Flexible Pavement Modelling using

Kenlayer
Dr. Amin Chegenizadeh*
Research Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of
Technology, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, Western Australia 6102, Australia
Corresponding author: amin.chegenizadeh@curtin.edu.au

Mahdi Keramatikerman
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of
Technology, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, Western Australia 6102, Australia

Prof. Hamid Nikraz

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University

ABSTRACT
Road is one of the main infrastructures that play a crucial role in economy development of
countries. Pavement engineering is a key factor to design and construct optimum roads. Flexible
pavement is one of the most applicable method in road construction that is made in a series of
layers. The construction of this type of pavement is very fast and easy to repair and have a greater
resistance in a wide range of temperature and additional layer always could be added at any time.
There is a various modelling software to analyse flexible pavement structure. Kenlayer is one of
the most effective application in analysing flexible pavement engineering. In this paper, the well-
known FEM package of kenlayer was used to evaluate flexible pavement deflection and stress
distribution. In this research, the effect of different parameters such as layer moduli and poisson’s
ratio were changed and the stress and deflection were compared.
KEYWORDS: flexible pavement; kenlayer; deflection; stress distribution; layer moduli;
poisson’s ratio

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in flexible pavement engineering studies. For
instance, a study on interaction of the expansive soil with repetitive traffic load was carried out. The
results showed that the strength of the expansive soil was decreased due to increase in water content
of expansive soil [1]. In another study effect of industrial waste such as waste plastics and waste tyre
rubber in clay/flyash as a subbase course investigated on a sandy subgrade and results indicated that
clay reinforced waste tyre rubber provide the maximum carrying load capacity [2]. In a similar study
in using waste materials stabilised with lime as subbase course, the variation of the rutting depth on
subgrade layer was investigated the results showed that it leads to increase the lifetime of the asphalt
pavement [3]. Degradation of a flexible pavement using CASTEM application as a finite element
model by considering different parameters in rutting depth was investigated by another researchers
[4]. In another case, a study of application on two types of industrial waste namely bagasse ash and
lime sludge revealed that could increase strength of the subgrade and cost effective [5]. In a flexible

- 2467 -
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2468

pavement study strength property of the shale was increased using cement and lime [6]. In a
numerical study, response of the asphalt cement pavement reinforced with geogrid was investigated
and revealed that the highest value of the tension stress absorption increase when the geogrid located
between asphalt and base layer [7]. An effective cost analysis of the flyash in constructing rural road
revealed in a rigid pavement investigation [8]. Application finite element models in pavement
engineering is very common. Kenlayar is a very popular application that has been used in many
studies [9-16]. For instance, rutting and fatigue behaviour of the flexible pavement was performed
using Kenlayer application [17]. In another study using Kenlayer in a flexible pavement, effect of
surface layer thickness and modulus elasticity has been investigated [18].
This study aims to investigate effect of layer moduli and poisson’s ratio and the stress and deflection
were compared using kenlayer application.

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
Generally, pavement structures categorises in two group namely flexible and rigid pavement
structures. The flexible pavements usually reflect the deformation to the underneath layers. This sort
of pavements usually made with asphalt and does not have reinforcement materials. The design of the
flexible pavement design usually stresses distribute based on their characteristics of each layers. The
flexible strength of the flexible pavements is so negligible. The vertical stresses transfer to the
underneath layers via contact points which are granules. The maximum compressive stresses directly
apply to the surface under the wheel’s vehicle and is equal to contact pressure. The stresses decreases
in lower layers due to distribution the loads to the larger area. Therefore, the flexible pavement is
constructed in a series of layers which the top layer has the highest resistant for compressive stress.
The inferior materials such as industrial waste could be applied in lower layers as they do not tolerate
the compressive loads directly [19].

KENLAYER
Kenlayer is a pavement engineering program which is used to analyse flexible pavement
developed by Huang (1993) at university of Kentucky [20]. This program is designated to work in an
elastic multilayer system under a circular loaded area. Kenlayer could be applied in multilayer
systems under single or dual wheel while each layer have a different response like linear elastic,
nonlinear elastic or viscoelastic. This application is designed to perform damage analysis too [20].

METHODOLOGY
In this study to investigate effect of poisson’s ratio and pavement deflections flexible pavement
parameters such as tolerance for integration, limit of integration cycles, number of period per year,
number of load group and computing code were defined and input to the kenlayer application and
analysis was performed. Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart of this study.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2469

Flexible Pavement
input parameters are
defined

Kenlayer is used a
numerical tool to
analyse the system

Effect of poison ratio

and surface layer are
investigated

Results are analysed

Figure 1: flowchart of the study

In this study a three-layer flexible pavement has been considered. First layer is 5 cm, the second
layer is 10 cm .Also three investigation points were determined to compare the results namely 0.00
cm, 6.00 cm and 14.00 cm. Poisson’s ratio of each layer are 0.5, 0.35, 0.3 and all interfaces has
supposed fully bonded. Number of period per year and load group is equal to one. Tolerance for
integration is 0.001 and limit of integration cycles is 100. The computing code is supposed as 5 and
the radius of contact is 5 and contact pressure is equal to 80. The wheel spacing along x axis is 50 cm
and along y axis is 14 cm. Refer to Figure 2 for response points.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2470

Figure 2: Schematic layering of pavement system with response points

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of surface layers
Variation of the vertical displacement, vertical stress, major stress, minor stress and intermediate
stress against changes in vertical coordination for ten different point. Table 1 shows the changes for a
surface layer with 3 cm thickness. Variation of these parameters for surface layers with 5 cm and 7
cm thickness was shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
According to Table 1, it could be seen that the rate of vertical displacement in all points is equal
to 0.004 cm. The maximum acquired value for major stress amongst 0.00 vertical coordinate in Table
1 belongs to point number 1 and 3 which is equal to 1630.757 and 1623.591 kPa. The maximum rate
of minor stress belongs to 0.00 vertical point for point number 1 and 3 which is equal to 43.213 kPa
and 31.249. The maximum amounts of intermediate stresses belong to 0.00 vertical coordinate for
point number 1 and 3 which is equal to 1503.622 kPa and 1512.714 kPa.

Table 1: Output for surface layer 3 cm

Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.004 80.000 1630.757 43.213 1503.622
1 6.00 0.004 2.883 2.994 0.207 0.347
14.00 0.004 2.145 2.210 0.174 0.264
0.00 0.004 80.000 1557.060 27.277 1440.490
2 6.00 0.004 2.962 3.026 0.260 0.351
14.00 0.004 2.197 2.247 0.178 0.266
3 0.00 0.004 0.000 1623.591 31.249 1512.714
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2471

6.00 0.004 2.971 3.021 0.285 0.351

14.00 0.004 2.214 2.258 0.180 0.267
0.00 0.004 0.000 1448.346 17.692 1357.358
4 6.00 0.004 2.688 2.748 0.186 0.491
14.00 0.004 2.184 2.212 0.184 0.350
0.00 0.004 0.000 1498.540 17.901 1403.870
5 6.00 0.004 2.766 2.784 0.219 0.502
14.00 0.004 2.233 2.246 0.188 0.356
0.00 0.004 0.000 1561.702 20.456 1460.661
6 6.00 0.004 2.790 2.793 0.234 0.505
14.00 0.004 2.251 2.258 0.190 0.358
0.00 0.004 0.000 1238.820 9.031 1080.570
7 6.00 0.004 2.411 2.465 0.155 0.562
14.00 0.004 2.133 2.153 0.191 0.422
0.00 0.004 0.000 1285.393 9.506 1108.579
8 6.00 0.004 2.471 2.492 0.172 0.578
14.00 0.004 2.175 2.180 0.194 0.431
0.00 0.004 0.000 1282.277 9.316 1112.639
9 6.00 0.004 2.492 2.502 0.178 0.584
14.00 0.004 2.190 2.191 0.195 0.434
0.00 0.004 0.000 1170.174 7.006 970.887
10 6.00 0.004 2.304 2.346 0.145 0.595
14.00 0.004 2.100 2.118 0.193 0.451

According to Table 2, the acquired vertical displacement for surface layer with 5 cm thickness is
equal to 0.003 cm. The maximum value for vertical stress is 80 kPa and belongs to 0.00 vertical
coordinate in point 1 and 2. The recorded maximum and minimum values for major stress amongst
0.00 vertical coordinate for 10 different points is equal to 882.663 kPa and 700.678 kPa. The values
for vertical coordinate at 6 and 14 cm are much lesser than the values at 0.00 vertical coordinate.

Table 2: Output for surface layer 5 cm

Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.003 80.000 845.405 23.826 814.204
1 6.00 0.003 1.378 1.419 0.261 0.294
14.00 0.003 1.099 1.117 -0.434 -0.316
0.00 0.003 80.000 882.663 25.736 854.735
2 6.00 0.003 1.397 1.425 0.283 0.294
14.00 0.003 1.115 1.130 -0.452 -0.328
0.00 0.003 0.000 843.794 18.461 812.858
3 6.00 0.003 1.398 1.423 0.296 0.300
14.00 0.003 1.127 1.140 -0.457 -0.330
0.00 0.003 0.000 783.760 12.301 743.383
4 6.00 0.003 1.320 1.336 0.269 0.361
14.00 0.003 1.129 1.136 -0.434 -0.285
0.00 0.003 0.000 788.030 11.601 740.769
5 6.00 0.003 1.343 1.347 0.282 0.365
14.00 0.003 1.144 1.147 -0.453 -0.292
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2472

0.00 0.003 0.000 838.169 15.377 787.591

6 6.00 0.003 1.348 1.349 0.287 0.366
14.00 0.003 1.149 1.151 -0.460 -0.295
0.00 0.003 0.000 751.991 8.762 682.125
7 6.00 0.003 1.246 1.259 0.266 0.384
14.00 0.003 1.123 1.127 -0.420 -0.227
0.00 0.003 0.000 771.667 9.179 695.648
8 6.00 0.003 1.265 1.269 0.272 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.136 1.138 -0.438 -0.230
0.00 0.003 0.000 778.809 9.316 700.671
9 6.00 0.003 1.272 1.272 0.275 0.393
14.00 0.003 1.141 1.141 -0.445 -0.232
0.00 0.003 0.000 700.678 6.312 641.069
10 6.00 0.003 1.220 1.232 0.265 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.118 1.122 -0.412 -0.199

Similar to two previous tables, Table number 3 with 7 cm surface layer have an almost similar
trend. Vertical displacement for this tested specimen is equal to 0.002 cm. Major stress for 0.00
vertical coordinate amongst 10 different points is equal to 546.822 kPa and belongs to point number
3. The maximum recorded values for intermediate stress values belongs to 0.00 vertical coordinate at
point number 3 that is equal to 526.768 kPa.

Table 3: Output for surface layer 7 cm

Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.002 80.000 505.552 13.687 485.548
1 6.00 0.002 5.901 6.081 -396.850 -378.960
14.00 0.002 0.665 0.675 -0.114 -0.070
0.00 0.002 80.000 507.432 13.249 484.876
2 6.00 0.002 4.409 4.468 -398.682 -385.880
14.00 0.002 0.673 0.681 -0.119 -0.073
0.00 0.002 0.000 546.822 18.461 526.768
3 6.00 0.002 1.619 1.648 -392.617 -386.589
14.00 0.002 0.679 0.686 -0.123 -0.077
0.00 0.002 0.000 498.201 11.012 481.010
4 6.00 0.002 0.775 1.407 -363.845 -322.082
14.00 0.002 0.682 0.686 -0.116 -0.058
0.00 0.002 0.000 487.200 9.417 467.623
5 6.00 0.002 0.648 1.120 -372.136 -329.120
14.00 0.002 0.690 0.692 -0.121 -0.060
0.00 0.002 0.000 489.065 8.925 469.876
6 6.00 0.002 0.545 0.918 -372.857 -330.994
14.00 0.002 0.693 0.694 -0.123 -0.060
0.00 0.002 0.000 468.585 6.717 443.382
7 6.00 0.002 0.695 0.832 -330.531 -272.640
14.00 0.002 0.678 0.681 -0.112 -0.039
0.00 0.002 0.000 478.725 7.029 451.398
8
6.00 0.002 0.704 0.817 -339.523 -276.505
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2473

14.00 0.002 0.684 0.685 -0.117 -0.039

0.00 0.002 0.000 482.423 7.131 454.360
9 6.00 0.002 0.708 0.812 -342.764 -277.978
14.00 0.002 0.686 0.686 -0.119 -0.040
0.00 0.002 0.000 474.500 6.312 441.606
10 6.00 0.002 0.687 0.722 -319.828 -257.331
14.00 0.002 0.676 0.678 -0.110 -0.030

Effect of Poisson’s ratio

Passion ratio is an important parameter in analysis of the elasticity of the materials in pavement
engineering. The Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of transverse to longitudinal strains of a loaded specimen.
The value for firmer materials is lower in compare with softer materials. Table 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the
variation of the Poisson’s ratio with vertical displacement, vertical stress.
According to Table 4, the value of vertical displacement for a surface layer with a Poisson’s ratio
of 0.5 (surface layer thickness = 5cm) is calculated as 0.003cm. The maximum rate of vertical stress
for 0.00 vertical coordinate amongst 10 different points is equal to 80 kPa and belongs to point
number 1 and 2.
The maximum value for major stress is 882.663 kPa and belongs to 0.00 cm vertical coordinate at
point number 2. The maximum value for minor stress and intermediate stress at the same vertical
coordinate and at point number two is equal to 25.736 kPa and 854.735 kPa respectively.

Table 4: Output for Poisson’s ratio changes (0. 5 for surface layer)
Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.003 80.000 845.405 23.826 814.204
1 6.00 0.003 1.378 1.419 0.261 0.294
14.00 0.003 1.099 1.117 -0.434 -0.316
0.00 0.003 80.000 882.663 25.736 854.735
2 6.00 0.003 1.397 1.425 0.283 0.294
14.00 0.003 1.115 1.130 -0.452 -0.328
0.00 0.003 0.000 843.794 18.461 812.858
3 6.00 0.003 1.398 1.423 0.296 0.300
14.00 0.003 1.127 1.140 -0.457 -0.330
0.00 0.003 0.000 783.760 12.301 743.383
4 6.00 0.003 1.320 1.336 0.269 0.361
14.00 0.003 1.129 1.136 -0.434 -0.285
0.00 0.003 0.000 788.030 11.601 740.769
5 6.00 0.003 1.343 1.347 0.282 0.365
14.00 0.003 1.144 1.147 -0.453 -0.292
0.00 0.003 0.000 838.169 15.377 787.591
6 6.00 0.003 1.348 1.349 0.287 0.366
14.00 0.003 1.149 1.151 -0.460 -0.295
0.00 0.003 0.000 751.991 8.762 682.125
7 6.00 0.003 1.246 1.259 0.266 0.384
14.00 0.003 1.123 1.127 -0.420 -0.227
0.00 0.003 0.000 771.667 9.179 695.648
8 6.00 0.003 1.265 1.269 0.272 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.136 1.138 -0.438 -0.230
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2474

0.00 0.003 0.000 778.809 9.316 700.671

9 6.00 0.003 1.272 1.272 0.275 0.393
14.00 0.003 1.141 1.141 -0.445 -0.232
0.00 0.003 0.000 700.678 6.312 641.069
10 6.00 0.003 1.220 1.232 0.265 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.118 1.122 -0.412 -0.199

Table 5 illustrates the variation of the vertical displacement, vertical stresses for Poisson ratio of
0.45. Vertical displacement value for a Poisson’s ratio with rate for 0.45 is equal to 0.003cm. The
maximum values for major, minor and intermediate stresses belong to 6.00 com vertical coordinates
point number 2 amongst 10 different points which are equal to 768.591 kPa, 25.736 kPa and 734.594
kPa.

Table 5: Output for Poisson’s ratio changes (0.45 for surface layer)
Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.003 80.000 736.203 23.826 697.635
1 6.00 0.003 1.510 1.556 0.273 0.310
14.00 0.003 1.190 1.210 -0.498 -0.364
0.00 0.003 80.000 768.591 25.736 734.594
2 6.00 0.003 1.531 1.562 0.298 0.311
14.00 0.003 1.208 1.224 -0.520 -0.378
0.00 0.003 0.000 733.966 18.461 695.963
3 6.00 0.003 1.530 1.558 0.312 0.317
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.235 -0.525 -0.381
0.00 0.003 0.000 682.072 12.301 631.048
4 6.00 0.003 1.437 1.456 0.280 0.386
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.228 -0.498 -0.327
0.00 0.003 0.000 687.167 11.601 627.287
5 6.00 0.003 1.463 1.468 0.295 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.237 1.241 -0.521 -0.336
0.00 0.003 0.000 732.697 15.377 668.480
6 6.00 0.003 1.470 1.470 0.301 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.243 1.246 -0.529 -0.340
0.00 0.003 0.000 659.430 8.762 569.513
7 6.00 0.003 1.349 1.365 0.276 0.413
14.00 0.003 1.212 1.217 -0.482 -0.259
0.00 0.003 0.000 678.092 9.179 580.254
8 6.00 0.003 1.370 1.375 0.283 0.420
14.00 0.003 1.227 1.229 -0.503 -0.263
0.00 0.003 0.000 684.840 9.316 584.286
9 6.00 0.003 1.378 1.379 0.286 0.423
14.00 0.003 1.233 1.233 -0.510 -0.265
0.00 0.003 0.000 611.153 6.312 534.705
10 6.00 0.003 1.318 1.332 0.275 0.421
14.00 0.003 1.206 1.210 -0.472 -0.226
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2475

Table 6 illustrates the variation of the vertical stress, major, minor and intermediate against
various vertical coordinates at different point numbers for a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35. It could be seen
from the below table that the maximum rate of vertical stress is 80 kPa for 0.00 vertical coordinate
and at point number of 1 and 2. The maximum rate of major, minor and intermediate stresses which is
located at 0.00 vertical coordinate at the first point are equal to 849.123 kPa, 111.578 kPa and
799.503 kPa respectively.

Table 6: Output for Poisson’s ratio changes (0.35 for surface layer)
Point Vertical Vertical Vertical Major Minor Intermediate
No. Coordinate Displacement(cm) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa) Stress(kPa)
0.00 0.003 80.000 849.123 111.578 799.503
1 6.00 0.003 1.510 1.556 0.273 0.310
14.00 0.003 1.190 1.210 -0.498 -0.364
0.00 0.003 80.000 814.648 63.983 780.707
2 6.00 0.003 1.531 1.562 0.298 0.311
14.00 0.003 1.208 1.224 -0.520 -0.378
0.00 0.003 0.000 809.740 45.555 764.674
3 6.00 0.003 1.530 1.558 0.312 0.317
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.234 -0.525 -0.381
0.00 0.003 0.000 704.967 13.456 577.299
4 6.00 0.003 1.437 1.456 0.280 0.387
14.00 0.003 1.220 1.228 -0.498 -0.327
0.00 0.003 0.000 710.121 -5.101 569.054
5 6.00 0.003 1.463 1.468 0.295 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.237 1.241 -0.521 -0.336
0.00 0.003 0.000 711.800 -5.915 575.004
6 6.00 0.003 1.470 1.470 0.301 0.391
14.00 0.003 1.243 1.246 -0.529 -0.339
0.00 0.003 0.000 617.736 -3.545 420.810
7 6.00 0.003 1.349 1.364 0.276 0.413
14.00 0.003 1.212 1.217 -0.482 -0.259
0.00 0.003 0.000 643.773 -0.848 430.069
8 6.00 0.003 1.370 1.375 0.283 0.420
14.00 0.003 1.227 1.229 -0.503 -0.263
0.00 0.003 0.000 656.122 3.280 438.271
9 6.00 0.003 1.378 1.379 0.286 0.423
14.00 0.003 1.233 1.233 -0.510 -0.265
0.00 0.003 0.000 600.106 0.972 390.462
10 6.00 0.003 1.318 1.332 0.275 0.421
14.00 0.003 1.206 1.210 -0.472 -0.226

COMPARISON SELECTED POINTS

Figure 3 compares the major, minor and intermediate stresses for 0.00 vertical coordinate at point
number one. It could be clearly seen that the maximum values belong to major stress and intermediate
stress of the specimen with 3 cm thickness with 1630.757 kPa and 1503.622 kPa respectively and the
lowest values belong to the specimen with 7 cm thickness with 505.552 kPa and 485.548 kPa for
major and intermediate stresses respectively. The rest of specimens have stresses in range of 690.00
to 850.00. The minor stresses have much lower value in compare with major and intermediate
stresses. The highest value belongs to the Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 with 111.578 kPa and the lowest
belong to specimen with 7 cm thickness with a minor stress of 13.687 kPa.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2476

1800

1630.757
1600
1503.622

1400

1200

1000

845.405 845.405 849.123

814.204 814.204 799.503
800 736.203
697.635

600
505.552 485.548

400

200
111.578
43.213 23.826 23.826 23.826
13.687
0
Thickness 3 cm Thickness 5 cm Thickness 7 cm PR 0.5 PR 0.45 PR 0.35

Major Stress Minor Stress Intermediate Stress

Figure 3: Comparison of the major, minor and intermediate stresses for 0.00 vertical
coordinate at point number one

Figure 4 illustrates the major, intermediate and the minor stresses of the 0.00 vertical coordinate
at point number six. Similar to Figure 2, the maximum values of major and intermediate stresses
belong to the specimen with 3 cm thickness which 1561.702 kPa and 1460.661 kPa respectively and
the lowest values belong to specimen with 7 cm thickness with 489.065 kPa and 469.876 kPa
respectively.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2477

1800

1600 1561.702
1460.661

1400

1200

1000

838.169 838.169
787.591 787.591
800 732.697 711.8
668.48

600 575.004
489.065 469.876

400

200

20.456 15.377 8.925 15.377 15.377

0
-5.915
Thickness 3 cm Thickness 5 cm Thickness 7 cm PR 0.5 PR 0.45 PR 0.35
-200
Major Stress Minor Stress Intermediate Stress

Figure 4: Comparison of the major, minor and intermediate stresses for 0.00 vertical
coordinate at point number six

CONCLUSION
Road is one of the most important infrastructures in each country. Pavement engineering is a
crucial part of road design and construction that directly deals with efficiency and cost effectiveness
of these vital veins. In this study, Kenlayer as a finite element application was used to examine the
effect of surface layer change and position ratio in the displacement and stress distribution of a given
pavement system. The results were compared and analysed.
According to analysis, the rate of vertical stresses for 0.00 vertical coordinates at all ten points
have been the same. Generally, the results showed that the values of major and intermediate stresses
at 0.00 vertical coordinates for specimens with 3 cm thickness have the highest values and the
specimens with 7 cm thickness showed the lowest values of the major and intermediate stresses.
Acquired rates of minor stresses showed much lesser values in compare with major and intermediate
stresses.

REFERENCES
[1] Harimurti, H.S., L. Djakfar, and A. Wicaksono, “Interaction of Flexible Pavement and
Expansive Soil in the Process of Pavement Damage”. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2014(19): 8609-8614. Available at ejge.com.
[2] Prasad, D., G.P. Raju, and M.A. Kumar, “Utilization of industrial waste in flexible pavement
construction.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2009 (13 D) 1-12 . Available at
ejge.com.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2478

[3] Khabiri, M. M., “The Effect of Stabilized Subbase Containing Waste Construction Materials
on Reduction of Pavement Rutting Depth.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2010(15): 1211-1219. Available at ejge.com.
[4] Tchemou, G., et al., “Prediction of Flexible Pavement Degradation: Application to Rutting in
Cameroonian Highways.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2011(16): 1301-
1319. Available at ejge.com.
[5] Sabat, A.K., “Utilization of bagasse ash and lime sludge for construction of flexible pavements
in expansive soil areas.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2012 (17): 1037-
1046. Available at ejge.com.
[6] Joel, M. and I. Agbede, “Cement stabilization of igumale shale lime admixture for use as
flexible pavement construction material.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2010 (15): 1661-1673. Available at ejge.com.
[7] Moayedi, H., et al., “Effect of geogrid reinforcement location in paved road improvement.”
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2009(14). Available at ejge.com.
[8] Basak, S., A.K. Bhattacharya, and S.L. Paira, “Utilization of fly ash in rural road construction
in India and its cost effectiveness.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2004. 436.
Available at ejge.com.
[9] Ziari, H. and M.M. Khabiri, Interface condition influence on prediction of flexible pavement
life. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2007. 13(1): p. 71-76.
[10] Loulizi, A., et al., Measurement of vertical compressive stress pulse in flexible pavements:
representation for dynamic loading tests. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2002(1816): p. 125-136.
[11] Gedafa, D.S., Comparison of flexible pavement performance using kenlayer and hdm-4.
Midwest Transportation Consortium, Ames, Iowa, 2006.
[12] Ameri, M. and A. Khavandi, Development of Mechanistic-Empirical Flexible Pavement
Design in Iran. Journal of Applied Sciences, 2009. 9(2): p. 354-359.
[13] Wang, J.-N., C.-K. Yang, and T.-Y. Luo, Mechanistic analysis of asphalt pavements, using
superpave shear tester and Hamburg wheel-tracking device. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001(1767): p. 102-110.
[14] Parker, N.A. and S. Hussain Ph D. Pavement damage and road pricing. In Transportation
Research Board 85th Annual Meeting. 2006.
[15] Zuo, G., R. Meier, and E. Drumm, Effect of temperature averaging on predicted pavement life.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002(1809): p.
119-125.
[16] Ayan, V., Assessment of recycled aggregates for use in unbound subbase of highway
pavement. 2011, Kingston University.
[17] Abdel-Motaleb, M., Flexible pavement components for optimum performance in rutting and
fatigue. Zagazig Univ J, 2009.
[18] Srikanth, M.R., Study on Effect of Surface Course Thickness and Modulus of Elasticity on
Performance of Flexible Pavement using a Software Tool. International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology, 2015. Volume. 4 (Issue. 08, August - 2015).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 07 2479

[19] Civil Engineering Dictionary, <http://www.aboutcivil.org/types-of-pavements.html>, 2014

(accessed 25 November 2015).
[20] Huang, Y., Kenlayer computer program. Pavement Analysis and Design, 1993: p. 100-167.

© 2016 ejge