y = -5E-05x3 + 0.0024x2 - 0.0146x + 0.7033

R = 0.995

0.80
0.70

0.60
0.50

Interface Between
Layers 1&2

y = 0.0001x3 + 0.0003x2 - 0.0074x + 0.4241

R = 0.9975

y = 0.0001x2 - 0.0096x + 0.9712

R = 1

y = 0.0003x3 - 0.0028x2 + 0.0075x + 0.3256

R = 0.9989

0.40
0.30
0.20

y = 0.0004x3 - 0.005x2 + 0.0185x + 0.2728

R = 0.9985

0.10

y = 0.0005x3 - 0.0066x2 + 0.0271x + 0.2375

R = 0.9973

0.00
0

10
Depth (Z), in.

E1/E2 = 3.33

y = 0.0005x2 - 0.0323x + 1.17

R = 1

E1/E2 = 16.66

y = 0.0007x2 - 0.0432x + 1.2841

R = 1

E1/E2 = 33.33

y = 0.0008x2 - 0.0497x + 1.3542

R = 1

E1/E2 = 50.00

y = 0.0009x2 - 0.0539x + 1.3996

R = 1

E1/E2 = 66.66

15

20

Figure 9. Relationships between the Correction f and Depth (Z) for the system with (h1 = 15 in)

ISSN: 2230-7818

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Page 108

Corretion factor (f) for layer-1

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

Unfortunately, normalizing the depth values (Z) by the

thickness of the upper layer did not eliminate the effect of layer
thickness. However, there seems to be a general relationship
that relates the f value for each layer, in a two-layer system, to
the modular ration and the depth.

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

y = 0.0012x3 + 0.0225x2 - 0.1252x + 0.6244

R = 0.9992

3
4
Depth, Z (in)

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

Fig. 13 presents an example of the relationship between the

vertical stresses calculated at different radial distances, for
different depth values, for the two-layer system with (h1 = 10
in) and a modular ratio of 16.67. Theses vertical stresses were
calculated for a two-layer problem using KENPAVE. This
two-layer system was then transformed using Odemarks
method with the correction factor f as a function of depth and
the vertical stresses at the transformed depths (Zt) were
calculated. This is shown on Fig. 14. Comparing the values of
the vertical stresses from both methods resulted in agreement
as shown in Fig. 15.

y = 0.0068x2 - 0.1653x + 1.5915

R = 0.9997

7
8
9
Depth, Z (in.)

ES

Corretion factor for layer-2

Figure 10. Relationship between Depth and Correction Factor for Layer-1
(h1=6 in., E1/E2=50)

Figures 7 thru 9 show also that for the cases with modular
ratios higher than 3.33 the value of f asymptotes to 0.85, 0.8,
and 0.79 for the pavements systems with h1 = 6, 10, and 15 in
respectively. For the 3.33 modular ratio, the f at the interface is
0.89, 0.87, and 0.85 for the systems with h1 = 6, 10, and 15 in
respectively. It can be concluded from these results that, in a
two-layer system, for different modular ratios, f in the range of
0.8 to 0.9 yields vertical stresses that are relatively close to the
ones from theory of elasticity at the interface between the two
layers.

10

120

11

110
100

80

60

Line of Equality

25

50

75

100

125

150

Two-Layer Calculated Stress using KENPAVE, psi

Z = 9 in
19.772 in

Leff @ Z = 5 in

50

23.772 in

Leff @ Z = 7 in

40

27.772 in

Leff @ Z = 9 in

10
0
-24

-20

-16

-12

-8

-4

12

16

20

24

Radial Distance, in

Figure 13. Relationship between Vertical Stresses and Radial Distances at

Different Depths (E1/E2 = 16.67), Two-Layer Solution
120
110

Zt = 1.24 in

12.252 in

Leff @ Zt = 1.24 in

Zt = 3.47 in

100

75

25

Z = 7 in

70

20

100

50

Z = 5 in

Leff @ Z = 3 in

150
125

Z = 3 in
15.772 in

30

Zt = 6.15 in

Leff @ Zt = 3.47 in

90
Vertical Stress, psi

Equivalent Transformed Section

Calculated Stress, psi

IJ
A

Using the developed relationships between the correction factor

and depth for each layer, an excellent agreement between
vertical stresses computed at different depths underneath the
centerline of the load for the transformed system and the twolayer system is achieved. This is shown in Fig. 12.

Vertical Stress, psi

Figure 11. Relationship between Depth and Correction Factor for Layer-2
(h1=6 in., E1/E2=50)

Z = 1 in

11.772 in

Leff @ Z = 1 in

90

16.712 in

Zt = 10.11 in

80

Zt = 17.27 in

Leff @ Zt = 6.15 in

70

22.072 in

60
Leff @ Zt = 10.11 in

50

29.992 in

40
Leff @ Zt = 17.27 in

30

44.312 in

20
10
0

Figure 12. Comparison of the Two-Layer and the Equivalent One-Layer

Pavements Computed Stresses after Appling the Developed Correction
Factors (f as a Function of Depth).

ISSN: 2230-7818

-24

-20

-16

-12

-8

-4

12

16

20

Radial Distance, in

Figure 14. Relationship between Vertical Stresses and Radial Distances at

Different Depths (E1/E2 = 16.67), Transformed Section

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Page 109

24

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

REFERENCES
Vertical Stress, psi (Odemark One- Layer
Solution)

[2]

120
100
80

[3]

60
40

[4]

Z=1
Z=3
Z=5
Z=7
Z=9

20
0

[5]

-20
-20

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Vertical Stress, psi (Two-Layer Solution)

Figure 15. Comparison between Odemark Solution and Two-Layer Solution

for Vertical Stresses at Different Depths and Radial Distances using
Correction Factor (f as a Function of Depth) for the system with h1 =10 in. and
E1/E2 = 16.67

V.

CONCLUSIONS

[7]

[8]

ES

Based on the analyses conducted in this research, the

following conclusions were highlighted:

[6]

Ullidtz, P., (1987), Pavement Analysis, Development in Civil

Engineering, Vol.19, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Subagio, B., Cahyanto H., Rachman, A., and Mardiyah, S., Multi-Layer
Pavement Structural Analysis Using Method of Equivalent Thickness,
Case Study: Jakarta-Cikampek Toll Road, Journal of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 55 - 65, 2005.
Senseney, C., and Mooney, M., Characterization of a Two-Layer Soil
System Using a Lightweight Deflectometer with Radial Sensor,
Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2186, Washington DC, pp. 21-28, 2010.
Crowder, J., Shalaby, A., Cauwenberghe, R., and Clayton, A.,
Assessing Spring Load Restrictions Using Climate Change and
Mechanistic-Empirical Models,
Cafiso, S., and Graziano, A., Evaluation of Flexible Reinforced
Pavement Performance by NDT, In Transportation Research Record,
TRB Annual Meeting CD ROM, 2003.
ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division. Guide for MechanisticEmpirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.
NCHRP 1-37A Final Report, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 2004.
El-Badawy, S., Jeong, M., and El-Basyouny M., Methodology to
Predict Alligator Fatigue Cracking Distress based on AC Dynamic
Modulus, In Transportation Research Record, Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2095, Transportation Research
board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2009, pp. 115-124.
Sotil, A., Use of the Dynamic Modulus E* Test as Permanent
Deformation Performance Criteria for Asphalt Pavement Systems,
Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, December 2005.

[1]

140

In order to get a good agreement between the stresses

and strains calculated using Odemarks concept and
those from theory of elasticity; a correction factor f has
to be introduced. This correction factor was found to
be a function of the layer thickness, depth and modular
ratio.

The study showed a good agreement between the

vertical stresses at the interface between the two layers,
in a two-layer system, calculated using the theory of
elasticity and Odemarks concept when using a
correction factor (f) in the range of of 0.8 to 0.9 which
agrees with the other literature studies.

IJ
A

However, at any other depth within each layer, this

correction factor is not a constant value. It was found
that this correction factor varies with the change in the
depth of interest. The study showed that, the points (Z
values) in the first layer follow a 3rd degree polynomial
relationship with the correction factor (f) for each
modular ratio and thickness. On the other hand, the
points (Z values) in the second layer follow a 2rd
degree polynomial relationship with the correction
factor for each modular ratio and thickness.

Unfortunately, normalizing the depth values (Z) by the

thickness of the upper layer did not eliminate the effect
of layer thickness.

MEPDG should consider introducing a correction

factor as a function of depth, layer thickness, and
modular for an accurate calculation of the effective
length and depth required for E* computations.

ISSN: 2230-7818

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Page 110