Icon Legend

This session is not in your schedule.

This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.

28 Views

Pavements 2026

Pavement Design and Analysis

When Airfield Pavements Push Back: Nonlinear Response, Overloads, and Smart Airfield Pavement Behavior

Implications of Using Nonlinear Elastic Analysis to Predict “Smart” Runway Response

Monday, June 29, 2026

1:45 PM - 2:00 PM East Coast USA Time

Primary Author(s)

Tyler R. Hebert, E.I.

Research Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Vicksburg, MS, United States

Co-Author(s)

Jeremiah Stache, Ph.D., P.E.

Research Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States
Brendon D. Quon, n/a

Research Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States
Jesse D. Doyle, PhD, PE

Research Civil Engineer
US Army Engineer R&D Center
Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States
Wayne Hodo, Ph.D.

Research Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States
Mira B. Vestel, n/a

1st Class Cadet
United States Air Force Academy
USAF Academy, Colorado, United States
Jeb S. Tingle, P.E.

Senior Scientific Technical Manager
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States

Submitter(s)

Tyler R. Hebert, E.I.

Research Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Vicksburg, MS, United States

Abstract: The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) constructed a “Smart” Runway of flexible airfield pavement at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) in Utah. During the construction, multiple sensors were installed at various depths in the subsurface to measure the pavement’s response when externally loaded by aircraft. During Summer 2024, live aircraft testing was performed using F-35A, KC-135E, and F-16D aircraft, taxiing over the instrumented section of the runway. For a given aircraft, vertical stresses were measured using earth pressure cells (EPCs) that were placed in the top of the base, subbase, and subgrade layers at various offsets from the centerline of traffic. Vertical stresses recorded by EPCs were compared to the results from both linear elastic analysis using backcalculated moduli and using nonlinear elastic analysis. At the time of testing, heavy falling weight deflectometer (HWD) tests were performed on top of each sensor including the EPCs. Using the field measured deflection basins, the elastic moduli of the underlying layers can be approximated using conventional static backcalculation. In this paper, backcalculated moduli were used in the Layered Elastic Analysis of General Loadings (LEAGL) software to estimate responses in the pavement structure, while LEAGL-NL (Nonlinear) used the Duncan-Chang constitutive model for the granular layers. Responses were compared to the field measured responses. Results showed that material behavior could impact computed responses. Differences in the calculated and measured response were discussed in terms of the simplifying assumptions associated with static backcalculation and layered elastic analysis. Recommendations are provided for future work to overcome these assumptions and increase the validity of using backcalculated moduli and nonlinear LEA to accurately estimate response in the field.

Learning Objectives:

Attendees can expect to learn the following from this session:

Describe the assumptions and implications of both linear and nonlinear layered elastic analyses to estimate field measured responses.
Assess the use of constitutive models in layered elastic analyses to represent nonlinear material behavior.
Perform stress analysis using backcalculated moduli and measured aircraft offsets using layered elastic theory.