You are on page 1of 14

# DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS IN NDT RIGID

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
By Anastasios M . loannides, 1 Associate Member, ASCE
(Reviewed by the Air Transport Division)

## ABSTRACT: A consistent and theoretically rigorous approach is presented, using

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
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

## The principles of dimensional analysis have been employed successfully

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

FIG. 2. Nondimensional Deflection Basins for Slab on Elastic Solid (after Los-
berg 1960)

## data. The purpose here is to describe a consistent and theoretically sound

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

## It is noted in Figs. 1 and 2 that if the value of I were known, a single

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

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:

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-
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

## where dt = nondimensional measured sensor deflections (i = 0, ri) = (D,D/

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

## Furthermore, it is apparent from Eqs. 2 and 4 that

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

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.

## The simplest application of the nondimensional area concept involves a

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)

## where kei is a Kelvin Bessel function (McLachlan 1955).

The corresponding expression for the nondimensional response is
(wkl2\
7 y -trif
= = (8)
(wD\ ( 1\

## This formula may be used to determine all (n + 1) nondimensional deflec-

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).

## CASE OF CIRCULAR LOAD AND DENSE LIQUID FOUNDATION

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

Constant C,
At s = 0, w = w0 = maximum deflection, which is given by Wester-
2-.

W0 1 + M-J+7-1.25 (10)
Ml2

## where 7 = Euler's constant (=0.57721566490 . . . )

Noting that ber 0 = 1.0 and bei 0 = 0.0, substitution of Eq. 10 in Eq.
9a yields

## where w* = the nondimensional maximum deflection, given by

. fw0kl2\ (w0D^
(12)

Constant C2
the maximum bending moment in the slab occurring under the center of the
load (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger 1959; Losberg 1960):

## M m a x = -D{1 + v X2 - atr = 0 . (13)

,dr

1\ d2w
Mmax = - z , ( l + ,)(- - at s = 0 , (14)

## Furthermore, the maximum moment may be expressed in terms of the max-

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

where

J a -J I - C fcei'l
1 - Cxber\ - '"
2

A
= 77 " <18)

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.

## It would also be interesting to derive the unique relations between the

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

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-

## w(s) = s2- ^ z dx (24)

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:

## + 0.19245 - 4.440 x 10~V - 30.07 x 10"Y + 70.74 x 10"V - 83.53

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.

## CASE OF DISTRIBUTED LOAD AND ELASTIC SOLID FOUNDATION

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

## According to conventional U.S. practice in nondestructive pavement eval-

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

ELASTIC S0LI0
Distributed Load (a = 5.9055 in.)
35

30

25
<
tr
<
20

## Based on Four Sensors at

12" Spacing
15
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Radius of Relative Stiffness, i (in.)

## FIG. 3. Variation of AREA with /

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-
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
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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

BACK-CALCULATION OF PAVEMENT PARAMETERS

## It is reasonable to expect based on previous analytical and numerical stud-

ies (Ioannides 1984; 1988b), that the nondimensional sensor deflections, dt,
can all be written as functions of (a/l) only

d
D,D _ fa

## > = T7T ft= f\ 1J '" = 0, n (27)

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

## 0.141335 - 0.10340 In | - (28)

^-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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

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
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

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.

## The proposed method may be applied to flexible pavements with relatively

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

application of the proposed method to flexible pavements would be beyond
the scope of this paper.

## The method outlined is theoretically rigorous, and, as such, is extremely

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

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.

## support conditions," thesis presented to the University of Illinois, at Urbana, 111.,

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
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 = auxiliary function of (a/1);

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

## J. Transp. Eng. 1990.116:23-36.

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);

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]};
M\$ = circumferential moment;
n = number of sensors used, minus one;
(=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.

## Superscripts and Subscripts

i = index of sensor deflections (i = 0, ri);
max = maximum value of; and
* = nondimensional value of.

36