Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Flexible Pavement Modelling Using Kenlayer: Dr. Amin Chegenizadeh
Flexible Pavement Modelling Using Kenlayer: Dr. Amin Chegenizadeh
Flexible Pavement Modelling Using Kenlayer: Dr. Amin Chegenizadeh
Kenlayer
Dr. Amin Chegenizadeh*
Research Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of
Technology, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, Western Australia 6102, Australia
Corresponding author: amin.chegenizadeh@curtin.edu.au
Mahdi Keramatikerman
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of
Technology, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, Western Australia 6102, Australia
ABSTRACT
Road is one of the main infrastructures that play a crucial role in economy development of
countries. Pavement engineering is a key factor to design and construct optimum roads. Flexible
pavement is one of the most applicable method in road construction that is made in a series of
layers. The construction of this type of pavement is very fast and easy to repair and have a greater
resistance in a wide range of temperature and additional layer always could be added at any time.
There is a various modelling software to analyse flexible pavement structure. Kenlayer is one of
the most effective application in analysing flexible pavement engineering. In this paper, the well-
known FEM package of kenlayer was used to evaluate flexible pavement deflection and stress
distribution. In this research, the effect of different parameters such as layer moduli and poisson’s
ratio were changed and the stress and deflection were compared.
KEYWORDS: flexible pavement; kenlayer; deflection; stress distribution; layer moduli;
poisson’s ratio
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in flexible pavement engineering studies. For
instance, a study on interaction of the expansive soil with repetitive traffic load was carried out. The
results showed that the strength of the expansive soil was decreased due to increase in water content
of expansive soil [1]. In another study effect of industrial waste such as waste plastics and waste tyre
rubber in clay/flyash as a subbase course investigated on a sandy subgrade and results indicated that
clay reinforced waste tyre rubber provide the maximum carrying load capacity [2]. In a similar study
in using waste materials stabilised with lime as subbase course, the variation of the rutting depth on
subgrade layer was investigated the results showed that it leads to increase the lifetime of the asphalt
pavement [3]. Degradation of a flexible pavement using CASTEM application as a finite element
model by considering different parameters in rutting depth was investigated by another researchers
[4]. In another case, a study of application on two types of industrial waste namely bagasse ash and
lime sludge revealed that could increase strength of the subgrade and cost effective [5]. In a flexible
- 2467 -
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2468
pavement study strength property of the shale was increased using cement and lime [6]. In a
numerical study, response of the asphalt cement pavement reinforced with geogrid was investigated
and revealed that the highest value of the tension stress absorption increase when the geogrid located
between asphalt and base layer [7]. An effective cost analysis of the flyash in constructing rural road
revealed in a rigid pavement investigation [8]. Application finite element models in pavement
engineering is very common. Kenlayar is a very popular application that has been used in many
studies [9-16]. For instance, rutting and fatigue behaviour of the flexible pavement was performed
using Kenlayer application [17]. In another study using Kenlayer in a flexible pavement, effect of
surface layer thickness and modulus elasticity has been investigated [18].
This study aims to investigate effect of layer moduli and poisson’s ratio and the stress and deflection
were compared using kenlayer application.
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
Generally, pavement structures categorises in two group namely flexible and rigid pavement
structures. The flexible pavements usually reflect the deformation to the underneath layers. This sort
of pavements usually made with asphalt and does not have reinforcement materials. The design of the
flexible pavement design usually stresses distribute based on their characteristics of each layers. The
flexible strength of the flexible pavements is so negligible. The vertical stresses transfer to the
underneath layers via contact points which are granules. The maximum compressive stresses directly
apply to the surface under the wheel’s vehicle and is equal to contact pressure. The stresses decreases
in lower layers due to distribution the loads to the larger area. Therefore, the flexible pavement is
constructed in a series of layers which the top layer has the highest resistant for compressive stress.
The inferior materials such as industrial waste could be applied in lower layers as they do not tolerate
the compressive loads directly [19].
KENLAYER
Kenlayer is a pavement engineering program which is used to analyse flexible pavement
developed by Huang (1993) at university of Kentucky [20]. This program is designated to work in an
elastic multilayer system under a circular loaded area. Kenlayer could be applied in multilayer
systems under single or dual wheel while each layer have a different response like linear elastic,
nonlinear elastic or viscoelastic. This application is designed to perform damage analysis too [20].
METHODOLOGY
In this study to investigate effect of poisson’s ratio and pavement deflections flexible pavement
parameters such as tolerance for integration, limit of integration cycles, number of period per year,
number of load group and computing code were defined and input to the kenlayer application and
analysis was performed. Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart of this study.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2469
Flexible Pavement
input parameters are
defined
Kenlayer is used a
numerical tool to
analyse the system
According to Table 2, the acquired vertical displacement for surface layer with 5 cm thickness is
equal to 0.003 cm. The maximum value for vertical stress is 80 kPa and belongs to 0.00 vertical
coordinate in point 1 and 2. The recorded maximum and minimum values for major stress amongst
0.00 vertical coordinate for 10 different points is equal to 882.663 kPa and 700.678 kPa. The values
for vertical coordinate at 6 and 14 cm are much lesser than the values at 0.00 vertical coordinate.
Similar to two previous tables, Table number 3 with 7 cm surface layer have an almost similar
trend. Vertical displacement for this tested specimen is equal to 0.002 cm. Major stress for 0.00
vertical coordinate amongst 10 different points is equal to 546.822 kPa and belongs to point number
3. The maximum recorded values for intermediate stress values belongs to 0.00 vertical coordinate at
point number 3 that is equal to 526.768 kPa.
Table 4: Output for Poisson’s ratio changes (0. 5 for surface layer)
Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.003 80.000 845.405 23.826 814.204
1 6.00 0.003 1.378 1.419 0.261 0.294
14.00 0.003 1.099 1.117 -0.434 -0.316
0.00 0.003 80.000 882.663 25.736 854.735
2 6.00 0.003 1.397 1.425 0.283 0.294
14.00 0.003 1.115 1.130 -0.452 -0.328
0.00 0.003 0.000 843.794 18.461 812.858
3 6.00 0.003 1.398 1.423 0.296 0.300
14.00 0.003 1.127 1.140 -0.457 -0.330
0.00 0.003 0.000 783.760 12.301 743.383
4 6.00 0.003 1.320 1.336 0.269 0.361
14.00 0.003 1.129 1.136 -0.434 -0.285
0.00 0.003 0.000 788.030 11.601 740.769
5 6.00 0.003 1.343 1.347 0.282 0.365
14.00 0.003 1.144 1.147 -0.453 -0.292
0.00 0.003 0.000 838.169 15.377 787.591
6 6.00 0.003 1.348 1.349 0.287 0.366
14.00 0.003 1.149 1.151 -0.460 -0.295
0.00 0.003 0.000 751.991 8.762 682.125
7 6.00 0.003 1.246 1.259 0.266 0.384
14.00 0.003 1.123 1.127 -0.420 -0.227
0.00 0.003 0.000 771.667 9.179 695.648
8 6.00 0.003 1.265 1.269 0.272 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.136 1.138 -0.438 -0.230
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2474
Table 5 illustrates the variation of the vertical displacement, vertical stresses for Poisson ratio of
0.45. Vertical displacement value for a Poisson’s ratio with rate for 0.45 is equal to 0.003cm. The
maximum values for major, minor and intermediate stresses belong to 6.00 com vertical coordinates
point number 2 amongst 10 different points which are equal to 768.591 kPa, 25.736 kPa and 734.594
kPa.
Table 5: Output for Poisson’s ratio changes (0.45 for surface layer)
Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.003 80.000 736.203 23.826 697.635
1 6.00 0.003 1.510 1.556 0.273 0.310
14.00 0.003 1.190 1.210 -0.498 -0.364
0.00 0.003 80.000 768.591 25.736 734.594
2 6.00 0.003 1.531 1.562 0.298 0.311
14.00 0.003 1.208 1.224 -0.520 -0.378
0.00 0.003 0.000 733.966 18.461 695.963
3 6.00 0.003 1.530 1.558 0.312 0.317
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.235 -0.525 -0.381
0.00 0.003 0.000 682.072 12.301 631.048
4 6.00 0.003 1.437 1.456 0.280 0.386
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.228 -0.498 -0.327
0.00 0.003 0.000 687.167 11.601 627.287
5 6.00 0.003 1.463 1.468 0.295 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.237 1.241 -0.521 -0.336
0.00 0.003 0.000 732.697 15.377 668.480
6 6.00 0.003 1.470 1.470 0.301 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.243 1.246 -0.529 -0.340
0.00 0.003 0.000 659.430 8.762 569.513
7 6.00 0.003 1.349 1.365 0.276 0.413
14.00 0.003 1.212 1.217 -0.482 -0.259
0.00 0.003 0.000 678.092 9.179 580.254
8 6.00 0.003 1.370 1.375 0.283 0.420
14.00 0.003 1.227 1.229 -0.503 -0.263
0.00 0.003 0.000 684.840 9.316 584.286
9 6.00 0.003 1.378 1.379 0.286 0.423
14.00 0.003 1.233 1.233 -0.510 -0.265
0.00 0.003 0.000 611.153 6.312 534.705
10 6.00 0.003 1.318 1.332 0.275 0.421
14.00 0.003 1.206 1.210 -0.472 -0.226
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2475
Table 6 illustrates the variation of the vertical stress, major, minor and intermediate against
various vertical coordinates at different point numbers for a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35. It could be seen
from the below table that the maximum rate of vertical stress is 80 kPa for 0.00 vertical coordinate
and at point number of 1 and 2. The maximum rate of major, minor and intermediate stresses which is
located at 0.00 vertical coordinate at the first point are equal to 849.123 kPa, 111.578 kPa and
799.503 kPa respectively.
Table 6: Output for Poisson’s ratio changes (0.35 for surface layer)
Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.003 80.000 849.123 111.578 799.503
1 6.00 0.003 1.510 1.556 0.273 0.310
14.00 0.003 1.190 1.210 -0.498 -0.364
0.00 0.003 80.000 814.648 63.983 780.707
2 6.00 0.003 1.531 1.562 0.298 0.311
14.00 0.003 1.208 1.224 -0.520 -0.378
0.00 0.003 0.000 809.740 45.555 764.674
3 6.00 0.003 1.530 1.558 0.312 0.317
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.234 -0.525 -0.381
0.00 0.003 0.000 704.967 13.456 577.299
4 6.00 0.003 1.437 1.456 0.280 0.387
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.228 -0.498 -0.327
0.00 0.003 0.000 710.121 -5.101 569.054
5 6.00 0.003 1.463 1.468 0.295 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.237 1.241 -0.521 -0.336
0.00 0.003 0.000 711.800 -5.915 575.004
6 6.00 0.003 1.470 1.470 0.301 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.243 1.246 -0.529 -0.339
0.00 0.003 0.000 617.736 -3.545 420.810
7 6.00 0.003 1.349 1.364 0.276 0.413
14.00 0.003 1.212 1.217 -0.482 -0.259
0.00 0.003 0.000 643.773 -0.848 430.069
8 6.00 0.003 1.370 1.375 0.283 0.420
14.00 0.003 1.227 1.229 -0.503 -0.263
0.00 0.003 0.000 656.122 3.280 438.271
9 6.00 0.003 1.378 1.379 0.286 0.423
14.00 0.003 1.233 1.233 -0.510 -0.265
0.00 0.003 0.000 600.106 0.972 390.462
10 6.00 0.003 1.318 1.332 0.275 0.421
14.00 0.003 1.206 1.210 -0.472 -0.226
1800
1630.757
1600
1503.622
1400
1200
1000
600
505.552 485.548
400
200
111.578
43.213 23.826 23.826 23.826
13.687
0
Thickness 3 cm Thickness 5 cm Thickness 7 cm PR 0.5 PR 0.45 PR 0.35
Figure 3: Comparison of the major, minor and intermediate stresses for 0.00 vertical
coordinate at point number one
Figure 4 illustrates the major, intermediate and the minor stresses of the 0.00 vertical coordinate
at point number six. Similar to Figure 2, the maximum values of major and intermediate stresses
belong to the specimen with 3 cm thickness which 1561.702 kPa and 1460.661 kPa respectively and
the lowest values belong to specimen with 7 cm thickness with 489.065 kPa and 469.876 kPa
respectively.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2477
1800
1600 1561.702
1460.661
1400
1200
1000
838.169 838.169
787.591 787.591
800 732.697 711.8
668.48
600 575.004
489.065 469.876
400
200
Figure 4: Comparison of the major, minor and intermediate stresses for 0.00 vertical
coordinate at point number six
CONCLUSION
Road is one of the most important infrastructures in each country. Pavement engineering is a
crucial part of road design and construction that directly deals with efficiency and cost effectiveness
of these vital veins. In this study, Kenlayer as a finite element application was used to examine the
effect of surface layer change and position ratio in the displacement and stress distribution of a given
pavement system. The results were compared and analysed.
According to analysis, the rate of vertical stresses for 0.00 vertical coordinates at all ten points
have been the same. Generally, the results showed that the values of major and intermediate stresses
at 0.00 vertical coordinates for specimens with 3 cm thickness have the highest values and the
specimens with 7 cm thickness showed the lowest values of the major and intermediate stresses.
Acquired rates of minor stresses showed much lesser values in compare with major and intermediate
stresses.
REFERENCES
[1] Harimurti, H.S., L. Djakfar, and A. Wicaksono, “Interaction of Flexible Pavement and
Expansive Soil in the Process of Pavement Damage”. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2014(19): 8609-8614. Available at ejge.com.
[2] Prasad, D., G.P. Raju, and M.A. Kumar, “Utilization of industrial waste in flexible pavement
construction.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2009 (13 D) 1-12 . Available at
ejge.com.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2478
[3] Khabiri, M. M., “The Effect of Stabilized Subbase Containing Waste Construction Materials
on Reduction of Pavement Rutting Depth.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2010(15): 1211-1219. Available at ejge.com.
[4] Tchemou, G., et al., “Prediction of Flexible Pavement Degradation: Application to Rutting in
Cameroonian Highways.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2011(16): 1301-
1319. Available at ejge.com.
[5] Sabat, A.K., “Utilization of bagasse ash and lime sludge for construction of flexible pavements
in expansive soil areas.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2012 (17): 1037-
1046. Available at ejge.com.
[6] Joel, M. and I. Agbede, “Cement stabilization of igumale shale lime admixture for use as
flexible pavement construction material.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2010 (15): 1661-1673. Available at ejge.com.
[7] Moayedi, H., et al., “Effect of geogrid reinforcement location in paved road improvement.”
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2009(14). Available at ejge.com.
[8] Basak, S., A.K. Bhattacharya, and S.L. Paira, “Utilization of fly ash in rural road construction
in India and its cost effectiveness.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2004. 436.
Available at ejge.com.
[9] Ziari, H. and M.M. Khabiri, Interface condition influence on prediction of flexible pavement
life. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2007. 13(1): p. 71-76.
[10] Loulizi, A., et al., Measurement of vertical compressive stress pulse in flexible pavements:
representation for dynamic loading tests. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2002(1816): p. 125-136.
[11] Gedafa, D.S., Comparison of flexible pavement performance using kenlayer and hdm-4.
Midwest Transportation Consortium, Ames, Iowa, 2006.
[12] Ameri, M. and A. Khavandi, Development of Mechanistic-Empirical Flexible Pavement
Design in Iran. Journal of Applied Sciences, 2009. 9(2): p. 354-359.
[13] Wang, J.-N., C.-K. Yang, and T.-Y. Luo, Mechanistic analysis of asphalt pavements, using
superpave shear tester and Hamburg wheel-tracking device. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001(1767): p. 102-110.
[14] Parker, N.A. and S. Hussain Ph D. Pavement damage and road pricing. In Transportation
Research Board 85th Annual Meeting. 2006.
[15] Zuo, G., R. Meier, and E. Drumm, Effect of temperature averaging on predicted pavement life.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002(1809): p.
119-125.
[16] Ayan, V., Assessment of recycled aggregates for use in unbound subbase of highway
pavement. 2011, Kingston University.
[17] Abdel-Motaleb, M., Flexible pavement components for optimum performance in rutting and
fatigue. Zagazig Univ J, 2009.
[18] Srikanth, M.R., Study on Effect of Surface Course Thickness and Modulus of Elasticity on
Performance of Flexible Pavement using a Software Tool. International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology, 2015. Volume. 4 (Issue. 08, August - 2015).
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2479
© 2016 ejge