Insert the title of your

presentation here
Presented by Name Here
Job Title - Date
Different loads and load pulses
make comparisons between LWD,
FWD, HWD and SHWD difficult
Brian Ferne and Peter Langdale
TRL 10 June 2010
EUROFWD10
(6
th
European FWD Users Group Meeting)
BRRC, Brussels
10 and 11 June 2010,
Insert the title of your
presentation here
Presented by Name Here
Job Title - Date
or Harmonising FWDs?
Brian Ferne and Peter Langdale
TRL 10 June 2010
EUROFWD10
(6
th
European FWD Users Group Meeting)
BRRC, Brussels
10 and 11 June 2010,
Page 3
Table of contents
A short history of harmonisation
Introduction to FWDs, L(F)WDs, H(F)WDs and SH(F)WDs
History of harmonisation
Crow/COST336
UK HA correlation trials
1
2
3
4
5
LWD use and comparisons
HWD use and comparisons
Summary and questions to be answered
6
7
8
USA SHRP procedure
History of measurement
Pulse loads
- 1963 Bretonniere France
- 1964 Finsen/Ullidtz/Gautier Denmark
- 1966 Isada USA
- 1968? First Phoenix FWD, Denmark
- 1968? First Dynatest FWD, Denmark
- 1976 First KUAB FWD, Sweden
- 1987 First JILS FWD, USA
- 19?? First Komatsu FWD, Japan
What is an FWD? (1)
d
1
d
5
d
3
d
4
d
2
d
6
d
7
Applied load
Falling Weight Deflectometer Schematic
Geophones
Deflection bowl
Loading plate
Types of FWD
FWD (Falling Weight Deflectometer)
Peak load = 25 to 100 kN
HWD (Heavy Weight Deflectometer)
Peak load = 50 to 250 kN
LWD (Light Weight Deflectometer)
Peak load = 1 to 10 kN
How do we use FWDs on
pavements?
To assess the structural properties of
New pavements
In-service pavements
Rehabilitated pavements
Structural properties can include layer stiffnesses and load
transfer at joints or cracks
Therefore :
Vital that:
Measurement
Interpretation
Is
Accurate
Consistent
Therefore :
Vital that:
Measurement
Interpretation
Is
Accurate ?
Consistent
First overall assessment
1989
Comparison of Falling Weight Deflectometer systems available in
the United Kingdom
Four Survey Contractors
Question
How should we test our FWDs?
Main Options:
USA SHRP-LTPP
- emphasis on calibration of
components
Dutch CROW protocol
- emphasis on correlation of
whole systems
Main Options:
USA SHRP-LTPP
Dutch CROW protocol
Question
How should we test our FWDs?
Main Options:
USA SHRP-LTPP
Dutch CROW protocol
Preliminary trial held in November 1998 sponsored by
the Highways Agency with support from the UK and
Ireland FWD Group
Question
How should we test our FWDs?

Six machines from five companies

Six machines from five companies
-
-
Five
Five
FWDs
FWDs
, one HWD (all
, one HWD (all
Dynatest
Dynatest
)
)

All machines similarly configured

All machines similarly configured
(Load, geophones, plate size, 5 drops, smoothing) (Load, geophones, plate size, 5 drops, smoothing)

Machines inspected
Machines inspected
model model
weight and buffer configuration weight and buffer configuration
plate type plate type
load attainment method load attainment method
geophone locations geophone locations
calibration details calibration details
Preliminary
Preliminary
1998 FWD
1998 FWD
Correlation Trial
Correlation Trial
How do we use the results?
Pass/fail criteria
FCF (mean) >0.95 and <1.05
FCF (individual) >0.90 and <1.10
SDDR (mean) <0.05
SDDR (individual) <0.07
Trial Development
1998 - preliminary trial (6 machines)
1999 - second trial (also looked at rigid pavements,
mid slab and joints)
(7 machines)
2000 - First mandatory trial!
(9 machines)
2000 First mini trial
Now annual exercise with 16 machines in 2005
20 machines in 2010
HA requirements for measurement
All machines operating on trunk road network must:
Take part in and pass annual correlation trial
Be retested following any major maintenance
FWD Correlation 2009 - FCF
FWD and LWD test equipment
Comparison of foundation stiffness
measurements by LWD and FWD
Repeatability of FWD : Lowstiffness foundation
1
10
100
1000
10000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
PRIMA FWD
LWD and FWD test methods
Is the relationship between an LWD and a
FWD dependent on the foundation type
tested?
Comparison of LWD and FWD on an
unbound granular foundation
0
100
200
300
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Surface stress (kPa)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
PRIMA FWD
Comparison of LWD and FWD on a
bound foundation
0
100
200
300
400
0 100 200 300 400 500
Surface stress (kPa)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)
PRIMA FWD
Comparison of LWD and FWD on
unbound and bound foundations
Foundation stiffness (MPa) by:
Foundation
type
LWD FWD
Proportional
difference*
(%)
167 210 -20
204 244 -16
110 138 -21
98 115 -15
Unbound
38 78 -53
Weakly bound 89 108 -18
335 321 5
Bound
1055 1125 -6
*{(LWD-FWD)*100 / FWD}
Potential LWD/FWD adjustment and
test procedure
Test Demonstration Area with LWD and FWD
Calculate factor to adjust LWD test results
Confirm precision of calibration is adequate
Use LWD on Main Works with results adjusted
by factor.
Compare running mean averages of 5 test
results and individual values with target
stiffness values
Two questions were posed:
-Is it essential to use a Heavy Weight
Deflectometer when assessing airfields?
-How should we interpret the results from
FWD/HWD?
FWD - HWD Comparison
The study:
FWD (TRL) and HWD (Dynatest UK)
Simultaneous testing
Range of airfields and constructions
Load transfer testing (joints)
Stiffness testing (mid-slab)
Effect of load
Effect of plate size
FWD FWD - - HWD Comparison HWD Comparison Results (mid Results (mid- -slab) slab)
Scampton Sl ab B6 Central Defl ecti ons (D1)
0
100
200
300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Load (kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
s
)
FWD 300mm plate
FWD 450mm plate
HWD 300mm plate
HWD 450mm plate
FWD FWD - - HWD Comparison HWD Comparison Results (mid Results (mid- -slab) slab)
Mar ham Slab E1 Cent r al Def lect ions (D1)
0
100
200
300
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Load (kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
s
)
FWD 300mm plate
FWD 450mm plate
HWD 300mm plate
HWD 450mm plate
FWD FWD - - HWD Comparison HWD Comparison Results (mid Results (mid- -slab) slab)
Cottesmore Sl ab G1 Central Defl ecti ons (D1)
0
100
200
300
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Load (kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
s
)
FWD 300mm plate
FWD 450mm plate
HWD 300mm plate
HWD 450mm plate
No systematic differences between the FWD
and HWD test results
Generally good agreement in the mid-slab
results between test machines and plate
sizes
However more recent work has suggested
that there can be significant differences on
certain airfield pavement constructions
FWD - HWD Comparison Conclusions
Introduction of Super Heavyweight FWD - SHWD
Page 36
Alternative calibration approach?
(1)
Use independent deflection
measure e.g.
accelerometer?
Compar i son of FWD and Ac c el er omet er : 300mm of f
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
51.41 51.42 51. 43 51.44 51. 45 51.46 51. 47 51.48 51.49
t i me ( s e c s )
Accel er ometer
FWD
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s]
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

[

m
]
Alternative calibration approach? (2)
But an accelerometer confirms just the response of part
of the system the deflection measuring part
What about the correctness of the loading system?
For rolling wheel loading, pavement response depends
on load configuration and speed the load configuration
is can be defined fairly easily but will the response of the
tyres remain the same over time?
For FWD impulse loading the response also depends on
these parameters what is the correct loading pulse?
how well defined is this?
Varying load pulse on one FWD
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Ti me (s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test4
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80
Ti me (s)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

@

D
1

Test 1_d1
Test 2_d1
Test 3_d1
Test4_d1
FWD pulse with different durations
Deflection response at Geophone 1
FEM modelling of FWD pulse
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Ti me (s)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

p
u
l
s
e
-0.00001
-0.000005
0
0.000005
0.00001
0.000015
0.00002
0.000025
0.00003
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Ti me (s)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Pulse 0
Pulse 1
Pulse 2
Normalised pulse shapes used in
some Finite Element analyses
Effect of FWD pulse on the vertical
deflection under the centre of the
plate
Extracts from :Staring at Deflection Traces: Looking
for the Truth in Time Histories by David P Orr,
Cornell LRP
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (mSec)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
s
)
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (mSec)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
s
)
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (mSec)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
s
)
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (mSec)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
s
)
Brand Average Rise Time
(mSec)
Carl Bro 13.2
Dynatest 13.1
JILS 18.4
KUAB 14.5
Alternative calibration approach? (3)
Could we compare/calibrate all deflection measuring
devices with the deflection response under a standard
axle at traffic speed?
Some questions for discussion? (1)
Page 43
Can we define a specification for a standard FWD for each main
purpose?
Is calibration of the individual components adequate or do we need
to check the whole system?
If we use the fleet mean as the reference, how many machines
and of what type are needed?
If so, how do we prevent a steady change in the mean of the
fleet?
Some questions for discussion? (2)
Page 44
Since, ultimately, we are using FWD measurements to predict the
structural condition of the pavement, and its response to rolling wheel
loads:
Should we therefore also be referencing all measurements to
pavement responses under a standardised rolling wheel load?
Page 45
Thank you!
Presented by Brian Ferne 10 June 2010
Tel: +44-1344-770668
Email: bferne@trl.co.uk