30
Paper No. 00-1428
Temperature Correction on Falling Weight
Deflectometer Measurements
Dar-Hao Chen, John Bilyeu, Huang-Hsiung Lin, and Mike Murphy
Repeated falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests were conducted at
three sites. The tests were conducted at regular intervals for 2 to 3 con-
secutive days per location, and also done during different seasons in
order that the widest possible range of temperatures could be obtained.
The influence of cracks on temperature correction was also investigated.
Temperature correction equations for deflection and moduli were
developed so that users could be allowed to input their own reference
temperatures. For all test pads, only the W1 and W2 deflections were
found to be significantly affected by temperature. Comparisons with
other reported temperature correction equations showed close agree-
ment for deflection, but not for moduli. Tests were also run on cracked
locations. Temperature did not affect the response of the cracked pave-
ment as much as it did the intact pavement. Due to the different
temperature-dependent characteristics of intact and cracked locations,
the equations developed from the intact locations may not be used on
cracked locations.
The falling weight deflectometer (FWD) has been used extensively
by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to support
routine pavement design, rehabilitation strategy selection, super-
heavy load routing, load zoning, and other pavement management
activities. TxDOT owns a fleet of 15 FWDs, the first of which was
purchased in 1983. Temperature is one of the most important param-
eters that affect FWD measurements. Since FWD measurements are
collected at different temperatures, temperature correction needs to
be applied in the analysis.
This study is part of the mobile load simulator (MLS) research
project. The MLS is a full-scale accelerated testing device. FWD
measurements have been collected in order that pavement condi-
tions at predetermined MLS axle repetitions could be assessed. To
determine the true effect of axle repetitions on pavement, tempera-
ture correction equations need to be developed and applied to the
FWD measurements.
FWD tests were repeated at different temperatures at three MLS
test sites so that the temperature correction equations could be devel-
oped. These tests were conducted at 15- or 30-min intervals, from
7 a.m. to 7 p.m., during different times of the year. The 15-min inter-
val was used when sudden changes in temperature occurred (nor-
mally from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.). No traffic load was allowed during
the period of repeated FWD testing. Thus, once FWD deflections
are normalized to a specific load, any variation can be reasonably
assumed to be due to environmental conditions.
Temperature correction equations were developed for both de-
flections and backcalculated moduli. In routine analyses, a correc-
tive equation for moduli is the more helpful of the two types. How-
D.-H. Chen, J. Bilyeu, and M. Murphy, Texas Department of Transportation,
Design Pavement Section, 4203 Bull Creek Road #37, Austin, TX 78731.
H.-H. Lin, 206A North 12th Street, Brigantine, NJ 08203.
■ Transportation Research Record 1716
ever, a corrective equation for deflections allows users to apply their
own backcalculation programs. Experimenters made efforts to
investigate the differences between equations developed in this
study and equations developed by others under different climatic
conditions and pavement structures.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this study is establishment of temperature
correction equations applicable to the MLS test pads and any simi-
lar pavement structures. The study also sets up a framework to be
used in the future for routine analyses, as more test results on dif-
ferent pavement structures become available. Effects of the test
location, structure, and level of load are also investigated. In routine
FWD collection, a test location could be on or near cracks. The
influence of cracks on temperature correction factors is investigated.
The differences between temperature correction equations devel-
oped from this study and those reported in other literature are also
scrutinized.
TEST SECTION
The first test site is located on a frontage road of US-59 in Victoria,
Yoakum District. The test pad was specially constructed for MLS
testing, and is referred to as Pad 2 in this paper. This test pad is a
new pavement and is not intended to carry public traffic.
The other two test sites are in-service pavements and are located
on US-281 near Jacksboro, Fort Worth District. These two test
sections are aged pavement (40+ years) with composite asphalt
concrete (AC) layers. These two sites are on the inside lanes
of US-281 southbound (referred to as 281S) and northbound
(referred to as 281N). During the FWD test periods, traffic load
neither from the MLS nor from public traffic had been applied to
the test sections.
US59 Pad 2
This pavement section consists of a design thickness of 200 mm AC,
300 mm of lime-treated gravel base (LTB), and 150 mm of lime-
stabilized subgrade (LTS). The LTB and LTS layers were blade
mixed. Blade mixing generally lowers the consistency of the layer
depths and the uniformity of mixing more than the process of
rotomill mixing does. In the Yoakum district, use of uncrushed river
gravel mixed with 1.5 percent lime as base material is a common
practice. The in situ clay subgrade was stabilized with 5 percent lime
to a depth of 150 mm.
Chen et al.
281S
The first asphalt layer of the test section was constructed in 1957.
Four major overlays or rehabilitations were completed in 1971,
1976, 1986, and 1995. Figure 1a shows the complete pavement his-
tory. The last major rehabilitation was done in 1995, with 50 mm of
recycled AC. Before that (in 1986) a major rehabilitation was done,
making use of 76 mm of lightweight aggregate AC. The pavement
structure consists of 180 mm AC and 380 mm crushed aggregate
base. The inside southbound lane of US-281 was closed to traffic
over a 1-year period for testing while the outside lane remained open
to the public.
Nuclear density gauge (NDG) testing was conducted in order that
the in situ AC density could be measured. The average density was
only 1875 kg/m3, because of a significant amount of lightweight
FIGURE 1 (a) Pavement sections for 281S (bedrock depth approximately 2.6 m) and 281N (bedrock
depth approximately 1.9 m); (b) test location.
Paper No. 00-1428 31
aggregate in the AC layers. For the top 50 mm remixed layer, approx-
imately 12 to 13 percent of air void was found in the nontrafficked
area, and 5.4 percent was found under the trafficked area.
281N
The pavement structure of 281N is very similar to that of 281S. The
only major difference is the rehabilitation strategy done in 1996. The
southbound lanes of US-281 were treated in 1995 with a 50-mm
recycling (remixer) operation. The northbound lanes were given a
Dustrol overlay in 1996, consisting of 25 mm of conventional (no
lightweight aggregate) AC. Below the 25 mm of conventional AC is
25 mm of recycled AC. The difference in rehab methods has resulted
in a slightly thinner AC on the southbound lanes than on the north-
32 Paper No. 00-1428 Transportation Research Record 1716

bound lanes, as shown in Figure 1. The NDG results indicate that the
average density for northbound samples was 2035 kg/m3.

TEST PROGRAM

Repeated FWD tests were conducted continually for a 2- to 3-day

period in the months of February (late winter and early spring),
May (spring), and August (summer), in order that a wide range of
temperatures could be obtained.
The FWD used in this study is set up such that W1 deflection is
taken at the center of the load plate, W2 is taken 1 ft (305 mm) from
the center, W3 is 2 ft (610 mm) from the center, and so forth.
FWD tests were conducted during a period of minimal subsurface
moisture variation. An on-site weather station with a rain gauge and
buried time-domain reflectometer (TDR) was used to monitor any
variation in moisture content. No rainfall occurred during FWD
testing or during the three days before testing.
FWD tests were conducted in intervals of 15 or 30 min, depend-
ing on the rate of temperature change. The mid-depth pavement
temperature was observed to change most rapidly from 12 p.m. to
3 p.m. FWD tests were conducted at a 15-min interval during this
period. Otherwise, the 30-min interval was used. The FWD was
moved off the test pavement after each test so that any temperature
changes due to the FWD’s shadow could be prevented. FIGURE 2 Comparison of temperatures for 281N (August 5,
For both US-281 test sites, FWD data were collected at three 1998): (a) air and mid-depth temperatures; (b) at-depth
locations (A, B, and C, as shown in Figure 1b), approximately temperatures.
610 mm apart. Locations A and B have no visual surface crack, but
Location C has a surface crack across the lane. Location A was
tested first, followed by Locations B and C. The three locations surface moisture variation. Thus, the measured deflection variations
were tested in less than 4 min, and are assumed to have been at the could be assumed to be associated mainly with temperature. Though
same temperature at any given interval. The FWD trailer was some subsurface moisture variation may have existed, Long et al. (1)
arranged such that none of the FWD geophones were across the and Khogali and Anderson (2) stated that for flexible pavement,
crack at Location C. At the time the FWD tests on Location C were temperature has a much greater effect on FWD deflection than does
conducted, the W1 geophone was placed on the crack. Since the subgrade moisture content.
geophone extension rod diameter is much larger than the width of
the crack, the geophone stayed in its proper position. Two locations
having no surface crack were tested on US-59 (Pad 2). Mid-Depth Pavement Temperature
Thermocouples were installed at three different pavement depths
for each test site. The depths are 12.7 mm down from the surface, That pavement response does not correlate well to air or pavement
mid-depth of the AC, and 12.7 mm above the bottom of the AC. An surface temperature is well known. In this study, the mid-depth
on-site weather station was used on US-281 to continuously collect pavement temperature is used as the effective AC temperature. The
at-depth temperature and subsurface moisture readings. Figure 2 temperature correction factor is treated as a function of mid-depth
shows the air and at-depth temperatures of 281N on August 5, 1998. pavement temperature.
An air temperature range of 10°C (within one day) can be seen to Although AASHTO has incorporated the previous 5-day mean air
yield very little change at the bottom of the AC. Several kinks in temperature and surface temperature to compute the effective AC
Figure 2 data are seen due to overcasts during the day. This shows temperature, problems are still associated with this formulation. For
that using the previous 5-day average air temperature to predict example, Kim et al. stated that the surface temperatures of one test
pavement temperature may not be accurate in times of overcast section, measured at noon and at 4:02 p.m., were essentially the same
conditions. but that the mid-depth temperatures differed by 7°C (3). If the effec-
tive temperature of the AC layer at different times of the same day
is being determined, the AASHTO effective temperature becomes a
NORMALIZATION OF FWD RESULTS function of pavement surface temperature only. This is because the
FOR TEMPERATURE EFFECTS mean air temperature for the previous 5 days remains the same for
FWD testing within the same day.
One of the major advantages of this study is that during repeated This study makes no attempt to develop or calibrate models that
FWD testing, no traffic was allowed on any of the test sites. Thus, will predict mid-depth pavement temperature through air or surface
the assumption is reasonable that once FWD deflections are nor- temperature. As is current TxDOT practice for routine FWD data
malized to a specific load, nearly all variation is due to environ- collection, small holes are drilled so that pavement temperatures may
mental conditions. With the on-site (weather station) monitoring, be collected. This practice will most likely continue until a method
repeated FWD tests were conducted during times of minimal sub- that gives better estimates of mid-depth temperature is discovered.
Chen et al.
Deflection Correction for Intact Pavement
W1 through W7 deflections at various temperatures for sites Pad 2,
281S, and 281N are presented in Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c, respec-
tively. Data from the second drop height of the FWD (peak load
close to 40 kN) were used in these figures. The data were normal-
ized to a load of 40 kN using a linear relationship. Although it is
known that a linear load-deflection relationship may not be applic-
able to thin AC, the assumption that deflections will increase lin-
early with increased load is reasonable, given the thick ACs used in
this study. Figure 3 shows that only the W1 and W2 deflections are
FIGURE 3 Effects of temperature on FWD deflections for intact locations: (a) Pad 2;
(b) 281S; and (c) 281N.
Paper No. 00-1428 33
significantly influenced by pavement temperature. W3 through W7
deflections remained almost constant at different temperatures. This
same trend was observed at all three sites.
The temperature correction factors developed here are defined as
the numbers by which researchers must multiply or divide collected
deflections in order to correct them to 25°C. The factors are the
bracketed portions on the right sides of the numbered Formulas 1
through 8.
So that the effect of pavement structure on the temperature cor-
rection factor could be quantified, equations were developed for
each test site. Linear trendlines were employed to fit peak FWD
34 Paper No. 00-1428 Transportation Research Record 1716

deflections at different pavement temperatures. Then a correct-to

temperature of 25°C was substituted as the x value in the trendline
formula, yielding the deflection at 25°C. This deflection was then
divided by deflections collected at other temperatures so that the cor-
rection factors could be found. The temperature correction equations
were established and are presented as Equation 1 to Equation 6. At all
three of the noncracked, intact sites, R2 values of W1 deflections were
above 0.95, whereas R2 values for W2 deflections were all above
0.91. The R2 values for cracked pavement tend to be slightly lower.
Many temperature correction models have been developed in
other states with use of a reference temperature of 20°C (3). Since
temperatures in Texas tend to be warmer, adjustment of the refer-
ence temperature to 25°C is reasonable. Temperature correction
factors of W1 deflections for Pad 2, 281S, and 281N are shown in
Figures 4a, 4b, and 4c, respectively.
For Pad 2,

W 125 = W T1c 䡠 ( −0.0319 䡠 Tc + 1.8354) (1)

( R2 = 0.9545, standard error = 0.1023)

2
W 25 = W T2c 䡠 ( −0.0219 䡠 Tc + 1.5607) (2)

( R2 = 0.9286, standard error = 0.0982)

where
Tc = mid-depth pavement temperature at time of FWD data
collection (°C),
W 125 = adjusted W1 deflection to 25°C (mm),
W 1Tc = measured W1 deflection at Tc (mm),
W 225 = adjusted W2 deflection to 25°C (mm), and
W 2Tc = measured W2 deflection at Tc (mm).
For 281S,

W 125 = W T1c 䡠 ( −0.0192 䡠 Tc + 1.4652) (3)

(R 2
= 0.9717, standard error = 0.0288)
2
W 25 = W T2c 䡠 ( −0.0112 䡠 Tc + 1.2765) ( 4)

(R 2
= 0.9515, standard error = 0.0076)

For 281N,

W 125 = W T1c 䡠 ( −0.0254 䡠 Tc + 1.7088) (5)

( R2 = 0.9822, standard error = 0.2805)

FIGURE 4 W1 deflection correction equations for intact
2
W 25 = W T2c 䡠 ( −0.0098 䡠 Tc + 1.2555) (6) locations (adjusted to 25°C): (a) Pad 2; (b) 281S; and (c) 281N.

( R2 = 0.9486, standard error = 0.2112)

where Tc, W 125, and W 225 carry the same meaning as they do in Equa-
tions 1 and 2. Comparisons of equations 1, 3, and 5, for the purpose
of determination of whether the temperature correction equations
are site-dependent, are presented in the next section.
Deflection Correction for Cracked Pavement
In routine FWD data collection, it is inevitable that FWD tests will
be performed on cracked locations. Thus, the influence of the cracks
on temperature correction needs to be investigated. For both 281S
and 281N, one of the three test locations has a surface crack. Cores
were taken after the FWD testing indicated that the crack went all
the way through the AC layer.
A straight-line regression was used to describe the W1 deflection
data, as was done previously. Figures 5a and 5b show the deflections
versus temperatures. Temperature correction curves are shown in
Figure 6a and 6b for 281S and 281N, respectively. The R2 value was
found to be lower for cracked locations than for the intact pavement
shown previously (Equations 1, 3, and 5). Correction factors for
Chen et al. Paper No. 00-1428 35

FIGURE 5 Effects of temperature on FWD deflections for cracked locations: (a) 281S; (b) 281N.

cracked pavement were established for W1 deflections, as given in Effects of Pavement Structure and Test Location
Equations 7 and 8.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of the correction factors of Pad 2,
For 281S–Crack, 281S, and 281N. Depending on temperature, differences in temper-
ature correction factors for intact pavements were observed to vary
W 125 = W T1c 䡠 ( −0.0127 䡠 Tc + 1.3093) ( 7) between 1 and 12 percent between 281S and 281N. On average, the
difference was about 7 percent. The differences between 281N and
(R 2
= 0.8292, standard error = 0.1208) Pad 2 range from 0.5 to 30 percent. The average difference between
factors for these two pads is 9.3 percent. Effects of pavement struc-
For 281N–Crack, ture on temperature correction factors can be observed in Figure 7.
Effects of the test pavement condition (intact or cracked) were also
W 125 = W T1c 䡠 ( −0.0092 䡠 Tc + 1.2407) (8) investigated. A comparison of correction factors between intact and
cracked pavement is shown in Figure 8. The temperature correction
( R2 = 0.8233, standard error = 0.1260) slopes were observed to be flatter for the cracked locations, an indi-
cation that the cracked locations are affected less by temperature.
where W 125, W 1Tc, and Tc carry the same meaning as in Equation 1. The differences between intact and cracked locations range from
FIGURE 6 W1 deflection correction equations for cracked locations (adjusted to 25°C):
(a) 281S; (b) 281N.

FIGURE 7 Comparison of correction equations for different test sites of

intact locations.
Chen et al.
FIGURE 8 Comparison of correction equations for intact and cracked locations.
2 to 30 percent, depending on temperature. On average, a 15 percent
difference was obtained.
Since the variation among the intact pavements was less than
10 percent, perhaps an equation developed from one structure may
be applied to another structure. However, the equation developed
from an intact location cannot be used on cracked pavements.
Correction Equation for Moduli
In routine analysis, a temperature correction equation for moduli is
more frequently used than a correction for deflection. Although
many backcalculation programs are available, MODULUS was the
one used, because it is the standard program used by TxDOT. Of
course, this backcalculation process is only one of several that will
generate acceptable moduli. Even with the same data set, different
analysts will generate different modulus values. To correct deflec-
tions for temperature and then apply a modulus backcalculation pro-
gram is sometimes considered to be improper; care should be taken
when doing so.
Using the MODULUS program, moduli were backcalculated by
use of FWD data collected at different temperatures. Equation 9 was
found to represent the modulus versus temperature relation for the
three sites studied. Note that only the deflections from the intact
locations were used.
ETw = ETc [(1.8 Tw + 32)2.4462 䡠 (1.8 Tc + 32)−2.4462 ] ( 9)
where
ETw = adjusted modulus of elasticity at Tw (MPa),
ETc = measured modulus of elasticity at Tc (MPa),
Tw = temperature to which the modulus of elasticity is adjusted
(°C), and
Tc = the mid-depth temperature at the time of FWD data
collection (°C).
The advantage of Equation 9 is that the user can choose his own
reference temperature (e.g., 20°C or 25°C). The flexibility to nor-
malize to any temperature is particularly important in superheavy
load analysis, in which the move is done during a narrow range of
Paper No. 00-1428 37
temperatures. This type of analysis requires a determination of the
strength of the pavement structure at the temperature at which the
move is performed.
COMPARISONS WITH ANOTHER STUDY
Comparisons with another study were made for both deflection and
moduli.
Deflections
Kim et al. proposed Equation 10 to correct the maximum surface
deflection to a reference temperature of 20°C (3).
[
D68 = DT 䡠 10 α
( 68 − T )
] (10)
where
D68 = adjusted deflection to the reference temperature of 20°C
(68°F) (in.),
DT = deflection measured at temperature T (°F) (in.),
α = 3.67 × 10−4 × t1.4635 for wheelpaths, and
3.65 × 10−4 × t1.4241 for lane centers,
t = thickness of the AC layer (in.), and
T = the AC layer mid-depth temperature (°F) at the time of
FWD testing.
Since Equations 1 through 6 are site specific, the combined maxi-
mum deflection data from three sites were used to derive an equa-
tion that can be used for different structures. To have a universal
equation that allows users to adopt their own reference temperature
is also preferable. Since a temperature correction equation depends
on AC thickness, an optimization technique was used to extract the
thickness factor used by Kim et al. (3) in Equation 10. This was done
in lieu of collecting test data from several ACs of different thick-
nesses. In general, as AC thickness increases, the temperature depen-
dency increases. The optimization technique was based on the con-
cept of the minimum least squares between the target values and the
predicted results through an assumed nonlinear form. The form was
38 Paper No. 00-1428 Transportation Research Record 1716

designed in such a way that the thickness factor could be extracted and where
transferred to other equations. The thickness factor was found to be
E68 = adjusted AC modulus to the reference temperature of 68°F
1.0823 −0.0098 䡠 t (psi),
ET = backcalculated AC modulus from FWD testing at tempera-
0.8631
ture T (°F) (psi), and
The final temperature correction equation for the maximum deflec- T = AC layer mid-depth temperature (°F) at the time of FWD
tion is given in Equation 11. testing.

−0.0098 䡠 t
In Equation 12, the correction factor is 100.0153(T–68). Current TxDOT
 1.0823  practice calls for use of Equation 13 in conjuction with FPS analysis.
W 1
= W 䡠 1
䡠T 0.8316
䡠T 0.8419
 (11)
Tw
 0.8631
Tc w c
 Equation 13 is developed for a reference temperature of 25°C.

where E77 = ET 䡠 (T 2.81 ) 185000 (13)

W 1
Tw= W1 deflection adjusted to temperature Tw (mm),
t = thickness of the pavement (mm), and
Tw, Tc, and W 1Tc carry the same meaning as in Equation 1.
The temperature correction factor in Equation 10 is 10α(68−T ) and
1.0823−0.0098 䡠 t
the temperature correction factor in Equation 11 is
0.8631
T w0.8316 䡠 T c−0.8419 . For comparison purposes, the temperature correction
factors were computed and are presented in Figure 9. A reference
temperature of 20°C and an AC thickness of 190 mm were used in
the computation. Since the thickness factor used in Equation 11 was
extracted from Equation 10, AC thickness of 190 mm was used in
this case to avoid influence from the thickness factor. AC thickness
of 190 mm was the average thickness of 281N, 281S, and Pad 2. If
1.0823−0.0098 䡠 t
an AC thickness of 190 mm is put into , the thickness
0.8631
factor equals 1.
Although Equations 10 and 11 were developed under different
climatic conditions and pavement structures, the temperature cor-
rection factors differ, on average, by only 7.9 percent. The only
major difference was observed at temperatures lower than 14°C (see
Figure 9).
Modulus
Kim et al. (3) proposed an equation for correcting moduli to a
reference temperature as follows:
E68 = ET 䡠 10 0.0153( T − 68 )
where E77 is the adjusted AC modulus to a reference temperature of
77°F (25°C) and ET and T carry the same meaning as in Equation 12.
Equation 13 was developed by the Texas Transportation Institute.
Figure 10 shows a comparison among Equations 9, 12, and 13.
That the reference temperature of 20°C was applied in Equations 9
䡠
and 12 is important. However, Equation 13 can only correct to 25°C.
Nonetheless, Figure 10 shows noticable variations exist among these
three equations at temperatures higher than 33°C. Although the equa-
tions were developed from two independent studies, close agreement
is seen between Equation 9 and Equation 13 for the temperature
range considered.
Temperature Collection in Routine
FWD Operation
DOTs are wary of the time spent to obtain an average 5-day tem-
perature and the errors associated with using an equation to predict
the mid-depth temperature through surface temperature. Many DOTs
have adopted a routine procedure of collecting pavement tempera-
tures during FWD operation. In Texas, the pavement temperature
measurement is taken only when the AC thickess is greater than
75 mm. On the basis of field observations, temperature has an
insignificant effect on FWD deflections for situations in which the
AC thickness is less than 75 mm. Current practice in TxDOT is to
drill a 6-mm diameter hole and measure the temperature at a depth
of 25 mm (4). Most of the time, pavement thickness is unknown
to the FWD operator; therefore, drilling to a prescribed depth of
(12) 25 mm has been preferable to finding the mid-depth distance. Wait-

FIGURE 9 Comparison of W1 deflection correction with other study

(for T w of 20°C).
Chen et al.
FIGURE 10 Comparison of moduli correction equations with others.
ing until the heat from the drilling has dissipated is important. After
the drilling is done, the pavement temperature is allowed 2 min to
stabilize before it is taken (4). Some states fill the hole with veg-
etable oil to act as a medium between the sensor and pavement. Duct
tape has been used to prevent the sun from warming the oil. TxDOT
collects the pavement temperature every 2 hours, but some states
collect every hour.
Since pavement response is more related to mid-depth tempera-
ture, obtaining of the mid-depth temperature rather than the 25-mm
temperature is imperative. Thus, the recommendation is that the
FWD operator drill a hole to determine the AC thickness and then
measure the mid-depth temperature every hour. The determined AC
thickness information can also be used in backcalculation analysis.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The main advantage of this study is that repeated FWD tests were
conducted at locations where no traffic load was allowed during the
testing period. An on-site weather station was employed for the
purpose of making sure that tests were conducted during minimum
subsurface moisture variation.
Temperature correction equations were developed for each site.
Comparisons among each specific site and with another study were
conducted, for the purpose of seeing whether the correction equa-
tions are site dependent. Comparisons were also made between the
intact and cracked locations, for the purpose of seeing whether the
correction equations were location dependent. Literature review and
field observations show that temperature correction factors do depend
partly on AC thickness. Since the data in this study came from AC
thickness of 178 mm to 203 mm, an optimization technique was
used to extract the thickess factor used by Kim et al. (3). It is sound
and valid to compare the temperature correction factors with Kim
et al. at 20°C and 190 mm when the thickness factors adopted from
Kim et al. are equal to 1. The results presented above indicate that
the temperature correction factors are not site dependent but are
condition (intact or cracked) dependent.
The comparisons were only done for pavements of thickness from
178 to 203 mm. More data on other thicknesses are being collected.
The verification of the thickness factor will be presented when the
results are available.
In current TxDOT practice, temperature correction is not applied
to ACs of thickness of less than 75 mm, because the pavement tem-
perature is only collected for ACs thicker than 75 mm. Fortunately,
pavements thinner than 75 mm are affected less by temperature
changes than the thick pavements used in this study.
Paper No. 00-1428 39
CONCLUSIONS
• It was found that only the W1 and W2 deflections are signifi-
cantly affected by temperature. W3 through W7 deflections remained
almost constant at various temperatures. The same trend was observed
for all pavements used in this study.
• Temperature correction factors for deflection were observed to
differ 1 to 12 percent between 281S and 281N. The average differ-
ence was 7 percent. The above results are from comparison on intact
locations. The differences between intact and cracked locations
range from 2 percent to 30 percent depending on temperature. The
average difference was 15 percent. The average variation in tem-
perature correction factors among all intact test sites is less than
10 percent.
• Temperature will not affect a pavement’s FWD deflections on a
cracked location as much as on an intact pavement. The correction
factor–based slopes are flatter on the cracked locations. Since the tem-
perature-dependent characteristics are different between intact and
cracked locations, the equations developed from the intact locations
may not be used on cracked locations.
• Comparison with other reported temperature-correction equa-
tions showed that there is close agreement for deflections, but not
for moduli.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to sincerely thank Sherwood (Cy) Helms for his
efforts in collecting temperature and FWD data.
REFERENCES
1. Long, B., M. Hossain, and A. J. Gisi. Seasonal Variation of Backcalcu-
lated Subgrade Moduli. In Transportation Research Record 1577, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 70–80.
2. Khogali, W. E. I., and K. O. Anderson. Evaluation of Seasonal Variabil-
ity in Cohesive Subgrades Using Backcalculation. In Transportation
Research Record 1546, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1992, pp. 140–150.
3. Kim, Y. R., B. O. Hibbs, and Y. C. Lee. Temperature Correction of
Deflections and Backcalculated Asphalt Concrete Moduli. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1473, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 55–62.
4. Falling Weight Deflectometer Operator’s Manual. Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, 1996.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Strength and Deformation
Characteristics of Pavement Sections.