See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273023432

Modeling of the FWD Deflection Basin to Evaluate Airport Pavements

Article  in  International Journal of Geomechanics · April 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000305

CITATIONS READS
13 349

2 authors, including:

Mesbah Ahmed
Gemini Technologies, Inc.
34 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Field and Laboratory Evaluation of Warm-Mix Asphalt (Phase II) View project

Analysis of FWD data of the airfield pavements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mesbah Ahmed on 04 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Modeling of the FWD Deflection Basin to Evaluate
Airport Pavements
Rafiqul A. Tarefder, M.ASCE1; and Mesbah U. Ahmed, S.M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing develops a deflection basin on the pavement surface. Depths of this deflection basin
from the center of the falling weight are measured at different radial offsets. These deflections are used for the backcalculation of the pavement
layer moduli. Most of the available backcalculation software uses the layered elastic theory and static load to calculate moduli from known
pavement surface deflections. However, the FWD test load is dynamic, and layer materials may show nonelastic behavior. Layered elastic the-
ory in these types of software cannot characterize dynamic response of the pavement. Also, elastic theory is unable to accurately predict the
surface deflection whenever stress developed in any pavement layer exceeds the yield point. For this reason, this study has performed a fi-
nite-element analysis of the airport pavement under the FWD test considering the dynamic load and materials plasticity. The analysis presented
here includes elastoplastic behavior of pavement layer materials. Both axisymmetric and quarter cube models have been developed in ABAQUS.
Time-deflection histories are simulated to match the FWD test data. A comparison is made between the dynamic, static, and field deflection
basins. Contours of vertical deflection and strain are also plotted to observe their distribution on both the axisymmetric and quarter cube models.
Analysis results show that the time-deflection histories are in close agreement with the field data. The axisymmetric model yields better results
than the quarter cube model. Deflections from the static analysis are greater than the dynamic analysis for an identical set of the layer modulus of
elasticity. A uniform distribution of strain is observed from the static analysis in both of the geometries. However, the dynamic analysis does not
show similar distribution because of the time-dependent response. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000305. © 2014 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Falling weight deflectometer; Backcalculation; Modulus; Deflection; Stress; Strain; Finite-element method (FEM);
Flexible pavements; Nondestructive tests.

Introduction a three-dimensional (3D) finite-element model of flexible pavement

Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) data are used to backcalculate
the modulus of elasticity of the pavement layer for assessing struc-
tural capacity. Backcalculation of layer moduli involves two steps.
The first step calculates the deflections at various points in the de-
flection basin, and the second step compares resulting deflections
with field deflections to determine the combination of layer moduli
using the proper error minimization algorithm (Irwin 2002). Layered
elastic analysis (LEA) is widely used in several backcalculation
programs (Yin and Mrawira 2009; Ameri et al. 2009). Very few
programs use the FEM the appropriate way to address FWD test
conditions and pavement layer properties during the deflection
analysis. Studies by various researchers since the 1980s have been
performed on finite-element modeling of pavement but not for FWD
basin analysis.
Uddin and Garza (2010) performed a study on dynamic analysis
to observe the structural response of pavement. They developed
1
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Univ. of New Mexico, MSC01 1070, 1 University of New Mexico, Albu-
querque, NM 87131 (corresponding author). E-mail: tarefder@unm.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of New
Mexico, MSC01 1070, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
87131. E-mail: mahmed@unm.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 26, 2012; approved on
April 5, 2013; published online on April 8, 2013. Discussion period open
until September 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geo-
mechanics, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2014/
2-205–213/$25.00.
subjected to a dynamic load. The model was simulated for the load-
time history from the FWD test. During the analysis, Uddin and
Garza (2010) considered the FWD load with varying frequencies.
The analysis determined the time-dependent deflections at different
frequencies. This study determined that the natural frequency of the
pavement section was 8 Hz. In addition, the effect of damping was
investigated. It was observed that damping causes the smaller peak
deflection. However, the analysis results were not compared with
any field FWD test data.
Kuo and Chou (2004) developed a 3D finite-element model of
flexible pavement. In their model they considered the surface layer as
viscoelastic and the remaining part of the pavement as elastic. The
analysis results were first compared with the Boussinesq solution to
justify the accuracy of the model; they were later compared with the static
deflections from the American Association of State Highway Officials
Road Test (Highway Research Board 1962). For the validation, this static
deflection was determined from the dynamic deflection at 48 km=h.
Comparison showed that the analysis results were closer to the static
deflection. Dynamic finite-element analysis to determine the time-
dependent pavement response was not in the scope of their study.
Shoukry et al. (1996) assigned the dynamic load during the 3D
finite-element modeling of the flexible pavement to observe the
dynamic response under the FWD test. The layers of pavement were
assumed elastic. The effect of interlayer bonding was studied by the
dynamic finite-element analysis. It was observed that the pavement
response was sensitive to the condition of bonding between the
layers. The analysis results were not compared with the field FWD
test data. Therefore, their model was not validated.
In summary, most of the 3D finite-element models consider
FWD loading as static. The load applied in the FWD test is dynamic,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014 / 205

Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213

 that is, the load varies with time. For 3D modeling of flexible
pavement with dynamic load, some of the studies consider haversine
load applied on the pavement surface (Lukanen 1993; Hoffman
1983; Nazarian and Boddapati 1995; Sebaaly et al. 1986). However,
the FWD test load does not exactly follow the haversine pattern
(Meier and Rix 1998; Uddin et al. 1996); therefore, time-deflection
histories determined from these models are not appropriate for FWD
data analysis.
The consideration of accurate layer (material) property during
this analysis is another important issue. Most of the studies on dy-
namic analysis assumed the material of pavement layers as elastic.
However, base and subgrade of the pavement show plastic behavior
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(Chen and Mizuno 1990). Therefore, elastodynamic analysis of the
pavement under the FWD test may not produce accurate results. A
3D finite-element model was developed by Schwartz (2002) to
observe the effect of stress dependency of the base layer on the
pavement response. This model was simulated for the static
loading condition. In addition, analysis results from KENLAYER
(KENPAVE 2004) were used to validate the model instead of any
field data. Dong et al. (2001) developed dynamic finite-element
analysis to perform the time domain backcalculation to determine
the pavement layer properties. Backcalculated layer moduli from
this model showed close agreement with the other methods. In this
model, the FWD loading area was considered as a rectangle. In
reality, the FWD loading area is a circle with a radius of 300–450 mm
(12–18 in.). In addition, model validation was not shown by the
comparison between the FEM simulated and field time-deflection
history data. To this end, this study develops a finite-element model
of flexible pavement under the FWD test assuming dynamic load and
material plasticity. In particular, the load is considered dynamic with
a very short duration, and the material of the base and the subgrade
are assumed to be elastoplastic. For validation, the dynamic response
of the pavement is compared with the field test data. In addition to the
dynamic analysis, an analysis is performed considering the load as
static, and the results from the static analysis are compared with
dynamic analysis results.
Objectives and Scope
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the deflection basin
based on the dynamic characteristic of the load applied in the FWD
test and the elastoplastic behavior of the pavement layer. For this
reason, the finite-element model of the flexible pavement under the
FWD test has been developed in the commercial general purpose
finite-element program, ABAQUS (ABAQUS 2010). The specific
objectives of this study are as follows.
• To determine the time-deflection history and peak deflection of
the sensors from the dynamic analysis. These results will then be
compared with the field FWD test data to validate the model.
• To determine the deflection basin from the static analysis and to
compare this with the deflection basin from both the dynamic
analysis and field FWD test.
Table 1. Test Hole in Runway 12/30 (Clayton Airport)
Depth, cm (in.)
Mile post Hole Sack number From
304.8 m (1,000 ft) from east end 1 N/A 0.0 (0.0)
E 17 5.08 (2.0)
E 77 45.72 (18.0)
Note: Data were taken from the subgrade, Project 1, District 4 at Clayton Airport. Source location of the data was Runway 12/30 from east to west. PBMP = plant
mix bituminous pavement.
206 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014
Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213
• To observe the distribution of the deflection and strain over the
model. The contours of the vertical deflection and strain are
plotted based on both static and dynamic analyses.
Time-deflection history data were collected from the FWD test
by the New Mexico DOT (NMDOT) airfield evaluation team on
Runway 12/30 in Clayton Airport. The test was conducted with
JILS FWD 20T (Foundation Mechanics, El Segundo, California).
The information about layer thicknesses and properties was obtained
from core runway logs. A 3D finite-element model of the airport
pavement was developed in ABAQUS 6.9 EF-1. The field data were
also collected from the FWD test at Runway 12/30 in Clayton Airport.
FEM Model
Development of a finite-element model of multilayered flexible
pavement structure under the FWD test involves selection of model
geometry, assignment of layer (material) property, meshing of the
model, imposing the boundary condition, and dynamic load as-
signment similar to the FWD test. Each step of this finite-element
analysis is subsequently described.
Model Geometry
Clayton Airport pavement has mainly three different layers. These
layers are the surface, base, and subgrade. Table 1 shows that the
samples are collected at 304.8 m (1,000 ft) from the east end of
Runway 12/30. The thickness of the surface, base, and subgrade are
5.08, 40.64, and 106.68 cm (2, 16, and 42 in.) according to drilling
information. The surface course consists of asphalt concrete, whereas
the base and subgrade consist of sand and silty clay, respectively. The
FWD test load is applied on the surface by a steel plate of 15.24-cm
(6-in.) radius resting on the pavement surface. Sensors at different
radial locations record vertical movement of the surface as shown in
Fig. 1. At a certain radius, the surface deflection is assumed to be the
same in all radial directions. Therefore, it forms a deflection basin/
influence zone.
For finite-element modeling of the multilayered pavement
structure, different geometries are used in different studies (Uddin
and Garza 2010; Xia 2010; Kim et al. 2009; Hjelmstad et al. 1997).
These model geometries can be two-dimensional (2D) plane strain,
axisymmetric, or 3D cube. The 2D plane strain model is used by
several researchers to characterize the behavior of the pavement
(Van Metzinger and McCullough 1991; Lytton et al. 1993). It
requires little computation time and memory storage for analysis;
however, it can represent actual traffic loading, and the footprint of
the loading is typically elliptical. It can be represented by two
semicircles and a rectangle. The plane strain model only uses the
line load (Cho et al. 1997).
The axisymmetric model is in a geometry developed in two
dimensions and then is revolved around with reference to a vertical
axis to form a cylinder (Thompson 1982; Nam 1994). The advantage
of this model is that it can solve the problem of a 3D structure with
2D formulation using cylindrical coordinates. The main limitation of
To Material type Remarks and material identification
5.08 (2.0) PMBP Runway 2/20 has been slurry sealed
45.72 (18.0) Base Sand
152.4 (60.0) Subgrade Silty clay
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Zone of influence during the FWD test
this model is that only the circular load can be applied on this model.
The load assignment from the dual tire is complicated. Moreover,
this model is unable to consider interface shear; although, a special
case of all-round radial shear can be analyzed. It cannot address
pavement discontinuities or shoulder conditions. Therefore, this
model can be used only for the region of pavement far from any
cracks or shoulder (Cho et al. 1997).
In this study, a 3D FEM model is used. A 3D FEM can address
different issues related to pavement, such as multiple wheel loading,
nonlinear behavior of base materials, and distresses in pavements
(Kuo and Chou 2004). It can precisely analyze the structural re-
sponse of pavement-subgrade systems subjected to static and dy-
namic loads for new pavements and pavement with joints, cracks,
and discontinuities (Uddin et al. 1995). The traditional 2D finite-
element model is not able to address these problems (Uddin 2008).
However, it requires a long time and large storage capacity, espe-
cially with material nonlinearity (Hjelmstad et al. 1997; Cho et al.
1997).
This study performs finite-element analysis using both axisym-
metric and quarter cube geometries of flexible pavement to represent
the actual field condition and loading configuration of the FWD test.
The details of the geometries are subsequently mentioned.
Axisymmetric
Fig. 2 shows the axisymmetric structure of the pavement under the
FWD test. This model is symmetric in all the radial directions with
reference to the vertical axis. It has three layers (surface, base,
subgrade) of finite thickness individually. The thicknesses of the
surface and base layers are 5.08 and 40.64 cm (2 and 16 in.), re-
spectively. The vertical and horizontal lengths of the model are
selected in such a manner that the influence of the loading area
becomes insignificant in the far-field region. According to the
studies by Yamada (1970), Koswara (1983), and Dunlop et al.
(1968), consideration of the vertical and horizontal lengths of the
entire model, equal to 4–10 times the width of the loading area,
ensures that the effect of the load will be insignificant in the far-field
region. In the dynamic finite-element model by Dong et al. (2001),
the ratio of the vertical length and the FWD loading radius was 37.6.
Duncan et al. (1968) considered the depth of analysis to be 50 times
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014 / 207
Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213
Fig. 2. Qualitative diagram of the axisymmetric model of flexible
pavement
of the plate-load diameter. The FWD test shows that deflection at the
loading point is the maximum. It approaches a very small value at the
sensor farthest from the loading point. Surface deflection, that is,
deflection at the loading point, is contributed by the sum of the
deflection of all layers. As the depth increases, the load spreads away
more that results decreases in stress. Therefore, vertical stress de-
veloped in the subgrade is small. Deflection at the sensor farthest
from the loading point is negligible because of this lower stress
contributed from the subgrade (Huang 2004). Though previous
literature has suggested the depth to be 4, 10, and 50 times the plate-
load diameter, respectively (Logan 2007; Yamada 1970; Duncan
et al. 1968), the vertical length of the model is considered to be 508
cm (200 in.), which is 33.33 times the loading radius. During de-
velopment of this model, geometries with varying vertical length
were considered. At the end, this dimension was found to be suf-
ficient for negligible defection and stress at the bottom. Considering
computational time and memory storage, the vertical length of the
entire pavement model is assigned to be 508 cm (200 in.). Therefore,
the thickness of the subgrade is selected to 462.28 cm (182 in.),
which is greater than 10 times the diameter of the loading plate.
3D Quarter Cube
This model has two axes of symmetry: saving time and storage
capacity. The 3D quarter cube model herein is shown in Fig. 3.
Similar to the axisymmetric model, the thicknesses of the surface and
base of this model are 5.08 and 40.64 cm (2 and 16 in.), respectively.
To maintain the similarity in dimensions, the length, width, and
breadth of the 3D quarter cube model are kept at 508, 508, and 508
cm (200, 200, and 200 in.), respectively.
Layer Property
Each model has three layers as previously mentioned. The surface
layer consists of asphalt concrete. The layer underneath the surface
course is the base course with compacted coarse-graded gravelly
soil. The bottom layer is the subgrade with natural soil. Material
properties of the different layers are subsequently discussed.
Surface Course
The surface course is an asphalt concrete layer, which consists of
viscoelastic material. The effect of viscoelasticity is pronounced at
a higher temperature and at load with slower rates. The FWD load is
instantaneous; therefore, the strain in this test is recoverable. Strain
disappears just after the removal of the load (Haddad 1995).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Qualitative diagram of the quarter cube model of flexible pavement

Therefore, the asphalt concrete behaves as elastic material during

this very short duration of loading time. In addition, the FWD test has
been done at an intermediate temperature of the pavement. For this
reason, the surface course is assumed as linear elastic.

Base Course
The base course consists of granular material, which is assumed
linear elastic up to the yield stress. It begins to show plasticity
whenever stress because of the applied load reaches the yield point.
Soils and geomaterials usually do not have a readily available yield
point. However, in this study, the yield point is defined by 482.63
kPa (70 psi) stress when the base materials show plasticity. The
triaxial test data are collected from the study performed by Garg and
Thompson (1997) to determine the yield stress for the assignment of
plasticity in the base layer. In that study, several triaxial tests have
been conducted with the rapid load rate, which is more appropriate
for addressing the rate of FWD loading.
The stress-strain plot of the granular material for the base course
is shown in Fig. 4. The yield point of this stress-strain distribution is
considered 482.63 kPa (70 psi) because part of the curve before this
yield stress can reasonably be assumed as linear elastic. Based on the Fig. 4. Stress-strain distribution of the granular soil in the base course
classification of the soil (particle distribution and soil index property (data from Garg and Thompson 1997)
test conducted in the laboratory) in Clayton Airport, the initial

208 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014

Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213

 modulus of elasticity for the base material is assumed according to
the guidelines from the Mechanistic-empirical pavement design
guide [National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
2008]. Specifically, the modulus of elasticity of the material is
assigned according to NCHRP (2008).
Subgrade
Similar to the base material, the stress-strain distribution of the
subgrade is determined from the triaxial test data from a previous
study (Garg and Thompson 1997). The study found that the FWD
load is rapid, and in such a case the subgrade does not have the
required time to drain the pore water. Consolidated undrained tri-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
axial test data have been assumed as accurate representation of
stress-strain distribution for the subgrade. Several researchers per-
formed triaxial tests on different types of soil (El-Badawy and
Witczak 2007; Kim 2004). Subgrade soil in Clayton Airport has
been identified as silty clay from the soil index property. For the
assignment of subgrade stress-strain distribution, triaxial data were
collected from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003). Fig. 5
shows the stress-strain distribution of the subgrade. The yield stress
for the subgrade materials is assumed to be 143.69 kPa (20.84 psi). It
would be appropriate if triaxial tests could have been performed on
soils and aggregate, which requires laboratory capacity and other
resources. On the hand, the approach of this study is to perform soil
classification (e.g., grading, Atterberg limit) and use that information
to determine the material property from the available literature.
Material parameters for the layers (i.e., modulus of elasticity,
Poisson’s ratio, and density) are summarized in Table 2.
Meshing of the Model
Axisymmetric Model
The aspect ratio of the mesh elements is kept between 1 and 2 all
through the model. The aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the
longest dimension to the shortest dimension (Logan 2007). The
axisymmetric model of the multilayered flexible pavement structure
is meshed finely near the loading region. The region closest to the
Fig. 5. Stress-strain distribution of the subgrade soil from the triaxial
test (data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2003)
Table 2. Layer Properties
Layer material Young’s modulus, MPa (ksi)
Surface (hot mix asphalt) 1,378.95 (200)
Base (granular soil) 206.84 (30)
Subgrade (fine soil) 68.95 (10)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014 / 209
Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213
sensor points is also finely meshed to ensure the smooth movement
of the stress wave. The region farthest from the loading region is not
as critical as the region closest to the loading region. Therefore, the
mesh farther from the loading zone is assigned as coarser to perform
the analysis faster. A four-noded quadrilateral element (CAX4R)
with linear interpolation function is used for the mesh assignment.
Quarter Cube Model
The quarter cube model of a multilayered pavement structure is
meshed with a hexahedral element. Each individual element has eight
nodes. Again, the region closest to the loading area is more critical
than that farther away. Therefore, finer mesh is applied for the loading
zone, whereas the mesh is coarser at the far end of loading. A cubic
model with identical length, breadth, and height is used. This geom-
etry leads to uniform meshing of the model; however, it increases
analysis time and needs more memory storage. Coarse mesh is
avoided because of maintaining an aspect ratio between 1 and 2. The
aspect ratio is important for accuracy (Logan 2007).
The mesh for both the axisymmetric and quarter cube models was
selected after a number of iterations with a varying number of ele-
ments. The goal was to determine the optimum number of elements
that can produce reliable analysis results within a shorter analysis
time. After a number of iterations with a varying number of ele-
ments, the optimum number of elements for the axisymmetric and
quarter cube models was 4,440 and 46,274, respectively.
Table 3 shows the parameters considered during the mesh as-
signment on the pavement models. The number of nodes, element
type, and number of elements for both of the geometries are mentioned
briefly. The table shows that the quarter cube model has more than 10
times the number of elements than the axisymmetric model.
Boundary Condition
Axisymmetric
Interfaces at the two adjacent layers are fully bonded, that is, slip is
not allowed. Roller supports are assigned at the vertical left end to
allow vertical movement and restraining horizontal movement as
shown in Fig. 2. The right end of the bottom block (subgrade) is
restrained to move in the horizontal direction, and rollers are
assigned as the support. The presence of rigid bedrock is assumed at
the bottom subgrade that leads to no deflection at the interface of the
rigid/stiff layer and subgrade. For this reason, the bottom of the
model is assigned with hinge supports to restrain the translational
movement in all directions.
Quarter Cube
The interface of the two adjacent layers is assumed to be fully
bonded, that is, the slip between the two adjacent layers is not
allowed. In response to the FWD test load, the deflection becomes
zero at some depth, and it indicates the presence of rigid layers at this
point. To address this phenomenon, hinge supports are assigned at
the bottom; therefore, they constrain the bottom from moving along
both the vertical and horizontal directions. Two intersected edges
with the loading point (along two axes of symmetry) are free to move
in the vertical direction and are restrained in the horizontal direction
from the adjacent material. In this model, these edges are assigned
with roller supports to ensure this behavior of the structure. There is
no movement in the horizontal direction for some distance after the
Density, kg=m3 (pcf) Poisson’s ratio, n
2,322.68 (145) 0.35
2162.5 (135) 0.4
1,762.03 (110) 0.45
 location of the last sensor. For this reason, roller supports are also
assigned at the ends. The boundary condition of the model is more
clearly described in Fig. 3.
Loading Criteria
Dynamic Load
To accurately predict the dynamic response of pavement, it is nec-
essary to follow the actual amplitude pattern to apply the impulse.
For this reason, the time-load history is collected from Clayton
Airport (Fig. 6). This model is analyzed with the application of an
impulse with a magnitude of 40.03 kN (9 kips). The time-dependent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for each and every sensor. Peak deflections have been extracted
from each analyzed time-deflection history of the specific points.
These peak deflections at different offsets form a deflection basin,
and it is named the dynamic deflection basin in the literature.
Finite-element analyses of both the axisymmetric and quarter cube
models are performed with the application of the static load. Deflec-
tions of the points at a different radial offset are determined to get the
FWD deflection basin for different layer modulus combinations.
Discussion

loading pattern is assigned according to the field test. A pressure of Dynamic Time-Deflection History
548.82 kPa (79.6 psi) is applied on the loading area; then, this
pressure is integrated with a field time-amplitude variation to match Time-deflection histories determined from the dynamic finite-
with the load-time history under a field test. element analysis have been plotted in Fig. 7(a). This plot shows

Static Load
In static analysis, the load is assumed constant with time. Only the
peak of the load-time history is used as a static load in this analysis.
The magnitude of the peak is 40.03 kN (9 kips), and it develops
a pressure of 548.82 kPa (79.6 psi) on the loading plate of a
15.24-cm (6-in.) radius.

Finite-Element Analysis

Finite-element analysis is performed in ABAQUS after the de-

velopment of the model. Both the static and dynamic conditions of
the FWD test are considered in the analyses. Two different ge-
ometries, axisymmetric and quarter cube, are used separately for the
static and dynamic analysis. The main purpose of this analysis is to
determine the FWD deflection basin from both the static and dy-
namic analyses. In addition, time-deflection histories at the specified
sensor locations are recorded from dynamic analysis.
Dynamic analyses are carried out for different layer moduli com-
binations to match calculated deflections with field values. Dynamic
analysis from the finite-element program ABAQUS determines
time-deflection histories (i.e., time-dependent deflection pattern)

Table 3. Parameters of the Finite-Element Model

FEM parameter Axisymmetric Quarter cube
Number of nodes 4,440 46,274
Element type CAX4R C3D8R
Number of elements 4,561 49,595

Fig. 7. Time-deflection and load histories analyzed from the FEM

Fig. 6. Amplitude pattern of the impulse in the FWD test simulation

210 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014

Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213

 the time-dependent deflection variations for seven geophones
located at different radial offsets. The vertical deflection increases with
time until it attains peak deflection. The deflection starts decreasing
after the peak value. This trend is similar for all seven sensor points.
This indicates that the pavement’s response is elastic. The peak de-
flections of the geophones are gradually decreasing with an increase in
distance. In addition, the time lag between the peak deflections is
negligible for some geophones near the loading zone. However, this
becomes noticeable for the sensor farther from the loading zone. This
is because of the travel time of the stress wave.
Fig. 7(b) shows the vertical deflection versus the load variation
for the first five geophones. Each geophone location produces
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
either deflection basins to the field deflection basin. The RMS of the
error for the dynamic deflection basin is 6.04%, whereas for the static
deflection basin it is 3.84%. Therefore, the static deflection basin is
closer to the field deflection basin than the dynamic deflection basin
based on the peak deflections at different offsets.
Contour of Deflection
Axisymmetric
Vertical deflection distribution over the axisymmetric model is shown
in Fig. 9(a). This contour is plotted at the time of attainment of peak
deflection. Deflection is the maximum near the loading zone. It

a closed loop. These loops are formed because of the time lag gradually diminishes radial outward. This is because of the higher stress
between the load and deflection. Every loop initiates from the origin near the loading region. Stress reduces both vertically and horizontally.
and terminates at the origin because of the elasticity. These loops are Consequently, vertical deflection decreases significantly.
getting thinner with an increase in the geophone distance because the
deflections are decreasing. All these observations are in very close Quarter Cube
agreement with the field test data. Therefore, this dynamic finite- Fig. 9(b) shows the contour for the vertical deflection distribution
element analysis is producing reasonable values of time-deflection over the quarter cube model. The top corner of this model is sub-
histories. Although the base and subgrade layers were assigned jected to the FWD impulse load. Therefore, this part of the model
elastoplastic materials models, stress because of a small FWD load undergoes maximum deflection. With an increase in distance along
did not exceed the limiting stresses or yield stress. Therefore, both of both the vertical and horizontal directions, the vertical deflection
the layers show only elastic behavior; essentially, they could have decreases. The color spectrum transition from black to gray indicates
been assigned only elastic materials (E, n) as ABAQUS inputs.
Fig. 7(c) is plotted to validate the analyzed time-deflection history
by the field test data. This figure shows the time-deflection history at
the geophone. The solid line represents the time-deflection history
from the finite-element simulation, whereas the dotted line repre-
sents the data collected from the field test. It is evident that the peak
deflections from both the finite-element simulation and the field test
are very close, that is, 0.875 mm (0.03445 in.) from the finite-element
simulation and 0.89 mm (0.035 in.) from the field test. Time lag
between these peak deflections is very small (i.e., ∼ 1:5 ms). These
two time-deflection histories show some noticeable deviation before
attaining their peak values. The deviation becomes insignificant just
after the peak deflections. The resulting time-deflection history from
the finite-element simulation is almost similar to that from the field
FWD test data.

Deflection Basin
Fig. 8 shows the deflection basins calculated from both the dynamic
and static finite-element simulations. These deflection basins have
also been compared with the field FWD deflection basin. Both of
these deflection basins are near to the field deflection basin. The
RMS of the error is then calculated to determine the nearness of

Fig. 8. Deflection basin from static and dynamic FEM analyses Fig. 9. Contour of vertical deflection

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014 / 211

Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Contour of true strain over the domain of the axisymmetric
model
that the vertical deflection is compressive (i.e., sink in) around the
loading zone. It gradually turns to extensive (i.e., pile up) farther
away from the loading zone.
Contour of Strain
Axisymmetric
Vertical strain distribution over the axisymmetric model is shown in
Fig. 10(a). This contour shows that the magnitude of the vertical
strain is higher near the loading region and is compressive in nature.
Compressive strain decreases gradually farther away from the
loading zone. Vertical tensile strain is observed on the surface layer
at a distance a little farther from the loading zone. This is because of
the pile effect resulting during FWD load application.
Quarter Cube
Fig. 10(b) shows the contour of the vertical strain distribution over the
quarter cube model. The top corner region of this model undergoes
compressive strain because of the application of the load directly on
this region. With an increase in distance, the compressive strain
reduces and turns into tensile strain. It indicates that the part of the
model near to the loading radius shows the sink in effect, whereas the
rest of model shows the pile up effect.
212 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014
Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213
Conclusions
The aforementioned discussions lead to the following conclusions.
• From the field FWD data, it is observed that the response of the
flexible pavement under impulse is instantaneous, and time lags
between the successive sensors are very small. In this study,
analyses show the identical phenomenon. Response of the flexible
pavement surface to the FWD loading is instantaneous. In addition,
time lags between the peak deflections at the successive sensors are
very small.
• For the defined moduli combination, peak deflections from the
time-deflection histories of dynamic finite-element analysis are
very near to the field time-deflection histories.
• The resulting deflection basin from the static finite-element
analysis is nearer to the field deflection basin than that calculated
from the dynamic deflection basin. However, the difference in the
RMS of error between the dynamic and static deflection basin is
small.
• From the contour of strain, the strain is the maximum at the
loading point. It decreases with an increase in distance along both
the vertical and horizontal directions because the stress devel-
oped in each individual layer reduces farther away from the load.
Near to the loading zone, this model shows the sink in effect,
whereas at the region farther away from the loading zone, a pile
up effect is pronounced.
These observations and related discussions have concluded that
the finite-element model developed in this study reasonably predicts
pavement response because of the FWD test load.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the NMDOT, Aviation Division for funding this
study. Special thanks go to the NMDOT field exploration team for
their sincere effort behind the asphalt coring, soil sampling, and
FWD data collection from Runway 12/30 of Clayton Airport.
References
ABAQUS. (2010). ABAQUS 6-10 EF-2 documentation, Dassault Systèmes
Simulia, Providence, RI.
Ameri, M., Yavari, N., and Scullion, T. (2009). “Comparison of static and
dynamic backcalculation of flexible pavement layers moduli, using four
softwares.” Asian J. of Applied Sciences, 2(3), 197–210.
Chen, W. F., and Mizuno, E. (1990). “Nonlinear analysis in soil mechanics:
Theory and implementation.” Developments in geotechnical engineering,
Vol. 53, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Cho, Y. H., McCullough, B. F., and Weissmann, J. (1997). “Considerations
on finite element method application in pavement structural analysis.”
Transportation Research Record 1539, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 96–101.
Dong, Q., Matsui, K., and Yamamoto, K. (2001). “Time domain back-
calculation of pavement structure material properties using 3D FEM with
Ritz vectors.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2001)1:3
(325), 325–336.
Duncan, J. M., Monismith, C. L., and Wilson, E. L. (1968). “Finite element
analysis of pavements.” Highway Research Record No. 228, Highway
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Dunlop, P., Duncan, J. M., and Seed, H. B. (1968). “Finite element
analysis of slopes in soil.” Rep. TE 68-3, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA.
El-Badawy, S. M., and Witczak, M. W. (2007). “Development of a universal
permanent strain model for the subgrade pavement materials.” Proc.,
Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting (CD-ROM),
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
 Garg, N., and Thompson, M. R. (1997). “Triaxial characterization of Minnesota
Road Research Project granular materials.” Transportation Research
Record 1577, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 27–36.
Haddad, Y. M. (1995). Viscoelasticity of engineering materials, 1st Ed.,
Chapman & Hall, New York.
Highway Research Board. (1962). “The AASHO Road Test 5 pavement
research.” Washington, DC.
Hjelmstad, K. D., Zuo, Q., and Kim, J. (1997). “Elastic pavement analysis
using infinite elements.” Transportation Research Record 1568,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 72–76.
Hoffman, M. S. (1983). “Loading mode effects on pavement deflections.”
J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1983)109:5(651), 651–667.
Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement analysis and design, 2nd Ed., Pearson,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO on 01/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Irwin, L. H. (2002). “Backcalculation: An overview and perspective.”
Æhttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwRtUOIxzlF4eGVXRzFFZVY0QWM/
edit?pli=1æ (Nov. 29, 2009).
KENPAVE. (2004). “KENPAVE: A computer package for pavement
analysis and design.” Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Kim, D. G. (2004). “Development of a constitutive model for resilient
modulus of cohesive soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH.
Kim, M., Tutumluer, E., and Kwon, J. (2009). “Nonlinear pavement
foundation modeling for three-dimensional finite-element analysis of
flexible pavements.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641
(2009)9:5(195), 195–208.
Koswara, H. (1983). “A finite element analysis of underground shelter
subjected to ground shock load.” M.S. thesis, Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology, Terre Haute, IN.
Kuo, C. M., and Chou, F. J. (2004). “Development of 3-D finite element model
for flexible pavements.” J. Chin. Inst. Chem. Eng,., 27(5), 707–717.
Logan, D. L. (2007). A first course in the finite element method, 4th Ed.,
Thomson, Toronto.
Lukanen, E. O. (1993). “Effects of buffer on falling weight deflectometer
loadings and deflections.” Transportation Research Record 1355,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 37–51.
Lytton, R. L., et al. (1993). “Development and validation of performance
prediction models and specifications for asphalt binders and paving mixes.”
Rep. SHRP A-357, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Meier, R. W., and Rix, G. J. (1998). “Backcalculation of flexible pavement
moduli from falling weight deflectometer data using artificial neural
networks.” Chapter 7, ASCE manuals and reports on engineering
practice, ASCE, Reston, VA, 162–190.
Nam, D. (1994). “Effect on slab flexibility on the vertical stiffness of circular
foundations.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (2008).
Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide, Interim Ed., Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, DC.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2014 / 213
View publication stats Int. J. Geomech., 2014, 14(2): 205-213
Nazarian, S., and Boddapati, K. M. (1995). “Pavement-falling weight
deflectometer interaction using dynamic finite element analysis.”
Transportation Research Record 1482,Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 33–43.
Schwartz, C. W. (2002). “Effect of stress-dependent base layer on the su-
perposition of flexible pavement solutions.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:3(331), 331–352.
Sebaaly, B. E., Mamlouk, M. S., and Davies, T. G. (1986). “Dynamic
analysis of falling weight deflectometer data.” Transportation Research
Record 1070, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 63–68.
Shoukry, S. N., Martinelli, D. R., and Selezneva, O. I. (1996). “Dynamic
considerations in pavement layers moduli evaluation using falling
weight deflectometer.” Int. Soc. for Optical Eng., 2946, 109–119.
Thompson, M. R. (1982). ILLI-PAVE, user’s manual, Transportation Re-
search Facilities, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana,
Champaign, IL.
Uddin, W. (2008). “3D-FE dynamic analysis of pavements subjected to
nondestructive impact testing.” NED University Journal of Research,
5(1), 1–15.
Uddin, W., and Garza, S. (2010). “3D-FE simulation study of structural
response analysis for pavement-subgrade systems subjected to dynamic
loads.” Proc., Pavements and materials: Testing and modeling in mul-
tiple length scales, ASCE, Reston, VA, 170–181.
Uddin, W., Hackett, R. M., Joseph, A. P., and Algred, B. (1995). “Three-
dimensional finite-element analysis of jointed concrete pavement with
discontinuities.” Transportation Research Record 1482, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 26–32.
Uddin, W., Hackette, R. M., Noppakunwijai, P., and Pan, Z. (1996). “Three-
dimensional finite element simulation of FWD loading on pavement
systems.” Meeting the Challenge: Proc., 24th Int. Air Transportation
Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA, 284–294.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2003). “Engineering and design—Slope
stability.” Rep. EM 1110-2-1902, Washington, DC.
Van Metzinger, W. A., and McCullough, B. F. (1991). “An empirical-
mechanistic design method using bonded concrete overlays for the re-
habilitation of pavements.” Rep. No. 1205-1, Center for Transportation
Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Xia, K. (2010). “Finite element modeling of dynamic tire/pavement in-
teraction.” Proc., Pavements and materials: Testing and modeling in mul-
tiple length scales, ASCE, Reston, VA, 204–214.
Yamada, Y. (1970). “Dynamic analysis of civil engineering structures.”
Recent advances in matrix methods of structural analysis and design,
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL, 487–512.
Yin, D., and Mrawira, D. (2009). “Comparison between laboratory in-
vestigation and non-destructive testing methods for mechanistic char-
acterization of asphalt pavement.” Proc., 88th Annual Meeting of
Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.