Mohamed Elshaer, MS.

c
PhD Student, Cairo University, Egypt

Email: elshaermh@gmail.com
Outline
 Introduction .
 Background on Stress and strain in flexible
pavements.
 Review of Multi-Layer Computer Program and
comparison between them.
 Distress analysis for Flexible Pavement.
 New Approaches for stresses analysis.
 Everstress Software & KENLAYER Program.
 Introduction
 The first asphalt road was constructed in the US
about 100 years ago in New Jersey.

 There are currently about 2.2 million miles of

roadway surfaced by asphalt concrete Pavements
(Huang, 1993).

 Flexible pavements are made up of bituminous and

granular Materials .
 A typical flexible pavement section can be idealized as a

multi-layered system Consisting of asphalt layers resting

on soil layers having different material properties

 Methods of designing flexible pavements can be

classified into several categories :

Empirical method with or without a soil test, limiting

shear failure, and the mechanistic empirical method

(Huang, 1993).
Currently, the design of flexible pavements is largely

empirical (Helwany et al, 1998; Huang, 1993). However,

mechanistic design is becoming more prevalent, which

requires the accurate evaluation of stresses and strains

in pavements due to wheel and axle loads.

Stress
 Force per unit area

Load P
s = =
Area A

 Units: MPa, psi, ksi

 Types: bearing, shearing , axial

Strain
 Ratio of deformation caused by load to the original
length of material

e = Change in Length DL
Original Length =
L
 Units: Dimensionless
Stiffness
s
 Stiffness = stress/strain =
e
Stress, s

 For elastic materials :

E o Modulus of Elasticity

1 o Elastic Modulus

o Young’s Modulus

Strain, e
Stress vs. Strain of a Material
in Compression
Poisson’s Ratio
• Since the mid-1960s, pavement researchers have
been refining mechanistically based design methods.
• While the mechanics of layered systems are well
developed, there remains much work to be done in the
areas of material characterization and failure criteria.
• The horizontal strain is used to predict and control
fatigue cracking in the surface layer.
• With respect to asphalt concrete pavements, the
current failure criteria used are the horizontal tensile
strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete layer and
the vertical strain at the top of the subgrade layer .
• While test methods and failure criteria for
predicting fatigue cracking are maturing.
• There has been very little effort placed on the
refinement of the subgrade failure criteria.
• The development of the current subgrade failure
criteria, which limits the amount of vertical strain on top
of the subgrade, is based primarily on limited data from
the AASHO Road Test (Dormon and Metcalf 1965).
• Similarly the vertical strain at the top of the subgrade is
used to predict and control permanent deformation
(rutting) of the pavement structure caused by shear
deformation in the upper subgrade.
In general, there are 3 approaches that can be used
to compute the stresses and strains in pavement
structures:
 Layered elastic methods.
 Two-dimensional (2D) finite element modeling.
 Three-dimensional (3D) finite element modeling.
 The layered elastic approach :
is the most popular and easily understood procedure.
• In this method, the system is divided into an arbitrary
number of horizontal layers (Vokas et al. 1985).
• The thickness of each individual layer and material
properties may vary from one layer to the next.
• But in any one layer the material is assumed to be
homogeneous and linearly elastic.
• Those shortcomings make it difficult to simulate realistic
scenarios.
• Although the layered elastic method is more easily
implemented than finite element methods, it still has
severe limitations: materials must be homogenous and
linearly elastic within each layer, and the wheel loads
applied on the surface must be axi-symmetric.
• For example, it is very hard to rationally
accommodate material non-linearity and incorporate
spatially varying tire contact pressures, which can
significantly affect the behavior of the pavement
systems (de Beer et al. 1997; Bensalem et al, 2000).
For 2D finite element analysis :
• plane strain or axis-symmetric conditions are
generally assumed.
• Compared to the layered elastic method, the practical
applications of this method are greater, as it can
rigorously handle material anisotropy, material
nonlinearity, and a variety of boundary conditions
(Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 1988).
• Unfortunately, 2D models can not accurately capture
non-uniform tire contact pressure and multiple wheel
loads.
For 3D finite element analysis :
• To overcome the limitations inherent in 2D
modeling approaches, 3D finite element models are
becoming more widespread.
•With 3D FE analysis, we can study the response of
flexible pavements under spatially varying tire
pavement contact pressures.
Deflection (D)
 Change in length.
 Deformation.
 Units: mm, mils (0.001 in).

D
 Background on Stress and strain
in flexible pavements :

 Pavement structural analysis includes three main

issues: material characterization , theoretical model
for structural response, and environmental
conditions.
 Three aspects of the material behavior are typically
considered for pavement analysis (Yoder and Witczak,
1975):
• The relationship between the stress and strain (linear
or nonlinear).
• The time dependency of strain under a constant load
(viscous or non-viscous).
• The degree to which the material can recover strain
after stress removal (elastic or plastic).
 Theoretical response models for the pavement are
typically based on a continuum mechanics approach.
 The model can be a closed-formed analytical solution
or a numerical approach.
 Various theoretical response models have been
developed with different levels of sophistication from
analytical solutions such as Boussinesq’s equations
based on elasticity to three-dimensional dynamic
finite element models.
 Environmental conditions :

• Can have a great impact on pavement performance.

 Two of the most important environmental factors
included in pavement structural analysis are
temperature and moisture variation.
Frost action, the combination of high moisture
content and low temperature can lead to both frost
heave during freezing and then loss of subgrade
support during thaw significantly weakening the
structural capacity of the pavement leading to
structural damage and even premature failures.
In addition, both the diurnal temperature cycle and
moisture gradient have been shown experimentally
and analytically to cause significant curling and
warping stresses in the concrete slab of rigid
pavements (NHI, 2002).
This study will focus on the second issue:

 The theoretical model for pavement analysis.

Environmental conditions are not considered in
the pavement model and the pavement materials
are assumed to be linear elastic.
 Pavement Response models

 Flexible and rigid pavements respond to loads in very

different ways. Consequently, different theoretical
models have been developed for flexible and rigid
pavements.
Structural Response Models
 Different analysis methods for AC and PCC .

AC PCC Slab

Base
Subgrade
Subgrade
•Layered system behavior. • Slab action predominates.
• All layers carry part of load. • Slab carries most load.
Distribution of Wheel Load
Wheel
Load

Hot-mix asphalt
Base

Subbase

Natural soil
Pavement Responses Under Load

Axle
Load

Surface e SUR d SUR

Base/Subbase e SUB
Subgrade Soil
Response models for flexible pavements
Single Layer Model :
 Boussinesq (1885) was the first to examine the
pavement's response to a load.
 A series of equations was proposed by Boussinesq to
determine stresses, strains, and deflections in a
homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic half space with
modulus E and Poisson’s ration ν subjected to a static
point load P .
 As can be seen, the elastic modulus does not
influence any of the stresses and the vertical normal
stress z σ and shear stresses are independent of the
elastic parameters.
 Boussinesq's equations were originally developed for
a static point load.
 Later, Boussinesq's equations were further extended
by other researchers for a uniformly distributed load
by integration (Newmark, 1947; Sanborn and Yoder,
1967). Although Boussinesq’s equations are seldom
used today as the main design theory.
 His theory is still considered a useful tool for
pavement analysis and it provides the basis for
several methods that are being currently used.

 Yoder and Witczak (1975) suggested that Boussinesq

theory can be used to estimate subgrade stresses,
strains, and deflections when the modulus of base
and the subgrade are close.
 Pavement surface modulus, the equivalent “weighted
mean modulus” calculated from the measured
surface deflections based on Boussinesq’s equations,
can be used as an overall indicator of the stiffness of
pavement (Ullidtz, 1998).
One-Layer System
One-Layer System(Cylindrical Coordinates)
Formulas for Calculating Stresses
Burmister’s Two-layer Elastic Models :

 Pavement systems typically have a layered structure

with stronger/stiffer materials on top instead of a
homogeneous mass as assumed in Boussinesq’s
theory.

 Therefore, a better theory is needed to analyze the

behavior of pavements.
 Burmister (1943) was the first to develop solutions to
calculate stresses, strains and displacement in two-
layered flexible pavement systems (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 Burmister’s Two Layer System (Burmister, 1943)

The basic assumptions for all Burmister’s models
include:
1.The pavement system consists of several layers; each
layer is homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic
with an elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio (Hooke’s
law).
2. Each layer has a uniform thickness and infinite
dimensions in all horizontal directions, resting on a
semi-infinite elastic half-space.
3. Before the application of external loads, the
pavement system is free of stresses and
deformations.

4. All the layers are assumed to be weightless.

5. The dynamic effects are assumed to be negligible.

6. Either of the two cases of interface continuity

boundary conditions given below is satisfied (Fig. 1.2)
 fully bonded: at the layer interfaces, the normal
stresses, shear stresses, vertical displacements, and
radial displacements are assumed to be the same.
There is a discontinuity in the radial stresses r σ since
they must be determined by the respective elastic
moduli of the layers.
 frictionless interface: the continuity of shear stress
and radial displacement is replaced by zero shear
stress at each side of the interface.
Figure 1.2 Boundary and Continuity Conditions for Burmister’s Two Layer System
 Burmister derived the stress and displacement
equations for two-layer pavement systems from
the equations of elasticity for the three-
dimensional problem solved by Love (1923) and
Timeshenko (1934).
 To simplify the problem, Burmister assumed
Poisson's ratio to be 0.5.
 He found the stresses and deflections were
dependent on the ratio of the moduli of subgrade
to the pavement (E 2/E 1).
 The ratio of the radius of bearing area to the
thickness of the pavement layer (r/h 1). For design
application purpose, equations for surface deflections
were also proposed:

 Flexible load bearing:

W = 1. 5 pr/ E2 * Fw

 Rigid load bearing:

W = 1. 18 pr/ E2 * Fw
where:
W: the surface deflection at the center of a circular
uniform loading .

p: pressure of the circular bearing .

E2 : elastic modulus of the subgrade layer .

Fw : deflection factor .

Influence curves of deflection factor were proposed for

a practical range of values of these two ratios :
1. Displacement coefficient IDz
2. Vertical stress influence coefficient sz/p, for a=h
Multi-layer Elastic Models :
 To attain a closer approximation of an actual
pavement system, Burmister extended his solutions
to a three-layer system (Burmister, 1945) and derived
analytical expressions for the stresses and
displacements.
 Acum and Fox (1951) presented an extensive tabular
summary of normal and radial stresses in three-layer
systems at the intersection of the axis of symmetry
with the interfaces.
 The variables considered in their work were the
radius of the uniformly loaded circular area, the
thickness of the two top layers, and the elastic moduli
of the three layers.
 Jones (1962) extended Acum and Fox’s work to cover
a much wider range of the same parameters.
 Peattie (1962) presented Jones’s table in graphical
form and brought convenience in analysis and design
of pavement for engineers before the modern
computer was widely available.
 The above cited research considered the pavement to
be either a 2 or 3 layer system with a concentrated
normal force or a uniformly distributed normal load.
 Therefore, vehicle thrust (tangential loads) and non-
uniform loads were not considered.
 Poisson’s ratio of 0.5 was assumed in most cases.
 Schiffman (1962) developed a general solution to the
analysis of stresses and displacements in an N-layer
elastic system.
 His solution provides an analytical theory for the
determination of stresses and displacements of a
multi-layer elastic system subjected to non-uniform
normal surface loads, tangential surface loads, rigid,
semi-rigid and slightly inclined plate bearing loads.
 Schiffman presented the equations in an asymmetric
cylindrical coordinate system (Figure 1.3). Each layer
has its separate properties.
including elastic modulus (Ei), Poisson’s ratio (νi), and
thickness (hi).
Figure 1.3 Element of Stress in a Multi-layer
Elastic System (Schiffman, 1962)
Figure 1.4 N-layer Elastic System (Schiffman, 1962)
Advantages and Disadvantages of Layered
Elastic Analysis
Advantages
1. high-performance computers
2. elastic method can be extended to
multiple-layer system with any
number of layers
3. Layered elastic models are widely
accepted and easily implemented
4. accurately approximate the response
of the flexible pavement systems.
5. each layer is homogenous .
Disadvantages
1. This assumption makes it difficult to
analyze layered systems consisting of
non-linear such as untreated sub-
bases and sub-grade angular
materials.
2. This difficulty can be overcome by
using the finite element method
3. All wheel loads applied on the top of
the asphalt concrete have to be axi-
symmetric which is not true for actual
wheel loads.
Multi-Layer Computer Program
Computer Notes
programs
KENLAYER Can be applied to layered systems under single, dual, dual-tandem
wheel loads with each layer's material properties being linearly elastic
, non-linearly elastic or visco-elastic.
Based on the computed stresses .
ELSYM5 was developed by FHWA to analyze pavement structures up to five
different layers under 20 multiple wheel loads (Kopperman et al.,
1986).
CHEVRON was developed by the Chevron research company and is based on
linear elastic theory. The original program allowed up to five structural
layers with one circular load area (Michelow, 1963). Revised versions
now accept more than 10 layers and up to 10 wheel loads (NHI, 2002).
EVERSTRS This software is capable of determining the stresses, strains, and
deflections in a layered elastic system (semi-infinite) under a circular
surface loads. It can be used to analyze up to 5 layers, 20 loads, and 50
evaluation points .

WESLEA is a multi-layer linear elastic program developed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (Van Cauwelaert et al.,
1989). The current versions have the capability of analyzing more than
ten layers with more than ten loads .

ILLI-PAVE Several numerical programs have been developed to model flexible

pavement systems. Raad and Figueroa (1980) developed a 2-D finite
element program.
Nonlinear constitutive relationships were used for pavement materials
and the Mohr-Coulomb theory was used as the failure criterion for
subgrade soil in ILLI-PAVE.
DAMA can be used to analyze a multiple-layered elastic pavement structure
under a single- or dual-wheel load The number of layers can not exceed
five.
In DAMA, the sub-grade and the asphalt layers are considered to be
linearly elastic and the untreated sub-base to be non-linear.
MnPAVE MnPAVE is a computer program that combines known empirical
relationships with a representation of the physics and mechanics behind
flexible pavement behavior .
The mechanistic portions of the program rely on finding the tensile
strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer, the compressive strain at the
top of the subgrade, and the maximum principal stress in the middle of
the aggregate base layer .
BISAR BISAR 3.0 is capable of calculating :
Comprehensive stress and strain profiles.
Deflections.
Horizontal forces .
Slip between the pavement layers via a shear spring compliance at the
interface.
CIRCLY5 CIRCLY software is for the mechanistic analysis and design of road
pavements.
CIRCLY uses state-of-the-art material properties and performance
models and is continuously being developed and extended.
CIRCLY has many other powerful features, including selection of:
 cross-anisotropic and isotropic material properties;
 fully continuous (rough) or fully frictionless (smooth) layer interfaces.
 a comprehensive range of load types, including vertical, horizontal,
torsional, etc.
 non-uniform surface contact stress distributions.
 automatic sub-layering of unbound granular materials.

MICHPAVE is a user-friendly, non-linear finite element program for the analysis of

flexible pavements. The program computes displacements, stresses and
strains within the pavement due to a single circular wheel load.
Typical input :
• Material properties: modulus and m
• Layer thickness
• Loading conditions: magnitude of load, radius, or
contact pressure.

Typical output :
• Stress σ
• Strain ε
• Deflection Δ
Example AC Fatigue Criterion
 Problem No. 1

Relation bet. Depth & Hz. tensile strain which predict the Fatigue Cracking
 Problem No. 3

Relation bet. Depth & Hz. tensile strain which predict the Fatigue Cracking
Example Subgrade Strain Criterion for Rutting
 Problem No. 1

Relation bet. Depth & Vl. Comp. strain which predict the Rutting
 Problem No. 3

Relation bet. Depth & Vl. Comp. strain which predict the Rutting
Example Pavement (6” Base)
Example Pavement (10” Base)
Example Pavement (14” Base)
New Approaches for Stresses Analysis

Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD):

Deflections measured from (FWD) field were used to

approximate layer moduli of all pavement sections.
Measurement of Surface Deflection
NDT
Load NDT Sensors
 Typical FWD Equipment
Dynatest KUAB

JILS
Backcalculation
Typical Pavement Case
NDT Load Layer
r Characteristics

Surface E1 m1 D1

Base /
E2 m2 D2
Subbase
Subgrade E3 m3
Soil 
Backcalculation Programs
 BISDEF MODCOMP
 ELSDEF BOUSDEF
 CHEVDEF ELMOD
 MODULUS EVERCALC
 COMDEF ILLI-BACK
 WESDEF
KENPAVE Software
 Four separate programs
 LAYERINP
 KENLAYER
 SLABSINP
 KENSLABS
 Program installation - CD
Everstress Software
 Reference: WSDOT Pavement Guide, Volume 3,
“Pavement Analysis Computer Software and Case
Studies,” June 1999. Specific interest is on Section 1.0
“Everstress—Layered Elastic Analysis.”
 Download from WSDOT
 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/pavement/pave_tools.htm
Everstress Software
 This software is capable of determining the
stresses, strains, and deflections in a layered elastic
system (semi-infinite) under a circular surface
loads. It can be used to analyze up to 5 layers, 20
loads, and 50 evaluation points.
 Material properties can be either stress dependent
or not.
 E = K1()K2
Everstress Software
 Files
 Prepare Input Data: This menu option allows creation of
a new file or start with an existing file.
 Analyze Pavement: This menu option performs the
actual analysis and requires an input data file.
 Print/View Results: This menu option lets the user view
the output on the screen or print.
Everstress (1)—Click on File to get started
Everstress (2)—Change from Metric to US Units
Everstress (3)—Input Layer Thicknesses and
Material Properties
Everstress (4)—Load Locations and Pavement
Response Evaluation Locations (points)
Everstress (5)—Save Data File
Everstress (6)—Output File
Everstress (7)—try the Everstrs.out output file to
view typical results
Everstress (7)—try the Everstrs.out output file to
view typical results
x
6” 6”

y HMA 3.1 inches

1 Stabilized Base 6.0 inches

Subbase 12.0 inches

Subgrade

4
Everstress (8)—Class Example
Everstress (9)—Class Example
Everstress (10)—Class Example
Everstress (11)—Class Example
Everstress (12)—Class Example
Everstress (13)—Class Example
Everstress (14)—Class Example
Everstress (15)—Class Example
Everstress (16)—Class Example
Everstress (17)—Class Example
Everstress (18)—Class Example
Everstress (19)—Class Example
KENLAYER Program
 Solution for an elastic multilayer system under a
circular load; superposition principles were used for
multiple wheels
 Linear elastic, nonlinear elastic, or viscoelastic
 Damage analysis up to 12 periods
Thank You for Your Attention!