International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: 1029-8436 (Print) 1477-268X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Structural number prediction for flexible

pavements using the long term pavement
performance data

Hossam S. Abd El-Raof, Ragaa T. Abd El-Hakim, Sherif M. El-Badawy & Hafez
A. Afify

To cite this article: Hossam S. Abd El-Raof, Ragaa T. Abd El-Hakim, Sherif M. El-Badawy &
Hafez A. Afify (2020) Structural number prediction for flexible pavements using the long term
pavement performance data, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 21:7, 841-855, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2018.1511786

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1511786

Published online: 23 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 158

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
2020, VOL. 21, NO. 7, 841–855
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1511786

Structural number prediction for flexible pavements using the long term pavement
performance data
Hossam S. Abd El-Raofa, Ragaa T. Abd El-Hakima, Sherif M. El-Badawyb and Hafez A. Afifya
a
Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; bPublic Works Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Mansoura University, El-Mansoura, Egypt

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Structural Number (SN) is a numerical value used as pavement structural capacity indicator. This paper Received 1 April 2018
reviews the most recognised historical SN prediction models. These models are COST, Schnoor and Accepted 8 August 2018
Horak, Kavussi et al., Rohde, and Kim et al. These models predict the structural number of existing
KEYWORDS
flexible pavement systems (SNeff) based primarily on the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) data. One Structural number; LTPP;
major drawback of these models, is that they ignore the effect of temperature on the backcalculated falling weight deflectometer;
modulus of the Asphalt Concrete (AC) layer and hence the predicted SNeff values. The accuracy of the backcalculation; pavement
investigated SNeff prediction models after applying temperature correction to the AC layer modulus temperature correction;
(EAC) and the FWD peak deflection (Do) to a reference temperature of 21°C was examined. FWD data AASHTO 1993
and backcalculated moduli of pavement layers were collected from the Long Term Pavement
Performance (LTPP) database. Fourteen pavement test sections covering the four climatic regions in
the U.S. with 1293 FWD test points were used to evaluate and improve the accuracy of the
investigated models compared to the AASHTO 1993 method. The most prominent models were
calibrated and/or simplified. The proposed calibrated/simplified models produced more accurate and
less biased SNeff predictions as compared to the original models. The proposed modified models were
validated using another set of LTPP data and they yielded comparable predictions.

1. Introduction
For a reliable pavement management system (PMS), it is
important to correctly evaluate the condition of the pavement
regularly throughout its service life, either on a network level
or a project level. If the condition is underestimated, mainten-
ance/rehabilitation decisions may not be economic. Conversely,
if the condition is overestimated, the decision may be ineffec-
tive. The structural number of an existing pavement (SNeff) is
a numerical value used as indicator of the pavement strength
and its structural capacity at any age. It is used by many high-
way agencies in their Pavement Management Information Sys-
tems (PMIS) to assist in making effective maintenance
decisions (Rohde 1994). Structural capacity can be defined as
the ability of the pavement to carry traffic loads over its service
life for a given subgrade support and environmental conditions.
For pavement structural design using the AASHTO 1993
method, the structural number (SN) is calculated using
Equation (1) (AASHTO 1993).
SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2 m2 + a3 D3 m3
where: SN = structural number (in.). a1, a2, a3 = structural layer
coefficient of the Asphalt Concrete (AC), base and subbase
layers, respectively. D1, D2, D3 = thickness of the AC, base,
and subbase layers, respectively (in.). m2, m3 = drainage coeffi-
cients of the base and subbase layers, respectively
The structural layer coefficient (a1) of the asphalt concrete
(AC) layer is a function of the resilient modulus of the AC at
21°C (AASHTO 1993). The structural layer coefficients of the
unbound granular base (a2) and subbase (a3) layers can be cal-
culated as a function of the resilient modulus of each layer
using Eqs. (2, 3), respectively (AASHTO 1993).
a2 = 0.249∗(log EB ) − 0.977 (2)
a3 = 0.227∗(log Es ) − 0.839 (3)
where: EB, Es = resilient modulus of base and subbase layers,
respectively (psi).
SNeff estimation based on nondestructive testing data is pre-
ferred over laboratory testing data. Falling Weight Deflect-
ometer (FWD) is the most currently used nondestructive test
for this purpose. In addition to its nondestructive nature, it is
a relatively quick test when compared to laboratory tests, a
good tool for reflecting the in-situ boundary conditions, and
relatively inexpensive (Dawson et al. 2016). One downside of
the FWD is the stop and go process which causes lane closure
or traffic disturbance to ensure workers safety (Elbagalati et al.
2016). Recently, other NDT devices have been developed to
(1)
solve the FWD problems by measuring the deflections at
traffic speed. Measuring the surface deflection at the traffic
speed can be achieved by Traffic Speed Devices (TSDDs).
These devices include Rolling Weight Deflectometer (RWD),
Traffic Speed Deflectometer (TSD), and Heavy Vehicle Simu-
lator (HVS). These devices may usefully supplement FWD at
the network level as they limit the exposure of personnel to
traffic, and reduce cost and time of measurement as they can
scan hundreds of road kilometres per day. However, in the

CONTACT Ragaa T. Abd El-Hakim ragaa.abdelhakim@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
842 H. S. ABD EL-RAOF ET AL.
current time, the TSDDs are still expensive and many agencies
do not have them (Gedafa et al. 2013, Elseifi et al. 2015, Elba-
galati et al. 2016).
FWD data reflects the properties of the pavement layers at
specific environmental conditions (temperature and moisture)
(Zhou 2014). The FWD deflection basin data is used to backcal-
culate the pavement layers moduli (Mehta and Roque 2003).
The site temperature at the time of measurement greatly
affects the modulus of the AC layer and hence the measured
deflections (Kim et al., 2000, Park et al. 2002, Chen et al.
2000). Thus, it is important to adjust the deflections and the
corresponding backlculated moduli of AC layer(s) to a refer-
ence temperature for pavement condition evaluation and over-
lay design (Zhou 2014).
Pavement distresses and ride quality have been used as the
primary indicators for pavement preservation and timing.
These indicators cannot describe the load carrying capacity of
the roadway as the structural indicators do (Rada et al. 2014).
Hence, suggested treatments based on these indicators are
often over or under estimated (Bryce et al. 2013). Considering
structural condition of the pavement leads to effective treat-
ment decisions (Zhang et al. 2003). One of these condition
indices is the SNeff. Thus, over years, different regression
models for SNeff predictions have been proposed by many
researchers. For example, Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) uses the European Cooperation in Science and Tech-
nology (COST) model for the SNeff prediction of their road net-
work. Moreover, a study by (Zhang et al. 2003) suggested
implementing the Structural Condition Index (SCI) for Texas
Department of Transportation (TXDOT) to discriminate
between strong and weak pavements. SCI is defined as the
ratio of the SNeff and the required SN (SNreq) (Zhang et al.
2003).
The available literature models for the SNeff predictions can
be divided into two main groups. The first group of models is
only based on FWD measurements. In addition to the FWD
data, the second group of models requires the total thickness
of all pavement layers above the subgrade.
1.1. SNeff predictive models based on FWD data only
Notable examples of this group are COST, Modified COST,
Schnoor and Horak, and Kavussi et al. models (COST 1998,
Crook et al. 2012, Schnoor and Horak 2012, Kavussi et al.
2017). Since COST and Modified COST models have the
same model form with different coefficients, only Modified
COST model is presented here.
1.1.1. Modified COST model (2012)
The modified COST is a calibrated version of COST model for
UDOT pavements. The model is given in Equation (4) (Crook
et al. 2012).
K2 K3
K1 + + + K4
D0,corr − D60 D36
SNeff = (4)
K5
where: K1, K2, K3, K4 and K5= regression coefficients = 1.70,
813,−39,−2.236 and 0.389, respectively. SNeff = structural
number of an existing pavement at a specific time (in.). Do,
corr= peak deflection at a standard 9000-Ib (40 KN) FWD
load at 21°C, (microns). D36 = deflection at a radial distance
of 36 in. (90 cm) from the centre of loading plate (microns).
D60 = deflection at a radial distance of 60 in. (150 cm) from
the centre of loading plate (microns).
This model was calibrated based on 105 test points (49 and
56 test points from the Legacy Parkway and the Long Term
Pavement Performance (LTPP) programme site 49–1001,
respectively). The calibrated model yielded a coefficient of
determination (R 2) of 0.857. The model was calibrated to the
AASHTO 1993 without any temperature correction for the
AC layer moduli (Crook et al. 2012). It is imperative to note
that, before calculating SNeff with AASHTO 1993, the backca-
lulated moduli of the AC layers has to be adjusted to a reference
temperature of 21°C.
1.1.2. Schnoor and Horak model (2012)
This model was developed based on 171 test points from two
different roads (Schnoor and Horak 2012). As compared to
Rohde model it yielded a coefficient of determination (R 2) of
0.986. The model is shown in Equations. (5 to 7) (Schnoor
and Horak 2012).
SNeff = eK1 ∗BLIK2 ∗AKupp
3
(5)
BLI = Do − D300 (6)
5∗Do − 2∗D300 − 2∗D600 − D900
Aupp = (7)
2
where: K1, K2, and K3= regression coefficients = 5.12, 0.31, and
−0.78, respectively. BLI = base layer index. Aupp= area under
pavement profile. Do= peak deflection at a standard 9000-Ib
FWD load (microns). D300= deflection at radial distance of
300 mm from the centre of loading plate (microns). D600=
deflection at radial distance of 600 mm from the centre of load-
ing plate (microns). D900= deflection at radial distance of
900 mm from the centre of loading plate (microns).
1.1.3. Kavussi et al. model (2017)
Kavussi et al. (2017) conducted a correlation analysis to figure
out the relationship between SNeff and different Deflection
Basin Parameters (DBPs). The model was developed based
on 2453 FWD test points collected from Khuzestan province
in south Iran (Kavussi et al. 2017). SNeff was computed based
on the AASHTO 1993 procedure. Among the DBPs used in
this study Do, Aupp, and BLI were found to correlate well
with SNeff values computed using the AASHTO 1993. After
several iterations, Kavussi et al. recommended Equation (8)
to calculate SNeff.
SNeff = K1 ∗DK0 2 ∗DK903 (8)
where: Do= peak deflection at a standard 9000-Ib FWD load
(microns). D90= deflection at radial distance of 90 cm from
the centre of loading plate (microns). K1, K2, and K3=
regression coefficients = 34.171, −0.638 and 0.330, respectively.
The model accurately estimated the SNeff values with R 2 of
0.878 and low bias.

Table 1. Regression coefficients of Kim et al. Model, Equation (11) (Kim et al. 2013).
PMIS Class Total surface thickness (in) No. of sections
Type 4 >5.5 56,7159
Type 5 2.5:5.5 39,0663
1.2. SNeff predictive models based on FWD data and
total pavement thickness
This group of SNeff predictive models is based on FWD data
along with the total pavement thickness above the subgrade
layer. Examples of these methods are presented below.
1.2.1. Rohde model (1994)
Deflection under the FWD loading plate in flexible pavements
is the sum of the deflection in the subgrade and elastic com-
pression of the pavement structure. It was concluded by
Rohde and other researchers that the surface deflection
measured at a distance of 1.5 times the pavement thickness is
entirely due to the deformation in the subgrade (Rohde
1994). By comparing the defection under loading plate and
the deflection in the subgrade, a new index called Structural
Index of Pavements (SIP) can be computed as given in
Equation (9). SIP was believed to be well correlated with pave-
ment stiffness and subsequently with the SNeff as given by
Equation (10) (Rohde 1994).
SIP = Do − D1.5HP
SNeff = K1 ∗SIPK2 ∗HpK3
where: SIP = structural index of pavements. Hp = total thickness
of pavement layers above the subgrade (mm). Do = peak deflec-
tion at a standard 9000-Ib (40 KN) FWD load (microns).
D1.5Hp = deflection at radial distance of 1.5 Hp from the centre
of loading plate (microns). K1, K2, and K3= regression coeffi-
cients = 0.4728, −0.4810 and 0.7581, respectively for flexible
pavements
This model (Equation 10) was developed based on 5832
hypothetical pavement sections (asphalt concrete sections).
An excellent correlation with R 2 of 0.957 was found between
SNeff determined by Equation (10) and the AASHTO 1986 pro-
cedure. The model was verified by data from 52 in-service pave-
ment sections and resulted in R 2 of 0.928 (for SNeff values less
than 3.5). Subsequently, the model was also verified using
another 10 sections in Texas which yielded an R 2 of 0.980.
1.2.2. Kim et al. model (2013)
Because Rohde model was verified based only on a very limited
number of sections from Texas, Kim et al. (2013) used a more
comprehensive database of hypothetical pavements to improve
Rohde’s model. The data was divided into four groups accord-
ing to each pavement layer thickness and properties. The
modified version of Rohde’s model used new deflection basin
parameters and coefficients to take into consideration the
depth to the rigid layer as given in Equation (11) (Kim et al.
2013).
SNeff = K1 ∗SIPK2 ∗HpK3 + K4 ∗(1 + ro )K5
+ k6 ∗SCIK7 ∗BDIK8
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 843
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8
1.5136 −0.1749 0.5718 −1.7876 1.9035 1.2479 0.1411 −0.8383
0.9712 −0.3129 0.7521 −0.3422 2.9334 0.0657 0.8854 −2.5504
SCI = Do − D1 (12)
BDI = D1 − D2 (13)
where: SNeff, SIP, and Hp, and Do are as defined before;
1 1
ro = intercept by extrapolating the steepest section of against
r r
1
deflection curve ( ). SCI = surface curvature index. BDI =
feet
base damage index. D1= deflection at radial distance of
200 mm from the centre of loading plate (mils). D2= deflec-
tion at radial distance of 300 mm from the centre of loading
plate (mils). K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6, K7, and K8 = regression
coefficients as presented in Table 1.
Pavements Type 4 and 5 in Table 1 correspond to the most
widely used thicknesses in pavement construction. The coeffi-
cients of the original model have to be selected according to
the pavement type which is based upon pavement layers’ thick-
nesses and the resilient modulus of each layer. This classifi-
cation means that, the user must know the properties of each
layer to choose the appropriate coefficients to calculate SNeff
(9) value. Consequently, diminishing the advantage of the model
which is the direct use of the FWD deflection data without
(10) the need of the tedious backcalculation process.
Compared to the AASHTO 1986, the model yielded an
excellent correlation with R 2 of 0.960 and 0.970 for Type 4
and 5 pavements, respectively. It should be noted that the cal-
culation of the term ro in Equation (11) is practically difficult.
Additionally, this model as well as its predecessor were com-
pared with SNeff values computed using the older AASHTO
1986 version rather than the latest AASHTO 1993.
In summary, the presented literature models were found to
be dependent on the FWD data only or the FWD data plus the
total pavement thickness. The SNeff values predicted using
these models were compared with the SN values computed
using the AASHTO 1986 or other predictive models not the lat-
est version which is the AASHTO 1993. Among the historical
models, only the modified COST and Kavussi et al. models
were compared against the AASHTO 1993. One major draw-
back of these models is that no temperature corrections were
applied to the FWD backcalculated moduli. Thus, the predicted
SNeff values are not accurate. Moreover, some of these models
were developed based on hypothetical rather than real pave-
ment sections. A comparison between the presented models
is summarised in Table 2.
2. Objectives
The aforementioned models are considered to be the most
important models to predict SNeff, however they tend to over-
look the fact that AC layer stiffness, FWD deflections and con-
sequently SNeff values are very sensitive to temperature.
(11) Therefore, the main objectives of this research are as follows:
844 H. S. ABD EL-RAOF ET AL.

Table 2. Comparison between the investigated literature models.

Model Variables Criteria of comparison Number of points R2
Modified COST, 2012 FWD data AASHTO 1993 105 test points form Legacy Park Way and LTPP site 49–1001 0.857
Schnoor and Horak (2012) Rohde, 1994 171 test points 0.986
Kavussi et al. (2017) AASHTO 1993 2453 0.878
Rohde (1994) FWD data + HP AASHTO 1986 5832* 0.957
Kim et al. (2013) AASHTO 1986 56,7159 (Type 4)* 39,0663 (Type 5)* 0.960 (Type 4) 0.970 (Type 5)
*Hypothetical pavement sections.

(1) Use LTPP data to verify the existing SNeff predictive
models’ accuracy against the AASHTO 1993.
(2) Recommend the most reliable model for SNeff prediction,
improve its accuracy and reduce its bias through
calibration.
(3) Propose new or modified formulas, if warranted, for more
reliable prediction of SNeff of conventional flexible
pavements.
3. Research methodology
To achieve the research objectives, actual FWD measurements
are needed. Thus, the LTPP database was selected as a reliable
source of data (infopave, 2016). The average value of FWD
deflection and corresponding backcalculated moduli at each
test point were firstly collected from the LTPP database.
Measured Do and backcalculated EAC values were then cor-
rected to a standard temperature of 21°C. Consequently,
SNeff values were computed using all investigated regression
models then compared with the AASHTO 1993 approach.
The investigated regression models were then calibrated for
more reliable prediction of SNeff. Finally, the most reliable
model was recommended after statistical analyses and vali-
dation. The methodology adopted in this research is outlined
in Figure 1.
4. Data collection
Fourteen pavement sections from the Specific Pavement Study
(SPS-1) experiment of the LTPP programme with 1293 FWD
measurements (Table 3), 899 points for calibration and 394
points for verification were used in this research. These sections
were selected such that they cover all four climatic regions in
the U.S. as well as different subgrade types, traffic levels, and
pavement structure layer thicknesses. The climatic regions in
the U.S. are classified into wet/freeze, dry/freeze, wet/non
freeze, and dry/non freeze and are referred to as WF, DF,
WNF, and DNF, respectively (infopave, 2016). Deflection
data measured at the mid lane (F1) at different times (early
and late in the pavement life) were considered in this research.
Table 3 presents the structural system, climate region, sub-
grade type, and test dates of each section. In addition, the num-
ber of FWD test points at each section is presented.
5. SNeff calculation
The 9000 Ib. (40 KN) load level along with the associated
deflections were selected for SNeff calculation. At each FWD
load level, four deflection values are usually recorded during
testing. These deflections were averaged and then used for
SNeff calculation. The corresponding backcalculated layers
moduli were extracted from the LTPP database and averaged,
then Equation (1) was used to calculate SNeff as per the
AASHTO 1993 method. The SNeff values were also estimated
using the presented literature models (modified COST 2012,
Schnoor and Horak 2012, Kavussi et al. 2017 Rohde 1994,
Kim et al. 2013) and compared with the SNeff values from
the AASHTO 1993 procedure. For Rhode model, the deflection
at 1.5 times the pavement thickness was calculated using linear
interpolation. For Kim et al. model, the coefficients for Type 4
and Type 5 pavements were used according to the AC layer
thickness and modulus. The term (ro) was calculated by
finding the slope between each two adjacent sensors after
fitting a linear relationship between (1/offset) and the deflec-
tions along the deflection basin. The steepest portion was
used to calculate ro as recommended (Kim et al. 2013). Before
calculating SNeff, Do and EAC were adjusted to a reference
temperature of 21°C using the LTPP procedure which is out-
lined in the next section.

6. Temperature correction
Temperature is the most critical environmental condition
affecting AC modulus and hence surface deflection (Kim
Figure 1. Research methodology outline. et al. 2000). Therefore, the FWD peak deflection and the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 845

Table 3. Main properties of the SPS-1 sections considered for analysis (infopave, 2016).
Layer Thickness, cm
Section ID Climate Region AC GB GS Subgrade Type Test Date No. of FWD Test Points
01–0101 WF 18.8 20.1 – A-7-5 3/11/1993 11
3/22/1996 40
5/28/2002 11
4/28/2005 11
01–0102 WF 10.7 30.5 – A-7-6 3/11/1993 11
6/21/1995 21
5/19/2000 11
5/28/2002 11
04–0113 WNF 11.2 19.1 – A-1-b 2/17/1994 11
1/10/1996 50
2/16/1999 11
4/1/2002 40
04–0114 WNF 17.3 30.5 – A-2-4 2/16/1994 11
2/17/1995 11
11/29/2001 30
4/2/2002 30
05–0113 WF 10.2 20.6 – A-4 3/17/1994 11
2/7/1996 11
4/9/2001 10
5/1/2003 11
05–0114 WF 17.5 27.9 – A-4 3/16/1994 11
2/7/1996 11
4/9/2001 10
5/1/2003 11
10–0101 DF 17.8 20.6 99 A-2-4 2/25/1997 11
10/12/1999 11
8/6/2003 11
10/4/2005 11
10–0102 DF 10.9 30.0 99 A-2-4 10/5/1995 22
2/25/1997 11
8/6/2003 11
8/13/1996 33
19–0101 DNF 19.6 20.3 63.5 A-6 5/19/1993 11
4/25/1995 30
10/8/1999 11
2/16/2001 11
19–0102 DNF 12.7 30.5 61 A-6 5/19/1993 11
5/14/1997 11
2/16/2001 11
30–0113 WNF 14.7 21.3 – A-1-b 11/10/1998 11
6/16/1999 11
7/16/2001 11
30–0114 WNF 19.1 31.5 – A-1-b 11/11/1998 11
6/16/1999 11
11/25/2002 40
5/12/2003 40
31–0113 DNF 13.0 20.3 61 A-4 8/3/1995 11
6/11/1997 11
10/14/1999 11
31–0114 DNF 16.8 30.5 61 A-7-6 7/21/1995 25
4/23/1996 31
10/11/1999 11
7/10/2000 40
Note: AC = Asphalt Concrete Layer, GB = Granular Base Layer, GS = Granular Subbase Layer, DF = Dry, Freeze, DNF = Dry, Non Freeze, WF = Wet, Freeze, and WNF = Wet,
Non Freeze.

backcalculated AC modulus should be adjusted to a reference
temperature for PMIS purposes.
The mid depth temperature of the AC layer is considered the
effective temperature which represents the AC layer tempera-
ture at the time of FWD measurements (Kim et al. 2000).
This temperature can be estimated from the modified BELL3
model shown in Equation (14) (Lukanen et al. 2000).
Td = 0.95 + 0.892 IR + 0.042 IR sin (hr18 − 13.5)
+ [log (d) − 1.25][−0.448 IR + 0.621(1 − day)
+1.83 sin (hr18 − 15.5) ]
where: Td= pavement temperature at depth d (oC). IR = infra-
red surface temperature (oC). d = depth at which asphalt temp-
erature is to be predicted (mm). 1-day = average of air
temperate the day before FWD testing (oC). hr18 = time of
day in 24 hours system, but calculated using 18 hours tempera-
ture rise and fall cycle.
Once the effective temperature is determined, the Asphalt
Temperature Adjustment Factor (ATAF) can be determined
according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(14) model, Equation (15). The adjusted asphalt layer modulus
(EAC) to the standard temperature which is 21°C can then be
846 H. S. ABD EL-RAOF ET AL.
calculated using Equation (16) (Lukanen et al. 2000).
ATAF = 10slope∗(Tr −Td ) (15)
Ecorrected = Emeasured ∗ATAF (16)
where: ATAF = asphalt temperature adjustment factor. Slope =
−0.021 for mid-lane and −0.0195 for wheel-path.
Tr = reference mid-depth AC layer temperature. Td = mid-
depth AC layer temperature at the time of FWD testing.
Ecorrected = corrected AC layer modulus to a reference tempera-
ture. Emeasured = backcalculated AC modulus at temperature of
FWD testing.
The deflection under the loading plate is very sensitive to AC
layer temperature. A significant relation between the delta
deflection and AC layer thicknesses and other parameters
such as temperature of AC layer, and stiffness of subgrade
soil … .etc, was developed by (Lukanen et al. 2000) which is
shown in Equation 17.
log (delta 36) = 3.05 − 1.13 log (ac) + 0.502 log (u) log (def l36 )
− 0.00487 T log (u) log (def l36 )
+ 0.00677 T log (ac) log (u).
(17)
where: delta36= difference between measured deflection at
0 mm and 900 mm (microns). ac = total thickness of AC
layer (mm). u = latitude of pavement section. T = Temperature
at mid-depth of AC layer (oC). defl36= deflection measured at
distance of 900 mm from the load plate (microns).
Delta deflection is a deflection basin parameter which
equals the difference between the deflection value under the
loading plate and the deflection value at any specific radial dis-
tance (ex. delta36 = deflection at 0 in. – deflection at 36 in.)
Using Equation (17) to calculate delta36 at the test and the
reference temperature then Equation (18) can be used to calcu-
late the temperature Adjustment Factor (TAF) for the peak
FWD deflection. When defl36 is added to delta36 ref temp as pre-
sented in the numerator, the peak deflection at the reference
temperature will be the result. However, the peak deflection
at the test temperature will be the result when the defl36 is
added todelta36measured temp as presented in the dominator of
Equation (18). From that, the percentile between the peak
deflection at the test corresponding temperature and the
peak deflection at the reference temperature can be calculated.
def l36 + delta36 ref temp
TAF = (18)
def l36 + delta36 measured temp
where: TAF = temperature adjustment factor for centre deflec-
tion. defl36 and delta36, are as defined before.
It should be noted that delta 36 is used for pavement with
AC layer thicknesses ranged from 100 to 200 mm, while for
AC layer thicknesses of 100 mm or less, it is recommended
to use delta24, and for AC layer thicknesses of more than
200 mm, delta60 is used as recommended by (Lukanen et al.
2000).
7. Results and discussion
To establish whether the accuracy and bias of the investigated
models is credible, the line of equality between SNeff predicted
form the models and calculated using the AASHTO 1993 was
used as a reference. The goodness-fit statistics are calculated
as given in Equation (19–22) (Khattab et al. 2014).














































1  n
Sy = [SNeff ,AASHTO − SNeff , AASHTO ]
2
(19)
n − 1 i=1

n
ei = [SNeff ,predicted − SNeff ,AASHTO ] (20)
i=1









n 2

i=1 ei
Se = (21)
n−p
 
n − p Se 2
R2 = 1 − ∗ (22)
n − 1 Sy









































1 n
RMSE = [SNeff ,predicted − SNeff , AASHTO ]2 (23)
n i=1
where: Sy = standard deviation of SNeff values calculated by
AASHTO 1993 about the mean value. ei = sum of errors
between SNeff predicted from the models and calculated from
the AASHTO 1993. SNeff,AASHTO = SNeff calculated by
AASHTO 1993 procedure. SNeff,AASHTO = the average of SNeff
values calculated by AASHTO 1993 procedure. SNeff,predicted
= SNeff calculated by the different regression models. Se = stan-
dard deviation of the error. R 2 = coefficient of determination. n
= number of data points. p = number of regression coefficients
in the model. RMSE = root mean squared error.
Se
Se/Sy and R 2 represent the degree of scatter with respect to
Sy
line of equality (LEQ), thus they are indicative of the accuracy
of the model relative to the LEQ. Moreover, the RMSE is an
indicative of the absolute measure of the model accuracy.
Slope and intercept of the unconstrained regression lines of
SNeff predicted form the investigated models and the values
computed using the AASHTO 1993 procedure were used to
assess the overall bias of the models.
7.1. SNeff prediction models based on FWD
measurements only
Three different models were selected from this group which are;
the modifi|ed COST (2012), Schnoor and Horak (2012), and
Kavussi et al. (2017). Figure 2 illustrates a comparison between
SNeff values computed by the AASHTO 1993 procedure (which
is based mainly on the backcalculated moduli) and the investi-
gated models. Furthermore, Figure 3 shows the relationship
between the predicted SNeff and the error (calculated by
AASHTO 1993 method – predicted by the regression model).
Figure 2(a) compares the results of the modified COST
model with the AASHTO 1993 while Figure 3(a) depicts the
error versus the model predictions. It is noticed that, the
model yielded relatively accurate predictions. This is indicated
by the R 2 of 0.771, however a significant bias in the predicted

Figure 2. Comparison of SNeff predicted from the Original FWD only based models and the AASHTO 1993 Procedure. (a) Modified COST model (2012), (b) Schnoor and
Horak model (2012), (c) Kavussi et al. model (2017).
SNeff is evident by the slope and intercept of the equation cor-
relating the AASHTO 1993 SNeff and model predictions. The
error analysis (Figure 3(a)) shows clearly that there is an
increasing trend in the error with the increase in SNeff (sys-
tematic error). The model also produced irrational (very low
and sometimes negative) SNeff values.
The results of Schnoor and Horak model compared with
AASHTO 1993 are presented in Figure 2(b) while the error
analysis is shown in Figure 3(b). This model overestimated
the SNeff values (very high error compared to all other models
as presented by the mean error) which may lead to ineffective
rehabilitation decisions. Conversely, Kavussi et al. model
(Figure 2(c)) was found to underestimate SNeff values. Figure
3(c) clearly shows the systemic error (bias) in the predictions.
Although it underestimates the SNeff values, its predictions
are relatively accurate (R 2 = 0.794).
7.2. SNeff prediction models based on FWD
measurements and pavement thickness
Rohde and Kim et al. models are examples of the models which
require FWD data and the total thickness of the pavement (Hp).
The total thickness of the pavement can be determined directly
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 847
from coring pits or indirectly from Ground Penetrating Radar
(GPR). The SNeff values predicted by the two models based on
the LTPP data were compared with the AASHTO 1993 pro-
cedure results and shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4(a) depicts the results of Rohde model compared to
the AASHTO 1993. This model predictions are excellent with
R 2 of 0.848. However, as indicated in the figure, it relatively
underestimates the higher SNeff values compared to the
AASHTO 1993. As a result, using Rohde model in its original
form may lead to uneconomic maintenance decisions.
Figure 4(b) presents the results of Kim et al. model com-
pared to the AASHTO 1993. In some cases, after the appli-
cation of temperature correction to Do, it was noticed that
D1, deflection at a distance of 200 mm from the loading
plate, was higher than Do which produced negative SCI (Sur-
face Curvature Index) values. To compare the results, these par-
ticular cases were removed, thus the total number of points was
reduced to 878 points instead of 899 points and the results are
presented in Figure 5.
Although Kim et al. model is a modified version form Rohde
model; it exhibited lower R 2 and higher scatter with respect to
the line of equality compared to Rhode model when the LTPP
data was used to verify the model. However, this model yielded
848 H. S. ABD EL-RAOF ET AL.

Figure 5. Comparison of SNeff predicted from the Kim et al. model after removing
the cases including negative SCI and the AASHTO 1993 procedure.

the least biased predictions as shown by the intercept and the

slope of the unconstrained regression line coefficients and the
error analysis shown in Figure 6.
The performance of the presented models was also statisti-
cally evaluated using hypotheses testing. Hypothesis test uses
Z-test to examine if the model produces the same population
produced by AASHTO 1993 method or not. These tests exam-
ine the following hypotheses:

. Null hypothesis (Ho): Mean SNeff value produced from

Figure 3. Relationship between predicted SNeff and the errors generated from the
original FWD Only based models. (a) Modified COST Model, (b) Schnoor and Horak
Model, (c) Kavussi et al. Model.
AASHTO 1993 method = Mean SNeff value produced from
the regression model.
. Alternative hypothesis (H1) is: Mean SNeff value produced
from AASHTO 1993 method = Mean SNeff value produced
from the regression model.
This test was conducted at a significance level of 95% (a =
0.05). For the Z-test, Ho is rejected if the P-value < 0.05.

Figure 4. Comparison of SNeff predicted from the original (FWD-Hp) based models and the AASHTO 1993 procedure. (a) Rohde Model (b) Kim et al. Model.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 849

(Crook et al. 2012). The new regression coefficients are pre-

sented in Table 5. It should be noted that the calibrated
COST model form is similar to the original COST model
form (COST 1998).
Figure 7(b) compares the SNeff produced by the calibrated
Schnoor and Horak model and the AASHTO 1993 procedure,
while Figure 8(b) shows the error versus predicted values. The
new and original regression coefficients along with the good-
ness of fit statistics and bias indicators are shown in Table 5.
Calibration of the Schnoor and Horak equation produced
new coefficients that significantly improved the model accuracy
and bias. Calibrating Kavussi et al. model resulted in the new
regression coefficients shown in Table 5 and yielded an R 2
value of 0.812. The calibrated model produces more reliable
SNeff values as presented in Figure 7(c) and 8(c).
Rohde model was calibrated with respect to the AASHTO
1993 using the LTPP data with the explained procedure and
yielded the new coefficients shown in Table 5. The new cali-
brated Rhode model exhibited relatively less biased and more
accurate predictions as shown in Figures 7(d) and 8(d) com-
pared to Figures 4(a) and 6(a). Kim et al. original model was
modified by removing the SCI term. Figure 7(e) shows that
Figure 6. Relationship between predicted SNeff and the errors generated from the the new formula is much better than the original one. The cali-
original (FWD – Hp) Based Models. (a) Rohde Model, (b) Kim et al. Model. brated and original coefficients of Kim et al. model are shown
in Table 5. It should be noted that the calibrated models are
limited to conventional flexible pavement structures with
Table 4 presents the results of Z-test for the models. As shown
unbound granular base/subbase layer(s).
in the table, the p-value for these models are smaller than 0.05.
Statistical evaluation of the model’s performance after cali-
This means that Ho is rejected at a significance level of 95%.
bration was also conducted using Z-test. Table 6 shows that,
These results indicate that, these regression models yield a sig-
P-values for Z-tests are higher than 0.05. The results indicate
nificant bias in predicting SNeff values when compared with
that, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at 95% signifi-
AASHTO 1993 procedure.
cance level. This means that, the calibrated models generate
accurate SNeff values when compared with AASHTO 1993
procedure.
8. Models calibration
The previous results revealed that it is important to calibrate
the models included in this study using the LTPP data.
9. Calibrated/Modified models performance
Regression analysis was used to develop a new set of coefficients
for the investigated models. Figure 7 presents a comparison of The performance of the SNeff predictive models based on the
SNeff predicted using the calibrated/modified models and the FWD measurements only are presented in Figure 9 in terms
ones computed using the AASHTO 1993 method while Figure of accuracy (1-R 2, Se/Sy, and Se) and bias (1-Slope, and Inter-
8 presents the error of these models. cept) of the regression line of SNeff predicted from the model
For the modified COST model, although the R 2 of the new as compared to the ones computed using the AASHTO 1993.
model did not increase, calibration improved the model bias as The performance parameters were normalised to zero such
presented in Figure 7(a) and 8(a). The model produced more that the closer the performance indicator to zero, the better
reliable predictions than the model modified by UDOT the accuracy or the lower the bias. The calibrated Kavussi
et al. model showed better performance in terms of accuracy
and bias compared to the calibrated COST and calibrated
Table 4. Results of Z-Test for the original models based on FWD measurements Schnoor and Horak models.
and total pavement thickness. With the same procedure, Figure 9 shows that the modified
Average SNeff Kim et al. model yielded better performance in terms of accu-
(AASHTO Average Z- Z-
Model 1993) SNeff(model) critical value p-value
racy and bias compared to the calibrated Rohde model.
Modified COST, 4.069 5.544 1.960 13.865 0.00
From Figure 9 and Table 5, the performance parameters
2012 revealed that the calibrated Kavussi et al. model can be used
Schnoor and 6.55 43.650 0.00 to estimate SNeff values in cases where information about
Horak (2012)
Kavussi et al. 3.650 −8.905 0.00
layer thicknesses is not available. On the other side, the
(2017) modified Kim et al. model can be used for general applications
Rohde (1994) 3.773 −7.164 7.820*10−13 in PMIS for the effective structural number predictions based
Kim et al. (2013) 4.040 4.302 4.476 7.600*10−6
on FWD data and total pavement thickness.
850 H. S. ABD EL-RAOF ET AL.

Figure 7. Comparison of the SNeff predicted from the calibrated/modified models and the AASHTO 1993 procedure. (a) Calibrated COST Model, (b) Calibrated Schnoor
and Horak Model, (c) Calibrated Kavussi et al. Model, (d) Calibrated Rohde Model, (e) Modified Kim et al. Model.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 851

Figure 8. Relationship between predicted SNeff and the errors generated from the calibrated/modified model. (a) Calibrated COST Model, (b) Calibrated Schnoor and
Horak Model, (c) Calibrated Kavussi et al. Model, (d) Calibrated Rohde Model, (e) Modified Kim et al. Model.
852 H. S. ABD EL-RAOF ET AL.

Table 5. Comparison between the original and calibrated models regression coefficients.
Modified COST Schnoor and Kavussi et al.
Regression Coefficients &Performance (2012) Horak (2012) (2017) Rohde (1994) Modified Kim et al. (2013)
O* C** O C O C O C O M***
K1 1.70 2.06 5.12 4.785 34.171 85.74 0.4728 0.6196 As Presented in Table 1 0.6125
K2 813 656.43 0.31 0.200 −0.638 −0.770 −0.4810 −0.4600 −0.5845
K3 −39 42.37 −0.78 −.720 0.330 0.310 0.7581 0.7094 0.9613
K4 −2.236 0 – – – – – – 1.3460
K5 0.389 1 – – – – – – −1.2899
K6 – – – – – – – – −0.0022
K7 – – – – – – – – –
K8 – – – – – – – – – 2.9853
NO. of LTPP Points for Verification 899 878 899
NO. of LTPP Points for Calibration 899
R2 0.771 0.777 0.764 0.777 0.794 0.812 0.848 0.852 0.700 0.868
Se/Sy 2.486 0.473 2.448 0.473 0.642 0.435 0.506 0.386 0.756 0.365
RMSE 2.605 0.496 2.568 0.495 0.673 0.456 0.531 0.405 0.786 0.382
Slope 2.515 0.777 1.114 0.778 0.600 0.815 0.816 0.845 1.078 0.868
Intercept −4.689 0.906 2.017 0.906 1.211 0.754 0.412 0.631 0.058 0.538
O * original coefficients, C** calibrated coefficients, M*** Modified Model

10. Models validation For further investigation, the bias in the models’ predictions
was also evaluated statistically using the following hypothesis.
To evaluate the performance of the calibrated/modified models,
Hypothesis 1: Determine whether the unconstrained
a separate group of data was used. The data was selected to
regression line between SNeff predicted by the regression
cover all climatic regions in the United States with different
model and calculated by the AASHTO 1993 procedure has
type of base and subbase layers. Five sections were used for
an intercept of zero by testing the following null and alternative
the verification process with 394 test points. The LTPP data
hypotheses:
used to refine the models were located in the lane centre (F1)
to avoid cracks accumulated in the wheel-path. However, the . Ho: Model Intercept = 0,
validation process was performed on data collected from both
. H1: Model Intercept ≠ 0.
the wheel-path (F3) and the centre lane (F1) to evaluate the
model performance under the condition of cracks existence
For p-value < 0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected. This indi-
and absence. Table 7 presents the main properties of pavement
cates that the linear model had an intercept significantly differ-
sections used for the validation process.
ent from zero at the 95% level of significance. In other words,
SNeff values were calculated by the calibrated Kavussi et al.
the model produces biased predictions at the lower SNeff values.
model and modified Kim et al. model and then compared
Hypothesis 2: Determine whether the unconstrained
with the AASHTO 1993 values. Figure 10(a) depicts the corre-
regression line between SNeff predicted by the regression
lation between SNeff values calculated by calibrated Kavussi
model and calculated by the AASHTO 1993 procedure has a
et al. model when compared with AASHTO 1993. The cali-
slope of unity by testing the following null and alternative
brated model was found to accurately predict SNeff with small
hypotheses:
level of bias. The modified Kim et al. model was also used to
calculate SNeff values for the validation process. The result indi-
. Ho: Model Slope = 1.0,
cates excellent correlation between predicted values and
. H1: Model Slope ≠ 1.0.
AASTHO 1993 values. Figure 10(b) shows the comparison of
modified Kim et al. model and AASHTO 1993 procedure.
Additionally, Figure 11 indicates that there is no systematic A rejection of the null hypothesis (p-value < 0.05) would
error or an error pattern when the recommended models were imply that the linear model has a slope significantly different
used in predicting SNeff values with the mean error value very from 1.
close to zero and low standard deviation.

Table 6. Results of Z-Test for the calibrated/modified models.

Average
SNeff
(AASHTO Average Z- Z- p-
Model 1993) SNeff(model) critical value value
Calibrated COST 4.069 4.069 1.960 13.865 0.999
Calibrated Schnoor 4.069 43.650 0.997
and Horak
Calibrated Kavussi 4.069 −8.905 0.985
et al.
Calibrated Rohde 4.069 −7.164 0.970
Modified Kim et al. 4.069 4.476 0.999 Figure 9. Comparison of the performance parameters of the investigated models.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 853

Table 7. Main properties of the SPS-1 sections included in the validation (infopave, 2016).
No. of FWD
Layer Thickness (cm) Test Points Distresses
Fatigue Crack
(m2)
Section ID Climate Region AC GB GS Test Date F1 F3 L M H Rut Depth (mm)
01–0101 WF 18.8 20.1 – 3/11/1993 – 11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
6/21/1995 21 21 0 0 0 4
2/23/2004 10 11 68.0 0 0 6
4/28/2005 – 11 70.4 0 0 6
04–0113 WNF 11.2 19.1 – 2/17/1994 – 11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
2/21/1995 11 11 0 0 0 4
11/30/2001 30 32 1.2 2.8 12.8 4
4/1/2002 – 44 4.6 2.0 6.0 4
10–0102 DF 10.9 30.0 99.0 10/5/1995 – 28 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
8/13/1996 – 33 9.8 0 0 4
10/31/1996 10 11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
10/4/2005 11 11 0 50.3 160.1 8
19–0102 DNF 12.7 30.5 61.0 9/12/1995 11 11 0 0 0 4
10/8/1999 11 11 0 14.5 0 6
31–0113 DNF 13.0 20.3 61.0 8/3/1995 – 11 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
10/14/1999 – 11 0 0 0 2
Note: AC = Asphalt Concrete Layer, GB = Granular Base Layer, GS = Granular Subbase Layer, DF = Dry, Freeze, DNF = Dry, Non Freeze, WF = Wet, Freeze, WNF = Wet, Non
Freeze, L = Low Severity, M = Moderate Severity, H = High Severity, and N.A. = Not Available.

Table 8. Results of hypotheses tests for the validation process. . Ho: Mean predicted SNeff value by the regression models =
Standard t- p- Mean calculated SNeff value by AASHTO 1993 procedure,
Model Hypotheses Coefficient error State value
. H1: Mean predicted SNeff value by the regression models =
Calibrated 1 Ho: Intercept = 0 0.044 0.083 0.525 0.600
Kavussi 2 Ho: Slope = 1 0.986 0.023 0.627 0.531 Mean calculated SNeff value by AASHTO 1993 procedure.
et al. 3 Ho: Mean – – – 0.885
Predicted =
Mean
If a model passes the three hypotheses tests, it can be implied
Calculated that the model predictions are not biased.
Modified Kim 1 Ho: Intercept = 0 0.021 0.079 0.264 0.792 Table 8 illustrates the results of the hypotheses tests. As can
et al. 2 Ho: Slope = 1 1.002 0.021 0.089 0.929
3 Ho: Mean – – – 0.597
be implied from the table, the null hypothesis of an intercept of
Predicted = zero is accepted in calibrated Kavussi et al. and modified Kim
Mean et al. models as the p-value > 0.05. This means that for lower
Calculated
SNeff values, these models are recommended.
Both models passed the second hypothesis test which exam-
ines the equality of the slope to the unity. A p-value of 0.531
Hypothesis 3: a Z-test was used to examine if the regression and 0.929 for calibrated Kavussi et al. and modified Kim
models generate the same population by testing the following et al. models respectively indicates passing the test. The ability
hypothesis: of the models to generate the same population was examined by

Figure 10. Validation of the calibrated Kavussi and modified Kim models. (a) Calibrated Kavussi. model, (b) Modified Kim model.
854 H. S. ABD EL-RAOF ET AL.
Figure 11. Relationship between predicted SNeff Values and the errors generated from the recommended models (a) Calibrated Kavussi et al. Model, (b) Modified Kim
et al. Model.
the third hypothesis. In case of modified Kim et al. model, the
null hypothesis cannot be rejected (p-value >0.05). The same
hypothesis was examined for calibrated Kavussi et al. model.
The results indicated that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected
(P value = 0.597). Based on the above discussion it can be con-
cluded that modified Kim et al. and calibrated Kavussi et al. can
generate accurate results as they passed all three hypotheses
tests.
Based on the previous discussion, modified Kim et al. model
yielded the most accurate and precise predictions. Thus it is
recommended for general applications. However, it requires
coring pits to determine the thickness which damages the pave-
ment surface, disturbs traffic, and is usually costly and time
consuming. Therefore, using modified Kim et al. in presence
of calibrated Kavussi et al. which depends on FWD measure-
ments only is not preferable. In other words, calibrated Kavussi
et al. model is recommended for general applications based on
its simplicity and efficiency. It is worth mentioning that, the
calibrated Kavussi et al. model is valid for conventional flexible
pavement with unbound granular base with/without subbase.
11. Summary and conclusions
This paper investigated the performance of selected SNeff litera-
ture prediction models after temperature correction of the AC
layer modulus and peak FWD deflection. Fourteen pavement
test sections with 1293 FWD test points from LTPP were
used to evaluate and enhance the performance of these
regression models for accurate SNeff predictions. Do and EAC
were adjusted to a reference temperature of 21°C. A compari-
son between SNeff values predicted from the investigated
models and AASHTO 1993 structural number after tempera-
ture correction and calibration of the models was conducted.
The comparison of the regression models before and after cali-
bration and/or modification revealed the following conclusions:
. The investigated SNeff predictive models did not consider
the effect of temperature on the FWD measurements and
hence on the produced SNeff values. This makes it difficult
to compare these SNeff values for different highway projects
on a network level for PMIS.
. Before calibration, based on the LTPP data, all models
yielded good to very good SNeff predictions with R 2 in the
range of 0.700 to 0.848. However, using the Surface Curva-
ture Index (SCI) in Kim et al. model, in some cases, exhib-
ited negative SNeff values which question the model
rationality. The modified COST model also yielded some
irrational (very low or negative) SNeff predictions.
. Although Kim et al. model was a modified version from
Rohde model, it exhibited lower accuracy with R 2 value of
0.700 and Se/Sy of 0.756 compared to the original Rode
model (R 2 = 0.848, Se/Sy = 0.506) when verified with the
LTPP database.
. Based on the LTPP database, the uncalibrated modified
COST and Schnoor and Horak models produced very highly
biased predictions (over-predictions). Conversely, Kavussi
et al. model underestimated SNeff values. Additionally,
Rhode model moderately underestimated SNeff while Kim
et al. model moderately overestimated SNeff values.
. Calibration of SNeff prediction models significantly
improved the models performance in terms of accuracy
and bias.
. Modifying Kim et al. model by removing the SCI term and
recalibration significantly improved the model performance.
Among the investigated models, this model yielded the most
accurate and least biased SNeff estimates with R 2 = 0.868 and
Se/Sy = 0.365. The model was also validated using different
dataset and yielded excellent goodness of fit.
. To avoid destructive damage required for estimating the
total pavement thickness, the calibrated Kavussi et al.
model is the recommended model for SNeff predictions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
AASHTO, 1993. Guide for design of pavement structures. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Bryce, J., et al., 2013. Developing a network-level structural capacity index
for asphalt pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139 (2),
123–129.

Chen, D. -H., et al., 2000. Temperature correction on falling weight deflect-
ometer measurements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 1716, 30–39.
COST 336—Falling Weight Deflectometer: Information Gathering Report,
Task Group 2—FWD at Network Level, Final Draft Report, March
1998.
Crook, A. L., Montgomery, S.R., and Guthrie, W.S, 2012. Using falling-
weight deflectometer data for network-level flexible pavement manage-
ment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2304, 75–85.
Dawson, T., et al., 2016. Global procedure for temperature adjustment of
measured pavement deflection data based on the LTPP seasonal moni-
toring program. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2589, 146–153.
Elbagalati, O., et al., 2016. Prediction of In-service pavement structural
capacity based on traffic-speed deflection measurements. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 142 (11).
Elseifi, M. A., et al., 2015. Evaluation and validation of a model for predict-
ing pavement structural number with rolling wheel deflectometer data.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2525, 13–19.
Gedafa, D. S., et al., 2013. Network-Level flexible pavement structural
evaluation. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 15 (4),
309–322.
Kavussi, A., et al., 2017. A New method to determine maintenance and
repair activities at network-level pavement management using falling
weight deflectometer. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,
23, 338–346.
Khattab, A.M., et al., 2014. Evaluation of witczak E* predictive models for
the implementation of AASHTOWare-pavement ME design in the
kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Construction and Building Materials, 64,
360–369.
Kim, Y. R., Hibbs, B. O., and Lee, Y.C, 2000. Temperature correction of
deflections and backcalculated asphalt concrete moduli.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 855
Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1473, 55–62.
Kim, M.Y., Kim, D. Y., and Murphy, M. R, 2013. Improved method for
evaluating the pavement structural number with falling weight deflect-
ometer deflections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2366, 120–126.
LTPP InfoPave, http://www.infopave.com/, Accessed April 2016.
Lukanen, E. O., Stubstad, R.N., and Briggs, R, 2000. Temperature predic-
tions and adjustment factors for asphalt pavement. report FHWA-RD-
98-085. McLean, VA: FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Mehta, Y., and Roque, R, 2003. Evaluation of FWD data for determination
of layer moduli of pavements. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
15, 25–31.
Park, H. M., Kim, Y. R., and Park, S, 2002. Temperature correction of
multi-level falling weight deflectometer deflections. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1806,
3–8.
Rada, G. R., et al., 2014. Emerging tools for use in pavement preservation
treatment selection. transportation research board. 93rdAnnual meeting,
Washington, D.C.
Rohde, G. T, 1994. Determining pavement structural number from FWD
testing. transportation research record. Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1448, 61–68.
Schnoor, H., and Horak, E., 2012. Possible method of determining structural
number for flexible pavements with the falling weight deflectometer.
Southern African transportation ConferencePretoria, South Africa.
Zhang, Z., et al., 2003. Evaluation of the pavement structural condition at
network level using falling weight deflectometer (FWD) data.
Transportation research board, 82ndAnnual MeetingWashington, D.C.
Zhou, L, 2014. Temperature correction factor for pavement moduli back-
calculated from falling weight deflectometer test. CICTP 2014: Safe,
Smart, and Sustainable Multimodal Transportation Systems. In:
Jianming Ma et al. (eds.) 14th COTA International Conference of
Transportation Professionals, July 4–7, Changsha.