Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9812–9816 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICEMS 2016

Comparative study of flexible pavement layers moduli

backcalculation using approximate and static approach
Sunny Deol Guzzarlapudi*, Vinod kumar Adigopula, Rakesh Kumar
Department of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat -395007, Gujarat, India

Abstract

Pavement Backcalculation process is mathematically an indeed complex inverse problem that can be approached
deterministically or probabilistically for the realistic estimation of pavement layer moduli using Non-destructive testing devices.
Therefore, selection of appropriate backcalculation technique and thereby identifying the optimum value of pavement layer
moduli is a daunting task in the current scenario. This study made an attempt in comparing two techniques namely radius of
curvature method using ELMOD 6.0 program, and analytical method that adopts mathematical adaptive technique using
Boussinesq’s formulae with Odemark’s consecutive three-layer system for estimating pavement layer moduli. Experimental
investigations were carried out by using falling weight deflectometer (FWD) as per Indian standards on a selected two lane
highway flexible pavement stretch of 20.00 km at an interval of 1.00 Km. The results of comparative analysis depict that
bituminous layer moduli estimated from two techniques are in a mean variation of 32.29%. Whereas, the mean variation of
granular and subgrade layer moduli at all the test locations is 27.16% and 5.61% respectively. This variation is due to various
limiting factors of different methods, thereby layer moduli estimated from the approximate method provides quick solution
considering non-linearity, transient behavior, does not require any seed values. Thus, this comparative study validates the
applicability of approximate technique due to its simplicity and rapid calculation for structural evaluation of flexible pavement
physical system.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering and Material
Sciences (ICEMS-2016).

Keywords:Backcalculation; falling weight deflectometer; layer moduli; approximate method; static iterative method

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9589103166,

E-mail address:gsunnydeol@gmail.com

2214-7853© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering and Material Sciences (ICEMS-
2016).
 Sunny Deol Guzzarlapudi et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9812–9816 9813

1. Introduction

In the current scenario, Backcalculation is the most significant process in the Structural evaluation of in service
pavement system using Non-destructive testing devices like falling weight deflectometer (FWD) [1]. This involves
accurate prediction of critical dynamic responses and non-linear deflection profiles of asphalt pavements
experiencing vehicular transient loadings. The process of analyzing the measured responses and deflection profiles
for determining the pavement layer properties and residual life is most commonly referred as Backcalculation [2, 3].
However, over the few years, numerous efforts have been made by various researchers to evolve a generalized
approach that can backcalculate the in-situ moduli accurately and quickly [2, 3]. These developed approaches were
categorized based on fundamental theory, adaptive mathematical techniques and several machine learning and data
mining techniques [2, 3]. Promising commercial backcalculation programs adopts iterative approach undergo
shortcomings like dependency on seed moduli and likely occurrence of local minimum solutions [4]. Typically, there
are two different techniques used in the analysis: backward and forward. Backward analysis obtained deflections are
compared with measured deflections, consequently the optimization is performed by iteration process until
computed and measured deflections are matched with in a less Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) [5,6]. Whereas, in
forward process, deflections are calculated for design traffic loads, structural analysis uses layer elastic theory, finite
element technique and finite difference method using layer elastic properties to calculate deformations [7]. In static
backcalculation procedure, the theoretical response of pavement model the maximum applied load is matched the
maximum deflection under each geophones offset location. Each backcalculation approach has its shortcomings
regarding linear elastic theories, static and dynamic deflection bowl and time histories, computational power, the
convergence of layer moduli, numerical errors in the iterative process. Therefore, selection of appropriate
backcalculation technique and thereby identifying the optimum value for the estimation of realistic pavement layer
moduli is a daunting task in the current scenario. Thus, there is a need for the requirement of comparative analysis of
different approaches that are being used for the estimation of backcalculated pavement layer moduli. This study
made an attempt to compare the variation of backcalculated pavement layer moduli of each layer estimated by using
the static iterative radius of curvature by ELMOD 6.0 and an mathematical model using Boussinesq’s theory based
on elastic half-space theory.

2. Materials and methods

The detailed structural evaluation was carried out using FWD to measure in situ pavement responses regarding
deflections on the selected pavement stretch of 20.0 Km two-lane highway in India. The pavement stretch is further
divided into 20 test locations at an interval of 1.0 Km. The testing protocol is followed as per the Indian standards by
dropping an impulse load of 41 kN is induced on the top of the circular plate with a diameter of 300 mm and resting
on a rubber pad [8]. The duration of load impulse time maintained during the test is varies from 20 to 35 ms (Milli
seconds). Test pits were dug along the pavement test locations to identify existing pavement crust composition. The
average direction wise measured pavement crust composition is shown in Table 1 and was further used as a seed
value in static backcalculation procedures for determining the each layer moduli. Fig.1 shows the experimental setup
on the test section.

Table1.Pavement crust composition

Average layer thickness (mm)
Pavement crust composition
Left hand side Right hand side
Bituminous layer (mm) 125 135
Granular Layer (mm) 330 345
Total 455 480
9814 Sunny Deol Guzzarlapudi et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9812–9816

Fig. 1. FWD testing on pavement stretch

3. Test results

The center deflection values obtained from FWD test ranges from 302 μm to 853 μm. The crust thicknesses of
pavement stretch were approximately 455 mm, 480 mm on the left and right-hand wheel path on pavement stretch.

4. Backcalculated pavement layer moduli

Two techniques were selected to estimate backcalculated pavement layer moduli due to its similarities (1) Both
the techniques can be analyzed for minimum three layer physical system, (2) One method is iterative and the other is
purely analytical method. The fundamental objective of the iterative backcalculated programs is to determine a set of
pavement layer moduli that minimizes the root mean square error (RMSE) among measured and calculated
deflection .The most commonly used performance measures are as follows.

1 −
RMSE, (%) = 100 (1)

Where, RMSE = Root mean squared error (%); n= Number of sensors; = Measured deflection at sensor i; =
Computed deflection at sensor i.
Since the accuracy of the sensors is the significant prerequisite of the reliability of measured deflection. Therefore,
the recommended range of maintaining the RMSE is 2% to 5% and overall RMSE value along the study stretch is
calculated and is varying from 0.14% to 4.98% [9].

4.1. Radius of curvature method by ELMOD 6.0

ELMOD 6.0 program uses various modules for analyzing the measured surface deflections such as Finite element
module (FEM) module with Linear elastic theory (LET) or Method of equivalent thickness (MET), Deflection basin
fit module and Radius of curvature module, [9]. Radius of curvature method using ELMOD 6.0 program is an
iterative method to estimate backcalculated pavement layer moduli. This method was used that adopts the theory of
Odemark-Boussinesq’s approach of equivalent thicknesses. Further the moduli of remaining layers are then
calculated based on the overall pavement deflection to the applied load [9]. The measured thickness of seed values
and deflections calibrated, layer moduli were estimated as per the transformation equations suggested by (Odemark
1949). The general form of Odemark’s equation for a multi-layer system the equivalent thickness of the upper n-1
layers on the modulus of layer ‘n’ was calculated as follows [10]:

E E E
= = = (2)
 Sunny Deol Guzzarlapudi et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9812–9816 9815

Where, he= equivalent thickness of the layer of interest; hi= thickness of layer i; Ei,n= elastic moduli of layers i
and n, respectively. Therefore, the calculated layer moduli using a radius of curvature method for the selected
pavement stretch is shown in Fig. 2(b).

4.2. Approximate method of Backcalculation

Backcalculation process was carried out to estimate layer moduli using an approximate method by using the
deflections based on Boussinesq’s formulae in layered elastic half-space theory the deflections produced by FWD on
pavement depend upon structural layer modulus. Odemark’s surface center deflection formula of constitutive three-
layer system suggested by [11] is as follows:

2(1 − μo )
=
(3)
E
Further, Approximate moduli of various structural layers transformed equations shown below:

(1 − μ )
, = (4)
d r
Where, E1 = Surface modulus (MPa); E2 = Base course modulus (MPa); Em = Subgrade modulus (MPa); r0= r1=
r5= distance from sensor to the center load (mm); d0=d1=d5= sensor measured deflection; p= Impact load generated;
a= contact area; μ = Poisson’s ratio of each layer. Therefore the calculated layer moduli using approximate
method for the selected pavement stretch are shown in Fig. 2(b).

5. Comparison of deflection and backcalculated layer moduli

The deflection and backcalculated layer moduli values estimated from the two techniques were analyzed and
compared as shown in Fig. 2(a,b). The comparative analysis was carried out between (1) measured deflection and
calculated deflection, (2) Elmod 6.0 using backcalculated layer moduli and approximate method using
backcalculated layer moduli. The mean variation of deflections measured and calculated is 3.96%, and the mean
variations of backcalculated layer moduli for each layer are shown in Table 2.

900 2400 Bituminous layer (ELMOD 6)

Bituminous layer (Approx. method)
Theoritical delection(Approx. Method) Subbase layer (ELMOD 6)
2200
Measured deflection (FWD Test) Subbase layer (Approx. method)
800 Subgarde (ELMOD6)
2000 Subgrade (Approx. method)

1800
700
1600
Resilient Moduli (MPa)
Deflection (microns)

1400
600
1200

500 1000

800

400 600

400
300
200

0
200 68+200 72+200 76+200 80+200 84+200
68+200 70+200 72+200 74+200 76+200 78+200 80+200 82+200 84+200 86+200 70+200 74+200 78+200 82+200 86+200
Chainage (Km) Chainage (Km)

Fig. 2.(a) Measured deflection vs Theoretical deflection; (b) Layerwise moduli using ELMOD 6.0 and approximate method.
9816 Sunny Deol Guzzarlapudi et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9812–9816

Table 2. Summary of Comparative analysis

Backcalculated Layer moduli % Variation

Backcalculated Layer moduli (ELMOD
No: of test (Two
Pavement Layer 6.0) MPa (Approximate Method) MPa
sections techniques)

Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean

Surface/
20 1651 2257 911 1081 1757 631 32.29
Bituminous layer
Granular Layer 20 257 389 177 187 330 105 27.16
Subgrade 20 68 91 37 66 106 24 5.61

Conclusions

This study made an attempt in comparing two backcalculation techniques Static iterative method and analytical
method. The comparative analysis of estimated layer moduli using two techniques depicts a significant variation of
32.29%, 27.16% and 5.61% for bituminous, granular and subgrade layer. However, the variation of deflections
measured and calculated is very less 3.96%. Thus considering the various limiting factors of backcalculation
process of two techniques, approximate method is quick with less computational time and validates the applicability
in considering nonlinearity, transient behaviour, does not require any seed values as compared to the static iterative
methods. Thus, this study facilitates the research path in extending such comparative studies among various other
techniques in adopting the robust technique for estimating reliable pavement layer moduli.

References

[1] O.Pekcan, E.Tutumluer., M.R.Thompson. Nondestructive Flexible Pavement Evaluation Using ILLI-PAVE Based Artificial Neural
Network Models. Geocongress. ASCE. 2006, pp.1-6.
[2] Sunil, Sharma., Animesh, Das.. Backcalculation of pavement layer moduli from falling weight deflectometer data using an artificial
neural network.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2008, 35, pp.57–66.
[3] Kasthurirangan, Gopalakrishnan. Backcalculation of Non-Linear Pavement Moduli Using Finite-Element. The Open Civil Engineering
Journal. 2009, 3,pp. 83-92.
[4] Chou, Y. J., and Lytton, R. L. Accuracy and consistency of backcalculated pavement layer moduli.” Transportation Research Record.
1022, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp.1–7.
[5] Ullidtz, P. Will. Nonlinear Backcalculation help NDT of pavements and Backcalculation of moduli, Special Technical edition, STP
1375, ASTM Publication, Pennsylvania, 2000, 3,pp.14-22.
[6] Goketepe, A.B, Agar, E. Lav, A.H. Advances in backcalculating the mechanical properties of flexible pavements. Advances engineering
Softwares.37, 2006, pp. 421-431.
[7] A.HilmiLav, A.Burak Goktepe and M. AysenLav Backcalculation of Flexible pavements using soft computing. Intelligent and soft
Computing in Infrastructure Systems Engineering, Recent Advances. 2009, pp. 67-109.
[8] IRC 115., 2014. Guidelines for structural evaluation and strengthening of flexible road pavements using falling weight deflectometer
(FWD) technique. Indian Road Congress, New Delhi.
[9] M. Ameri., N. Yavari., T. Scullion., 2009. Comparison of Static and Dynamic Backcalculation of Flexible Pavement Layers Moduli
using Four Software Programs. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences. 2(3).pp. 197-210.
[10] Sherif, M. El-Badawy., Mostafa, A. Kamel., 2011.Assessment and Improvement of the Accuracy of the Odemark Transformation
Method. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and Technologies. 6(1), pp.105 – 110.
[11] Ya-jian,Wang., Zhi,Hong., Jian-lin, Zhang.,2010. An Approximate Calculation of Highway Pavement Modulus Based on FWD
Deflection Basin. IEEE Journal. 978-1-4244-7739-5.