International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: 1029-8436 (Print) 1477-268X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

In-situ modulus detector for subgrade

characterization

Yong-Hoon Byun & Dong-Ju Kim

To cite this article: Yong-Hoon Byun & Dong-Ju Kim (2020): In-situ modulus detector
for subgrade characterization, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2020.1743291

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1743291

Published online: 22 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 22

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1743291

In-situ modulus detector for subgrade characterization

Yong-Hoon Byuna,b and Dong-Ju Kima
a
School of Agricultural Civil & Bio-Industrial Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea; bInstitute of Agricultural Science &
Technology, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Resilient moduli are widely used in mechanistic analyses to predict distresses in pavement structures. The Received 4 November 2019
objective of this study is to develop an in-situ modulus detector (IMD) to evaluate the resilient moduli of Accepted 11 March 2020
subgrades based on various influencing factors. The IMD consists of a tip module, a driving rod, and a
KEYWORDS
hammer-drop system. In the tip module, a load cell and an accelerometer are installed to measure the Characterisation; dynamic
dynamic responses of force and acceleration. The resilient modulus is calculated from the deviator penetration; in-situ test;
stress and the recoverable strain determined using the IMD. A weathered soil is prepared for the subgrade; resilient modulus
compacted specimens that are used in the dynamic penetration tests. These dynamic penetration tests
are conducted with the IMD on four compacted specimens with different water contents under seven
different hammer-drop heights. The experimental results demonstrate that the maximum amplitudes
of the force and displacement depend on the drop height of the hammer and the water content of
the compacted specimens. The resilient modulus profiles obtained from using the IMD can be
influenced by the hammer energy, water content, and dry density of soils. The IMD may be a
promising field-testing device to evaluate the in-situ resilient moduli of subgrades.

1. Introduction
Subgrade is the foundation of a pavement structure that sup-
ports the upper layers. In traditional pavement design, the
types and thicknesses of the upper layers are determined
based on the strength of the subgrade. Most subgrades experi-
ence both recoverable and permanent deformations under
repeated loads, and the use of resilient moduli is rec-
ommended by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) pavement-design
guide. The resilient modulus is defined as the ratio of the
deviator stress to the recoverable strain measured under
repeated loads to simulate traffic loading. As a basic material
property, a resilient modulus can be used in mechanistic ana-
lyses to predict distresses. Repeated load triaxial tests are
commonly conducted to measure the resilient moduli of
soils. Alternatively, intrusive and nondestructive field tests
are used to estimate the resilient moduli of subgrades. The
resilient moduli of soils can be influenced by the loading fre-
quency, stress level, compaction degree, and moisture content
(Liu et al. 2019).
Various intrusive methods for determining the strength
and stiffness properties of subgrades have been used at
sites. A dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is widely used
to provide a penetration index profile of subgrades. In DCP
tests, the number of blows for a given penetration is
defined as the penetration index. Instead of using the DCP
index, Langton (1999) developed a lightweight DCP to evalu-
ate the transferred energy at the anvil and dynamic cone
resistance. Byun and Lee (2013) focused on the energy trans-
fer to the cone tip and developed an instrumented DCP that
included a load cell and an accelerometer at the cone tip. Lee
et al. (2019) found that the dynamic cone resistances obtained
using the instrumented DCP could be effectively used to
assess the subgrade strength at a considerable strain. Hong
et al. (2017) suggested using a crosshole-type DCP to estimate
the maximum shear modulus of a subgrade based on the
profile of shear wave velocities. However, the unit weight of
each layer must be assumed to estimate the maximum
shear modulus. Furthermore, the maximum shear modulus
based on the shear wave velocities can be estimated at smaller
strains compared to the resilient modulus.
Nondestructive testing methods are used primarily to deter-
mine subgrade moduli for pavement rehabilitation. Falling
weight deflectometers (FWDs) apply an impulse load on the
pavement surface by dropping a weight and measure the deflec-
tions from a series of geophones. Based on the measured deflec-
tion basin, back-calculation methods are commonly used to
determine the moduli of multiple layers in pavement structures.
In back-calculation methods, the initial modulus values for
each layer are selected and modified iteratively. However,
back-calculation methods do not provide a unique set of elas-
tic-layer moduli to match the measured deflection basin to a
predicted deflection basin (AASHTO 2008). Similar to
FWDs, portable devices called light FWDs (LFWDs) are used
to measure the force and deflection to estimate the elastic
moduli of subgrades. However, previous studies reported that
the depth of influence of FWDs and LFWDs ranges from one
to two plate diameters (Siekmeier et al. 2000, Brandl et al.
2003, Nazzal et al. 2004, Fleming et al. 2007, Mooney and
Miller 2009). For more portability and simplicity, other non-
destructive testing systems such as GeoGauge and PSPA are

CONTACT Yong-Hoon Byun yhbyun@knu.ac.kr

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y.-H. BYUN AND D.-J. KIM
used. GeoGauge and PSPA are based on the measurement of
deflections or seismic waves on pavement surfaces, which limits
their depths of influence and associated applicability. Recently,
an embedded wave transducer system for estimating the mod-
ulus of each layer in pavement structures was developed by
Byun et al. (2018). Nevertheless, few in-situ testing devices
for the estimation of a unique resilient modulus profile of sub-
grades exist among available field testers.
This paper presents the development of an in-situ modulus
detector (IMD) for evaluating the resilient modulus of a sub-
grade and investigates the effects of various factors on the esti-
mated resilient modulus. First, the components of the IMD and
measuring system are introduced. The resilient moduli are eval-
uated based on measurements of the forces and displacements.
Second, the properties of the soils used in this study are
described, and the procedure of the dynamic penetration tests
is explained. Typical waveforms from the IMD are then rep-
resented. Third, profiles of the force, displacement, and resilient
modulus are compared between compacted specimens with
different water contents. Finally, the effects of various factors
on resilient modulus are discussed.
2. In-situ modulus detector (IMD)
2.1. Device
An IMD is a portable intrusive-testing device designed for
characterising subgrades. The IMD consists of a tip module,
driving rod, and hammer-drop system, as shown in Figure 1.
The tip module is a cone with eight different blades attached
to minimise the tilting of the IMD and mobilise the adequate
shear strain of soils during penetration. A load cell and an
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the in-situ modulus detector and measuring sys-
tem. SG and Acc denote the strain gauges and accelerometer, respectively.
accelerometer were installed into the tip module to measure
the dynamic force and acceleration. The load cell consists of
four different strain gauges that are configured with a full
Wheatstone bridge circuit to measure the axial force at the
tip. This full-bridge circuit is used to amplify the electrical
resistance and minimise temperature and bending effects
(Byun et al. 2013, Byun et al. 2015). A single-axis piezoelectric
accelerometer (PCB Piezotronics, 350C03) was selected to
measure the impact load generated by dropping a hammer.
The diameters of the upper and lower components of the tip
module were 24 and 30 mm to reduce the side friction during
penetration. The hollow driving rod was approximately 1 m in
length with inner and outer diameters of 16 and 24 mm. The
outer diameter of the driving rod was identical to that of the
upper component of the tip module. The hammer-drop system
consisted of a falling hammer with a weight of 43 N, a rubber
buffer, an anvil, and a guide rod for the hammer. The falling
height of the hammer was adjustable up to 685 mm; the rubber
buffer and anvil enable the user to generate and transfer
dynamic loads, which facilitates measuring dynamic properties.
The load cell and accelerometer were connected to a four-
channel data logger. Each dynamic response detected by the
load cell and accelerometer were recorded at a sampling rate
of 10 kHz and saved on a personal computer. To remove
high-frequency noise, a low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency
of 500 Hz was applied. Mechanical-resistance calibration was
conducted to establish the relationship between the output vol-
tages from the strain gauges and the applied loads. For the load-
ing and unloading stages, nine different weights were placed
and taken out on the top of IMD, and two linear relationships
between the output voltages and applied loads were then estab-
lished. The two relationships were nearly identical with a simi-
lar slope, as shown in Figure 2. Based on the slopes of the linear
relationships, the dynamic force can be estimated from the
measured output voltage.
Figure 2. Relationship between the applied load and output voltage recorded at
the tip of the IMD.

2.2. Resilient modulus
The resilient modulus, which is a key design parameter for
pavement structures, is defined as the ratio of the applied
deviator stress to the recoverable strain. A repeated load triax-
ial test in the laboratory was conducted to determine the resi-
lient modulus of soil. Using a cylindrical specimen with a
height-to-diameter ratio of 2:1, a series of deviator stresses
with different magnitudes were applied to the top of the speci-
men. For the deviator stress, a haversine load pulse, with a 0.1-
s loading period and 0.9-s resting period, was selected to simu-
late typical wheel loading, as shown in Figure 3(a). Figure 3(b)
shows a typical strain response of a triaxial specimen under
repeated loading. Generally, the total strain is the sum of
the recoverable strain and permanent strain. In this study,
the resilient modulus (Mr) of soil can be evaluated using the
Figure 3. Typical responses of the (a) stress and (b) strain measured in the repeated load triaxial test. εt, εr, and εp denote the total, recoverable, and permanent strains,
respectively.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 3
IMD as follows:
sd
Mr =
1r
where σd and εr are the applied deviator stress and recoverable
strain, respectively. The deviator stress is calculated by divid-
ing the maximum amplitude of the dynamic force response
measured from the load cell by the cross-sectional area. Con-
sidering the radius of the tip of the IMD and the analytical sol-
utions by Harr and Lovell (1963), the average value of contact
stress in a uniform distribution is higher by approximately
three times that of a parabolic distribution under the same
dynamic load. Thus, assuming that the contact stress of the
tip of IMD is distributed with a parabolic function, a contact
stress distribution parameter of 3 was applied to obtain the
4 Y.-H. BYUN AND D.-J. KIM

Table 1. Index properties of the soil used in this study. (a). The gradation and uniformity coefficients were 1.4 and
Particle sizes 5.53, respectively. The weathered soil was classified as poorly
corresponding to percent
Specific
finer [mm]
Gradation Uniformity graded sand, according to ASTM D2487 (2011). For the com-
gravity coefficient coefficient paction characteristics of the weathered soil, Proctor tests were
Gs D10 D30 D50 D60 Cc Cu USCS*
conducted according to the specifications of ASTM D1557
2.66 0.19 0.52 0.87 1.05 1.4 5.53 SP
(2012). Using a 43-N rammer, the soil was compacted into
* USCS denotes the Unified Soil Classification System.
five different layers, with 56 blows applied to each layer.
After preparing five specimens with different water contents,
deviator stress. The recoverable strain can be estimated using a compaction curve was determined, as shown in Figure 4(b).
the displacement from the accelerometer, assuming that the The optimum water content and maximum dry unit weight
depth of influence of dynamic loading corresponds to twice were 9.8% and 20.6 kN/m3, respectively. The ratio of the tip
the diameter of the tip module. diameter of the IMD to the mean particle size of the soil was
35 – in the range of 28–85 suggested by Bolton et al. (1999).
Consequently, the penetration results are negligibly affected
3. Dynamic penetration tests by the soil particle size.

3.1. Materials
Weathered soil was used for the preparation of compacted
specimens in dynamic penetration tests with the IMD. The
weathered soil was sampled in Daegu, South Korea. The
index properties of the weathered soil are summarised in
Table 1, and its grain size distribution is plotted in Figure 4
3.2. Test procedure
Dynamic penetration tests with the IMD were conducted on
four different compacted specimens in a mould, as shown in
Figure 5. The weathered soil was prepared in a compaction
mould with a height of 168 mm and a diameter of 150 mm.
According to the results reported by Bolton et al. (1999), the
cone resistance can be affected by the mould size when the
ratio of the mould diameter to the cone diameter is smaller
than 20. Considering that the ratio of the mould diameter to
the tip diameter of the IMD is smaller than 20, the penetration
results should be carefully understood. Nevertheless, the results
of dynamic penetration tests using the IMD in the compaction
mould can be compared directly to the results of unsoaked CBR
tests, which are used to verify the performance of the IMD.
Four different water contents of 8.8, 9.5, 10.8, and 11.2%
were selected for specimen compaction. The compaction pro-
cess was completed with five different layers and 56 blows
per layer using a modified compactive effort according to the
specifications of ASTM D1557 (2012). To simulate the weight

Figure 4. Properties of the weathered soils: (a) particle size distribution and (b) Figure 5. Schematic drawing of a dynamic penetration test in a compaction
compaction curve. mould.

Table 2. Unsoaked CBR values of four compacted
specimens.
Water content [%] CBR [%]
8.8 17.5
9.5 6.3
10.8 3.7
11.2 1.9
of the upper layer of a pavement structure, a surcharge weight
of 53.4 N was placed on top of the specimen.
After specimen preparation, dynamic penetration tests with
the IMD were performed at the centre of the specimens. The
IMD was driven by a hammer that fell from seven different
heights of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50 cm, controlled using a
stopper. The drop height was changed in ascending order.
After completing a set of drop heights, the driving process
was repeated from the same heights. For each hammer drop,
the penetration depth was manually measured using a scale
ruler, and the dynamic response was automatically recorded
in the data logger.
Unsoaked California bearing ratio (CBR) tests were con-
ducted on specimens that were compacted under the same test
conditions as those for the dynamic penetration tests using the
same compaction mould, water content, and soil density.
Figure 6. Typical signals from the IMD: (a) force and (b) acceleration.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 5
A cylindrical plunger was moved down to the specimen at a
rate of 1 mm/min. The CBR values were determined after com-
paring the unit loads at two different displacements of 2.5 and
5 mm divided by standard load values. The CBR values for
four specimens with different water contents are summarised
in Table 2.
4. Test results and discussion
4.1. Dynamic response
Dynamic responses were obtained from the dynamic pen-
etration tests using the IMD with four different specimens.
Figure 6 shows typical dynamic responses obtained from
the load cell and accelerometer under a hammer drop.
Because secondary impacts occurred after the first impact,
four different impulse responses were recorded after drop-
ping the hammer. The impulse responses of the force and
acceleration measured from the load cell and accelerometer
were detected almost simultaneously. The maximum ampli-
tudes of the impulse responses decreased with time. A posi-
tive force indicates compression, and a negative acceleration
indicates a downward direction. In this study, the impulse
response from only the first impact was used to evaluate
6 Y.-H. BYUN AND D.-J. KIM

Figure 7. Typical signals from the IMD for the compacted soil with a water content of 9.5%: (a) force and (b) displacement.

the resilient modulus of the soil because the magnitude and
duration of the impulse responses from the secondary
impacts can be influenced by the soil strength (Lee et al.
2019).
The impulse responses from the first impact on two differ-
ent specimens with water contents of 9.5 and 11.2% are
plotted in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Figure 7 shows the
variation in the impulse response according to the drop height
for a compacted specimen with a water content of 9.5%, which
was nearest to its maximum dry density. In this specimen, the
maximum amplitude of the force increased with drop height.
The variation of displacement after calculating the double
integral of the acceleration is presented in Figure 7(b). A nega-
tive displacement value indicates a downward movement.
Similar to the response of the strain in the repeated load triax-
ial test, the total displacement consists of recoverable and per-
manent displacements. As the drop height increased, the
maximum amplitudes of the total, recoverable, and permanent
displacements increased. Figure 8 shows the variation in the
impulse response according to the drop height for a com-
pacted specimen with a water content of 11.2%, which was
the lowest dry density among the four different specimens

Figure 8. Typical signals from the IMD for the compacted soil with a water content of 11.2%: (a) force and (b) displacement.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 7

in this study. For this specimen, the maximum amplitude of 4.2. Dynamic property profile
the force also increased with the drop height. Under higher
The maximum amplitudes of the force along the penetration
drop heights, the maximum amplitude of the force for the
depth for four different specimens are plotted in Figure 9. As
specimen with a water content of 11.2% was smaller than
the drop height of the hammer increased, the maximum forces
that of the force for the specimen with a water content of
and penetration depth increased. As the number of drop sets
9.5%. For the specimen with a water content of 11.2%, the
(except for Set 1) increased, the maximum forces under each
maximum amplitudes of the total, recoverable, and permanent
drop height for water contents of 8.8 and 9.5% remained almost
displacements increased with drop height. Compared to the
constant, whereas those with a water content of 11.2%
specimen with a water content of 9.5%, the maximum ampli-
increased slightly. The increment of penetration per blow
tudes of the total and permanent displacements under higher
along the drop height decreased with an increasing number
drop heights were significantly higher. Decreasing dry density
of drop sets. For the four different specimens, the final pen-
is one of the causes of the increase in permanent displacement
etration depths after the completion of Set 7 increased with
(Barksdale 1972).
the water content. At a water content of 8.8%, the final

Figure 9. Profiles of the maximum force with the penetration depth at water contents of (a) 8.8%, (b) 9.5%, (c) 10.7%, and (d) 11.2%. ‘H’ indicates the drop height of the
hammer in cm.
8 Y.-H. BYUN AND D.-J. KIM
penetration depth after the completion of Set 7 was less than
8 mm, whereas the final penetration depths for water contents
of 10.7 and 11.2% reached 32 mm. Under the highest drop
height in Set 7, the maximum force at a water content of
9.5% was the highest among the four different specimens.
This result means that the maximum force was significantly
affected by the dry density of the specimen. Note that the opti-
mum water content that corresponded to the maximum dry
density was 9.8%; under wet of optimum water content con-
ditions, the dry density of the compacted specimens decreased
with increasing water content.
Figure 10 shows the variation in the recoverable displacement
along the penetration depth for the four different specimens. As
the number of drop sets increased, the recoverable displacement
decreased. Under the same drop height for a certain set, the
Figure 10. Profiles of the recoverable displacement with the penetration depth at water contents of (a) 8.8%, (b) 9.5%, (c) 10.7%, and (d) 11.2%.
recoverable displacements at lower water contents were smaller
than those at higher water contents. For a water content of 8.8%,
the recoverable displacements increased slightly with the drop
height of the hammer. However, for water contents of 10.7
and 11.2%, the recoverable displacements first increased with
the drop height and then decreased. Considering the variation
in the total and permanent displacements along the drop height
at a water content of 11.2%, as shown in Figure 8, the permanent
displacements under higher drop heights rapidly increased,
compared to the total displacements. Accordingly, under higher
drop heights for a certain set, the recoverable displacements
decreased with increasing drop height.
The resilient modulus was calculated based on its definition
using the maximum force and recoverable displacement. The
resilient modulus profiles for the four different specimens are
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 9

Figure 11. Profiles of the resilient modulus with the penetration depth at water contents of (a) 8.8%, (b) 9.5%, (c) 10.7%, and (d) 11.2%.

presented in Figure 11. As the number of drop sets increased, the CBR value and resilient modulus were suggested in previous
resilient modulus at each drop height generally increased regard- studies (Heukelom and Klomp 1962, Paterson and Maree
less of the water content of the specimens. Under each set, the resi- 1978, Powell et al. 1984, Hopkins 1994), but the empirical
lient modulus increased with the drop height of the hammer for relationships were only valid for specific soil types. Accord-
the four specimens. At lower water contents, the increase in the ingly, based on the Mr–CBR relationship presented in the
resilient modulus for Set 1 was more significant than that at higher Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG),
water contents. The specimen with a water content of 8.8% exhib- the estimated values of the resilient moduli of three different
ited the highest resilient modulus under the last set. Compared to specimens are summarised in Table 3. Note that the MEPDG
the results of the CBR tests, the resilient moduli estimated from relationship should be used only for CBR values smaller than
the IMD increased with increasing CBR values.
Table 3. Estimated resilient moduli based on CBR values.
Water content [%] CBR [%] Estimated Mr [MPa]
4.3. Comparison
9.5 6.3 57.2
CBR tests are used widely to evaluate the strength of subgrades 10.8 3.7 40.7
11.2 1.9 26.6
in the laboratory and field. Several relationships between the
10 Y.-H. BYUN AND D.-J. KIM
Figure 12. Variation in the resilient modulus with the hammer height: (a) Set 1
and (b) Set 7. ‘wc’ denotes the water content.
12%. The resilient moduli estimated from the CBR value
increased with the measured CBR values and were similar to
those obtained from using the IMD.
A comparison of the resilient moduli for the four different
specimens according to the hammer-drop height is plotted in
Figure 12. Figure 12(a) shows the resilient moduli under the
initial set. The resilient moduli under Set 1 generally increased
with the drop height of the hammer. At all drop heights, the
specimens with lower water contents exhibited higher resilient
moduli. For the two water contents of 8.8 and 10.8%, the
difference in the resilient modulus was significant, and the
results demonstrated that the resilient modulus estimated
from the IMD was highly influenced by the water content.
The two specimens with water contents of 8.8 and 10.8% had
the same dry unit weight. The resilient moduli at a water
content of 8.8% were higher than those at a water content of
9.5%. The dry unit weight of the specimen with a water content
of 9.5% was the highest; consequently, the effect of the water
content on the estimation of the resilient modulus was more
dominant than the effect of the dry density. In addition to
using the IMD, the water content at a site may be determined
using the time domain reflectometry-based in-situ testing
methods suggested in previous studies (Lee et al. 2018,
Hong et al. 2019).
The penetration per blow under the initial set depended
significantly on the specimen conditions, so the effect of the
variation in the confining stress on the estimation of the
resilient modulus under the same set may have been signifi-
cant among the four different specimens. In contrast, the
penetration per blow under the last set was the smallest.
The resilient moduli of the four different specimens under
Set 7 are plotted in Figure 12(b). Although the penetration
depths of the four different specimens under Set 7 differed,
the resilient moduli could be compared, excluding the effect
of the variation in the confining stress under the same set.
Figure 12(b) confirms that the resilient modulus for all
the specimens was affected by the hammer energy, regard-
less of the effect of the confining stress. Subgrade character-
isation based on the IMD developed in this study is a
promising technique for evaluating an in-situ resilient
modulus.
5. Conclusions
An IMD incorporated with a load cell and an accelerometer
at the tip module was developed as a portable intrusive-test-
ing device to evaluate the resilient moduli of subgrades.
Dynamic penetration tests with the IMD were performed
on four different compacted specimens under seven ham-
mer-drop heights. The main observations from the test results
are as follows:
. The IMD provided the dynamic responses generated by the
hammer impacts. The maximum amplitudes of the force
and displacement depended on the drop height of the ham-
mer. In the displacement response, the recoverable displa-
cements were distinguishable from permanent
displacements.
. The maximum force generally increased with the drop
height of the hammer. As the number of drop sets (except
for the initial set) increased, the maximum forces under
each drop height changed only minimally.
. Under dry of optimum water content conditions, the
recoverable displacements increased with drop height.
Under wet of optimum water content conditions, the reco-
verable displacements first increased and then decreased
with drop height. The results matched the waveforms of
the displacement that were calculated from the acceler-
ometer, revealing the total, recoverable, and permanent
displacements.
. The resilient modulus that was estimated from the maxi-
mum force and recoverable displacement generally
increased with the drop height of the hammer, implying
that the resilient modulus was affected by the hammer
energy. The resilient moduli estimated from CBR values
were similar to those obtained from using the IMD.
. The specimens with lower water contents exhibited
higher resilient moduli. Based on the resilient moduli
values under Set 1, the resilient modulus estimated
from the IMD was highly influenced by the water content,
and the effect of the water content on the estimation of
the resilient modulus was more dominant than that of
the dry density.

Using the IMD is a promising technique for the evaluation
of in-situ resilient moduli of subgrades based on various
influencing factors.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea
(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-
2017R1C1B5077072).
References
AASHTO, 2008. Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide: A manual
of practice. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
ASTM D1557, 2012. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction
characteristics of soil using modified effort. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
ASTM D2487, 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils for engin-
eering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Barksdale, R.D, 1972. Laboratory evaluation of rutting in base course
materials. In: Presented at the third international conference on the
Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, 11–15 September, 1972. (1),
Park Lane, London, England: Grosvenor House.
Bolton, M.D., et al., 1999. Centrifuge cone penetration tests in sand.
Géotechnique, 49 (4), 543–552.
Brandl, H., et al., 2003. The dynamic load plate test with the light falling
weight device (in German). Vienna: Bundesministerium fuer Verkehr,
Innovation und Technologie, Strassenforschung 528.
Byun, Y.H., et al., 2018. Embedded shear wave transducer for estimating
stress and modulus of As-constructed unbound aggregate base layer.
Construction and Building Materials, 183, 465–471.
Byun, Y.H., Hong, W.T., and Lee, J.S, 2015. Characterization of railway
substructure using a hybrid cone penetrometer. Journal of Smart
Structures and Systems, 15 (4), 1085–1101.
Byun, Y.H., Kim, J.H., and Lee, J.S, 2013. Cone penetrometer with a heli-
cal-type outer screw rod for evaluation of the subgrade condition.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139 (2), 115–122.
Byun, Y.H., and Lee, J.S, 2013. Instrumented dynamic cone penetrometer
corrected with transferred energy into a cone tip: a laboratory study.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 36 (4), 533–542.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 11
Fleming, P.R., Frost, M.W., and Lambert, J.P, 2007. Review of lightweight
deflectometer for routine in situ assessment of pavement material stiff-
ness. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2004 (1), 80–87.
Harr, M.E. and Lovell, C.W.Jr, 1963. Vertical stress under certain axisym-
metrical loadings. Highway Research Record, (39), 68–81.
Heukelom, W., and Klomp, A, 1962. Dynamic testing as a means of con-
trolling pavements during and after construction. In International
Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 203 (1), 495–510.
Hong, W.T., et al., 2017. Strength and stiffness assessment of railway track
substructures using crosshole-type dynamic cone penetrometer. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 100, 88–97.
Hong, W.T., et al., 2019. Dynamic cone penetrometer incorporated with
time domain reflectometry (TDR) sensors for the evaluation of water
contents in sandy soils. Sensors, 19 (18), 3841.
Hopkins, T, 1994. Minimum bearing strength of soil subgrades required to
construct flexible Pavements. In: 4th international conference, Bearing
Capacity of Roads and Airfields FHWA, U of Minnesota, Army Corps
of Engineers, NRC Canada, FAA, 1, 605–617.
Langton, D.D., 1999. The Panda lightweight penetrometer for soil investi-
gation and monitoring material compaction. Ground Engineering, 32
(9), 33–37.
Lee, J.S., et al., 2018. Evaluation of water content in an active layer
using penetration-type time domain reflectometry. Applied Sciences, 8
(6), 935.
Lee, J.S., et al., 2019. Assessing subgrade strength using an
instrumented dynamic cone penetrometer. Soils and Foundations, 59
(4), 930–941.
Liu, X., et al., 2019. Laboratory testing and analysis of dynamic and static
resilient modulus of subgrade soil under various influencing factors.
Construction and Building Materials, 195, 178–186.
Mooney, M.A., and Miller, P.K, 2009. Analysis of lightweight
deflectometer test based on in situ stress and strain response.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135 (2),
199–208.
Nazzal, M., et al., 2004. Evaluating the potential use of a portable LFWD
for characterizing pavement layers and subgrades. In: Geotechnical
Engineering for Transportation Projects (pp. 915–924).
Paterson, W.D., and Maree, J.H, 1978. An interim mechanistic procedure
for the structural design of asphalt pavements. Pretoria, South Africa:
National Institute for Transport and Road Research.
Powell, W.D., et al., 1984. The structural design of bituminous roads.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1132, 62.
Siekmeier, J.A., Young, D., and Beberg, D, 2000. Comparison of the
dynamic cone penetrometer with other tests during subgrade and gran-
ular base characterization in Minnesota. In: Nondestructive testing of
pavements and backcalculation of moduli: third volume. ASTM
International.