0 Up votes0 Down votes

5 views14 pagesDimensional Analysis in NDT Rigid Pavement Evaluation

Nov 15, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Dimensional Analysis in NDT Rigid Pavement Evaluation

© All Rights Reserved

5 views

Dimensional Analysis in NDT Rigid Pavement Evaluation

© All Rights Reserved

- Cockshott, Paul, Allin Cottrell & Greg Michaelson 1995 'Testing Marx-- Some New Results From UK Data' Capital & Class, Vol. 55 (Pp. 103--129)
- Ad Cad Constraints
- GoBeam081
- Testing Marx with Input Output Tables
- Continuous Beams
- NSEP Solved Paper 2010
- Ncert Problems
- Serviceability
- Modeling
- 0026-1394_47_3_012
- Deflection
- Spring
- Serviceability Limit States (Sls)
- Finit Element Analysis Matlab
- 25c.May13-M3-ER
- 2_ws07.ppt
- Designer Notes Web Crippling CD Imp_Met 14Oct15_3
- beam_cantilever.xls
- design-difference-IS-vs-AISC.pdf
- Slde

You are on page 1of 14

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

By Anastasios M . loannides, 1 Associate Member, ASCE

(Reviewed by the Air Transport Division)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the principles of dimensional analysis, and leading to a closed-form back-calcu-

lation procedure for a two-layer slab-on-grade pavement system. The equations

required are derived and evaluated for four fundamental combinations of loading

and support conditions. A short computer program has been coded, called ILLI-

BACK, to implement the method on a personal computer. The execution time per

back-calculation is trivial (a fraction of a second). This procedure simplifies con-

siderably the effort required in interpreting nondestructive deflection data. It is

much more efficient and accurate than current approaches, allowing the use of any

one of the measured sensor deflections in the back-calculation process. The concept

proposed is powerful and versatile, and can easily be adapted for a wide variety

of other applications, involving both rigid and flexible pavement systems.

INTRODUCTION

in the interpretation of data pertaining to the response of rigid pavement

systems, derived either from field measurements or from analytical studies

(loannides 1987, 1988b). The governing principle may be stated as follows:

The fundamental relationships in the physical world are essentially nondi-

mensional, existing between nondimensional independent variables and non-

dimensional dependent variables. This is self-evident, since order in nature

preexisted the conventional definition of units of measurement. On the basis

of this working hypothesis, it was shown in previous investigations that the

fundamental independent variable determining the response of a slab-on-grade

(analyzed using plate theory), is the dimensionless load size ratio (a/I), where

a is the radius of the loaded area and / is the radius of relative stiffness of

the slab-subgrade system (loannides 1984, 1986). The latter is a function of

several additional input parameters, as follows.

For the dense liquid foundation

Eh3

( V4

l = k=\ 5- (la)

For the elastic solid foundation

, = ,.J^-?f m

\6(1 - \S)EJ

w h e r e E = slab Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s ; Es = soil Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s ; h = slab

'Asst. Prof, of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Illinois, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL

61801.

Note. Discussion open until June 1, 1990. To extend the closing date one month,

a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript

for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on July 11, 1988.

This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 1,

January, 1990. ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/90/0001-0023/$1.00 + $.15 per page.

Paper No. 24300.

23

Normalized Radial Distance, s

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Nondimensional Deflection Basins for Slab on Dense Liquid (after Los-

berg 1960)

thickness; u, = slab Poisson ratio; \is = soil Poisson ratio; and k = modulus

of sub grade reaction. In the following, the subscripts k and e are sometimes

dropped from / for brevity, but this need not cause any confusion. Note that

the six input parameters listed should not be considered as independent vari-

ables for this problem, since it is only when the governing ratio (a/l) changes

that the system response is altered. In this context, "system response" refers

to the nondimensional deflections and stresses developing in the slab and

the subgrade. The functional forms of these nondimensional responses (which

constitute the dependent variables for this problem), may be established by

inspection of theoretical solutions (Westergaard 1926; Losberg 1960). The

following forms have been proposed (loannides 1988a): deflection, w: (wD/

PI2) or (wkl2/P) or (wCl/2P); subgrade stress, q: (ql2/P); and bending stress,

a: (ah2/P).

In these, D = flexural stiffness, of the slab = Eh3/[l2(l - u,2)]; C =

soil constant = Es/(l - u.2); and P = total applied load.

Note, once again, that it would be misleading to consider load, P, as an

independent variable in this problem, since its contribution to the system's

response is so intimately connected to the values of the other input param-

eters.

It follows, therefore, that for a given value of (a/l), a unique dimen-

sionless deflection profile is predicted by plate theory. Figs. 1 and 2 show

such deflection profiles for a slab of infinite size, resting on a dense liquid

or an elastic solid foundation, respectively, and loaded by an interior load.

These are plotted against the normalized radial distance, s, where s = (r/

I), and r = radial distance from the center of the applied load. The case of

(a/l) = 0 refers to a point load, while the remainder of the curves in these

figures consider circular loaded areas of finite size.

It is quite clear from these plots that one of the most important input

parameters entering this problem is the radius of the applied load. It would

be beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the shortcomings of many a

current design approach that assumes a constant radius in interpreting field

24

Normalized Radial Distance, s

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2. Nondimensional Deflection Basins for Slab on Elastic Solid (after Los-

berg 1960)

approach, using the principles of dimensional analysis, and leading to a closed-

form back-calculation procedure for a two-layer slab-on-grade pavement sys-

tem. The equations required are derived and evaluated for four fundamental

combinations of loading and support conditions. The concept proposed is

powerful and versatile, and can easily be adapted for a wide variety of other

applications.

deflection measurement would suffice for back-calculating the pavement pa-

rameters D and k or C. Such a deflection measurement would have to be

strategically located to take full advantage of the resolution provided by the

nondimensional deflection profiles. Ideally, one should measure the deflec-

tion under the center of the load, s = 0, or at least one should maintain s

^ 1.0. A convenient and versatile method of determining the value of / for

a given pavement, and thereby back-calculating the pavement parameters,

involves using some geometric property of measured deflection profiles. Such

profiles may be obtained, for example, from nondestructive testing of in situ

pavements.

It is evident from this discussion that two sensor measurements are suf-

ficient to provide a unique geometric description of the nondimensional de-

flection profile, and yield the required value of I, as well. This is valid, of

course, only for idealized slab and foundation conditions, but does not nec-

essarily hold perfectly true in real pavement systems. Therefore, additional

deflections are usually measured, simply to provide independent verification

for the calculated value of / and for the back-calculated parameters. Such

verification is essential in view of the departures of real slab and subgrade

25

behavior from the assumed idealized modes, as well as the finite accuracy

of the measuring devices, or any other conceivable sources of variability.

A commonly used method of interpreting measured deflection profiles in-

volves the use of the area of the deflection basin. Hoffman and Thompson

(1981) defined a parameter (AREA), which combines the effect of several

measured deflections in the basin, as follows:

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A

AREA = - [Do + 2(Dl + D2 + ... + >_,) + D] (2)

2D0

where Dt = measured sensor deflections (/ = 0, ri); n = number of sensors

used, minus one; and A = constant spacing between sensors.

Eq. 2 simply expresses the area of the deflection basin between the 0th

and nth sensors, computed using the trapezoidal rule, and normalized with

respect to D0. The term AREA has units of length, and the least number of

sensors necessary for its determination is two (n = 1). Its maximum possible

valuecorresponding to a rigid punch, with >, = D0depends on the num-

ber and constant spacing between the sensors used

AREAmax = An (3)

In conventional U.S. practice, four sensors are usually employed (n = 3),

A is set to 12 in. (30 cm), and AREA is expressed in inches. The maximum

value of AREA under these circumstances is 36 in. (91 cm). Note that AREA

is merely one arbitrarily selected geometric property of the deflection basin,

from among a host of other possible choices, each involving at least two

deflection measurements. Examples of such choices are the slope or cur-

vature of the nondimensional basin at a specific nondimensional offset dis-

tance, s. The advantage of AREA is that it takes into account several de-

flection readings, and can easily be adapted to include even more

measurements. Thus, it is capable of accommodating the variability present

in real pavement systems, and providing an overall picture of the pavement

condition. As a result, the AREA concept has been used repeatedly with great

success in nondestructive structural evaluation of rigid and flexible pave-

ments (e.g., ERES 1982; Foxworthy 1985; Hill 1988).

Following along parallel lines, integration of the dimensionless deflection

profile yields a single value of a dimensionless basin area, AREA*, for any

given value of the load size ratio, (a/1). For any assumed arrangement of

sensors, AREA* is independent of the individual values of the input param-

eters describing the pavement system, so long as they all combine to give

the same (a/l) ratio. The corresponding equation for AREA* is

PI1) or (Dikl2/P) or (D,Cl/2P); and \ = nondimensional constant spacing

between sensors (=A/Z).

The maximum possible value of AREA*, corresponding to a rigid punch,

is equal to

Anda

AREAL* = knd0 = - (5)

26

1

AREA _ I

(6)

AREA* ~ d0

Since d0 and, for a given sensor arrangement, AREA* are only functions of

(a/I), it follows that when the plate radius is fixed, unique relations between

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AREA and le or lk exist. These would allow determining the radius of relative

stiffness knowing the area of the measured deflection basin. To derive these

relations, the nondimensional deflections entering Eq. 4 are determined us-

ing plate theory (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger 1959; Westergaard

1926, 1939; Hogg 1938; Losberg 1960), as described next.

slab resting on a dense liquid foundation loaded by a concentrated load at

its interior. Assuming that the slab is of infinite dimensions, plate theory

yields (Losberg 1960)

(APl2\

w= - )kei s (7)

The corresponding expression for the nondimensional response is

(wkl2\

7 y -trif

= = (8)

(wD\ ( 1\

tions entering Eq. 4. At the center of the load, w = w0, s = 0, and kei 0

= TT/4, whence w* = 1/8. For wf (corresponding to the locations of sensors

i = 1, n), s = ik, and kei s is evaluated using appropriate series expressions

available in the literature (e.g., McLachlan 1955).

If the applied interior load is distributed over a finite circular area, inte-

gration of the nondimensional deflection basin is somewhat more involved,

due to the need to evaluate four integration constants (functions of (a/I)

only). According to plate theory for this case (Losberg 1960)

PI2 (a\

" = ~2 (1 - Cxber s - C2bei s) for 0 < s < I - ) (9a)

""IT.

PI2 (a\

j (C3ker s + CAkei s) for s > [ - ) (9b)

!a

where ber, bei, and ker are additional Kelvin Bessel functions.

Determination of the constants C} proceeds as described next.

27

Constant C,

At s = 0, w = w0 = maximum deflection, which is given by Wester-

gaard's equation for interior loading (Westergaard 1939; Ioannides et al. 1985)

2-.

W0 1 + M-J+7-1.25 (10)

Ml2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Noting that ber 0 = 1.0 and bei 0 = 0.0, substitution of Eq. 10 in Eq.

9a yields

. fw0kl2\ (w0D^

(12)

Constant C2

For axisymmetric loading, plate theory yields the following expression for

the maximum bending moment in the slab occurring under the center of the

load (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger 1959; Losberg 1960):

,dr

1\ d2w

Mmax = - z , ( l + ,)(- - at s = 0 , (14)

imum bending stress in the slab, using Westergaard's equation for interior

loading (Westergaard 1939; Ioannides et al. 1985)

P 3(1 + JJL) 6Mm

h' lit

ln|^ +0.5-,+ W g (15)

Differentiating Eq. 9a twice, and combining it with Eqs. 14 and 15, gives

2

"o \ - I it

Co = (16)

3(1 + p.)

where CT* = &ah2/P = nondimensional maximum bending stress.

Constant C3

This constant may be determined by resorting to the condition of conti-

nuity of deflections at the edge of the applied load, s = (a//). Setting Eqs.

9a and 9b equal to each other results in

C3= A - BC, (17)

28

where

J a -J I - C fcei'l

1 - Cxber\ - '"

2

A

= 77 " <18)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and

a

kei\( -

\lj

B= (19)

ker\ -

Constant C4

Determination of the final constant, C4, makes use of the condition of

continuity of slopes at the edge of the applied load, s (a/1). Note that

this condition applies for the flexible load plate implied by the assumption

of a uniform contact pressure distribution. Equating the first derivatives of

Eqs. 9a and 9b leads to

(F - GA)

c4 = (20)

(1 - GB)

-Clber^-C2bei>^

F= (21)

kei'i-

and

la

ker'

G= (22)

kei'

\l

The four integration constants having been determined, evaluation of the

nondimensional deflections in Eq. 4 may proceed.

nondimensional basin area, AREA* and the governing load size ratio, (a/l),

corresponding to the elastic solid subgrade idealization. Considering an in-

terior point load applied on an infinite slab supported by a Boussinesq half-

space, it can be shown that the surface deflection profile with radial distance,

29

r, from the point of load application is given by (Hogg 1938; Losberg 1960)

P f" J0(ar)

w(r) = ,3 da (23)

ITCJ 0 /+ (a/)

where J0(z) = Bessel function of the first kind, order 0; and a, z = dummy

variables. Introducing the notation x = ar = asl, the deflection at any ar-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D J0 S3 + x3

2TT

The solution of the integral in Eq. 24 was obtained by Hogg (1938), using

Watson's (1922) classic treatise on Bessel functions. This result may be pre-

sented as a series of power and log functions. The first few terms are given

by Losberg (1960), as follows:

x 10"V + 237.4 x 10"V + 130.51 X 10 -1 V - 147.28 x l O ' V

+ 90.63 x 10 _1 V 2 - 103.3 x 10~'V4 - 18.1 x 10 _1 V 6 + 15.2

x 10"'V 7 - 5.6 x 10 _1 V 8 + ...] (25)

2

Eq. 25 may be plotted as w* = wD/(Pl ) versus s, and corresponds to the

curve for (a/1) = 0 in Fig. 2. The terms given are sufficient for values of

s ^ 6 . For higher ^-values, more terms are necessary for convergence.

The last case to consider for application of the AREA* concept involves

a circular load of finite radius applied to a slab on an elastic solid subgrade.

For this case, it can be shown that (Losberg 1960)

P 2 f UarV^aa) ,

w(r) = da (26)

ira C Jo a(l + a3;3)

where Jx(z) = Bessel function of the first kind, order 1. Remarking that this

integral is difficult to evaluate analytically, Losberg (1960) presented a method

for its numerical integration. Thus, he obtained the data in Fig. 2, which

were used in this study to obtain the nondimensional deflections in Eq. 4

for the determination of AREA*.

EVALUATION OF EQUATIONS

uation, four sensors are often used, located at 0, 12, 24, and 36 in. (0, 30,

60, and 90 cm) from the center of the loading plate. For this arrangement,

30

ELASTIC S0LI0

Distributed Load (a = 5.9055 in.)

35

Point Load

30

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

25

<

tr

<

20

12" Spacing

15

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Radius of Relative Stiffness, i (in.)

the equations presented for the two concentrated load cases have been eval-

uated to yield unique relations between the nondimensional (as well as the

dimensional) basin area and the radius of the relative stiffness of the slab-

subgrade system. The corresponding relations for the two distributed load

cases exist between the basin area and the ratio (a/l). These can be spe-

cialized for the load plate size used with a particular nondestructive testing

device employed. For example, for the falling weight deflectometer (FWD),

the plate radius is equal to 5.9055 in. (300 mm) (Bohn et al. 1972).

Fig. 3 presents the four AREA curves thus developed. It is observed that

for both sub grade idealizations, a distributed load leads to a slightly higher

AREA, particularly at low / values (/ < 30 in., or 75 cm). Comparing the

two distributed load curves, it is observed that an AREA higher by about 3

in. (7 cm) is obtained at any /-value for the elastic solid, as compared to

the dense liquid foundation. Conversely, a given AREA value corresponds

to a higher / value (by about 12 in. or 30 cm) for the dense liquid, in com-

parison to the elastic solid foundation. Such comparisons are considered much

more fundamental than efforts to correlate directly E and k. In general, the

shapes of the AREA curves for these two extreme subgrade idealizations are

quite similar.

It is important to note that in the case of a distributed load, the funda-

mental relation is between AREA* and (a/l), and depends only on the num-

ber and spacing of the sensors. In contrast, the relations depicted in Fig. 3

between AREA and / also depend on the chosen value of a. If a different

plate radius is selected, only the abscissa in Fig. 3 need be modified. Finally,

Fig. 3 is independent of, and can, therefore, be used with any value of the

applied load, P. The only restriction, of course, is the assumption of linear

elasticity (plate theory) inherent in this approach. The method, however,

permits an assessment of the applicability of the theory of elasticity, as well

as of the two extreme foundation idealizations commonly used in practice.

31

BACK-CALCULATION OF PAVEMENT PARAMETERS

ies (Ioannides 1984; 1988b), that the nondimensional sensor deflections, dt,

can all be written as functions of (a/l) only

d

D,D _ fa

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tf~ \i

The functional form off0(a/l) is already available. For the elastic solid ideal-

ization, this is given by Losberg's solution for the deflection at the center

of the load (Losberg 1960)

^-Ml'-\'

The corresponding dense liquid form of f0(a/l) can be extracted from Wes-

tergaard's formula, Eq. 10.

Curve-fitting techniques were used in this study to obtain regression equa-

tions for fi(a/l) (for i = 1, n), as well. Therefore, these functions may be

considered as known, and Eq. 27 may be used with any of the measured

sensor deflections, D,, to back-calculate the slab flexural stiffness, D. This

computation also requires the value of the radius of relative stiffness, /, which

is read directly off the AREA chart (Fig. 3). In addition, the value of the

applied load, P, must be introduced (for the first time) at this point; this is

usually recorded automatically by the testing device at the time of the test.

Note that slab stiffness, D, is a function of E, h, and u.. Thus, knowing

two of these variables, the third may be back-calculated. This determination

is not explicitly dependent on the value of the modulus of subgrade support

(i.e., Es or k). The only assumptions inherent in Eq. 27 refer to the nature

of the foundation (whether it is an elastic solid or a dense liquid subgrade),

and to the relative stiffness of the slab-subgrade system, but not to the foun-

dation modulus, per se.

The value of the slab thickness, h, is often established by coring. In such

cases, the slab Young's modulus, E, may be back-calculated, providing a

control on concrete quality. Alternatively, it may be possible to establish E

by a direct or indirect testing procedure. For example, field investigations

(Barenberg, personal communication, 1988) indicate that a good correlation

exists between the Schmidt rebound hammer values and the slab modulus.

Then, h may be backcalculated, as a control on placement thickness. In

either case, u, = 0.15 is usually assumed for Portland cement concrete slabs.

Contrary to what is commonly assumed, slab thickness as constructed may

be significantly different from the corresponding design value. One inde-

pendent value of the backcalculated parameter will be obtained from each

of the (n + 1) sensor deflections, Dt. This provides an opportunity to study

the sources and extent of variability involved in nondestructive pavement

evaluation procedures.

The subgrade modulus can also be determined using the nondimensional

deflection forms introduced earlier. Using the dense liquid expression, a k-

value may be backcalculated from each of the (n + 1) sensor deflections,

dh knowing only the values of / and P (which are the same for all D,).

Alternatively, the expression applicable to the elastic solid foundation may

32

be used to determine the soil constant C. This is a function of Es and \i,s,

but a value between 0.4 and 0.5 is commonly used for the latter. Thus, Es

may be readily back-calculated. Note, again, that the back-calculated subgrade

moduli values do not depend explicitly on the assumed value of the slab

parameter (E or h).

Theoretically, the (n + 1) measured deflections, D used in Eq. 27 will

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

all yield identical values for D, k, and C, since the subgrade is idealized as

either an elastic solid or as a dense liquid foundation. Furthermore, the back-

calculated parameters will be related to the value of I derived from the AREA*

chart, according to Eq. 1. Using actual nondestructive testing sensor de-

flections obtained in situ, the scatter in the back-calculated parameters ob-

tained from each of the (n + 1) measurements provides a gage for their

accuracy, as well as for the deviation of the behavior of the real soil from

that of the two extreme foundation assumptions.

Comparisons between parameters back-calculated using these idealizations

will provide an estimate of the relative location of the behavior of real

subgrades, within the spectrum of response defined by the two extremes.

This can be very useful in determining bending stresses in the slab, since

quite different predictions are sometimes made using the dense liquid, as

opposed to the elastic solid foundation.

few modifications. It can be shown that as far as the concept of nondimen-

sional area is concerned, the only difference in the response of a two-layer

flexible as compared to a rigid pavement system is that in addition to (a/

I), the ratio (E/Es) must be specified. For rigid pavements, (E/Es) is ef-

fectively assumed to be infinite, and, therefore, slab-on-grade response is

only a function of (a/l).

Note that for the one-layer, homogeneous, Boussinesq half-space, (E/Es)

= 1.0, and behavior is independent of (a/l). For the sensor arrangement

considered here, AREA is constant at about 11.11 in. (28.2 cm). For each

intermediate value of (E/Es), one unique AREA*-versus-(a//) curve may be

expected. This gives one unique ARA-versus-Z curve per (E/Es) value, if

the load radius is set to the appropriate size corresponding to the nondes-

tructive testing device used.

Good agreement is obtained between plate theory predictions using the

aforementioned equations, and those from a layered elastic solution, for (E/

Es) in excess of about 1,000, and for (a/l) values between approximately

0.05 and 0.5. When performing such comparisons, the difference in the in-

terface conditions between the two theories must be accounted for. This ef-

fect is only a function of u.s, and requires a reduction of the value of / from

Eq. 1, ranging between 0% for u., = 0.5, and 9% for u.s = 0.0 (Pickett and

Ai 1954).

In relation to using deflection basin areas in the evaluation of flexible

pavements, Hill (1988) recently demonstrated that, at least in some cases,

the area underneath the basin (bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the

basin peak, D0) may be a better parameter to use, instead of the conventional

basin area. The proposed method is capable of handling such a definition of

the basin area as well, with no loss of generality. Further discussion of the

33

application of the proposed method to flexible pavements would be beyond

the scope of this paper.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

versatile and powerful. A short computer program has been coded, called

ILLI-BACK, to implement the method presented on a personal computer.

This offers a closed-form back-calculation approach for the pavement system

and sensor arrangement considered. The execution time per back-calculation

on an IBM-AT is trivial (a fraction of a second).

This procedure simplifies considerably the effort required in interpreting

nondestructive deflection data. The practice up to now has been to execute

a sophisticated finite element program several hundred times, once for each

combination of typical values of the variables entering the pavement system.

Results from these runs were then plotted in a series of maximum deflection-

versus-AREA charts, for typical values of E, k, and h. Back-calculation of

E and k involved a series of interpolations, which reduced the accuracy of

the determinations (ERES 1982; Foxworthy 1985). The proposed approach

is much more efficient and accurate, allowing the use of any one of the

measured sensor deflections in the back-calculation process.

To substantiate these assertions, a large set of FWD data collected from

two recent projects in Washington State are analyzed and discussed by Ioan-

nides et al. (1989). Using a number of practical illustrative examples, they

confirm that the proposed method yields very realistic, consistent, and re-

liable results. The back-calculated slab moduli are in substantial agreement

with the values expected on the basis of laboratory testing, while back-cal-

culated slab thicknesses match closely those obtained by coring. On the basis

of these results, it is shown that it is preferable to assume E and back-cal-

culate h. According to conventional practice, h is assumed to be known and

E is back-calculated.

A number of other implications and refinements of this powerful method

will be examined in the near future. These include the use of more sensors

at different values of constant spacing, nondestructive testing of multi-layer

pavements, differences between various testing devices, rigid bottom effects,

slab size and load plate location considerations. The method is applicable

with relatively few adjustments to flexible pavement systems, as well.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Bonn, A., et al. (1972). "Danish experiments with the French falling weight de-

flectometer." Proceedings, Univ. of Michigan Third Int. Conf. on Struct. Design

of Asphalt Pavements, 1, Sep. 11-15, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1119-1128.

ERES Consultants, Inc. (1982). "Nondestructive structural evaluation of airfield

pavements." Prepared for U.S. Army Engr Wtrwys. Exp. Sta., Champaign, 111.

Foxworthy, P. T. (1985). "Concepts for the development of a nondestructive testing

and evaluation system for rigid airfield pavements," thesis presented to the Uni-

versity of Illinois, at Urbana, 111., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Hill, H. J. (1988). "Early life study of the FA409 full-depth asphalt concrete pave-

ment sections," thesis presented to the University of Illinois, at Urbana, 111., in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

34

Hoffman, M. S., and Thompson, M. R. (1981). "Mechanistic interpretation of non-

destructive pavement testing deflections." Civ. Engrg. Studies, Transp. Engrg. Se-

ries No. 32, Illinois Cooperative Highway and Transp. Res. Program Series No.

190, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, 111.

Hogg, A. H. A. (1938). "Equilibrium of a thin plate, symmetrically loaded, resting

on an elastic foundation of infinite depth." Philosophical Magazine, Series 7,

25(Mar.), 576-582.

loannides, A. M. (1984). "Analysis of slabs-on-grade for a variety of loading and

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

loannides, A. M. (1986). Discussion of "Response and performance of alternate launch

and recovery surfaces that contain layers of stabilized material." by R. R. Costigan

and M. R. Thompson, Transp. Res. Rec, 1095, Transp. Res. Board, Nat. Res.

Council, Washington, D.C., 70-71.

loannides, A. M. (1987). Discussion of "Thickness design of roller-compacted con-

crete pavements." by S. D. Tayabji and D. Halpenny, Transp. Res. Rec, 1136,

Transp. Res. Board, Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C., 31-32.

loannides, A. M. (1988a). "Finite difference solution for plate on elastic solid." / .

Transp. Engrg., ASCE, 114(1), 57-75.

loannides, A. M. (1988b). "The problem of a slab on an elastic solid foundation in

the light of the finite element method." Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Numerical Meth-

ods in Geomechanics, Paper 408, Apr. 11-15, Innsbruck, Austria, 1059-1064.

loannides, A. M., Thompson, M. R., and Barenberg, E. J. (1985). "Westergaard

solutions reconsidered." Transp. Res. Rec, 1043, Transp. Res. Board, Nat. Res.

Council, Washington, D.C., 13-23.

loannides, A. M., Barenberg, E. I., and Larry, J. A. (1989). "Interpretation of

falling weight deflectometer results using principles of dimensional analysis." Proc,

Fourth Int. Conf. on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue Univ.,

Apr. 18-20, W. Lafayette, Ind.

Losberg, A. (1960). "Structurally reinforced concrete pavements." Doktorsavhan-

dlingar Vid Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola, Goteborg, Sweden.

McLachlan, N. W. (1955). Bessel functions for engineers. 2nd Ed., Clarendon Press,

Oxford, U.K.

Pickett, G., and Ai, D. K. Y. (1954). "Stresses in subgrade under rigid pavement."

Proc, 33rd Annual Meeting, Highway Res. Board, Washington, D.C., 121-129.

Timoshenko, S., and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959). Theory of plates and shells.

2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.

Watson, G. N. (1922). Treatise on the theory of Bessel functions. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, Cambridge, England.

Westergaard, H. M. (1926). "Stresses in concrete pavements computed by theoretical

analysis." Public Roads, 7(2), 25-35.

Westergaard, H. M. (1939). "Stresses in concrete runways of airports." Proc, 19th

Annual Meeting, Highway Res. Board, Washington, D.C., 197-202; Discussion,

202-205.

a = radius of applied load;

AREA = term expressing area of deflection basin (units of length);

AREA* = nondimensional area of deflection basin;

B = auxiliary function of (a/1);

C = soil constant [=ES/(1 JJLJ)] ;

Cj = integration constants, functions of (a/l)(j = 1,4);

D = slab flexural stiffness [=/i 3 /12(l - |x2)];

35

Dj = measured sensor deflections (i = 0, ri);

d, = nondimensional measured sensor deflections (;' = 0, ri);

E = Young's modulus of slab;

Es = Young's modulus of elastic solid foundation;

F = auxiliary function of (a/l);

ft = nondimensional functions of (a/l) for dt(i = 0, ri);

G = auxiliary function of (a/l);

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

h = slab thickness;

J0(z) = Bessel function of the first kind, order 0;

Ji(z) = Bessel function of the first kind, order 1;

k = subgrade modulus of dense liquid foundation;

/ = radius of relative stiffness for the slab-foundation system;

/,, = radius of relative stiffness for slab on elastic solid foundation

=</{Eh3(l - n*)/[6(l - (x 2 )J};

4 = radius of relative stiffness for slab on dense liquid foundation

=</{Eh3/[12(l - |x2)fe]};

Mr = radial moment;

M$ = circumferential moment;

n = number of sensors used, minus one;

P = applied load (force);

q = subgrade stress;

r = radial distance from center of applied load;

5 = nondimensional radial distance from center of applied load

(=r//);

w = vertical deflection;

x = alternative notation for radial distance (=ar = asl);

z = dummy variable;

a = dummy variable;

7 = Euler's constant (=0.57721566490 . . . ) ;

A = constant sensor spacing;

X. = nondimensional constant sensor spacing ( = A / / ) ;

u, = Poisson's ratio for slab;

u.s = Poisson's ratio for elastic solid; and

o- = slab bending stress.

i = index of sensor deflections (i = 0, ri);

max = maximum value of; and

* = nondimensional value of.

36

- Cockshott, Paul, Allin Cottrell & Greg Michaelson 1995 'Testing Marx-- Some New Results From UK Data' Capital & Class, Vol. 55 (Pp. 103--129)Uploaded byvoxpop88
- Ad Cad ConstraintsUploaded bysheeves
- GoBeam081Uploaded byandyhr
- Testing Marx with Input Output TablesUploaded byPaul Cockshott
- Continuous BeamsUploaded byImperial One
- NSEP Solved Paper 2010Uploaded byapcc1
- Ncert ProblemsUploaded bysiddhartham_2
- ServiceabilityUploaded byAnonymous OnzJpz
- ModelingUploaded byKris John
- 0026-1394_47_3_012Uploaded bynauji_k
- DeflectionUploaded byHan Kiat
- SpringUploaded byAnonymous oUoJ4A8x
- Serviceability Limit States (Sls)Uploaded byCalin Alexandru
- Finit Element Analysis MatlabUploaded byAntehun Mekonnen
- 25c.May13-M3-ERUploaded byMargarita Satraki
- 2_ws07.pptUploaded byAlexLion
- Designer Notes Web Crippling CD Imp_Met 14Oct15_3Uploaded byalanchiu25
- beam_cantilever.xlsUploaded bypriodeep chowdhury
- design-difference-IS-vs-AISC.pdfUploaded bySaqlain Awan
- SldeUploaded byeph
- Neural Network in Detecting the Attribute of Faults in 3-D Seismic InterpretationUploaded byIJRASETPublications
- Scaling Phenomena in Fatigue and Fracture (3)Uploaded byFrancesco Montagnoli
- RUDDY - Ponding of Concrete Deck FloorsUploaded bymarinamovia
- Assignment 1 Rev0Uploaded byMaria Higgins
- Axial-and-Flexure.pdfUploaded byClint Richard Andico Dela-Cerna
- 6 Temp Vs Def 456+100 LHS -convertedUploaded byUmesh Mishra
- Structural Analysis 1 NotesUploaded byvinod choudhari
- E3-2-3-solutions.pdfUploaded byNick
- 1. Introduction to Physics Grade 12Uploaded byRainC
- 181900_prosding Kolokium Desember 2017_kartika Meidiana (1)Uploaded byAnonymous l6kuEg6OLD

- FAABackcalculationSoftware.pdfUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- ComportamientodepavimentosconlosasconvencionalesylosascortassobrefundacinslidaelsticaUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- Performance pavement.pdfUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- 07-3356 Illi BackUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- FWD_HWDUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- McGuireGallagherZiemian-Matrix Structural Analysis 2000Uploaded byAnabelPradoS
- Thin and Ultra - Thin.pdfUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- IndiceUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- FAARFIELD 1_4 readme.pdfUploaded bysuraj
- d 5858 – 96 ;Rdu4ntgtotzfmq_Uploaded byaskarah
- Ever Series User Guide Part 1Uploaded byRachmadani Firmansyah
- 286218627-Elmod-Software-Manual.pdfUploaded byAnabelPradoS
- Matrix Structural Analysis 2nd Edition.pdfUploaded byetan
- 533Uploaded byAnabelPradoS
- 160831 (1)Uploaded byAnabelPradoS
- SPERLING 2007 Wastewater Characteristics, Treatment and DisposalUploaded byVuong Bui
- Okestimation of Land SurfaceUploaded byAnabelPradoS

- OthersUploaded bysdlhfweoihrfwe
- 2001 Shotcrete RobotUploaded byJhann Carlos Varillas Artica
- The rheology of dilute solutions of flexible polymersUploaded byGiorgos Papadopoulos
- preschoolenglishUploaded byapi-298937263
- StringUploaded bySatyaNarayana
- Reading Comprehension WorksheetsTerms of Use.docUploaded bySílvia Maria Vieira
- Comprehensive Development and Comparison of two Feed Forward Back Propagation Neural Networks for Forward and Reverse Modeling of Aluminum Alloy AA5083; H111 TIG Welding ProcessUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Hartreefock Equations DerivationUploaded byJorgito Hdex
- Basic Design Concepts-Harvey Evans.docUploaded byDábilla Adriana Behrend
- 04b Anexo Ecuaciones Empíricas DetmerUploaded byHugo Tapia
- Discrete MathematicsUploaded byAzeem Ullah
- ICap Manual - Oct 2012Uploaded byecocadec
- DeflectionUploaded bybasukinugroho
- Single Phase and Two PhaseUploaded byClinton Black
- Etabs ImportArchitecturalDXForDWGFloorPlansintoETABSfortracing 290918 0048 12454Uploaded byTanveer Ahmad
- Pepper and Dodd 1995 IIUploaded byReddy Setyawan
- Break Even Analysis DetailedUploaded bywreathbearer
- Class FinalUploaded byAbanishAmp
- 6 MomentumUploaded byParveen Dagar
- 03_Learn_to_Learn_2Uploaded byluhusapa-1
- A New Approach to Maintenance Management Reliability Centered Maintenance(RCM)Uploaded byDME
- Mechanical Translational SystemsUploaded bymrpcu
- 559283.pdfUploaded byAbigail Regondola Bonita
- 1-4-Sem-MTECH-Syllabus-2015-2017Uploaded byKrishnaMurthyTP
- 8333Uploaded byTrung Phan
- Data Mining 1Uploaded byCarlos Blanco Hortal
- quiz1.pdfUploaded byPorkerriaCcdlv
- BE_7th_Electrical_Engg..pdfUploaded byAnuragKshatri
- Plagiarism - ReportUploaded byEmmanuel AeroEng Zingapeta
- Calculation Short Circuit LengkapUploaded byGilang Septian

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.