Ohiou 1275612839

Predicting Flexible Pavement Structural Response Using Falling
Weight Deflectometer Deflections
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Jianfeng Qin
June 2010
© 2010 Jianfeng Qin. All Rights Reserved.

2
This thesis titled
Predicting Flexible Pavement Structural Response Using Falling
Weight Deflectometer Deflections
by
JIANFENG QIN
has been approved for
the Department of Civil Engineering
and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by
Shad M. Sargand
Russ Professor of Civil Engineering
Dennis Irwin
Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

3
ABSTRACT
QIN, JIANFENG, M.S., June 2010, Civil Engineering
Predicting Flexible Pavement Structural Response Using Falling Weight Deflectometer
Deflections (94 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Shad M. Sargand
This thesis presents a model to predict the pavement response using Falling
Weight Deflectometer (FWD) deflection data for asphalt concrete (AC) pavement.
Evercalc 5.0 and Elmod 6.0 were chosen to conduct the backcalculation of pavement
layer moduli using FWD deflections. Everstress 5.0 was used to do the forward
calculation using backcalculated layer moduli. Predicted pavement responses (tensile
strain at the bottom of the AC layer) were compared to the measured pavement responses
from U.S. Route 30 to check the validity and accuracy of the selected prediction model.
The predicted results show a good agreement with the measured responses. A comparison
between FWD and truck load conditions was also conducted. The results show that FWD
can accurately simulate the magnitude and the duration of a moving single wheel load.
Approved: _____________________________________________________________
Shad M. Sargand
Russ Professor of Civil Engineering

4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for my advice, Dr.
Shad M. Sargand for his support, help and guidance during my graduate study. I would
also give my deep appreciation for my committee members Dr. Sang-Soo Kim, Dr.
Deborah McAvoy, and Dr. Gaurav Sinha for their valuable time, help and suggestions. I
would like to thank Issam Khoury and David Beegle for their help on collecting and
analyzing the pavement response data.
Next, I would like to extend thanks to CE graduate students David Keatley, David
Padilla-Llano, Jose Antonio, Aziz Ahmad Gulistani, Abdalla Alrawashdeh, Farid
Momand and Hanxiao. Thanks for their help and accompany during my master’s study. I
also want to thank all professors and classmates who helped me during my study in
Athens.
Finally, I would like to thank the friends I made in Athens. Thank you for
accompanying me through the good and bad times. I also want to express my deep
gratitude to my parents who always loved, supported and encouraged me.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 8
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 12
1.2. Pavement Types and Design .................................................................................. 12
1.3. Objective of the Study ........................................................................................... 14
1.4. Outline ................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 17
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 17
2.2. Flexible Pavements Structural Response Models .................................................. 19
2.2.1. Boussinesq’s equations ................................................................................... 19
2.2.2. Two-layer Theory ........................................................................................... 22
2.2.3. Multi-Layer Theory ........................................................................................ 25
2.2.4. Multi-Layer Computer Programs .................................................................... 27
2.2.5. Finite Element Method ................................................................................... 28
2.3. Summary ................................................................................................................ 29
Chapter 3: Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing and Backcalculation .......................... 30
3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 30
3.2. Falling Weight Deflectometer ............................................................................... 30
3.3. Backcalculation ...................................................................................................... 32

6
3.4. Backcalculation Programs ..................................................................................... 34
3.4.1. Evercalc 5.0..................................................................................................... 34
3.4.2. Modulus 6.0 .................................................................................................... 35
3.4.3 Elmod 6.0 ......................................................................................................... 36
3.5. Summary ................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter 4: Experimental Site – U.S. Route 30 Demonstration Project ............................ 38
4.1. Site Description...................................................................................................... 38
4.2. Introduction of Perpetual Pavement ...................................................................... 40
4.3. Instrumentation Plan of AC Sections..................................................................... 42
Chapter 5: Predict Pavement Response Using FWD Deflections .................................... 48
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 48
5.2. FWD Deflection and Pavement Response Data .................................................... 49
5.3. Backcalculation of Pavement Layer Moduli ......................................................... 50
5.4. Forward Calculation .............................................................................................. 61
5.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 64
Chapter 6: Comparison Between FWD and Truck Loading Conditions .......................... 65
6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 65
6.2. Controlled Load Vehicle Testing ........................................................................... 65
6.3. Comparison of FWD and CLV test ....................................................................... 67
6.3.1. Magnitude of Longitudinal Tensile Strain ...................................................... 67
6.3.2. Response time of Longitudinal Tensile Strain ................................................ 75
6.4. Summary ................................................................................................................ 76
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 78

7
7.1. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 78
7.2. Recommendations .................................................................................................. 79
References ......................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix A: Deflection Data Report .............................................................................. 85
Appendix B: Strain Responses in FWD Tests and CLV tests ......................................... 88
8
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Boussinesq’s equations for a concentrated load (Ullidta, 1998). ..................... 21
Table 2.2 Multi-layer Computer Programs ....................................................................... 28
Table 4.1 Perpetual Pavement Built-Up (Liao, 2007) ...................................................... 40
Table 4.2 Pavement Data Acquisition Instrumentation .................................................... 43
Table 5.1 Typical ranges of resilient modulus and Poisson’s ratio. ................................. 52
Table 5.2 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Evercalc 5.0. ................................... 53
Table 5.3 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Elmod 6.0 FEM. ............................. 54
Table 5.4 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Elmod 6.0 LET. .............................. 55
Table 5.5 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Elmod 6.0 MET.............................. 56
Table 5.6 Predicted and measured strain values at the bottom of asphalt laye. ................ 63
Table 6.1 Maximum strains at the bottom of FRL layer under Single Axle Truck (Rear
Axle) ................................................................................................................. 71
Table 6.2 Maximum strains at the bottom of FRL layer under Tandem Axle Truck (Front
Axle) ................................................................................................................. 71
Table 6.3 Maximum strains at the bottom of FRL layer under FWD loading.................. 72
Table 6.4 Ratio of the strains at the bottom of FRL layer under FWD loadings to the
maximum strains under controlled load vehicle loadings ................................ 73
Table 6.5 Strains at the bottom of FRL layer caused by the front axle of single axle truck
(5950lbs)........................................................................................................... 74
Table 6.6 Strains at the bottom of FRL layer caused by the front axle of tandem axle
truck (8550lbs). ................................................................................................ 74

9
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: Critical locations in flexible pavement (Muench, et al., 2003). ..................... 18
Figure 2.2: Notation for Boussinesq’s equations in polar coordinates (Ullidta, 1987). ... 20
Figure 2.3: Burmister’s two layer system (Burmister, 1943). .......................................... 23
Figure 2.4: Boundary and continuity conditions of Burmister’s two layer system
(Burmister, 1943). ......................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.5: Notation for multi-layer elastic model in cylindrical coordinates (Huang,
2004). ............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.1: Dynatest Model 8000 Falling Weight Deflectometer (Dynatest). ................. 31
Figure 3.2: Schematic of FWD load and deflection measurement. .................................. 32
Figure 3.3: Backcalculation Flowchart (Lytton, 1989). .................................................... 34
Figure 4.1: Plan view of the U.S. Route 30 perpetual pavement project (Source: Google
map). .............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 4.2: Perpetual pavement design concept (HMA = hot-mix asphalt). (Newcomb,
2001) .............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 4.3: Instrumentation Plan of AC Section 876A. .................................................... 44
Figure 4.4: Instrumentation Plan of AC Section 876B. .................................................... 45
Figure 4.5: Dynatest PAST II – AC strain gauges ............................................................ 46
Figure 5.1: The process of predicting pavement response based on FWD deflections. ... 49
Figure 5.2: Typical pavement surface deflection basins for different FWD load levels. . 50
Figure 5.3: Comparison of estimated moduli for AC Surface Layer from different
backcalculation methods. .............................................................................. 57

10
Figure 5.4: Comparison of estimated moduli for AC Intermediate Layer from different
Figure 5.5: Comparison of estimated moduli for AC Base Layer from different
Figure 5.6: Comparison of estimated moduli for Aggregate Layer from different
Figure 5.7: Comparison of estimated moduli for Subgrade from different backcalculation
methods. ........................................................................................................ 61
Figure 6.1: Tire loads and axle characteristics of Single Axle truck for CLV test. ......... 66
Figure 6.2: Tire loads and axle characteristics of Tandem Axle truck for CLV test. ....... 66
Figure 6.3: Typical longitudinal tensile strain at the bottom of FRL layer caused by single
axle truck in CLV tests. ................................................................................. 68
Figure 6.4: Typical longitudinal tensile strain at the bottom of FRL layer caused by
tandem axle truck in CLV tests. .................................................................... 69
Figure 6.5: Typical longitudinal tensile strain at the bottom of FRL layer in FWD tests. 69
Figure 6.6: Comparison of strain responses under FWD loading and truck loading at the
same level of loads. ....................................................................................... 75
Figure 6.7: Average duration of the impulses under different loading conditions. .......... 76
Figure B.1: Strain responses under FWD loading (Strain gauge 5). ................................ 88
Figure B.5: Strain responses under FWD loading (Strain gauge 13). .............................. 90
11
Figure B.6: Strain responses under FWD loading (Strain gauge 16). .............................. 90
Figure B.7: Strain responses under Single-Axle truck loading (speed at 5 mph). ............ 91
Figure B.8: Strain responses under Single-Axle truck loading (speed at 25 mph). .......... 91
Figure B.9: Strain responses under Single-Axle truck loading (speed at 45 mph). .......... 92
Figure B.10: Strain responses under Single-Axle truck loading (speed at 55 mph). ........ 92
Figure B.11: Strain responses under Tandem-Axle truck loading (speed at 5 mph). ....... 93
Figure B.12: Strain responses under Tandem-Axle truck loading (speed at 25 mph). ..... 93
12
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The highway system serves as an important factor to a country’s economic
development and defense. In United States, the national highway system includes
approximately 162,000 miles of roadway, which carry more than seventy-five percent of
heavy truck traffic and ninety percent of tourist traffic (AASHO, 2007). Due to the
tremendous increases of the highway traffic volumes in the last twenty years, highway
pavement failures occurred earlier than expected. Rehabilitation or reconstruction is
important and necessary to maintain a good condition of highway system. Every year, the
state and federal government spend billions of dollars on the construction and
maintenance of highway pavements. During the period of 1995 to 2004, about 900 billion
dollars were spent on the highway construction and maintenance (FHWA, 2004). With
the aging of the highway infrastructure, a large portion of the highway system built
during the 1950s and 1960s need major rehabilitation or reconstruction which will cost
billions of dollars. Efforts continue to be made to improve pavement analysis and design
methods will result in cost-effective improvement in pavement construction and
rehabilitation (Tayabji, et al, 2000).
1.2. Pavement Types and Design
Basically, pavements can be divided into three types: flexible pavements, rigid
pavements and composite pavements. A flexible pavement typically consists of a hot-mix
asphalt (HMA) wearing course, an intermediate asphalt course and one or more base and
13
subbase courses. It is called “flexible pavement” because the structure of pavement will
flex under the load (Yoder et al., 1975). A rigid pavement, also known as Portland
Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement is composed of a PCC slab surface, a base course
directly under the PCC layer and a subbase course below the base layer. Since the PCC
material has a high elastic modulus, this type of pavement is much stiffer than the flexible
pavement. A composite pavement is basically a rigid pavement overlain with an asphalt
concrete layer. Because of the high construction cost, composite pavements are rarely
constructed initially (Huang, 2004). Most of composite pavements are rehabilitated
pavements with asphalt overlays on PCC pavement (Huang, 2004). In United States,
about 82.2 percent of paved roads are flexible pavements, 11.3 percent are composite
pavements and only 6.5 percent of the paved roads are rigid pavements (Muench, et al.,
2003). Since most of the paved roads are flexible pavements, this research will mainly
focus on flexible pavements.
The purpose of pavement design is to select a series of material layers to comprise
a pavement structure which can carry an estimated volume of traffic for a specified
design life. There are two principal pavement design methods: Empirical methods and
mechanistic methods. The empirical methods are used in many pavement structural
design procedures. They are developed based on empirical studies of pavement materials
and structures. The 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures used an
empirical approach and it is still widely used by most of the states. The mechanistic
methods are based on physical principles. Pavement response models are the backbone of
the mechanistic approach. By using pavement response models, the stresses, strains, and
deflections in the pavement structure can be calculated.

14
The Mechanistic-Empirical design procedure is the most advanced pavement
design method. It combines the advantages of both mechanistic approach and empirical
approach. After calculate the stresses, strains and deflections using the mechanistic
approach, engineers use empirical elements to determine what value of calculated stresses
and strains can cause pavement failure. In 2004, the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NVHRP) released a new pavement design guide, the Mechanistic-
Empirical Design Guide (MEPDG) for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. By
using this guide, more reliable pavement structures can be designed by pavement
engineers.
1.3. Objective of the Study
In flexible pavements, fatigue cracking is one of the major distresses caused by
repeated traffic loading. Extensive researches have been conducted on fatigue cracking
and many models have been developed using empirical and mechanistic-empirical
approaches to predict the fatigue failure for asphalt concrete. In most of these models,
fatigue failure is correlated to the critical tensile strain at the bottom of HMA layer and
the elastic modulus of the asphalt concrete layer. So engineers can predict fatigue failure
in asphalt concrete layer using the horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of HMA layer.
The value of the horizontal tensile strain can be determined using the pavement response
models.
The major objective of this study is following:
1. Conduct a review of available pavement structural response models and
pavement analysis softwares.

15
2. Select suitable structural analysis softwares to predict the pavement response
(horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer) based on the
deflection data from Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Tests. Compare the
predicted results with available measured data and check the validity and
accuracy of the selected structural analysis programs
3. Compared the loading condition between the FWD loading and truck loading
based on the test results from Controlled Load Vehicle (CLV) tests and FWD
tests.
1.4. Outline
The report is structured in the following format to effectively present information
and data clearly.
In Chapter 2, a briefly review of the major theoretical structural response models
and structural analysis programs for flexible pavements is presented. The most commonly
used structural response model is multi-layer elastic model.
Chapter 3 presents a briefly introduction about the perpetual pavement and the U.S.
30 perpetual pavement project along with its design and instrumentation plans for asphalt
concrete sections. Falling Weight Deflectometer deflection data and pavement response
data collected from AC section of U.S 30 perpetual pavement were used in this research.
Chapter 4 introduces Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) and the
backcalculation method to calculate the elastic moduli of pavement layers using
pavement surface deflections. Several commonly used backcalculation programs are also
described in this chapter.

16
In Chapter 5, the process to predict the pavement response (tensile strain at the
bottom of HMA layer) based on FWD deflections is introduced. Comparisons between
the predicted and measured values of pavement response are also presented in this
chapter.
Chapter 6 compares the loading condition between FWD test and controlled load
vehicle (CLV) test. The FWD tests and CLV tests were conducted at the same location
on the same day. So the environment effects can be ignored.
Finally, the conclusion and recommendations are presented in Chapter 7.

17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
In flexible pavement analysis, there are three elements should be considered:
• Theoretical structural response model,
• Material properties,
• External conditions (traffic loading, environment condition).
Theoretical structural response models are developed to examine the response
(deflection, strain, stress) of the pavement under the traffic loads based on a continuum
mechanics approach. Responses at some critical locations are often used in pavement
analysis. For instance, the horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer can
be used to predict the fatigue failure in the asphalt. The compression strain at the top of
intermediate layer is used to predict rutting failure (Muench, et al., 2003). The critical
locations in a pavement structure are shown in figure 2.1.

18

Figure 2.1: Critical locations in flexible pavement (Muench, et al., 2003).
Material properties include three aspects: the strain and stress relationship of the
material, the degree to recover strain after stress removal, and the time and temperature
dependency of strain. Based on these three aspects, materials can be categorized into
linear or nonlinear, elastic or plastic, viscous or nonviscous.

19
External conditions include pavement traffic loading and environmental conditions.
They are two main distress mechanisms which affect the performance of pavement. In
pavement structural analysis, temperature and moisture content are the most important
environmental parameters. For example, thermal cracking is a result of temperature effect
on pavement. It usually occurs at extremely low temperatures during the winter. Stripping
is a result of the moisture damage. It is caused by the interaction between the moisture
and asphalt binder-aggregate adhesion (Muench, et al., 2003).
In this study, author will focus on the theoretical structural response models for
pavement analysis. The environmental conditions will not be considered and the
properties of the materials are assumed to be linear elastic. In the following sections,
literature is reviewed on the available structural response models for flexible pavement.
2.2. Flexible Pavements Structural Response Models
2.2.1. Boussinesq’s equations
The first pavement response model was developed by J. Boussinesq (1885). He
examined the pavement’s response to a load and proposed a series of equations called
Boussinesq’s equations. These equations can be used to calculate stresses, strains, and
deflections subjected to a concentrated load. In this model, Boussinesq assumed the
pavement layer is a homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic half space. Figure 2.2 presents
the notation in polar coordinates for Boussinesq’s equations. z is the depth and r is the
horizontal distance between the load P and the point where the responses are desired.
Table 2.1 lists some of the Boussinesq’s equations for a point load P.
20
Figure 2.2: Notation for Boussinesq’s equations in polar coordinates (Ullidta, 1987).
21
Table 2.1 Boussinesq’s equations for a concentrated load (Ullidta, 1998).
Normal Stresses
1 2·
3· ·
2· · 1
1 2 1

2· · 1
3·
·
2· ·
Normal Strains
1 1 2·
3 · 3 2· ·
2 1
1 1 2·

2 1
1
3 · 2· ·
2
Shear Stress
3·
· ·
2· ·
Shear Strain
1
· ·
·
Displacements
1 1 2· ·
·
2 1
1
2 · 1
2
Boussinesq’s signal layer model is probably the simplest model of a pavement
structure. It is developed originally for a static concentrated load. Later, equations for a
uniformly distributed load were derived by integration. Although the assumptions in this
model seem to be hypothetical and unrealistic, many researches have shown that there is
22
a good correlation between computed deflections by Boussinesq’s equations and the
measured deflections (Yang, 1972). The biggest advantage of this model is its simplicity
and it provides the basis for several pavement structural models which are currently being
used.
2.2.2. Two-layer Theory
A Typical flexible pavement is usually composed of several layers. Therefore,
Boussineq’s signal layer model cannot accurately simulate the flexible pavement
structure, a better model is need for flexible pavement analysis. In 1943, Burmister (1943)
developed solutions for a two layer flexible pavement. In his model, certain essential
assumptions were made in order to compute the stresses, strains, and deflection.
The hypotheses made by Burmister in two layer elastic theory include (Burmister
1943):
• The material in each layer is homogeneous, isotropic, and linear elastic with
an elastic modulus E and Poisson’s ratio .
• The lateral direction of the surface layer is infinite in extent while the vertical
direction has a finite depth. Both the horizontal and vertical directions of the
bottom layer are infinite in extent.
• All layers have a uniform thickness. The material at each layer is weightless.
• The layers are in continuous contact. Stresses and strains are continuous
across boundaries.
• Shearing forces are not present in the surface. Loads applied on the pavement
are represented by the uniformly distributed pressure.

23
• The dynamic and thermal effects are not considered.
Figure 2.3: Burmister’s two layer system (Burmister, 1943).

24
Figure 2.4: Boundary and continuity conditions of Burmister’s two layer system
(Burmister, 1943).
25
In Burmister’s theory, stresses and deflections depend on the modular ratio (E1/E2),
where E1 is the modular of the surface layer and E2 is the modular of the subgrade layer.
Burmister (1958) developed a chart for computer surface deflections in a two-layer
system. The equations to computer the deflections are following (Burmister, 1958):
Deflection under a flexible plate: ∆ 1.5 F

E
Deflection under a rigid plate: ∆ 1.18 F

E
Where p is the united load on circular plate,
a is the radius of plate,
E2 is the elastic modulus of lower layer,
F2 is the deflection factor depend on the values of E1/E2 and a/h1, h1 is the
thickness of the surface layer.
2.2.3. Multi-Layer Theory
In order to build a better model for flexible pavements, Burmister (1945) extended
his two layer theory to a three layer system. Later in 1951, Acum and Fox developed the
exact solutions of normal and radial stresses in a three layer system based on Burmister’s
theory. The hypotheses in Burmister’s theory were also used in their models. Later,
Acum and Fox’s solutions were extended by Jones (1962) and Peattie (1962) to a much
wider range of solution parameters. Jones (1962) developed solutions for horizontal
stresses in three-layer systems. Peattie (1962) presented graphical solutions for vertical
stresses. A poisson’s ratio of 0.5 was used for all layers in these researches.
In the same year, Schiffman presented a solution of stresses and displacements in a
multi-layer elastic system. This was considered to be a significant breakthrough in

26
flexible pavement analysis. In previous researches, the load types are limited to a point
load or a uniformly distributed load, the responses due to the Non-uniform loads and
tangential loads were not considered. Using Schiffman’s theory, the stresses and
displacement under different kinds of load such as non-uniform loads, tangential loads,
rigid loads were able to be computed. Figure 2.5 shows the notation for Multi-layer
elastic model in cylindrical coordinates. Each layer has its elastic modular (E), Poisson’s
ratio ( ) and thickness.

27
Figure 2.5: Notation for multi-layer elastic model in cylindrical coordinates (Huang,
2004).
2.2.4. Multi-Layer Computer Programs
With the development of computer technology, many computer programs were
developed for pavement analysis based on the multi-layer elastic theory. The available
computer programs which can be used in pavement analysis and design include: BISAR,
CHEVRON, KENLAYER, ELSYM5, Everstress and WESLEA. Typically these
softwares are able to compute the stresses, strains, and deflections under a circular
28
surface loads. The inputs of these softwares include: material properties (modulus and
poisson’s ratio), layer thickness, and load conditions (magnitude of load, radius, or
contact pressure). The outputs include stresses, strains, and deflections.
Table 2.2 Multi-layer Computer Programs

Programs Developer Description
Developed based on linear elastic theory. BISAR 3.0 can be
used to calculate comprehensive stress and strain profiles,
BISAR Shell Oil Co.
deflections, and slip between the pavement layers via a shear
spring compliance at the interface.
Chevron research Developed based on linear elastic theory. The program can
CHEVRON
company accept more than 10 layers and up to 10 wheel loads.
Developed based on Burmister’s elastic layered theory. It can

KENLAYER Yang H. Huang be used to compute the responses for maximum of 19 layers
with an output of 190 points.
Developed based on linear elastic theory. The program can
ELSYM5 FHWA analyze a pavement structure containing up to five layers, 20
multiple wheel loads.
The program can be used to determine the stresses, strains, and
University of deflections in a layered elastic system (semi-infinite) under
Everstress
Washington circular surface loads. The program is able to analyze up to five
layers, 20 loads and 50 evaluation points.
U.S. Army Corps The current version can analyze more than 10 layers with more
WESLEA
of Engineers than 10 loads.
2.2.5. Finite Element Method
The finite element method is a numerical method which can be used for analysis
of stress, strain and displacement in a pavement structure. ILLI-PAVE, developed by
Raad and Fifueroa (1980), is a 2-D finite element program commonly used for analysis of
29
flexible pavements. The advantage of this 2-D finite element program is that it allows the
use nonlinear constitutive relationships which can describe nonlinear elastic, visco-elastic,
or plastic behavior. Another finite element program called 3D-Move was developed by
Siddharthan et al. (1998) based on continuum mechanics. The advantage of finite element
method is that it can evaluate the dynamic response of flexible pavements. Many other
finite element programs (such as CAPA-3D, CESAR-LCPC, Mich-PAVE, and FeBack)
were developed for analysis of flexible pavement. Due to the complicated nature of finite
element method, the finite element programs are only suited for forward analysis of
pavement structures. The backcalculation of elastic modulus based on surface deflections
is unable to accomplish by using these programs.
2.3. Summary
Currently, the multi-layer elastic theory is the most commonly used pavement
structural model in pavement design and analysis. In this research, the multi-layer elastic
theory was used both in the moduli backcalculation process and the forward calculation
process. Detailed information about backcalculation and forward calculation will be
introduced in Chapter 3.
30
CHAPTER 3: FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER TESTING AND
BACKCALCULATION
3.1. Introduction
Pavement surface deflection measurement plays an indispensable role in
evaluating a flexible pavement structure. It can be used to monitor the pavement
performance, calculate the pavement layer moduli and the subgrade resilient modulus,
and identify potential problem areas in the pavement. Many nondestructive deflection
testing equipments are available for pavement engineers. These equipments can be
divided into three categories: static deflections (Benkelman Beam), steady state
deflections (Dynaflect and Road Rater), impact load deflections (Falling Weight
Deflectometer).
This chapter will introduce the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) and the
backcalculation method to calculate the elastic moduli of pavement layers based on
surface deflections.
3.2. Falling Weight Deflectometer
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is a nondestructive test device widely used
in pavement engineering. It plays an important role in evaluating the physical properties
and performance of a pavement. The main components of a FWD system include: control
system, hydraulic system, loading weight and plate, load cell and deflection sensors.
31
Figure 3.1: Dynatest Model 8000 Falling Weight Deflectometer (Dynatest).
During the test, the FWD applies a load to the pavement surface by dropping a
large weight onto a load plate positioned on the pavement surface. This load simulates
the magnitude and duration of a moving wheel load. The pavement response (surface
deflection) due to the load is then measured by a series of deflection sensors mounted at
various distances from the loading point (one sensor is located directly over the loading
point). Usually, the deflections are measured at 0 inch, 8 inches, 12 inches, 18 inches, 24
inches, 36 inches and 60 inches away from the center of the loading plate. The measured
deflections at each sensor called deflection basin. Figure 3.2 shows a schematic of FWD
load and deflection measurement.

32
Figure 3.2: Schematic of FWD load and deflection measurement.
The advantages of FWD test include: it is accurately simulated the traffic load, it
is quicker (can test up to 60 points in an hour) and can be operated by one person. The
loading range of a FWD varies from 1,500 to 27,000 lbf (Dynatest, 2009).
3.3. Backcalculation
Backcalculation is the process of computing pavement layer moduli and the
subgrade resilient modulus based on pavement deflection basins generated by Falling
Weight Deflectometer (Muench, et al., 2003). In order to conduct a backcalculation, the
initial moduli of pavement layers should be first assumed, the values are usually
estimated base on engineer’s experience or equations. After assuming the initial layer
moduli, pavement surface deflections can be calculated using pavement response models.
The calculated deflections are then compared to the measured values. By adjusting the
pavement layer moduli, a good match (within some tolerable error) between the
measured and theoretical deflections can be reached. The process of backcalculation is

33
usually iterative. Many programs were developed for backcalculation such as Modulus
6.0, Elmod 6.0, and Evercalc 5.0.
Figure 3.3 presents a basic flowchart of backcalculation program. The main
components in a backcalculation process include (Lytton, 1989):
Layer thicknesses and loads: Thickness of each pavement layer and load levels
applied on the pavement surface.
Measured deflections: Surface deflections measured during FWD tests.
Seed moduli: Initial modulus used to compute theoretical surface deflections.
Deflection calculation: Use pavement response models to calculate theoretical
surface deflections.
Error check: Compare the calculated and measured deflections.
Search for new moduli: Iteratively search for the new modui of pavement layers
until the calculated and measured deflection are matched (within acceptable error).
Controls on the range of moduli: The backcalculation programs usually can define
a range of modulus for each pavement layer to prevent unreasonable pavement
layer moduli.
34
Figure 3.3: Backcalculation Flowchart (Lytton, 1989).
3.4. Backcalculation Programs
Evercalc 5.0, Elmod 6.0, and Modulus 6.0 are three most commonly used
backcalculation programs. In this research, these three backcalculation programs were
used to estimate the pavement layer moduli. A comparison of the results from Evercalc
5.0, Elmod 6.0, and Modulus 6.0 were conducted by author. Strains at the bottom of the
AC layer can then be calculated based on the results of backcalculation. Software
Everstress 5.0 was used to compute the strains based on the backcalculated layer moduli.
3.4.1. Evercalc 5.0
Evercalc 5.0 is a pavement analysis program developed by the University of
Washington. It can be used to estimate the elastic moduli of pavement layers, and
determine the stresses and strains at various locations. Evercalc 5.0 uses WESLEA
35
program (a multi-layer computer program developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) as a subroutine to calculate the theoretical deflections. It also uses an inverse
solution technique to determine the set of layers moduli from FWD deflection data
(Everseries User’s Guide, 2005). Before running the program, the user can define the
deflection tolerance, moduli tolerance and the maximum number of iterations. When one
of the conditions is satisfied, the program will terminate.
In Evercalc 5.0, deflection tolerance is given by:
RMS (%) = ∑ 100%
Where, Root Mean Square (RMS) is the primary measure of convergence used for
error check. n is the number of deflection sensors used in FWD test, dci is the calculated
pavement deflection at sensor i, and dmi is the measured pavement deflection at sensor i.
Generally a RMS of 1to 2 percent would be acceptable.
Moduli Tolerance is expressed by the following equation:

E E 100
ε
E
Where, E and E are respectively the i-th layer moduli at the (K+1)-th and
K-th iteration (Everseries User’s Guide, 2005).
3.4.2. Modulus 6.0
Modulus 6.0 was developed by Texas Transportation Institute. It is the newest
version of the Modulus program and can be used to process Falling Weight
Deflectometer data and flexible pavement design. Modulus 6.0 is based on the multi-
layer linear elastic theory. It uses WESLEA (developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) as a subroutine for forward calculation (William, 1999). With assumed seed
36
layer moduli, the program uses WESLEA to calculate a deflection basin. The calculated
basin is then compared with the measured basin. After several iterations, a set of layer
moduli that produce an acceptable error between the calculated and measured basins can
be determined. The Modulus 6.0 program is able to analyze up to four unknown layers, 7
deflection sensors. It also has a database which can assign the modulus range and
Poisson’s ratio by selecting the material type (William, 1999).
3.4.3 Elmod 6.0
Elmod 6.0 was developed by Dynatest International A/S. It is used to evaluate the
pavement layer moduli and overlay design based on FWD deflection data. There are three
backcalculation options available in this program: Linear Elastic Theory (LET), Finite
Element Method (FEM), and Method of Equivalent Thickness (MET). Basically,
different forward analysis methods are used in these three options. The LET method uses
WESLEA for forward analysis, the FEM uses an axial symmetric finite element program
to calculate the theoretical deflections, while the MET makes use of method of equivalent
thickness with improved adjustment factors. The Elmod 6.0 program can directly read the
Dynatesr-FWD files. By selecting the analysis option, the program is able to automatic fit
the calculated and measured deflection basins either for all points or point by point in the
FWD files (Elmod 6 Quick Start Manual, 2009).
For Elmod FEM option, the program treats all pavement layers as non-linear
elastic. This may take a longer processing time. For Elmod MET option, the program
treats subgrade as non-linear. (Elmod 6 Quick Start Manual, 2009).

37
3.5. Summary
The pavement surface deflections from the FWD tests are used to predict the
pavement response (tensile strain at the bottom of the HMA layer). By using the
backcalculation method, the pavement layer moduli can be calculated base on FWD
deflections, further, the pavement response can be calculation using the backcalculated
pavement moduli.
38
CHAPTER 4:
EXPERIMENTAL SITE – U.S. ROUTE 30 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
4.1. Site Description
In 2002, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Flexible Pavement
of Ohio decided to build a demonstration project for perpetual pavements. They chose the
section of U.S Route 30 in Wayne County, the Wooster Bypass. The project is a four-lane
divided rural freeway, begins on the west by State Route 83, and extends on the east by
Kansas Road near State Route 57. The asphalt perpetual pavement was constructed in the
westbound lanes and the long lasting Portland cement pavement was built in the
eastbound. The total length of this perpetual pavement is approximately 8 miles. The road
was open to traffic in December, 2005. Figure 4.1 displays the plan view of the U.S.
Route 30 perpetual pavement project from Google map.

39
Figure 4.1: Plan view of the U.S. Route 30 perpetual pavement project (Source: Google
map).
The design of this perpetual pavement was based on the mechanistic analyses
conducted by a research team led by Dr. Sang-Soo Kim (Ohio Asphalt, 2004). These
analyses were performed using a larger design load (1.2 times of the legal load), with
limiting the strain less than 70 microstrains at the bottom of the HMA layer. Due to these
limits, the thickness of the HMA layer was determined using the layer elastic analysis
and a HMA thickness of 16.25 inches was used in this project. The HMA layer is
composed of four courses: 1.5 inches wearing course, 1.75 inches intermediate course, 9
inches asphalt base and 4 inches fatigue resistance course. The dimensions and materials
for each layer are listed below in Table 4.1.

40
Table 4.1 Perpetual Pavement Built-Up (Liao, 2007)
Thickness ODOT
Course Description
(inches) Item No.
ODOT 12.5 mm stone mastic asphalt with
Surface 1.5 856 a PG 76-22M polymer modified binder.
93% - 97% target density.
ODOT 19 mm Superpave, Type A, with a
Intermediate 1.75 442 PG 76-22M polymer modified binder.
93% - 97% target density.
Asphalt ODOT’s large stone mix, PG 64-22

9 302
Base asphalt binder. 93% - 96% target density.
Fatigue ODOT’s large stone mix, PG 64-22

Special
resistant 4 asphalt binder with 3% air void, 94% -
302
layer 97% target density
Aggregate Highly crushed densely graded granular

6 304
Base base with under drain
4.2. Introduction of Perpetual Pavement
A perpetual pavement, or long-lasting asphalt pavement, is defined by the Asphalt
Pavement Alliance (APA) as a hot mix asphalt pavement designed and constructed to last
longer than 50 years without requiring major structural rehabilitation or reconstruction. It
only needs periodic surface renewal in response to distresses confined to the top of the
pavement (APA, 2002). The concept of perpetual pavement is not new. Actually, the
design and construction of long-lasting hot-mix asphalt pavement has been in progress
since the 1960s (APA, 2002).

41
A perpetual pavement usually consists of three layers of asphalt with different mix
formats and a strong foundation to produce a safe, smooth, and long-lasting road. Figure
3.1 shows a design concept of a perpetual pavement. The design begins with a strong and
stable foundation at the bottom of the pavement to preclude distresses (APA, 2002). The
hot-mix asphalt base layer (bottom layer) is designed to resist fatigue cracking. The
strong intermediate layer is designed to carry most of the traffic load, and the wearing
surface is the top layer designed specifically to resist top-down cracking and rutting
(TRB, 2001). The surface layer is intended to be periodically overlaid with more hot-mix
asphalt to restore condition. Ideally, with scheduled surface restoration, perpetual
pavements can be maintained and cost-effectively without removing the road structure
for reconstruction (Kuennen, 2004).
Figure 4.2: Perpetual pavement design concept (HMA = hot-mix asphalt). (Newcomb,
2001)
42
4.3. Instrumentation Plan of AC Sections
Ohio University was granted three associated research projects to evaluate the
performance of the perpetual pavement. The comprehensive instrumentation plans were
developed by Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment (ORITE).
Three test sections were constructed with instrumentation. One test section constructed at
Station 664+00 was named as Section 664, the other two test sections constructed at
Station 876+60 were named as Section 876A and Section 876B. Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) Testing and Controlled Load Vehicle (CLV) Testing was
performed periodically by research teams from Ohio University and ODOT.
Data acquisition instruments such as strain gauges, pressure cells, linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) and thermocouples were installed in different
pavement layers in section 664, section 876A and 876B during the construction. Table
3.2 shows the pavement data acquisition instruments used in this project. These
instruments are used to measure pavement loads, strains, deflections, monitor the
environmental parameters include temperature, moisture, frost depth, and ground water
table levels. A self weather station was also built to monitor air temperature, wind speed
and direction, relative humidity and solar radiation.
In this research, the author only used the pavement response data collected at
section 876A and section 876B. The detailed instrumentation plans for these two sections
are shown in Figure 4.3 and 4.4.

43
Table 4.2 Pavement Data Acquisition Instrumentation
Measurement Sensor Manufacturer
GDP 121-500 LVDT

Displacement Lucas Schaevita Inc.
GDP 121-250 LVDT
Strain Dynatest PAST II - AC SG Dynatest Consulting Inc.
Pressure Geokon 3500 PC Geokon Inc.
Measurement Research
Temperature MRC Thermistor
Corporation
Moisture FHWA TDR Probe Cambell Scientific Inc.
Cold Regions Research &

Frost Depth CRREL Resistivity Probe
Engineering Laboratory
Groundwater
Piezometers -----
Table
44
Figure 4.3: Instrumentation Plan of AC Section 876A.

45
Figure 4.4: Instrumentation Plan of AC Section 876B.
As shown in Figure 4.3 and 4.4, strain gauges were placed at the bottom of the top
layer, AC base layer and FRL layer. Dynatest PAST II – AC strain gauges were used in
this project. This type of strain gauge is designed for the measurement of strains in
asphalt concrete pavements. It is an “H” shaped precision transducer and can measure
either longitudinal or transverse strains in asphalt pavements (Dynatest, 2009). Strain

46
gauges in the bottom FRL layer are used to monitor fatigue resistance (Muench, et al.,
2003). Only longitudinal strain was measured at the bottom of the FRL layer. Strain
gauges are very delicate and vulnerable. Some strain gauges failed during compaction of
an HMA layer.
Figure 4.5: Dynatest PAST II – AC strain gauges
Two pressure cells were installed per test section on the top of the subgrade.
These pressure cells measure the vertical stress under the dynamic loading which are can
be utilized to evaluate the potential of rutting (Muench, et al., 2003). Linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) are used to measure the displacement of the pavement.
Four LVDTs were installed in each test section. As shown in Figure 4.3 and 4.4, two
shallow referenced LVDTs measure the displacement above the subgrade while the other
two deep referenced LVDTs measure the total displacement of the pavement.
47
Controlled Load Vehicle (CLV) Testing and Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
Testing are performed periodically by research teams from Ohio University and ODOT.
The CLV testing is used to record the structural response of the pavement under
controlled truck loading. The FWD testing is designed to apply a dynamic loading to the
pavement surface that simulates the load of a signal moving wheel load. Based on the
data from these tests, engineers can calculate the layer stiffness of the pavement and
evaluate the physical properties of the pavement.

48
CHAPTER 5:
PREDICT PAVEMENT RESPONSE USING FWD DEFLECTIONS
5.1. Introduction
As introduced in Chapter 4, the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is a
nondestructive test device which has been widely used to evaluate the physical properties
and performance of a pavement. In U.S. 30 perpetual pavement project, the FWD tests
were conducted during construction in order to detect weak areas and to evaluate
construction quality (Liao, 2007). After construction, the FWD tests were also performed
by Ohio University and ODOT periodically to assess the performance of the pavement
(Sargand, 2008).
This chapter is dedicated to predict pavement response based on the FWD
deflection data. The process of predicting pavement response is shown in Figure 5.1.
Backcalculation process was used in this research in order to calculate the pavement layer
moduli. Thus, the pavement response can be predicted using backcalculated pavement
layer moduli based on the pavement structural response models. The predicted strain
values were compared to the measured values from U.S. Route 30 to check the validity
and accuracy of this model.

49
FWD Deflection Data
Backcalculation Process
Pavement Layer Moduli
Forward Calculation
Pavement Response
Figure 5.1: The process of predicting pavement response based on FWD deflections.
5.2. FWD Deflection and Pavement Response Data
The Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests were conducted at section 876A
and 876B on July 18, 2006. Three levels of load were used during the FWD tests. They
are 6000lb, 9000lb, and 12000lb. The pavement surface deflection data were collected by
FWD. Typical surface deflections under different levels of FWD load are displayed in
Figure 5.2. The detailed FWD load and deflection data are listed in Appendix A.
50
Figure 5.2: Typical pavement surface deflection basins for different FWD load levels.
Pavement responses (strains and deflections in the pavement layer) corresponding
to different levels of load (6000lb, 9000lb, and 12000lb) during the FWD test were
recorded by strain gages and LVDTs. Pressure cells were installed on the top of the
subgrade to measure the vertical stress, however, these pressure cells were not working
during the FWD tests and controlled load vehicle (CLV) tests.
5.3. Backcalculation of Pavement Layer Moduli
In this research, Evercalc 5.0 and Elmod 6.0 were selected for backcalculation
process. As introduced in Chapter 4, Evercalc 5.0 and Elmod 6.0 are two commonly used
backcalculation programs which can analyze up to five unknown layers. Evercalc 5.0
program is based on multi-layer elastic forward calculation subroutines, while Elmod 6.0
51
has three backcalculation options based on three different structural response models.
These three options include: Linear Elastic Theory (LET), Finite Element Method (FEM),
and Method of Equivalent Thickness (MET). So a total of four methods were used in the
backcalculation process. These four methods are designated as Evercalc, Elmod LET,
Elmod FEM and Elmod MET.
Since Evercalc 5.0 and Elmod 6.0 can only analyze up to five unknown layers, a
five-layer pavement model was used in backcalculation process. This five-layer
backcalculation model was composed of 1.5 inches surface layer, 1.75 inches
intermediate layer, 13 inches asphalt base layer, 6 inches aggregate base layer and
subgrade layer. The detailed information of each layer including layer material type,
poisson’s ratio and modulus range are shown in Table 5.1. Poisson’s ratio and modulus
range for different pavement layers were selected based on previous researches and past
testing of similar materials. Initial modulus for each layer was estimated according to the
material properties and the layer temperature during the FWD test.
52
Table 5.1 Typical ranges of resilient modulus and Poisson’s ratio.
Thickness Poisson’s Modulus Range
Layer Type Material Type
(inches) Ratio (ksi)
Asphalt
Surface 1.5 0.35 200 – 2500
Concrete
Asphalt
Intermediate 1.75 0.35 200 – 2500
Concrete
Asphalt
Asphalt Base 13 0.35 200 – 2500
Concrete
Sub-Base Aggregate 6 0.35 10 - 100
Subgrade Soil - 0.4 3 - 30
A total of 24 locations were tested for section 876A and 876B. Resilient moduli
of pavement layers for each test location in section 876A and 876B were backcalculated
using Evercalc 5.0, Elmod FEM, Elmod LET and Elmod MET. The estimated moduli for
each location were averaged and summarized in Table 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.
53
Table 5.2 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Evercalc 5.0.
Estimated Resilient Modulus (ksi) RMS
Station
AC AC Asphalt Error
Number Aggregate Subgrade
Surface Intermediate Base (%)
1 1153.4 269.4 544.8 3 86.7 1.13
2 622.9 316.1 673.3 3 84.8 0.8
3 270.2 382.7 1005.7 3 86.8 0.47
4 262.6 408.7 837.6 3.6 73.9 0.46
5 270.5 486.4 662.6 4.2 68.7 0.47
6 260.2 407.6 982.2 3.3 81.7 0.53
7 303.1 379.2 942.3 3.2 87.5 0.34
8 276.1 445.2 639.6 4.5 69.8 0.47
9 268.5 427.9 939.4 3.8 74.4 0.66
10 332.6 450.3 998.9 3.1 88.3 0.46
11 281.9 431.5 1098.2 3.2 86.3 0.58
12 240.6 500.3 905.4 3.4 86.1 0.34
13 412.3 392.6 888.9 3.5 84.8 0.38
14 388.3 456.2 1095.5 3 88.6 0.54
15 381.3 417.5 840.4 3.7 70 0.54
16 329.7 467.7 797.6 3.6 73.6 0.31
17 276.9 454.8 871.2 4 70 0.59
18 562.8 354.5 1006.2 3.1 75.9 0.23
19 246.3 386.5 1100 4.8 58.4 0.6
20 305.6 383.7 1099.3 5.1 52 0.35
21 224.1 559 897 4.4 48.8 0.66
22 230.2 723.9 685.9 3 56.3 0.9
23 210.9 582.3 789.6 3 61 0.64
24 314.8 429.7 903.1 3 64.9 0.58
54
Table 5.3 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Elmod 6.0 FEM.
Estimated Resilient Modulus (ksi)

Station
Number AC
AC Surface Asphalt Base Aggregate Subgrade
Intermediate
1 658.7 336.2 466.2 4 51.1
2 513.5 347.4 565.3 4.5 46.2
3 234.5 479.8 675.4 4 50.1
4 246.9 420.4 786.8 4.3 48
5 326.5 382.2 880.4 3.9 51.9
6 234.5 431.9 805 4.1 50.1
7 293.8 365.6 846.9 4.6 46.2
8 305.8 348.4 858.3 4.7 46.3
9 239.9 444.8 844.5 4.1 50.7
10 271.2 527.4 788.3 4.2 50.7
11 310.2 386.8 1003.1 4.4 47.8
12 263.7 444.8 929 3.7 57.6
13 475.5 359.2 863.3 4.1 55.5
14 389.9 436.2 1064.6 3.8 54.5
15 336.9 469.4 743.4 3.7 50.6
16 309.3 459.9 747.4 4.5 48.7
17 278.3 404.1 1035 3.9 54.2
18 442.3 404.4 826.2 3.9 49.2
19 265.3 344.9 1159.5 4.8 43.8
20 366.2 339.2 1226.7 4 46.8
21 221 506.5 1089.5 3.6 40.7
22 239.9 538.2 852.9 3 41.9
23 254.1 492.7 814.9 3.4 42.2
24 227.9 513.8 786.8 3.5 43.5

55
Table 5.4 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Elmod 6.0 LET.

Station
Number AC Asphalt
AC Intermediate Aggregate Subgrade
Surface Base
1 719.5 327.5 407.9 4.1 65.8
2 442.3 360.3 554.1 4.5 61.2
3 238 504.6 615.8 4.4 61.6
4 267.7 392.2 810.3 4.4 60.2
5 327.7 413.3 718.6 4.2 64.2
6 263.1 434.8 702.1 4.1 67.4
7 283 396.3 718.3 4.8 61.2
8 283 396.3 718.3 4.8 61.2
9 314.5 391.3 829.5 4.1 67.1
10 253.2 570 714.2 4.2 67.4
11 289.7 421.3 929 4.4 64.4
12 276.5 421.3 931.4 5 61.4
13 447.4 382.9 773.3 4.4 66.3
14 303.2 508.5 917.2 3.9 69.2
15 340.4 508.5 649.9 3.9 64.7
16 292.6 476.2 737.8 4.4 63
17 264.6 435.9 894.3 4.2 63.7
18 359.1 478.2 741.2 4.2 62.2
19 225.3 405.7 1175.4 4.2 57.9
20 320.1 365.6 1039.9 5.6 49
21 251.9 452.3 1335.7 3.2 54.2
22 247.6 587.3 792.3 3.3 51.7
23 219.9 548.6 784.4 3.5 52.3
24 239.2 459.9 955.9 3.4 56.5

56
Table 5.5 Summary of backcalculated moduli from Elmod 6.0 MET.

Station
Number AC
AC Surface Asphalt Base Aggregate Subgrade
Intermediate
1 739.7 750.5 341.8 29.9 33.9
2 531.0 580.0 338.0 25.7 34.3
3 404.7 431.1 320.4 16.5 32.7
4 367.2 382.4 332.4 16.9 33.5
5 421.9 427.5 355.7 20.9 34.0
6 342.6 350.3 343.2 17.7 33.8
7 408.9 392.4 326.5 17.8 33.8
8 407.4 397.2 319.8 17.5 34.3
9 384.2 377.0 344.7 17.5 34.3
10 452.9 446.3 382.5 19.5 34.1
11 358.7 448.2 353.6 17.8 34.3
12 407.2 410.1 344.7 17.1 35.1
13 526.3 553.5 367.9 25.5 37.5
14 455.4 521.5 393.4 17.8 37.0
15 446.7 489.9 409.6 24.1 32.7
16 414.8 497.2 367.4 19.8 33.9
17 391.8 411.9 345.5 17.7 37.2
18 598.1 560.6 376.1 21.9 33.7
19 285.6 330.8 335.6 12.8 35.1
20 394.0 432.7 351.6 17.6 36.0
21 299.7 306.5 399.7 13.5 30.9
22 324.0 364.8 384.4 14.6 28.4
23 380.8 391.5 366.4 15.3 29.5
24 343.8 391.2 359.7 15.2 29.9
57
As indicated from the results, the calculated deflection basin from all these four
backcalculation methods matched the measured deflection basin very well. For Evercalc
5.0, the Root Mean Squares (RMS) between calculated and measured deflections were
less than 1% except location No. 1. For all three options of Elmod, the differences
between calculated and measured deflections were ± 1%. Although all these programs fit
the deflection basin very well, the backcalculated moduli were not exactly the same.
Backcalculated moduli for all pavement layers from different methods were also
compared. Figure 5.3 to 5.7 display the comparisons of estimated moduli for each layer
between four different backcalculated methods.
ELMOD MET ELMOD FEM ELMOD LET EVERCALC

1400
Resilient Modulus of AC surface (ksi)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Location Number
Figure 5.3: Comparison of estimated moduli for AC Surface Layer from different
backcalculation methods.
58
As shown in Figure 5.3, all backcalculation programs (Evercalc, Elmod FEM,
LET, MET have a good consistency in backcalculated AC surface moduli. The average
estimated moduli from Evercalc 5.0 was 351 ksi, while estimated moduli from Elmod
FEM, LET, and MET were 329 ksi, 311ksi and 420 ksi, respectively.

800
Resilient Modulus of Intermedia layer (ksi)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Location Number
Figure 5.4: Comparison of estimated moduli for AC Intermediate Layer from different
Figure 5.4 compares the backcalculated moduli from different programs for AC
intermediate layer. As shown in the figure, the layer moduli backcalculated from different
programs were close. The average estimated moduli from Evercalc 5.0 for AC
intermediate layer was 438 ksi, while the average moduli from Elmod FEM, LET, and
MET were 424 ksi, 443 ksi and 444 ksi, respectively.
59
1600
1400
Resilient Modulus of Asphalt base (ksi)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Location Number
Figure 5.5: Comparison of estimated moduli for AC Base Layer from different
Figure 5.5 shows the backcalculated moduli from different programs for AC base
layer. From the figure, we can find that the outputs from Elmod FEM, Elmod LET,
Evercalc have a good consistency in backcalculated moduli. Outputs from Elmod MET
were smaller than those from Elmod FEM, Elmod LET, Evercalc. The average modulus
for AC base from Elmod MET was 357 ksi. The average moduli from Elmod FEM,
Elmod LET, and Evercalc were 861 ksi, 810 ksi and 884 ksi, respectively.
60
Resilient Modulus of Aggregate layer (ksi) 35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Location Number
Figure 5.6: Comparison of estimated moduli for Aggregate Layer from different
From figure 5.6, we can find that the backcalculated moduli for aggregate layer
from Evercalc, Elmod FEM and Elmod LET vary from 2 to 5 ksi, while moduli
backcalculated from Elmod MET vary from 13 to 30 ksi. According to the previous test
of the same type of aggregate base, ODOT 304, the moduli range of aggregate base is 10
to 20 ksi (Masada, 2001). So Evercalc, Elmod FEM and Elmod LET underestimated the
moduli for aggregate base layer.

61
100
90
Resilient Modulus of Subgrade (ksi)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Location Number
Figure 5.7: Comparison of estimated moduli for Subgrade from different backcalculation
methods.
From Figure 5.7, we can find that the estimated moduli from four different
backcalculation programs were different. Moduli backcalculated from Evercalc have the
largest value. The average estimated subgrade modulus from Evercalc was 74 ksi. The
average estimated modulus from Elmod FEM and Elmod LET were 49 ksi and 61 ksi
respectively. The average moduli estimated from Elmod MET was smallest, it was about
34 ksi.
5.4. Forward Calculation
Forward calculation is the process to calculate the pavement responses using the
pavement layer moduli based on appropriate structural response theory. After

62
backcalculation process, pavement responses can be predicted using the backcalculated
layer moduli. Multi-layer elastic theory was used in this research. Everstress 5.0 was used
as forward calculation program to predict pavement responses. As introduced before,
Everstress 5.0 was developed by University of Washington and can be used to calculate
the stress, strain, and deflection under circular surface loads.
Strains at the bottom of the Fatigue Resistant Layer (FRL) during the FWD tests
were calculated using layer moduli from those four backcalculation programs. The
predicted strain values were compared to the measured values. A comparison of predicted
(calculated using different backcalculated layer moduli) and measured strains at the
bottom of FRL layer is shown in Table 5.6.

63
Table 5.6 Predicted and measured strain values at the bottom of asphalt layer.
EVERCALC ELMOD FEM ELMOD LEM ELMOD MET

Measured
strain (ue) Value Diff. Value Diff. Value Diff. Value Diff.
(ue) % (ue) %. (ue) % (ue) %
27.7 26.52 -4 30.02 8 29.9 8 37.97 37
40.4 41.42 3 44.27 10 44.08 9 55.97 39
58.3 57.18 -2 61.09 5 60.83 4 77.3 33
28.5 26.61 -7 29.52 4 30.18 6 37.6 32
41.2 39.85 -3 44.06 7 45.05 9 52.1 26
60.6 54.9 -9 60.22 -1 61.58 2 77.4 28
26.4 31.09 18 30.14 14 31.7 20 41.05 55
39.3 42.69 9 45.1 15 47.44 21 58.4 49
53.8 58.23 8 62.01 15 65.23 21 84.5 57
22.5 26.71 19 25.73 14 25.77 15 43.64 94
35.8 38.79 8 37.75 5 37.81 6 62.5 75
50.2 54.14 8 52.25 4 52.34 4 88.6 76
25.5 26.16 3 26.3 3 23.73 -7 40.18 58
37.9 41.27 9 39.04 3 35.23 -7 59.46 57
55.2 52.47 -5 53.81 -3 48.56 -12 82.2 49
26 27.96 8 29.89 15 29.71 14 38.46 48
39.8 44.75 12 44.32 11 44.04 11 55.9 40
54.7 58.74 7 60.55 11 60.17 10 77.9 42
RMS 9.09% 9.55% 11.77% 53%

64
The differences between predicted and measured strains were calculated by Root
Mean Square (RMS). It can be determined by the following equation:
RMS (%) = ∑ 100%
Where n is the number of measured strains, Spi is the predicted strain value, Smi is the
measured strain value.
According to RMS value, strains predicted from Elmod MET have the largest
RMS, which means it has the biggest difference between the predicted and measured
strain values. The predicted strain values are around 53% larger than the measured values.
Strains predicted from Elmod FEM, Evercalc, Elmod LET were close to the measured
strains. RMS for Evercalc, Elmod FEM and Elmod LET were 9.09%, 9.55% and 11.77%
respectively.
5.5. Conclusion
This chapter checked the validity and accuracy of the selected pavement analysis
programs. Based on the results from backcalculation programs, both Evercalc and Elmod
can be used to predict the pavement response using FWD deflections. Evercalc, Elmod
FEM and Elmod LET have a good consistency in backcalculated moduli. The predicted
pavement responses using Elmod FEM, Elmod LET and Evercalc backcalculated
pavement layer moduli were close to the measured pavement responses. Elmod MET was
not suggested to be used to predict the pavement response since the predicted values had
a big difference from the measured values. In the backcalculation process, Evercalc,
Elmod FEM and Elmod LET sometimes underestimate the moduli of aggregate layer and
overestimated the subgrade moduli.

65
CHAPTER 6:
COMPARISON BETWEEN FWD AND TRUCK LOADING CONDITIONS
6.1. Introduction
The Controlled Load Vehicle (CLV) test is used to monitor the pavement
response under a controlled truck load. During the CLV testing, the tire pressures and
weights are controlled to desired values, the vehicles were driven at different levels of
speed (usually driven at four speeds: 5mph, 25mph, 45mph and 55mph). The pavement
response in term of strain, stress, and deflection are collected by the different sensors
(strain gauges and LVDTs) installed in the pavement. The information about the test
vehicles such as truck dimensions, tire pressures and tire weight were also measured and
recorded during CLV testing.
In this chapter, author compares the pavement response in CLV tests to the
pavement response in FWD tests. The load condition of FWD and CLV is also compared
in this chapter.
6.2. Controlled Load Vehicle Testing
The Controlled Load Vehicle (CLV) Tests were conducted for Section867, Way 30
in the morning of July 18, 2006, right after the FWD tests. Both single axle truck and
tandem axle truck were used in CLV test. The test vehicles were driven at four different
levels of speed which were 5 mph, 25 mph, 45 mph and 55 mph. Figure 6.1 and 6.2 show
the dimensions, tire pressures and weight of the test trucks used in July 18, 2006’s CLV
testing.
66
Figure 6.1: Tire loads and axle characteristics of Single Axle truck for CLV test.
Figure 6.2: Tire loads and axle characteristics of Tandem Axle truck for CLV test.
For the single axle truck, the spacing of the front tires is 74.5 inches, and the
spacing of rear tires is 51 inches. The front and rear axles have a spacing of 177.4 inches.
67
The clearance between dual tires (rear axle) is 4.88inches. The width of front tread is 9.88
inches, and the width of rear tread is 8.38 inches. The front tire pressures are both 110 psi
and the rear tire pressures are 105 psi.
For the tandem axle truck, the front tires have a spacing of 74.5 inches, and the rear
tires have a spacing of 51 inches. The spacing of front and rear axles is about 181 inches.
The clearance between dual tires (rear axle) is 4.88inches. The width of front tread is 13.5
inches, and the width of rear tread is 8.31 inches. The pressures of front tires are 110 psi,
the tire pressures of front rear axle and rear axle are 100 and 105 psi respectively.
6.3. Comparison of FWD and CLV test
In the morning of July 18, 2006, the FWD test and CLV test were conducted for
section 867, Way 30. Pavement responses under the FWD and CLV loads were recorded
by strain gauges and LVDTs. The locations of strain gauges and LVSTs were previous
introduced in chapter 3. The responses in term of longitudinal tensile strains in CLV tests
were compared to those in FWD tests.
6.3.1. Magnitude of Longitudinal Tensile Strain
The longitudinal tensile strains at the bottom of FRL layer were measured by
strain gauge 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 16. The typical longitudinal tensile strain responses at the
bottom of the FRL layer under moving trucks are shown in Figure 6.3 and 6.4. Typical
strain response at the bottom of the FRL layer under FWD loading (FWD loads: 6000lbs,
9000lbs and 12000 lbs) is shown in Figure 6.5.

68
5mph 25mph 45mph 55mph

80
70
60
50
40
Strain (ue)
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance between the front axle and the strain gauge (ft)
single axle truck in CLV tests.

69

70
60
50
40
Strain (ue)
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance between the front axle and the strain gage (ft)
tandem axle truck in CLV tests.
60
50
40
Strain (ue)
30
20
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
‐10
Time (seconds)
Figure 6.5: Typical longitudinal tensile strain at the bottom of FRL layer in FWD tests.
70
By comparing the strain response during FWD tests and CLV tests, we can find
that both FWD and moving vehicle apply approximately a haversine shaped impulse on
the pavement. For strains caused by moving vehicles, as shown in figure 6.3 and 6.4, the
maximum strain value occurred when the truck driven at a speed of 5 mph. The strain
values decrease along with the increase of the vehicle speed. The strains caused by a
vehicle moving at 55 mph is about 50% to 60% of the strain caused by a vehicle moving
at 5 mph.
The single axle truck used in CLV tests had a total weight of 31950 lbs, while the
rear axle weight was 20350 lbs. The load of right side of rear axle was 10850 lbs. As
shown in Figure 6.3, the maximum strain occurred when the rear tires passing the strain
gauge. The total weight of tandem axle truck used in CLV tests was 50550 lbs, with a
rear axle weight of 34550 lbs. The load of right side of front tire was about 8550 lbs. As
can be seen in Figure 6.4, the strain caused by the front axle tires was larger than that
caused by rear axle tires. The maximum strains at the bottom of FRL layer during the
CLV tests and FWD tests were shown in Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. The data was collected
by strain gauge 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, and 16.

71
Table 6.1 Maximum strains at the bottom of FRL layer under Single Axle Truck (Rear
Axle)
Strains caused by Single Axle Truck (ue)
Gauge No.
5 69.9 64.8 49.5 44.3
6 70.1 61.5 52.6 45.3
8 68.2 54.9 48.5 36.4
9 82.1 60.5 46.8 42.3
13 77.9 60.4 52.9 46.4
16 82.1 56.9 48.5 36.4
Average 75.05 59.83 49.80 41.85
Table 6.2 Maximum strains at the bottom of FRL layer under Tandem Axle Truck (Front
Axle)
Strains caused by Tandem Axle Truck (ue)
Gauge No.
5 60.6 50.3 40.5 32.8
6 65.6 50.3 43.6 34
8 62.7 37.2 35.9 30.3
9 70.9 45.2 39.1 39.6
13 75.4 57.3 42.5 39.1
16 74.1 44.8 41.4 44
Average 68.22 47.52 40.50 36.63
72
Table 6.3 Maximum strains at the bottom of FRL layer under FWD loading
Strains caused by different FWD loads (ue)
Gauge No.
6000 lbs 9000 lbs 12000 lbs
5 25.4 39.3 52.9
6 27.7 40.4 58.3
8 28.5 41.2 60.6
9 22.5 35.8 50.2
13 25.5 37.9 55.2
16 26 39.8 54.7
Average 25.93 39.07 55.32
A comparison of the maximum longitudinal strains in CLV tests (maximum CLV
strains) and the longitudinal strains under FWD loadings (FWD strains) was conducted.
As stated before, for a single axle truck, the maximum CLV strain occurs when the rear
axle passing the strain gage, while for a tandem axle truck, the maximum CLV strain
occurs when the front axle passing the strain gage. In this CLV test, the right side rear
axle weight of the single axle truck is around 10850lbs, and the right side front axle
weight of the tandem axle truck is 8550 lbs.
The ratio of the longitudinal strains at the bottom of FRL layer in FWD tests
under different load levels (FWD strains) to the maximum longitudinal strains at the
bottom of FRL layer in CLV tests by different driving speeds (maximum CLV strains)
were calculated. The calculated ratio results are presented in table 6.4.
73
Table 6.4 Ratio of the strains at the bottom of FRL layer under FWD loadings to the
maximum strains under controlled load vehicle loadings

FWD Single Axle Truck (Rear Axle, 10850lbs) Tandem Axle Truck (Front Axle, 8550lbs)
Loading
(lbs) 55 mph 45 mph 25 mph 5 mph 55 mph 45 mph 25 mph 5 mph
6000 0.59 0.52 0.43 0.35 0.71 0.64 0.56 0.39
9000 0.89 0.79 0.65 0.53 1.07 0.96 0.85 0.58
12000 1.26 1.12 0.93 0.76 1.51 1.36 1.20 0.82
Another comparison between the longitudinal strains at the bottom of FRL layer
caused by the front axle of trucks (CLV strains) to the longitudinal strains at the bottom
of FRL layer caused by FWD loadings was conducted. By comparing these values, we
can find the relationship between a FWD load and a single wheel load. As shown in
Figure 6.1 and 6.2, the load of right front tire of a single axle truck is 5950 lbs and the
load of right front tire of a tandem axle tire is 8550 lbs. 6000 lbs, 9000 lbs and 12000lbs
loads were used in FWD tests. Strains can be normalized into microstrain/1000lbs, which
mean strains caused by a 1000 lbs load. Then the strain response under the FWD loading
and truck loading at the same level of loads can be compared. The strain values caused by
front axles of single axle truck and tandem axle truck at different driving speed in CLV
tests are presented in Table 6.5 and Table 6.6.

74
Table 6.5 Strains at the bottom of FRL layer caused by the front axle of single axle truck
(5950lbs).
Strains caused by Single Axle Truck (ue)
Gauge No.
5 45.68 35.8 27.8 21.6
6 49.51 34.5 30.3 22.6
8 44.97 33.2 27 21.6
9 53.34 42 24.2 25.3
13 52.64 39.1 27.4 26.7
16 53.34 36.2 24.9 29.1
Table 6.6 Strains at the bottom of FRL layer caused by the front axle of tandem axle truck
(8550lbs).
Strains caused by Tandem Axle Truck (ue)
Gauge No.
5 60.6 50.3 40.5 32.8
6 65.6 50.3 43.6 34
8 62.7 37.2 35.9 30.3
9 70.9 45.2 39.1 39.6
13 75.4 57.3 42.5 39.1
16 74.1 44.8 41.4 44
Based on the strain data, we can find the relationship between the FWD and CLV
strain responses. For the same level of loading (single wheel), strains under FWD loading
is close to the strain caused by a truck driving at 55 mph and it is about 95% of the strain
caused by trucks driving at 45 mph, 75% of the strain caused by a truck driving at 25
mph and 54% of the strain caused by truck driving at 5 mph. The results are shown below
in Figure 6.6.
75
1.20
1.02
1.00 0.95
Ratio (FWD strain/CLV strain
0.80 0.75
0.60
0.54
0.40
0.20
0.00
Figure 6.6: Comparison of strain responses under FWD loading and truck loading at the
same level of loads.
6.3.2. Response time of Longitudinal Tensile Strain
In CLV tests, the strain response time varies with the speed of the vehicle. The
higher speed leads to the shorter duration of impulse. In FWD tests, the durations of
impulse under different levels of FWD load are almost the same. The durations of
impulse caused by a moving vehicle were much longer than the impulse caused by the
FWD loading. Based on the results from FWD tests and CLV tests, the average impulse
duration of FWD is 37 msec and the average impulse duration for a vehicle driven at 5
mph, 25 mph, 45 mph and 55 mph are 641, 162, 98, 77 msec respectively. Figure 6.7
76
illustrates the durations of impulse under different loading conditions (FWD, 5 mph,
25mph, 45 mph and 55mph). The impulse durations caused by moving vehicles are about
two to seventeen times longer than the impulse duration caused by the FWD. For a truck
driven at a speed of 45-55 mph, the impulse duration of the truck is about two to three
times longer than the FWD loading.
FWD 37
55 mph 77
45 mph 98
25 mph 162
5 mph 641
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Duration of the Impulse (msec)

Figure 6.7: Average duration of the impulses under different loading conditions.
6.4. Summary
By comparing the FWD loading condition to the CLV loading conditions, we can
find that the FWD accurately simulates the real traffic loads. By applying a transient
impulse load to the pavement surface, the FWD can simulate the duration and scale of a
single moving wheel load. For a single axle truck (rear axle weight was 10850 lbs), we
found that the strain produced by a 12000 lbs FWD load is about 1.26 times of the
maximum strain produced by that single axle truck driving at 5 mph, and about 93
percent of the maximum strain of truck driving at 25 mph. Strain caused by a 9000 lbs
77
FWD load is close to 89 percent of the maximum strain caused by a single axle truck
driving at a speed of 55 mph, and about 53 percent of the maximum strain caused by a
truck driving at 5 mph. Strain caused by a 6000 lbs FWD load is about 59 percent of the
maximum strain caused by a moving vehicle driving at 55 mph. For a tandem truck
driving at 55 mph (front axle was 8550 lbs), the strain by a 12000 lbs FWD load is 1.51
times of the maximum strain caused by that truck, the strain by a 9000 lbs FWD load is
about 107 percent of the maximum strain by the tandem truck, and the strain by a 6000
lbs FWD load is 71 percent of the maximum strain by that tandem truck.
For the same level of loading (single wheel), strains under FWD loading is close
to the strain caused by a truck driving at 55 mph and it is about 95% of the strain caused
by trucks driving at 45 mph, 75% of the strain caused by a truck driving at 25 mph and 54%
of the strain caused by truck driving at 5 mph.
The strain impulse durations caused by the moving vehicles travelling at a speed
of 55 mph are about two to five times longer than those caused by the FWD loadings.
The results also show that a higher speed leads to a lower strain and deflection response.
The pavement responses measured under a vehicle driven at 5 mph are significant larger
than those measured under a vehicle driven at 55 mph.

78
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1. Conclusions
A backcalculation and forward calculation model was used in this research to
predict the pavement response using Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) deflection
data for asphalt concrete pavement. Evercalc 5.0 and Elmod 6.0 were chosen to conduct
the backcalculation of pavement layer moduli using FWD deflections. Everstress 5.0 was
used to do the forward calculation using backcalculated pavement layer moduli. Predicted
pavement responses (tensile strain at the bottom of the AC layer) were compared to the
measured pavement responses from U.S. Route 30 to check the validity and accuracy of
the selected predict model.
According to the results, pavement strain responses calculated by Evercalc 5.0 and
Elmod 6.0 backcalculated moduli show good agreements with the measured strain
responses. Evercalc, Elmod FEM and Elmod LET can be used in the backcalculation
process and the predicted pavement responses based on the backcalculated pavement
moduli by these three programs good matched the measured pavement responses. The
predicted values from Elmod MET backcalculated moduli showed a bad fit, so Emod
MET should not be used for predicting pavement responses. The backcalculation process
is very sensitive. A small change of modulus range will make the results change. The
process is highly dependent on user’s experience. The more information you provide the
more accurate results you will get.
In this thesis, the author also conducted a research on comparison of the FWD and
Truck loading conditions. By comparing the strain responses during FWD tests and
79
controlled load vehicle (CLV) tests, we found that FWD can simulate the duration and
scale of a single moving wheel load. Both FWD and moving truck apply approximately a
haversine shaped impulse on the pavement. For the same load level, response under a
FWD load is close to the response by a truck driving at 55 mph, and is about 95% of the
response by a truck driving at 45 mph. The impulse duration of a vehicle moving at 55
mph is about 2 to 4 times longer than the duration of FWD. The study also found that the
higher speed vehicle leads to a lower strain and deflection response.
7.2. Recommendations
In this research, the available FWD deflection and pavement response data were
limited. Although FWD tests were conducted by OU and ODOT periodically, the
pavement response data were not recorded during most of FWD tests. More FWD
deflection and pavement response data should be collected for future research. FWD data
collected from different types of pavement or during the different seasons can be used to
check the validity and accuracy of the predict model under different situations.
Resilience modulus for each pavement layer of test site could be tested in the
laboratory, so that a comparison between the backcalculated pavement layer moduli and
tested layer moduli can be conducted to check the accuracy of the selected
backcalculation programs.
The dynamic backcalculation method could be studied in future research. The full
deflection time history data should be recorded for that study. The software DBSID
(Dynamic Backcalculation with System Identification Method) is a dynamic
backcalculation program. It can determine the time history of the FWD displacements for
80
each sensor. The calculated time history displacements are tried to best match the
measured time-history displacements which could improve the accuracy of
backcalculation.
81
REFERENCES
AASHO, (2007). “Transportation Invest In Our Future: Future Needs of The U.S. Surface
Transportation System”, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHO), Washington D.C.
AASHO, (1962). “The AASHO Road Test Report 5, Pavement Research, Highway
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.
AASHTO, (1993). “AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures.” American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C. 87-
91.
Ameri, M., Yavari, N., and Scullion, T. (2009). “Comparion of Static and Dynamic
Backcalculation of Flexible Pavement Layers Moduli, Using Four Software
Programs”, Asian Journal of Applied Sciences 2 (3): 197-210.
APA, (2002). “Asphalt Pavement Alliance: Perpetual Pavements – A Synthesis.” Asphalt
Pavement Alliance 101. Maryland.
Burmister, D. M., (1943). “The Theory of Stresses and Displacements in Layered
Systems and Application to the Design of Airport Runways”, Proceedings,
Highway Research Board, Vol. 23, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
125-148.
Burmister, D. M., (1945). “The General Theory of Stresses and Displacements in
Layered Systems”, Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 16.
Burmister, D. M., (1958). “Evaluation of Pavement Systems of the WASHO Road Test
by Layered Systems Methods”, Highway Research Board Bulletin 177.

82
Dynatest, (2009). “Dynatest FWD/ HWD Test Systems”, Dynatest International,
Denmark. Retrieded June 20, 2009, from Dynatest Web site:
http://www.dynatest.com/structural-hwd-fwd.php
Elmod 6 Quick Start Manual, (2009). Dynatest Software, Dynatest International A/S,
Denmark.
Everseries User’s Guide, (2005). “Pavement Analysis Computer Software and Case
Studies”, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington.
FHWA, (2004). Highway Statistic 2004, Office of Highway Policy Information, Feferal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Hildebrand, G., (2002). “Verification of Flexible Pavement Response from a Field Test,
Part 1”, Report 121, Road Directorate, Danish Road Institute, Denmark.
Huang (2004), Y. H., (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design, 2nd Ed, Pearson Printice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Liao, Y., (2007). “Viscoelastic FE Modeling of Asphalt Pavements and Its Application to
U.S. 30 Perpetual Pavement”, PhD dissertation, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
Lytton, R. L., (1989). “Backcalculation of Pavement Layer Properties”, ASTM Special
Technical Publication 1026, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 7-38.
Kim, Y. R., (2008). “Modeling of Asphalt Concrete”. McGraw-Hill Professional, New
York, New York, 1-7.
Kuennen, T., (2004). “Perpetual Pavement, Two Years Later.” Better Roads Magazine,
March 2004.
83
Masada, T., (2001). “Laboratory Characterization of Materials and Data Management for
Ohio-SHRP Project (U.S. 23)”, Report No FHWA/OH-2001/07, Department of
Civil Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
Muench, S.T., Mahoney, J.P., and Pierce, L.M., (2003). “The WSDOT Pavement Guide
Interactive”, Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Olympia, WA.
Retrieved June 12, 2009, from WSDOT Official Web site:
http://training.ce.washington.edu/WSDOT/.
Newcomb, D. E., Buncher, M., Huddleston, I. J., (2001). “Concepts of Perpetual
Pavements.” Transportation Research Circular No. 503. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.
Ohio Asphalt, (2004). “ODOT Tests the Perpetual Pavement Concept.” Ohio Asphalt
Magizine, Spring 2004.
Raad, L., and J. L. Figueroa, J.L., (1980). “Load Response of Transportation Support
Systems”, Journal of the Transportation Engineering Division, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Volume 106, No. TE1, USA.
Sargand, S. M., Figueroa, J. L., Romanello, M., (2008). “Instrumentation of the Way-30
Test Pavements”, Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment.
Athens, OH.
Siddharthan, R. V., Yao, J., and Sebaaly, P.E., (1998). “Pavement Strain from Moving
Dynamic 3D Load Distribution”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 124,
no.6, ASCE, 557-566.

84
Sharma, S., Das, A., (2008). “Backcalculation of pavement layer moduli from falling
weight deflectometer data using an artificial neural network”, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering. 35(1): 57-66.
Tayabji, S.D., and Brown, J.L., et al., (2000). “Pavement Rehabilitation”, TRB
Committee on Pavement Rehabilitation, TRB Millennium Paper Series.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). (2001). “Perpetual Bituminous
Pavements.” Transportation Research Circular No. 503. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.
Ullidta, P., (1987). Pavement Analysis, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ullidtz, P., (1998). Modelling Flexible Pavement Response and Performance, Technical
University of Denmark, Polyteknisk Forlag.
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), (January 2001). “Key Facts: A
Summary of Transportation Information”, WSDOT Finance and Administration
Service Center. Olympia, WA.
William, G.W., (1999). “Backcalculation of Pavement Layer Moduli using 3D nonlinear
explicit Finite Element Analysis”, M.Sc. Thesis, West Virginia University, West
Virginia, USA.
Yang, N.C., (1972). Design of Functional Pavements, McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA.
Yoder, E.J. and Witczak, M.W., (1975). Principles of Pavement Design, 2nd Ed., John
Wiley & Sons, New York.

85
APPENDIX A: DEFLECTION DATA REPORT
══════════════════════════════════════════════════
WAY3006A_F25
Test Date: 07/18/2009

══════════════════════════════════════════════════
Geophone distances (in.): 0.0 8.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 36.0 60.0
Location Drop Load D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
No. lbf mills mills mills mills mills mills mills
________________________________________________________________________
1.000 1 6114 3.50 2.50 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.10 0.50
1.000 2 8957 5.20 4.10 3.40 2.90 2.50 1.70 0.90
1.000 3 12271 7.40 5.80 4.80 4.20 3.60 2.50 1.20
2.000 1 6059 3.50 2.60 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.10 0.60
2.000 2 8946 5.30 4.00 3.40 2.90 2.50 1.80 0.90
2.000 3 12249 7.50 5.60 4.80 4.10 3.60 2.60 1.20
3.000 1 6048 3.60 2.50 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.10 0.50
3.000 2 8891 5.50 3.80 3.40 2.90 2.50 1.80 0.80
3.000 3 12282 7.60 5.40 4.80 4.20 3.60 2.60 1.30
4.000 1 6048 3.70 2.50 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.10 0.50
4.000 2 8881 5.40 3.80 3.40 2.90 2.50 1.80 0.90
4.000 3 12260 7.70 5.40 4.80 4.10 3.60 2.60 1.30
5.000 1 6070 3.60 2.50 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.20 0.50
5.000 2 8837 5.20 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.90
5.000 3 12227 7.40 5.30 4.70 4.10 3.50 2.50 1.30
6.000 1 5982 3.60 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.60 1.10 0.50
6.000 2 8891 5.40 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.80
6.000 3 12183 7.50 5.30 4.70 4.00 3.50 2.50 1.20
7.000 1 5906 3.60 2.50 2.10 1.80 1.60 1.10 0.50
7.000 2 8837 5.30 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.80
7.000 3 12151 7.50 5.30 4.60 4.00 3.50 2.50 1.20
8.000 1 5950 3.60 2.50 2.10 1.80 1.50 1.10 0.50
8.000 2 8826 5.30 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.80
86
8.000 3 12162 7.50 5.30 4.60 4.00 3.50 2.50 1.20

9.000 1 5971 3.60 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.50 1.10 0.50
9.000 2 8804 5.20 3.60 3.20 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.80
9.000 3 12151 7.30 5.20 4.60 3.90 3.40 2.50 1.20
10.000 1 5971 3.30 2.30 2.00 1.80 1.50 1.10 0.50
10.000 2 8913 5.00 3.60 3.20 2.70 2.40 1.70 0.80
10.000 3 12183 7.00 5.00 4.50 3.90 3.40 2.50 1.20
11.000 1 6037 3.50 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.50 1.10 0.50
11.000 2 8924 5.10 3.60 3.20 2.70 2.40 1.70 0.80
11.000 3 12238 7.20 5.10 4.50 3.90 3.40 2.50 1.20
12.000 1 6048 3.50 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.50 1.10 0.50
12.000 2 8902 5.10 3.60 3.20 2.80 2.30 1.70 0.80
12.000 3 12238 7.20 5.00 4.40 3.90 3.40 2.40 1.20
13.000 1 6070 3.40 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.50 1.10 0.60
13.000 2 8859 4.90 3.60 3.10 2.70 2.30 1.60 0.80
13.000 3 12183 6.90 5.10 4.40 3.80 3.30 2.40 1.20
14.000 1 6015 3.10 2.30 2.00 1.70 1.50 1.10 0.60
14.000 2 8870 4.80 3.50 3.10 2.70 2.30 1.70 0.90
14.000 3 12183 6.80 4.90 4.40 3.80 3.30 2.50 1.20
15.000 1 5971 3.30 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.60 1.10 0.50
15.000 2 8859 5.10 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.50 1.80 0.90
15.000 3 12194 7.10 5.30 4.70 4.10 3.60 2.60 1.30
16.000 1 6015 3.40 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.60 1.10 0.50
16.000 2 8881 5.10 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.50 1.80 0.90
16.000 3 12227 7.20 5.20 4.60 4.00 3.50 2.50 1.30
17.000 1 6026 3.50 2.40 2.10 1.80 1.60 1.10 0.60
17.000 2 8902 5.20 3.70 3.20 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.90
17.000 3 12194 7.40 5.20 4.60 4.00 3.50 2.50 1.30
18.000 1 6037 3.40 2.50 2.20 1.80 1.60 1.20 0.60
18.000 2 8891 5.00 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.40 1.80 0.90
87
18.000 3 12205 7.00 5.20 4.60 4.00 3.50 2.60 1.30

19.000 1 6015 3.70 2.50 2.10 1.80 1.60 1.20 0.60
19.000 2 8826 5.40 3.70 3.30 2.80 2.40 1.80 0.90
19.000 3 12216 7.70 5.30 4.70 4.10 3.60 2.70 1.40
20.000 1 6004 3.60 2.50 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.20 0.70
20.000 2 8891 5.30 3.80 3.40 2.90 2.50 1.90 1.00
20.000 3 12205 7.50 5.30 4.80 4.10 3.60 2.70 1.50
21.000 1 5960 3.60 2.50 2.30 2.00 1.80 1.30 0.70
21.000 2 8848 5.50 3.90 3.50 3.10 2.80 2.10 1.10
21.000 3 12194 7.70 5.50 5.00 4.40 3.90 3.00 1.60
22.000 1 5982 4.00 2.70 2.40 2.10 1.90 1.40 0.70
22.000 2 8870 5.50 4.10 3.70 3.30 2.90 2.20 1.10
22.000 3 12118 7.70 5.70 5.20 4.60 4.10 3.10 1.60
23.000 1 6026 3.80 2.80 2.50 2.20 1.90 1.40 0.70
23.000 2 8924 5.70 4.10 3.70 3.30 2.90 2.10 1.10
23.000 3 12162 7.90 5.70 5.20 4.60 4.00 3.00 1.60
24.000 1 6026 3.70 2.60 2.30 2.00 1.80 1.30 0.60
24.000 2 8859 5.50 4.00 3.60 3.10 2.70 2.00 1.00
24.000 3 12172 7.80 5.60 5.00 4.40 3.90 2.90 1.50
25.000 1 6004 3.60 2.40 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.20 0.60
25.000 2 8826 5.20 3.60 3.30 2.90 2.50 1.80 0.90
25.000 3 12162 7.50 5.50 4.70 4.10 3.50 2.60 1.30
26.000 1 6015 3.60 2.40 2.10 1.90 1.60 1.10 0.50
26.000 2 8749 5.20 3.70 3.20 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.80
26.000 3 12063 7.40 5.20 4.60 4.00 3.40 2.50 1.20
27.000 1 5895 3.50 2.30 2.10 1.80 1.50 1.10 0.50
27.000 2 8771 5.20 3.60 3.20 2.80 2.40 1.70 0.80
27.000 3 12041 7.30 5.20 4.60 4.00 3.40 2.50 1.20
88
APPENDIX B: STRAIN RESPONSES IN FWD TESTS AND CLV TESTS
80
70
60
50
Strain (ue)
40
30 DYN‐005 ue
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-10
Time (sec)
Figure B.1: Strain responses under FWD loading (Strain gauge 5).
80
70
60
50
Strain (ue)
40
30 DYN‐006 ue
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-10
Time (sec)
89
80
70
60
50
Strain (ue)
40
DYN‐008 ue
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-10
Time (sec)
90
80
70
60
50
Strain (ue)
40
DYN‐009 ue
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-10
Time (sec)
90
90
80
70
60
50
Strain (ue)
40
DYN‐013 ue
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-10
Time (sec)
80
70
60
50
Strain (ue)
40
DYN‐016 ue
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-10
Time (sec)
91
100
80
60
DYN‐005
Strain (ue)
40
DYN‐006
20 DYN‐008
DYN‐009
0 DYN‐013
DYN‐016
-20
-40
4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Figure B.7: Strain responses under Single-Axle truck loading (speed at 5 mph).
70
60
50
40
DYN-005
Strain (ue)
30
DYN-006
20 DYN-008
10 DYN-009
DYN-013
0
DYN-016
-10
-20
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time (sec)
92
60
50
40
30 DYN-005
Strain (ue)
20 DYN-006
DYN-008
10 DYN-009
0 DYN-013
DYN-016
-10
-20
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4
Time (sec)
60
50
40
30 DYN-005
Strain (ue)
20 DYN-006
DYN-008
10
DYN-009
0 DYN-013
DYN-016
-10
-20
10.7 10.9 11.1 11.3 11.5 11.7 11.9
Time (s)
93
100
80
60
Strain (ue)
40 DYN-005
DYN-006
20
DYN-009
DYN-013
0
DYN-016
-20
-40
2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
Figure B.11: Strain responses under Tandem-Axle truck loading (speed at 5 mph).
70
60
50
40
DYN-005
Strain (ue)
30
DYN-006
20 DYN-008
10 DYN-009
DYN-013
0
DYN-016
-10
-20
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
94
50
40
30
DYN-005
Strain (ue)
20
DYN-006
10 DYN-008
DYN-009
0 DYN-013
DYN-016
-10
-20
2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
Time (sec)
50
40
30
DYN-005
Strain (ue)
20
DYN-006
10 DYN-008
DYN-009
0
DYN-013
-10 DYN-016
-20
2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Time (s)

Ohiou 1275612839

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ohiou 1275612839

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Predicting Flexible Pavement Structural Response Using Falling

Weight Deflectometer Deflections

the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University

of the requirements for the degree

© 2010 Jianfeng Qin. All Rights Reserved.

Predicting Flexible Pavement Structural Response Using Falling

Weight Deflectometer Deflections

has been approved for

the Department of Civil Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by

Russ Professor of Civil Engineering

Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

QIN, JIANFENG, M.S., June 2010, Civil Engineering

Predicting Flexible Pavement Structural Response Using Falling Weight Deflectometer

Deflections (94 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Shad M. Sargand

calculation using backcalculated layer moduli. Predicted pavement responses (tensile

Russ Professor of Civil Engineering

analyzing the pavement response data.

Padilla-Llano, Jose Antonio, Aziz Ahmad Gulistani, Abdalla Alrawashdeh, Farid

gratitude to my parents who always loved, supported and encouraged me.

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 8

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 12

1.2. Pavement Types and Design .................................................................................. 12

1.3. Objective of the Study ........................................................................................... 14

1.4. Outline ................................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 17

2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 17

2.2. Flexible Pavements Structural Response Models .................................................. 19

2.2.1. Boussinesq’s equations ................................................................................... 19

2.2.2. Two-layer Theory ........................................................................................... 22

2.2.3. Multi-Layer Theory ........................................................................................ 25

2.2.4. Multi-Layer Computer Programs .................................................................... 27

2.2.5. Finite Element Method ................................................................................... 28

2.3. Summary ................................................................................................................ 29

Chapter 3: Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing and Backcalculation .......................... 30

3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 30

3.2. Falling Weight Deflectometer ............................................................................... 30

3.3. Backcalculation ...................................................................................................... 32

3.4.1. Evercalc 5.0..................................................................................................... 34

3.4.2. Modulus 6.0 .................................................................................................... 35

3.4.3 Elmod 6.0 ......................................................................................................... 36

3.5. Summary ................................................................................................................ 37

Chapter 4: Experimental Site – U.S. Route 30 Demonstration Project ............................ 38

4.1. Site Description...................................................................................................... 38

4.2. Introduction of Perpetual Pavement ...................................................................... 40

4.3. Instrumentation Plan of AC Sections..................................................................... 42

Chapter 5: Predict Pavement Response Using FWD Deflections .................................... 48

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 48

5.2. FWD Deflection and Pavement Response Data .................................................... 49

5.3. Backcalculation of Pavement Layer Moduli ......................................................... 50

5.4. Forward Calculation .............................................................................................. 61

5.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 64

6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 65

6.2. Controlled Load Vehicle Testing ........................................................................... 65

6.3. Comparison of FWD and CLV test ....................................................................... 67

6.3.1. Magnitude of Longitudinal Tensile Strain ...................................................... 67

6.3.2. Response time of Longitudinal Tensile Strain ................................................ 75

6.4. Summary ................................................................................................................ 76

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 78

7.2. Recommendations .................................................................................................. 79