Analysis of Flexible Pavement Sections Using A Mechanistic - Empirical Method

ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS USING
A MECHANISTIC - EMPIRICAL METHOD
N. P. Dulwala
108608K
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master
of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
September 2014
DECLARATION OF THE CANDIDATE AND THE SUPERVISOR
I declare that this is my own work and this dissertation does not incorporate without
acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a Degree or Diploma in any
other University or institute of higher learning and to the best of my knowledge and
belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another
person except where the acknowledgement is made in the text.
Also, I hereby grant to University of Moratuwa the non-exclusive right to reproduce

and distribute my dissertation, in whole or in part in print, electronic or other
medium. I retain the right to use this content in whole or part in future works (such as
articles or books).
Signature: Date:
The above candidate has carried out research for the dissertation under my
supervision.
Signature: Date:
i
ABSTRACT
Determining of the pavement life under given structural, environmental, and traffic
conditions is considered as one of the main objectives in the pavement design and analysis.
Studies in pavement engineering have shown that the design procedure for highway
pavement is either empirical or mechanistic. An empirical approach is one which is based on
the results of experiments or experience. Existing design methods for flexible pavements
include empirical methods, limiting shear failure methods, limiting deflection methods,
regression methods, and mechanistic empirical methods.
The goal of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design is to identify the physical causes of
stresses in pavement structures and calibrate them with observed pavement performance.
These two elements define this approach to pavement design: the focus on physical causes is
the “mechanistic” part, and using observed performance to determine relationships is the
“empirical” part.
In this study an attempt was made to study the influence on local road sections with
mechanistic empirical methods. Frequently used design references in local road designs are;
(1) guide to the structural design of roads under Sri Lankan conditions issued by Road
Development Authority (RDA), (2) American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials method (AASHTO method) and (3) guide to the structural design of bitumen-
surfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries method (Overseas Road Note 31).
Sometimes, design thicknesses chosen based on design guidelines are subjected to alter with
the non availability of pavement construction materials in an economical distance to a
construction project.
The road section for the study was selected from the Northern road rehabilitation project and
there were several alternative proposals for the road section due to non availability of
subbase material. The design alternatives were analyzed using the Mechanistic design
software KENLAYER which was verified based on an experimental study conducted in a
previous study.
Damage analysis was performed using KENLAYER software. Damage ratio was estimated
for the pavement design alternatives and it was found that, the pavement sections designed
for a design period of ten years, the sections designed using Overseas Road Note 31 methods
needs earlier rehabilitation followed by AASHTO which will be failed at higher traffic
category. This was identified as an indicative factor for comparing the efficiency and the
performance of the design alternatives. Mechanistic tool used in this study was able to
identify critical layers which will fail before the expected design life. The mechanistic tool
used in this study was able to identify the best suitable pavement design composition.
Key words: Mechanistic – Empirical method — Damage analysis — KENLAYER
ii
DEDICATION
To All Who guide me to the Success.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with great pleasure and satisfaction, I present this research report for the partial
fulfillment of requirements of the Degree of Master of Engineering in Highway and
Traffic Engineering in Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa.
To begin with my thanks, I first wish to thank the Transport Engineering Division of
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa
for selecting me to follow this master’s course in highway and traffic engineering. I
consider it as a great honour to me for having the chance of studying for my master’s
degree in a university with an excellent name for engineering education.
I do thank Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau my employer, a statutory body

under the Ministry of Highways for the sponsorship I received to follow this course
as well as for releasing me to study for this degree on part time basis.
Next, I wish to thank Dr. W.K Mampearachchi for his kind guidance and continuous
support throughout this research. The knowledge I gained from him as my supervisor
of research and as a teacher of Highway Engineering modules was also invaluable
and greatly helped me to be shaped into an academically sound Design Engineer in
my work place.
I do thank Eng. P.C Jinasena, Additional General Manager, (Highways and Airport
Designs Division) and Eng (Mr). W.A.D.D Nandakumara, Deputy General Manager,
Central Engineering Consultancy who greatly helped me in understanding the
concepts of pavement design in my work place.
Last but not least I wish to thank my parents, my loving daughter, husband and
parents of my husband, who are the divine strength and courage behind all the
successes in my life.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF THE CANDIDATE AND THE SUPERVISOR i

ABSTRACT ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES 2
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 2
1.4 SCOPE OF THE REPORT 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 3

2.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS 3
2.2 LOAD DISTRIBUTION ON FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT 4
2.3 EMPIRICAL METHODS 5
2.3.1 OVERSEAS ROAD NOTE 31 DESIGN METHOD 6
2.4 MECHANISTIC METHODS 6
2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON MECHANISTIC PAVEMENT 9
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 11

3.1 DATA COLLECTION 11
3.1.1 FIELD DATA 11
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE OF THE TEST
3.1.2
SECTIONS
3.2 CASE STUDY ON NORTH REHABILITATION PROJECT 13
3.2.1 DESIGN DATA 13
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS 18
3.3.1 MECHANISTIC METHOD 18
MODEL DEVELOPMENT FOR ANALYSING THE
3.3.2 19
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
3.3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 21
3.4 DAMAGE ANALYSIS 23
3.4.1 FATIGUE FAILURE CRITERIA 24
PERMANENT DEFORMATION FAILURE CRITERIA
3.4.2 25
(RUTTING)
v
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 26
4.1 THE VERIFICATION OF KENLAYER MODEL 26
4.2 ANALYSIS OF THE CHART 03 - ORN 31 27
4.2.1. SUBGRADE STRAIN (RUTTING) CRITERION 32
4.2.2. SUBGRADE STRAIN (FATIGUE) CRITERION 33
COMPARISON OF AASHTO & ORN DESIGN DATA FROM
4.3 34
KENLAYER
4.4 ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY DATA USING KENLAYER 36
4.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 43
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 46

5.1 CONCLUSION 46
5.2 RECOMMENDATION 47
REFERENCES 48
APPENDIX - A: INVESTIGATION DATA 49

THE INITIAL TRAFFIC LOADS USED FOR THE CASE STUDY
APPENDIX - B: 56
ANALYSIS
APPENDIX -C: FIELD DATA ANALYES RESULTS IN KENLAYER 59
APPENDIX -D: AASHTO AND ORN ANALYSED RESULTS IN KENLAYER 63
APPENDIX -E: CASE STUDY ANALYSED RESULTS IN KENLAYER 69
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Typical Flexible Pavement Section 3

Figure 2.2 Distribution of Load under Single Wheel Load (Source: FM 5-430-00-1, 4
Volume I-Road Design)
Figure 2.3 Elastic Multi-Layer system (Huang, 1993) 8
Figure 3.1 Constructed Test pavement sections (Janaraje.T.,2009) 12
Figure 3.2 Plate load Test (Janaraje.T.,2009) 12

Figure 3.3 Typical road section of the project 14
Figure 3.4 Widening sections in progress 15

Figure 3.5 Site condition of project 15
Figure 3.6 The tire spacing & location of stress points (Huang, 1993) 20
Figure 3.7 Typical pavement layer compositions 24
Figure 4.1 Deflection vs load graph for field test and KENLAYER data 26
Figure 4.2 Pavement design compositions for T5 traffic class Chart 03 of ORN 28
Figure 4.3 Compressive Strain at bottom of each layer for the sub grades 29
Figure 4.4 Vertical Deflection for the subgrade categories 30

Figure 4.5 Vertical Stress Variation for the subgrade categories 30
Figure 4.6 Vertical Stress Variation with the depth of the pavement S1-T5 31
Figure 4.9 Subgrade strain (Rutting) as per IRC method 33
Figure 4.10 IRC tensile strain criterion 33

Figure 4.11 Vertical stress variation at Base and subgrade levels 35
Figure 4.12 Layer properties of AASHTO pavement layer thickness in KENLAYER 35
Figure 4.13 Layer properties of ORN pavement layer thickness in KENLAYER 35
Figure 4.14 Deflection at the Base Sub grade levels 36
Figure 4.15 Pavement composition of case study data in local roads 37
Figure 4.16 Variation of surface deflection with Options 36
Figure 4.17 Variation of Compressive strain of sub grade with Options 37

Figure 4.18 Variation of Vertical Strain at bottom of each layer 37
Figure 4.19 Variation of Damage Ratio at each layer respect to the design Option 38
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Designed pavement data for test specimens 11

Table 3.2 Plate load test results 13
Table 3.3 Case Study Analyzed in local road section 18
Table 3.4 Contact pressure used in the model 19
Table 3.5 Load information 20
Table 3.6 Material properties of Felid tests 22
Table 3.7 Nonlinear constants of nonlinear elastic layer 23
Table 3.8 Asphalt Institute and Shell method constants 24
Table 3.9 Asphalt Institute, Shell method and University Nottingham constants 25
Table 4.1 Deflection measured in Field and output result of KENLAYER 26
Table 4.2 Allowable number of repetitions 32
Table 4.3 Design Data 34
Table 4.4 Summary of three Options 38
Table 4.5 Summary of cost calculations 42
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Description
ORN Overseas Road Note

RDA Road Development Authority
TRRL Transport and Road Research Laboratory
BS Bitumen surface
GB Granular road Base
GS Granular sub base
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
AASHTO
Officials
mesa million equivalent standard axels
ESAL Equivalent Standard Axels
ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Road pavement structure consists of superimposed layers of processed materials
above the natural soil subgrade. The primary function of such a layered system is to
distribute the applied vehicle loads to the subgrade. The pavement structure should
provide a surface consisting acceptable riding quality, adequate skid resistance,
favorable light reflecting characteristics and low noise pollution. The ultimate aim is
to keep the transmitted stresses due to wheel load are sufficiently reduced, so that
they will not exceed bearing capacity of the sub grade.
In understanding pavement behavior is a complex task. This complexity is due to the

complex response of the individual pavement materials which is very difficult to
predict. In a typical pavement, a number of such materials are used together.
Pavement design procedures used in road design is either empirical or mechanistic.
In Sri Lanka, most of the road pavements have been designed based on the empirical
design methodologies. A guide to the structural design of roads under Sri Lankan
conditions issued by Road Development Authority (RDA) is used as the reference
for the local road pavement designs. Overseas Road Note 31 and American
Association of State Highway Transportation official’s method (AASHTO) are the
other references used in the pavement designs.
Pavement layer compositions given for the same road section by the different
guidelines are not in the same order. Due to non- availability of the materials and
budget constraints of the projects, pavement design chosen based on the design
guideline are subjected to changes at the decision making process. Decisions made
without checking at least the structural ability subjected in many pavement design
issues.
Hence pavement performances are needed to be analyzed against the different design
alternatives at critical occasions. With respect to that, developed pavement analyzing
tools are required in pavement design analyzing.
1
The quality of material properties in different layer composition can be evaluated
through the mechanistic methods. KENLAYER is one of the mechanistic tools
widely used in the pavement analysis. The output results of the KENLAYER gives
the vertical stresses and strains, horizontal stresses and strains, and displacements at
the specified locations.
1.2 Objectives
Objectives of this study are:
1. To evaluate the field performance of KENLAYER software in pavement
design analysis.
2. To study the variation of vertical compressive strain and surface deflection of
various sub-grade strengths.
3. To find out most reliable pavement design methodology for heavy traffic
load.
4. To evaluate performances of the alternatives selected for a road project or a
case study.
1.3 Scope of the Study

According to the selected design method, the pavement layer compositions are
varying for the same pavement design requirements. AASHTO and ORN 31 are used
as the pavement design methods for the study purpose of this project. Empirical tool
KENLAYER (Huang, 1993) software is used for analyzing purposes.
1.4 Scope of the Report

Chapter 1 describes the general background upon which this study is based.
Chapter 2 presents the literature referred in this research.
Chapter 3 presents the data collected for the study.
Chapter 4 presents the analysis of data and summary of findings
Chapter 5 presents the conclusion and recommendations of the study.
2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Flexible Pavements

Flexible pavements are pavements constructed with bituminous and granular
materials as shown in Figure 2.1: These types of pavements are named since the total
pavement structure deflects/bends under traffic loading. Flexible pavements are
layered systems that can be analyzed with Burmister’s layer theory (Burmister,
1943).
Flexible pavements structure may be composed of several layers of material with
great thickness for optimally transmitting load to the sub-grade. These layered
systems have high quality materials on the top where stresses are high and low
quality materials at the bottom.
Surface Course
Binder Course
Base Course
Sub base Course
Selected material
Compacted Subgrade
Un-Compacted Subgrade
Figure 2.1: Typical Flexible Pavement Section
3
2.2 Load Distribution on Flexible Pavement
Flexible-pavement design is based on the principle that the magnitude of stress

induced by a wheel load decreases with depth below the surface. Consequently, the
stresses induced on a given subgrade material can be decreased by increasing the
thickness of the overlying layers (subbase, base, and surface courses). This stress
distribution of a single-wheel load on two sections of flexible pavement, one with a
thick and one with a thin flexible - pavement structure illustrated in Figure 2.2. In
both cases, the subgrade is the foundation that eventually carries any load applied at
the surface. In Figure 2.2, A the flexible-pavement structure is thick, the load at the
sub-grade level is spread over a wide area, and the stresses on the sub-grade are low.
In Figure 2.2, B the structure is thin, the load at the sub-grade level is confined to a
much smaller area, and the stresses on the subgrade level are significantly high. The
pattern of decreasing stresses with increasing depth is the basis of the conventional
flexible-pavement design in which sub-grade materials of low-bearing capacity are
covered with thick flexible-pavement structures.
Figure 2.2 Distribution of Load under Single Wheel Load

(Source: FM 5-430-00-1, Volume I-Road Design)
4
The intensity of stress at a given point in a flexible pavement is affected by the tire-
contact area and tire pressure. The major difference in stress intensities caused by
variation in tire pressure occurs near the surface. Consequently, the surface course
(pavement or a well-graded crushed aggregate) and base course are the most
seriously affected by high tire pressures.
2.3 Empirical Methods

The empirical AASHTO method (AASHTO, 1993), which is based on the AASHTO
Road Test conducted during 1958-1960 in Ottawa, Illinois, is the most widely used
pavement design method . This design originated the concept of pavement failure
based on the deterioration of ride quality or serviceability over time or application of
traffic loading as perceived by the user. The traffic loading was introduced in terms
of a single statistic known as the 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL).
The concept of reliability was incorporated in this method of design. Application of
reliability concept requires the selection of a standard deviation that is representative
of local conditions. Initial and terminal serviceability index was established to
compute the change in serviceability. The initial serviceability index is a function of
pavement type and construction quality. The terminal serviceability index is the
lowest index that will be tolerated before rehabilitation, resurfacing, and
reconstruction become necessary.
Empirical equation is used to correlate pavement characteristics with pavement
performance. The Equation 2.1 is the 1993 AASHTO Guide basic design equation
for flexible pavements that is broadly used:
∆PS1
log10 ( )
log10 (W18 ) = Z R × S0 + 9.36 × log10 (SN calc + 1) − 0.20 + 4. 2 − 1.5 + 2.32 log10 (M R ) − 8.07 [ 2.1]
1094
0.40 +
( SN calc + 1)5.19
Where:
W18 : Predicted number of 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESALs

ZR : Normal standard deviation
So : Combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance
prediction
5
SN : Structural Number (an index that is indicative of the total pavement
thickness required)
SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3+... ………………………………… [2.2]
ai : ith layer coefficient
Di : ith layer thickness (inches)
mi : ith layer drainage coefficient
∆PSI : Difference between the initial design serviceability index, P o , and the
design terminal serviceability index, P t
MR : Subgrade resilient modulus (in psi)
2.3.1 Overseas Road Note 31 design Method

Road note 31 was first published in 1962 and revised in 1966 & 1977 to take account
of advances in road materials and their interaction. Most of the research experience
has been gained in carrying out a research and development programme on behalf of
the overseas Development Administration. In traffic forecast, up to the 30 million
equivalent standard axels (mesa) takes account of the variability of material
construction control. The design is based on the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
value of the subgrade. The pavement thickness was related to the cumulative number
of standard axles to be carried out for different subgrade strength. The design was
based on semi - empirical approach based on a large extent on past experience and
judgment of highway agencies. Design charts were developed to cater up to
30million standard axles.
2.4 Mechanistic Methods

Mechanistic design method is a logical engineering approach that has been widely
used to replace the empirical AASHTO design procedure (AASHTO 1993). The
main advantage of an Mechanistic design method is that the analysis is based on
pavement fatigue and deformation characteristics of all layers, rather than only on the
pavement’s surface performance (ride quality). It is based on the mechanistic of
materials that relates traffic load to pavement response, such as stress and strain.
6
Mechanistic computer program can be used to run the calculation of stress, strain,
and deflections. By using this computer program, all the pavement reactions due to
the load repetition can be determined more accurately, close to the actual condition.
KENLAYER computer program applied only to flexible pavement has been used for
determining the damage ratio using distress models. It is the solution for an elastic
multilayer system under a circular loaded area by superimposing for multiple wheels,
applying iteratively for non-linear layers, and collocating at various times for visco-
elastic layers.
Figure 2.3: Elastic Multi –Layer system (Huang.1993)
The distress models used in KENLAYER are fatigue cracking and permanent
deformation or rutting. In designing the flexible pavement, the most critical
consideration is strain due to cracking and rutting. The fatigue cracking is caused by
the horizontal tensile strain (ε t ) at the bottom of the asphalt layer and the permanent
deformation or rutting is caused by vertical compressive strain (ε c ) on the subgrade.
The fatigue cracking models are developed from Miner’s cumulative damage
concept. The main difference in the various design methods is the transfer functions
associate the HMA tensile strains (ε t ) to the allowable number of load repetitions
(N f ). The allowable number of load repetition can be computed using Equation 2.3
Nf = f 1 ( εt) (-f2)
(E)(-f3) …………………………………………..[2.3]
7
Where:
εt : horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the HMA layer
E : modulus of elasticity of the HMA
f1, f2, f3 : constants obtained by calibration
The permanent deformation models are used to control the vertical compressive
strain on the top of the subgrade. The allowable number of load repetition (N d ) to
limit rutting is related to the vertical compressive strain (ε c ) on top of the subgrade
by Equation 2.4.
Nd = f4 ( εc) (-f5)
…………………………………………………..[2.4]
Where:
εc : Vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade layer
Nd : Number of load repetition to failure
f4, f5 : Calibrated values using predicted performance and field observation
The damage ratio is the ratio between the predicted and allowable number of
repetition. It is computed for each load group in each period and summed over the
year by Equation 2.5.
………………………………….……..[2.5]
Where:
Dr : damage ratio at the end of a year
n i,j : predicted number of load repetitions for load j in period i
N i,j : allowable number of load repetitions for load j in period i
p : the number of periods in each year
m : number of load groups
………………………………….……………..[2.6]
The design life is computed through Equation 2.6 and calculated for fatigue cracking
and for permanent deformation, and the one with a shorter life controls the design.
8
2.5 Previous Studies on Mechanistic Pavement Analysis
To meet the objectives of the present study, previous research on mechanistic
pavement analysis on various works were studied in detail. Abdel - Motaleb (2007)
studied a methodology for achieving a reasonable balance between fatigues and
rutting lives of flexible pavements. The methodology was based on the damage
analysis concept which is performed for both fatigues cracking and rutting on
different pavement sections using KENLAYER program. Sensitivity analysis was
carried out by varying the component thickness and moduli values of various layers
and arrived at the components which are required for the optimum performance of
the pavement section.
Jeya (2007) focused on designing a pavement section in the Mumbai Vadodara
Express way. Damage analyses for cracking and permanent deformation at various
critical points were performed and the design life based on the cumulative damage
ratio was obtained. Also the sensitivity analysis for the effect of various layers in
terms of their thickness and material properties based on the critical stress analysis
from KENLAYER were determined.
Salem (2008) aims at studying the effect of axle load increase, and the variation in
pavement moduli, on the overall pavement life. It also aims at estimating the
overweight truck limits that could be penalized or unloaded. The research uses the
KENLAYER software and pavement materials conditions to estimate the tensile
strains occurring under the asphalt concrete (AC) layer and the compressive strains
above the sub grade surface. These computed strains are incorporated in the fatigue
cracking and rutting models to estimate the pavement life for different axle weights.
Janaraj T., & Mampearachchi W.K.(2009)[6] focused on Comparison of Structural

capacity of Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA) Pavement Designs (AASHTO & TRL RN-31).
Finite Element Method data was used in analyzing of the results. From the results, in
particular, the following conclusions were made: The comparison of AASHTO and
ORN 31 guidelines shows that ORN 31 gives lower SN for Lower ESAL categories
and higher SN for higher ESALs categories. The SN difference (ORN:31-AASHTO)
increases as the subgrade CBR increases.
9
ORN 31 gives a higher overall pavement thickness except CBR 2% and AASHTO
gives thicker asphalt layer and thinner base layer for all ESALs categories.
Asphalt and base material thicknesses do not show any response for subgrade
strength which is measured in CBR.
Lower CBR of the subgrade is compensated with subbase layer in both design
guidelines. The sensitivity of subbase thickness for ESALs and CBR is less in ORN
31.
10
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
3.1 Data Collection
3.1.1 Field data
Field data which was obtained from Janaraj T.(2009)[6] was used to evaluate the
computer program KENLAYER. Table 3.1 represent design compositions of
pavement sections at 04 number of test locations.
Table 3.1- Designed pavement data for test specimens.
Test 01 04 02 03
number
Design RN 31 AASHTO RN 31 AASHTO
Guideline
Traffic in
1.5-3.0 1.5-3.0 17-30 17-30
ESALs
(millions)
Layer
BS-50 BS-127 BS-150 BS-186
type –
GB-175 GB-55 GB-250 GB-72
Thickness
GS-125 GS-100
(mm)
Structural BS-0.63 BS-1.6 BS-1.89 BS-2.34

Number GB-1.41 GB-0.44 GB-2 GB-0.58
(SN) GS-0.47 GS-0.38
Total
2.51 2.04 4.28 2.92
SN
3.1.2 Construction procedure of the test section
The Dynamic Cone Penetration test (DCP) test was conducted on the prepared
subgrade, after removing of top soil up to 1 foot, to estimate the subgrade CBR
value. DCP value in mm/blow was converted in to CBR using TRRL equation as
given in equation 3.1. Average subgrade CBR value was 25%.
Log10 (CBR) = 2.48 – 1.057× Log10 (mm/blow) …………………..[3.1]
Subbase and base layers were constructed on prepared subgrade as shown in Figure
3.1. Material properties of the Base and Subbase complied with Standard
11
Specification of Construction and Maintenance (SSCM) for road and Bridges in Sri
Lanka and the CBR of subbase and base were 30% and 80%, respectively. Prime
coat was applied to ensure proper bonding between asphalt and base layer and seals
all voids in the surface of the base layer.
Figure 3.1:- Constructed Test pavement sections (Janaraj T.(2009))
Plate load test was conducted as shown in Figure 3.2, to measure the pavement
deflection for static load with different magnitude to simulate the response for
vehicle loading.
Figure 3.2:- Plate load Test ( Janaraj T.(2009))
12
Table 3.2- Plate load test results.
Test Design Load Deflection

Number method (Ton) (mm)
Results were not
1 RN 31
Found.
2 RN 31 0 0
1 0.33
2 0.61
3 0.87
3.78 1.13
3 AASHTO 0 0
1 0.30
2 0.53
3 0.75
4 0.93
4 AASHTO 0 0
1 0.30
2 0.58
3 0.90
3.4 1.17
3.2 Case study on North Rehabilitation Project
Northern road rehabilitation project was consisted with several road packages.
Selected road in research study was situated in the Mannar District which is the main
link of Mannar and Jaffna Peninsula through Pooneryn. Project identification was
the Road package C2, from Ch.14+640 to 81+370 Navathkuli Karativu Mannar road
(A032).
Source: Pavement design report submitted by the contractor M/S China Harbor
Engineering Company Ltd.
3.2.1 Design Data

1. Design Reference: ORN 31
2. Investigation Data: DCP and Laboratory CBR values are shown in the
Appendix - A of the report.
13
3. Design Traffic: 6.0Million Standard Axels: Calculation of cumulative
number of standard axel loads are shown in the Appendix - B of the
report.
Typical road section of the rehabilitation road project is shown in the Figure 3.3
Fig : 3.3 : Typical road section of the project
Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 represents the progress of the widening sections and the
site conditions respectively.
14
Figure 3.4: Widening section in progress
Figure 3.5: Site condition of project
15
Pavement design for the project road was incorporated with the ORN 31 design
methodology. Forecasted traffic category and investigated sub grade strength
category were T5 (6msa) and S1 (CBR – 2%) respectively.
Chart Number 03 of design catalogue gives 50mm Asphalt concrete, 175mm
Granular Base (CBR> 80), 225mm Granular Sub Base ( CBR>30) and 200mm Soil
Capping Layer ( CBR15+) . Problem encountered during construction stage was the
scarcity of the capping layer material of CBR -15%. Hence design thicknesses were
altered than the ORN 31 design guideline. This was analyzed with different design
thicknesses of available material at the project area as case study. In the analyzing of
several options, pavement composition given in ORN 31 design methodology is
referred as Option 01. The proposed design alternative given by the designer was
considered as Option 02. The alternative design proposed by design reviewer with
decreased sub base material up to maximum of 200mm thickness was considered as
the Option 03 in the case study due to the scarcity of CBR - 30% material at project
area. The sample design calculations were given in the followings.
Sample Design Calculation
OPTION 01
ORN 31 design methodology
Design Subgrade CBR of Widening Area = 2%

Design Subgrade Class of Widening Area = S1 ( Road Note 31- Table 2.2 )
Design traffic Class = T5 ( Road Note 31- Table 3.1 )
SECTION FOR CBR -2%
Selected Section- ( Road Note 31- Chart 3 )
16
50 Flexible Bituminous Surface (0.30 Structural Coefficient)
175
Granular Base (CBR> 80) (0.12 Structural Coefficient)
275
Granular Subbase ( CBR>30) (0.11 Structural Coefficient)
200
Soil Capping Layer ( CBR15+) (0.09 Structural Coefficient)
Structure Number of Selected section = 50x0.30+175x0.12+275x0.11+200x0.09

Required Structure Number = 84.3
OPTION 02
Proposed Section by Designer

Soil Capping Layer of CBR - 8%
50 Asphalt Concrete (0.30 Structural Coefficient)
175
Dense Graded Aggregate Base (0.12 Structural Coefficient)
450 Soil Subbase Type- I ( CBR 30+) (0.11 Structural Coefficient)
150
Soil Capping Layer ( CBR15+) (0.07 Structural Coefficient)
Structure Number of Proposed Section = 50x0.30+175x0.12+450x0.11+150*.07

= 96
OPTION 03
Proposed Section by design reviewer

Soil Capping Layer of CBR - 8%
50 Asphalt Concrete (0.30 Structural Coefficient)
175
Dense Graded Aggregate Base (0.12 Structural Coefficient)
200
Soil Sub-base Type- I ( CBR 30+) (0.11 Structural Coefficient)
550 Soil Capping Layer ( CBR15+) (0.07 Structural Coefficient)
Structure Number of Proposed Section = 50x0.30+175x0.12+200x0.11+550*.07

= 96.5
17
The summary of the pavement compositions are given in the Table 3.3. The best fit
option is needed to be selected for the construction from the three options given
below.
Table 3. 3: Case Study Analyzed in local road section
Option Description Sub Layer Thickness(mm)

No Grade
AC ABC Sub Embankment
Base Material
1 ORN-31 Design 50 175 300 300
80% 30% 15% CBR
CBR CBR
2 Proposed Design 2% CBR 50 175 450 150
By designer
80% 30% 8% CBR
CBR CBR
3 200mm 50 175 200 550
sub-base design – 80% 30% 8% CBR
proposed by design CBR CBR
reviewer
3.3 Data Analysis

3.3.1 Mechanistic method
Computer program KENLAYER, Huang (1993) [5] was used to analyze the distreses
on the flexible pavement layer.
Structural analysis of flexible pavement for KENLAYER is based on the Burmister
layer theory. Damage analysis is performed for the fatigue cracking and permanent
deformation. Distress data given in analysis are used further in calculating of the
design life and damage ratios made for a defined period, since the environment is
assumed to be constant.
An input for the analysis consists of two main parameters: (i) traffic loading and (ii)
material properties, which are keyed in KENLAYER using menu: LAYERINP. SI
unit system was used as it is the standard practice.
18
3.3.2 Model development for analyzing the experimental data
During the testing, 300mm diameter bearing plate has been used and contact pressure
was assumed to be uniformly distributed over the contact area. Maximum load
applied was four ton (4T) for 300 mm diameter area. This simulates the typical load
applied by a typical truck tire under normal condition. Conversion of the plate load
test data to contact pressure is shown in the Table 3.4
Table 3.4: Contact pressure used in the model
Contact
Load Area Contact Pressure
Ton kg A kg/m2 kPa
1 1000 0.0707 14,141.41 138.7

2 2000 0.0707 28,282.83 277.4
3 3000 0.0707 42,424.24 416.0
3.78 3780 0.0707 53,454.55 524.2
4 4000 0.0707 56,565.66 554.7
Load configuration has an effect on the stress distribution and deflection within a
pavement. Many trucks have dual wheels which guarantee that the contact pressure is
within the limits. In this study for simplification of the analysis, the dual wheels are
converted into an equivalent 80-kN single axle load (ESAL).
Others items of information about the load required in LAYERINP are:

1. The contact radius of circular loaded area (CR),
2. Contact pressure on circular loaded area (CP),
3. Center to center spacing between two dual wheels along the y axis (YW), and
4. Number of points in x and y coordinates to be analyzed under multiple wheels
(NPT).
In the mechanistic method of design, the contact area is necessary parameter which is
the contact area between tire and pavement, so axel load can be assumed uniform.
19
During this study, only wheels on one side (the outer wheel path) need to be
considered and each tire is assumed to have circular contact area. Tire spacing is
assumed with a typical distance between dual tires of 35 cm (Timm et al., 1998).
Tire radius of the contact area for commercial vehicles is 10.74 cm based on PCA
(1984). The tire pressure on contact area is suggested by Taesiri and Jitareekul
(2003) in the range of 550-700 kPa. Since the load is analyzed using 80kN single
axle load (ESAL).Hence tire pressure can be calculated using Equation 2.
Tire Pressure = P/A = 40kN/(2x∏ x 0.10742 ) …………………….…..[3.2]

=552kPa
Table 3.5. Load information
CR CP YW NPT
10.74cm 552kPa 35cm 3
In this study, the load information keyed in LAYERINP is shown in Table 3.5 and
Coordinates of stress points are shown in Figure 3.6
Figure 3.6: The tire spacing and location of stress points (Huang, 1993)
20
Initial traffic loads used for the case study are given in the Appendix-B of the report.
Traffic forecast calculations were based on the traffic data collected at the site and
data received from the road development authority on axel load data and growth
rates.
Cumulative number of standard axles for the design life was determined by using the
formula given below:-
[ ]
m
365∑ Pi (1 + ri ) − 1 / ri
n
A = i =1 …………………………………………………….[3.3]
Where,
A : Cumulative number of standard axles (CNSA) for design life
Pi : Number of standard axles per day as an average for the 1st year after
construction for vehicle type i
ri : Rate of growth of traffic for vehicle type i
m : Number of types of vehicles
n : Design life in years
3.3.3 Material Properties
Pavement design alternative proposals were analyzed in the mechanistic method in

semi-infinite linear elastic system consisting of four layers; wearing, base course,
granular subbase and subgrade.
The modulus elasticity, the Poisson’s ratio, and the unit weight of the material were
used to represent the properties of each layer.
CBR value was converted into resilient modulus for the subgrade materials using the
following empirical correlation specified in AASHTO (2002) design guideline:
Mr = 2555 × (CBR) 0.64……………. …………………………………………… [3.4]
Table-3.6 shows the material properties used by Janaraj T.(2009)[6] in field tests.
21
Table 3.6: Material properties of Felid tests
Resilient
CBR Poisson
Layer modulus
(%) ratio
(Mpa)
Asphalt - 3000 0.30
Base 80 350 0.35
Sub base 30 155 0.4
Capping 8 66.7 0.45
2 27.9 0.45
5 48.9 0.45
Sub grade
14 95.4 0.45
30 155 0.45
Thickness of each layer is stored in LAYERINP. Modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s

ratio and the unit weight of each layer are the material properties keyed in
LAYERINP which can be seen in Appendix C of the report.
The Granular base and sub base layers are assumed as linear elastic. The bitumen
surfaced material, Asphalt concrete and cement treated material are normally
considered as linear elastic with a constant modulus of elasticity. Modulus of
elasticity of each layer was used as input to LAYERINP.
Granular base layer was analyzed as nonlinear elastic layer. Elastic modulus of these
layers varies with level of stress. In this study, the granular material was assumed to
be aggregate base course material and the subgrade is assumed to be very soft soil as
CBR-2%.
There are several constants required in analyzing the nonlinear elastic: K0, K1, K2,
K3, K4, E min and E max . The coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0) recommended
by Monismith and Witczak is 0.8 (Huang, 1993). Finnetal (1986) suggested that the
range of constant nonlinear coefficient of granular layer (K1) is from 3,200 to 8,000
psi (22,080 to 55,200 kPa) and the non linear exponent (K2) is 0.45 .The values of
nonlinear constants used in this study are shown in Table 3.7.
22
Table 3.7. Nonlinear constants of nonlinear elastic layer
Nonlinear
No K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 E max E min
Layer
(kPa)
1 Granular 0.3 50000 0.45 - - - -
In addition, other inputs required for the analysis are the angle of internal friction of
granular materials (PHI) and z coordinate of points (ZCNOL). Since the granular
base in not subdivided into a number of layers and the pavement has subgrade with a
modulus higher than 6.9 MPa, PHI of 50 is suggested (Huang, 1993).
Stress points must be located to determine the modulus of elasticity of each nonlinear
layer. Since only the maximum stresses, strains, or deflection are required, the stress
point should be located under the center of single wheels, with XPTNOL = 0,
YPTNOL = YW/2 = 0 cm, and SLD = 0 in the field test.
Even though the modulus of elasticity can be calculated at any point in a nonlinear
granular layer, it is recommended that the z coordinate is located at the mid-depth of
each layer and for the nonlinear subgrade, a point of 1 inch below the subgrade is
used to determine the vertical compressive strain on the top of subgrade.
3.4 Damage Analysis
Depending on failure criterion, damage analysis can be performed for both fatigue
cracking and permanent deformation. Horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of AC
layer or layer 1 and the vertical compressive strain on the top of the subgrade are
considered for the fatigue cracking and permanent deformation respectively. These
critical distresses were used to determine the number of allowable loads before
fatigue cracking or rutting. The tolerable number of load repetitions for fatigue is
computed as per Chapter 3.3.1 Damage coefficients were used as input in
LAYERINP developed by the Asphalt Institute.
23
Figure 3.7: Typical pavement layer compositions
3.4.1. Fatigue Failure criteria

Fatigue failure criteria defined in Asphalt Institute (AI) represented as 20% of area to
be cracked.
For the 20% of area to be cracked as AI failure criterion
N f = f 1 (e t )-f2 (E 1 ) -f3 ……………. …………………………………………… [3.5]
Table 3.8: Asphalt Institute and shell method constants
f1 f2 f3
AI 0.0796 3.291 0.854

Shell 0.0685 5.671 2.363
For the 20% of area to be cracked as IRC failure criterion

Nf = 2.21x10-4*{(1/et)3.89 x (1/E)0.854}
Nf - Allowable number of load repetition to prevent fatige cracking

et - Tensile strain at the bottom of the Asphalt layer
E1 - Elastic Modulus of Asphalt Concrete(Mpa)
24
3.4.2. Permanent deformation Failure criteria (Rutting)
Permanent deformation failure criteria defined in Asphalt Institute (AI) represented

in following equation.
N d = f 4 (e c )-f5
Following Table 3.9 represented the f 4 and f 5 values which are the constants
determined from road tests or field performance by Asphalt Institute, Shell method
and University Nottingham
Table 3.9: Asphalt Institute, Shell method and University Nottingham constants
f4 f5
AI 1.365x 10-9 4.477

Shell 6.15x10-7 4.0
University of
1.13x10-6 3.571
Nottingham
For the limit the subgrade rutting to 20mm as per Indian Road Congress (IRC)
rutting failure criterion,
N R = 4.1656x10-8*(1/e c )4.5337 ……………. ……………………………………… [3.6]
N R - Allowable number of load repetition to limit rutting deformation

ec - Compressive strain at the top of the subgrade layer
25
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONS
4.1 The verification of KENLAYER Model

The KENLAYER results were verified with the field data to ensure the reliability of
the KENLAYER analysis. Table 4.1 given the deflection measured in the Field and
the output result of KENLAYER.
Table 4.1: Deflection measured in Field and output result of KENLAYER
Deflection(mm)
Load
(Tonn) Field KEN Field KEN Field KEN
T-02 - T02 T-03 - T03 T-04 - T04
1 0.33 0.20 0.3 0.26 0.3 0.37
2 0.61 0.39 0.53 0.52 0.58 0.7
3 0.87 0.59 0.75 0.79 0.9 1.01
4 0.93 1.05 -
Figure 4.1: Deflection vs load graph for field test and KENLAYER data.
26
Layer compositions designed as per AASHTO methodology for lower EASLS given
in Test number 04 were 55mm and 127mm for the AC and Granular base layers
respectively. The overall stiffness of the pavement is comparatively less than other
tests and KENLAYER responses were also similar to field test results. Layer
compositions designed as test number 03 was analyzed in KENLAYER as per the
AASHTO methodology for heavy traffic of 17-30 EASL and revealed that the field
and KENLAYER results are almost same.
In the KENLAYER analysis, it was assumed that all layers behaved as linear elastic.
There is no considerable difference between the magnitude of the deflection in the
KENLAYER and the field data as shown in the Figure 4.1
Followings were encountered during the field test of static - loading test.
1. Deflection at some distance from the point of load applied cannot be
measured exactly.
2. Static load is more distinct from actual traffic loading.
3. The observations may deviate from the actual due to tilting effect.
After considering all the facts above, it can be concluded that the KENLAYER can
be use for the pavement design analysis effectively.
4.2 Analysis of the Chart 03 - ORN 31
The ORN 31 is the reference design guideline to structural designs of bitumen-

surfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries. Detailed categorization of
subgrade is given to the tropical climates based on moisture conditions in road
subgrades. Attention is drawn to the desirability of adopting a stage construction
approach to the road construction where traffic growth rates are high or long term
prediction is uncertain.
The pavement design process is done in three stages reference to the TRRL Road
Note 31. Main inputs in ORN 31 methodologies are traffic class, strength of
subgrade classes and the selected combination of pavement materials using design
catalogues.
27
The selected traffic volume in analysis was million 3.0 - 6.0 equivalent standard
axels which belong to traffic category T5. For the various sub grade strengths (from
S1-S6), the pavements layer thicknesses given by the Chart 03 of ORN 31 is
illustrated in the Figure 4.2.
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
50 50 50 50 50 50
175 175 175 175 175

200
150
275 250
300 325
200
300
825 700 550 475 375 250

Total pavement thickness in mm
Flexible bituminous surface
Granular road base GB 1 - GB 3
Granular sub-base GS
Capping Layer
Figure 4.2 Pavement design compositions for T5 traffic class - Chart 03 of ORN
28
Figure 4.3: Compressive Strain at bottom of each layer for various sub grades
The gradient increases of Figure 4.3 represented are visible in both subgrade and
subbase graphs from S1 to S2 and S4 to S5. These gradients are represented with
respect to layer changes or layer drop downs.
Total pavement thicknesses from S1 to S6 were shown in the Figure 4.1 and
thicknesses are varied from 825mm to 250mm. At lower subgrade strength classes of
S1 and S2, the total pavement thicknesses are 825mm and 700mm respectively,
which represents higher pavement thicknesses. According to this analysis, clear
relationship can be identified between the total pavement thickness and the vertical
compressive strain of subgrade. It was found that, higher value of the total pavement
thickness gradually reduces the vertical compressive strain. The depth reduction is
gradually increase from subgrade strength class S1 to S6 . The compressive strain is
the highest in the subgrade class S6. Hence, subgrade needed to be ensured by the
proper compaction.
Vertical Deflection against the subgrade category was analyzed by KENLAYER
shown in the Figure 4.4
29
Figure 4.4: Vertical Deflection for the subgrade categories
From Figure 4.4, it was noted that higher surface deflections can be visible in the
lower subgrade categories (S1, S2). Surface deflections are gradually reduced with
the stability of the subgrade, hence damage under fatigue failure criteria is reduced.
It was noted that the higher surface deflection point is at the S2 subgrade category.
Vertical stress was analyzed by KENLAYER for each layers and shown in the Figure
4.5
Figure 4.5: Vertical Stress Variation for the subgrade categories
30
Vertical stress variation with the depth of the pavement for the various subgrades
(from S1-S3) sections analyzed were graphically present in the Figure 4.6 - Figure
4.8
Figure 4.6: Vertical Stress Variation with the depth of the pavement for S1-T5
31
Graphical illustrations from Figure 4.6 - Figure 4.8 represented that the lower values
of vertical stresses are at the gradual depth reduction with respect to the total
pavement thickness variation in subgrades S1 to S3 from 835mm to 510mm
respectively.
Allowable No of repetitions on pavement compositions were determined from three

design criterions; Asphalt Institute method, Nottingham University method and Indian
road congress method (IRC) as presented in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2: Allowable number of repetitions

Sub grade Design Criteria
Permanent Deformation
AI Method Nottingham Indian Road

University Congress
Method Method(IRC)
S1 1.64E+07 7.62E+06 8.07E+08
S2 3.66E+06 4.31E+06 1.77E+08
S3 2.70E+06 3.81E+06 1.30E+08
S4 3.79E+06 2.37E+06 1.83E+08
S5 1.49E+06 3.08E+06 7.53E+08
S6 1.22E+06 9.61E+05 5.82E+07
4.2.1. Subgrade strain (Rutting) Criterion
With reference to the IRC subgrade strain (Rutting) criterion, the following graph can
be developed. As a result, vertical subgrade strain value can be used to present gives
the cumulative traffic in million standard axels(MSA). Hence graphical representation
can be used to evaluate the Cumulative traffic volume for the roads which the vertical
sub grade strain value is known from any Mechanistic tool.
32
Figure 4.9: Subgrade strain (Rutting) Criterion as per IRC method
4.2.2. Tensile Strain Failure (Fatigue) Criterion
The following graph was developed based on the horizontal tensile strain vs the
cumulative traffic. When the horizontal tensile strain is known, the graphical
representation can be used to evaluate the cumulative traffic volume. If predicted
traffic is available, design life can be estimated too.
Figure 4.10: IRC tensile strain criterion
33
4.3 Comparison of AASHTO & ORN design data from KENLAYER
The stronger foundation is selected as the sub grade in this analysis. Input data are
shown in the Table 4.3. It is revealed that Asphalt concrete thickness is high under
higher ESAL category as per the AASHTO design guidelines and it was 300mm. For
the same, ORN-31 gives 150mm thickness. Pavement Vertical stress variations with
the depth of the pavement for the sections analyzed are graphically present in the
Figure 4.11. KENLAYER output results are given in Appendix- D of the report.
Table 4.3: Design Data

ORN AASHTO
Traffic in ESALs (millions) 17-30 (T8) 30
Sub-grade 25 %CBR
Design property of Sub-grade 15-29 (S5) 14,000Psi
Layer Properties
HMA - Layer Coefficient(a1) 0.3 0.3
HMA -Drainage Coefficient(m2) - 1

HMA- Modulus (psi) 200,000psi
Base - Layer Coefficient(a1) 0.14 (CBR-110%) 0.14
Base - Drainage Coefficient(m2) - 1.2

Base- Modulus (psi) 30,000psi
Sub Base - Layer 0.12(CBR-30%) -
Serviceability Index 2
Standard deviation (So) 0.42
Reliability (R) 92
Design Out put
Chart 05
HMA (mm) 150 300
Base(mm) 250 160
Sub base(mm) 100 0
Total Thickness 500mm 460mm
34
Figure 4.11: Vertical stress variation at Base and sub grade levels
Input layer properties in the KENLAYER for the AASHTO and ORN 31 are shown
in the Figure 4.12 and 4.13 respectively.
Figure 4.12: Layer properties of AASHTO pavement layer thickness in KENLAYER
Figure 4.13: Layer properties of ORN pavement layer thickness in KENLAYER
35
Figure 4.14: Deflection at the Base and Sub grade levels
Figure 4.14 reflected that, deflections obtained by ORN 31 methodologies are always
higher than the values obtained by AASTHO. Also these deflections in the base
material are greater than subgrade. The replacement of the granular base by Asphalt
concrete in the AASTHO pavement design shows significant decrease in the surface
deflections and the stresses in the base layer as shown in Figure 4.11.
The effects of the surface course thickness and modulus have significant influence in
the reduction of the vertical stress at the base and sub base layers. Also the increase
of modulus of the surface course with its thickness withstands the fatigue failure
criterion. Hence for the higher ESAL categories, the most suitable design guideline is
the AASHTO.
4.4 Analysis of case study data using KENLAYER
In the selected project road sections, the subgrade CBR was 2% and the traffic
forecasted was T5 category. The relevant design calculations were presented in
Chapter 3.2.1. The design reference used in the project was ORN 31 design
methodology and Figure 4.15 illustrated in pavement compositions of Option 01,
Option 02 and Option 03.
36
Option 01 Option 02 Option 03
50 50 50
175 175 175
200
300
450
550
300
150
Asphalt Concrete
ABC CBR - 80%
Sub Base CBR - 30 %
Capping Layer CBR - 15 %
Capping Layer CBR - 8 %
Figure 4.15: Pavement composition of Case study data in local road
37
The ORN- 31 proposal is considered as the Option 01. With reference to the ORN
31, the capping layer properties shall be CBR of 15%. However in the Mannar areas
there were no borrow pits to obtain the compatible materials. Hence the Embankment
type material of CBR-8% was used in the design calculations of the Option – 02.
Considering scarcity of the sub base material, design reviewers proposed to reduce
the subbase material to maximum of 200mm. In the alternative design analysis the
200mm subbase proposal considered as the Option 03. Summary of the three Option
are giving in the following Table 4.4
Table 4.4: Summary of Three Options

Option No Description Sub Layer Thickness(mm)
Grade
AC ABC Sub Capping
Base Layer
1 ORN-31 Design 50 175 300 300
80% 30% 15% CBR
2% CBR CBR
2 Proposed Design CBR 50 175 450 150
80% 30% 8% CBR
CBR CBR
3 200mm 50 175 200 550
sub-base design 80% 30% 8% CBR
CBR CBR
Pavement design proposals were analyzed from the distress model KENLAYER.
Surface deflections, Vertical strain at the sub grade level of each option, Vertical
compressive strain at each pavement layer and damage ratio were analyzed and
represented in the Figure 4.14 - Figure 4.17.
38
Figure 4.16: Variation of surface deflection with Options
Figure 4.17: Variation of Compressive strain of sub grade with Options
39
Figure 4.18: Variation of Vertical Strain at bottom of each layer
Figure 4.19: Variation of Damage Ratio at each layer respect to the design Option
Figure 4.16 shows the increase of the surface deflections from Option 01- Option 03.
These results are reasonable because the deflection depends on the average moduli of
the layer compositions. For the same sub grade moduli, Option 01 having the
embankment material with CBR -15% while other options are with CBR- 8%
40
material. Compressive strain is the governing criteria for the failure of rutting. It can
be seen that the higher value of compressive strain represent in the Option 02 in
Figure 4.17 and also it is represent by the Figure 4.19 by the damage ratio.
Figure 4.18 gives the variation of vertical strain at bottom of each layer, which is the
governing criterion for the fatigue failure criterion of the Asphalt concrete layer. It is
represent maximum values at the HMA layer.
The Figure 4.19 illustrated the damage ratio of each layer, which the highest damage
would be caused at the base layer in the each option. At the capping layer, maximum
damage ratio shown in the Option 03. Damage ratios of the all layers are less than 1,
which represent the safe in the design life. However the graphical representation can
be used to interpret the layer behaviors and failure criterion can be predicted in
advance.
Analyzed results are shown that the three options considered are within the deign
life. However the Option 01 which gives by ORN 31 is compatible to withstand than
the other two Options. Hence the Economical and construction feasibilities are the
other two criterions which considered in this alternative design analysis.
The cost comparison done for the 1km length is given in the Table 4.5. Both option 2
and 3 were analysed for subgrade CBR -3% Section and CBR-2% sections.
Finally concluded that percentage of cost increase due to implementation of Option

03 is 10% and 22% for the CBR-3% Sections and CBR-2% Sections respectively.
The main reason for this increase is the Rs 100.00 difference in between subbase
material and embankment material type -I. As per the BOQ cost per meter cube of
embankment material type -I and subbase material are Rs 5000.00 and Rs 5100.00
respectively.
41
Table 4.5: Summary of Cost Calculations
Description Unit Rate (Rs.) Option 1 Option 2
Quantity Amount Quantity Amount

(Rs.) (Rs.)
Widening Area
Roadway cum 1830.00 1.34 2,452.20 1.95 3,568.50
Excavation
Embankment cum 5000.00 0.80 4,000.00 2.25 11,250.00
Type 1
Sub base cum 5100.00 1.51 7,701.00 0.67 3,417.00
Sub Total -01 14,153.20 18,235.50

Shoulder Area
Roadway cum 1830.00 1.04 1,903.00 1.64 3,001.20

Excavation
Embankment cum 5000.00 0.62 3,100.00 2.06 10,300.00
Type 1
Sub base cum 5100.00 1.44 7,344.00 0.61 3,111.00
Sub Total -02 12,347.20 16,412.20
Total 26,500.40 34,64.70
42
Due to the different layer coefficients of the two materials, 100mm thickness subbase
has been replaced with 160mm thick embankment material type- I. Hence thickness
has been increased. The total thickness given from the Option 01 and 02 were equal
to 825mm and for Option 03 it was 975mm in thickness. Ultimately the total cost
has been increased.
Considering the structural adequacy, Option- 01 is the most suitable design proposal.
However due to the scarcity of material, Option - 02 was selected as the best solution
with respect feasibility in economical viability and pavement performance predicted
in KENLAYER.
4.5 Summary of Results and Discussions
Field deflection data were analyzed in the KENLAYER model and it was found that
there is no considerable difference between the magnitude of the deflections in the
KENLAYER model and field data. Hence KENLAYER has been used effectively in
pavement design analysis. Summary of findings are pointed up in following
paragraphs.
1. The design features used as input data in ORN 31 methodology were

subgrade categories of CBR 2% -30% (S1 – S6) and design traffic category
of T5 (3.0-6.0msa). Chart 03 of the ORN 31 was analyzed in the
KENLAYER with respect to compressive strain, vertical deflection and
vertical stress variation parameters. The analysis of this research discovered
very sensitive data and helped to find out very important relationships
between pavement composition and subgrade level.
 It was found that, surface deflections are gradually reduced with the
stability of the subgrade. Hence damage under fatigue failure criteria was
reduced respectively.
 The total thickness of the pavement has a direct relationship with the
vertical compressive strain in the lower sub grade. The vertical strains on
43
the pavement layers, mainly the vertical strain on the subgrade are the
governing factor for the rutting failure. Hence it was found that alteration
of material should be done without compensating the thickness of the
pavement to protect the lower layers of pavement composition. The
thickness of the pavement is adjusted in such a way that the stress/ strain
developed is less than the allowable values obtained from gathered data
which had been performed in past. Two design methods have been used
to control rutting failures: (a) To limit the vertical compressive strain on
the top of subgrade and (b) To limit to tolerable amount.
 Vertical stress variation for each subgrade categories can be easily

identified with the depth of the pavement layer using KENLAYER
results.
 Two graphical representations were developed in Figure 4.9 and Figure

4.10 on the themes of subgrade strain (Rutting) criterion as per IRC
method and IRC tensile strain criterion respectively. These
representations can be used effectively in evaluation of cumulative traffic
volume where Mechanistic evaluated data such as vertical subgrade strain
or horizontal tensile strain whichever result is available. Furthermore
design life can be forecasted.
2. When considering the pavement design for heavy ESAL ranges, ORN 31 and
the AASHTO design provide comparable results in the analysis. It was found
that, the asphalt layer thickness determined from AASHTO is higher than that
of ORN 31. As per ORN 31 designs, granular base and sub base thicknesses
are generally higher than that of the AASHTO method. It was found that
KENLAYER output results on strains and stresses are critical at the base and
sub grade levels of ORN 31 design than the AASHTO design method. As a
result of analyzed data, AASHTO design methodology is most reliable design
practice to be used for heavy EASL categories.
44
3. Analysis of the three pavement options in the case study has proved that all
three pavement design options were satisfied the design requirements and
sustained for the design life. Considering the structural adequacy, Option- 01
is the most suitable design proposal. However due to the scarcity of material,
Option - 02 was selected as the best solution with respect feasibility in
economical viability and pavement performance predicted in KENLAYER.
4. The option 03, which has a lesser sub base thickness than the other options,
which resulted a higher compressive strain at the capping layer. Hence sound
construction practices are required to avoid failures in lower layers during the
design life. Therefore analytical tools are very important in selecting most
reliable pavement design options because it’s predicted layer performances in
advance.
45
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
The main purpose of this research is to analysis of flexible pavement road design
sections using Mechanistic methods. Though, in Sri Lanka most common practice in
flexible pavement design methodologies were based on Empirical design
methodologies.
In the research study, Mechanistic tool KENLAYER has used in pavement design
analysis. Mechanistic procedures would have several important advantages; (a)
assess existing pavement structural capacity (through laboratory testing, non-destruc-
tive testing, etc), (b) ability to evaluate and compare different design alternatives on,
and (c) ability to predict the performance in advance.
One of the critical issues in road construction practices is to find the standard
material as per the specification. Scarcity of Subbase material and Embankment
material as per standards are the crucial issues in some projects. Therefore it is
important to assess the structural capacity of alternative designs with substandard
materials.
In the other hand, in construction process of road projects several alternative designs
are required at the (a) Scarcity of materials (b) Cost constraint on budget and (c)
Providing access to the land and properties which lead in limiting of total pavement
thickness.
Therefore, when there are alternative design proposals, it is appropriate to analysis
the pavement thicknesses compositions using the Mechanistic methods as
KENLAYER. In analyzing various alternative pavement design compositions, the
critical pavement layer compositions can be identified with its failure criterion.
It was found from the analyzed results that the failure has not propagated in to the
sub-grade. Furthermore, it was also found that, material layers of capping tend to get
damaged before sub-grade failure, in the form of rutting failure. Vertical compressive
stress plays critical role in determining the design life and extent of the rutting
failure. Hence advance construction practices can be utilized to minimize the future
damages in lower layers.
46
Hence it can be concluded that analyses of alternative designs are very important in
selection of best performed pavement composition.
To evaluate the second objective of the research study, variation of vertical

compressive strain and surface deflection of various sub-grade strengths were
analyzed. It was found that total pavement design layer thickness on stronger sub
grade is less than weaker subgrade. Hence, in such locations, properties of
underneath layers should enhanced and level of compaction was found to be
important.
For all ESAL categories, AASHTO design thickness for stronger subgrade, where
CBR values are above 14 %; the results have shown lower deflection than that of
ORN 31 design thicknesses. As such AASHTO is the preferred guideline for
subgrades where CBR value is more than 14%.
5.2 Recommendation
Mechanistic pavement analysis could be used to analysed the pavement behavior and
can forecast the future failure modes and the respective layer where failure occurs.
This shall lead to have more precise idea of performance of the pavement during its
life. Hence it is recommended to do the pavement design analysis using
KENLAYER in addition to pavement thickness calculations decided by Empirical
design methodologies.
47
REFERENCES
1. Road Development Authority, April 1999, A guide to the structural design of

roads under Sri Lankan Conditions, Colombo
2. AASHTO. 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

Washington, DC: American association of state highway and transportation
officials.
3. Transport and Road Research Laboratory Overseas Road Note 31(1993),

United Kingdom
4. Huang Y.H.(2004),Pavement Analysis and Design, 2nd Edition, New Jersey,

Prentice Hall.
5. Samed E.(2011)., Sensitivity Analysis In Flexible Pavement Performance

Using Mechanistic Empirical Method (Case Study: Cirebon–Losari Road
Segment, West Java) Balai Besar Pelaksanaan Jalan Nasional IV, Ditjen Bina
Marga, Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum
6. Janaraj T.,&Mampearachchi W.K.(2009), Comparison of Structural Capacity

of Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA) Pavement Designs (AASHTO & TRL RN-31).
Engineer Journal of Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka, Vol XXXXIV, No
01,2009, ISSN 1800-1122.
48
APPENDIX-A: INVESTIGATION DATA
Table A1: DCP TEST RESULT SUMMARY OF EXISTING
PAVEMENT
Thickness DESIGN
Chainage Side Layer CBR
/ [mm] CBR
1 7 0
2 113 33
3 120 34
35+250 CL 4 138 19
5 262 10
6 195 13
15
1 12 0
2 123 6
3 145 88
35+750 CL
4 145 57
5 387 31
41
1 10 0
2 125 34
3 131 109
36+250 CL 4 179 112
5 200 51
6 190 40
43
1 5 0
2 15 55
3 42 25
36+750 CL 4 24 22
5 14 39
6 8 70
22
1 5 0
2 63 114
3 117 149
37+250 CL
4 110 104
5 328 59
6 160 34 67
1 15 0
2 48 52
37+750 CL
3 192 15
4 605 3 5
49
DESIGN
Thickness CBR
/ [mm]
1 5 0
2 263 103
38+250 CL 3 135 62
4 137 40
5 320 25 48
1 35 0
2 65 42
38+500 CL 3 142 69
4 212 38
321 20 29
1 15 0
2 451 21
39+250 CL 3 168 11
4 216 7
5 15
1 30 0
2 93 35
39+750 CL 3 102 98
4 325 33
5 220 63 34
1 35 0
2 245 105
40+250 CL 3 230 73
4 302 36
5 64
1 30 0
2 80 23
40+750 CL 3 155 91
4 173 64
5 327 33 30
1 25 0
2 133 20
41+250 CL 3 105 20
4 200 41
5 322 25 27
1 25 0
2 6 302
41+750 CL 3 170 65
4 273 34
5 277 19 33
50
Thickness DESIGN
/ [mm] CBR
1 25 0
2 60 17
42+250 CL 3 130 27 15
4 195 20
5 420 9
1 5 0
2 83 136
42+750 CL 3 77 273 19
4 405 19
5 290 18
1 15 0
2 126 19
43+250 CL 3 80 27 18
4 130 33
5 464 14
1 5 0
2 58 37
43+750 CL 3 25 239 37
4 32 184
5 17 359
1 30 0
2 230 17
44+250 CL 3 285 10 15
4 110 24
5 180 38
1 5 0
2 10 27
44+750 CL 3 3 95 27
4 12 276
5 9 518
Table A2: DCP TEST REPORT SUMMARY OF SUBGRADE IN

WIDENING SECTIONS – LHS
Thickness / DESIGN
Chainage Side Offset/m Layer CBR
[mm] CBR
1 15 0
2 78 10
35+000 LHS 2.9
3 131 24
4 641 9 9
51
DESIGN
Thickness / CBR
[mm]
1 20 0
2 203 9
35+500 LHS 3 290 5
4 342 3
3
1 15 0
2 157 22
36+000 LHS 3.9 3 190 12
4 428 4
4
1 25 0
2 79 34
36+500 LHS 4
3 191 16
4 515 4 4
1 15 0
2 107 41
37+000 LHS 3.7 3 159 28
4 249 18
5 320 14 16
1 25 0
2 83 19
37+250 LHS 3 53 85
4 192 5
5 350 3 3
1 105 0
2 194 3
3 161 8
38+000 LHS 4
4 235 3
5
3
1 45 0
2 340 1
38+500 LHS 4.1 3 290 2
4 90 3
5 1
1 35 0
2 87 6
39+000 LHS 3.8 3 136 7
4 332 19
5 236 15 8
52
DESIGN
Thickness /
Chainage Side Offset/m Layer CBR CBR
[mm]
1 15 0
2 235 9
39+500 LHS 4.1
3 303 5
4 282 7 6
1 25 0
2 71 46
40+000 LHS 4.1 3 124 91
4 210 66
5 375 7 16
1 30 0
2 53 108
40+500 LHS 4.1 3 145 77
4 77 35
5 540 22 22
1 35 0
2 65 12
41+000 LHS 3.9
3 347 9
4 373 8 9
1 10 0
2 90 17
41+500 LHS 4.1
3 300 7
4 455 4 5
1 15 0
2 205 6
42+000 LHS 3.7
3 395 8
4 220 37 15
1 25 0
2 61 8
42+500 LHS 4.1 3 134 7
4 266 9
5 329 7 8
1 5 0
2 106 20
43+000 LHS 4 3 181 16
4 202 7
5 306 3 5
1 15 0
2 175 4
43+500 LHS 4.1 3 210 7
4 143 3
5 297 8 5
53
Thickness / DESIGN
[mm] CBR
1 23 0
2 139 17
44+000 LHS 3.5 3 126 14
4 130 14
5 388 5 8
1 12 0
2 167 6
44+500 LHS 3.5 3 137 9
4 297 5
5 210 8 6
1 20 0
2 130 10
45+000 LHS 3.5 3 195 13
4 95 13
5 410 6 7
Table A3: DCP TEST REPORT SUMMARY OF SUBGRADE IN

WIDENING SECTIONS – RHS
Thickness / DESIGN
[mm] CBR
1 10 0
2 220 27
35+500 RHS 3 175 12 13
4 235 11
5 200 20
1 15 0
2 195 13
3 193 16
36+000 RHS 3.9 5
4 142 9
5 210 2
1 10 0
2 135 19
3 118 15
36+500 RHS 3.1 6
4 187 8
5 280 4
6 100 7.4
1 10 0
2 180 13
37+000 RHS 3.2 7
3 406 6
4 252 8
54
Thickness / DESIGN
[mm] CBR
1 10 0
2 125 12
3 425 8
37+500 RHS 3.2 8
4 150 19
5 130 12
1 35 0
2 255 10
38+000 RHS 3.8 4
3 335 4
4 195 5
1 27 0
2 211 5
38+500 RHS 3.5 3
3 157 3
4 351 2
1 15 0
2 106 7
39+000 RHS 3.8 3 354 16 10
4 186 17
5 160 25
1 47 0
2 136 9
39+500 RHS 3.9 3
3 260 4
4 375 3
1 70 0
2 75 3
40+000 RHS 3.3 3 166 6 5
4 109 9
5 335 5
1 20 0
2 96 8
40+500 RHS 3.8 3 197 6 6
4 290 11
5 228 7
1 30 0
2 100 18
41+000 RHS 3.8 3 120 15 13
4 119 13
5 241 45
1 17 0
2 216 6
41+500 RHS 3.8 6
3 305 4
4 285 8
55
Thickness / DESIGN
[mm] CBR
1 15 0
2 85 12
42+000 RHS 3.9 3 185 11 12
4 194 10
5 301 14
1 10 0
2 91 17
42+500 RHS - 3 154 10 7
4 360 7
5 200 7
1 15 0
43+000 RHS 3.9 2 245 8 5
3 565 4
1 15 0
2 125 6
43+500 RHS 3.9 3 160 11 7
4 180 4
5 340 11
1 5 0
2 120 8
3 170 15
44+000 RHS 3.6 4
4 115 4
5 330 4
80 9
1 10 0
2 343 11
44+500 RHS 4.1 7
3 120 2
4 347 15
1 20 0
2 34 23
45+000 RHS 4 3 233 5 4
4 423 4
5 120 11
56
APPENDIX-B: THE INITIAL TRAFFIC LOADS USED FOR THE CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CALCULATION OF CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STANDARD AXLE LOAD
Road Name NAVATHKULI - KARAITIVU - MANNAR ROAD

Route No AB-032
Number of Lanes 2
Design Life (yrs) 10
ADT (Average) 2004 Year 2009
Vehicle Type R2 Total
MCL TWL CAR VAN MBU LBU LGV MGI MG2 HG3 AG3 AG4 AG5 AG6 FVH
Growth Rate (2009-2012) 12.70% 12.70% 11.40% 11.40% 11.40% 5.70% 9.30% 5.70% 23.70% 11.40% 11.40% 11.40% 11.40% 11.40% 11.40%
Growth Rate (2012-2017) 11.70% 11.70% 10.50% 10.50% 10.50% 5.30% 4.30% 5.30% 12.10% 10.50% 10.50% 10.50% 10.50% 10.50% 10.50%
Growth Rate (2017-2022) 11.20% 11.20% 10.10% 10.10% 10.10% 5.00% 2.50% 5.00% 4.60% 10.10% 10.10% 10.10% 10.10% 10.10% 10.10%
Vehicle Composition 8.18 9.77 3.1 11.76 0 0.64 45.83 11.2 6.04 1.43 0 0.04 0.16 0.71 0.79 100
Vehicle/ Day (2009) 164 196 62 236 0 13 918 224 121 29 0 1 3 14 16 1997
Vehicle/ Day (2012) 235 280 86 326 0 15 1199 265 229 40 0 1 4 20 22 2722
Vehicle/ Day (2017) 408 487 141 537 0 20 1480 343 406 65 0 2 7 32 36 3965
Ave. ESA 0 0.3091 0.002 0.1059 4.0184 24.532 0 20.261 12.132 50.268 0
ESA/ Day/Lane at 2012 0 0.001 0 0.005 0.168 0.177 0 0.004 0.01 0.18 0 0.546
ESA/ Day/Lane at 2017 0 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.297 0.292 0 0.007 0.016 0.297 0 0.918
Design Life CNSA for Each Vehicle Type
5 (2012-2017) 0 0.005 0.002 0.028 1.07 1.094 0 0.025 0.061 1.113 0 3.397
5 (2017-2022) 0 0.006 0.003 0.037 1.63 1.788 0 0.041 0.099 1.819 0 5.422
10 (2012-2022) 0 0.011 0.005 0.065 2.7 2.881 0 0.067 0.159 2.931 0 8.82
The Cumulative Number of Standard Axles (CNSA) for a design life of 10 years (2012 to 2022) for the design lane is calculated to be 8.82 million standard axles (msa)
Decision was made in meetings to consider design traffic volume as 6msa in pavement designs.
57
Vehicle Classification
MCL : Motor Cycles

TWL : Three Wheelers
MBU : Medium Passenger Vehicles
LBU : Large Passenger Vehicles
LGV : Light Good Vehicles
R2 : Medium/Large Good Vehicles
HG3 :3 Axels vehicles (Combined)
AG3 :3 Axels vehicles (Articulated)
FVH : Farm Vehicles
The cumulative number of standard axles for the design life can be determined by the use of the formula given below:-
[ ]
m
A = 365∑ Pi (1 + ri )n − 1 / ri
i =1
A = cumulative number of standard axles (CNSA) for design life

Pi = number of standard axles per day as an average for the 1st year after construction for vehicle type i
r I = rate of growth of traffic for vehicle type i
m = number of types of vehicles
n = design life in years
58
APPENDIX-C: FIELD DATA ANALYES RESULTS IN
KENLAYER
TITLE –TEST 02
MATL = 1 FOR LINEAR ELASTIC LAYERED SYSTEM

NDAMA = 0, SO DAMAGE ANALYSIS WILL NOT BE PERFORMED
NUMBER OF PERIODS PER YEAR (NPY) = 1
NUMBER OF LOAD GROUPS (NLG) = 1
TOLERANCE FOR INTEGRATION (DEL) -- = 0.001
NUMBER OF LAYERS (NL)------------- = 4
NUMBER OF Z COORDINATES (NZ)------ = 5
LIMIT OF INTEGRATION CYCLES (ICL)- = 80
COMPUTING CODE (NSTD)------------- = 1
SYSTEM OF UNITS (NUNIT)------------= 1
Length and displacement in cm, stress and modulus in kPa

unit weight in kN/m^3, and temperature in C
THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 15 25 10

POISSON'S RATIOS OF LAYERS (PR) ARE : 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
VERTICAL COORDINATES OF POINTS (ZC) ARE: 0 15 40 50 52.5
ALL INTERFACES ARE FULLY BONDED
FOR PERIOD NO. 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 1 3.000E+06 2

3.500E+05
3 1.550E+05 4 2.000E+04
LOAD GROUP NO. 1 HAS 1 CONTACT AREA

CONTACT RADIUS (CR)--------------- = 15
CONTACT PRESSURE (CP)------------- = 524.2
RADIAL COORDINATES OF 3 POINT(S) (RC) ARE : 0 0 0
PERIOD NO. 1 LOAD GROUP NO. 1
RADIAL VERTICAL VERTICAL

COORDINATE COORDINATE DISPLACEMENT
0.00000 0.00000 0.07507
0.00000 15.00000 0.07496
0.00000 40.00000 0.07045
0.00000 50.00000 0.06762
0.00000 52.50000 0.06644
0.00000 0.00000 0.07507
0.00000 15.00000 0.07496
0.00000 40.00000 0.07045
59
0.00000 50.00000 0.06762
0.00000 52.50000 0.06644
0.00000 0.00000 0.07507
0.00000 15.00000 0.07496
0.00000 40.00000 0.07045
0.00000 50.00000 0.06762
0.00000 52.50000 0.06644
TITLE : TEST 03


THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 18.6 7.2

POISSON'S RATIOS OF LAYERS (PR) ARE : 0.3 0.35 0.4
VERTICAL COORDINATES OF POINTS (ZC) ARE: 0 18.6 25.8 26

3.500E+05
3 2.000E+04


0.00000 0.00000 0.10530
0.00000 18.60000 0.10467
0.00000 25.80000 0.10244
0.00000 26.00000 0.10226
60
0.00000 0.00000 0.10530
0.00000 18.60000 0.10467
0.00000 25.80000 0.10244
0.00000 26.00000 0.10226
0.00000 0.00000 0.10530
0.00000 18.60000 0.10467
0.00000 25.80000 0.10244
0.00000 26.00000 0.10226
TITLE : TEST 04


THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 12.7 5.5

VERTICAL COORDINATES OF POINTS (ZC) ARE: 0 12.7 21.2 22

3.500E+05
3 2.000E+04


0.00000 0.00000 0.14925
0.00000 12.70000 0.14863
61
0.00000 21.20000 0.14043
0.00000 22.00000 0.13915
0.00000 0.00000 0.14925
0.00000 12.70000 0.14863
0.00000 21.20000 0.14043
0.00000 22.00000 0.13915
0.00000 0.00000 0.14925
0.00000 12.70000 0.14863
0.00000 21.20000 0.14043
0.00000 22.00000 0.13915
62
APPENDIX-D: AASHTO AND ORN ANALYSED RESULTS IN
KENLAYER
TITLE - AASHTO
MATL = 2 FOR NONLINEAR ELASTIC LAYERED SYSTEM


THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 30 16

VERTICAL COORDINATES OF POINTS (ZC) ARE: 0 30 46 47

5.000E+04
3 9.650E+04
LOAD GROUP NO. 1 HAS 2 CONTACT AREAS

CONTACT RADIUS (CR)--------------- = 10.7
CONTACT PRESSURE (CP)------------- = 552
NO. OF POINTS AT WHICH RESULTS ARE DESIRED (NPT)-- = 3
WHEEL SPACING ALONG X-AXIS (XW)------------------- = 0
WHEEL SPACING ALONG Y-AXIS (YW)------------------- = 34.29
RESPONSE PT. NO. AND (XPT, YPT) ARE: 1 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 11.500
3 0.000 17.145
NUMBER OF NONLINEAR LAYERS (NOLAY)-------------------------- = 1

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS FOR NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
(ITENOL) = 15
LAYER NUMBER (LAYNO) AND SOIL TYPE (NCLAY) ARE: 2 0
Z COORDINATES (ZCNOL) FOR COMPUTING ELASTIC MODULUS ARE: 38
63
R COORDINATE (RCNOL) FOR COMPUTING ELASTIC MODULUS ---------- =
0
X COORDINATE (XPTNOL) FOR COMPUTING ELASTIC MODULUS ---------
= 0
Y COORDINATE (YPTNOL) FOR COMPUTING ELASTIC MODULUS ---------
= 0
SLOPE OF LOAD DISTRIBUTION (SLD) ---------------------------- = 0
TOLERANCE (DELNOL) FOR NONLINEAR ANALYSIS ------------------- = 0.01
RELAXATION FACTORS (RELAX) FOR NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF EACH
PERIOD ARE: 0.5
UNIT WEIGHT OF LAYERS (GAM) ARE: 22.8 21.2 21
LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.45 K0 = 0.3
LAYER NUMBER AND GEOSTATIC STRESS (GEOS) ARE:

2 8.53600
FOR PERIOD 1 LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 PHI = 40 K1 = 50000
FOR LOAD GROUP 1 LAYER NO. AND X COORDINATE FOR COMPUTING

MODULUS ARE:
2 0
FOR LOAD GROUP 1 LAYER NO. AND Y COORDINATE FOR COMPUTING
MODULUS ARE:
2 0
AT ITERATION 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 2 5.000E+04

LAYER NUMBER AND THREE NORMAL STRESSES INCLUDING

GEOSTATIC STRESSES
2 41.091 -20.949 -14.932
LAYER NUMBER AND ADJUSTED THREE NORMAL STRESSES

INCLUDING GEOSTATIC
STRESSES FOR COMPUTING ELASTIC MODULUS ARE:
2 41.091 8.935 8.935
64
POINT VERTICAL VERTICAL VERTICAL MAJOR MINOR
INTERMEDIATE
PRINCIPAL PRINCIAL P. STRESS
NO. COORDINATE DISP. STRESS STRESS STRESS
(HORIZONTAL
(STRAIN) (STRAIN) (STRAIN) P. STRAIN)
1 0.00000 0.03116 552.000 777.094 745.700 766.264
(STRAIN) 1.470E-04 1.771E-04 1.468E-04 1.662E-04
1 30.00000 0.02560 49.764 50.505 -183.655 -146.858
(STRAIN) 1.180E-04 1.187E-04 -1.071E-04 -1.071E-04
1 46.00000 0.02296 23.876 24.159 -36.942 -30.740
(STRAIN) 1.635E-04 1.648E-04 -1.103E-04 -1.103E-04
1 47.00000 0.02272 23.315 23.963 -0.427 0.840
(STRAIN) 2.372E-04 2.466E-04 -1.072E-04 -1.072E-04
2 0.00000 0.02909 0.000 416.055 293.946 378.296
(STRAIN) 1.137E-05 1.291E-04 1.137E-05 9.271E-05
2 30.00000 0.02638 49.373 49.399 -189.745 -138.823
(STRAIN) 1.174E-04 1.174E-04 -1.132E-04 -1.132E-04
2 46.00000 0.02361 25.389 25.417 -39.686 -33.824
(STRAIN) 1.762E-04 1.763E-04 -1.168E-04 -1.168E-04
2 47.00000 0.02335 24.793 24.859 -0.573 1.071
(STRAIN) 2.546E-04 2.555E-04 -1.134E-04 -1.134E-04
3 0.00000 0.02860 0.000 356.154 224.574 322.312
(STRAIN) -9.207E-06 1.177E-04 -9.207E-06 8.504E-05
3 30.00000 0.02645 48.570 48.570 -188.869 -134.070
(STRAIN) 1.154E-04 1.154E-04 -1.135E-04 -1.135E-04
3 46.00000 0.02369 25.550 25.550 -39.990 -34.108
(STRAIN) 1.775E-04 1.775E-04 -1.176E-04 -1.176E-04
3 47.00000 0.02343 24.953 24.953 -0.592 1.110
(STRAIN) 2.564E-04 2.564E-04 -1.142E-04 -1.142E-04
TITLE – ORN 31

65
THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 15 25 10

POISSON'S RATIOS OF LAYERS (PR) ARE : 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4
VERTICAL COORDINATES OF POINTS (ZC) ARE: 0 15 40 50 51

5.000E+04
3 3.100E+04 4 9.950E+04

3 0.000 17.145

(ITENOL) = 15
LAYER NUMBER (LAYNO) AND SOIL TYPE (NCLAY) ARE: 2 0
Z COORDINATES (ZCNOL) FOR COMPUTING ELASTIC MODULUS ARE:

27.5
0
= 0
= 0
PERIOD ARE: 0.5
UNIT WEIGHT OF LAYERS (GAM) ARE: 22.8 21.2 21 20
LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.45 K0 = 0.3

2 6.07000
66

MODULUS ARE:
2 0
MODULUS ARE:
2 0


GEOSTATIC STRESSES
2 69.926 -37.312 -24.804

INCLUDING GEOSTATIC
2 69.926 15.205 15.205

INTERMEDIATE
(HORIZONTAL
1 0.00000 0.03988 552.000 802.000 584.834 772.571
(STRAIN) 2.409E-05 2.335E-04 2.410E-05 2.051E-04
1 15.00000 0.03655 165.356 166.660 -281.933 -224.737
(STRAIN) 2.445E-04 2.457E-04 -1.869E-04 -1.869E-04
1 40.00000 0.02998 30.035 30.102 -101.965 -84.079
(STRAIN) 2.648E-04 2.651E-04 -2.038E-04 -2.038E-04
1 50.00000 0.02408 25.889 26.732 13.007 13.414
(STRAIN) 4.833E-04 5.214E-04 -9.845E-05 -8.003E-05
1 51.00000 0.02387 25.449 25.981 4.680 5.514
(STRAIN) 2.126E-04 2.201E-04 -7.958E-05 -7.958E-05
2 0.00000 0.03879 0.000 550.391 293.945 485.780
(STRAIN) -4.908E-05 1.982E-04 -4.908E-05 1.359E-04
67
2 15.00000 0.03722 119.670 120.814 -222.902 -57.514
(STRAIN) 1.553E-04 1.564E-04 -1.750E-04 -1.750E-04
2 40.00000 0.03116 32.133 32.140 -109.863 -92.212
(STRAIN) 2.865E-04 2.865E-04 -2.177E-04 -2.177E-04
2 50.00000 0.02481 27.674 27.770 14.325 14.590
(STRAIN) 5.184E-04 5.227E-04 -8.450E-05 -8.450E-05
2 51.00000 0.02458 27.192 27.250 4.953 6.014
(STRAIN) 2.290E-04 2.298E-04 -8.394E-05 -8.394E-05
3 0.00000 0.03826 0.000 478.973 224.574 416.240
(STRAIN) -6.339E-05 1.819E-04 -6.339E-05 1.214E-04
3 15.00000 0.03710 102.655 102.655 -198.974 0.167
(STRAIN) 1.230E-04 1.230E-04 -1.678E-04 -1.678E-04
3 40.00000 0.03130 32.363 32.363 -110.605 -92.710
(STRAIN) 2.883E-04 2.883E-04 -2.193E-04 -2.193E-04
3 50.00000 0.02490 27.890 27.890 14.435 14.789
(STRAIN) 5.226E-04 5.226E-04 -8.506E-05 -8.506E-05
3 51.00000 0.02467 27.403 27.403 4.986 6.080
(STRAIN) 2.309E-04 2.309E-04 -8.449E-05 -8.449E-05
68
APPENDIX-E: CASE STUDY ANALYSED RESULTS IN
KENLAYER
TITLE – CASE STUDY OPTION 01
ATL = 2 FOR NONLINEAR ELASTIC LAYERED SYSTEM


THICKNESSES OF LAYERS (TH) ARE : 5 17.5 30 30

POISSON'S RATIOS OF LAYERS (PR) ARE : 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.45
VERTICAL COORDINATES OF POINTS (ZC) ARE: 0 5 22.5 52.5 82.5 83.5

5.000E+04
3 3.100E+04 4 9.950E+04 5 3.100E+04

3 0.000 17.145

(ITENOL) = 15
LAYER NUMBER (LAYNO) AND SOIL TYPE (NCLAY) ARE: 2 0 3 0

13.75 37.5
69
0
= 0
= 0
PERIOD ARE: 0.5
UNIT WEIGHT OF LAYERS (GAM) ARE: 22.8 21.2 21.2 21 20
LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.45 K0 = 0.3

LAYER NO. = 3 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.53 K0 = 0.45

2 2.99500 3 8.03000


MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
AT ITERATION 1 LAYER NO. AND MODULUS ARE : 2 5.000E+04 3

3.100E+04
1.995E+05
2.634E+05
2.891E+05
2.996E+05
3.037E+05
3.052E+05
3.057E+05
70
GEOSTATIC STRESSES
2 245.641 15.199 33.651 3 52.441 -19.980 -12.220

INCLUDING GEOSTATIC
2 245.641 53.412 53.412 3 52.441 11.403 11.403

INTERMEDIATE
(HORIZONTAL
1 0.00000 0.05757 552.000 656.964 429.724 650.363
(STRAIN) -1.989E-05 1.992E-04 -1.989E-05 1.929E-04
1 5.00000 0.05863 487.061 487.420 96.333 99.550
(STRAIN) 2.988E-04 2.992E-04 -7.793E-05 -7.759E-05
1 22.50000 0.05274 108.338 110.156 -109.884 -79.436
(STRAIN) 2.643E-04 2.680E-04 -1.761E-04 -1.761E-04
1 52.50000 0.04611 19.964 20.374 -52.325 -45.644
(STRAIN) 1.930E-04 1.949E-04 -1.381E-04 -1.381E-04
1 82.50000 0.04000 8.151 8.201 -14.424 -13.366
(STRAIN) 1.934E-04 1.941E-04 -1.242E-04 -1.242E-04
1 83.50000 0.03974 8.028 8.157 -0.045 0.146
(STRAIN) 2.556E-04 2.617E-04 -1.220E-04 -1.220E-04
2 0.00000 0.05427 0.000 331.715 147.960 315.846
(STRAIN) -5.620E-05 1.210E-04 -5.620E-05 1.057E-04
2 5.00000 0.05642 182.177 358.776 102.808 111.864
(STRAIN) 3.231E-05 2.026E-04 -4.423E-05 -4.423E-05
2 22.50000 0.05373 95.973 96.011 -101.568 -38.240
(STRAIN) 2.190E-04 2.191E-04 -1.798E-04 -1.798E-04
2 52.50000 0.04704 21.563 21.607 -55.721 -49.764
(STRAIN) 2.085E-04 2.087E-04 -1.455E-04 -1.455E-04
2 82.50000 0.04054 8.479 8.484 -15.034 -14.295
(STRAIN) 2.031E-04 2.032E-04 -1.277E-04 -1.277E-04
2 83.50000 0.04027 8.344 8.359 -0.065 0.135
(STRAIN) 2.679E-04 2.686E-04 -1.254E-04 -1.254E-04
3 0.00000 0.05195 0.000 247.718 92.432 239.200
(STRAIN) -5.571E-05 9.403E-05 -5.571E-05 8.582E-05
3 5.00000 0.05528 51.092 359.511 51.092 132.642
(STRAIN) -8.654E-05 2.109E-04 -8.654E-05 -7.906E-06
3 22.50000 0.05383 90.687 90.687 -97.404 -25.529
(STRAIN) 2.016E-04 2.016E-04 -1.780E-04 -1.780E-04
3 52.50000 0.04722 21.750 21.750 -56.074 -50.176
(STRAIN) 2.102E-04 2.102E-04 -1.463E-04 -1.463E-04
71
3 82.50000 0.04068 8.523 8.523 -15.080 -14.381
(STRAIN) 2.041E-04 2.041E-04 -1.280E-04 -1.280E-04
3 83.50000 0.04040 8.387 8.387 -0.055 0.146
(STRAIN) 2.692E-04 2.692E-04 -1.257E-04 -1.257E-04
TITLE – CASE STUDY OPTION 01 - DAMAGE ANALYSIS

NDAMA=2, SO DAMAGE ANALYSIS WITH DETAILED PRINTOUT WILL BE
PERFORMED



5.000E+04
3 3.100E+04 4 9.950E+04 5 3.100E+04

3 0.000 17.145

(ITENOL) = 15
72
13.75 37.5
0
= 0
= 0
PERIOD ARE: 0.5
UNIT WEIGHT OF LAYERS (GAM) ARE: 22.8 21.2 21.2 21 20
LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.45 K0 = 0.3

LAYER NO. = 3 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.53 K0 = 0.45

2 2.99500 3 8.03000


MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR BOTTOM TENSION (NLBT)---- = 1
NUMBER OF LAYERS FOR TOP COMPRESSION (NLTC)--- = 4
LAYER NO. FOR BOTTOM TENSION (LNBT) ARE: 1
LAYER NO. FOR TOP COMPRESSION (LNTC) ARE: 2 3 4 5
LOAD REPETITIONS (TNLR) IN PERIOD 1 FOR EACH LOAD GROUP ARE :

600000
DAMAGE COEF.'S (FT) FOR BOTTOM TENSION OF LAYER 1 ARE: 0.0796

3.291 0.854
DAMAGE COEFICIENTS (FT) FOR TOP COMPRESSION OF LAYER 2 ARE:

1.365E-09 4.477
1.365E-09 4.477
73
1.365E-09 4.477
1.365E-09 4.477
DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF PERIOD NO. 1 LOAD GROUP NO. 1

3.100E+04
1.995E+05
2.634E+05
2.891E+05
2.996E+05
3.037E+05
3.052E+05
3.057E+05

GEOSTATIC STRESSES
2 245.641 15.199 33.651 3 52.441 -19.980 -12.220

INCLUDING GEOSTATIC
2 245.641 53.412 53.412 3 52.441 11.403 11.403

INTERMEDIATE
(HORIZONTAL
1 5.00000 0.05863 487.061 487.420 96.333 99.550
(STRAIN) 2.988E-04 2.992E-04 -7.793E-05 -7.759E-05
1 5.00010 0.05863 487.295 487.852 235.277 237.211
(STRAIN) 4.298E-04 4.309E-04 -7.893E-05 -7.780E-05
1 22.50010 0.05274 108.337 111.576 -8.028 2.952
(STRAIN) 3.568E-04 3.717E-04 -1.761E-04 -1.761E-04
1 52.50010 0.04611 19.964 20.970 -8.057 -6.755
(STRAIN) 2.561E-04 2.703E-04 -1.381E-04 -1.381E-04
74
1 82.50010 0.04000 8.151 8.285 -0.059 0.140
(STRAIN) 2.598E-04 2.661E-04 -1.242E-04 -1.242E-04
2 5.00000 0.05642 182.177 358.776 102.808 111.864

(STRAIN) 3.231E-05 2.026E-04 -4.423E-05 -4.423E-05
2 5.00010 0.05642 182.327 312.945 87.409 129.473
(STRAIN) 6.247E-05 3.261E-04 -1.291E-04 -4.422E-05
2 22.50010 0.05373 95.970 96.035 -8.974 18.888
(STRAIN) 3.009E-04 3.012E-04 -1.798E-04 -1.798E-04
2 52.50010 0.04704 21.563 21.673 -8.443 -6.599
(STRAIN) 2.767E-04 2.783E-04 -1.455E-04 -1.455E-04
2 82.50010 0.04054 8.479 8.494 -0.079 0.130
(STRAIN) 2.726E-04 2.733E-04 -1.277E-04 -1.277E-04
3 5.00000 0.05528 51.092 359.511 51.092 132.642

(STRAIN) -8.654E-05 2.109E-04 -8.654E-05 -7.906E-06
3 5.00010 0.05528 51.093 205.559 51.093 97.175
(STRAIN) -1.009E-04 2.109E-04 -1.009E-04 -7.909E-06
3 22.50010 0.05383 90.687 90.687 -9.110 22.564
(STRAIN) 2.791E-04 2.791E-04 -1.780E-04 -1.780E-04
3 52.50010 0.04722 21.749 21.749 -8.474 -6.553
(STRAIN) 2.790E-04 2.790E-04 -1.463E-04 -1.463E-04
3 82.50010 0.04068 8.523 8.523 -0.070 0.140
(STRAIN) 2.739E-04 2.739E-04 -1.280E-04 -1.280E-04
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 1 TENSILE STRAIN = -7.759E-05

ALLOWABLE LOAD REPETITIONS = 1.509E+07 DAMAGE RATIO =
3.975E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 2 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN = 4.298E-04

3.715E-01

1.616E-01

5.369E-02

4.945E-02
******************************
* SUMMARY OF DAMAGE ANALYSIS *
75
******************************
AT BOTTOM OF LAYER 1 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 3.975E-02
AT TOP OF LAYER 2 SUM OF DAMAGE RATIO = 3.715E-01
MAXIMUM DAMAGE RATO = 3.715E-01 DESIGN LIFE IN YEARS = 2.69
TITLE – CASE STUDY - OPTION 02



VERTICAL COORDINATES OF POINTS (ZC) ARE: 0 5 22.5 67.5 82.5 83.5

4.400E+04
3 3.100E+04 4 6.650E+04 5 2.000E+04

3 0.000 17.145
76
(ITENOL) = 15

13.75 45
0
= 0
= 0
PERIOD ARE: 0.5
UNIT WEIGHT OF LAYERS (GAM) ARE: 22.8 21.2 21.2 21 19.6
LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.45 K0 = 0.3

LAYER NO. = 3 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.53 K0 = 0.45

2 2.99500 3 9.62000


MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0

3.100E+04
1.737E+05
2.307E+05
2.552E+05
77
2.660E+05
2.706E+05
2.726E+05
2.734E+05

GEOSTATIC STRESSES
2 244.161 17.043 35.915 3 42.613 -16.156 -10.824

INCLUDING GEOSTATIC
2 244.161 53.090 53.090 3 42.613 9.266 9.266

INTERMEDIATE
(HORIZONTAL
1 0.00000 0.06595 552.000 333.682 151.188 327.322
(STRAIN) -5.726E-05 1.187E-04 -5.726E-05 1.126E-04
1 5.00000 0.07235 481.877 482.170 56.450 56.744
(STRAIN) 3.158E-04 3.161E-04 -9.441E-05 -9.441E-05
1 22.50000 0.06572 111.098 112.783 -97.943 -68.008
(STRAIN) 2.906E-04 2.945E-04 -1.904E-04 -1.904E-04
1 67.50000 0.05641 9.194 9.297 -52.916 -48.780
(STRAIN) 1.822E-04 1.828E-04 -1.358E-04 -1.358E-04
1 82.50000 0.05309 6.167 6.203 -11.456 -10.623
(STRAIN) 2.253E-04 2.261E-04 -1.457E-04 -1.457E-04
1 83.50000 0.05279 6.075 6.170 -0.028 0.119
(STRAIN) 2.996E-04 3.064E-04 -1.429E-04 -1.429E-04
2 0.00000 0.06571 0.000 302.934 126.256 293.160
(STRAIN) -5.884E-05 1.115E-04 -5.884E-05 1.021E-04
2 5.00000 0.06982 182.948 364.813 86.182 117.601
(STRAIN) 3.426E-05 2.096E-04 -5.905E-05 -5.905E-05
2 22.50000 0.06673 99.647 99.696 -89.768 -27.964
(STRAIN) 2.411E-04 2.412E-04 -1.947E-04 -1.947E-04
2 67.50000 0.05720 9.769 9.780 -55.596 -52.519
(STRAIN) 1.939E-04 1.939E-04 -1.408E-04 -1.408E-04
2 82.50000 0.05369 6.405 6.409 -11.960 -11.378
(STRAIN) 2.367E-04 2.368E-04 -1.500E-04 -1.500E-04
2 83.50000 0.05338 6.305 6.316 -0.054 0.097
78
(STRAIN) 3.140E-04 3.148E-04 -1.470E-04 -1.470E-04
3 0.00000 0.06497 0.000 255.638 92.432 247.327
(STRAIN) -5.972E-05 9.766E-05 -5.972E-05 8.965E-05
3 5.00000 0.06866 55.525 391.124 55.525 129.776
(STRAIN) -9.056E-05 2.330E-04 -9.056E-05 -1.896E-05
3 22.50000 0.06696 94.551 94.551 -85.772 -15.681
(STRAIN) 2.221E-04 2.221E-04 -1.928E-04 -1.928E-04
3 67.50000 0.05750 9.859 9.859 -55.896 -52.949
(STRAIN) 1.953E-04 1.953E-04 -1.414E-04 -1.414E-04
3 82.50000 0.05397 6.456 6.456 -12.005 -11.455
(STRAIN) 2.382E-04 2.382E-04 -1.505E-04 -1.505E-04
3 83.50000 0.05365 6.355 6.355 -0.039 0.113
(STRAIN) 3.161E-04 3.161E-04 -1.475E-04 -1.475E-04
TITLE – CASE STUDY - OPTION 02 - DAMAGE ANALYSIS

PERFORMED



4.400E+04
3 3.100E+04 4 6.650E+04 5 2.000E+04

79
3 0.000 17.145

(ITENOL) = 15

13.75 45
0
= 0
= 0
PERIOD ARE: 0.5
LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.45 K0 = 0.3

LAYER NO. = 3 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.53 K0 = 0.45

2 2.99500 3 9.62000


MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
80
600000

3.291 0.854

1.365E-09 4.477
1.350E-09 4.477
1.365E-09 4.477
1.365E-09 4.477

3.100E+04
1.737E+05
2.307E+05
2.552E+05
2.660E+05
2.706E+05
2.726E+05
2.734E+05

GEOSTATIC STRESSES
2 244.161 17.043 35.915 3 42.613 -16.156 -10.824

INCLUDING GEOSTATIC
2 244.161 53.090 53.090 3 42.613 9.266 9.266

INTERMEDIATE
81
(HORIZONTAL
1 5.00000 0.07235 481.877 482.170 56.450 56.744
(STRAIN) 3.158E-04 3.161E-04 -9.441E-05 -9.441E-05
1 5.00010 0.07235 482.108 482.594 225.377 225.564
(STRAIN) 4.956E-04 4.967E-04 -9.514E-05 -9.464E-05
1 22.50010 0.06572 111.098 114.025 -3.233 8.049
(STRAIN) 3.950E-04 4.100E-04 -1.904E-04 -1.904E-04
1 67.50010 0.05641 9.194 9.549 -8.231 -7.555
(STRAIN) 2.311E-04 2.385E-04 -1.358E-04 -1.358E-04
1 82.50010 0.05309 6.167 6.265 -0.045 0.109
(STRAIN) 3.047E-04 3.119E-04 -1.457E-04 -1.457E-04
2 5.00000 0.06982 182.948 364.813 86.182 117.601

(STRAIN) 3.426E-05 2.096E-04 -5.905E-05 -5.905E-05
2 5.00010 0.06982 183.110 306.820 87.220 121.697
(STRAIN) 8.227E-05 3.669E-04 -1.384E-04 -5.903E-05
2 22.50010 0.06673 99.644 99.726 -3.762 23.953
(STRAIN) 3.348E-04 3.352E-04 -1.947E-04 -1.947E-04
2 67.50010 0.05720 9.769 9.809 -8.593 -7.882
(STRAIN) 2.457E-04 2.466E-04 -1.408E-04 -1.408E-04
2 82.50010 0.05369 6.405 6.416 -0.073 0.086
(STRAIN) 3.197E-04 3.205E-04 -1.500E-04 -1.500E-04
3 5.00000 0.06866 55.525 391.124 55.525 129.776

(STRAIN) -9.056E-05 2.330E-04 -9.056E-05 -1.896E-05
3 5.00010 0.06866 55.526 200.332 55.526 90.802
(STRAIN) -1.001E-04 2.330E-04 -1.001E-04 -1.897E-05
3 22.50010 0.06696 94.551 94.551 -3.838 27.660
(STRAIN) 3.109E-04 3.109E-04 -1.928E-04 -1.928E-04
3 67.50010 0.05750 9.859 9.859 -8.620 -7.903
(STRAIN) 2.476E-04 2.476E-04 -1.414E-04 -1.414E-04
3 82.50010 0.05397 6.456 6.456 -0.058 0.101
(STRAIN) 3.218E-04 3.218E-04 -1.505E-04 -1.505E-04

7.581E-02

7.031E-01

2.574E-01
82
3.149E-02

1.018E-01
******************************
******************************
TITLE – CASE STUDY - OPTION 03 - DAMAGE ANALYSIS

PERFORMED



4.400E+04
3 3.100E+04 4 6.650E+04 5 2.000E+04
83
3 0.000 17.145

(ITENOL) = 15

13.75 32.5
0
= 0
= 0
PERIOD ARE: 0.5
LAYER NO. = 2 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.45 K0 = 0.3

LAYER NO. = 3 NCLAY = 0 K2 = 0.53 K0 = 0.45

2 2.99500 3 6.97000


MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
MODULUS ARE:
2 0 3 0
84

600000

3.291 0.854

1.365E-09 4.477
1.365E-09 4.477
1.365E-09 4.477
1.365E-09 4.477

3.100E+04
2.161E+05
2.799E+05
3.038E+05
3.128E+05
3.158E+05
3.166E+05
3.167E+05

GEOSTATIC STRESSES
2 241.521 15.053 32.698 3 55.927 -42.493 -31.205

INCLUDING GEOSTATIC
2 241.521 52.516 52.516 3 55.927 12.161 12.161
85
INTERMEDIATE
(HORIZONTAL
1 5.00000 0.07981 481.291 481.784 72.972 75.537
(STRAIN) 3.065E-04 3.070E-04 -8.721E-05 -8.673E-05
1 5.00010 0.07981 481.524 482.334 232.960 234.634
(STRAIN) 4.855E-04 4.874E-04 -8.885E-05 -8.697E-05
1 22.50010 0.07320 103.635 107.688 -22.099 -10.983
(STRAIN) 3.639E-04 3.818E-04 -1.919E-04 -1.919E-04
1 42.50010 0.06765 25.663 26.732 -4.830 -3.003
(STRAIN) 4.266E-04 4.491E-04 -2.154E-04 -2.154E-04
1 97.50010 0.05331 5.988 6.057 0.081 0.175
(STRAIN) 2.921E-04 2.971E-04 -1.362E-04 -1.362E-04
2 5.00000 0.07754 182.041 379.131 107.860 123.394

(STRAIN) 2.294E-05 2.130E-04 -4.859E-05 -4.859E-05
2 5.00010 0.07754 182.179 310.210 92.033 131.465
(STRAIN) 6.861E-05 3.645E-04 -1.397E-04 -4.858E-05
2 22.50010 0.07454 88.594 88.636 -24.409 5.245
(STRAIN) 3.039E-04 3.041E-04 -1.957E-04 -1.957E-04
2 42.50010 0.06904 27.499 27.601 -5.113 -2.371
(STRAIN) 4.579E-04 4.601E-04 -2.287E-04 -2.287E-04
2 97.50010 0.05383 6.167 6.175 0.076 0.172
(STRAIN) 3.026E-04 3.031E-04 -1.390E-04 -1.390E-04
3 5.00000 0.07633 54.589 413.310 54.589 152.143

(STRAIN) -1.024E-04 2.435E-04 -1.024E-04 -8.301E-06
3 5.00010 0.07633 54.590 209.651 54.590 100.665
(STRAIN) -1.148E-04 2.435E-04 -1.148E-04 -8.304E-06
3 22.50010 0.07473 82.727 82.727 -24.709 8.972
(STRAIN) 2.811E-04 2.811E-04 -1.938E-04 -1.938E-04
3 42.50010 0.06932 27.674 27.674 -5.137 -2.257
(STRAIN) 4.606E-04 4.606E-04 -2.301E-04 -2.301E-04
3 97.50010 0.05402 6.203 6.203 0.087 0.183
(STRAIN) 3.041E-04 3.041E-04 -1.393E-04 -1.393E-04

5.736E-02

6.415E-01
86
1.764E-01

5.067E-01

7.895E-02
******************************
******************************
87

Analysis of Flexible Pavement Sections Using A Mechanistic - Empirical Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Analysis of Flexible Pavement Sections Using A Mechanistic - Empirical Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Flexible Pavement Sections Using A Mechanistic - Empirical Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS USING

A MECHANISTIC - EMPIRICAL METHOD

Department of Civil Engineering

Also, I hereby grant to University of Moratuwa the non-exclusive right to reproduce

Key words: Mechanistic – Empirical method — Damage analysis — KENLAYER

To All Who guide me to the Success.

I do thank Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau my employer, a statutory body

DECLARATION OF THE CANDIDATE AND THE SUPERVISOR i

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 3

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 11

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 46

APPENDIX - A: INVESTIGATION DATA 49

Figure 2.1 Typical Flexible Pavement Section 3

Figure 3.1 Constructed Test pavement sections (Janaraje.T.,2009) 12

Figure 3.2 Plate load Test (Janaraje.T.,2009) 12

Figure 3.4 Widening sections in progress 15

Figure 3.7 Typical pavement layer compositions 24

Figure 4.4 Vertical Deflection for the subgrade categories 30

Figure 4.10 IRC tensile strain criterion 33

Figure 4.12 Layer properties of AASHTO pavement layer thickness in KENLAYER 35

Figure 4.13 Layer properties of ORN pavement layer thickness in KENLAYER 35

Figure 4.14 Deflection at the Base Sub grade levels 36

Figure 4.15 Pavement composition of case study data in local roads 37

Figure 4.16 Variation of surface deflection with Options 36

Figure 4.17 Variation of Compressive strain of sub grade with Options 37

Table 3.1 Designed pavement data for test specimens 11

ORN Overseas Road Note

In understanding pavement behavior is a complex task. This complexity is due to the

1.3 Scope of the Study

1.4 Scope of the Report

2.1 Flexible Pavements

Sub base Course

Figure 2.1: Typical Flexible Pavement Section

Flexible-pavement design is based on the principle that the magnitude of stress

Figure 2.2 Distribution of Load under Single Wheel Load

2.3 Empirical Methods

W18 : Predicted number of 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESALs

2.3.1 Overseas Road Note 31 design Method

2.4 Mechanistic Methods

Figure 2.3: Elastic Multi –Layer system (Huang.1993)

Janaraj T., & Mampearachchi W.K.(2009)[6] focused on Comparison of Structural

3.1 Data Collection

3.1.1 Field data

Table 3.1- Designed pavement data for test specimens.

Structural BS-0.63 BS-1.6 BS-1.89 BS-2.34

3.1.2 Construction procedure of the test section

Log10 (CBR) = 2.48 – 1.057× Log10 (mm/blow) …………………..[3.1]

Figure 3.1:- Constructed Test pavement sections (Janaraj T.(2009))

Figure 3.2:- Plate load Test ( Janaraj T.(2009))

Test Design Load Deflection

3.2 Case study on North Rehabilitation Project

3.2.1 Design Data

Appendix - A of the report.

number of standard axel loads are shown in the Appendix - B of the

Fig : 3.3 : Typical road section of the project

site conditions respectively.

Figure 3.5: Site condition of project