The low-strength interlayer:

a realistic assumption or an expensive approximation

in the back-calculation process

Kars Drenth: Head of Pavement Engineering

Dynatest Denmark A/S

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Outline
• Back ground
• Non-linearity
• Publications
• Examples
• Conclusions

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Back-ground
• Back-calculation often results in unrealistic layer
moduli
• Modulus subgrade 2 to 3 times the expected value
• Comparison of measured stresses and strains with
theoretical values is often poor
• Theoretical models assume pavement consist of
linear elastic materials
• Treating subgrade as non-linear elastic can results
in more realistic moduli with a better agreement
between measured and calculated stresses and
strains 6th EU FWD UGM 2010
10 & 11 June, Brussels
Back-ground
• Large difference between back-calculated in
comparison to laboratory derived moduli
• Some procedures for structural evaluation
recommend to divide subgrade modulus by factor
2-3
• Modulus intermediate layer less than modulus
subgrade, even when material is of superior quality
• To remedy artificial layer is sometimes introduced
• Measured subgrade strain based on back-
calculated moduli typical twice theoretical value
6th EU FWD UGM 2010
10 & 11 June, Brussels
Pressure Distribution + FWD Testing

5
 Non - Linearity
• To estimate the modulus of the subgrade as accurate
as possible is extremely important
• For granular materials the modulus does increase
with the load level
– stress stiffening
• For cohesive materials the modulus does decrease
with the load level
– stress softening

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Non-Linearity in Back-calculation Process
• Subgrade non-linearity can be modeled as (Per
Ullidtz):
n
⎛ σ1 ⎞
E = C ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ pa ⎠
– σ1 is the major principal stress from external
loading
– σ1 is the major principal stress from external
loading
– pa is the reference stress (atmospheric pressure =
0.1 MPa)
– C and n are constants (n is negative, n = 0 for
linear elastic material
6th EU FWD UGM 2010
10 & 11 June, Brussels
FEM, LET & MET Comparison

•Section: 2.5 m wide and 9 m long

6th EU FWD UGM 2010
10 & 11 June, Brussels
FEM, LET & MET Comparison
• Responses used in the comparisons
were:
– Horizontal strain at the bottom of the
asphalt layer
– Vertical stress 10 mm below the top of
the subgrade
– Vertical strain 80 mm below the top of
the subgrade

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
FEM, LET & MET Comparison
• FWD testing was performed and layer
moduli were backcalculated using three
methods:
– FEM
– Linear elastic theory
– MET (modified for non-linear subgrade)
• Stresses and strains predicted by the
three methods were also compared to
measured values

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Layer Moduli
Layer FEM LET (WES) MET
Asphalt concrete 6,836 MPa 7,051 MPa 6,178 MPa
Granular base 121 MPa 74.0 MPa 294 MPa
Subgrade 44.4 MPa 151 MPa 43.1 MPa
PCC concrete 39,425 MPa 47781 MPa ---
Native soil 344 MPa 376 MPa ---
ngranular -0.35 --- ---
nsubgrade -0.53 --- -0.45
RMS, mm 2.0 mm 1.9 mm 1.3 mm
RMS, % 1.30% 1.00% 4.10%
Pavement Modelling
Total Radius r or a
Load P

p - contact pressure
Surface E1 , μ1 h1

Base E2 , μ2 h2

α
Subgrade E3 , μ3

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Measured vs Calculated Responses
Measured Calculated Calculated/Measured
Response
type Range Mean FEM LET MET FEM LET MET

Asphalt
-132 to
Strain -174 -192 -203 -186 1.10 1.17 1.07
–196
(μstrain)

32.6
Subgrade
to 49.1 57.8 68.2 51.1 1.15 1.39 1.04
Stress (kPa)
58.8

Subgrade 563
Strain to 697 565 341 725 0.81 0.49 1.04
(μstrain) 934
Results
• For this example it is found that:
– the best agreement between measured and calculated
stresses and strains is obtained with MET
– FEM results in stresses and strains within the range of
measured values
– All the stresses and strains calculated with the linear
elastic theory are outside of the range of measured
stresses or strains
• All theoretical models for calculating pavement response
are based on a number of simplifications with respect to
reality and must be verified experimentally

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Back-calculation Process

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Surface Modulus Plots
• Surface modulus plots are very informative
• Provide insight into the characteristics of the
pavements
• Show the level of difficulty in evaluating the data
• Show whether subgrade is linear or non-linear
• Show whether there is a stiff layer (bedrock)
• Show whether there is cracking…..

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Surface Modulus
• Apparent or equivalent stiffness of a pavement
structure assuming the pavement is composed of an
infinite half-space
• Surface Modulus = Weighted Mean Modulus
• Used to assess the quality of pavement deflection data
• Quick check to determine the existence or non-
existence of shallow rigid layer (Bedrock)
• Surface moduli are calculated using Boussinesq’s
equations using surface deflections

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Boussinesq’s Formulea
• E0(0) = 2(1-ν2)σ0.a
δ(0)

• E0(r) = (1-ν2)σ0.a2
r.δ(r)
– where
• E0(r) = surface modulus at equivalent depth r (MPa)
• ν = Poisson’s Ratio
• σo = pressure under loading plate
• a = radius of the loading plate
• r = distance of geophones to centre of loading plate
• δ(r) = deflection at distance r from centre of plate.
6th EU FWD UGM 2010
10 & 11 June, Brussels
Back-Calculation Feature: Surface Modulus
• The surface modulus (Eo) is the modulus of an
equivalent single layer system, which would give
the same surface deflection as the measured
deflection

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Typical Modulus Values
Deflection Fitting

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Back-calculation Result: 1st example

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Back-calculation Result: 2nd example

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
New Pavement Structure with Interlayer

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
New Pavement Structure with Interlayer

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Poor Fit Linear Approach

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Good Fit Non-linear Approach

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Good Fit Linear Approach with Interlayer

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Summarizing 3 Different Approaches

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
 •U
S

To Summarize: Linear Elastic Backcalculation

• Back=calculated subgrade layer moduli are larger
than laboratory determined values (Some
procedures divide it by a factor of 2-3)
• Intermediate granular layer moduli are found to be
less than the subgrade moduli (An artificial rigid
layer is sometimes introduced)
• The measured vertical strain on top of the
subgrade is typically twice the theoretical value
(vertical strain on top of the subgrade is an
important design parameter)
6th EU FWD UGM 2010
10 & 11 June, Brussels
Conclusions
• Depending on approach large difference can be
found in back-calculated moduli having a great
impact on potential maintenance measures
• Additional information can be helpful
• Artificial interlayer will influence critical layer
• Inversion of layer stiffnesses in a linear approach
is difficult to accept
• Non-linear approach is showing realistic results
• A correct deflection profile is very important due to
the sensitivity in the back-calculation process
6th EU FWD UGM 2010
10 & 11 June, Brussels
Back-calculation Levels
1. Default with no seed moduli [Seed moduli are calculated using Radius of
Curvature method]
2. Enter seed modulus/moduli
3. Combine with another layer/Use moduli restrictions/Fix layer modulus …
Notes:
• Do not fix depth to bedrock unless you are certain of that depth. Try to
have ELMOD calculate for that depth
• If variation of deflection with distance is due to other reasons than a rigid
layer, then treating the variation as a result of non-linearity is preferable to
introducing an artificial rigid layer
• Increasing steps in the search procedure might improve moduli
• …….

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels
Thank You!

6th EU FWD UGM 2010

10 & 11 June, Brussels