This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Advances in backcalculating the mechanical properties of ﬂexible pavements
A. Burak Goktepe a, Emine Agar b, A. Hilmi Lav b,*
b a Department of Civil Engineering, Ege University, 35100 Izmir, Turkey Istanbul Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, 34469 Ayazaga, Istanbul, Turkey
Received 22 March 2005; received in revised form 29 September 2005; accepted 5 October 2005 Available online 9 November 2005
Abstract In current practice, the evaluation of the performance of existing road pavements has become a priority issue for many highway engineers. To make appropriate rehabilitation and management decisions the engineer must rely on an efﬁcient method for determining the structural conditions of pavements. Nondestructive testing (NDT) reveals the stress–strain properties of pavement layers at relatively low strain levels. Since the theoretical approaches used to determine the stress–strain relationships in pavement layers calculate the deﬂections for given mechanical properties, it is necessary to make an inversion using a backcalculation tool. Several methods have been developed to backcalculate the mechanical properties of ﬂexible pavement; these methods vary in analysis type, material model, and optimization algorithm. This study is designed to explain these methods and to compare and contrast them in terms of modeling precision, computational expense, and calculation details. Consequently, innovations and advances in backcalculating ﬂexible pavements are considered in this paper. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: NDT; backcalculation; ﬂexible pavements; pavement analysis
1. Introduction The structural condition of a pavement structure generally provides the necessary information for: (a) an estimation of the pavement’s remaining life, and (b) the selection of a feasible rehabilitation and/or reconstruction strategy. Considering the length and the structure of a road network in a country, highway engineers need ﬂexible, fast, and reliable ways to determine the physical condition of the pavement section being examined. Nondestructive testing (NDT) methods are being currently used since they analyze the pavement’s structural condition in a nondestructive manner and are rapidly applied. Basically, NDT methods may be categorized as (a) deﬂection basin methods and (b) surface wave methods. The former methods are fundamentally based on the measurement of surface deﬂections emerging by the applied load as well, as on the correlation among these values and the stiffness of each layer. Obviously, the amount of surface deﬂection depends on loading conditions (type, magnitude, contact area, and duration), measurement location, and layer properties (thickness, mass, and stiffness). Therefore, discrepancies
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C90 212 285 6535; fax: C90 212 286 5563. E-mail address: email@example.com (A. Hilmi Lav).
0965-9978/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.10.001
among NDT devices originate from the variations in loading conditions and measurement locations. Typical deﬂection basin testing techniques widely used are the Dynaﬂect road rater, falling weight deﬂectometer (FWD), and rolling weight deﬂectometer (RWD) tests [1–4]. Surface wave tests, on the other hand, record the Rayleigh waves induced by applied load and propagating through the pavement surface. These tests allow the travel time between successive receivers to be calculated for different excitation frequencies by collected wavelength data. Such procedures are also referred to as spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) and depend on the phase velocities and the excitation frequencies [4–6]. A determination of material characteristics, namely material stiffness of each pavement layer, is essential in conducting pavement design using mechanistic approaches. Theoretical models (such as the layered elastic theory and ﬁnite element methods) use the stiffness properties of pavement layers to calculate resulting strains. In order to obtain the structural condition (in terms of elastic stiffness) of a pavement structure using measured surface deﬂections, it is necessary to characterize the inverse mapping of theoretical pavement response model. Such numerical models involving parameter identiﬁcation routines are generally referred to as pavement backcalculation techniques . Backcalculation methods can generally be grouped into three basic categories: adaptive, static, and dynamic.
an impulse load is applied on pavement surface and deﬂection data is recorded in the time domain. pavement backcalculation procedures. In NDT methods. adaptive processes are identiﬁed with neural networks and neuro-fuzzy systems. Focusing on the type of loading provides us with three types of load applications. statistical evaluation. duration. thus. static and dynamic methods are classiﬁed by loading type. The FWD load is induced by a circular plate as well as a rubber seal that is placed between the plate and the surface to avoid the instant impact effect. The FWDs simulate vehicular loading quite successfully. i.10. In the forward direction of analysis. As can be seen from the ﬁgure. database search. mechanical modeling. which contains pavement shear modulus calculated by Rayleigh wave velocities [5–6]. Contradictions to this approach are geophysical methods. displacements are recorded along the pavement surface subjected to a steady state harmonic or a transient dynamic load [4. The steady-state dynamic case is similar to the effect of the vehicle passing over the pavement section.23–25]. Dynamic tests are normally performed through the longitudinal direction of the pavement and measured deﬂection basins characterize the structural integrity of the pavement system in accordance with the actual trafﬁc loads that are dynamic in nature. Generally. Burak Goktepe et al.7. and have been preferred by several researchers [3. the calculated values are compared with deﬂections measured by NDT device. they increase nonlinearly until the peak point and decrease after the peak by elapsing time. and economical equilibriums. In the backward pass of computation. the determination of mechanical properties is crucial for the problem statement description. in the time domain impulse loading. an impulse load within the range of [6. Innovations and advances in backcalculating the mechanical properties of ﬂexible pavements are considered in this state-of-the-art study (from 1983 to 2005). nondestructive testing. and evaluations on backcalculation methods are given in the following sections. deﬂections are computed for given trafﬁc loads and pavement structure. therefore. In this regard. and the loading period is related with the vehicle’s speed. and magnitude) and deﬂection measurement locations. 1.19–22]. developments made after the last state-of-the-art study  as well as the earlier studies on the backcalculation of ﬂexible pavements are presented here. Adaptive methods do not directly utilize a pavement response model. peak deﬂection is measured by the geophone directly below the load application point and deﬂections are smaller for more distant geophones. Deflection Maximum Deflection Time Radial distance Fig. It should be mentioned that the inverse process can be performed by several techniques. calculation details. such as the least-squares. namely forward and backward.15.16]. There are a number of FWDs commercially available. steady-state vibratory. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 In existing studies.14. the mechanical properties of ﬂexible pavement layers are measured at low strain levels. in current deﬂection basin tests. static. In this context. Deﬂection curves exhibit haversine behavior. Virtually. they employ two calculation directions. Accordingly. The idea behinds the NDT methodology for the structural performance of the pavement system is inversely proportional with the amount of surface deﬂections emerged by the applied load. such as the Dynatest FWD.7–156 kN] is impacted on the pavement surface. Static loading is the ﬁrst and the simplest case and cannot simulate the actual trafﬁc loads. Nondestructive testing methods Highway engineers seek the answers to two essential questions when performing the structural evaluation of a pavement system: (1) how much the pavement system can serve within limits under estimated trafﬁc loads? (2) What is the optimum strategy for the pavement management? The answers of these questions are based on an optimization problem considered by the combination of material behaviors. computational expense.14–18]. These optimization steps are conducted until the differences between calculated and measured deﬂections stay under a certain error criterion. Fig. and data requirements.20. Therefore.422 A. Illustration of typical FWD deﬂection graph. and genetic algorithm [4. peak values for each geophone are used to plot deﬂection basin curve. and utilize conventional pavement response models. transient surface deﬂections are measured at different locations (usually at six or seven locations) by geophones. and related deﬂection values are recorded in the time domain. the KUAB FWD. In the FWD test. The objective of this study is to categorically explain ﬂexible pavement backcalculation methods as well as to compare and contrast them in terms of modeling precision. and new mechanical properties are determined by a parameter identiﬁcation routine. and the Phoenix FWD. . such as the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW).e. 1 illustrates the typical result of an FWD test. Dynaﬂect and Road Rater are two examples of popular steady-state dynamic loading devices. and the time domain impulse. Hence. but rather simulate inverse mapping by learning the target behavior via known input-output data patterns [8–13]. 2. Falling Weight Deﬂectometer (FWD) is a transient impulse loading device [3. several sensors are used to measure the deﬂection values on different points of pavement surface.21. the gradient descent method. the discrepancies among deﬂection based NDT methods are based on variations in loading details (type. As their names imply. On the other hand. The Benkelman beam and La Croix deﬂectometer are NDT devices working with a static type of loading. Generally. Dynamic loading is precise and realistic to simulate the effect that is imposed by actual trafﬁc loads.
and attempts were made to establish the inverse correlation with functional. The rolling weight deﬂectometer (RWD). Several researchers carried out extensive research to understand the different aspects of these techniques. low amplitude excitations are sufﬁcient to generate these waves [3.36.37]. there are other geophysical testing devices. The most popular small-scale devices are: (a) German dynamic plate bearing test (GDPBT). Since pavement deformation is not the essential parameter in these methods. The wave propagation tests record the stress waves propagating along the surface of the pavement due to applied load. which mimics the theory of evolution [3. However. Usually.15. but transducers utilized and analysis procedure lead to several variations in the measured outcomes . RWD can produce thousands of deﬂection data measurements per hour. Initial studies of this problem were based on static analysis. lowering the time efﬁciency. Backcalculation of ﬂexible pavements Backcalculation problems. the matching process is performed by an iterative process.16–20. and empirical approaches. and nonlinear nature of the problem. By computing the travel time between adjacent receivers for different excitation frequencies. The SPA method employs two types of pneumatic impact hammers to produce excitations possessing short and long wavelengths. it is an optimization process performed to obtain inverse mapping of a known relation established by discrete or continuous data points. For this reason. and DSA optimization techniques are illustrated in Fig. in which deﬂection values are calculated using different set of moduli. Basically.A. In order to accomplish this. This technique is represented by the SASW method . In all static approaches. GPR is a pulse-echo method designed to locate structural objects and to evaluate layer properties. can measure deﬂections at a certain speed and overcomes the major drawback of FWD. It functions like an ultrasound machine.000 kHz. pavement response analysis (calculation of deﬂections) can be considered as either static or dynamic. a dispersion curve is obtained through correlating phase velocities with wavelengths. database search algorithm (DSA). As a common technique used in this kind of tests. 2 [4. thus.33]. which greatly exceed the approximate thirty measurements per hour measured by the FWD . GA. 3. optimization processes can be performed by using a parameter identiﬁcation algorithm (PIA). SPA has a hammer with a contact load about 2. these attempts were not successful. conventional methods are based on iterative optimization procedures. Schematic representation of static linear elastic conventional backcalculation methods with PIA.28–32]. such as nonlinear least squares. Basically. among all the NDT methods. RWD is the fastest way to collect deﬂection data. statistical. it is obvious that the nonlinear analysis increases the precision of the forward model. pavement moduli). Since the nonlinearity is closer to the nature of pavement materials. such as ground penetrating radar (GPR). The discrepancies among these models are related with the type of the pavement (forward) response model and the optimization procedure carried out for the determination of appropriate layer modulus values.32. waves are monitored and recorded by receivers. Accordingly. The thickness and stiffness of considered pavement layers are then obtained by an inversion process based on the propagation of generalized plane surface waves of the Rayleigh type. 2. Deﬂection calculations are conducted using an equivalent pavement response model with synthetic moduli. while time signals are transformed to the frequency domain. Available sources reveal that numerous backcalculation techniques have been developed for the backcalculation of pavement layer moduli. used to evaluate the pavement quality. It should also be noted that DSA based backcalculation employs the pattern searching algorithm through optimization routines and utilizes a predetermined database instead of calculating deﬂections in the each step of the optimization [15. the general classiﬁcation of backcalculation methods is presented in Fig. . iterations are continued until a close match between measured and calculated deﬂection values are satisﬁed [4. As can be seen from Fig. (b) TRL foundation tester (TFT). seismic wave methods are constrained in terms of the magnitudes of the loads used to generate seismic waves. Consequently. On the basis of classiﬁcations and implementations made by several researchers.67 kN and with frequency up to 12. there are also several small-scale (portable) dynamic plate test devices available.16. are prevalently used in many scientiﬁc disciplines. 3. and genetic algorithm (GA). they are similar in terms of the mechanics of operation. on the other hand. Basically. The most popular surface wave propagation test is the seismic pavement analyzer (SPA). The backcalculation process in pavement system is the numerical analysis of measured surface deﬂections performed for the estimation of layer stiffness parameters (namely. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 423 The primary disadvantage of FWD is that it has to stop at each test point for several minutes throughout the measuring process.34–36]. Burak Goktepe et al. also known as parameter identiﬁcation problems. RWD utilizes a screening device to locate pavement sections with similar deﬂections and consists of four noncontact optical load tires. due to the inherent. measured deﬂections are matched with calculated deﬂections.14–18. However. but utilizes radio waves instead of sound waves . the main disadvantage is that testing is performed rapidly and the obtained moduli are at low strain levels (in the range of strains where the moduli are not strain dependent).4. RWD sensors perform two measurements at the same time: (a) The distance to the pavement and (b) vertical displacement of the sensor with respect to the laser beam. In addition to the above explained large-scale deﬂection basin NDT methods. these measure the elastic stiffness modulus of considered foundation material. and (c) Loadman. It should be noted that GA is an AI (artiﬁcial intelligence)-based model-free optimization technique. and forward pavement response is calculated using either layered elastic theory or ﬁnite element method (FEM) for linear or nonlinear elastic material behaviors. In addition.16].6. On the other hand. sophisticated.
2. In this earlier attempt. stresses and strains are characterized with a fourth-order differential equation involving four Forward Analysis ∆k (E) PIA. for axisymmetric stress distribution and cylindrical coordinates.1. Layer thickness ν.424 A. Overview of backcalculation methods. 3. Burak Goktepe et al. Static backcalculation procedures The idea of calculating strains within the semi-inﬁnite layered elastic media developed by applied static loads goes back to the prior work of Burmister . (a) Measured Peak Deflections R = max δk R= max Load k Peak Applied I = max P Poisson ratio. . GA max δk ≈ ∆k(E) * max P Backward Analysis E<Changes> Error Criterion Satisfied : Number of sensors k PIA : Parameter Identification Algorithm GA : Genetic Algorithm E (b) Measured Peak Deflections R = max δk Database R= max Load k Peak Applied I = max P Poisson ratio. h Burmister used Boussinesq’s equations with several assumptions for two and three-layered elastic half-space. h Forward Pattern Searching Algorithm Backward Analysis max δk ≈ ∆k(E) * max P E<Changes> Error Criterion Satisfied k: Number of sensors E Fig. Due to layered elastic theory. Layer thickness ν. Schematics of static linear conventional backcalculation with (a) PIA-GA and (b)DSA. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 Backcalculation Methods Static Adaptive Dynamic Closed Form Graphical Conventional Empirical Impulse Load Vibratory Load Linear Nonlinear Frequency Domain Time Domain Steady State Genetic Algorithm Parameter Identification Database Search Linear Nonlinear Genetic Algorithm Fig. Parameter Identification 3.
in nonlinear analysis. .4. A typical illustration of four-layer linear dynamic pavement model is given in Fig. Poisson’s ratio (n) and the thickness (h) of each layer are considered to be constant in this study.42–44].e. such as Green function solution and dynamic FEMs. Layer Thickness. i. their values are generally assumed to be known. for impulse loads as in FWD test.54]. and several material models. Layer thickness ν. Creep compliance is a viscoelastic property that is related with the asphalt concrete (AC) layer as well as internal damping is the function of inertia. In this context.16. complex modulus is generally assumed independent of the frequency. although constant assumption does not result in serious mistakes [4. the dynamic response of a pavement depends on the elastic moduli. integration constants that are determined by boundary and continuity conditions. ρ. Poisson’s ratio of each layer can be taken into account as an additional design variable. and the dynamic complex modulus considered in the frequency domain [22. Therefore. m. internal damping ratio. Basically.39]. h. since loading and deﬂection data are in the frequency domain for steady-state vibratory tests. are performed to calculate resulting surface deﬂections. h3 E4. Young’s modulus is the fundamental property of elasticity and is accounted for all ﬂexible pavement layers.16. only the peak load application is utilized because of the linear elastic material assumption. β3.40–54]. which is considered for base. Nevertheless. thickness. The viscoelastic properties of AC layer can be characterized by creep compliance deﬁned in the time domain. Typical dynamic multilayer pavement model. measured deﬂections are matched with the calculated deﬂections for all load levels instead of a peak value . For remaining layers (base and subgrade).16]. Details of layered elastic theory and related forward calculation programs can be found elsewhere [22. there can be two Deflection Functions R(ω) = δk e i ω t+Φk Load Functions I(ω) = P e i ω t Poisson’s ratio. 5.e. 6. 3. h2 E3.A. In the backcalculation process undertaken by static loading data. The complex modulus is the function of angular frequency (u) and the three material properties. loading is performed as either impulsive or vibratory in dynamic response analyses. E. Analogous to static linear case.19.40. β) Forward Analysis ∆k (G*) R(ω) ≈ ∆k (G*) * I(ω) Forward G*<Changes> Error Criterion Satisfied G* → f (m. and subgrade layers in elastodynamic analyses [4. E. Elastic Modulus and Dynamic Parameters (ν. In order to use the dynamic loading data. pavement moduli. there is no need for a transformation in this type of backcalculation analysis. Poisson’s ratios. In order to compute more realistic deﬂection values. h1 E2. As emphasized before. can be utilized to characterize these layers [22. β2. Fourier analyses are usually conducted for the transformation of the domain.2. such as Kelvin and Maxwell. β4. Then. Fig. ω) k: Number of sensors Analysis G* Fig. h4 Asphalt Concrete Base Subbase Subgrade G* = E’(w) + (1 +ib) PIA max δkj ≈ ∆k(E) * max Pj E<Changes> Backward Error Criterion Satisfied G* = E’(w) + (1 +ib) G* = E’(w) + (1 +ib) E Fig. the nonlinearity in the material behavior as well as using different load levels existing in the test method can be considered. elastodynamic analysis. Nevertheless. Schematic representation of static nonlinear backcalculation with PIA. β. Therefore.42–45]. h k : Number of sensors j : Number of load levels G* = E’(w) + iE’’(w) Forward ∆k (E) E1. m. Obviously.16]. 6 depicts the schematical representation of dynamic backcalculation for steady-state vibratory loads [4. E) is changed by a parameter identiﬁcation algorithm (PIA) to match calculated (() and measured deﬂections (d). / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 425 Measured Peak Deflections R = max δk Peak Applied Load I = max Pj Poisson ratio. slope of creep compliance curve (m). Referring again to Fig. 6. Density. thus. and damping ratios have only slight inﬂuence on the dynamic response of the pavement. Fig. Commonly.42. and Young’s modulus (E). the stiffness of each layer (i. mass densities (r). Dynamic backcalculation procedures Dynamic pavement response models have also been adapted to the forward calculations of backcalculation procedures by several researchers [1. 4. 4 demonstrates the difference between linear and nonlinear static backcalculation techniques (for PIA routine). Actually. Burak Goktepe et al. and damping ratios (b) of each layer. loading levels are not considered in static material behavior and in the related pavement response model. the variations in Poisson’s ratios. Namely. deﬂection data can be obtained in the time domain for the time domain impulse loads. Fig. In the light of this ﬁgure. which is inherent to the nature of actual (in situ) load application. the unknown parameters in a dynamic backcalculation analysis are the complex moduli (G*) and the thickness of the pavements layers. Schematic Representation of dynamic steady-state vibratory load backcalculation. subbase. the time (t) domain data must be transformed to the frequency (u) domain data. mass densities. and in the frequency domain for steady state vibratory loads. 5.
Layer Thickness. Details of impulse load dynamic backcalculation for both cases are explained in Figs. Analytical methods are successful in simulating Deflection Histories R(t) = δk (t) Load Time History I(t) = P (t) Poisson’s ratio.. In essence. E. inverse Fourier transformation should be carried out to compare calculated and measured deﬂections . analytical and numerical. β) Backward Analysis Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) P (ωj) = I (ωj) Forward Analysis ∆k (G*) RC (ω) = ∆k (G*) *I (ωj) G* → f (m. i. Burak Goktepe et al. ß. In the time domain ﬁtting. ρ. i.426 A. instead of nonlinear. It should be underlined for dynamic backcalculation analyses that the consideration of material behaviors in nonlinear manner drastically increases the computational complexity. Schematic representation of dynamic the time domain ﬁtting for impulse load backcalculation. since computed deﬂections are in the frequency domain. Therefore. Density. ß. h. the fundamental discrepancies among dynamic backcalculation procedures come from the philosophies behind the utilized forward response models. Density.17. ω) k: Number of sensors Error Criterion Satisfied G* G*<Changes> Fig. m. E. Elastic Modulus and Dynamic Parameters (ν. ρ.16. 7 and 8. ω) k: Number of sensors RC (t) Error Criterion Satisfied G* RC (t) ≈ R PIA G* Fig. for the majority of dynamic backcalculation analyses. E. E. m.e. Furthermore. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 Deflection Histories R(t) = δk (t) Load Time History I(t) = P (t) Poisson’s ratio. similar to the static backcalculation methods. Layer Thickness. 8. Elastic Modulus and Dynamic Parameters (ν. possibilities. dynamic pavement (forward) response models fall into two categories depending on the solution methodologies. optimization process of dynamic backcalculation can be performed by parameter identiﬁcation or genetic algorithm routine [4. related algorithms take linear material behavior into account. h. Forward Analysis ∆k0 (ωj) . Schematic representation of dynamic the frequency domain ﬁtting for impulse load backcalculation.e. β) Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) δk (ωj) δk (ωj) P (ωj) P (ωj) Backward Analysis ∆k (G*) PIA ∆k0 (ωj) ≈ ∆k (G*) G* → f (m. (a) the frequency domain ﬁtting and (b) the time domain ﬁtting. Obviously. 7.37].
discretization of the domain and a methodology based on the calculation of internal forces element by element is obviously computationally expensive. Another analytical method was developed by Nilsson et al.47. nevertheless. It is obvious that this overcomes the computational drawback of FEM for use with inverse problems that requires iterative computations [47. nevertheless. FEM is theoretically a powerful tool for the dynamic analysis of a layered stratum. 9. their solutions were found to be instable with respect to several complications in numerical integrations for continuous analyses as well as robust due to computational complexity for semi-discrete analyses [47. Kausel and Roesset presented both semi-discrete and continuous analyses to solve the equations of motion. Additionally. each layer is represented by one element instead of subdivisions. Hardy and Cebon  employed the theory of convolution in numerical computations to characterize the strains developed under moving dynamic loads for varying speeds and frequencies. damping ratio.46.  completed their spectral element based forward-backward calculation procedure by considering poroelastic behavior for the base layer.58]. Chang et al.A. Liang and Zhu  applied the modiﬁed Vlasov model under dynamic conditions comprising an AC layer over Vlasov subgrade. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 427 the wave propagation in elastic media. they adopted Burger’s model into spectral element technique to characterize the viscoelastic material behavior with a differential operator. they need to be applied under certain geometric and boundary conditions [10.3. namely PUNCH. Authors also implemented the viscoelastic pavement analysis program named VEROAD .63].  involving viscoelastic parameters of AC layer. Basically. Adaptive System Output Error Calculation Input Target Training Parameter Identification Algorithm Error Fig. A basic illustration of an adaptive system is given in Fig.62. UTFWD.47. depth to rigid bottom. while some other researchers employed the above outlined dynamic analysis of Kausel and Roesset [33. adaptive backcalculation. they adopted Burger’s method to characterize the shear modulus and considered linear elastic (frequency independent) bulk modulus. overcome the obstacles related with the complexities in geometric shapes and boundary conditions. in these closed-form solutions. however. Semi-discrete solutions depend on the interpolation of wave propagation in the horizontal direction by considering sublayers with respect to the wavelengths of Rayleigh waves.52]. the two-phased (forward and backward) structure of traditional backcalculation approaches is combined into one step utilizing a supervised learning algorithm. In another notable study. Al-Khoury et al. spectral element method is quite successful in simulating dynamic pavement response as well as making required calculations quickly involving viscoelastic and poroelastic aspects [47–50]. large domains and model sizes should be considered in the model . Several studies used FEM to analyze ﬂexible pavement structure [46. . Continuous solutions are based on the functional description of the wave motion in the time domain and the numerical integration of obtained dynamic equation.47]. Namely. 9. Essentially. On the other hand.48]. they developed layer stiffness matrices by improving the transfer matrix concept introduced by Haskell  and generalized the lumped mass method of Lysmer . it usually requires extensive computational effort [10. In the adaptive technique. In this context they utilized the Biot’s theory of wave propagation in a saturated porous stratum. In addition. Therefore. Then. The ﬁrst efﬁcient analytical solution implemented for the characterization of the wave propagation in layered elastic media was developed by Kausel and Roesset . Therefore. Eventually. they used both Laplace–Hankel transformation and transfer matrix methodology to calculate strains in the time domain .53]. numerical methods. Kang calculated surface deﬂections considering viscoelastic aspects. As a result. Eventually. In order to perform an efﬁcient and precise backcalculation analysis. and it simulates the nonlinear mapping between input and output spaces as a functional approximater. In essence. Liang and Zeng  presented an analytical solution technique for the simulation of transient wave propagation based on axisymmetric dynamic loads. In order to overcome this obstacle. Kang  implemented several dynamic pavement analyzing programs. Roesset and Shao . Therefore. Adaptive backcalculation procedures The last backcalculation technique. Apart from these. Magnuson . which are commonly identiﬁed with FEM. despite the success and the general analysis ability of FEM in the solution of complex problems. the solutions of Kausel and Roesset  are based on stiffness matrices establishing the relationship between stresses and strains at the top and bottom of each layer. pavement response to a unit vibratory steadystate load is computed by Green function solutions characterized by means of transcendental functions’ integrals . Consequently. Kang  developed a multi-frequency pavement analyzing tool focusing on dynamic Green ﬂexibility inﬂuence functions. Apart from these. Fourier superposition is applied to extend the plane stresses and strains to axisymmetric conditions. They considered creep compliance. . In this pioneering study. SCALPOT. and GREEN respectively. Additionally. 3. Basics of adaptive system. those using it must avoid the errors that arise from the reﬂection of waves at the boundaries of ﬁnite elements. In this context. this same group also considered viscoelastic aspects for AC layer to realistically model the ﬂexible pavement system . and fatigue cracking issues in their notable study . an adaptive system is taught by known input-output patterns. In this model. However. Burak Goktepe et al. Al-Khoury et al. is fundamentally different from traditional techniques. utilized axisymmetric layer and halfspace spectral elements to characterize the dynamic behavior of ﬂexible pavements by . the spectral element technique is the combination of FEM with wave propagation basics.
This idea was ﬁrst introduced by Meier and Rix . several other studies focusing on ANN-based pavement backcalculation models were carried out [11–13. 10a.and (b) ANFIS-based static nonlinear backcalculation.65–67]. A typical ANFIS-based backcalculation procedure is schematically depicted in Fig. fuzzy inference and the adaptation of fuzzy system are not appropriate for large numbers of input-output patterns and detailed input space partitionings. precise . thus. 4. Nevertheless. First of all. underlying material model and mechanical analysis do not exist in ANNbased backcalculation. h Weights <Changes> k j EM ES (b) moduli R = max δk I = max Pj µ. 10. It should be added for adaptive backcalculation that training data may involve either in situ (measured) or synthetic (calculated) pavement moduli. Similarly.ES Error Criterion Satisfied E ∏ ∏ ∏ N N N f f f Σ E Parameters <Changes> k j EM ES : Number of sensors : Number of load levels : In-situ (measured) moduli : Synthetic (calculated) moduli Training Algorithm Error EM . Later. Illustration of (a) ANN.428 A. The performance. An example ANN-based backcalculation model for nonlinear elastic material behavior and static loading is indicated in Fig. Apart from these. h : Number of sensors : Number of load levels : In-situ (measured) moduli : Synthetic (calculated) moduli ) Training Algorithm Error EM . Burak Goktepe et al. Meier and Rix  veriﬁed the susceptibility of ANN methodology for pavement moduli backcalculation utilizing FWD data. of ANN-based backcalculation is based on the quality and quantity of training data . There are other adaptive learning methodologies that can be used for the backcalculation problem. who applied artiﬁcial neural networks (ANN) for the SASW test data inversion and the backcalculation of ﬂexible pavement layer properties. adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) can be utilized to backcalculate pavement moduli. In this context. The training process can be performed by either experimental data to characterize speciﬁc test section or with synthetically collected data to inversely simulate the pavement response model. then. they published the complementary article comprising the dynamic aspects and the rigid bottom depth concepts . Successively. The fundamental advantages of adaptive backcalculation methodologies are that they present real-time backcalculation ability and precise analysis results. it is appropriate for the inherent nature of the problem. it can be a good choice for a small amount of training data involving considerable amount of uncertainty . It should be noted that ANN can solely learn the mapping characterized by input–output patterns. therefore.ES Error Criterion Satisfied E Fig.36. However. Evaluations on backcalculation methods It is obvious that dynamic backcalculation analysis is more advantageous than the static approach. neurofuzzy inference can also be employed to backcalculate pavement moduli with existing input-output data expressing the target behavior . / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 (a) R = max δk E I = max Pj µ. 10b.
adaptive methods are capable of supplying real-time backcalculation and providing accurate outcomes with the help of their outstanding modeling abilities. † The optimization technique is also the complementary issue for a backcalculation analysis.76–78]. However. 5. GA-based optimization produces almost identical outcomes in comparison with least-squares methods.79–81].15– 17. Cebon D. dynamic and viscoelastic pavement response analyses give precise outcomes. Variations in backcalculated pavement layer moduli in LTTP seasonal monitoring sites. STP 1375.16. For this reason. gradient descent. Eventually. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. not only peak deformation values.15.33. 63.  Briggs RC. † FEM presents generalized problem solving ability. † When the rigid bottom depth is higher than approximately 15m and practical considerations are valid for the problem at hand. where complex geometries and boundary conditions are involved. they are limited in terms of size.70]. Particularly in cases when the depth to the rigid bottom is greater than 12–15 m. † Adaptive backcalculation methods perform real-time backcalculation analyses as a functional mapper. In: Tayabji SD. the efﬁciency is affected by the optimization methodology employed in the backward analysis performed to match calculated and measured deﬂections. thus. they must be applied carefully. Moreover. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli: 3. J Transp Eng ASCE 1996.19. range. Therefore. Newton–Raphson.4. the discrepancy between static and dynamic approaches may be assumed to be acceptable [19. GA-based backcalculation is ineffective in terms of computing speed [3. viscoelasticty and poroelasticity can also be considered in spectral element method to obtain more realistic outcomes. the computational expense of this technique makes it tedious to use in backcalculation problems. precise and efﬁcient backcalculation analyses can be performed with the spectral element method. there is no underlying mechanical background in these techniques. the preference of correct optimization algorithm inﬂuences speed and precision of the backcalculation analysis. Within this content. but also the entire deﬂection record is used in the calculations of dynamic pavement response analysis. because of their simplicity and acceptable error ranges. Lukanen EO. the following conclusions were drawn in this study: † With the consideration of the actual trafﬁc loads as well as the material behavior of asphalt concrete. However. Otherwise. p. Therefore.71–75]. Burak Goktepe et al.122:131–9. The spectral element method is probably the most promising forward analysis method for use in backcalculation analyses. pattern searching method (Hooke– Jeeves algorithm). In essence. Nevertheless. to develop a complex and speciﬁc pavement model involving three-dimensional variations and nonlinear material properties. and evolutionary computation (GA) were utilized in the developed backcalculation algorithms so far.20. Together with these. the precision of a backcalculation analysis is sensitive to type and coverage of pavement response analysis. Nevertheless. the computational expense of FEM makes it tedious to use in backcalculation problems. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 429 results could be obtained using dynamic approach. Stiffness reductions of ﬂexible pavements due to cumulative fatigue damage. reliability. which is assumed semi-inﬁnite in static analyses. therefore. Apart from the advantage of GA on preventing the local minima problem and derivative-based errors. † The spectral element method is capable of performing both precise as well as fast pavement response analyses.60–63. it has also several obstacles originating from the complexity and the computational expense of dynamic analyses. viscoelastic properties of AC layer can efﬁciently be considered in dynamic analysis. The hybrid Powel optimization method can be preferred in the optimization process of backcalculation procedures using spectral element analysis [47–50]. several parameter identiﬁcation techniques (linear least squares. In addition. In order. editors. the FEM approach should be preferred [33. it is necessary to use an optimization technique that is capable of overcoming local minima problems as well as derivative-based errors. Moreover. it is possible to adopt viscoelastic and poroelastic material behaviors into spectral element analysis with small modiﬁcations. nonlinear material properties and threedimensional analyzing are possible with FEM. Furthermore. therefore. . static pavement response analysis and resulting backcalculation process may be misleading. can be considered in dynamic model [4.69. This is why they must be applied carefully and cannot be shifted with mechanical approaches such as elastodynamic analysis. and distribution of training data in terms of characterizing the considered behavior. FEM enables the general solution of ﬂexible pavement system subjected to dynamic loads. and Gauss–Newton methods). Conclusions This paper addresses the advances in backcalculation of the mechanical properties of ﬂexible pavements. in order to increase the performance of the backcalculation analysis. 113–28. References  Callop AC. static approaches are generally preferred in the majority of pavement backcalculation studies. Lukanen EO. in many problems it is tedious to get all necessary data required for a dynamic analysis.60.35–37. In addition. the static approach can be applied to forward pavement analysis. Special technical publication. It is obvious that these advantages of adaptive backcalculation methods provide signiﬁcant earnings for pavement engineers in terms of time and money. 2000. In this context.A. Nevertheless. Besides the existing advantages of the dynamic approach. nevertheless. the thickness of subgrade. Consequently. There is no underlying structure of adaptive backcalculation methods to calculate mechanical pavement responses. while also being fast and precise.
Stokoe KH. editors. 1043. 1473. technical report. Transportation research record 1570. Magnuson AH. Lukanen EO. TRB. TRB. Pavement analysis and design. Transportation research record 1007. 3. TRB. Transportation research record. Transportation research record 1286. Texas: University of Texas at Austin 1985. . Neural network modeling of anisotropic aggregate behavior from repeated load triaxial tests. Rix GJ.  Sebaaly B. Stokoe KH.16:425–31. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. Dynamic interpretation of dynaﬂect. Backcalculating nonlinear resilient moduli from deﬂection data. Thompson MR. 124–135. DC: National Research Council. 1293. DC: National Research Council. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. department of civil engineering. In: Tayabji SD. 1997 p. Backcalculation analysis of pavement-layer moduli using genetic algorithms.  Mamlouk MS. 1992 p. department of civil engineering.  Kang YV. Transportation research record. Baladi GY. LNCS 2714. Washington. 1448. Texas: Univ. 134–142. Monismith CL. 1986 p. Special technical publication.430 A. 3–37.  Saltan M.124(1):73–81. PhD Dissertation. 132–144. 1070. 2. Briggs RC. Xu B. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. 14–22.  Tutumluer E. Yokota H. 852. DC: National Research Council. Tan CY. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. Lukanen EO. Transportation research record. 86–93. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Bush AJ. DC: National Research Council. Austin: University of Texas at Austin 1991. 1989. In: Tayabji SD. 38–45.  Magnuson AH. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431  Tholen O.  Uzan J.  Monismith CL. STP 1375. In: Von Quintus HL. Backcalculation of layer moduli. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. FWD for pavement evaluation: comparative study. In: Tayabji SD. Washington. DW. Rix GJ. 1989.  Hoffman MS. An initial study of surface wave inversion using artiﬁcial neural networks.  Sanchez-Salinero I. editors. Cnter for transportation research. Nondestructive testing of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. 1994. editors. p. A methodology to identify material properties in pavements modeled as layered viscoelastic half-spaces. Selection of genetic algorithm parameters for backcalculation of pavement moduli. Rix GJ. PhD Dissertation. Special technical publication. Transportation research record. Vicksburg: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. p. 1995 p. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Masuda S.  Reddy MA.  Fleming PR.  Maina JW. 1988 p. of Texas at Austin 1990. Stokoe KH.  Tawﬁq K.  Terzi S. Washington. editors. ICANN/ICONIP 2003. p. Terrel RL. Special technical publication. 72–81. editors.  Huang YH.23:84–94. Optimization of deﬂection basin by genetic algorithm and neural network approach. 3. p. Roesset JM. Comparison of computer predictions and ﬁeld data for dynamic analysis of falling weight deﬂectometer data. GL-89-3.  Meier RW. Yildirim T. STP 1375. Prediction of pavement deterioration based on FWD results.  Lytton RL. Texas: University of Texas at Austin 1987. DC: National Research Council. PhD Dissertation. Comparison of FWD with other deﬂection testing devices. Stokoe KH. J Transp Eng ASCE 1985.  Reddy MA. 1993. Pandey BB. Bush AJ.  Harichandran RS.  Kang YV.  Newcomb. 5–26.11(1):83–94. Use of spectral analysis of surface waves method for determination of moduli and thicknesses of pavement systems. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Seismic pavement analyzer vs. Dynamics of falling weight deﬂectometer. Will nonlinear backcalculation help. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. 113–119. STP 1375. Baladi GY.  Bentsen RA. DC: National Research Council. PhD Dissertation. Pandey BB. Small-scale dynamic devices for the measurement of elastic stiffness modulus on pavement foundations. Comparison of backcalculated and laboratory measured moduli on AC and granular base layer materials. Pak J Inf Tech 2002. Harrison JA. Sharma J. Nonlinear effects on dynamic response of pavements using the NDT technique. Transportation research record. The general theory of stresses and displacements in layered soil systems.  Chang. editors. p. 1. vol. Baladi GY. Yeh MS. 2000. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. Reddy KS. Baladi GY. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. 2000. 1993. p. Special report. Council. Backcalculation of ﬂexible pavement moduli using artiﬁcial neural networks. 1989. A new backcalculation procedure based on dispersion analysis of FWD time history deﬂections and surface wave measurements using ANNs. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. 3–37.  Ullidtz P. Mamlouk MS.  Nazarian S. Washington. 2000. 3. In: Tayabji SD. Armaghani J. Development and evaluation of regression method to interpret dynamic pavement deﬂections.  Meier RW. Transportation research record. Torpunuri VS. Hudson WR. Roesset JM. 1987 p.  Burmister DM. Washington DC: National Research Council. 1991 p. 159– 69. 921. DC: National Research Council. 1994. 123–131. SP 1175-5. In: Tayabji SD. Lukanen EO. 41–58. 1990 p. TRB. DC: National Research Council. TRB. Washington. 161–72. International Conference on Neural Networks. 1985 p. Texas: University of Texas at Austin.  Kim YR. 1136. state of the art. In: Bush AJ. 3. editors. editors. Washington. 2.  Nazarian S. 1615. DC: National Research Council. 3. J Transp Eng ASCE 1998. Use of dynamic analysis in predicting ﬁeld multilayer pavement moduli. Modeling deﬂection basin using neurofuzzy in backcalculating ﬂexible pavement layer moduli.  Stolle DFE. Lytton RL. Backcalculation of ﬂexible pavement moduli from dynamic deﬂection basins using artiﬁcial neural networks.  Fwa TF. Analytically based asphalt pavement design and rehabilitation: theory to practice. Advanced backcalculation techniques. Seattle: University of Washington 1986. 1982 p. 75–82. In: Von Quintus HL. In: Tayabji SD. Modeling of dynamic response of pavements to impact loading.66:1–10. Chan WT. 51–61.  Meier RW. TRB. Washington. editors.  Sheu JC. DC: National Research Council. Effect of depth to bedrock on the accuracy of backcalculated moduli obtained with dynaﬂect and FWD tests. Kim Y. 2000. Seyhan U. TRB. Lukanen EO. Transportation research record. Washington. Special technical publication. TRB. J Appl Phys 1945. department of civil engineering. Int J Pavement Eng 2004. Nondestructive evaluation of pavements by surface wave method. Washington DC: National Research Council. Use of surface waves in pavement evaluation. PhD Dissertation. DC: National Res.5(2):81–90. Evaluation of NDT equipment for airﬁeld pavements. Special technical publication. Comput Geotech 1991. department of civil engineering. Dynamic response of paving materials Transportation research record. ASTM Geotechn Test J 1993. p.  Shao KY. DC: National Research Council. Stokoe KH. Washington.  Zhou H. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. TRB. STP 1198. TRB. STP 1375. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Lukanen EO. MICH-PAVE: a nonlinear ﬁnite element program for analysis of ﬂexible pavements.  Stubbs N. 297–312. STP 1026. Multi-frequency backcalculation of pavement layer moduli.  Sousa JB. 119– 37. editors. Transportation research record.  Nazarian S. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. STP 1026. Lytton RL. 7–38. Sobanjo J.1:180–7. Baladi GY. Special technical publication. 42–51. Effects of reﬂected waves on SASW testing of pavements. 20–26. p. STP 1375. 2000. STP 1198. Reddy KS. TRB. In: Bush AJ. 57–68. TRB. Washington. Davies TG. Analytical investigation of seismic methods used for engineering applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. 2003: 662–669. J Highw Res Board 2002. 1345. Saltan M. Backcalculation of pavement moduli using genetic algorithms. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Special technical publication. TRB. 327–45. 1. falling weight deﬂectometer and spectral analysis of surface waves tests on pavement system. 1983 p. 1196. Mﬁnanga DA. Bush A. Lukanen EO. Transportation research record. Transportation research record.  Seng CR. 1985 p. Washington. Special technical publication. p. DE. Burak Goktepe et al. Washington.111:618–32. Effect of ﬁnite width on dynamic deﬂections of pavements. 1998 p. 1994 p.
III.  Goktepe AB. 3. Dynamic nondestructive testing of pavements. 1293. Spectral element technique for efﬁcient parameter identiﬁcation of layered media. p. Roesset JM. TRB. Mahoney JP. DC 1985 p. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Efﬁcient dynamic analysis of multilayered system during falling weight deﬂectometer experiments. 8–16.  Sousa JB. Roesset JM. Scarpas A. DC: National Research Council. Weissman SL.  Uzan J.38:1131–50. J Transp Eng ASCE 1994.38:8753–72. Dynamic linear backcalculation of pavement material parameters.  Uzan J. 89–92. 1–30. J Transp Eng ASCE 1984. TRB. Stiffness and damping coefﬁcients of foundations. Pihlajamaki J.A. Computer analysis of falling weight deﬂectometer data. Lukanen EO. Founquinos R.  Tutumluer E. Part I. 1355. 1136. Blaauwendraad J.  Mustaque ASM. 124–135.  Mamlouk MS.  Abdallah I.1655. 1293. Scarpas A. White TD. Response of continued pavements to moving dynamic loads. 2000. Washington. Attempt at resilient modulus modeling using artiﬁcial neural networks.  Saltan M. Washington. Int J Solids Struct 2001. Burak Goktepe et al. Kausel E. Turkish J Eng Environ Sci 2002. Proceedings of ASCE national convention on dynamic response of pile foundations. Kim T. Zaghloul SM. Int J Solids Struct 2002. 95– 109. 7–38.128(4):366–74. Stiffness matrices for layered soils. Ramon CM. department of civil engineering. Washington. 1–6. Takahashi O. DC 1992 p. Special technical publication. Detection and determination of depth of rigid bottom in backcalculation of layer moduli from FWD data. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. ARI Bulletin of Istanbul Technical University. DC: National Research Council. In: O’Neal MW. Zaniewski JP. Mamlouk MS. Texas: University of Texas at Austin 1995. Use of dynamic analysis in predicting ﬁeld multilayer pavement moduli. Blaauwendraad J. 1988. editors. 3. TRB. Lukanen EO. Spectral element technique for efﬁcient parameter identiﬁcation of layered media. Transportation research record. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. Kasbergen C. Int J Solids Struct 2002. Trondheim. Nilsson RN. Sebaaly PE. STP 1375. Sackman JL. 124–135.  Ong CL. New York. Veriﬁcation of backcalculation procedures. Shao KY. MICHBACK user’s manual. 81–87. Zaniewski JP. p. Transportation research record. Washington.26:243–8. Artiﬁcial neural network application for ﬂexible pavement thickness modeling. Collage Station. 1986 p. TRB. Stokoe II KH. 113–119.38:1605–23. Comput Struct 1998. Advanced backcalculation using a nonlinear least squares optimization technique. Texas Transportation Institute. Use of a three dimensional dynamic ﬁnite element program for the analysis of ﬂexible pavement. 1293. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1970.60:89–104. Al-Khoury R. DC: National Research Council. Poroelastic spectral element for wave propagation and parameter identiﬁcation in multi-layer systems. Scarpas A. Nazarian S. DC 1993 p.71:1743–61. Kramer SL. Baladi GY. 2002 p. 1980. Meier RW. Scarpas A. General procedure for backcalculating layer moduli. An efﬁcient backcalculation algorithm of time domain for large-scale pavement structures using Ritz vectors. Al-Khoury R. Vertical displacement computations on the surface of a uniform surface pressure distribution. In: Tayabji SD. TRB. Forward calculation. II. Germann FP. Transportation research record. Tsubokawa Y. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1981. editors. 69:255–63.124(6): 557–66. TRB. 365– 82. Haskell NA. Comparison of dynamic and static backcalculation moduli for three-layer pavements. 2000. Ferregut C. PhD Dissertation. 7–16. Efﬁcient computational algorithms for forward and backward analysis of a dynamic pavement system. Roesset JM. Transportation research record. Lucero MO. Washington. DC: National Research Council. Matsui K. Lumped mass method for rayleigh waves. Performance evaluation of backcalculation algorithms through three dimensional ﬁnite-element modeling of pavement structures. Transportation research record. 1504. Blaauwendraad J. Kang YV. 1043. Washington. 1993 p. Monismith CL. 1990: 447–458. Mahmood T. Chang DW. Special technical publication.119(9):1762–80. Hopman PC. Transportation research record. Uzan J. Transportation research record. J Transport Eng ASCE 1998. STP 1026. 1388. Washington. 1991 p. Norway. Washington. Lav AH. Spectral element technique for efﬁcient parameter identiﬁcation of layered media. Nonlinear elastic viscous with damage model to predict permanent deformation of asphalt concrete mixes Transportation research record. Dong QX. p. Finite Elem Anal Des 2002. 57–67.110(6):536–67. Transportation research record.  Huhtala M. Transportation research record.  Mera RF. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. 194–208.71:17–34. Special technical publication. 1994. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. Baladi GY. Kasbergen C. 1996 p. TRB. Tigdemir M. Stokoe II KH. Int J Solids Struct 2001. J Transp Eng ASCE 2002. Washington. Dynamic interpretation of Dynaﬂect and falling weight deﬂectometer tests. Kasbergen C.120(1):109–25.  Chatti K. Washington. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1953. Liang RY. June 8–12.  Sivaneswaran N. Elasto-dynamic analysis of pavement deﬂections. Cebon D. Roesset JM. TRB. 1991 p. Al-Khoury R. Pennsylvania: ASTM Publication. Comparison of multilayer perceptron and adaptive neuro-fuzzy system on backcalculating the mechanical properties of ﬂexible pavements. Viscoelastic aspects. Agar E. Washington. NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Roesset JM. Liang R. Zhu JX.39:4073–91. I. 1539. in press. Michigan: Michigan Department of Transportation. editors. Oost I. Effect of frequency-dependent asphalt concrete Layer moduli on pavement response. Transportation research record. William GW. Visco-elastic analysis of full scale pavements: validation of VEROAD. analytical aspects. Proceedings of third International Conference on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airﬁelds. The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered media. Shoukry SN. 152–160. DC: National Research Council. 1560. Davies GD. Scullion T. Response of pavement systems to dynamic loads imposed by nondestructive tests. 1996 p. DC: National Research Council. Detection and determination of depth of rigid bottom in backcalculation of layer moduli from falling weight deﬂectometer. 60–69. DC: National Research Council. research report no: 1215-1F. TRB. TRB. Special technical publication. STP 1375.39:2189–201. Lysmer J. Hachiya Y. . Magnuson AH. Newcomb ED. p.  Sidderharthan RV.  Harichandran RS. New concepts on load equivalency measurements Proceeding of seventh international conference on asphalt pavements 1992 p. editors. 1022. Lytton RL. Siddharthan R. Kasbergen C. Inverse calculation. 93–102.  Hossain ASM. STP 1375. J Eng Mech ASCE 1993. DC 1995 p. DC. 3. Effect of depth to bedrock on deﬂection basins obtained with dynaﬂect and falling weight deﬂectometer tests. 1991 p. Al-Khoury R. Karasahin M. Washington. 1. 57–68. 1989. Pavement strain from moving dynamic 3D load distribution. 1293. Dobry K. 2000. 431                      Hardy MSA. In: Tayabji SD. Prediction of remaining life of ﬂexible pavements with artiﬁcial neural network models. 2000 p. DC: National Research Council. Washington. TRB. Transportation research record. TRB. Blaauwendraad J. In: Bush AJ. p. 484–98. / Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 421–431 NDT of pavements and backcalculation of moduli. Yao J. TRB. Zeng S. 1980.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?