Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

The influence of moisture content and compaction level on LWD modulus of T

unbound granular base layers
⁎
A. Kavussi , M. Qorbaninik, A. Hassani
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Resilient behavior of Unbound Granular Material (UGM), as defined with stiffness modulus, is considered to be
Unbound granular material one of the major parameters in pavement analysis. This itself is affected by several other factors.
LWD In this research, the effects of compaction level, moisture content and stress state were investigated on UGM
Response surface method resilient behavior using a Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD). For each of these parameters, three levels were
Compaction
selected. Response Surface Method (RSM) was applied and based on the results 17 test designs were determined.
Moisture
The results showed good correlation between stiffness modulus and compaction level, moisture content,
compaction-moisture interaction and stress state (drop weight of LWD in this research) at 90% significant level
with R2 of 0.99. This model was more accurate than the reported models in the literature. The interaction
between the effects of compaction and moisture on LWD modulus could be seen in model terms (i.e. compac-
tion × moisture parameter). With regard to the effect of stress state it was resulted that the increased LWD
weight (i.e. drop weight + instrument weight) resulted in increased LWD modulus values.

Introduction in two modes; namely, elastoplastic behavior in response to loading and

Traditional procedures for quality control of pavement construction
include a variety of laboratory and field testing methods that measure
volumetric and mechanical properties of pavement materials. Recently,
non-destructive testing (NDT) methods, such as laser detectors, ground-
penetrating radar (GPR), falling weight deflectometers (FWD), penet-
rometers, infrared and seismic technologies have been used for eva-
luation of pavements. These have shown to be efficient in quality
control of pavement construction stages too [1].
These test method, compared with destructive testing methods have
two major advantages. First, in non-destructive tests, pavement layers
are undisturbed; whereas in destructive testing methods materials are
transported to the laboratory. Second, non-destructive tests are often
quick and cost-effective, minimizing disruptions in traffic flow and re-
quire less time for evaluation.
In most of the flexible pavement design methods, the focus is on
bituminous layers and less attention is paid to other layers such as base
and subbase. These lower layers are often composed of unbound
granular materials (UGM), are usually intended to reduce traffic in-
duced stresses on subgrades. The load bearing capacity of UGM is due
to the shear strength of the aggregates interlocking.
When cyclic loading is applied, UGM are subjected to deformation
unloading conditions imposed by traffic loads. The elastic (i.e. re-
coverable) and plastic (i.e. permanent) deformations may be observed
in loading-unloading cycles, described with the aid of shakedown
theory Werkmeister et al. [2,3].
UGM characterization which is measured in terms of resilient
modulus (MR), is a main input for pavement design in Mechanistic-
Empirical AASHTO Guidance. MR is obtained by conducting repeated
load triaxial testing, applied as described in AASHTO T-307 Protocol. In
order to control the quality of UGM layers, in-situ testing could be
applied.
Several studies have been conducted to develop dynamic stiffness
measuring devices that can quickly measure the in-situ stiffness of un-
bound pavement layers [4,5]. One of the most reliable in-situ testing
methods that determine dynamic impact response of unbound layers is
LWD test [4].
LWD testing method is similar to a plate-bearing type test method.
In this test however, the load is a force pulse generated by a falling
weight dropping onto a buffer system that transmits the load pulse
through a plate resting on the pavement layer. The resulting deflections
are measured at the center of the applied load. deflections can also be
measured at various distances from the loading point. Deflections
measured can be used to determine stiffness of unbound pavement

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kavussia@modares.ac.ir (A. Kavussi), M.Qorbani@modares.ac.ir (M. Qorbaninik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100252
Received 26 August 2018; Received in revised form 9 June 2019; Accepted 10 June 2019
Available online 13 June 2019
2214-3912/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Kavussi, et al.
Moisture (%): 3
Moisture (%): 6
Moisture (%): 9
Fig. 1. Combinations of different factor levels in RSM.
surfaces by performing back calculation or forward analysis of the data.
The commonly used method for extracting modulus from LWD test
results is derived from the theory of a homogeneous, isotropic, linear
elastic half-space subjected to a static load applied over a circular area.
Eq. (1) was used as a forward calculation method to determine LWD
modulus [6]:
2(1 − ϑ2) P
E=
π·a·D0 (1)
In this equation E is the LWD modulus value (MPa), f is the shape factor
( f = 1.8 assumed), P is the applied force on the loading plate (N), D0 is
the deflection at center of loading point (mm), a is radius of loading
plate (mm) and ϑ is Poisson’s ratio (ϑ = 0.35 assumed throughout). In
LWD analysis, the peak applied force and displacement are extracted
from the measured time histories to determine LWD modulus.
Some studies (e.g. [7–9]) attempted to correlate LWD modulus va-
lues to laboratory measured resilient modulus values. Values in these
correlations and the UGM characteristics that can affect modulus va-
lues, are displayed as variables of the correlation equation. These
characteristics are limited into the following three major factors [10]:
– Factors Related to Soil Physical State such as moisture content, dry
density, saturation degree and temperature in freezing and thawing
cycles.
– Factors Related to State of Stress such as bulk stress; and,
– Factors Related to Structure/Type of Materials such as gradation
and particle size distribution and shape.
The effects of the above factors on resilient modulus of UGM, de-
termined in triaxial testing are expressed in previous research models.
Mohammad et al. [11] indicated that stress level is the most significant
factor that affects resilient modulus of UGM. Other studies on the ef-
fects of compaction found that resilient modulus increased as a result of
increased compaction level [8,12]. In previous investigations of the
effects of aggregate gradation, no general trend was observed regarding
the influence of fines (i.e. passing sieve #200) on MR response [13].
Other studies showed that the resilient modulus is greatly affected by
the change in moisture content [14–18].
Among these factors, compaction and moisture have major effects
on UGM modulus. Increased moisture results in reduced modulus. In
fact, moisture has two adverse effects: first, it can affect the state of
2
Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252
stress through suction or pore water pressure, and second, it can affect
structure of the soil, through destruction of cementation between soil
particles. Furthermore, at low moisture contents, a lower compaction
will yield to a lower MR. The relationship is reversed in high moisture
content samples [19].
Objective
Investigations performed on the effects of the above-mentioned
parameters on UGM modulus, showed that there are interactions be-
tween moisture, compaction and stress state.
Although many researchers have investigated the effects of UGM
properties on resilient modulus (MR) as determined in triaxial testing,
few researches have worked using LWD. Most studies conducted with
LWD have been designed to investigate the effect of a variable on the
modulus and to keep other variables constant. This method does not
consider the effect of the interaction of variables on the modulus. The
Response Surface Method (RSM) method, taking into account different
levels for the variables, examines the overall impact of different para-
meters on the response variable (modulus) [20].
The main objective of this study was to develop statistical models in
order to explore relationship between LWD modulus as independent
variable and moisture, compaction and stress state (i.e. drop weight in
LWD test) as dependent variables. Another innovation of this study was
to investigate interaction between these parameters as effective para-
meters on LWD modulus.
Response surface method
A statistic model can be applied to model relationship between
various effective parameters on UGM LWD modulus. In this research,
RSM was used to investigate the combining effects of compaction,
moisture and drop mass as stress state parameters. The effects of three
parameters containing moisture, compaction and stress state (i.e. drop
mass in LWD test) as dependent variables were investigated conducting
LWD test on UGM.
Central Composite Design (CCD) were determined in order to in-
vestigate the effects of the above three parameters using RSM and 17
experimental runs (in the design matrix) were applied using MINITAB
software (Release 18.1). Fig. 1 displays combinations of the different
factor levels. Fifteen experimental runs were considered according to
A. Kavussi, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

Fig. 1. Experimental runs, as repetitive data, were considered at com- 100

paction: 92% MDD, moisture content: 6% and drop mass: 15 kg. As
shown in Eq. (2), a quadratic polynomial regression model was applied
to predict the response parameters in terms of the three independent Variable
80
variables chosen in this research: Upper Limit
Test Material

Percent Passing (%)

4 4 3 4 Lower Limit
Y = b0 + ∑ bi Xi + ∑ bii Xi2 + ∑ ∑ bij Xi Xj 60
i=1 i=1 i=1 j=i+1 (2)

In this equation, Y is the response variable (which in this study is LWD 40

modulus) and b0, bi, bii, and bij are constant coefficients of intercept,
linear, quadratic and interaction terms, respectively [21]. Xi and Xj
represent the independent variables (witch in this study are moisture, 20
compaction and drop mass). The experiments were performed in five
replicates and were conducted in a randomized order to avoid sys-
tematic bias. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed in order to 0
evaluate the statistical significance of the model, as well as the effect of 0.075 0.425 2.36 4.75 9.5 25
linear, quadratic and interactive terms and the models were used to Sieve Size (mm)
predict LWD modulus.
Proposed levels for each factor were set according to the results of Fig. 2. Gradation curve and Passing sieve limits of the UGM.
AASTHO T 180 test, calculation of saturation degree from volumetric
characterizations of UGM and also, possible conditions for base layer in
the field, so that a typical range of compaction and moisture would be
covered.

Experimental works

A large test box (1530 * 1530 * 700 mm) was built in the laboratory.
This was rigid enough to enable adequate compaction of UGM layers.
Based on a previous research work, the minimum distance between
sides of the LWD loading plate and the wall of the box has to be 150 mm
according to two empirical works [22,23]. Based on modeling of LWD
dynamic loading on a granular material with finite difference software
(FLAC) in which drop mass = 15 kg, drop height = 500 mm, loading
plate radius = 150 mm, the boundary condition is considered as ver- Fig. 3. Optimum moisture content of UGM based on AASTHO T-180 Standard
tical displacement at the side of the box and fixed at the bottom and and contours of several different LWD modulus values for 10 kg drop mass.
materials characteristics as sandy gravel were considered, Rafiei et al.
[24] indicated that displacements beyond 550 mm distance from the Table 1
loading plate center would considerably be reduced. Therefore, con- Mechanical properties of the applied aggregates.
sidering 150 mm as loading plate radius and the similar conditions with
Test Standard Value (%) Specification limit for
Rafiei's research, the minimum distance between the side of the loading
base layer (%)
plate and the wall of the box would be 400 mm [24]. Previous re-
searchers [25–27] indicated that the effective depth of LWD has to be LA abrasion loss AASHTO T96 19 < 45
1.2–1.4 times of the LWD plate diameter. Hence, UGM thickness in the Sand equivalent AASHTO 49 > 40
T176
test box was considered 400 mm when a 300 mm diameter LWD plate is
Liquid limit AASHTO T90 NA < 25
used. Therefore, in this research in accordance with previous research Plastic Limit AASHTO T89 NP <4
of the author, the box sizes were considered to be Sodium sulphate AASHTO 2.24 < 12
1530 mm × 1530 mm × 700 mm. soundness T104

Material Compactions at different moisture contents

LWD tests were conducted on base material with a typical gradation
(type E base according to Iran Highway Specifications Code) [28].
Gradation curve and the passing sieve limits are shown in Fig. 2. The
optimum moisture content and maximum dry density were determined
following Modified Proctor test (AASTHO T 180). Fig. 3 shows the
optimum moisture content and contours of several different LWD
modulus values for 10 kg drop mass (refer to Section ‘Moisture-com-
paction interaction’).
Based on Modified Proctor testing results maximum dry density of
2.12 Mg/m3 at optimum moisture content of approximately 6% was
obtained. Physical testing results of UGM and the other volumetric
characteristics of UGM are reported in Tables 1 and 2.
After determining maximum dry density and optimum moisture
contents with following AASTHO T-180 procedure, UGM was com-
pacted at different moisture contents according to RSM design. In order
to achieve high precisions with density and moisture levels, designed by
RSM, initial tests were conducted. Compaction of UGM inside the box
was performed using an electric jackhammer with a modified flat plate
attachment of 310 × 310 mm size. This compactor was 32 kg weight
with 75 J impact force and 1032 impact per minute. Prior to selecting
the thickness of each layer, layers with different thicknesses were
compacted using the jackhammer. Based on the obtained compaction, it
was concluded that the thickness of 200 mm for each layer was the most
practical. UGM layers were compacted in two layers, 200 mm thick

3
A. Kavussi, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

Table 2
Intristic properties of coarse and fine aggregates.
Aggregate size Standard method Specific Gravity (g/cm3) Water absorption (%)

Apparent Bulk

Retained on 4.75 mm (No. 4) ASTM C127 2.66 2.52 2.2

Passing 4.75 mm and retained on 0.075 mm ASTM C128 2.67 2.50 2.5
Passing0.075 mm (No. 200) AASHTO T100 – 2.61 –
Bulk specific gravity on blended aggregate 2.52

each, at different moisture contents according to RSM design. It was

observed that compaction timing for a determined compaction level at
6% moisture content, was less than that at 3% and 9% moistures. With
predicting compaction time range, an experimental design was per-
formed using RSM to achieve pre-determined accurate compaction le-
vels for all layers. Eqs. (3)–(5) display the achieved compaction levels
versus the first and second layers compaction timing at three different
moisture levels.
C = 66.5 + 0.3056t1 + 0.6719t2 Moisture : 3% (3)

C = 78.21 + 0.2831t1 + 0.4792t2 Moisture : 6% (4)

C = 76.13 + 0.2061t1 + 0.4967t2 Moisture : 9% (5)

where C is the compaction level in total layers (%), t1 and t2 is the first
and second layer compaction time (s) respectively for each point under
jackhammer compactor (totally 25 points according to the dimensions
of the box and jackhammer). From these predictive models, the com-
paction times calculated for both layers are reported in Table 3. It
should be noted that the infinity points could be considered according
to Eqs. (3)–(5) in which compaction time for the second layer is as-
sumed to be between two to five seconds more than that of the first
layer.
However, it should be noted that these conditions of compaction
may not be imparted to the soil in its long term performance when it
Fig. 4. Layout of LWD testing points and layers thickness measurement pattern.
will be subjected to various moisture levels during the service life of the
pavement.
LWD testing was performed at 5 points as shown in Fig. 4 in order
Testing procedure point 1 to point 5 (with five repetitions at each point after three trial
drops). According to the variable weights designed by RSM, this test
After determining the compaction timing at different scenarios, dry was carried out using 3 weights 10, 15 and 20 kg respectively (first
UGM in specified weight as the first layer (200 mm thickness) was 10 kg, then 15 kg and 20 kg).
poured into the test box and was moistened to the required moisture
level. Compaction process was performed at determined times ac-
cording to Table 3 data (Fig. 5a). In order to control the achieved Experimental model
compaction, layer thicknesses at 25 point with a definite pattern ac-
cording to the layout in Fig. 4 were measured (Fig. 5b). This operation Table 4 demonstrates the values of the response parameters (mod-
was conducted for the second 200 mm thick layer and the achieved ulus) calculated in RSM method at each of the 17 combinations of
compactions in total layers (400 mm thick) was calculated based on the parameter levels. Each value is the average of five modulus values that
average thickness of the layers. were measured according to Fig. 4 layout and therefore 85 modulus
values are considered in the regression model. The results of ANOVA
Table 3 are reported in Table 5. The regressions have low P values (P < 0.1)
Predicted compaction timing of the two layers for each point according to Eqs. and the lack of fit of the models is not significant (P > 0.1). This could
(3)–(5). be a good indication of suitability of the models resulting from the
reasons given previously.
Moisture (%) Compaction (%) First layer Second layer
compaction time (s) compaction time (s)
Eq. (6) shows the fitted model of the modulus values based on in-
dependent variables. This equation predicts the LWD modulus ac-
3 87 19 22 cording to normalized moisture content (MC/OMC), compaction level
92 24 27 and normalized drop mass of LWD. According to Table 5 data, all three
97 29 32
linear terms are significant at 90% confidence level; whereas interactive
6 87 9 13 terms, except (compaction × moisture content) are insignificant at 90%
92 15 20
confidence level. Also, all three squared terms are insignificant at 90%
97 23 26
confidence level.
9 87 14 16
92 19 24
97 26 31

4
A. Kavussi, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

a)Compaction b)Thickness layer measuring c)LWD Testing

Fig. 5. Experimental operation steps.

LWD Modulus Table 5

= −718.7 + 9.334 × C + 442.38 × MC / OMC + 8.77 × D /10 − 5.6298 ANOVA data for parameters of the model.

× C × MC / OMC (6) Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

where C is compaction level (%), MC/OMC is moisture content divided Model 4 19480.1 4870.0 297.02 0.000
optimum moisture content and D/10 is drop mass of LWD divided by Linear 3 17895.5 5965.2 363.81 0.000
Compaction 1 3431.4 3431.4 209.28 0.000
standard drop mass (10 kg).
Moisture 1 14271.8 14271.8 870.42 0.000
Def.Weight 1 192.4 192.4 11.73 0.008
Moisture-compaction interaction 2-Way Interaction 1 1584.6 1584.6 96.64 0.000
Compaction * Moisture 1 1584.6 1584.6 96.64 0.000
Error 12 196.8 16.4 – –
Figs. 6–8 present contour plots of LWD modulus against in-
Lack-of-Fit 10 175.5 17.6 1.65 0.435
dependent parameters. In each contour, two parameters are considered Pure Error 2 21.2 10.6 – –
as variables in vertical and horizontal axes and the other parameter is Total 16 19676.8 – – –
fixed in three modes of RSM design levels. LWD modulus is also shown R2 99.00
in 10 color-steps based on its value. In Fig. 6a, the sensitivity of LWD
modulus to the increased compaction is greater than in Fig. 6b. This
sensitivity (Fig. 6b) is greater than that in Fig. 6c. As a result, with to moisture variations is low. It increases at higher compaction levels.
increasing moisture content, the effect of compaction variations on
LWD modulus decreases. In Fig. 7a, sensitivity of LWD modulus to Comparison with other studies
moisture content variations is lower than that of Fig. 7b. This sensitivity
(Fig. 7b) is lower than that in Fig. 7c. This indicates that as compaction Fig. 9a shows the trend of the LWD modulus based on compaction at
increases, the effect of moisture content variations on LWD modulus different levels of moisture content based on Eq. (6). As shown in this
increases. Fig. 8 depicts the effect of the interaction between moisture figure, the relationship between LWD modulus and compaction is clo-
content and compaction on LWD modulus. In all the three modes of the sely related to moisture content of the UGM material. The regression
drop masses (i.e. 10, 15 and 20 kg) at low moisture content, sensitivity curve based on Seed et al. studies [10] on subgrade materials using
of LWD modulus to compaction variations is high. It decreases at high triaxial testing (Fig. 9b) has a similar behavior to Fig. 9a. This indicates
moisture contents (practically at moisture greater than the optimum adaptation of the fitted model in this study to Seed et al. results. Ac-
moisture content). At lower compactions, the LWD modulus sensitivity cording to these figures, at low moisture contents, a lower compaction

Table 4
Central composite design arrangement and responses.
Run Independent parameters Response parameter

Compaction (%) Moisture (%) Drop weight (kg) degree of Saturation Modulus (MPa) (average of five testing Standard deviation of modulus (MPa)
points) (N = 25)

1 87 3 10 0.20 80.35 3.79

2 97 3 10 0.33 146.24 7.30
3 87 9 10 0.61 30.18 0.50
4 97 9 10 0.98 38.42 0.93
5 87 3 20 0.20 88.09 1.39
6 97 3 20 0.33 148.20 5.75
7 87 9 20 0.61 42.56 0.62
8 97 9 20 0.98 47.73 0.72
9 87 6 15 0.41 53.33 1.37
10 97 6 15 0.66 99.16 4.07
11 92 3 15 0.25 120.35 7.69
12 92 9 15 0.76 46.56 1.14
13 92 6 10 0.51 70.14 1.38
14 92 6 20 0.51 82.61 4.01
15 92 6 15 0.51 75.19 2.47
16 92 6 15 0.51 72.45 1.61
17 92 6 15 0.51 78.94 1.83

5
A. Kavussi, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

20
LWD
Modulus
(MPa)
18
< 60.0
60.0 – 80.0
80.0 – 100.0
Drop mass(kg)

16 100.0 – 120.0
120.0 – 140.0
> 140.0

14
Hold Values:
Compaction(%): 97
12

10
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Moisture(%)

c) Constant compaction: 97%

Fig. 7. Contour plots of LWD Modulus vs drop mass and moisture levels.

Fig. 6. Contour plots of LWD Modulus vs drop mass and compaction at 3

moisture levels.
will yield to a lower MR. The relationship is reversed in high moisture
content [19].
Empirical model fitted in this study is compared with two same
previous studies conducted by Kavussi et al. [28] and Steinert et al.
[29]. In both of these studies, a laboratory box was used to carry out
LWD tests on UGM materials under different moisture and compaction
conditions. Table 6 shows the models of the two previous studies to-
gether with the model drawn in this study. According to Table 6, the
independent parameters in the Steinert and Kavussi models contain two
parameters (moisture content and compaction) but the fitted model in
this study, in addition to the two parameters, has drop mass and
compaction × moisture as an independent parameter. The determina-
tion coefficient of the Steinert Model is 0.53 and that of Kavussi Model
is 0.73, while the proposed model has a determination coefficient of
0.99. This shows a very high compliance with the data measured in the
experiments. The Steinert Model is applicable only in the case of 20 kg
drop mass and the Kavussi Model when using a 15 kg drop mass, but the
proposed model can be used in all the three cases of 10, 15, and 20 kg.
Also, applying Eq. (6) to the data that the Steinert and Kavussi
models were based on, Resulted in determination coefficients of 0.58
with Steinert data and 0.52 with Kavussi data.
Model validation
Validation of the model was verified with more data from identical

6
A. Kavussi, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

9 Effect of stress state

LWD
Modulus
8 (MPa) LWD tests were conducted applying 10, 15 and 20 kg drop mass. 15
< 40.0
40.0 – 60.0 tests were carried out according to the RSM design (Table 4). In addi-
7 60.0 – 80.0 tion, 12 other tests (rows 25–36 of Table 7) were added in order to
80.0 – 100.0
Moisture(%)

100.0 – 120.0
accomplish full factors mode of three independent parameters
6 > 120.0 (15 + 12 = 33). The results indicated that LWD modulus increased as a
Hold Values:
result of increased drop mass, as it is shown in Fig. 11. In calculation
5 Drop mass(kg): 10 the LWD modulus (Eq. (1)), the deflection (D0) that is proportional to
the strain, is in the denominator and the applied force (P) which is
4
proportional to the stress, is in the numerator. With increasing drop
weight of LWD, both the force and the deflection are increased. How-
ever, based on the results, the increase in applied force is greater than
3
88 90 92 94 96 the resulted deflection. Hence, with increasing drop weight, the in-
Compaction(%) crease of the LWD modulus will be more pronounced.
a) Constant drop mass: 10 kg In LWD testing, with applying heavier drop mass, the instrument
9 weight and therefore the confining stresses were increased. Logically,
LWD
the greater confinement, the greater would be the UGM modulus. A
Modulus
8 (MPa) common model that can quantify the effects of confinement on the
< 40 UGM modulus is the Kondner Model [13]. According to this model, the
40 – 60
7 modulus is proportional to a power law of the confinement stress. If the
60 – 80
Moisture(%)

80 – 100 weight of LWD (instrument and drop weight) is in proportion with the
100 – 120 confinement stress; with using Eq. (7), the secondary modulus derived
6
120 – 140
from the instrument weight variations can be determined from the
> 140
primary modulus:
5
Hold Values:
Drop mass(kg): 15 W2 a
E2 = k ( ) E1
4 W1 (7)
In this equation, “k” and “a” are constant coefficients, E1 − E2 and
3
88 90 92 94 96 W1 − W2 are respectively primary-secondary modulus and primary-
Compaction(%) secondary instrument weight.
The weight of LWD instrument without drop mass is 12 kg and
b) Constant drop mass: 15 kg
therefore when 10 kg, 15 kg and 20 kg drop masses were used, the in-
strument weights were 22, 27 and 32 kg, respectively.
Based on the primary modulus, the secondary modulus was calcu-
lated using Eq. (7) for 27 testing modes. Results from SPSS software
showed that the least-square differences between the calculated and the
measured values will be minimized, when “k = 1” and “a = 0.382”.
Fig. 12 indicates a suitable correlation between the measured modulus
and that calculated from Eq. (7) (i.e. R2 = 0.985). According to Kavussi
et al. research [28], coefficients in Equation (7) were “a = 0.966” and
“k = 1”. This discrepancy might be due to confining stresses in this
study. In fact, previous studies were conducted in the field and there-
fore test conditions were different. In this study due to the box walls,
the lateral and the confining stresses were increased and the ratio of the
increase was not proportional to the increased drop mass ratio.

Effects of degree of saturation

According to previous studies, in addition to compaction degree and

Fig. 8. Contour plots of LWD Modulus vs. moisture and compaction levels.
aggregate and gradation. Table 7 shows the results of the modulus
measured with different conditions of compaction, moisture content,
drop mass and degree of saturation that is measured in 36 different
modes, except those in Table 4. Fig. 10a shows the measured modulus
against the calculated modulus of Eq. (6) for the outside range data and
Fig. 10b shows this relationship for the within range data. The com-
paction levels were between 87% and 97% and moisture contents were
between 3% and 9%. “Outside range” and “within range” refer to these
ranges. The correlation coefficient for the outside range data is 0.94 and
for the within range data is 0.985. In other words, the fitted model is
highly predictable for UGMs within the initial assumed range in DOE
for compaction and moisture content. In contrast, the outside range is
less accurate.
moisture content, the degree of saturation also affects UGM modulus.
The use of all the three parameters is incorrect as predictors in a model
(due to redundancy) [10].
In this study, compaction and moisture content parameters were
selected as independent variables because, in field studies with the
purpose of quality control of granular layers, compaction levels and
moisture contents are more prevalent parameters that have been
monitored. However, it is possible to monitor the degree of saturation
in addition to the compacted dry density.
Fig. 13, based on 51 data in this research, shows contour plot of
LWD based on degree of saturation and compaction. According to this
figure, increased degree of saturation generally results in lower LWD
modulus. This behavior varies at different compaction degrees. At low
compaction levels, the sensitivity of LWD modulus to saturation degree
is low. In contrast, with increased compaction, this sensitivity increases.
For example, for a constant compaction of 85% of MDD, an increase in

7
A. Kavussi, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

Fig. 9. influence of compaction efforts on modulus results at different moisture contents.

saturation degree from 0.2 to 0.9 would reduce the modulus from 63 to Table 7
5 MPa (58 MPa decrease), while in a constant compaction of 96%, an additional runs for model validation.
increase in saturation from 0.2 to 0.9 leads to decrease in modulus of Run Independent parameters Response
106 MPa (from 167 MPa to 51 MPa). parameter
Fig. 13 is approximately the same as Fig. 8. However, in Fig. 8, the
sensitivity of the LWD modulus to moisture content is dependent on Compaction (%) Moisture (%) Drop degree of Modulus
weight Saturation (MPa)
compaction level, but in Fig. 13, this sensitivity to the degree of sa-
(kg) (average of
turation is not dependent on compaction level. This comparison is five testing
consistent with the researches by Tatsuoka and Correia [30] and Tat- points)
suoka [31], which indicate that the degree of saturation is the funda-
1 90.3 1.76 10 0.14 126.8
mental parameter that describes physical properties of compacted soil
2 90.3 1.76 15 0.14 131.54
better than moisture content. 3 90.3 1.76 20 0.14 137.27
4 90.3 4.8 10 0.38 79.2
Conclusions 5 90.3 4.8 15 0.38 82.49
6 90.3 4.8 20 0.38 87.21
7 90.3 7.1 10 0.56 56.27
From the experimental works and the statistical analysis of the 8 90.3 7.1 15 0.56 62.06
testing results, the following conclusions could be drawn: 9 90.3 7.1 20 0.56 63.65
10 90.3 10.7 10 0.84 24.77
1. Based on the fitted model from LWD modulus results, all the three 11 90.3 10.7 15 0.84 32.51
12 90.3 10.7 20 0.84 36.9
linear terms (i.e. compaction level, moisture content and drop mass)
13 83.4 1.94 10 0.11 48.07
and compaction × moisture term were significant at 90% con- 14 83.4 1.94 15 0.11 54.22
fidence level. Correlation coefficient of the model was 0.99 and lack 15 83.4 1.94 20 0.11 59.14
of fit of the model was 0.435, resulting in significant confidence 16 83.4 5.3 10 0.31 36.47
level of 90%. 17 83.4 5.3 15 0.31 39.02
18 83.4 5.3 20 0.31 44.57
2. Basically, increased moisture and decreased compaction levels re- 19 83.4 8.2 10 0.48 22.24
sulted in reduced modulus values. However, these parameters in- 20 83.4 8.2 15 0.48 25.33
teract between each other to affect the modulus. At low moisture 21 83.4 8.2 20 0.48 31.54
content levels of below optimum moisture content, sensitivity of 22 83.4 11.8 10 0.69 7.25
23 83.4 11.8 15 0.69 10.97
LWD modulus to compaction variations was high. It decreased at
24 83.4 11.8 20 0.69 14.01
high moisture contents (i.e. above the optimum moisture content), 25 87 3 15 0.20 85.41
but the modulus values were low. At lower compaction levels, 26 87 6 10 0.41 48.54
sensitivity of LWD modulus to moisture variations was low. It in- 27 87 6 20 0.41 57.25
creased at higher compaction levels. 28 87 9 15 0.61 37.83
29 92 3 10 0.25 110.25
3. In validating the model with additional data, the correlation coef- 30 92 3 20 0.25 127.81
ficient for the outside range data was 0.94 and for the within range 31 92 9 10 0.76 41.94
data was 0.985. In other words, the fitted model for the within range 32 92 9 20 0.76 50.18
data was highly predictable for UGM. In contrast, for outside range 33 97 3 15 0.33 148.01
34 97 6 10 0.66 92.54
data, that was slightly less accurate.
35 97 6 20 0.66 104.2
4. The results of studying the effect of stress state on the modulus 36 97 9 15 0.98 43.94
showed that the use of heavier drop mass caused a relatively in-
creased measurement of modulus caused by the dead weight of the

Table 6
Comparison between this model and the previous models.
Research Regression Model R2 N Drop weight used (kg)

Steinert et al. [29] ELWD = 39.1 + 160 × C − 1060 × MC 0.53 145 20

Kavussi et al. [28] ELWD = 74.7 + 281 × C − 1690 × MC 0.73 37 15
This study E _LWD = −718.7 + 9.334 × C + 442.38 × MC /OMC + 8.77 × D/10 − 5.6298 × C × MC /OMC 0.99 85 10, 15 and 20

C: Compaction (%), MC: Moisture content (%), OMC: Optimum moisture content (%) and D: Drop mass (kg).

8
A. Kavussi, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252

140 150

120
Ec=Em
Ec=Em

Measured Modulus "Em" (MPa)

Measured Modulus "Em" (MPa)

125 R2=0.985
100
R2=0.94
80 100

60
75

40

20 50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 50 75 100 125 150
Calculated Modulus "Ec" (MPa) Calculated Modulus "Ec" (MPa)

a) Outside range data b) Within range data

Fig. 10. Validation of the model by correlating calculated and measured modulus results.

160
LWD
0.9 Modulus
140
< 40.0
0.8 40.0 – 60.0
120 60.0 – 80.0
LWD Modulus (MPa)

0.7 80.0 – 100.0

100 100.0 – 120.0

Saturation
0.6 120.0 – 140.0
80 > 140.0
0.5
60

0.4
40
Dropping mode
Compaction:87%-Moisture content:3% 0.3
Compaction:97%-Moisture content:3%
20
10 15 Compaction:87%-Moisture content:9% 20
Drop Mass (kg)
Compaction:97%-Moisture content:9% 0.2
Compaction:87%-Moisture content:6%
Compaction:97%-Moisture content:6%
Compaction:92%-Moisture content:3%
Compaction:92%-Moisture content:9%
85.0 87.5 90.0 92.5 95.0
Compaction (%)
Fig. 11. LWD Modulus versus drop mass at 9 dropping modes.
Fig. 13. Contour plot of LWD Modulus vs. Saturation and compaction.

References
160

Ec=Em
140 [1] Von Quintus HL, Minchin RE, Nazarian S, Maser KR. NDT Technology for Quality
Calculatesd modulus "Em" (MPa)

R2=0.985 Assurance of HMA Pavement Construction. NCHRP Report 626, WASHINGTON D.C.
120 ; 2009.
[2] Werkmeister S, Dawson A, Wallner F. Permanent deformation behavior of granular
100 material and the shakedown concept, transportation research record 1757. J Transp
Res Board 2001:75–81.
80 [3] Badakhshan E, Noorzad A, Bouazza A, Zameni S. Predicting the behavior of un-
bound granular materials under repeated loads based on the compact shakedown
60 state. Transp Geotech 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.05.001.
[4] Tamrakar P, Nazarian S. Evaluation of Plate load based testing approaches in
40
measuring stiffness parameters of pavement bases. Transp Geotech 2018. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.06.005.
20
[5] Marecos V, Solla M, Fontul S, Antunes V. Assessing the pavement subgrade by
50 75 100 125 150 175 combining different non-destructive methods. Constr Build Mater 2017;135:76–85.
Measured modulus "Em" (MPa) [6] Kumar R, Adigopula Jr VK, Guzzarlapudi SD. Stiffness-based quality control eva-
luation of modified subgrade soil using lightweight deflectometer. J Mater Civ Eng
2017;29(9):04017137.
Fig. 12. Correlation between the calculated and measured modulus results. [7] Fleming PR, Frost MW, Lambert J. A review of the light weight deflectometer (LWD)
for routine in-situ assessment of pavement material stiffness, transportation re-
search board meeting. National Research Council Washington D.C; 2007.
[8] Gudishala R. Development of resilient modulus prediction models for base and
equipment. This relationship between dead weight of the equipment
subgrade pavement layers from in-situ devices test results M.S. Thesis. Baton Rouge:
and measured modulus was exponential to the power of 0.382. Louisiana State University; 2004.
5. An increase in the degree of saturation resulted in a decrease in the [9] George KP. Portable FWD (PRIMA 100) for in-situ subgrade evaluation. Final report.
LWD modulus. Unlike the moisture content, this trend of behavior Mississippi Department of Transportation; 2006.
[10] National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical
does not vary noticeably at different compaction levels, in that the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Appendix DD-1,
changing rate of the LWD modulus by changes in the saturation Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.; 2000.
degree is not dependent of compaction level. [11] Mohammad LN, Puppala A, Alavalli P. Effect of strain measurements on resilient
modulus of granular soils, dynamic geotechnical testing, second volume. ASTM STP
1213. ASTM; 1994. p. 202–21.
[12] Titi HH, Tabatabai H, Faheem A, Tutumluer E, Peters JP. Spatial variability of
Appendix A. Supplementary material compacted aggregate bases. Transp Geotech 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.
2018.06.007.
[13] Briaud JL, Seo B. Intelligent compaction: overview and research needs. Texas: A&M
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// University; 2003.
doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100252. [14] Coronado O, Caicedo B, Taibi S, Correia AG, Souli H, Fleureau J. Effect of water
content on the resilient behavior of non standard unbound granular materials.

9
A. Kavussi, et al.
Transp Geotech 2016;135:29–39.
[15] Andrei D. Development of a harmonized test protocol for the resilient modulus of
unbound materials used in pavement design Master Thesis University of Maryland
at College Park; 1999.
[16] Drumm EC, Rainwater RN, Andrew J, Jackson NM, Yoder RE, Wilson GV. Pavement
response due to seasonal changes in subgrade moisture conditions. Proceedings of
the second int. conf. on unsaturated soils, Beijing, China 1998;vol. 2.
[17] Lekarp F, Isacsson U, Dawson A. State of the art. I: resilient response of unbound
aggregates. ASCE J Transp Eng 2000;126(1):76–83.
[18] Witczak MW, Houston WN, Andrei D. Resilient modulus as function of soil moisture
– a study of the expected changes in resilient modulus of the unbound layers with
changes in moisture for 10 LTPP sites. Development of the 2002 guide for the de-
velopment of new and rehabilitated pavement structures. NCHRP 1-37 A. Inter
Team Technical Report (Seasonal 2); 2000.
[19] Seed HB, Chan CK, Lee CE. Resilience characteristics of subgrade soils and their
relation to fatigue failures in asphalt pavement. Proc. First Int. Conf. on Struct.
Design of Asphalt Pavements. University of Michigan; 1962.
[20] Kavussi A, Qorbani M, Khodaii A, Haghshenas HF. Moisture susceptibility of warm
mix asphalt: a statistical analysis of the laboratory testing results. Constr Build
Mater 2014;52:511–7.
[21] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley
& Sons; 2006.
[22] Nazzal M. Field evaluation of In-situ test technology for QC/QA during construction
of pavement layers and embankments PhD Thesis Louisiana, USA: Louisiana State
10
Transportation Geotechnics 20 (2019) 100252
University; 2003.
[23] Seyman E. Laboratory evaluation of in-situ tests as potential quality control/quality
assurance tools MSc thesis Louisiana, USA: Louisiana State University; 2003.
[24] Rafiei K, Kavussi A, Yasrobi S. Construction quality control of unbound layers based
on stiffness modulus criteria. J Civ Eng Manage 2012;18(1):5–13.
[25] Senseney Christopher T, Grasmick Jacob, Mooney Michael A. Sensitivity of light-
weight deflectometer deflections to layer stiffness via finite element analysis. Can
Geotech J 2015;52(7):961–70.
[26] Mooney MA, Miller PK. Analysis of lightweight deflectometer test based on in situ
stress and strain response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135(2):199–208.
[27] Tirado C, Gamez-Rios KY, Fathi A, Mazari M, Nazarian S. Simulation of lightweight
deflectometer measurements considering nonlinear behavior of geomaterials.
Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board, Transp Res Board Natl Acad 2017;2641:58–65.
[28] Kavussi A, Rafiei K, Yasrebi S. Evaluation of PFWD as potential quality control tool
of pavement layers. J Civ Eng Manage 2010;16(1):123–9.
[29] Steinert BC, Humphrey DN, Kestler MA. Portable falling weight deflectometers for
tracking seasonal stiffness variations in asphalt surfaced roads, Transportation
Research Board Mitting. Washington D.C., USA: National Research Council; 2006.
[30] Tatsuoka F, Correia AG. Importance of controlling the degree of saturation in soil
compaction linked to soil structure design. Transp Geotech 2018;17:3–27.
[31] Tatsuoka F. Compaction characteristics and physical properties of compacted soil
controlled by the degree of saturation, Keynote Lecture, Deformation characteristics
of geomaterials. Proc. of 6th int. conf. on deformation characteristics of geoma-
terials, Buenos Aires. 2015. p. 40–78.