Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Comparative study of the use of FWD and LWD for flexible pavement
evaluation
To cite this article: Siegfried and F Mulyawati 2020 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1517 012031

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 158.46.167.108 on 29/05/2020 at 13:16

BIS-ASE 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1517 (2020) 012031 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012031

Comparative study of the use of FWD and LWD for flexible

pavement evaluation

Siegfried1* and F Mulyawati2

1
Institute of Road Engineering (IRE), Bandung, Indonesia
2
Civil Engineering Department, University of Langlangbuana, Bandung, Indonesia

*E-mail: syafier@gmail.com

Abstract. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is the standard equipment used for the analysis
and evaluation of flexible pavement. The number of this equipment is very limited in Indonesia.
For a country owned 48,000 kms of road it is quite important to have an alternate equipment of
FWD. Institute of Road Engineering (IRE) has performed the Light Weight Deflectometer
(LWD) for the use in low to medium traffic roads for both evaluation and design of overlay. The
study has done to compare these two equipment focusing on three parameters i.e Effective
Structural Number (SNeff), Surface Modulus (Sm) and prediction of Subgrade Modulus (Esg).
There are 15 points tested using FWD and LWD nearly in the same time on the IRE campus that
is classified as low traffic volume road. Each point is then analysed to calculate SNeff, Sm, and
Esg using the deflections derived from both of FWD and LWD tests. The analysis is done by
plotting the parameters calculated from deflections derived from each equipment and then
plotting each other. It is found that the plotting fall around the line of equality. This finding goes
to the conclusion that the use of LWD of IRE version is acceptable to be used for the analysis of
the flexible pavement especially for low to medium traffic.

1. Introduction
The structural evaluation of flexible pavement is mainly based on surface deflection data. The surface
deflection is collected using the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) as mentioned in some pavement
design methods likes AASHTO 1993, Austroad, etc. In Indonesia the number of FWDs are limited to
serve 321,093 kms of total paved road length [1]. That was the main reason why the Institute of Road
Engineering (IRE) carried out the research of Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) in the fiscal years of
2012 and 2013 [2], [3]. The other reason is that Indonesia is an archipelago country that consists of
many islands where it is quite impossible to transport the FWDs from Java’s island to the remote islands
especially in the Eastern parts of Indonesia.
The LWD developed by IRE is a little bit different to that of the ordinary one. The ordinary LWD
purposes to use in granular materials, while the IRE’s LWD is for mainly use on the flexible pavement
as an alternative testing equipment for FWD. For it is able to use it on flexible pavement the IRE’s LWD
must have a greater stress level than that of the ordinary one. The maximum stress level of IRE’s LWD
is about 2000 kg or it is half of the standard stress level of FWD [3]. The IRE’s LWD also consists of
3 geophones, while the ordinary one just has a single one [2] . These all configurations are intended to
make the IRE’s LWD can be considered to use it for testing on the flexible pavement.
In the parameter points of view, as an alternative equipment for FWD, the IRE’s LWD should have
the ability to give the similar results as the FWD. There are 3 main parameters to be considered in

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
BIS-ASE 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1517 (2020) 012031 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012031

flexible pavement evaluation i.e. surface modulus (Sm), Effective Structural Number (SNeff), and
prediction of sub grade modulus. The surface modulus is the ‘weighted mean modulus’ of an equivalent
half space of a material [4]. The SNeff is effective structural number of the pavement system to be
overlaid [5].
The paper details the comparative study of those three parameters calculated from the surface
deflection values collecting using FWD and IRE’s LWD that is carried out on the same location of low
to medium traffic roads.

2. Methods
The deflection data used for this paper is collected through both FWD and IRE’s LWD for 15 sites
around the IRE campus. The analysis of SNeff and prediction of subgrade modulus use the formula
provided by AASHTO 1993 [5]. While calculation of Sm uses the formula of One layer theory of
Boussinesq [6]

2.1. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)

The Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is the standard equipment for measuring the surface
deflection of roads using the dynamic loads that simulate the vehicle passing on the road surface. Most
of pavement design methods recommend this type of equipment to collect the deflection that is used for
pavement evaluation and analysis. Commonly a unit of FWD consists of three main parts i.e. an FWD
trailer, processor, and a laptop. Figure 1 shows a unit of FWD of Dynatest version.
As a standard test for structural strength testing, every provincial road authority in Indonesia should
have this equipment in order to run their pavement management systems. The number of FWD is quite
limited in Indonesia. There are only 6 FWDs available in Indonesia where four of them is in Java, 1 unit
is in Sumatera and 1 unit is in Kalimantan island.

2.2. IRE’s Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD)

The IRE’s LWD differs to the ordinary LWD in terms of its stress level, number of geophone, as well
as the load cell. The stress level of IRE’s LWD is about half of standard stress of normal FWD which is
around 580 kPa. The higher stress level is generated by the higher load of IRE’s LWD. This equipment
is mounted with 3 geophones. The geophone records velocity and by single integration calculates the
deflection [7]. The IRE’s LWD has no load cell. There are 5 level of load can be generated by varying
the height of falling weight. The value of load is derived from calibration activity in laboratory using
the standard load cell. Figure 2 shows a unit of IRE’s LWD in operation.

Figure 2. Dynatest falling weight deflecometer Figure 2. IRE’s LWD in operation

2.3. Surface Modulus (Sm)

The surface modulus of a pavement system is calculated using the Boussinesq theory for one layer
system is as follows [4].
𝑎
𝐸𝑜(0) = 2(1 − 𝜇2 )𝜎𝑜 (1)
𝐷0

2
BIS-ASE 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1517 (2020) 012031 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012031

Where Eo(0) is the surface modulus of pavement system tested in psi, µ is the Poisson’s ratio, o is
the surface stress induced by the falling weight in psi, a is the radius of load plate in inches and D0 is
the deflection at the centre of load in inches.

2.4. Effective Structural Number (SNeff)

Effective Structural Number (SNeff) is calculated using the formula of AASHTO 1993 as follows:

𝑆𝑁𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 0.0045 𝐷 3√𝐸𝑝 (2)

Where D is total thickness of pavement system above the subgrade level in inches and Ep is the
effective modulus of pavement layers above the subgrade, psi. The value of Ep is calculated using the
formula below.

1
1−
2
√1+ (𝐷)
1 [ 𝑎 ]
𝑑0 = 1.5𝑝𝑎 + (3)
2 𝐸𝑝
𝐷 3 𝐸𝑝
𝑀𝑟 √1+ ( 𝑎 √𝑀𝑟)

{ }

Where d0 is the deflection at the centre of load in inches, p is the stress in psi, a is the radius of load
plate in inches and Mr is the subgrade modulus in psi.

0.24 𝑃
𝑀𝑟 = (4)
𝑑𝑟 𝑟
Where P is the load applied in pounds, r is the space distance between load and geophone and r is
the deflection in inches. In this study the term of subgrade modulus refers to resilient modulus of
subgrade [8].

3. Results and Discussion

Data collected for 15 points of testing location in the IRE campus using FWD and IRE’s LWD are
shown in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.

Table 1. FWD raw data at 15 points tested

Stress d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6
Point
(kPa) (micron) (micron) (micron) (micron) (micron) (micron) (micron)
1 568 316 226 165 118 90 59 42
2 554 374 291 208 141 105 71 51
3 567 339 265 202 141 106 67 49
4 570 362 267 188 124 93 62 45
5 560 396 294 210 140 99 61 44
6 565 408 284 195 125 89 59 42
7 570 384 270 188 123 86 60 44
8 570 457 308 203 119 85 57 42
9 566 431 303 197 121 86 56 40
10 567 437 307 217 146 106 65 45
11 565 451 319 221 148 108 68 48
12 572 427 298 213 138 99 61 42
13 568 482 352 243 155 106 63 44
14 581 436 305 223 145 99 58 43
15 568 473 323 225 140 97 59 44

3
BIS-ASE 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1517 (2020) 012031 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012031

Table 2. IRE's LWD raw data at 15 points tested

d0 d1 d2
Point
(micron) (micron) (micron)
1 159 111 31
2 177 134 35
3 171 152 33
4 189 143 36
5 184 138 33
6 221 171 35
7 240 145 31
8 283 213 34
9 316 235 30
10 231 148 33
11 259 167 39
12 258 119 52
13 275 198 41
14 246 168 38
15 242 131 31

The spaces of each geophone for FWD are 0 mm, 200 mm, 300 mm, 450 mm, 600 mm, 900 mm and
1500 mm. While the spaces of IRE’s LWD geophones are 0 mm, 200 mm, and 900 mm.

3.1. Surface Modulus (Sm)

Surface modulus is calculated using equation (1) for both data of FWD and IRE’s LWD. The results are
then plotted each other as shown in Figure 3 below.
600.0
Line of Equality
500.0

400.0
Sm FWD

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
Sm LWD

Figure 3. Surface Modulus FWD vs IRE’s LWD

It is found that all the points fall around line of equality. It can be said that the correlation between
surface modulus calculated from FWD and IRE’s LWD deflection are strongly related each other. This
finding can be expressed as that the surface modulus derived from IRE’s LWD test is more or less same
as that of FWD as the standard testing equipment for flexible pavement evaluation.

3.2. Effective Structural Number (SNeff)

This parameter is calculated by equations (2), (3) and (4) for the deflections derived from FWD and
IRE’s LWD testing. The results are then plotted each other as shown in Figure 4.

4
BIS-ASE 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1517 (2020) 012031 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012031

4.0
3.5 line of equality

3.0
SNeff FWD

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
SNeff LWD

Figure 4. SNeff FWDvs IRE’s LWD

Figure 4. shows the plotting of SNeff calculated from deflections data derived from FWD and IRE’s
LWD test. It clearly shows that all of the points fall around the line of equality. It means that there is a
strong correlation between SNeff calculated from deflections of FWD and IRE’s LWD. In other word
if someone tries to make an overlay design using the deflections collected by IRE’s LWD, he will get
the same results if he uses the FWD as the testing equipment.

3.3. Prediction Modulus of Subgrade

Subgrade modulus is calculated using Equation (4) for each point tested by FWD and IRE’s LWD. The
results are then plotted as shown in Figure 5 below.

30000
Line of Equality
25000
Esg FWD (MPa)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Esg LWD (MPa)
Figure 5. Subgrade modulus derived from FWD and IRE’s LWD tests

The subgrade modulus calculated from data FWD and IRE’s LWD commonly fall around the line of
equality. It means that the values of subgrade modulus tested by FWD are more or less same as IRE’s
LWD at the same location.

3.4. Discussion
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is the standard testing equipment used for flexible pavement
evaluations [9]. This equipment is included in some pavement design methods such as AASHTO 1993,
Austroad, Indonesian National Standard, etc. This type equipment seems accepted worldwide as the

5
BIS-ASE 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1517 (2020) 012031 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012031

standard testing equipment. Indonesia as an archipelago country needs an alternate equipment for use in
the remote islands. The IRE’s LWD is proposed for that case.
There are 3 parameters used to use for the evaluation of the flexible pavements i.e. surface modulus,
effective structural numbers as well as subgrade modulus. These three parameters are the basis of the
study. All of these three parameters are calculated using the deflections which are derived from the
testing of both FWD and IRE’s LWD. When we plot the results, it is then found that these three
parameters are strongly related each other.
Especially for the overlay design, the effective structural number is very important [10]. This
parameter shows its existing capacity of pavement tested. It can be said that when gaining deflection
using the IRE’s LWD, they seem valid to use for calculating overlay thickness of flexible pavement.
These three findings can go to the conclusion that the use of IRE’s LWD would be an alternative testing
equipment for the FWD especially for flexible pavement analysis and evaluation.

4. Conclusion
It can be said that the use of IRE’s LWD can be accepted as an alternative equipment for FWD especially
for the analysis and evaluation of flexible pavement for low to medium traffic roads. This is based on
three parameters analysed i.e. surface modulus, effective structural number, as well as subgrade modulus
prediction. For the time being it is just accepted for low to medium traffic roads as the research is done
in this class of road.

References
[1] Central Bureau of Statistic, The Length of Roads According to Surface Type, http://www.bps.go.id,
2019.
[2] Siegfried, Research of Light Weight Deflectometer, Research Report, Institute of Road
Engineering, Bandung, 2012.
[3] Siegfried, Development of Light Weight Deflectometer, Research Report, Institute of Road
Engineering, Bandung, 2013.
[4] F. H. Scrivner, C. H. Michalak, and W. M. Moore, Calculation of the Elastic Moduli of a Two-
Layer Pavement System From Measured Surface Deflection, Highw Res Rec, no. 431, pp. 12–
24, 1973.
[5] AASHTO, AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993. The American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Maryland, 1993.
[6] Transit New Zealand Authority, Pavement Deflection Measurement & Interpretation for the
Design of Rehabilitation, no. 117. 1992.
[7] J. Siekmeirer et al., “Using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer and Light Weight Deflectometer for
Construction Quality Assurance,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, p. MN/RC 2009-
12, 2009.
[8] T. F. Fwa, The Handbook of Highway, CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, New
York, 2006.
[9] Y. H. Huang, Pavement Analysis and Design, vol. 2nd Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Pearson
Education Inc, Upper Saddle River NJ, 2004.
[10] K. Y. Richard and H. Park, Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer Multi-Load Data For Pavement
Strength Estimation. Report No. FHWA/NC/2002-006, no. June, pp. 1–191, 2002.