1

Light Weight Deflectometer,

Principles and Versability
Content:
1. Introduction
2. Dynatest 3031 LWD
3. Field measurements
4. Conclusions

NVF/BRA Symposium Oslo Feb. 13 and 14, 2008: Helge Mork, Light weight deflectometer (LWD)

Light Weight Deflectometer

Introduction
Field testing equipment for
determination of stiffness of
pavement materials
Easy to operate, and small
enough to be used at any
place (especially construction
sites)
Lower initial cost than an
ordinary FWD ( 1/10)

FV 873-01 km 3,01

Light Weight Deflectometer

Basic principles
Measurement of deflections induced by dropping weight (up to
20 kg hence light weight) using geophones.

Light Weight Deflectometer

LWD equipments on the market

Dynatest LWD
Prima 100, CarlBro (previously Phoenix)
Light Drop Weight (LDW), Germany
Loadman, Finland

Light Weight
Deflectometer
Dynatest 3031 LWD

It has a basic 10 kg falling mass (+5kg)

During the test, the falling mass impacts the
plate, producing a load pulse up to 15 kN of
15 25 ms duration.
The center geophone sensor measures the
deflection caused by the mass impact on the
loading plate. (+2 more geophones optional)
The diameter of the loading plate can easily be
varied between 150 and 300 mm
The software associated with the equipment is
LWDmod, which uses the same principle as
ELmod for Dynatest FWD.

Light Weight
Deflectometer
Dynatest 3031 LWD
the surface deflection modulus E0 is calculated
using Boussinesq solution as follows:

E0

f *(1 Q 2 ) *V 0 * a
d0

where:
E0 : Surface deflection modulus
f : Factor for stress distribution (2 or /2)
Q : Poissons ratio
0 : Uniformily distributed stress under plate V 0
a : Radius of plate
3 V 0 * a
d0 : Center deflection
E0

2 d0

P
Sa 2

Light Weight
Deflectometer
Dynatest 3031 LWD
For multi-layer systems, Odemarks
method of equivalent thickness (MET) is
used in LWDmod for backcalculation of
modulus values

LWDmod analysis
Analysis
starts by
filtering out
unrealistic
drops

LWDmod
analysis

10

Field measurements
Objective
To compare modulus values of pavement materials
determined from field measurements carried out with
Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD), Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD), Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) and Static Plate Loading Test (SPLT).
Evaluate whether LWD could be used for evaluation of
low volume roads

11

Measurements in the Malvik area

Pilot test locations

12

Malvik low
volume test roads
250 mm, E1

400 mm, E2

E3

Gravel road
E0=192 MPa
AC road (Bostad)
E0=166 MPa
120 mm, E1 AC
40 mm, Stabilized gravel

460 mm

500mm
E1

750 mm, E2

Bitumen stabilized
gravel road (Herjuan)
E0=126
E3 MPa

E2

13

Malvik test roads

7

5m

10m

3
10m

5m

10m

10m

10m

Lane A

C
L

Lane B

Test point arrangement at each of two sections

14

Light Weight Deflectometer

FWD

LWD
DCP

LWD, FWD and DCP used for pilot study at Malvik

15

LWD/DCP set-up

16

LWDmod data analyses

17

LWDmod data analyses

18

LWD data analyses

Comparison of surface modulus
values of the three roads
Road

KV-12

E0

2 * (1  Q 2 ) * V 0 * a
d0

FV 873-01
km 3,0 km 3,6

FV 873-01
km 7,1 km 7,7

Surfacing

Gravel

Asphalt Concrete

Bitumen Stabilized

Base/Subbase

Natural
gravel

Sandy gravel

Silty gravel

Surface Modulus
E0 (MPa)

192

166

NB: The rating of these values agree with the visual condition evaluation

126

19
DCP (med mer/slag)

DCP data

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

100

A typical DCP plot.

200

300

DCP value
[mm/blow]

Field CBR

703.6

124.4

39.6

E (MPa)

755.1

300.6

163.5

DCP and E

2.4

Dybde (mm)

0.6

400

500

E = 537.76*DCP-0.6645
Dang-Fong Lin 2006

600

700

800

900
1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0

20

Comparison of results -gravel

KV-12 E1

800

y = 0.5346x + 302.88
R2 = 0.3

1. Gravel Road KV-12

700

600

250 mm, E1

500

400 mm, E2

400

y = 0.4154x + 194.2
R2 = 0.4951

300

E3
200
200

300

400

500

600

700

800

LW D Modulus
KV-12 E1

DCP Modulus

Linear (KV-12 E1)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

KV-12 E2

KV-12 E3

500

200

y = 2.6108x + 130.41
2
R = 0.5112

450

180

400

160

350
300

140

250

120

200

100

150

80

y = 0.5788x + 22.367
R 2 = 0.4694

100
50

60
40

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

y = 0.0692x + 24.178
R2 = 0.0296

20

LWD M odulus

0
FWD Modulus

DCP Modulus

Linear (FWD Modulus)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

20

40

FW D Modulus

60

80

100

120

LW D Modulus

DCP Modulus

140

160

180

200

Linear (FW D Modulus)

21

Comparison of results -gravel

KV-12 E1

800

y = 0.5346x + 302.88
R2 = 0.3

1. Gravel Road KV-12

700

250 mm, E1

600

500

400 mm, E2
400

y = 0.4154x + 194.2
R2 = 0.4951

300

E3
200
200

300

400

500

600

700

LW D Modulus

KV-12
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
<

0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0.00

200.00

400.00

LWD E1

600.00
LWD E1

800.00
FWD E1

1000.00
FWD E1

1200.00

KV-12 E1

DCP Modulus

Linear (KV-12 E1)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

800

22

Comparison of results -AC

Bostad E1

4000

2. AC Road: FV 873 km 3-3.6 (Bostad)

3500
3000

FWD Modulus (E1)

120 mm, E1 AC

750 mm, E2

y = 1.3231x - 756.99
R 2 = 0.71

2500
2000
1500
1000
500

E3
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

LWD M odulus (E1)

Bostad E3

Bostad E2
70

200
180

y = 0.0277x + 45.609
R2 = 0.0003

60

y = 0.6731x + 63.577
2
R = 0.1978

160

50

140
120

40

100

30

80

y = -0.0816x + 47.982
2
R = 0.1017

60

20

40

y = 0.134x + 13.24

10
20

R = 0.1566

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

LW D Modulus (E2)

180

200

10

20

30

40

50

60

LW D Modulus (E3)

FW D Modulus

DCP Modulus

FW D Modulus

DCP Modulus

Linear (FW D Modulus)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

Linear (FW D Modulus)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

70

23

Comparison of results -AC

Bostad E1

4000

2. AC Road: FV 873 km 3-3.6 (Bostad)

3500

120 mm, E1 AC
FWD Modulus (E1)

3000

750 mm, E2

y = 1.3231x - 756.99
R 2 = 0.71

2500
2000
1500
1000

E3

500
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

LWD M odulus (E1)

FV873 3-3.6 Bostad

0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004

<

0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0
0.00

1000.00

2000.00
LW D E1

3000.00
LW D E1

4000.00
5000.00
6000.00
FW D E1
FW D E1

7000.00

3000

3500

4000

24

Comparison of results -stabilized

Herjuan E1

700

3. Stabilized Road: FV 873 km 7.1-7.7 (Herjuan)

600

40 mm, Stabilized gravel

500

500mm
E1

460 mm

y = 0.2887x + 167.81
R2 = 0.8801

400
300
200

y = 0.1219x + 128.79
R 2 = 0.2898

100

E2
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

LWD Modulus

Herjuan E2
110
100
90
80
y = -0.0163x + 68.572
R2 = 6E-05

70
60
50
40
30

y = 0.3676x + 17.593
R 2 = 0.1634

20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

LW D Modulus
FW D Modulus

DCP Modulus

Linear (FW D Modulus)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

100

110

FW D Modulus

DCP Modulus

Linear (FW D Modulus)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

700

25

Comparison of results
3. Stabilized Road: FV 873 km 7.1-7.7 (Herjuan)
40 mm, Stabilized gravel

Herjuan E2
110
100
90
80

500mm
E1

460 mm

y = -0.0163x + 68.572
R2 = 6E-05

70
60
50
40
30

E2

y = 0.3676x + 17.593
R 2 = 0.1634

20
10
0
0

10

20

30

0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
<

0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.00

50.00
LWD E2

100.00
LWD E2

50

60

70

80

90

LW D Modulus

FV873 7.1-7.6 Herjuan

0.02

40

150.00
FWD E2

200.00
FWD E2

FW D Modulus

DCP Modulus

Linear (FW D Modulus)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

100

110

26

SPLT, DCP and LWD at E6 Steinkjer

LWD

DCP
SPLT

27

Comparison of results -subgrade

Results of tests on clay subgrade at E6 construction site,
Steinkjer, May 14 2007
160

y = 0.706x + 74.532

140

R = 0.5773

0.035
120

0.03
100

0.025

80

0.02

60

0.015

40

0.01

20
0

0.005
0
0.00

y = 0.2405x + 41.464
2
R = 0.6043

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

LWD Modulus

50.00

100.00
LWD

150.00
SPLT

200.00
DCP

250.00
SPLT Modulus*

DCP Modulus

Linear (SPLT Modulus*)

Linear (DCP Modulus)

160

28

Summary and conclusions

Observations from the field testing

Stability problems encountered when testing with the smaller plate

Preliminary conclusions:

With this exception, generally good practical experiences with the equipment
Surface modulus evaluation comply with overall visual condition
LWD modulus and SPLT stiffness seem to be comparable
Backcalculated results from LWDmod for layered structures using one defl. sensor are
questionable
No correlation found between LWD moduli and DCP values
Probably, the load is too low to give a certain determination of subgrade stiffness
when performing surface measurements for layered structures
There is a relatively wider scatter of LWD modulus values than for moduli
backcalculated from FWD measurements
There are no significant connections found between the LWD and FWD moduli for subgrade
materials, and a very poor link for subbase layers

Generally the LWD modulus values tend to be a bit higher than the FWD modulus
values, in contradiction with other tests reported elsewhere. The explanation could be:
This test is conducted on in-service roads while the others are prototype tests in a laboratory.
LWDmod is more realistic up to two layer structures, for three or more layers the results are
sensitive to the seed values used.
The obtained results can not be used for application due to a limited number of test points

29

Questions?

Thank you!