Rutting and Fatigue are taken as main premature failures among all distresses, as these distresses have wide effect on performance of pavement. Sudden variation of heavy axle loaded vehicles, improper mix design and traditional design methodologies used in pavement design industries are major factors behind these failures. For proper performance and good serviceability, these premature distresses should be resisted. Thus, there is a need of using a Mechanistic based design methodology like KENPAVE software, so that traditional design errors should be overcome. KENLAYER is a part of KENPAVE software. KENLYER software tool is utilized to calculated accurately stresses and strains in asphaltic pavement that are ultimately used in calculating allowance for rutting and fatigue failure utilizing Asphalt Institute design models or formulas. Resistance to Rutting failure is checked by calculating vertical compressive stress at the top of soil sub-grade layer, while resistance to fatigue failure is checked by calculating horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of asphaltic layer using KENLAYER software tool. Thus, the object of this research study is to analyze a flexible pavement with respect to rutting and fatigue distresses using KENLAYER software tool. For achieving that objective NHA (N-55) section of road in Sehwan Pakistan was taken as a reference pavement. Pavement was analyzed by altering the thicknesses of bituminous courses by ± 25 percent. From that we obtained total 20 cross-sections to be analyzed using KENLAYER software in terms of Rutting and Fatigue premature failures.
Chaudry, R., & Memon, A. B. (2013). “Effects of variation in Truck factor on pavement performance in Pakistan.” Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 32(1): 19 – 30.
Chegenizadeh, A. and Keramatikerman, M. and Nikraz, H. (2016). “Flexible pavement modelling using Kenlayer.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 21(7): 2467-2479.
Gedafa, D. S. (2006). “Comparison of flexible pavement performance using KENLAYER and HDM-4.” Midwest Transportation Consortium, Ames, Iowa.
Gupta, A., Kumar, P., and Rastogi, R. (2014). “Critical review of flexible pavement performance models.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(1): 142 – 148. DOI: 10.1007/s12205-014-0255-2.
Hong, F., Pereira, F. M., and Prozzi, J. A. (2006). “Comparison of equivalent single axle loads from empirical and mechanistic-empirical approaches.” Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Huang, Y. H. Pavement analysis and design. Prentice Hall 1993: 100 – 167.
Khan, R. U., Khan, M. I., & Khan, A. U. (2012). “Software Development (PAKPAVE) for Flexible Pavement Design.” International Journal Of Multidisciplinary Sciences And Engineering, 13(11): 1 - 5.
Muniandy, R., Aburkaba, E. and Thamer, N. (2013). “Comparison of flexible pavement performance using Kenlayer and Chev PC software program.” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(9): 112-119.
Mutlag, S. A. (2012). “Effect Of Binder Layer Properties on Flexible Pavement In Iraq.” Al-Qadisiya Journal for Engineering Sciences, 5(4), pp. 466-476.
Nidhi, M. & Nagakumar, M. S. (2013). “Applications of Layered Theory for the Analysis of Flexible Pavements.” International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2(1): - 200. https://doi.org/10.15623/ijret.2013.0213034.
Samad, E. (2012). “Sensitivity Analysis In Flexible Pavement Performance Using Mechanistic Empirical Method (Case Study: Cirebon–Losari Road Segment, West Java).” Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum 20(1): 12.
Srikanth, M. R. (2015). “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, 4(08): 771 – 774.