38

CHAPTER 4

4 METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

During the last forty years considerable progress has been made in
the theoretical approach to the development of fundamental methods of
designing road pavements. Computer programs like BISAR, CHEVRON,
ELSYM, EPVAE, MPAVE and NPAVE, etc. have been developed by various
researchers for analyzing stresses and deflections in multilayer pavement. All
these computer programs assume the pavement to be linearly elastic. In this
thesis, three computer program packages named as IITPAVE, KENPAVE and
MICHPAVE have been recommended. IITPAVE and KENPAVE was linear
elastic program and MICHPAVE is a non-linear pavement design program.
The detailed descriptions and evaluations about these three programs are
furnished below.

4.2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

4.2.1 IIT PAVE

IITPAVE software is a modified version of FPAVE developed

under the research scheme R-56 of MoRTH. It is a multilayer analysis
programme specifically used for analysis programme specially used for
analysis and design of pavement based on IRC: 37 – 2012.
 39

A flexible pavement is modelled as an elastic multilayer structure.

Stresses and strain at critical locations are shown in the Figure 4.1 are
computed using a linear layered elastic model. The Stress analysis software
IITPAVE has been used for the computation of stresses and strains in flexible
pavements. Tensile strain t , at the bottom of the bituminous layer and the
vertical compressive strain v, on the top of the subgrade are conventionally
considered as critical parameters for pavement design to limit cracking and
rutting in the bituminous layers and non- bituminous layers respectively. The
computation also indicates that tensile strain near the surface close to the edge
of a wheel can be sufficiently large to initiate longitudinal surface cracking
followed by transverse cracking much before the flexural cracking of the
bottom layer if the mix tensile strength is not adequate at higher temperatures.

Figure 4.1 Different Layers of a Flexible Pavement

4.2.2 KENPAVE

The KENLAYER is a part of KENPAVE computer program

provided solution for an elastic multilayer system under a circular loaded area
and was developed by Huang (1993) at University of Kentucky..
 40

KENLAYER together with input program LAYERINP and graphic program

LGRAPH is a part of a KENPAVE. The KENLAYER computer program
applies to only flexible pavements with no joints or rigid layers. For
pavements with rigid layers, such as PCC and composite pavements, the
KENSLAB program should be used. The backbone of KENLAYER is the
solution for an elastic multilayer system under a critical loaded area. The
solutions are superimposed for multiple wheels, applied iteratively for non-
linear layers, and collected at various times for visco-elastic layers. As a
result, KENLAYER can be applied to layered system under single, dual, dual-
tandem, or dual-tridem wheels with each layer behaving differently, either
linear elastic, nonlinear elastic, or visco-elastic.

Figure 4.2 An n –layer in Cylindrical coordinates

Figure 4.2 shows an n-layer system in cylindrical coordinates, the

nth layer being of infinite thickness. The modulus of elasticity and the Poisson
ratio of the ith layer are Ei and µi, respectively. For axisymmetric problems in
elasticity, a convenient method is to assume a stress function that satisfies the
governing differential equation and the boundary and continuity conditions.
 41

After the stress function is found, the stresses and displacements can be
determined (Timoshenko and Goodier, 1951).

The stress functions for each layer has four constants of integration,
Ai, Bi, Ci, and Di, where the subscript i is the layer number. The equations to
be used in KENLAYER for computing the stresses and displacement in a
multilayer system under a circular loaded are based on Fourth order
differential equations.

4.2.3 MICHPAVE

MICHPAVE version 1.2 for DOS is a computer package for

pavement analysis and design developed by Ronald S. Harichandran and
Gilbert Y. Baladi, Professors of Michigan State University.

MICHPAVE is a user – friendly, non-linear finite element program

for the analysis of flexible pavement. The program computes displacements,
stresses and strains within the pavement due to a single circular wheel load.
Useful design information such as fatigue life and rut depth is also estimated
through empirical equations.

Radial Distance in Radii (Radius of Loaded area a=5.35 inch)

Figure 4.3 Typical finite element mesh

 42

Figure 4.3 shows cross section of three layer system subjected to

circular load with contact radius of 151mm and contact pressure of 560KPa.
All three layers are linear elastic. Layer 1, ranges from 1 to 10 inch has an
elastic modulus of 3000Mpa and a poisons ratio of 0.35. Layer 2, has a
thickness of 20” and an elastic modulus of 183Mpa and a poisons ratio of
0.35. Layer 3, has a thickness of 20” and an elastic modulus of 183Mpa and a
poisons ratio of 0.35. The tensile strain t, at the bottom of the bituminous
layer (layer 1) and the vertical compressive strain v, on the top of the
subgrade layer (layer 3) will be found. Each layer in a pavement cross section
is assumed to extend infinitely in the horizontal directions, and the last layer
is assumed to be infinitely deep. All the pavement layers are assumed to be
fully bonded so that no slip occurs due to applied load. Displacements,
stresses and strains due to a single circular wheel load are computed. Due to
the assumptions used, the problem is reduced to an axisymmetric one.

4.3 VALIDATION

4.3.1 Validation of Results for Linear Pavement Response with

IITPAVE & KENPAVE

Comparisons were made between IITPAVE and KENPAVE linear

elastic pavement analysis software programs, the results of horizontal tensile
strain t, at the bottom of bituminous layer, vertical compressive strain v, at
top of the subgrade and vertical deflection at centre of the loading
emphasizing the effects on the predicted critical pavement responses. In all
the six cases the 150mm BL (40mm+110mm BC&DBM) is taken as a
reference specimen to compare the results achieved from both IITPAVE and
KENPAVE linear elastic program. The detailed comparison of predicted
critical pavement response and their percentage of validation also tabulated in
the Table 4.1.
 43

4.3.1.1 Standard case (Case 1)

The Table 4.1 gives the detailed comparison of predicted critical

pavement response with IITPAVE and KENPAVE.

Table 4.1 Case 1 Pavement response with IITPAVE & KENPAVE

Case 1, Plate 10, 150mm BL, 250mm WMM & 260mm GSB
Percentage of
Pavement Responses IITPAVE KENPAVE
validation
t bottom of the bituminous layer 220.8 221.3 -0.23%
vtop of Subgrade 323.6 325.0 -0.43%
Deflection at Centre of Loading
0.497 0.486 2.21%
(mm)

In standard case contains 150mm BL, 510mm GL (250mm – WMM

& 260mm – GSB) with CBR 6% evaluated with the single wheel set load of
40000N. Pavement response were predicted from the IITPAVE &
KENPAVE, the horizontal tensile strain t, at the bottom of bituminous layer,
vertical compressive strain v , at top of the subgrade were very negligible.
Only the vertical deflection at centre of the loading considerably increases in
KENPAVE with 2.12%

4.3.2 Validation of Results for Nonlinear Pavement Response with

MICHPAVE & KENPAVE

Comparisons were made between MICHPAVE and KENPAVE

nonlinear elastic pavement analysis software programs, the results of
horizontal tensile strain t , at the bottom of bituminous layer, vertical
compressive strain v, at top of the subgrade and vertical deflection at centre
of the loading emphasizing the effects on the predicted critical pavement
 44

responses. In all the six cases the 150mm BL (40mm+110mm BC&DBM) is

taken as a reference specimen to compare the results achieved from both
MICHPAVE and KENPAVE nonlinear elastic program. The detailed
comparison of predicted critical pavement response and their percentage of
validation is tabulated in the Table 4.2.

4.3.2.1 Standard case (Case 1)

The Table 4.2 gives the detailed comparison of predicted critical

pavement response with MICHPAVE and KENPAVE.

Table 4.2 Case 1 Pavement response with MICHPAVE & KENPAVE

Case1, Plate – 10, 150-mm BL, 250-mm WMM & 260-mm GSB
Percentage of
Pavement Responses MICHPAVE KENPAVE
validation
t bottom of the bituminous
229.30 225.40 1.730%
layer
top of Subgrade
v 361.80 360.90 0.25%
Deflection at Centre of
0.579 0.563 2.89%
Loading (mm)

In standard case contains 150mm BL, 510mm GL (250mm – WMM

& 260mm - GSB) with CBR 6% evaluated with the single wheel set load of
40000N. Pavement response were predicted from the MICHPAVE &
KENPAVE, the horizontal tensile strain t, at the bottom of bituminous layer,
vertical compressive strain v , at top of the subgrade were very negligible.
Only the vertical deflection at centre of the loading considerably decreases in
KENPAVE with 2.89%
 45

4.4 DATA COLLECTION

4.4.1 Determination of Resilient Modulus

In the present study the flexible pavement for various pavement

composition presented in the design charts of IRC: 37-2012 has been
considered. For Linear analysis elastic modulus of subgrade correlated with
effective CBR is given by Equation:

MR subgrade = 10 x CBR For CBR <5

= 17.6 x (CBR) 0.64 For CBR > 5 (4.1)

MR granular =0.2 x h0.45 MR subgrade (4.2)

Where, h= thickness of granular sub-base in mm

The elastic modulus of bituminous layer mix type BC & DBM for
VG40 bitumen @ temperature 35°C is 3000MPa and Poisson’s ratio of
granular bases and sub-base is recommended as 0.35 as per IRC:37-2012
code.

4.4.2 Material Properties used in Linear Analysis

Table 4.3 summarise the pavement geometry and assigned material

input properties used in linear analysis for IITPAVE/KENPAVE.
 46

Table 4.3 Material Properties used in Linear Analysis

Thickness
Section E (Mpa) Material Properties
(mm)
BL 30-200 3000 0.35 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
WMM 250 183 0.35 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
Cementitious Base 180 600 0.25 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
GSB 260 183 0.35 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
Cementitious Sub- 180 600 0.25 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
base
Lime Stabilized 300 400 0.35 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
Subgrade CBR-6% ( ) 55 0.35 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
Subgrade CBR-15% ( ) 100 0.35 Isotropic and Linear Elastic

4.4.3 Material Properties used in Nonlinear Analysis

Table 4.4summarise the pavement geometry and assigned material

input properties used in nonlinear analysis for IITPAVE / KENPAVE.

Table 4.4 Material Properties used in Nonlinear Analysis

Thickness E
Section Material Properties
(mm) (Mpa)
BL 30-200 3000 0.35 22.8 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
WMM 250 183 0.35 21.2 Nonlinear: K- Model ( Rada and
Witczak)
K1(Mpa) K2 K0
49.71 0.45 .50 30
Cementitious 180 600 0.25 22.8 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
Base
GSB 260 183 0.35 21.2 Nonlinear: K- Model ( Rada and
Witczak)
K1(Mpa) K2 K0
49.71 0.45 .50 30
 47

Table 4.4 (Continued)

Thickness E
Section Material Properties
(mm) (Mpa)
Cementitious 180 600 0.25 22.8 Isotropic and Linear Elastic
Sub-base
Lime 300 400 0.35 19.6 Nonlinear: K- Model (Thompson
Stabilized and Elliott 1985)
K1 K2 K3 K4 K0 C
(Mpa) (Mpa)
77.86 0.043 1110 178 0.5 0 30
Subgrade ( ) 55 0.35 19.6 Nonlinear: K- Model (Thompson
CBR-6% and Elliott 1985)
K1 K2 K3 K4 K0 C
(Mpa) (Mpa)
22.86 0.043 1110 178 0.8 800 12
Subgrade ( ) 100 0.35 19.6 Nonlinear: K- Model (Thompson
CBR-15% and Elliott 1985)
K1 K2 K3 K4 K0 C
(Mpa) (Mpa)
67.83 0.043 1110 178 0.5 0 30

4.4.4 Examples of Study

Six different combinations of material properties have been

considered for which pavement composition has been suggested in the form
of design charts. Every combination has been supported with illustration to
compare the proposed design thickness given in the charts of IRC: 37-2012
and the combinations are discussed under six cases.

Case 1: Standard Case (Granular base and Granular sub-base)

Case 2: Strong Subgrade (CBR - 15%)

Case 3: Cementitious Base (Strong base with Granular sub-

base)
 48

Case 4: Cementitious Sub-base (Granular base with Strong

sub-base)

Case 5: Lime Stabilization (300mm)

Case 6: Contact Pressure Doubled

4.4.4.1 Case 1: Standard case (Granular base and Granular sub-base)

Standard pavement consisting of bituminous pavement with

granular base and sub-base considered as a 3 layer elastic structure consisting
of bituminous surfacing i.e., BL vary from 30 - 200mm, granular base of
250mm and granular sub-base of 260mm. Subgrade CBR of 6% with contact
pressure of 0.560Mpa as shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4 Case 1: Standard Case (Granular base and Granular sub-
base)

4.4.4.2 Case 2: Strong subgrade (CBR - 15%)

It has a strong subgrade elastic modulus of 1.82 times greater than

the standard case. i.e., CBR of 15% and rest of the pavement composition are
identical with the standard case as shown in Figure 4.5.
 49

Figure 4.5 Case 2: Strong Subgrade (CBR - 15%)

4.4.4.3 Case 3: Cementitious base (Strong base with Granular sub-

base)

The pavement composition consisting of bituminous surfacing i.e.,

BL vary from 30 - 200mm, Cementitious base of 180mm and granular sub-
base of 260mm. Subgrade with CBR of 6% as shown in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6 Case 3: Cementitious Base (Strong base with Granular sub-
base)
 50

4.4.4.4 Case 4: Cementitious sub-base(Granular base with Strong sub-

base)

The pavement composition consisting of bituminous surfacing i.e.,

BC & DBM vary from 30 - 200mm, granular base of 250mm and
Cementitious sub-base of 180mm with subgrade CBR of 6% as shown in
Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7 Case 4: Cementitious Sub-base (Granular base with Strong

sub-base)

4.4.4.5 Case 5: Lime stabilization (300mm)

The pavement composition consisting of bituminous pavement with

granular base, sub-base along with capping layer of 300mm thick with lime
stabilization considered as a 4 layers elastic structure consisting of bituminous
surfacing i.e., BC & DBM vary from 30 - 200mm, granular base of 250mm
and granular sub-base of 260mm with subgrade CBR of 6% as shown in
Figure 4.8.
 51

Figure 4.8 Case 5: Lime Stabilization (300mm)

4.4.4.6 Case 6: Contact pressure doubled

The pavement Composition consisting of bituminous pavement with

granular base and sub-base considered as a 3 layer elastic structure consisting
of bituminous surfacing i.e., BC & DBM vary from 30 - 200mm, granular
base of 250mm and granular sub-base of 260mm with subgrade CBR of 6%
similar to standard case but contact pressure Doubled as shown in Figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9 Case 6: Contact Pressure Doubled

 52

4.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

4.5.1 Linear Analysis

Figure 4.10 shows the cross section of a three-layer system

subjected to a circular load with a constant radius of 150/106mm and a
constant pressure of 0.56MPa/1.12MPa. Layer-1 has an elastic modulus of
3000MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 for cases 1 to 6. Layer-2 has an elastic
modulus of 183MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 for cases 1,2, 4, 5 & 6.
Similarly case 3 has an elastic modulus of 600MPa & and a Poisson’s ratio of
0.25. Layer-3 has an elastic modulus of 183MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35
for cases 1, 2, 3,5 & 6. Likewise case 4 has an elastic modulus of 600MPa &
and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25. Layer-4 has an elastic modulus of 110MPa and
Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 for case5 only. Subgrade layer are infinitive and CBR
for cases 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 is 6% and in case 2 the CBR is 15%.

Figure 4.10 Cross section of three layer system

 53

4.5.2 Nonlinear Analysis

The same pavement section shown in Figure 4.10 for linear analysis
was used for nonlinear analysis by considering Layer-1 to be linear with the
same elastic modulus and Poisson ratio. Layer-2 to be nonlinear granular base
with constants of K1=49.71MPa, K2=0.4, K0=0.5, Density ( )=21.2kN/m3 and
PHI=30 for cases 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 and similar to linear elastic modulus for case
3. Layer-3 to be nonlinear granular base with constants of K1 = 49.71MPa, K2
= 0.45 K0=0.5, =21.2kN/m3 and PHI=30 for Cases 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 and
similarto linear elastic modulus for case 4. Layer-4, has nonlinear lime
stabilized subgrade with material constant of K1=77.86MPa at the break point
at the bilinear curve as indicated in Figure 1, is a good indicator of resilient
behaviour while other constants K2, K3& K4.Co-efficient of earth pressure at
rest K0=0.5, Cohesion = 0, PHI =30 and Density ( )=19.6kN/m3 for case 5
only. Subgrade layer are infinitive and CBR for cases 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 is 6% and
in case 2 the CBR is 15% has nonlinear subgrade with material constant of
K1=22.86MPa & 67.83Mpa at the break point at the bilinear curve as
indicated in Figure 3.3 , is a good indicator of resilient behaviour while other
constants K2, K3&K4. Co-efficient of earth pressure at rest K0=0.8 & 0.5,
Cohesion = 800 & 0, PHI = 12 & 30 and Density ( ) =19.6kN/m3.