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

net/publication/223356759

Dynamic response of flexible pavement submitted by impulsive loading

Article  in  Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering · May 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.09.001

CITATIONS READS

39 610

3 authors, including:

Benoit Picoux Christophe Petit

University of Limoges University of Limoges
53 PUBLICATIONS   249 CITATIONS    164 PUBLICATIONS   1,831 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Soil-structure interaction for moving loads : application to railway traffic View project

Improved analysis of FWD data View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Benoit Picoux on 01 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Dynamic response of a flexible pavement submitted by impulsive loading

B. Picoux , A. El Ayadi, C. Petit
GEMH Laboratory, Civil Engineering and Durability, University of Limoges, Boulevard Jacques Derche, 19300 Egletons Cedex, France

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: The present paper introduces results from measurements on site using a falling weight deflectometer
Received 30 January 2008 (FWD). This apparatus is used for non-destructive testing of damaged pavement in order to estimate the
Received in revised form elastic modulus of each layer. The basin of deflection induced by a controlled load can be determined
27 August 2008
with precision and can reflect the behavior of the pavement structure. The interpretation of data
Accepted 8 September 2008
generated by FWD leans on inverse analysis processes. Data from FWD combined with the thickness
of layers inform on the evolution of the Young’s modulus of each layer of the structure along the studied
Keywords: road profile. This information can be also used to estimate its lifespan and possible repairs to be
Falling weight deflectometer carried out.
Pavement layers
The resolution of the dynamic problem is implemented in a finite element software. The dynamic
Impact load
load was modeled from the real falling weight of the measuring apparatus. The numerical model
Non-destructive testing
Dynamic includes absorbent boundaries to avoid all reflections. Results of in-situ measurements from the nine
sensors were compared with the model. The comparison gives promising results, considering the
difficulty in characterizing the mechanical parameters of the pavement. From this model, it will be
obviously possible to develop an inverse analysis method to characterize the modulus of the layers and
to identify the pavement defects.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction applied to the pavement by the intermediary of a circular plate

1.1. Background
Roads are an important part of the infrastructure and the cost
for their maintenance is significant. Hence, prediction and
diagnostic of the road network become a priority for local
authorities and companies of motorway. For example, in Europe,
maintenance costs of roads, which represent approximately
2,50,000 km for major roads and more than 10 million km for
the secondary roads, are evaluated at more than 5 billion euros.
Various control techniques have been developed in the area
pavement, the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) is one of those
techniques.
FWD is a non-destructive testing device used for the evaluation
of the structural state of pavements. This method consists in
reproducing the solicitation due to a heavy vehicle. The pave-
ment’s response is estimated by measuring the basin of deflection
using sensors fixed on a beam. The conventional FWD is able to
apply loads in the range 7–120 kN. The standard load used for
structural pavement analysis is usually 30–50 kN. The load is
 Corresponding author. Fax: +33 5 55 20 25 18.
E-mail address: Benoit.picoux@unilim.fr (B. Picoux).
(diameter ¼ 0.3 m). The generated duration of the half-sine pulse
is typically 30 ms. It corresponds to the loading time produced by
a truck moving from 65 to 80 km/h.
The objective of this paper rests on the numerical modeling of
FWD dynamic test with the help of finite element model and its
validation thanks to in-situ measurements. The finite element
model developed is able to envisage the response of the pavement
to the loads imposed by the traffic with known characteristics of
pavement materials. Most of the existing models are static and
based on the treatment of the maximum values of the deflections
history measured by the FWD. The development of the dynamic
model is closer to the physical reality of the problem. This model
will give fuller results in particular, the aim of future defect
characterization.
1.2. Literature review
These last years, the increase in the traffic and the weight on
the roadways accentuated the imperfections of the empirical
methods to evaluate the pavement behavior. According to the
methods employed in the analysis of the pavement under traffic,
the layers are assumed homogeneous and linear elastic and the
load is often considered static. The use of the multi-layered
elastic theory [1] as well as the static load is a reasonable

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.09.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

846 B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854

approach compared with the older empirical models. However, existence of a rigid layer. In this case, the distance can be
heterogeneous pavement layers actually have a different behavior calculated and this layer is supposed infinitely rigid. If no rigid
from these ideal conditions and are subjected to dynamic and layer is detected, deflections are then used to calculate two
cyclic loadings. For this type of loading, research was directed coefficients (C and n) according to the relation:
towards finite element methods which make it possible to s n
z
consider heterogeneity, non-linearity and orthotropism of the E¼C (1)
s
pavement structure [2]. The analysis of the pavement response
where C, n are constants; sz the vertical strain; and s the
can be either static or dynamic. The static analysis uses a static
reference strain.
approach based on the multi-layered elastic theory or the finite
The non-linearity of the behavior of the ground depends on
elements methods [3]. Whereas the dynamic analysis uses the
coefficient n. For a zero-value of n, the behavior is considered
elastodynamic approach or the dynamic finite element method to
as linear elastic. For values of n between 0.3 and 0.1, the
calculate the deflection of the pavement surface [4].
behavior is slightly non-linear. For values of n lower than 0.4,
The traditional method to analyze the FWD data [5] implies
the behavior of the ground is then strongly non-linear. The
the use of the maximum deflections of each point of measurement
modulus of the road base as well as the transition layer is given
(sensors). These maximum deflections, according to the distance,
by an iterative process using the total deflection of the loading
represent a basin of deflections. A numerical optimization method
center and the shape of the defections basin under the load.
is employed so that this basin agrees with the deflections given by
The modulus of the platform under the central line of the load
a numerical model. The optimization process is an iterative
is adjusted according to the strain level. This method is limited
method which modifies the elastic modulus of the pavement
to three or four layers.
layers until a better adjustment is produced. Moreover, the
optimization process can be carried out by employing an
 MODCOMP [11] uses a linear multi-layered elastic model.
This method uses a number of non-linear ratios and iterative
algorithm of parameter identification like non-linear least-
approach. This backcalculation method produces a ‘‘compen-
squares algorithm, research in a database or genetic algorithm.
sation layer effect’’, where the platform modulus is important
Several backcalculation programs were developed [6]. The whole
and the intermediate modulus of granular layer is much
of the existing programs are based on the static assumption,
lower, often less than the platform modulus. It is possible
which uses only the maximum values of the FWD response
to consider the non-linearity of the behavior of the pave-
history. This approach is very effective when the layer depths are
ment in the determination of the elastic properties. The
known, and their properties are mainly homogeneous depths.
program can manage 2–15 layers. The convergence speed
However, the backcalculation based on the dynamic assumption
allows to analyze great quantities of data within a reasonable
will be more effective since it takes into account the dynamic
time.
effects of the pavement as well as the dynamic characteristics of
the FWD.
The main developments in backcalculation are described
below. Some of these programs are used for comparison in our 2. Numerical model
study (i.e. Section 2.3.3).
Flexible pavements are multi-layered structures (Fig. 1)
constituted mainly with visco-elastic bituminous materials
 MODULUS [7] uses a linear model to produce a database of the (Asphalt Concrete) relatively rigid, and unbounded materials
basin of deflections which are compared with the deflections whose non-linear behavior is sensitive to the applied pressures
measured. An objective function which represents the error (base and platform) [12]. The various types of materials
must be reduced to the minimum. This method is able to treat constituting a pavement obey to their own deformation laws.
four unknown factors and a rigid layer (substratum). For this, it is very important to know the mechanical properties
 ELSYM5 [8] uses a linear elastic model which treats until five of each material (Young Modulus, Poisson’s ratio, thickness,
layers above platform. The program superimposes the effects density).
of various loads and calculates the orthogonal stresses, strains The equation of motion of a N degrees of freedom pavement
and displacements at the pavement surface. structure subjected to an impact loading can be expressed as
 KENLAYER [9] is based on the elastic multi-layered theory. It is
possible to determine the Young’s modulus of the flexible € þ C uðtÞ
MuðtÞ _ þ KuðtÞ ¼ PðtÞ
pavement layers and taking into account the visco-elastic and _
with uð0Þ ¼ 0; uð0Þ ¼0 (2)
non-linear behavior of each layer. The advantage of this
method is to allow various materials parameters for each where M, C and K are the N  N mass, damping and stiffness
seasonal period. matrixes, respectively, u(t), u̇(t) and ü(t) are, respectively, the
 ELMOD [10] is the traditional Dynatest FWD model which uses displacement, the velocity and the acceleration vectors, P(t) is the
the Boussinesq–Odemark method based on the assumption of impulsive loading from FWD.
the equivalent thickness by supposing that the strains within
layers depends only on stiffness. According to Ullidtz [5], this
method gives acceptable results but two conditions have to be
Asphalt Concrete
given. First, the modulus decreases with the depth and then
equivalent thickness of each layer is taller than the loading
area. Moreover, ELMOD takes into account the non-linear Base
behavior of the platform. Alternatively, the program is able to
detect the depth of a rigid layer and considers the effect of this
layer on the deflections. Since the determination of the Soil
modulus of the various layers is controlled by the modulus of
platform, ELMOD checks if this last one is modified while
moving away from the central line of the load to check the Fig. 1. Multi-layered model for a flexible pavement.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854 847

Using Taylor’s theorem, u(t) may be represented by a Taylor (central finite difference (CFD)). The CFD algorithm is the
series: particular case where b ¼ 0 and g ¼ 0.5. The name of the CFD
comes from the equality:
Dt 2 Dt 3

___
ut ¼ utDt þ Dt u_ tDt þ u€ tDt þ utDt þ . . . . . . (3) u_ tþDt  u_ tDt
2 6 u€ t ¼ (10)
2Dt
2
Dt which leads to
___
u_ t ¼ u_ tDt þ Dt u€ tDt þ utDt þ . . . . . . (4)
2    
DC Dt
Newmark has expressed these functions (3) and (4) as follows: Mþ C u€ tþDt ¼ PtþDt  C u_ t þ u€ t  KutþDt (11)
2 2
2
Dt
u€ tDt þ bDt 3 utDt

___
ut ¼ utDt þ Dt u_ tDt þ (5)
2

2.1. Description of the numerical model

u_ t ¼ u_ tDt þ Dt u€ tDt þ gDt 2 utDt
___

(6)

The assumption of the linearity of acceleration between two The mesh of the pavement (Fig. 1) is done like the following
steps of time is written as follows: multi-layer structure: a subgrade (soil), a foundation base, and a
wearing course (Asphalt Concrete). A very wide mesh is adopted
ðu€ t  u€ tDt Þ in order to respect, as well as possible, a semi-infinite soil while
___

ut ¼
Dt
The substitution of Eq. (7) in (5) and (6) leads to the standard
form of Newmark’s equations:
 
1 displacement of the border located on the axis of symmetry.
ut ¼ utDt þ Dt u_ tDt þ  b Dt 2 u€ tDt þ bDt 2 u€ t (8)
2 Absorbing boundaries (often called radiation dampings) [14,15,16]
u_ t ¼ u_ tDt þ ð1  gÞDt u€ tDt þ gDt 2 u€ t
b and g are the Newmark’s parameters. Depending on the values
that affect them, they will play an important role in the nature of
temporal integration scheme. In fact to ensure the explicit
character of the Newmark’s scheme, we must have b ¼ 0 in
Eq. (8). To ensure the stability of the scheme with b ¼ 0, we
must have gX0.5. However, the scheme becomes dissipative for
g40.5 [13].
So the resolution of the dynamic problem is done with the help
of a 2D axisymmetric model and explicit algorithm of Newmark
(7)
trying to remain in a reasonable number of degrees of freedom.
A finer mesh was selected in some areas as the loading area,
which extends on a radius of 150 mm, as well as the geophones
area. The axisymmetric model implies the blocking of the
were used at the other edges of the mesh so as to limit the size of
(9) the pavement mesh. These boundaries which are composed of
viscous dampings aim at avoiding, as best as possible, the wave
reflection on the edge of the mesh. In the finite elements model,
these dampings placed at the model’s borders dissipate energy
and represent a transfer of energy to the semi-infinite part
unrepresented in the model. The absorbing boundaries available
in the computational codes allow radiation to infinity of
compression and shearing waves affecting the normal border.
Generally, other types of waves are less well absorbed and
reflections can be observed. Fig. 2 presents the mesh and the
distribution of the strain szz in the structure.

Falling weight
(P = 40kN ; Diameter = 0.3 m)
G2G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9
G1

VA L - I S O
>-4.75E+05
< 3.16E+04
A-4.75E+05
B-4.24E+05
C-3.74E+05
D-3.23E+05
E-2.72E+05
F-2.22E+05
G-1.71E+05
H-1.20E+05
I-6.98E+04
J-1.91E+04
S-1.22E+04

Fig. 2. Finite element grid and strains isovalue lines.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

848 B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854

2.2. Description of the FWD plate. The numerical solution has been compared with the
analytical solution to validate the homogeneous model. Then,
Fig. 3 shows a representation of the FWD test on a pavement the study was extended to the multi-layered model. The analytical
structure (three layers). The dynamic loading produced by the solution of the problem is given according to Boussinesq [5] by the
falling weight is measured by a load cell located above the loading following expressions:
plate. A rubber membrane placed between the plate and the
coating makes it possible to distribute the strain uniformly.  vertical displacement at the surface located at the center of the
A standard test on the pavement is presented in Fig. 3. A study of load (r ¼ 0):
the loading characteristic was carried out (Fig. 4). Ultimately, the
load retained in the model is the real load produced by the weight 2Pð1  n2 Þ
uz ¼ a; (12)
falling from the FWD. It has been preferred than the ideal loading E
(half-sine) so that the conditions of simulation are the same  vertical displacement at the surface located at r ¼ a:
excitation as those of the FWD test, taking into account the 4Pð1  n2 Þ
dissymmetry of its envelope. This dissymmetry is sensitive to the uz ¼ a (13)
pE
variations of the structure’s stiffness.
with a ¼ 0.15 m
 vertical strain at the axis of the load, according to the depth (z):
" 2 3=2 #
2.3. Numerical results
a
sz ¼ P 1  2 þ 1 (14)
z
2.3.1. Comparison between static and dynamic model
First of all, a comparison between a static and dynamic model Fig. 5 represents the deflections of the pavement for the static
has been done. The static problem rests on the study of the soil and dynamic cases for an homogeneous model. In the dynamic
behavior when a static load is applied through a flexible circular case, the curves only show the maximum deflections at the
surface. The amplitude of the pavement deformations is almost
the same in dynamic as in static for the first geophones. Far from
M the loading area, the dynamic deflections are slightly higher than

C, K
h Table 1
Parameters for the three-layers model
9 geophones
Layer Young Poisson Depth e (m) Density r
modulus E ratio n (kg/m3)
(MPa)
Pavement
AC 5400 0.35 0.05 2300
Base 200 0.35 0.35 2200
Soil 50 0.35 Semi-infinite 1600
Fig. 3. Description of the FWD.
Pavement surface deflection (µm)

45 0
40
35 Real -100
30 Square
Load (kN)

25 Sine -200
20
-300 Square
15 Real
10 Sine
-400 Measurement
5
0 -500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (ms) Time (ms)

Fig. 4. Representation of the load and response of the multi-layered model.

0 0
-400 -1000
Deflection (µm)

Deflection (µm)

-800 -2000
-1200 -3000
-1600 Static -4000 Static
-2000 Dynamic -5000 Dynamic
-2400 -6000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from load (m) Distance from load (m)

Fig. 5. Soil surface deflection, left: E ¼ 50 MPa, right: E ¼ 20 Mpa.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854 849

0 0
-200 -100

Deflection (µm)
-400

Deflection (µm)
-200
-600
-800 -300
-1000 -400
-1200 Static
Static
-500 Dynamic
-1400 Dynamic
-1600 -600
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from load (m) Distance from load (m)

Fig. 6. Three layers pavement surface deflection, left: EPF ¼ 10 MPa, right: EPF ¼ 100 Mpa.

60 15
50 G1 G6 10
G2 G7
40 G3 G8 5
Deviation (%)

Deviation (%)
G4 G9
30 G5
-
20 -5
G1 G6
10 -10 G2 G7
0 -15 G3 G8
G4 G9
-10 -20 G5
-20 -25
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Young's Modulus (MPa) Young's modulus (MPa)
Fig. 7. Static/dynamic difference against platform modulus. Fig. 8. Static/dynamic difference against base modulus with EPF ¼ 50 Mpa.

the static one. In the case of homogeneous model, the weak 1

difference does not justify the need for dynamic model. For a 0.9 G1 G6
Max geophone deflection
Max pavement deflection

multi-layered model (Table 1), a difference between static and 0.8 G2 G7

dynamic exists and this difference is sensitive to the soil and of G3 G8
0.7 G4 G9
the base modulus (Fig. 6). According to Fig. 7, for weak platform 0.6 G5
modulus, the maximum static deflections are definitely higher 0.5
than the dynamic ones. For average values of the soil modulus, the 0.4
difference is less significant (less than 10%). In these figures the 0.3
deviation is represented as follows: 0.2
static deflection  dynamic deflection 0.1
Deviation ð%Þ ¼ (15)
static deflection 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
For important platform modulus, the difference is trivial on the
first geophones. However, deflections in dynamic mode are higher Young's modulus (MPa)
than those in static far from the loading area. That is mainly due to Fig. 9. Evolution of deflections ratio against base modulus.
the numerical errors in static mode on weak deformations and the
surface waves which amplify displacements. The errors become variations of the maximum deflections are more important and
that, in static mode, dimensions are limited (in width and depth), visible on the majority of the geophones. These variations
whereas in dynamics the absorbing boundaries simulate the decrease away from the loading area to reach very low values
semi-infinite field. Simulations with more important dimensions with the last geophone. This behavior, compared to the maximum
as well as a finer mesh enable us to reduce these errors. Fig. 8 deflections, is explained by the importance of the base layer’s
shows that for average values of the platform modulus, the weak thickness and its average stiffness. Fig. 10 shows that for fixed AC
base modulus goes back roughly to the same deflections level in and base layer’s modulus and for soil modulus varying from 15 to
static as in dynamic close to the load. Far from the load, the 150 MPa, variations of the maximum deflections are important
deflections in dynamic are definitely higher than those in static and visible on all the sensors. The reason is the weak modulus of
(probably because of the numerical errors on weak deflections the ground. Consequence is the need for adding protection layers.
and surface waves). This important difference does not mean In Fig. 11, the base’s thickness is fixed at 0.35 m and the AC’s
anything since the deflections at these places are very weak. thickness varies from 0.05 to 0.5 m. For low AC’s thickness,
However, with the increase in the base modulus, the difference the variations of the maximum deflections are very important
reaches 10%. For important platform modulus, at the first four close to the loading area, and less, far from this zone. With the
geophones, the difference is weak (lower than 5%) for important increase of thickness, the variations decrease obviously and
base modulus and trivial for weak or average base modulus. the deflections tend to be constant. This particularity explains
the major importance of this factor in the design of pavements.
2.3.2. Parametric analysis It suggests the disastrous effects on the pavement in the case
Fig. 9 shows that for fixed AC and the soil layer’s modulus and of a under-estimated thickness and shows the inefficiency of an
for base layer’s modulus varying from 100 to 1000 MPa, the over-estimated thickness. Finally, in Fig. 12, the thickness of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

850 B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854

1 Table 2
G1 G6 Parameters for pavement model used in the comparison
0.9 G2 G7
Max geophone deflection
Max pavement deflection

0.8 G3 G8 Layer Depth (m) E (MPa) MODCOMP E (MPa) ELMOD

0.7 G4 G9
G5
0.6 AC 0.19 11,200 9493
0.5 Base 0.25 572 1530
Soil Semi-infinite 685 307
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 140
AXIDYN Model
0 CAPA Model
120
FWD Measurements
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Our model

Deflection (µm)
Young's modulus (MPa) 100 (MODCOMP
parameters)
Fig. 10. Evolution of deflections ratio against soil modulus. 80 Our model (ELMOD
parameters)
60

1 40
0.9 G1 G6
20
Max geophone deflection
Max pavement deflection

0.8 G2 G7
G3 G8
0.7 0
G4 G9
0.6 G5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
0.5 Distance from load (m)
0.4 Fig. 13. Pavement deflections from different models.
0.3
0.2
results coming from FWD tests. Two types of apparatuses are
0.1
used: DYNATEST and KUAB. Then, they compare the results of
0
0.05 0,1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 their models with the results of FWD tests. So, we tried to
compare two programs (ELMOD and MODCOMP) by re-injecting
Thickness of AC layer (m)
the modulus calculated by each of the two programs in our model.
Fig. 11. Evolution of deflections ratio against Asphalt Concrete thicknesses. At the same time, a comparison between our model and the Loizos
and Scarpas model was made. The load used by Loizos and Scarpas
1 is about 700 kPa. The parameters of the pavement model for this
0.9 G1 G6 comparison are given in Table 2. It is noticed that the platform
G2 G7 modulus calculated by MODCOMP is higher than the base
Max geophone deflection
Max pavement deflection

0.8 G3 G8
modulus, which is not the case for ELMOD. That can be explained
0.7 G4 G9
G5 by the fact that MODCOMP (which uses a linear elastic model and
0.6
which has the possibilities to take into account non-linear ratios)
0.5
produced the effect of a compensation layer (where the platform
0.4
modulus is important and the modulus of an intermediate
0.3 granular layer is much lower). This effect allows the models
0.2 based on the linear elastic approach to calculate the pavement
0.1 deflections in the center line of the load without taking into
0 account the non-linearity of the soil behavior. Fig. 13 shows that
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 our model gives the same results as AXIDIN when the modulus
Thickness of base layer (m) resulting from ELMOD is used. However, when the modulus
resulting from MODCOMP is used, the results of our model agree
Fig. 12. Evolution of deflections ratio against base thicknesses.
very well with the experimental FWD results. That can be
explained by the effect of the compensation layer previously
BB is fixed at 0.05 m and the thickness of the base varies from 0.2
quoted. Our model being based on the linear elastic approach, it is
to 1 m. For low base’s thickness, the deflections are important on
obvious that there is an error on the calculation of the deflections,
the first sensors. With the increasing thickness, the deflections
especially on the axis located at the center of the loading area
tend to be linearized.
(consequence of the non-linearity of the platform). MODCOMP
allows to correct this error by assigning a weak modulus to the
2.3.3. Comparison between backcalculation methods base layer and an important modulus for the platform. So, results
The backcalculation program used by the FWD Dynatest to are the same as those calculated by a non-linear model.
estimate the modulus of the pavement layers is ‘‘Dynatest
ELMOD’’. ELMOD Software uses the method of equivalent
thickness, with an analytical Boussinesq–Odemark pavement 3. Diagnosis from in-situ measurements
analysis. A comparison of ELMOD results and another program
seems to be interesting. Loizos and Scarpas [17] studied the 3.1. Location and soil properties
validity of the backcalculation programs MODULUS, MODCOMP
and ELMOD by re-injecting the modulus calculated by these The tested site is a secondary road inside a village in Corrèze
programs in two finite element models (CAPA3D and AXIDIN). To (France). This pavement had been repaired in 2003, but many
calculate the modulus, the backcalculation programs use the surface deteriorations have appeared since 2005. A diagnosis was
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854 851

Time (ms)
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
700.00 700.00
G1
600.00 600.00
P
500.00 500.00

400.00 400.00
Deflection (µm)

Stress (kPa)
300.00 300.00

200.00 200.00

100.00 G9 100.00

0.00 0.00

-100.00 -100.00

Fig. 14. Falling weight deflectometer: experimental results for 40 kN.

Table 3 10000
Layers modulus against road profile

Station (m) E1 (MPa) E2 (Mpa) E3 (MPa)

FWD's deflections (µm)

1000
0 8609 234 42
0.025 10,022 404 52
0.05 11,041 155 62
100
0.075 13,239 315 59
0.1 12,169 237 48
0.125 8169 113 31 y= 9.505x0.58 FWD measurement
0.15 9287 121 40 10 Danish normalisation
0.175 8513 109 34 COST324
0.2 10,129 97 87 y = 0.641x
0.225 9793 131 50
0.25 7500 177 41 1
0.275 6421 154 99 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.3 5947 379 143 Benkelman's Beam deflections (µm)
0.325 5401 312 118
0.35 11,138 118 35 10000
0.375 7994 98 14
0.4 9928 184 92
FWD deflections (µm)

0.425 7449 274 33 1000

0.45 5133 214 19
0.475 8033 85 15
100

2500 y = 9.505x0.58 FWD measurement

Benkelman Beam 10 Danish Normalisation
2000 FWD measurement COST324
Numerical model y = 0.641x
Deflection (µm)

1
1500
1 10 100 1000 10000
1000 Benkelman's Beam deflections (µm)

Fig. 16. Correlation between different normes for 40 and 60 kN load.

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 mixture (0/31.5 mm, base) on a roadbed with a 50 MPa bearing
capacity (French category PF2). A campaign of measurements on
Position on the road (m)
this road was carried out thanks to the FWD. One of the results
Fig. 15. Comparison between FWD and Benkelman’s beam. from the campaign is presented in Fig. 14 (response of the force
sensor under the falling weight as well as the nine geophones).
required in order to forecast the residual service life. After road The FWD data tests are treated by backcalculation program
repair, the structure is overlaid with a 50 mm of an Asphalt ELMOD to determine the modulus of the three pavement layers.
Concrete mix (0/10 mm and 120 kg/m2, AC) under a gravel–sand Results given by ELMOD, for each point of measurement allow to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

852 B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854

give the modulus of points chosen for the comparison between
our model and the FWD tests (i.e. Table 3).
3.2. Comparison with Benkelman’s beam
The results of FWD were compared with traditional measure-
ments of Beckerman’s beam. This equipment is often used by the
road companies. This apparatus is fitted with a support beam
giving the reference and an incremental position sensor allowing
to record the deflection of the pavement surface caused by a
double wheel of a truck which moves slowly (from 2 to 5 km/h)
compared to the point of measurement. Raised measurements
make it possible to trace the deflection’s line of influence which
represents the variations of the displacement of the road’s surface
according to the load displacement.
Fig. 15 shows that the curve drawn by the values resulting from
tests with the Benkelman beam follows the general pattern of
the FWD curve. We can also deduce that the two methods of
measurement are sensitive to the same pavement characteristics.
Numerical results obtained from layer modulus have been
calculated with the help of ELMOD. These modulus performed
against length profile of the pavement (Table 3). Maximum FWD
deflection is translated into equivalent Benkelman value accord-
ing to coefficients which are defined for example in COST324 [18].
Fig. 16 allows to note that the experimental line is more or
less far away from the right-hand side of the COST324. The strain
level generated by the double wheel of 67.1 kN is roughly
0.683 MPa. This value is framed at the time of FWD test to
40 kN (approximately 0.566 MPa) and to 60 kN (approximately
0.850 MPa). The levels generated by the 40 kN loading are closest
to the level of strains generated by the standard axle. Lastly,
measurements of Benkelman’s beam can be restricted by the
values resulting from the FWD tests. But, when the pavement is
more rigid, the deflections measured by Benkelman’s beam
approach those measured by the FWD with a load of 40 kN.
Conversely, when the structure is more flexible the deflections are
more important and measurements approach those done with a
60 kN load. It thus appears that FWD supplements, in an
important way, measurements of Benkelman’s beam since the
spacing of the geophones allows measurements close to the point
of measurement and more precise. A correlation carried out

50

-50

-150
Deflection (µm)

-250

-350
Model (G1)
-450 Model (G9)
Measurement (G1)
-550
Measurement (G9)
-650

-750
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (ms)

Fig. 17. Pavement deflection at 0 m.

100

-100

-200
Deflection (µm)

-300

-400

-500 Model (G1)

Model (G9)
-600 Measurement (G1)
Measurement (G9)
-700

-800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (ms)

Fig. 18. Pavement deflection at 0.225 m.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854 853

between the FWD and the Benkelman’s beam are reliable to
make it possible to refer to the French principle of deflection
measurement.
4. Comparison between simulation results
and measurement data
All the comparisons were made for a 40 kN load. On the figures,
only sensors G1 and G9 are represented. By comparing the curves
of the pavement deflections from numerical modeling with the
experimental curves in Fig. 17, a good agreement is noticed
between the two models on the first sensor with a light difference
on the amplitude (6.06%). For the last sensor (G9), the deflection
of the numerical model is in advance and definitely higher
(47.74%) than FWD measurements. Dephasing is due probably to
the visco-elastic behavior of materials. The important variation of
amplitude far from the center is caused by the effect of the error
margin on the soil modulus because of the non-linear behavior of
this pavement layer as well as the degradation which is not taken
into account in the model.
The results of the model correspond exactly to experimental
measurements (Fig. 18) with regard to the amplitudes of the
deflections either on the first or the last geophone (G1 or G9).
However, a short delay is observed in the pavement response for
the experimental results due to the visco-elastic behavior. The test
carried out at the point 0.3 m (Fig. 19) gives the same results as
those of the point 0.225 m with the same observations on the
deflection amplitudes and dephasings. However, an exceeding of
the deflections is noticed after the cancellation of the load and the
attenuation is pseudo-harmonic which corresponds to reflection
of the waves on a rigid layer located at a certain depth. To check
the assumption of the existence of the stiff layer, we carried out
model tests by adding a stiff layer to various depths. Fig. 20 shows
that the pavement modeling with a stiff layer with 3 m platform
enables us to obtain reflections of same amplitudes as those of the
tests.
5. Conclusions
To predict the dynamic behavior of flexible pavement structure
subjected to an impulse load (standard FWD), a multi-layered
finite element model was developed and validated by in-situ tests.
A comparison between a static and dynamic model allowed to
highlight the importance of a dynamic characterization of the
problem for certain particular values of layer modulus and
especially for a multi-layer structure. After a parametric study
highlighting the sensitivity of the model to the layer’s thickness
and Young’s modulus, a comparison with other models and
different backcalculation method was made and gives satisfactory
results. Finally, a comparison with tests on a traditional flexible

50
0
-50
-100
Deflection (µm)

-150
-200
-250
-300 Measurement (G1)
-350 Measurement (G9)
Model (G1)
-400
Model (G9)
-450
-500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (ms)

Fig. 19. Pavement deflection at 0.3 m.

50
0
-50
-100
Deflection (µm)

-150
-200
-250
-300 Measurement (G1)
-350 Measurement (G9)
-400 Model (G1)
Model (G9)
-450
-500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (ms)

Fig. 20. Pavement deflection at 0.3 m with a bedrock at 3 m below the platform. (E ¼ 1160 MPa, n ¼ 0.45, r ¼ 2160 kg/m3).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
854 B. Picoux et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 845–854
pavement was carried out on site. This comparison made it
possible not only to partly validate the model but also shows the
limits of the linear elastic models and proves the need to develop
a more realistic model which takes into account the non-linear
behavior of the soil.
Work was initiated on the realization of an Asphalt Pavement
Testing (APT) in which we have constructed defects (interface
flaws, cracks) which allow to improve the model in terms of
behavior law and its capacity to estimate the different layer
modulus. The experimental pavement associated to the numerical
model will allow us thereafter to verify the effectiveness of this
technique (FWD) to detect and characterize defects in damaged
pavement.
References
[1] Hadi MNS, Bodhinayake BC. Non linear finite element analysis of flexible
pavements. Adv Eng Soft 2003;34(3):657–62.
[2] Uddin W, Zhang AH, Fernandez F. Finite element simulation of pavement
discontinuities and dynamic load response. Transportation research record
1448. Washington, DC: TRB, National Research Council; 1994. p. 100–6.
[3] Bojan B. Guzina, Robert H. Osburn. Effective tool for enhancing elastostatic
pavement diagnosis. Transportation Research record 1806, Paper no. 02-3196.
[4] Yigong Ji, et al. Method for dynamic response of flexible pavement. J Am Sci
2006;2(2).
View publication stats
[5] Ullidtz P. Modelling flexible pavement response and performance. Copenha-
gen: Polyteknisk Forlag; 1998.
[6] Burak Goktepe A, et al. Advances in backcalculating the mechanical properties
of flexible pavements. Adv Eng Soft 2006;37:421–31.
[7] Wenting Liu, Tom Scullion. MODULUS 6.0 for windows: user’s manual,
MODULUS 5.0: user’s manual, Research report 0-1869-2. Texas Transportation
Institute, College Station, TX, October 2001.
[8] Kopperian S, Tiller G, Tsong M. ELSYM 5, interactive micro computer
version, user’s manual. Report no FHWA-TS-87-206, US: Federal Highway
Administration; 1986.
[9] Huang YH. Pavement analysis and design. 1st ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall;
1993.
[10] Dynatest International, 1998. ELMOD Quick Start Manual.
[11] Von Quintus HL, Simpson AL. Backcalculation of layer parameters for LTPP
test sections, volume II: layered elastic analysis for flexible and rigid
pavements. Washington, DC: FHWA-RD-01-113, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration; 2002.
[12] Guide technique Conception et dimensionnement des structures de chaus-
sées, LCPC-SETRA, 1994 [in french].
[13] Curnier A. Méthodes numériques en mécanique des solides. Lausanne:
Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes; 1993 [in French].
[14] Combescure D. Eléments de dynamique des structures 2006 [in French].
[15] Available online: /www-cast3m.cea.fr/cast3m/xmlpage.do?name=
documentationS.
[16] Carlstone Darry S. Radiation damping in the mechanical oscillator. Proc Okla
Acad Sci 1992;72:45–9.
[17] Loizos Andreas, (Tom) Scarpas A. Verification of falling weight deflectometer
backanalysis using a dynamic finite elements simulation. Int J Pavement Eng
2005;6(2):115–23.
[18] COST 324 Long term performance of road pavement. Final report of the
action, Brussels, 1997.