Transportation Research Record 1755 ■
Paper No. 01-0106
Quality Assessment During Road
Formation and Foundation Construction
Use of Falling-Weight Deflectometer and Light Drop Weight
Moshe Livneh and Yair Goldberg
Mechanistic empirical-based specifications, which focus on the mechan-
ical properties of materials, facilitate quantitative evaluations of alter-
native construction practices and materials such as reclaimed materials.
Thus, to represent these mechanical properties, quality-control and
-assurance testing would be expected to include stiffness along with den-
sity measurements. In two case studies, a falling-weight deflectometer
(FWD) was used during the construction of two major interchanges in
Israel. FWD testing was found to be very useful in identifying local spots
with poor performance, thus enabling execution of the required remedy
actions. The two studies also indicated that, for a given feature, both a
representative central deflection at the 95 percent reliability level and a
coefficient of variability of measured deflections may serve as potential
quality-control indicators. The possible use of the German light drop-
weight (LDW) device for measuring the mechanical properties of the
formation of flexible pavements was also examined. Based on the cost
per test, rate of testing, and quality of the data, the German LDW can
serve as a cost-effective testing device for quality control and assurance
during subgrade and capping-layer compaction.
The degree of compliance with current common specifications and the
quality of performance are two different elements and are not always
directly related to each other. Thus, a performance-based specification
covering pavement performance is required to control the long-term
functional and structural performance. With the coming transition
from empirical to mechanistic-empirical pavement-design proce-
dures, it would be advantageous to move toward more mechanistic-
based specifications, which focus on the mechanical properties of
materials. This move is desirable because it facilitates quantitative
evaluations of alternative construction practices and materials, such
as reclaimed materials, both of which have beneficial cost and envi-
ronmental implications (1). Thus, quality-control and -assurance
testing would be expected to include stiffness along with density mea-
surements. This requirement also stems from the fact that the possi-
ble natural variation in site materials along any tested strip may
require several reference densities, the obtaining of which is usually
beyond any practical scope of work. Thus, routine in-situ density tests
cannot alone ensure the compliance of the layers constructed with the
compaction requirements. These conclusions were also drawn by
Pinard, who stated that end-result specifications suffer from a number
M. Livneh, Transportation Research Institute, Technion–Israel Institute of
Technology, Transportation Research Institute, Technion City, Haifa 32000,
Israel. Y. Goldberg, T&M Technology and Management Ltd., 1 Hayesod Street,
Tel Aviv 68167, Israel.
69
of inherent problems, not the least of which is the use of a criterion,
usually dry density, that does not reflect the engineering properties of
soils in roadway- or runway-service conditions (2). Also, Fleming
reached conclusions of the same nature (1). The results of his two full-
scale trafficking tests show the inadequacy of density as a predictor or
safeguard of performance. Thus, it seems that an additional criterion
is required in order to ensure adequate performance characteristics.
There is no doubt that, with ongoing developments, combined
end-product and mechanistic-empirical-based specifications will
govern quality-control and -assurance testing in Israel. Together
with in-situ density tests, these will include formation and founda-
tion stiffness testing. Obviously, the conventional falling-weight
deflectometer (FWD) is classified as a suitable device for stiffness
measurements but is sometimes considered unnecessarily sophisti-
cated for formation and foundation testing; furthermore, it is not
without limitations on weaker substrates in regard to both transducer
range limits and portability (3). Thus, the German light drop-weight
(LDW) device, being lightweight, portable, and simple to apply for
repeated testing, should be considered as providing a potentially
valuable way forward for in-situ stiffness measurements.
In light of the above, this study will concentrate on the possible use
of the conventional FWD device and the German LDW device for
measuring the mechanical properties of the compacted layers creat-
ing the formation and foundation of asphalt pavements. Formation
here means the partial structure of the pavement that contains the
natural and compacted subgrade and the capping layers laid on this
subgrade; foundation means the partial structure containing the for-
mation and the granular subbase layers laid on the formation. The
objectives of this study are as follows:
1. To summarize the deflection and stiffness target values avail-
able in the technical literature, and to evaluate the various statistical
parameters for serving as potential quality-control indicators.
2. To examine the use of the FWD device for evaluating the
construction quality of layers, as well as identifying weak spots by
running routine FWD tests at two construction sites in Israel.
3. To compare the conventional FWD deformation moduli with
their comparative LDW deformation moduli by conducting in-situ
comparative tests.
DEFLECTION AND STIFFNESS TARGET VALUES
An important step in advancing quality-control procedures and the
assurance of formation and foundation construction is to compare
measured deflections with target deflections (4). The latter are a
70 Paper No. 01-0106
function of layer thickness and the nature of the material. Multilayer
analyses are commonly used to predict pavement deflections. These
analyses, which assume static loading and linear elastic material
properties, led Syed and Scullion to calculate the required FWD tar-
get deflection in order to monitor the performance of pavement recy-
cling projects (5). The FWD loading cycle is, however, a dynamic
one with a duration of 30 to 40 msec. Furthermore, pavement
materials and subgrades are not linear elastic materials, and their
response to static loads is different than it is to dynamic loads.
Therefore, the use of multilayer analyses to predict target deflections
is not recommended.
To overcome the above-mentioned limitations, Zaghloul and
Saeed suggested an empirical approach in which trial sections are
constructed and FWD tests performed at points that show accept-
able density levels, in order to determine the required target deflec-
tions (6). In the quality-control and -assurance procedure, long
pavement sections are divided into homogeneous segments, and
FWD tests are conducted on each layer of the segments at inter-
vals of 10 to 20 m. Statistical tests are conducted on measured
deflections in order to evaluate the construction quality as well as
to identify weak points. Zhou et al. additionally suggested that the
coefficient of variation (COV) of the measured deflection be cal-
culated for each homogeneous segment in order to evaluate the
uniformity of construction (7).
Along these same lines, the Israeli Public Works Department con-
sidered including the following clauses in its mandatory construc-
tion specifications: the subgrade or capping-layer compaction will
be measured for deflections with an FWD device in accordance with
ASTM D4694-96. The test will be conducted by means of three
weight drops in each test station with a device equipped with a plate
of 450-mm diameter having an impact of 22 kN, on the basis of
which deflection results will be normalized. For each carriage way,
the tests will be carried out at every design cross section (maximum
spacing to be 20 m). The representative deflection for each test sta-
tion will be the average of the three weight drops. For each lot, every
representative deflection should be less than 0.5 mm, and the COV
less than 40 percent for a natural subgrade or a subgrade in cut and
less than 0.4 mm and 30 percent, respectively, for fill and capping
FIGURE 1 An example of a plate-load test according to the German testing procedure (9).
Transportation Research Record 1755
layers. The results of these measurements will be used to locate sec-
tions having irregular performance, on which additional routine tests
(gradation, plasticity, moisture content, degree of compaction, and
the like) will be conducted to detect the reasons for their deviation.
Following this detection, all necessary work will be carried out to
raise the deviant sections to the required standards.
In addition to the target deflections, other agencies specify target
moduli. For example, Fleming et al. suggest a stiffness value of
50 to 60 MPa, measured on the completed formation, and 100 MPa
on the completed foundation (8). In Germany, a minimum static plate-
bearing modulus, termed a deformation modulus (EV2), of 45 MPa
is required at the top of the completed formation. EV2 is calculated
from the amount of deflection under the second loading of the
plate (9) (see Figure 1). The thickness of the subbase necessary
above the formation level is determined by the amount of frost
resistance required. A surface modulus (EV2) requirement using
the plate-bearing test is also mandatory at the top of the subbase:
120 MPa for light traffic and 150 MPa for heavy traffic. In the same
manner, Chaddock and Brown suggest a value of 80 MPa, as mea-
sured by the FWD, with a 450-mm plate and 200-kPa contact stress,
as an acceptable formation-stiffness cap (10). Finally, the values
suggested by Nunn et al. are an LDW stiffness value of 30 MPa or
an FWD stiffness of 40 MPa, measured on top of the completed for-
mation; and 50 MPa or 65 MPa, respectively, measured on the top
of the completed foundation (11).
LOCAL EXAMPLES OF FWD USE
Recently, an FWD device was implemented at two construction sites
in Israel (A and B) for quality-control and -assurance operations (12).
This FWD testing was conducted on each layer before the construc-
tion of the next layer. The surfaces of the subgrade, the subbase, the
base course, and the asphalt layers were measured for central deflec-
tions with this device. It was equipped with a 450-mm-diameter plate
and had an impact force of 22 kN for all layer measurements except
the asphalt layers and an impact force of 55 kN for the latter mea-
surements. A lower impact load was adopted for the subgrade and the
Livneh and Goldberg Paper No. 01-0106 71

FIGURE 2 FWD measurements of central deflection (normalized to 22 kN) taken along the surface
of the subgrade at Site A (Section 45) (12).

granular layers because the actual pressure exerted on these layers
was lower than that exerted on the surface of the finished pavement
structure. Thus, in order to eliminate the nonlinearity effects of the
materials on the measured deflections as much as possible, it was
essential to apply a lower impact load. The longitudinal spacing in
these measurements was 20 m for each of the two carriage ways
under construction.
Figure 2 displays the variation of the central deflection measure-
ments (normalized to 22 kN) that were performed on the finished
subgrade at Site A. A brittle chalk formed the subgrade of this site,
with a design California bearing ratio (CBR) value of 5 percent. Fig-
ure 2 discloses a weak segment along the tested section (Stations
4518–4521). The mean deflection measured in the weak segment
was found to be almost four times that of the other two (stable) seg-
ments (0.4 mm versus 1.5 mm). Thus, investigations were carried
out to uncover the possible reasons for the significant difference
between the stable segments and the weak segment. A low-strength
material was revealed to characterize the subgrade of the weak seg-
ment: marl versus chalk. For this reason, a 600-mm thickness of the
marl subgrade was replaced by an approved granular material.
Similarly, Figure 3 displays the variation of the central deflection
measurements (normalized to 22 kN) that were carried out on the
compacted subbase laid on the sandy clay subgrade at Site B. This fig-
ure discloses, again, a weak segment along the tested section (Stations
4510–4511). For the weak segment, a high mean deflection was
recorded: it was more than three times that of the two other (stable)

FIGURE 3 FWD measurements of central deflection (normalized to 22 kN) taken along the
surface of the subbase at Site B (Section 44) (12).
72 Paper No. 01-0106 Transportation Research Record 1755

TABLE 1 Calculated Target Deflection Values for Designed Pavement Structure at Site B

segments (0.2 mm versus 0.7 mm). Following additional in-site inves-
tigations, the sandy clay subgrade in the weak segment was found
to be overwetted in the compaction process: 17 percent versus the
required 10 percent. Thus, remedial action was taken; this involved
removing the subbase material, reprocessing the underlying wetted
subgrade, and moving back and reprocessing the subbase material.
In addition to its ability to identify weak points along given sec-
tions, the FWD central deflection measurements were also used to
examine the sections’ compliance with target deflections. These
were calculated for the construction sites with the assumption that
their pavement structures both follow elastic linear laws and possess
moduli values that comply with those assigned in the extended CBR
pavement-design procedure as described by Uzan (13). ELSYM5
software was used to make the calculations (14). The results of these
calculations are shown in Table 1, which includes, for each layer, the
restraining deflection value, a new term introduced to express the con-
tribution of each layer to decreasing the deflection value. It is defined
as the difference between the deflection calculated for the surface of
a given layer and that calculated for the surface of its overlying layer.
Figure 4 shows the representative values of the measured central
deflections obtained at the 95 percent reliability level (mean value
plus 1.96 times the standard deviation) for the various sections at
Site B. Figure 5 shows their accompanying restraining deflection val-
ues. The two figures should be compared with the values in Table 1.
Doing so will show that, in terms of restraining deflection, the sub-
base in the third and seventh sections did not comply with the
required values of Table 1, and the subbase of the first section
revealed the best bearing properties. The routine nature of the
tests, however, did not enable such a distinction. Thus, the calcu-
lated target values and their derived restraining deflection values
cannot be regarded as the absolute required values in all cases; the
reasons mentioned in the previous section provide the physical
explanation for this. In the same manner, the restraining deflection
value of the asphaltic layer was found to be much higher than that

FIGURE 4 Representative values of measured central deflections at the 95 percent reliability

level (mean plus 1.96 times the standard deviation) for the various sections at Site B (12).
Livneh and Goldberg Paper No. 01-0106 73

FIGURE 5 Representative values of the restraining measured central deflection for the various
sections at Site B (12).

defined in Table 1, where no additional evidence could be pro-
vided to support this apparent superiority of the asphaltic layer. As
for the base-course material, which was found to possess very low
and even negative values of restraining deflection, additional evi-
dence was provided to support its resultant inferiority. The out-
come of all these findings is that, first, target deflection values
should not be derived from theoretical calculations but from con-
ducting deflection measurements in representative trial sections,
and second, the use of restraining-deflection lower-limiting values
should be encouraged.
Finally, values for the coefficient of variation were employed to
control production uniformity. Figure 6 displays these coefficient of
variation values of the measured central deflections along eight sec-
tions of Site A. Figure 7 displays the same values along eight sections
at Site B. These two figures indicate that the variation in the level of
deflection in the subgrade may considerably affect the coefficient of
variation of each successive layer of the site. This may be learned from
a comparison of Sections 3 and 7 at Site A, which possess low varia-
tion values, with Sections 4, 5, and 8 at the same site, which possess
comparatively high variation values; or a comparison of Section 6

FIGURE 6 Coefficient of variation of FWD central deflection measured on each pavement layer at
Site A (12).
74 Paper No. 01-0106
FIGURE 7 Coefficient of variation of FWD central deflection measured on each pavement layer
at Site B (12).
at Site B, which has low variation values, with Section 1 at the same
site, which has high variation values. In addition, Figures 6 and 7
show that the coefficient of variation decreased for almost every sec-
tion as the measurement moved from the subgrade surface toward the
asphalt surface.
LDW DEVICE
Because the FWD and DCP devices are fully described in the techni-
cal literature (15, 16), this section is limited to the description of the
LDW device. The LDW tester, ZFG02, was developed in Germany,
where field-stiffness testing is usually required during construction
operations. As described later in this section, this tester serves as an
alternative to a static plate-bearing test. Although a standard correc-
tion between the two is given (Equation 2), it is recommended that one
derive a site-specific relationship.
The tester consists of a loading device to produce a defined load
pulse, a loading plate, and the electronic deflection-data device ZSG
02 with an integrated data memory and an RS 232 interface. The
loading device is a 10-kg falling weight, which falls freely onto a set
of steel springs and produces a load pulse with a peak of 7.07 kN
and a pulse width of 18 ms (Figure 8). In order to guarantee its safe
operation, the falling weight is supplied with a transportation lock
pin and a guide rod with a stabilizer. To maintain the necessary drop
height for every measurement, a mechanism is mounted on the top
of the rod to stabilize and then release the falling weight.
The average pressure amplitude beneath the loading plate, which
has a diameter of 300 mm, is 0.1 MPa. Two carry grips and a casing
with a ball to center the load are mounted on the top of the loading
plate. An accelerometer is placed inside the casing for the center-
deflection measurement.
The electronic deflection-data device ZSG 02 is a small digital
hand-held data collector with an automatic triggering mechanism
and continuous data storage. It can be run on rechargeable batteries,
on an AC-DC adapter, from a car’s electrical supply. During the rou-
Transportation Research Record 1755
tine test operation, the deflection peaks of the loading plate caused
by three load pulses are continuously measured in mm and stored.
After the start button is pushed again, the display shows, in addition
to these three deflection peaks, the mean value of the three defec-
tions (δC) and the dynamic deflection modulus (EV1) in MPa. The
expression for calculating this deformation modulus is equal to that
required for calculating the surface modulus of a layered medium
possessing a uniform Poisson ratio of µ. The expression assumes a
constant load:
2 × (1 − µ 2 ) × p × 150
EV1 = (1)
δC
where p is the uniform distributed contact pressure (MPa) of the plate.
As already mentioned, the German code for the design of flexible
pavement structures specifies the required technical instructions for
performing in-situ plate-bearing tests. According to this code, other
test methods—such as the present LDW tests—can substitute for
these plate-bearing tests. In these other tests, the EV1 value is assumed
to be equal to the deformation modulus obtained from the regular
plate-bearing test during the first load cycle (9) (see Figure 1). For the
second cycle of the regular plate-bearing test, the deformation modu-
lus, EV2 (9), as shown in Figure 1, can be calculated from this EV1
value, measured by the LDW device:
300
EV 2 = 600 × ln (2)
300 − EV1
CORRELATION OF FWD AND LDW
At this juncture, the question arises whether a complete equivalency
exists between these LDW EV2 values and the FWD ES
values. In order to evaluate the LDW EV1 values, test pits were exca-
vated at two locations, one containing a uniform CH (i.e., heavy
Livneh and Goldberg
FIGURE 8 LDW testing before loosening of the sliding hammer.
clay) and the other a uniform SP (i.e., poor graded sand) material.
For this study, comparative LDW and DCP tests were carried out on
staggered surfaces arranged at depths of about every half-meter.
The results obtained in these tests are summarized in Figure 9,
which contains four calculated functions for EV2 versus CBR. In
this figure, the clayey-stratum function was derived from a com-
bination of Equation 2 and the regression equation as derived from
the in-situ test results. The expression for the clayey stratum is
shown in Equation 3:
300
EV 2 = 600 × ln (3)
300 − 6.019 × CBR (1 1.41)
Similarly, the sandy-stratum equation was derived from a combina-
tion of Equation 2 and the regression equation as derived from the
in-situ test results. The expression for the sandy stratum is shown in
Equation 4:
300
EV 2 = 600 × ln ( 4)
300 − 4.0354 × CBR (1 1.41)
In addition, Figure 9 shows that the EV2 values given in Equations
3 and 4 are considerably smaller than the regular ES values
obtained by conventional FWD tests using Equation 5 with
k = 15.0 and m = 1.41. Moreover, the LDW EV1 measured in sandy
material was also found to be smaller for the same CBR value (in
percent):
Paper No. 01-0106 75
m
CBR =  S 
E
(5)
 k 
where k and m are empirical parameters varying from source to
source.
According to Livneh, Equation 5 yields almost identical values
to those obtained from the well-known U.K. Transportation
Research Laboratory (TRL) equation, where ES = 17.6 × CBR0.64,
provided that k = 15.0 and m = 1.41 (17). Figure 9 also includes
the German practice relationship (18) between CBR values and
EV2 values. This relationship, which in general terms is below the
curve of Equation 5, supports the present findings for the sandy
material.
When the FWD tests are used to obtain EV2, it is suggested that
the backcalculated ES values be reduced in the following manner for
clayey and sandy materials:
300
EV2 = 600 × ln (6)
300 − α × ES
where α is equal to 0.40 and 0.27 for clayey and sandy materials,
respectively. Equation 6 shows that the German EV2 is about
85 percent of the FWD backcalculated value (ES) for clayey material,
whereas it is only about 55 percent of the value for sandy materials.
Fleming (1, 3) reported that his extensive field-stiffness mea-
surements on live construction sites showed a relatively consistent
correlation of LDW EV1 stiffness to FWD ES stiffness of 0.6. In
another study, Fleming et al. demonstrated that this correlative ratio
reduces to about 0.5 (8); according to their data, in other words, the
α value of Equation 6 is about 1.5 times the value obtained in this
study. This means that the German EV2 equals about 110 percent of
the FWD backcalculated value, in contrast to the 55 to 85 percent
observed in this study.
The discrepancy in these results requires the use of the most criti-
cal values in order to obtain the proper safety-level factor. Thus, the
German code calling for a minimum static plate-bearing modulus
(second cycle of loading, Figure 1) of 45 MPa, measured on the top
of the capping layers, is equivalent to about 80 MPa FWD deforma-
tion modulus and about 35 MPa LDW deformation modulus of EV1.
These values are more stringent than those suggested by Nunn et al.,
especially for values assigned to conventional FWD stiffness (11).
CASE FOR MECHANICAL
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A review of current and intended practice in Israel and elsewhere
leads to the conclusion that the next development step in the con-
struction of road formations and foundations will move toward
performance-based specifications. The adoption of performance-
based specifications will have two important effects: first, it will
allow the use of materials currently outside the specifications if they
can be shown to produce the necessary in-situ performance, and
second, it will shift responsibility for the quality of the foundation
construction to the contractor.
To adopt an end-product specification, suitable tests must be
drawn up to assess the performance of the material in situ. The
ideal tests should include both the shear strength and the elastic
stiffness of the material tested (19) and its resistance to permanent
deformation (11). For monitoring shear strength, Siekmeir et al.
suggest the use of the DCP along with some other tests for in-situ
76 Paper No. 01-0106
FIGURE 9 Calculated LDW E V2 versus in-situ DCP CBR values according to Equation 3; Equation 4;
Equation 5 for k  15.0 and m  1.41; and the German code according to Esveld (18).
subgrade and granular-base characterization (19). On the other
hand, there is currently no satisfactory in-situ method of directly
assessing the foundation’s resistance to permanent deformation. It
is therefore proposed that the state of compaction and elastic stiff-
ness should be measured both at the formation level and on the
completed foundation in order to ensure consistent construction
quality.
The two Israeli case studies presented in this paper demonstrate the
potential of FWD as a means of compliance testing during pavement
construction, in particular for assessing the pavement formation and
foundation. Localized weak-point areas that are due to the poor qual-
ity of materials, poor workmanship, and construction defects were
easily identified through FWD testing.
These two studies also indicated that, for a given feature, both a
representative central deflection at the 95 percent reliability level
(i.e., mean value plus 1.96 times the standard deviation) and a
coefficient of variability of the measured deflections may serve as
potential quality-control indicators. The nonlinear elastic and stress-
dependent behavior of the granular and subgrade materials make it
necessary, however, to define target values for the measured central
deflections; this can be better done by conducting calibration tests in
representative trial sections rather than calculating these values from
an elastic multilayered system.
The findings of the above studies supported the use of target
restraining-deflection values that characterize the contribution of
each layer to decreasing the deflection value. A restraining deflec-
tion is expressed by the difference between a measured deflection at
the surface of a given layer and that measured at the surface of its
overlying layer.
Finally, based on the cost per test, rate of testing, and quality of data,
the German LDW can serve as a cost-effective testing device for qual-
ity control and assurance during subgrade and capping-layer com-
paction. In other words, the German LDW, being lightweight,
portable, and simple to apply for repeated testing, could provide a
Transportation Research Record 1755
potentially valuable instrument for stiffness measurements in situ. The
FWD is also suitable, but unnecessarily sophisticated, for formation
and foundation testing; furthermore, it is not without limitations on
weaker substrates in regard to both transducer range and portability.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above, this study concentrated on the possible use of
the German light drop-weight device for measuring the mechanical
properties of the pavement formation. The main findings derived in
this connection were as follows:
1. Compared with conventional FWD moduli, the LDW moduli
(EV1) are of a smaller magnitude: 0.3 to 0.4 times the conventional
FWD moduli in this study and 0.5 to 0.6 times these moduli in other
studies.
2. The adjusted LDW moduli to a second cycle of loading (EV2),
when compared again with the conventional FWD moduli, are still
of a smaller magnitude: 0.55 to 0.85 times the conventional FWD
moduli in this study, which is similar to the German relationship, but
1.1 times these moduli in other studies.
3. This discrepancy in moduli results requires the use of the most
critical values in order to obtain the proper safety-level factor. Thus, if
the German code for a minimum static plate-bearing modulus (second
cycle of loading) is to be followed (i.e., 45 MPa measured on the for-
mation of the pavement), an 80-MPa FWD deformation modulus or a
35-MPa LDW deformation modulus for EV1 should also be followed.
Finally, it should be emphasized that mechanical performance mea-
sures must always be employed along with density testing for soils
because soil compacted dry of optimum (high negative pure pres-
sures) may display high moduli upon compaction that decline upon
subsequent saturation (when negative pure pressures decline).
Livneh and Goldberg
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Israel Airports Authority, the Israel
Ports and Railroads Authority, and Cross Israel Highway Ltd. from
whose projects the results presented in this paper were obtained.
The paper was prepared with the assistance of Arieh Aines, graphics
editor, to whom thanks are also due.
REFERENCES
1. Fleming, P. R. Recycled Bituminous Planings as Unbound Granular
Materials for Road Foundations in the U.K. Proc., 5th International Con-
ference on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Vol. 3, Trondheim,
Norway, 1998.
2. Pinard, M. I. Innovative Compaction Techniques for Improving the
Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields. Proc., 5th International Con-
ference on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Vol. 3, Trondheim,
Norway, 1998.
3. Fleming, P. R. Small-Scale Dynamic Devices for the Measurement of
Elastic Stiffness Modulus on Pavement Foundation. In Nondestructive
Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli, Vol. 3, STP 1375
(S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, eds.), ASTM, West Conshohocken,
Pa., 2000.
4. Zaghloul, S. M. Development of Performance Based Quality Specifi-
cations for Asphalt Pavements. Proc., 5th RILEM Symposium on
Mechanical Tests for Bituminous Materials, Lyon, France, 1997.
5. Syed, I., and T. Scullion. In-Place Engineering Properties of Recycled
and Stabilized Pavement Layers. Proc., 5th International Conference
on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Vol. 3, Trondheim,
Norway, 1998.
6. Zaghloul, S. M., and N. S. Saeed. The Use of the Falling Weight
Deflectometer in Asphalt Pavement Quality Control, Quality Manage-
ment of Hot-Mix Asphalt. STP 1299 (D. S. Decker, ed.), ASTM, West
Conshohocken, Pa., 1996.
7. Zhou, H., R. R. Rada, and G. H. Elkins. Investigation of Backcalculated
Moduli Using Deflections Obtained at Various Locations in a Pavement
Structure. In Transportation Research Record 1570, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 96–107.
8. Fleming, P. R., C. D. F. Rogers, and M. W. Frost. Performance Pa-
rameters and Target Values for Construction of UK Road Foundations.
Paper No. 01-0106 77
Proc., 5th International Conference on Bearing Capacity of Roads and
Airfields, Vol. 3, Trondheim, Norway, 1998.
9. Baugrund, Versuche and Versuchsgeräte, Plattendruckversuch. DIN 18
134, Deutsches Institut fur Normung, June 1990.
10. Chaddock, B. C. J., and A. J. Brown. In Situ Tests for Road Founda-
tion Assessment. Proc., UNBAR4 Symposium, Nottingham, United
Kingdom, 1995.
11. Nunn, M. E., A. Brown, D. Weston, and J. C. Nicholls. Design of
Long Life Flexible Pavements for Heavy Traffic. TRL Report 250,
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Bershire, United Kingdom,
1997.
12. Goldberg, Y. Nondestructive Tests for Quality Control of Pavement
Construction. Master’s thesis. Technion–Israel Institute of Technology,
Haifa, 1998 (in Hebrew with English abstract).
13. Uzan, J. A Pavement Design and Rehabilitation System. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1539, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 110–115.
14. Alborn, G. Elastic Layer System with Normal Loads. Institute for Trans-
portation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
1972.
15. Haas, R., W. R. Hudson, and J. Zaniewski. Modern Pavement Man-
agement. Krieger Publishing, Malabar, Fla., 1994.
16. Livneh, M., A. N. Livneh, and I. Ishai. Israeli Experience with the
Regular and Extended Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Pavement and
Subsoil-Strength Evaluation. In Nondestructive Testing of Pavements
and Backcalculation of Moduli, Vol. 3, STP 1375 (S. D. Tayabji and
E. O. Lukanen, eds.), ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2000.
17. Livneh, M. Small-Scale Dynamic Devices for Subgrade and Granu-
lar Layers Characterization. Proc., 3rd Transportation Engineering
Specialty Conference, The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
London, Ontario, Canada, 2000.
18. Esveld, C. Modern Railway Track. MRT-Production, Duisburg,
Germany, 1989.
19. Siekmeir, J. A., D. Young, and D. Beberg. Comparison of the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer with Other Tests During Subgrade and Granular
Base Characterization in Minnesota. In Nondestructive Testing of
Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli, Vol. 3, STP 1375
(S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, eds.), ASTM, West Conshohocken,
Pa., 2000.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Soil and Rock Properties.