See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268350753

USE OF FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER (FWD) MEASUREMENT DATA

FOR PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL EVALUATION AND REPAIR DESIGN

Article

CITATIONS READS
0 530

2 authors:

Andrus Aavik Ott Talvik

Tallinn University of Technology Tallinn University of Technology
10 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrus Aavik on 05 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 May 22-23, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL The 7th International Conference
ENGINEERING Faculty of Environmental Engineering
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Saulėtekio ave 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
Phone: +370 5 2745090; Fax.: +370 5 2744731; e-mail: ap2008@ap.vgtu.lt

USE OF FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER (FWD) MEASUREMENT DATA FOR

PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL EVALUATION AND REPAIR DESIGN

Andrus Aavik1, Ott Talvik2

1, 2
Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Transportation, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia,
E-mail: andrus.aavik@ttu.ee1, ott.talvik@ttu.ee2

Abstract. Since 1996 the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is used to characterize the bearing capacity of pavement
structures in Estonia. The deflection data of the load cell, mounted in the center of the loading plate of the FWD, is used
for calculation of the pavement equivalent E-modulus. At the same time FWD has 6 additional load cells, which are
mounted at different distances from the center of the loading plate and based on the FWD deflection measurement data
we can create the deflection basin characterizing the pavement condition at the FWD test site. For further and more
complete utilization of the FWD measurement data citerias for the different deflection basin parameters were determined.
Based on those FWD measurement-based parameters - pavement equivalent E-modulus value and deflection basin
parameters (surface curvature index - SCI, base damage index - BDI, base curvature index - BDI) – a system for
pavement structural evaluation and repair design was developed.

Keywords: Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD), E-modulus, deflection basin, surface curvature index (SCI), base
damage index (BDI), base curvature index (BDI).

1. Introduction mounted at different distances from the center of the

Since 1996 the Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD) is used to characterize the bearing capacity of
pavement structures in Estonia. In 1999 32 test sites and
in 2001 additionally 19 test sites were selected to perform
FWD trial measurements on actual pavement structures.
FWD measurements were performed annually (1999-
2006) from early spring until late autumn once or twice
monthly. The purpose of the FWD measurements,
performed throughout a year (except the period when the
road structure is frozen) was to find a correlation between
the deflections, measured at any time of the year, and the
deflection at the weakest period (usually in spring just
after the road structure had thawed). The main objective
of the research project was to derive an equation for the
calculation of the pavement equivalent E-modulus on the
basis of the FWD deflection measurement data to be used
in the Estonian Pavement Management System (EPMS)
for network and project level analysis so that the
determined values were comparable with the Estonian
flexible pavement design procedure 2001-52 [1]. Those
deflection-based back-calculated equivalent E-modulus
values are used by the EPMS in the process of pavement
condition evaluation.
The deflection data of the load cell, mounted in the
center of the loading plate of the FWD, is used for
calculation of the pavement equivalent E-modulus. At the
same time FWD has 6 additional load cells, which are
loading plate and based on the FWD deflection
measurement data we can create the deflection basin
characterizing the pavement condition at the FWD test
site. For further and more complete utilization of the
FWD measurement data citerias for the different
deflection basin parameters were determined.
Based on those FWD measurement-based parameters
- pavement equivalent E-modulus value and deflection
basin parameters – a system for pavement structural
evaluation and repair design was developed.
2. Determination of Pavement Equivalent E-
modulus Comparable with the Estonian Flexible
pavement Design Procedure 2001-52
The equation for the calculation of the pavement
equivalent E-modulus comparable with the procedure
2001-52, taking into account possible different known
influencing variables, can be written in the form [2, 3]:
E eq 200152  C * Eeqe * T t * M i * H j , (1)
where: Eeq - pavement equivalent E-modulus at the
center of the FWD loading plate, MPa (calculated using
equation (2)); T - mean temperature of the bituminous
pavement at the moment of FWD measurement, oC; C, e,
t - empirical constants; Mi- factor taking into account the
month when FWD measurement is performed (i=4, …,

1101
10, April – October); Hj- factor taking into account the
height of embankment at the FWD measurement site (j=
<0.5m; 0.5-1m; >1m).
The basic equation for back-calculation of pavement
equivalent E-modulus (Eeq) used by the most flexible
pavement procedures is based on the derivation of
Boussinesq’s equations [4], which is expressed in the
VSN 46-83 (the previous Soviet Union flexible pavement
design procedure, which derivation the Estonian
procedure 2001-52 is) as follows (in the case the loading
plate is used for the determination of deflection) [5]:
E eq  0.25FS (1   2 ) / d 0 ,
where : Eeq - pavement equivalent E-modulus at the
center of the loading plate (MPa); F - contact pressure
under the loading plate (kPa) (measured by the FWD); S-
diameter of the loading plate (mm) (for the Dynatest
FWD 8000 device S=300 mm);  - Poisson’s ratio (in
Estonian 2001-52 procedure  =0.3); d0 - deflection at
the center of the loading plate (μm) (measured by the
FWD).
Chosen 51 FWD test sites were divided into groups
based on the:
 Moisture condition area type:
- 1st type – 20 test sites;
- 2nd type – 21 test sites;
- 3rd type – 6 test sites.
 Pavement type:
- Asphalt concrete (AC) with thickness 130-160
mm – 7 test sites;
- Asphalt concrete (AC) with variable thickness –
6 test sites;
- Asphalt concrete + bitumen-stabilized base
(AC+BS) with variable thickness – 20 test sites;
- Cold bituminous mix (CBM) pavements with
variable thickness – 6 test sites.
From FWD test sites grouped by the moisture condition
area type were left out from analyses 4 test sites as the
(2) moisture condition area type was not clearly defined and
from test sites grouped by the pavement type were
eliminated 12 test sites because of the variable nature of
the pavement structure.
Initial FWD measurement data of different test site
groups were processed with the Linest function of the
Microsoft Excel for determination of constants C, e, t and
factors Mi, Hj and the reliability of results was evaluated
using values of the determination coefficient (R2), Fisher
criteria (F) and Student t-criteria.
As result of the initial data analyses, values of
constants e, t, C and factors Mi, Hj, to be used in the
equation (1) for calculation of the pavement equivalent E-
modulus comparable with the procedure 2001-52 were
determined (Table 1).

Table 1. Values of constants e, t, C and factors Mi, Hj to be used in the equation (1) for determination of pavement equivalent E-
modulus comparable with the procedure 2001-52 [6, 7]

Moisture condition area type Pavement type

AC 130- AC
1 2 3 AC CBM
160 mm +BS
e 0,721 0,461 0,548 1,152 0,414 0,503 0,665
Empirical constants t 0,053 0,030 0,204 0,117 0,052 0,028 0,105
C 2,580 10,35 3,228 0,1883 18,484 9,204 1,668
M4 – April 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Mi M5 – May 0,955 0,962 0,837 0,991 0,983 0,961 0,826
Factor considering the M6 – June 0,929 0,940 0,796 0,996 0,967 0,934 0,736
month when FWD M7 – July 0,908 0,942 0,802 0,927 0,953 0,927 0,738
measurement is M8 – August 0,907 0,943 0,756 0,945 0,967 0,931 0,708
performed M9 – September 0,871 0,914 0,766 0,933 0,974 0,898 0,702
M10 – October 0,866 0,921 0,836 0,936 0,963 0,893 0,707
Hj H< 0,5 ≤ 0,5m 1,000 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000
Factor considering the H0,5-1 = 0,5...1m 0,867 0,913 1,447 - 1,007 0,880 1,724
embankment height H>1 >1m 1,081 1,368 1,795 - 1,077 1,225 1,591
R2 0,666 0,956 0,728 0,700 0,753 0,800 0868
Fisher F-criteria (95% probability) 2,31 2,31 2,74 2,73 2,74 2,31 2,73
Fisher statistic (has to be > F-criteria) 67,16 116,5 9,551 54,3 43,6 200 113,2
Student t-criteria (95% probability) 1,97 1,97 1,97 1,97 1,97 1,96 1,96
e 26,33 36,67 22,01 21,9 32,52 29,6 27,45
t 2,36 2,31 2,06 2,17 2,39 2,18 2,55
ai/sei (Table 2)
C ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
(has to be > t-criteria)
M ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
H ∞ ∞ ∞ - ∞ ∞ ∞
(-) insufficient initial data; AC - Asphalt concrete with variable thickness; AC 130-160 mm - Asphalt concrete with thickness 130-
160 mm; AC+BS - Asphalt concrete + bitumen-stabilized base with variable thickness; CBM - Cold bituminous mix pavements with
variable thickness

1102
 Using the values presented in Table 1 and the using the procedure 2001-52 (Eeq2001-52). Comparison of
equation (1) it is possible to calculate the value of pavement equivalent E-modulus values at FWD test sites
pavement equivalent E-modulus comparable with the calculated using the Estonian 2001-52 procedure (E2001-52)
value of the pavement equivalent E-modulus calculated and equation (1) (Eeq2001-52) is presented on Figure 1.

E2001-52 Eeq2001-52 Moisture condition area type Eeq2001-52 Pavement type

600
Pavement equivalent E-modulus, MPa

500

400

300

200

100

0
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
24
25
32
33
34
43
44
45
46
49
50
Number of FWD test site

Fig 1. Comparison of pavement equivalent E-modulus values calculated using the procedure 2001-52 (E2001-52) and the equation (1)
(Eeq2001-52) according to the FWD test site moisture condition area type and pavement type (using factors and constants from Table 1)

We have to bear in mind that there will always exist parameters (Table 2) which can be used for condition
difference between the back-calculated pavement evaluation of different locations of road structure.
equivalent E-modulus at the center of the FWD loading Current research comprises following deflection
plate, compatible with the procedure 2001-52 (Eeq2001-52) basin parameters:
and the pavement equivalent E-modulus calculated
according to the procedure 2001-52 (E2001-52) as the 2001-  Surface Curvature Index (SCI) – difference of
52 procedure is fully based on the theoretical deflections measured with load cells in the center
characteristics of pavement materials. At the same time, of the loading plate (d0) and 300 mm from the
the back-calculation of pavement equivalent E-modulus center (d300) , which is characterizing condition
at the center of FWD loading plate is based on the of the pavement layers:
realistic pavement deflection data under a certain load at
a certain pavement condition at the time of the FWD SCI = d0 – d300 (3)
measurement. Question is – how close we can get or what
value of the determination coefficient (R2) between those  Base Damage Index (BDI) – difference of
two pavement equivalent E-modulus values (Eeq2001-52 and deflections measured with load cells in the
E2001-52) we will reach. distance 300 mm (d300) and 600 mm (d600),
which is characterizing condition of the base
layers:
3. Use of FWD Deflection Basin Parameters (SCI,
BDI, BCI) for Pavement Condition Assessment BDI = d300 – d600 (4)

Current research studies relationship between  Base Curvature Index (BCI) – difference of
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) deflection basin deflections measured with load cells in the
parameters and road pavement structural condition distance 1200 mm (d1200) and 1500 mm (d1500),
indicators, such as pavement equivalent E-modulus. The which is characterizing condition of the
primary aim was to develop limit values for deflection subgrade:
basin parameters.
In addition to the load cell, placed in the center of BCI = d1200 – d1500 (5)
the loading plate, there are load cells placed to the
distances 300, 600, 750, 900, 1200 and 1500 mm from
the center of the loading plate. All measured deformation
data from all load cells is stored in Road Data Bank and
usable for calculation of different deflection basin
1103
Table 2. Deflection basin parameters [8, 9]

Deflection basin
Equation Unit Parameter’s objective
parameter
SCI  d 0  d 300
Surface Curvature Characterizing condition of bound
Index SCI  d 0  d r μm, mm
layers
(used also r  [450, 600] )
Base Damage
Index
BDI  d 300  d 600 μm, mm
Characterzing condition of base
layers
BCI  d 600  d 900 (used in USA)
Base Curvature
Index
BCI  d 900  d1200 (used in Finland) μm, mm
Characterizing condition of subase or
subgrade
BCI  d1200  d1500 (used in Estonia)
6( D0  2 D1  2 D2  D3 )
AREA  in
D0 Characterizing shape of the deflection
basin close to the load by the
Area 150(d 0  2d 300  2d 600  d 900 ) normalized area on the top of the
AREA  deflection basin
d0 mm

5d 0  2d 300  2d 600  d 900

Area Under
Pavement Profile
AUPP  Characterizing condition of the
pavement upper layers
d0
F1  (d 0  d 600 ) / d 300 Determination of condition of the
Shape Factors -
F2  (d 300  d 900 ) / d 600 layer at the equivalent depth

Deflection Ratio DR  d 600 / d 0 -

Determination of condition of the
layer at the equivalent depth
d0, d300, d600, d900, d1200, d1500 – measured deformations at the distance of 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500 mm from the center of the
loading plate; D0, D1, D2, D3 – measured deformations at the distance of 0 ft, 1 ft (305 mm), 2 ft (610 mm), 3 ft (914mm) from the
center of the loading plate.

E-modulus of the bituminous-bounded layers is

dependant from the temperature. Therefore, measured
deflections of the same structure at different temperatures
are different and depending from the stiffness of the
bituminous-bounded layer. During the FWD
measurements the temperature of the bituminous
pavement can vary in the range +5 … +35 oC. As result
of this the measured deflection values have to be
corrected to the standard temperature (in the case of
calculation of the pavement structure to the elastic
deformation standard temperature is +10 oC [1]). For
correction of FWD measured deflection values to the
standard temperature (+10˚C) can be used temperature
correction factors (Kt), calculated using equations in
Table 3, depending from the bituminous pavement type
and the average temperature of the bituminous layer
during the FWD measurement (T).
As during the FWD measurements due to the site
conditions the load is usually not constant, before
calculation of deflection basin characteristics measured
deformations have to be transformed to the standard load,
which in our case is 50 kN as standard axle load used in
Estonia for pavement design is 100 kN.
FWD measured deflections are transformed to the
standard load (50 kN) and standard temperature (+10 oC)
using following equation:
dr 50kNT=dr*(Frequired/Fmeasured)*Kt (6)
where: dr 50kNT – deformation at the load 50 kN and
temperature +10 oC at the distance r (mm) from the center
of the loading plate, μm; dr – FWD measured deflection at
contact pressure Fmeasured (kPa) at the distance r (mm)
from the center of the loading plate, μm; Frequired- contact
pressure, corresponding to the 50 kN load (Frequired =707
kPa); Kt - temperature correction factor (Table 3).
Table 3. Bituminos pavement layer temperature correction
factors Kt [2]
Pavement layer Temperature correction factor (Kt) to the
type standard temperature +10 oC
Asfaclt
Kt=0,000203 T2 – 0,014841 T + 1,127603
concrete
Cold
bituminous Kt=0,000205 T2 – 0,015198 T + 1,135192
mix
T - average temperature of the biutminous layer during FWD
measurement
For determination of the influence of the deflection
basin parameters (SCI, BDI, BCI) the Estonian Road Data
Bank data was used for analysis:

1104
  Pavement type and construction time;
 Traffic volume;
 E-modulus (FWD measurement data) – from
37 936 sections;
 Pavement defect types (inventory data) – from
29 790 sections.
Deflection basin parameters (SCI, BDI, BCI) and
back-calculated pavement equivalent modulus (equation
(1)) were found to be in good correlation. Strong
relationships were found usually between upper layers
indicators (SCI and BDI) and pavement equivalent
modulus (Eeq2001-52). Relationship between subgrade
indicator BCI and Eeq2001-52 found in the research were not
very strong. Analyses confirm that poor condition of
Estonian road pavements is due to weak subbases and
subgrades. Pavements that are stabilized with mixed
binders (bitumen + cement) were found to be with higher
determination coefficients of mathematical models
representing the relationship between BCI and Eeq2001-52.
Based on the required minimum equivalent E-
modulus of particular pavement (Ereq), the equations were
developed to determine the maximum limit values of
deflection basin parameters for different types of
pavements:
y  a0 * x a1 , (7)
where: x - required minimum equivalent E-modulus Ereq,
MPa (equation (8)); y - deflection basin parameter (SCI,
BDI or BCI); a0, a1 - constants according to Table 4.

Table 4. Values of constants a0 and a1 in equation (7) for calculation of the maximum allowable deflection basin parameter (SCI,
BDI, BCI) values [9]

Type of pavement (based on Estonian Deflection basin Value of constants

R2
Road Data Bank) parameter y a0 a1
SCI 1 795 660 -1,70 0,83
Asphalt concrete pavement on top of
BDI 1 265 966 -1,74 0,78
existing pavement
BCI 51 220 -1,36 0,68
SCI 655 780 050 -2,76 0,87
Asphalt concrete pavement on top of
leveling milling BDI 15 319 713 999 -3,47 0,93
BCI 11 182 -1,13 0,09
SCI 169 150 407 -2,54 0,92
Asphalt concrete pavement on top of
BDI 104 111 -1,27 0,38
leveling layer
BCI - - -
SCI 88 410 -1,113 0,54
Asphalt concrete pavement on
BDI 62 337 -1,161 0,51
bitumen-stabilized base
BCI 985 977 -1,909 0,35
SCI 1 225 980 -1,63 0,53
Asphalt concrete pavement on
complex-stabilized base BDI 137 949 -1,307 0,85
BCI 497,43 -0,492 0,14
SCI 498 577 -1,45 0,87
Asphalt concrete on crushed stone
BDI 10 645 -0,84 0,21
base
BCI 51 984 -1,31 0,61
SCI 834 463 -1,55 0,97
Cold bituminous mix BDI 2 055 457 -1,84 0,94
BCI 983 446 -1,99 0,84
SCI 2 491 -0,44 0,14
Oil shale ash stabilized pavement BDI 1 325 498 -1,80 0,75
BCI 12 473 680 -2,43 0,44
SCI 13 705 -0,72 0,66
Surface-dressed gravel pavement BDI 258 341 445 -2,83 0,96
BCI 255 760 -1,87 0,95

Equation for calculation of the required minimum
equivalent E-modulus [1]:
Ereq =( a * log (Q) + b)*Ktt ,
where: Q – (forcasted) traffic load, standard axle load
vehicles per 24h (Ereq≥2); a, b – constants (Table 5); Ktt –
pavement strength factor (Table 6).
Comparing maximum allowable limit value of
deflection basin parameters (SCI, BDI and BCI) with the
actual deflection basin parameter value at the FWD test
site we can determine whether we have problem in the
(8)
pavement upper layers (SCI at the test site (equation (3))
> SCI maximum allowable (equation (7))) or in base
layers (BDI at the test site (equation (4)) > BDI maximum
allowable (equation (7))) or in subgrade (BCI at the test
site (equation (5)) > BCI maximum allowable (equation
(7))).

1105
Table 5. Value of constants a and b for calculation of the Calculation of deflection basin parameters SCI, BDI
pavement required minimum equivalent E-modulus (equation and BCI using load and temperature corrected
(8)) [1] deflection values
Equations (3), (4) and (5)
Load group a b
A 67,6 61,3
Lorry
B 73,37 -7,7 Calculation of maximum allowable values of deflection
A 77 62 basin parameters SCI, BDI and BCI
Bus Equation (7), table 4
B 84,7 0
Comparison of calculated deflection basin parameter
Table 6. Pavemnt strength factors Ktt (equation (8)) [1] SCI, BDI and BCI values with maximum allowable
values
Road class Pavement Ktt
Speedway, I, II Permanent pavement 1,0 Determination of faulty parts of road structure based
III Permanent pavement 0,94 on the comparison of actual and allowable deflection
III, IV, V Light pavement 0,9 basin parameters SCI, BDI and BCI
IV, V Transient pavement 0,63
V, out of class roads Primitive pavement 0,63
Reformation of homogenous sections based on the
4. Pavement Structural Evaluation and Repair location of the faulty part of the road structure and
Design repair technique to be used

Based on the relationships described above we can

develop a system for pavement structural evaluation and
repair design (Fig.2).
Collection of initial data from Estonian Road Data
Bank, pre-design project etc.
- Traffic volumes
- Pavement type
- Geological profiles (for determination of existing
pavement structure and subgrade type)
- Moisture condition area type
Implementation of FWD measurements
- FWD measurement results
- Height of the existing embankment
Determination of the equivalent E-modulus of the part
of the road structure remaining after removal of the
determined faulty part of the road structure as base for
the new pavement
Estonian flexible pavement design procedure 2001-52
Reformation of homogenous sections based on the
equivalent E-modulus of the old road structure
remaining during the repair
Pavement design for the homogenous sections
Estonian flexible pavement design procedure 2001-52

Calculation of the pavement equivalent E-modulus

based on the FWD measurements:
- Based on the moisture condition area type
- Based on the pavement type
Equation (1), table 1
Calculation of the pavement equivalent E-modulus
based on the Estonian flexible pavement design
procedure 2001-52
Comparison of results and selection smaller E-modulus
value for further analysis
Fig 2. Pavement structural evaluation and repair design system
Based on the system described above, there is
developed a computer software for pavement structural
evaluation and pavement repair design for Estonian Road
Administration [10].
5. Conclusion

Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer measurement

Calculation of the minimum required E-modulus value
Estonian flexible pavement design procedure 2001-52,
equation (8)
Formation of homogenous sections based on the values
of the pavement equivalent E-modulus calculated on the
bases of the FWD measurement data
Also other available data has to be taken into account in
formation of homogenous sections
Transformation of the FWD measured deflection data
to the standard load (50 kN) and temperature (+10 oC)
Equation (6), table 3
data for pavement structural evaluation is giving
possibility to use real on site data as the base for
pavement repair design. Until FWD measurement-based
software development, theoretical pavement layer and soil
characteristics from the Estonian flexible pavement
design procedure 2001-52 were used for determination of
condition of the existing road structure to be repaired.
New system, based on FWD measurement data, is taking
into account actual structural condition of out of repair
road section, detecting faulty locations of the existing
road structure and allowing to divide road section into
homogenous sections for design of new pavement.

1106
 Repair design, based on actual pavement structural
conditions, will give significant economical effect.
References
1. Elastsete teekatendite projekteerimise juhend. (Guidelines
for flexible pavement design). Estonian Road
Administration, Tallinn 2001. 50 p. (in Estonian)
http://www.mnt.ee/atp/failid/projekt_juh/el_katendite_juhe
nd_variant_2.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2007.
2. Aavik, Andrus. Methodical basis for the evaluation of
pavement structural strength in Estonian Pavement
Management System (EPMS). Theses of Tallinn Technical
University. F, Civil Engineering. ISSN 1406-4766. Tallinn
2003. 152 p.
3. Paabo, P. FWD mõõtmistulemuste analüüs teekatendi
tugevuse hindamiseks (Analysis of FWD measurement
data for evaluation of pavement strength).
Bakalaureusetöö. Tallinn: TTÜ Teedeinstituut, 2004. 53 p.
(in Estonian).
4. Ullidtz, Per. Modelling Flexible Pavement Response and
Performance. Polyteknisk Forlag. Denmark, 1998. ISBN
87-502-0805-5. 205 p.
5. Инструкция по проектированию дорожных одежд
нежесткого типа. (Guidelines for flexible pavement
design). BCH 46-83. Минтрансстрой CCCP. Moscow,
Transport, 1985. 157 p. (in Russian).
6. Paabo, P. Teekatendite tugevuse hindamine dünaamilise
koormusseadmega (Evaluation of pavement strength with
1107
View publication stats
Falling Weight deflectometer). Magistritöö. Tallinn: TTÜ
teedeinstituut, 2006. 77 p. (in Estonian).
7. Aavik, A., Paabo, P., Kaal, T. Assessment of Pavement
Structural Strength by Falling Weight Deflectometer. The
Baltic Journal of Road And Bridge Engineering, 2006,
VOL I, No 4, 193-199.
8. Kim, Y. R., Lee Y.-C., and Ranjithan, S. R. Flexible
Pavement Condition Evaluation Using Deflection Basin
Parameters and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis
Implemented by Artificial Neural Networks.
Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation
of Moduli: Third Volume, ASTM STP 1375, S.D. Tayabji
and E. O. Lukanen, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000. pp 514-530.
9. Talvik, Ott. FWD mõõtmistulemuste alusel arvutatud
parameetrite SCI, BDI ja BCI kasutamine teekatendi
seisukorra hindamisel (Use of FWD deflection basin
parameters (SCI, BDI, BCI) for pavement condition
assessment). Magistritöö. Tallinn: TTÜ teedeinstituut,
2007. 163 p. (in Estonian).
10. FWD mõõtmistulemuste kasutamine teekatendi
remondiprojektide koostamisel (Use of FWD measurement
datat for pavement repair design). Lõpparuanne (Final
Report), 2006-11/L, Maanteeamet (Estonian Road
Administration). TTÜ teedeinstituut, teadustöö 614L.
Department of Transportation of Tallinn University of
Technology. Tallinn, 2007. 27 p. (in Estonian).