Fast layered elastic response program for the analysis of flexible pavement
structures
Sigurdur Erlingssona,b * and Abubeker W. Ahmeda,c
a Department of Pavement Technology, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, VTI,
Linköping, Sweden; b Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iceland, Reykjavik,
Iceland; c Department of Transport Science, Division of Highway and Railway Engineering, KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
One of the key components in analysing pavement structural behaviour is the response model
which is used to estimate the stresses, strains and displacements of the pavement structure
subjected to the existing traffic, taking into account the material properties and prevailing envi-
ronmental conditions. Multilayer elastic theory (MLET) is often preferred over other methods
such as the finite element method, due to its computational performance for repeated appli-
cations. A new elastic response analysis program has been developed based on the Burmister
MLET theory to calculate the response of flexible pavement structures. In the development of
the program, the time-consuming part of MLET processes was optimised. To improve the con-
vergence and accuracy of responses in the vicinity of the surface of the top layer, an approach
based on Richardson’s extrapolation was employed. Moreover, an iterative approach to model
stress dependency of unbound granular materials was incorporated. A comprehensive compar-
ison of the program with two frequently used programs demonstrated an excellent agreement
and improved performance.
Keywords: layered elastic theory; responses of pavements; elastic half-space; Richardson’s
extrapolation; numerical integration
1. Introduction
One of the key components in analysing pavement structural behaviour is the response model
which is used to estimate the stresses, strains and displacements of the pavement structure
subjected to the existing traffic, taking into account the material properties and prevailing environ-
mental conditions. Depending on the desired accuracy and computational speed, different methods
of response calculation may be employed for a given problem such as 3D finite element methods
(FEM) or multilayer elastic theory (MLET). Though 3D FEM are comprehensive in their ability
to model characteristics of real pavement structures such as a wide variety of nonlinear material
behaviour, they are computationally expensive due to the inherent procedures involved. This has
made the MLET method superior over a 3D FEM method and MLET is commonly preferred
for applications in mechanistic empirical (M-E) pavement design methods because for such an
application the response calculation is performed several times.
The MLET developed by Burmister has been employed in many pavement engineering appli-
cations to calculate the responses of layered structures due to external loading (Acum & Fox,
1951; Bufler, 1971; Jones, 1962; Maina & Matsui, 2005; Peattie, 1962; Verstraeten, 1967). As
flexible pavements are layered structures composed of layers with different material properties,
Burmister theory can be utilised to obtain the responses of pavement structures (Everseries, 2005;
Huang, 2004) and with the advent of high-speed computers it is possible to use this method for
many layers.
The main objective of this work was to develop a fast and reliable multilayer elastic program,
elastic response analysis of flexible pavements (ERAPAVE). In the development of the program,
different possibilities to improve the performance of MLET have been studied, such as optimis-
ing the numerical integration by evaluating the stress coefficients at selected points and using
piecewise interpolation to compute the coefficients for other locations. Moreover, Richardson’s
extrapolation has been applied to improve the performance of near-surface responses.
The accuracy and performance of ERAPAVE were compared with two existing layered elas-
tic programs, KENtucky PAVEment analysis program KENPAVE and WinJulea. WinJulea is a
Windows version of the layered elastic program JULEA, which has been implemented in the
US Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide for pavements (ARA, 2004). The ERAPAVE
program was used to analyse several pavement structures and the agreement with KENPAVE and
WinJulea was almost perfect. A module to take stress dependency of unbound granular material
was also included. A verification of the nonlinear analysis with the KENPAVE program was
carried out, and very good agreement was obtained.
An axisymmetric solution of a multilayer elastic system loaded with a constant load q, which
is distributed over a circular area as shown in Figure 1, begins from the classical theory of
elasticity where it is well known that an axisymmetric problem can be solved by assuming a
stress function that satisfies the governing differential equations together with the boundary and
continuity equations (Timoshenko & Goodier, 1951).
By introducing a stress function φ, the governing fourth-order differential equation can be
written, using the Laplace operator, as
∇ 4 ϕ = 0. (1)
For a multilayer elastic structure Equation (1) is assumed to be satisfied for each of the constituent
layers and for axially symmetrical stress distribution the Laplace operator ∇ 4 is defined as
∂2 1 ∂ ∂2 ∂2 1 ∂ ∂
∇ =
4
+ + + + 2 , (2)
∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z 2 ∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z
198 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed
a
q
r
E1 , v1 z1
z2
E2 , v2
zn-2
H
En-1 , vn-1
En , vn
z
where r and z are radial and vertical cylindrical co-ordinates, respectively, as shown in Figure 1.
The axisymmetric responses, stresses and displacements, can be obtained from (Maina & Matsui,
2005; Timoshenko & Goodier, 1951)
⎡ ⎤
∂ ∂3
⎢ (2 − ν) ∂z − 3 ⎥
⎢ ∂z ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2 ⎥
⎢ ν − ⎥
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ∂z ∂z ∂r 2 ⎥
σz ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ σr ⎥ ⎢ ∂
−
∂ 1 ∂ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ν ⎥
2
⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ ∂z ∂z r ∂r ⎥ ∇ ϕ
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (3)
⎢τrz ⎥ ⎢ ∂ ∂2 ⎥ ϕ
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ (1 − ν) ∂ − ⎥
⎣w⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂r ∂r ∂z 2
⎥
u ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢1 + ν 1+ν ∂ 1 ∂ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ E (1 − 2ν) E ∂r 2
+
r ∂r ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎣ 1+ν ∂ ⎦
0 −
E ∂r∂z
in which v and E are Poisson’s ratio and modulus of elasticity of the material, respectively;
and σ , τ , w and u are normal stress, shear stress, vertical displacement and radial displacement,
respectively.
The solution of the stress function φ for the ith layer which satisfies the governing differential
equation is given as (Huang, 2004)
H 3 J0 (mρ) Ai e−m(λi −λ) − Bi e−m(λ−λi−1 ) +
ϕi (r, z) = , (4)
m2 Ci mλ e−m(λi −λ) − Di mλ e−m(λ−λi−1 )
where H denotes the distance from the pavement surface to the top of the lowest layer, ρ = r/H ,
λ = z/H , λi = zi /H , zi denotes the distance from the pavement surface to the bottom of the ith
layer; Ai , Bi , Ci and Di are the constants of integrations; J0 is a Bessel function of the first kind
and order 0 (Van Cauwelaert, 2003) and m is a parameter. The subscript i denotes the quantity
corresponding to the ith layer and it varies from 1 to n.
Road Materials and Pavement Design 199
Introducing the stress function in Equation (4) into Equation (3) gives:
⎡ c⎤
σz ⎡ ⎤
⎢σ c ⎥ A
⎢ rc ⎥
⎢σ ⎥ ⎢B⎥
⎢ c⎥ =
⎢ ⎥ ,
t (5)
⎢τ ⎥ ⎣C ⎦
⎢ rzc ⎥
⎣w ⎦ D i
uc i
where the superscript ‘c’ is used to note that those responses are due to a concentrated load, i.e.
for a point load, and
is given by
⎡ −m(λi −λ) −m(λ−λi−1 ) −m(λi −λ) −m(λ−λi−1 ) ⎤
βe βe −β(1 − 2νi − mλ)e −β(1 − 2υi + mλ)e
−m(λ −λ) ψe−m(λ−λi−1 ) (ψ(1 + mλ) + 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λi −λ) (ψ(mλ − 1) − 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λ−λi−1 ) ⎥
⎢ψe−m(λii−λ)
⎢ξe ξ e−m(λ−λi−1 ) (ξ(1 + mλ) + 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λi −λ) (ξ(mλ − 1) − 2νi mJ0 (mρ)) e−m(λ−λi−1 ) ⎥
the applied contact pressure. Furthermore, two more boundary conditions can be found from the
fact that both stress and displacement vanishes as the depth approaches infinity (An = Cn = 0).
The remaining 4n − 4 equations are obtained from the continuity conditions at the n − 1 layer
interfaces.
The boundary conditions at the pavement surface can be summarized in the matrix form where
the first row gives the condition for normal stress and the second row for shear stress
⎡ ⎤
−mλ A1
e 1 1 −1(1 − 2ν1 )e−mλ1 1 − 2ν1 ⎢ B1 ⎥
L1 = −mλ1 and L1 ⎢ ⎥= 1 . (7)
e 1 2ν1 e−mλ1 2ν1 ⎣ C1 ⎦ 0
D1
The continuity conditions at the boundary between the layers can be written as
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ c⎤
σzc σz
⎢τ c ⎥ ⎢τ c ⎥
⎢ c ⎥ = ⎢ rzc ⎥ ,
rz (8)
⎣w ⎦ ⎣w ⎦
c
u i uc i+1
introducing the notations, Fi = e−m(λi −λi−1 ) and Ri = (Ei /Ei+1 )(1 + vi+1 )/(1 + vi ) and using
Equation (5) in Equation (8) gives, after rearranging
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
Ai Ai+1
⎢ Bi ⎥ ⎢ Bi+1 ⎥
LCi ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣Ci ⎦ = RCi ⎣Ci+1 ⎦ , (9)
Di Di+1
⎡ ⎤
1 Fi −(1 − 2νi − mλi ) (1 − 2νi + mλi )Fi
⎢1 −Fi 2νi + mλi (2νi − mλi )Fi ⎥
LCi = ⎢
⎣1 Fi
⎥,
1 + mλi −(1 − mλi )Fi ⎦
1 −Fi −(2 − 4vi − mλi ) −(2 − 4vi + mλi )Fi
⎡ ⎤
Fi+1 1 −(1 − 2νi+1 − mλi )Fi+1 (1 − 2νi+1 + mλi )
⎢ Fi+1 −1 (2νi+1 + mλi )Fi+1 (2νi+1 − mλi ) ⎥
RCi = ⎢
⎣Ri Fi+1 Ri
⎥.
⎦
(1 + mλi )Ri Fi+1 −(1 − mλi )Ri
Ri Fi+1 −Ri −(2 − 4vi+1 − mλi )Ri Fi+1 −(2 − 4vi+1 + mλi )Ri
Equations (7)–(9) are used to obtain the coefficients (Ai , Bi , Ci and Di ) of the stress function
which are then used in Equation (6). The boundary and continuity conditions form a system of
equations which can be collected into one larger matrix that can be solved to give the coefficients.
The system of equations can be written as
AX = B, (10)
Road Materials and Pavement Design 201
⎡ ⎤
L1 02×4 02×4 02×4 02×4 02×4 ··· 02×2
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ LC1 −RC1 04×4 04×4 04×4 . ··· 04×2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢04×4 LC2 −RC2 04×4 04×4 . ··· 04×2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
A = ⎢04×4 04×4 LC3 −RC3 04×4 04×4 ··· . ⎥,
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . .. .. ⎥
⎢ .. .. 04×4 . 04×4 ··· . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . .. .. .. ⎥
⎣ .. .. . 04×4 04×4 . . 04×2 ⎦
04×4 04×4 04×4 ··· ··· 04×4 LCn−1 −RCn−1
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
A1 1
⎢ B1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ C1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ D1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ A2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ B2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ C2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ D2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
X = ⎢ . ⎥, B = ⎢ .⎥
⎢ .. ⎥ .
⎢ .. ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢.⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ An−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Bn−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢Cn−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢Dn−1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ Bn ⎦ ⎣0⎦
Dn 0
In the matrix A, 0r×c denotes a matrix of row r and column c with zero at all entries. Matrix A is
a function of the Hankel parameter m; thus in Equation (6), for each value of m, the coefficients
must be calculated from Equation (10).
Equation (10) was solved by decomposing the matrix A into lower and upper (LU-factorisation)
triangular matrices and followed by forward and backward substitution.
2 10
0 8
Layer-1
Layer-2
–2 6
Layer-3
B
Layer-4
4
A
–4
Layer-1
Layer-2
2
–6 Layer-3
Layer-4
0
–8
–2
–10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Hankel parameter m
Hankel parameter m
Figure 2. Coefficients A and B of the stress function as a function of the Hankel parameter m for a four-layer
structure.
12 16
14
10 Layer-1
12 Layer-2
8
Layer-1 Layer-3
10
Layer-2 Layer-4
6
D
8
Layer-3
C
4 Layer-4 6
4
2
2
0
0
–2 –2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Hankel parameter m Hankel parameter m
Figure 3. Coefficients C and D of the stress function as a function of the Hankel parameter m for a
four-layer structure.
boundary and continuity conditions and material properties, they need to be calculated only once
and can be used as much as needed through the interpolator function; in other words they do not
have to be established for each depth and radial location.
where ωi denotes the weights and Si is a function evaluated at selected integration points mi .
Furthermore, for infinite integrals involving Bessel functions, Lukas and Stone (1994) sug-
gested the use of the Gauss–Kronrod integration rule, which is an adaptive variant of Gaussian
quadrature. The performance of this scheme was evaluated by implementing it in Matlab, but
the gain in performance obtained when compared with the four-point Gaussian formula was not
significant; thus it is not presented here.
The most common approach to integrate functions of the type in Equation (6) is to integrate
numerically, between the zeroes of the Bessel function, using the n-point Gaussian formula given
by (Huang, 2004; Khazanovich & Wang, 2007)
∞ zi+1
n
I= S(m) dm = S(m) dm = ωi Si (mi ), (12)
0 zi i=1
where zi and zi+1 are any two successive zeroes of the Bessel function and n is the number of the
Gaussian integration point.
A direct integration approach is employed in most multilayer elastic programs, where for
each Hankel parameter m, the coefficients are calculated from the linear system of equation (10)
and these coefficients are used in the integral. Recently, Khazanovich and Wang (2007) after
studying the integral in Equation (6) and expressing it as a product of two functions, one with a
fairly monotonic nature but computationally expensive and the other with a cyclic nature which
involves Bessel functions of the first kind (Van Cauwelaert, 2003), suggested optimisation of the
computationally expensive part of the integral by evaluating it at selected key locations. Thus, the
values at these key points were used to evaluate the function at other values of m using a simple
interpolation. This approach was implemented in the computer program MnLayer.
In this paper, the coefficients used in the integration were calculated from the piecewise linear
interpolation of the coefficients calculated at the selected points, as discussed in the previous
section.
100
80
R=0
60 R = 100 cm
40
Integrand
20
–20
–40
–60
0 50 100 150 200
Hankel parameter m
Figure 4. The integrand in Equation (6) for two radial locations near the surface of the top layer.
modified as ∞
Sc
J1 (mα)e−cm dm,
2
S = lim qα (13)
c→0 0 m
where c = 2k , k = 10, 11, 12, 13, . . . , 16.
In another approach to improve the near-surface convergence, Khazanovich and Wang (2007)
introduced a method that deducts an elastic half-space solution with the same material properties
as the top layer and employed a superposition of the elastic half-space solution from tabulated
values. According to their suggestion, the responses at the top layer can be expressed as
where R denotes the response of the top layer and Rhalf -space denotes an elastic half-space solution
with the same material properties as the top layer.
In this paper, the method using Richardson’s extrapolation, Equation (13) was utilised to
improve the performance of near-surface responses and the method in Equation (14) was used
for evaluation purposes.
700 600
ERAPAVE vertical stress [kPa]
600
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
KENPAVE vetical stress [kPa] WinJulea vertical stress [kPa]
Figure 5. Comparison of vertical stress from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.
1600 800
1200
400
ERAPAVE radial stress [kPa]
ERAPAVE radial stress [kPa]
800
0
400
0 –400
–400
–800
–800
–1200
–1200
–1600 –1600
–1600 –1200 –800 –400 0 400 800 1200 1600 –1600 –1200 –800 –400 0 400 800
KENPAVE radial stress [kPa] WinJulea radial stress [kPa]
Figure 6. Comparison of radial stress from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
ERAPAVE vertical strain [mill–strain]
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.1
–0.1 0.0
–0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
KENPAVE vertical strain [mill–strain] WinJulea vertical strain [mill–strain]
Figure 7. Comparison of vertical strain from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.
206 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
KENPAVE vertical displacement [cm] WinJulea vertical displacement [cm]
Figure 8. Comparison of vertical displacement from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.
800
700
Solution based on Rechardson's
600
y = 1.0043x
2
500 R = 0.999
Extrapolation
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Solution based on Khazanovich and Wang
Figure 9. Comparison of near-surface vertical stresses for the top layer using Khazanovich and Wang, and
Richardson’s extrapolation’s.
As can be observed from Figure 9, the near-surface responses obtained using Richardson’s
extrapolation were verified using the method of Khazanovich and Wang (2007), Equation (14).
For the solution of elastic half-space in Equation (14), a closed-form solution was used for
locations on the axis of symmetry (at the centre of the load), and the table of stresses by Ahlvin
and Ulery (1962) was used for other radial locations. A very good agreement between the two
approaches was obtained.
The problem of convergence in the near-surface response is illustrated in Figure 10. This figure
presents the comparison of the vertical and radial stresses for a typical four-layer structure in the
vicinity of the surface of the top layer. A circular distributed loading with contact pressure of
800 kPa and contact radius of 15 cm was used. The responses from WinJulea were restricted to
the surface and below to a depth of 3 cm.
From Figure 10 it can be observed that the results obtained from the ERAPAVE program were
more stable and exceeded the accuracy of the other two programs.
Road Materials and Pavement Design 207
2 2
1
1
Depth [cm]
Depth [cm]
4 4 ERAPAVE
ERAPAVE
KENPAVE KENPAVE
WinJulea WinJulea
6 6
Figure 10. Vertical and radial stresses for depths near the surface of the top layer under axis of symmetry
for single-wheel loading.
WinJulea
4 KENPAVE
ERAPAVE
Time [Sec]
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Number of evaluation points
Figure 11. Comparison of the performance of ERAPAVE with KENPAVE and WinJulea.
208 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed
1 2 P = 60 kN
p = 800 kPa
-3
Strain z [10 ]
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
8 cm AC, E = 5000 MPa, = 0.35
10
BC, k1 = 2400, k2 = 0.5, k3 = 0
15 cm = 0.35
20
Depth [cm]
ERAPAVE 1
ERAPAVE 2
30 cm Sb, E = 200 MPa, = 0.35 30 KENPAVE 1
KENPAVE 2
40
50
Sg, E = 100 MPa, = 0.35
60
Figure 12. Comparison of vertical strain from the nonlinear analysis of ERAPAVE and KENPAVE at
two profiles (1 and 2). AC, BC, Sb and Sg denote asphalt concrete, base course, subbase and subgrade,
respectively, P denotes wheel loading and p is the inflation pressure.
through the superposition principle which holds true for the linear elastic analysis. A detailed
description of the superposition procedure can be found in Huang (2004).
In addition to linear elastic analysis, a nonlinear module has also been included in the ERAPAVE
program, which takes the stress dependency of unbound materials into account by using the model
given by (ARA, 2004; Uzan, 1985)
k 2 k 3
3p τoct
Mr = k1 pa +1 , (15)
pa pa
where Mr denotes the resilient modulus, p denotes hydrostatic stress, which also includes the self-
weight of the material and the lateral earth pressure and is given as p = (σkk + (1 + 2ko )γ z)/3,
using the summation convention, where σkk is the normal stress, k0 is the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure, γ is the unit weight of the material and z is the depth, pa is the atmospheric pressure
(100 kPa); k1 , k2 and k3 are regression constants and τoct is the octahedral shear stress.
The ERAPAVE program automatically divides the nonlinear layer into the desired number of
sub-layers and an iterative procedure was employed to determine the nonlinear stiffness for the
sub-layers. Figure 12 illustrates the comparison of the nonlinear responses with the KENPAVE
program.
Figure 12 shows that an excellent agreement was obtained between the two programs. Similar
observations have been obtained for other strain components as well as stresses and displacements.
The ERAPAVE code has been successfully used to study the response behaviour of heavy vehi-
cle simulator tested structures with comparisons with measured responses (Ahmed & Erlingsson,
2012; Erlingsson, 2012).
coefficients at selected Hankel parameters and using piecewise linear interpolation to estimate
the coefficients for other values of the Hankel parameters. In addition Richardson’s extrapolation
was employed to improve the performance of near-surface responses.
A comprehensive verification of the program using two frequently used layered elastic pro-
grams, KENPAVE and WinJulea, was performed and the accuracy obtained was excellent. The
comparison of the performance of the three programs revealed that the ERAPAVE program has
an improved performance, especially for a larger number of evaluation points.
Moreover, a nonlinear module was introduced into the program to take stress-dependent
behaviour of unbound materials into account. The superposition principle was used to handle mul-
tiple wheels loading. The comparison of the nonlinear responses from ERAPAVE with KENPAVE
revealed a good agreement between the two programs.
As has been shown by several researchers, solutions of linear viscoelastic problems can be
derived from the corresponding linear elastic solutions using elastic–viscoelastic correspon-
dence principle (Chou, 1969; Huang, 2004; Kim, 2011). Thus, future work for this study will
employ this concept to extend the ERAPAVE layered elastic solutions to solve viscoelastic prob-
lems. Furthermore, non-uniform tyre pressure will to some extent also be incorporated in the
code through superposition principle. Moreover, the future work will encompass incorporating
the ERAPAVE code into an M-E performance prediction scheme. The accuracy and the per-
formance of the program make it preferable for such applications as the response calculations
are performed several times for different wheel load configurations and different environmental
conditions.
References
Acum, W. E. A., & Fox, L. (1951). Computation of load stresses in a three-layered elastic system.
Geotechnique, 2(4), 293–300.
Ahlvin, R. G., & Ulery, H. H. (1962). Tabulated values for determining the complete pattern of stresses,
strains and deflections beneath a uniform circular load on a homogeneous half space (pp. 1–13).
Highway Research Board Bulletin 342. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board.
Ahmed, A. W., & Erlingsson, S. (2012). Modeling of flexible pavement structure behaviour – comparisons
with HVS measurements. In D. Jones, J. Harvey, A. Mateos, & I. Al-Qadi, (Eds.), Advances in pavement
design through full-scale accelerated pavement testing(pp. 493–503). New York: CRC Press.
ARA. (2004). Guide for the mechanistic empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures
(Report 1-37A). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Bufler, H. (1971). Theory of elasticity of a multilayered medium. Journal of Elasticity, 1(2), 125–143.
Burmister, D. M. (1943). The theory of stresses and displacements in layered system and application to
the design of airport runways. Proceedings of the Highway Research Board (Vol. 23, pp. 126–148).
Washington, DC.
Burmister, D. M. (1945). The general theory of stresses and displacements in layered soil system. Journal
of Applied Physics, 16(2), 89–96, 16(3), 126–127, 16(5), 296–302.
Chou, Y. T. (1969). General theory of stresses and displacements in elastic and viscoelastic layered systems
(Final Report WESMPM698). Vicksburg, MS: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Erlingsson, S. (2012). Rutting development in a flexible pavement structure. Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 13(2), 218–234. doi:10.1080/14680629.2012.682383
Hayhoe, G. F. (2002, May). LEAF – a new layered elastic computational program for federal aviation
administration pavement design and evaluation procedures. Federal aviation administration airport
technology transfer conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA.
Huang, Y. H. (1968). Stresses and displacements in nonlinear soil media. The Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, ASCE, 94(1), 1–19.
Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Jones, A. (1962). Tables of stresses in three layer elastic system (pp. 176–214). Highway Research Board
Bulletin, No. 342. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board.
Khazanovich, L., & Wang, Q. (2007). High-performance layered elastic analysis program. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2037, 63–75.
210 S. Erlingsson and A.W. Ahmed
Kim, J. (2011). General viscoelastic solutions for multilayered systems subjected to static and moving loads.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 23(7), 1007–1016.
Lukas, S. K., & Stone, H. A. (1994). Evaluating infinite integrals involving Bessel functions of arbitrary
order. Cambridge, MA: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University.
Maina, J., & Matsui, K. (2005). Elastic multi-layered analysis using DE-integration. Publications of the
Research institute for Mathematical Sciences, 41(5), 853–867.
Moler, C. (1980). Matlab user’s guide. Albuquerque: Department of Computer Science, University of New
Mexico.
Peattie, K. R. (1962). Stress and strain factors for three layered elastic systems (pp. 215–253). Highway
Research Board Bulletin, No. 342. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board.
Timoshenko, S., & Goodier, I. N. (1951). Theory of elasticity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Uzan, J. (1985) Characterization of granular materials (pp. 52–59). Transportation Research Record 1022.
Washington, DC: National Research Council
Van Cauwelaert, F. J. & Lequeux, D. (1986). Computer programs for the determination of stresses and
displacements in four layered structures. Vicksburg, MS: Water Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
Van Cauwelaert, F. J. (2003). Pavement design and evaluation: The required mathematics and its application.
Brussels: Federation of the Belgian Cement Industry.
Verstraeten, J. (1967, August). Stresses and Displacements in Elastic Layered Systems (pp. 223–238). 2nd
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). (2005). Everseries user’s guide: Pavement anal-
ysis computer software and case studies. Retrived from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0C02
BB7B-C345-4958-AA08-089E5E512B96/0/EverseriesUserGuidePart1.pdf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.