Sherif M. El-Badawy et al.

/ (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

Assessment and Improvement of the Accuracy of the

Odemark Transformation Method

Sherif M. El-Badawy*, Ph.D Mostafa A. Kamel, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Public Works Department Assistant Professor, Public Works Department
Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University
Mansoura, Egypt Mansoura, Egypt
sbadawy@mans.edu.eg Mostafakamel2000@yahoo.com

Abstract— Flexible pavement structures are very complex For the transformed section shown in Fig. 1 the equivalent
systems usually consist of multi-layers with each layer having thickness “he” can be calculated as follows:
different properties (elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio). In
order to simplify these complex systems for stress and strain h13 E1 he3 E 2
; or

T
calculations, Odemark has developed a method to transform
these multi-layer systems into an equivalent one-layer system 1  v12 1  v 22
with equivalent thicknesses but one elastic modulus. This method
has been used in many advanced research studies and design
(2)
methods including the newly developed Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). This paper investigates the E1 1  u 22
accuracy of the Odemark method and presents a methodology to
he h1 3
E 2 1  u12
ES
increase its accuracy. A two-layer system with different modular
ratios and thicknesses was extensively analyzed. The results
showed that a correction factor must be used with Odemark’s
method in order to produce highly accurate stress and strain
results. This correction factor is not constant and depends not
For the case of a two-layer system with equal Poisson’s
ratio, the equivalent thickness can be calculated using the
following formula:

only on the modular ratio and the thickness of the layer but also E1
on the depth of interest. he h1 3 (3)
E2
Keywords; Odemark; stress; stiffness; elastic modulus, MEPDG Comparing stresses and strain calculated using the
Odemark’s method with those from the elastic theory led to the
I. INTRODUCTION conclusion that they are relatively different. In order to achieve
a better agreement between Odemark’s method and the elastic
Odemark has developed an approximate method to theory, a correction factor “f” was applied to the above
A
calculate stresses and strains in multiplayer pavement systems equation as follows.
by transforming this structure into an equivalent one-layer
system with equivalent thicknesses but one elastic modulus. E1
This concept is known as the method of equivalent thickness he f  h1 3 (4)
(MET) or Odemark’s method. MET assumes that the stresses E2
and strains below a layer depend only on the stiffness of that Researchers reported that the value of the correction factor
layer. If the thickness, modulus and Poisson’s ratio of a layer is “f” depends on the layer thicknesses, modular ratios, and the
IJ

changed, but the stiffness remains unchanged, the stresses and number of layers in the pavement structure. Furthermore, they
strains below the layer should also remain (relatively) mentioned that using a value of 0.8 to 0.9 for “f” leads to a
unchanged. According to Odemark, the stiffness of a layer is reasonably good agreement between the two methods [2].
proportional to the following term [1]:

h3 E
1  v2
(1) h1 E1 1 he E2 2
where:
h = thickness of the layer
E = elastic modulus E2 2 E2 2
v = Poisson’s ratio
Figure 1. Odemark’s Transformation of a Layered System

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 105

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

For a multi-layer system the equivalent thickness of the

upper n-1 layers with respect to the modulus of layer n, may be
calculated as follows:
n 1
Ei
he,n f   hi 3   
i 1 En
Where:
he,n = equivalent thickness of the layer of interest
(layer n). Figure 2. Effective Length Concept in MEPDG [6]
f = correction factor
hi = thickness of layer i
Ei,,En = elastic moduli of layers i and n, respectively.

Odemark transformation method has been utilized and

implemented in many applications [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Subagio et al used this method to calculate the residual life and
overlay thickness required based on deflection data measured

T
using the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) [2]. Senseney
and Mooney also used this method in the characterization of a
two-layer soil system using lightweight deflectometer [3]. The
newly developed mechanistic empirical pavement design guide
(MEPDG) implemented this method to transform a multi-layer
pavement system into an equivalent one layer system. This

velocity using the following relationship [6].

1 17.6vs
ES
equivalent system is used to determine the frequency of loading
based on the effective length of the stress pulse and vehicle

Figure 3. Equivaent Thicnkess Calculation

 fl     
t Leff
where:
fl = frequency of load, Hz
t = time of load, sec
vs = velocity (mph)
Leff = effective length of the stress pulse, inch
A
The effective length concept which has been employed in
MEPDG defines the stress pulse at a specific depth within the
pavement system as shown in Fig. 2. In this Figure, the line AA
shows the length of the stress pulse at the mid-depth of the AC
layer, whereas line BB shows the length of the stress pulse in
Figure 4. Effective Length Calculation using the Transformed Section [6]
the granular base layer. The sloped lines along with the depth
IJ

of interest define the effective length of the stress pulse. In MEPDG, for any pavement layer, the effective length of
Because the slope of the stress distribution shown in Fig. 2 the stress pulse is computed at the effective depth (Zeff). The
is a function of the stiffness of the layer and since there is no effective depth is the transformed depth at which the loading
present relationship exists to relate them together, a multi-layer frequency is needed. The effective depth for the transformed
pavement system is transformed into an equivalent one layer section (as shown in Fig. 4) is calculated with the help of
system in order to estimate the effective length. The Equation. 8 [6]:
transformed section using MET is shown in Fig. 3. The
transformed section has the modulus of the subgrade and has n 1 
E  E
an equivalent thickness of he. In MEPDG, for simplicity, the Z eff    hi 3 i   hn 3 n (8)
stress distribution for a typical subgrade soil is assumed to be at i 1  E SG  E SG
45 degree as shown in Fig. 4. Using this stress distribution, the
effective length can be calculated at any depth within the
transformed pavement system.

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 106

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
The computed loading frequency at the effective depth is
then used to determine the complex modulus (E*) of the
asphalt layer. Thus the accuracy of the MET affects the
accuracy of the E* which in turn influences the MEPDG
predicted rutting, load associated cracking and roughness.
II. OBJECTIVES
This paper has two primary objectives. The first objective is
to investigate the accuracy of the Odemark transformation
method (MET). The second objective of this research is to
improve the accuracy of the MET, if warranted.
III. STUDY METHODOLOGY
An extensive study is introduced to quantify the influence of
layer thickness, depth, and modular ratios on the correction
factor “f” of the Odemark’s transformation method. A two-
layer system with the first layer thickness (h) values of 2, 6, 10,
and 15 inches was used in the analysis. A total of 5 different
modular ratios of E1/E2 = 3.33, 16.67, 33.33, 50.00, and 66.67
for each thickness were analyzed. A Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 was
assumed in all computations. Fig. 5 shows the applied load and
the properties of the two layer system used in the analysis.
9000 lb
Z
120 psi
2a = 9.772 in
ES h
E1, 
E2, 
Figure 5. Two-Layer Pavement System used for the Analysis
A
First a linear elastic solution was performed on the two-
layer structure using the KENPAVE software to calculate the
vertical and radial stresses at different depths measured from
the surface of the upper layer under the centerline of the load.
Then Odemark transformation concept was used to convert the
two-layer problem into one layer with equivalent thicknesses
and one modulus. A comparison between stresses calculated
IJ
from both systems was made. The influence of the correction
factor term on the computed stresses of the transformed system
using MET method was studied.
IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Comparing Odemark solution, without using a correction
factor (f=1), to KENPAVE solution yielded different stress
values at the points of interest. This is clearly shown in Fig. 6.
This figure only shows the stresses calculated at different
depths underneath the centerline of the load (radial distance
=0).
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110
150
Equivalent Transformed Section
125
Calculated Stress, psi
100
75
50
25
Line of Equality
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Two-Layer Calculated Stress using KENPAVE, psi
Figure 6. Comparison of the Two-Layer and the Equivalent One-Layer
Pavements Computed Stresses
A correction factor f was then introduced into the equation
to calculate the corrected equivalent depth. First, a unique f
value was applied to all points of interest for each modular
T
ratio. The results showed good agreement only for the vertical
stresses calculated at the interface between the two layers when
using f of 0.8 to 0.9. However, at any depth other than the
interface between the two layers the results showed a
significant difference between the two solutions. This means
that the correction factor f is also dependent on the depth.
In order to verify that, the “Solver” function in Excel
spreadsheet was used for each modular ratio, to calculate the f
factor at each depth such that:
vzi – vzti = 0 (9)
where:
vz = vertical stress calculated from a two-layer
system at depth zi using KENPAVE.
vzti = vertical stress calculated from Odemark
transformed depth zti (One layer system) using
Boussinesq or KENPAVE.
The results showed that f depends not only on the modular
ratio and the thickness of the upper layer in the two-layer
pavement system but also on the depth of interest.
Figs. 7 through 9 depict the relationship between the
correction factor “f” and depth at different modular ratios for
the investigated two layer system with h1 = 6, 10, and 15 inches
respectively. For the points (Z values) in the first layer the
relationship between f and Z was found to be a 3rd degree
polynomial. The values of the R2 were 0.99+ for all investigated
modular ratios as well as the different structures considered in
the analysis. For the points (Z values) in the second layer the
relationship between f and Z was found to be a 2rd degree
polynomial. The values of the R2 were also found to be 0.99+
for all different modular ratios and the different structures
considered in the analysis. The relationships between f and Z
for the two layers are shown in Fig. 9 for the pavement system
with h1=15 inch. Examples of these relationships are shown in
Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 for the two layer system with h1=6 inch and
a modular ratio of 50.
Page 107
Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

1.00

0.90

0.80 E1/E2 = 3.33

E1/E2 = 6.66
0.70 E1/E2 = 10.00
Correctin Factor, f E1/E2 = 16.67

Interface between layers 1 and 2

0.60 E1/E2 = 33.33
E1/E2 = 50.00
E1/E2 = 66.67
0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Depth, Z (in)
Figure 7. Relationships between the Correction f and Depth (Z) for the system with (h1 = 6 in.)

T
1.00
0.90

0.80 E1/E2 = 3.33

Correction Factor, f

0.70

0.60
0.50
0.40
ES Interface between layers 1 & 2

E1/E2 = 16.66
E1/E2 = 33.33
E1/E2 = 50.00
E1/E2 = 66.66

0.30
0.20

0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Depth, Z (in)

Figure 8. Relationships between the Correction f and Depth (Z) for the system with (h1 = 10 in.)
A
1.00
0.90
y = -5E-05x3 + 0.0024x2 - 0.0146x + 0.7033
0.80 R² = 0.995
Correction Factor (f)

0.70 Interface Between

IJ

Layers 1&2
y = 0.0001x3 + 0.0003x2 - 0.0074x + 0.4241
0.60 R² = 0.9975 y = 0.0001x2 - 0.0096x + 0.9712
R² = 1
E1/E2 = 3.33

0.50 y = 0.0003x3 - 0.0028x2 + 0.0075x + 0.3256

R² = 0.9989 y = 0.0005x2 - 0.0323x + 1.17
E1/E2 = 16.66
R² = 1
0.40
y = 0.0007x2 - 0.0432x + 1.2841
E1/E2 = 33.33
0.30 R² = 1

0.20 y = 0.0004x3 - 0.005x2 + 0.0185x + 0.2728

y = 0.0008x2 - 0.0497x + 1.3542
R² = 1
E1/E2 = 50.00
R² = 0.9985
0.10 y = 0.0009x2 - 0.0539x + 1.3996 E1/E2 = 66.66
y = 0.0005x3 - 0.0066x2 + 0.0271x + 0.2375 R² = 1
R² = 0.9973
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (Z), in.

Figure 9. Relationships between the Correction f and Depth (Z) for the system with (h1 = 15 in)

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 108

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

Unfortunately, normalizing the depth values (Z) by the

Corretion factor (f) for layer-1

1.00
0.90 thickness of the upper layer did not eliminate the effect of layer
0.80 thickness. However, there seems to be a general relationship
0.70 that relates the f value for each layer, in a two-layer system, to
0.60 the modular ration and the depth.
0.50 Figures 7 thru 9 show also that for the cases with modular
0.40
ratios higher than 3.33 the value of f asymptotes to 0.85, 0.8,
0.30
and 0.79 for the pavements systems with h1 = 6, 10, and 15 in
0.20
y = 0.0012x3 + 0.0225x2 - 0.1252x + 0.6244 respectively. For the 3.33 modular ratio, the f at the interface is
0.10 R² = 0.9992
0.89, 0.87, and 0.85 for the systems with h1 = 6, 10, and 15 in
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 respectively. It can be concluded from these results that, in a
Depth, Z (in) two-layer system, for different modular ratios, f in the range of
0.8 to 0.9 yields vertical stresses that are relatively close to the
Figure 10. Relationship between Depth and Correction Factor for Layer-1
ones from theory of elasticity at the interface between the two
(h1=6 in., E1/E2=50) layers.
Fig. 13 presents an example of the relationship between the
vertical stresses calculated at different radial distances, for
1.00
different depth values, for the two-layer system with (h1 = 10
Corretion factor for layer-2

0.90
in) and a modular ratio of 16.67. Theses vertical stresses were

T
0.80
0.70 calculated for a two-layer problem using KENPAVE. This
0.60 two-layer system was then transformed using Odemark’s
0.50 method with the correction factor f as a function of depth and
0.40 the vertical stresses at the transformed depths (Zt) were
0.30 calculated. This is shown on Fig. 14. Comparing the values of
0.20
y = 0.0068x2 - 0.1653x + 1.5915
the vertical stresses from both methods resulted in agreement
as shown in Fig. 15.
0.10
0.00
5 6 7 8
Depth, Z (in.)
9
ES
R² = 0.9997

10 11
120

110

100

90
Leff @ Z = 1 in
11.772 in
Z = 1 in
Z = 3 in

Figure 11. Relationship between Depth and Correction Factor for Layer-2 80 15.772 in
Z = 5 in

(h1=6 in., E1/E2=50)

Vertical Stress, psi

Leff @ Z = 3 in Z = 7 in
70 Z = 9 in
19.772 in
60 Leff @ Z = 5 in

Using the developed relationships between the correction factor 50

and depth for each layer, an excellent agreement between

23.772 in
40 Leff @ Z = 7 in

vertical stresses computed at different depths underneath the 30

27.772 in

centerline of the load for the transformed system and the two-
Leff @ Z = 9 in
20

layer system is achieved. This is shown in Fig. 12.

A
10

0
-24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Radial Distance, in
150
Equivalent Transformed Section

125 Figure 13. Relationship between Vertical Stresses and Radial Distances at
Different Depths (E1/E2 = 16.67), Two-Layer Solution
Calculated Stress, psi

120
100
110 Zt = 1.24 in
IJ

Leff @ Zt = 1.24 in 12.252 in

100 Zt = 3.47 in
75 Zt = 6.15 in
90 Leff @ Zt = 3.47 in
16.712 in
Zt = 10.11 in
50 80
Vertical Stress, psi

Zt = 17.27 in
70 Leff @ Zt = 6.15 in
22.072 in

25 60

50 Leff @ Zt = 10.11 in
Line of Equality 29.992 in

0 40

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 30 Leff @ Zt = 17.27 in

44.312 in
20
Two-Layer Calculated Stress using KENPAVE, psi
10

0
Figure 12. Comparison of the Two-Layer and the Equivalent One-Layer -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Pavements Computed Stresses after Appling the Developed Correction Radial Distance, in

Factors (f as a Function of Depth).

Figure 14. Relationship between Vertical Stresses and Radial Distances at
Different Depths (E1/E2 = 16.67), Transformed Section

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 109

Sherif M. El-Badawy et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 6, Issue No. 1, 105 - 110

REFERENCES
140 [1] Ullidtz, P., (1987), Pavement Analysis, Development in Civil
Engineering, Vol.19, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Vertical Stress, psi (Odemark One- Layer

120
[2] Subagio, B., Cahyanto H., Rachman, A., and Mardiyah, S., “Multi-Layer
Pavement Structural Analysis Using Method of Equivalent Thickness,
100
Case Study: Jakarta-Cikampek Toll Road,” Journal of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 55 - 65, 2005.
80
[3] Senseney, C., and Mooney, M., “Characterization of a Two-Layer Soil
Solution)

System Using a Lightweight Deflectometer with Radial Sensor,”

60
Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2186, Washington DC, pp. 21-28, 2010.
40
[4] Crowder, J., Shalaby, A., Cauwenberghe, R., and Clayton, A.,
20
Z=1 “Assessing Spring Load Restrictions Using Climate Change and
Z=3
Z=5
Mechanistic-Empirical Models,”
0 Z=7 [5] Cafiso, S., and Graziano, A., “Evaluation of Flexible Reinforced
Z=9 Pavement Performance by NDT,” In Transportation Research Record,
-20 TRB Annual Meeting CD ROM, 2003.
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
[6] ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division. “Guide for Mechanistic-
Vertical Stress, psi (Two-Layer Solution) Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.”
NCHRP 1-37A Final Report, Transportation Research Board, National
Figure 15. Comparison between Odemark Solution and Two-Layer Solution Research Council, Washington, DC, 2004.
for Vertical Stresses at Different Depths and Radial Distances using
[7] El-Badawy, S., Jeong, M., and El-Basyouny M., “Methodology to

T
Correction Factor (f as a Function of Depth) for the system with h1 =10 in. and Predict Alligator Fatigue Cracking Distress based on AC Dynamic
E1/E2 = 16.67 Modulus,” In Transportation Research Record, Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2095, Transportation Research
board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2009, pp. 115-124.
V. CONCLUSIONS [8] Sotil, A., “Use of the Dynamic Modulus E* Test as Permanent
Based on the analyses conducted in this research, the Deformation Performance Criteria for Asphalt Pavement Systems”,
following conclusions were highlighted: Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, December 2005.

ES
In order to get a good agreement between the stresses
and strains calculated using Odemark’s concept and
those from theory of elasticity; a correction factor f has
to be introduced. This correction factor was found to
be a function of the layer thickness, depth and modular
ratio.
 The study showed a good agreement between the
vertical stresses at the interface between the two layers,
in a two-layer system, calculated using the theory of
elasticity and Odemark’s concept when using a
correction factor (f) in the range of of 0.8 to 0.9 which
A
agrees with the other literature studies.
 However, at any other depth within each layer, this
correction factor is not a constant value. It was found
that this correction factor varies with the change in the
depth of interest. The study showed that, the points (Z
values) in the first layer follow a 3rd degree polynomial
relationship with the correction factor (f) for each
IJ

modular ratio and thickness. On the other hand, the

points (Z values) in the second layer follow a 2rd
degree polynomial relationship with the correction
factor for each modular ratio and thickness.
 Unfortunately, normalizing the depth values (Z) by the
thickness of the upper layer did not eliminate the effect
of layer thickness.
 MEPDG should consider introducing a correction
factor as a function of depth, layer thickness, and
modular for an accurate calculation of the effective
length and depth required for E* computations.

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 110