i

L-INSTRUMENTATION OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT/

A Thesis Presented to

The Faculty of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology

Ohio University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement for the Degree

Master of Science in Civil Engineering

by

Daniel J. Schweiger/

June, 1995 \
\
 INSlRUMENTAnON OF FLEXmLE PAVEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 111

List of Figures VI

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. viii

List of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IX

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Overview............................................ 1

1.2 Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

1.3 Objective '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4

1.4 Outline 5

Chapter 2: Project Description, Location and Instrumentation

2.1 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

2.2 Instrumentation Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

2.2.1 Strain Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

2.2.2 Deflection Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

2.2.3 Moisture Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

III
 2.2.4 Temperature Measurement . 13

2.2.5 Interface Pressure Measurement . 15

2.3 Instrumentation Layout . 18

2.4 Instrumentation Installation . 23

2.4.1 Soil Moisture Probes . 23

2.4.2 Earth Pressure Cells . 24

2.4.3 Single Point Thermocouples 24

2.4.4 Single Layer Deflectometers 25

2.4.5 Strain Gages (Dynatest, HBM, TML) . 30

2.4.6 Instrumentation Cabling . 32

2.4.7 Instrumentation Location Reference . 33

Chapter 3: Testing Procedure and Data Collection

3.1 Testing 36

3.1.1 FWD Testing Equipment 36

3.1.2 FWD Testing Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39

3.2 Environmental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41

3.2.1 Testing Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41

3.2.2 Testing Procedure 45

Chapter 4: FWD Data Analysis

4.1 FWD Test Data 46

IV
 4.1.1 Dynatest . 48

4.1.2 Strain Transducers 50

4.1.3 HBM Strain Gage . 51

4.1.4 Soil Moisture . 52

4.1.5 LVDTs . 53

4.1.6 Thermocouples . 53

4.1.7 Interface Pressure Measurement . 53

4.1.8 Accelerometers . 54

Chapter 5: FWD Data Results, Discussions and Conclusions

5.1 FWD Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5.2 Environmental Conditions 55

5.3 Data Analysis By Section . 58

5.3.1 Cement Treated Base Type (Section 2) . 60

5.3.2 Iowa Base Type (Section 4) . 66

5.3.3 304 Aggregate Base Type (Section 5) . 68

5.4 Strain and Pressure Comparisons (Section 2, 4, and 6) . 68

5.5 FWD Deflections ........................ 71

5.6 Summary 85

Chapter 6: Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

6.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

List References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

v
 UST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 - Plan and Cross Sectional Views of a Typical Instrumentation Site .. 7

Figure 2.2 - Single Layer Deflectometer (SLD) Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12

Figure 2.3 - Typical LVDT Calibration Plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Figure 2.4 - Pressure Cell Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

Figure 2.5 - Typical Strain Gage Pressure Cell Calibration Plot . . . . . . . . . . .. 19

Figure 2.6 - Typical Vibrating Wire Pressure Cell Calibration Plot . . . . . . . . .. 20

Figure 2.7 - Typical Instrumentation Positioning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22

Figure 2.8 - Material List for SLD Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26

Figure 2.9 - SLD Brass Cap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

Figure 2.10 - Epoxy Used to Fix SLD Unit 29

Figure 2.11 - Sieve Used to Separate Large Aggregate 31

Figure 2.12 - Compaction of Asphalt on Gages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

Figure 2.13 - Plan View of Instrumentation Reference Layout 35

Figure 3.1 - FWD Data Acquisition Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38

Figure 3.2 - FWD Deflection Printout , 40

Figure 3.3 - Campbell Scientific System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43

Figure 3.4 - Tektronix TOR Cable Tester Display 44

Vi
Figure 4.1 - Wheatstone Bridge Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49

Figure 5.1 - Plot of Temperature versus Asphalt Modulus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59

Figure 5.2 - Typical Dynatest Response From FWD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62

Figure 5.3 - Typical HBM Response From FWD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63

Figure 5.4 - Typical SGPC Response From FWD 65

Figure 5.5 - Dynatest Response in Section 6 From FWD 72

Figure 5.6 Dynatest Response in Section 6 From FWD -Off Center 73

Figure 5.7 - 10',6', 4', and 2' LVDT Response From December FWD Test. . . .. 74

Figure 5.8 - 10',6',4', and 2' LVDT Response From April FWD Test . . . . . . .. 75

Figure 5.9 - 10',6', and 4' LVDT Response From September FWD Test 76

Figure 5.10 - 10',6', 4', and 2' LVDT Response From January FWD Test . . . . .. 77

VII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Asphalt Thicknesses, Base Types and Thicknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Table 5.1 Environmental Data From FWD Tests 56, 57

Table 5.2 Section 2 Strain Gage and Pressure Cell Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64

Table 5.3 Section 4 Strain Gage and Pressure Cell Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67

Table 5.4 Section 6 Strain Gage and Pressure Cell Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69

Table 5.5 LVDT and Geophone Responses from December FWD Test. . . . . . .. 78

Table 5.6 LVDT and Geophone Responses from April FWD Test . . . . . . . . . .. 79

Table 5.7 LVDT and Geophone Responses from September FWD Test 80

Table 5.8 LVDT and Geophone Responses from January FWD Test 81

Table 5.9 Description of Non-Stabilized Base Materials 84

VIII
 LIST OF EQUAnONS

Equation 4.1 Embeddment strain gage, measured strain 48

Equation 4.2 Embeddment strain gage, measured strain 49

Equation 4.3 Embeddment strain gage, measured strain 50

Equation 4.4 Dynatest, real strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50

Equation 4.5 Strain Transducers, real strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51

Equation 4.6 Strain Transducers, actual strain 51

Equation 4.7 Ledieu's calibration for volumetric coefficient 52

Equation 4.8 Soil Moisture Content 52

IX
 CHAPTER 1

IN1RODUcnON

1.1 OVERVIEW

Asphalt concrete is used throughout the United States in the construction of

major roads and highways. Degradation of these pavements cost taxpayers billions of

dollars each year. With a better understanding of pavement performance, reduction of

repair costs can be greatly reduced. Therefore, it is necessary to study the structural

performance based upon the factors that influence it the most. Two major factors that

influence pavements are loading conditions and environmental effects. Procedures for

design and analysis of flexible pavements are based on empirical methods of past

experience, but lately an effort has been made to develop design procedures by

employing theories of elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity.

 2

One major concern when developing models based upon these theories is that it

is difficult, if not impossible, to include all the factors that influence pavement.

Nondestructive testing helps overcome this factor and provides data that includes the

influence of environmental and realistic loading conditions.

To verify these design methods, full scale pavement projects can be constructed

and instrumented to measure the insitu responses. From the data collected,

improvements in design can be made which reduces pavement serviceability and

increases the life of the highways in tum, reducing the costs taxpayers must pay.

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

There has been a limited number of insitu studies reported on flexible

pavement. In these studies, various kinds of instrumentation were used for measuring

deflection, soil moisture, temperature, pore-water pressure, and strain. The systems

used for monitoring these responses were different. Even in the cases where the same

instrumentation was used, a distinct installation technique was not followed.

Bonaquist, Surdahl, and Mogawer [1] reported on the effects of truck tire

pressure on flexible pavement performance. The pavement instrumentation consisted

of thermocouples and moisture cells at various depths in the pavement, strain gages at

the bottom of the asphalt layer, and a Linear Variable Differential Transformer

(LVDT) used for measuring surface deflection. An Accelerated Loading Facility

testing machine was used to simulate traffic and various combinations of loads and tire

pressures. The response evaluation showed that increasing the tire pressure had little
 3

effect on surface deflection and strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer. The

evaluation also showed that rutting and cracking for the test section increased with

higher tire pressure however, in these sections, the temperature in the asphalt was

much higher.

Sebaaly, Tabatabaee, and Scullion [2] evaluated pavement response under

actual truck loading and Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing. Three different

types of strain gages were used to measure the longitudinal strain at the bottom of the

asphalt layer, including the Dynatest H gage, the Kyowa H gage, and instrumented

core gages. A multidepth deflectometer (MDD) was also used to measure the

deflection throughout the depth of the pavement structure. They presented results by

using back-calculation techniques in the comparison of strain gage data, FWD data,

and MDD results. The back-calculated moduli of all the pavement layers are

significantly affected by the mode of loading (i.e., FWD or truck). The modulus of

the asphalt concrete was reduced significantly by reducing the speed of the truck.

Analysis of strain and MDD data concur with the results with the back-calulated

results in that the speed of the truck had a significant effect on the modulus of the

asphalt concrete layer.

Brown [3] discussed various field instrumentation that could be used for

pavement projects. He reviewed the availability, installation, and calibration of these

devices used for measuring pore pressure, deflection, temperature, strain, soil suction,

and stresses. In particular, a detailed report on pressure cells was included in his

report.
 4

Tabatabaee and Sebaaly [4] discussed the various types of strain gages,

pressure cells, deflectometers, and temperature indicators that have been used to

instrument flexible pavements. They compared different core gauges to the H-gauges

and recommended when to use each. Single Layer Deflectometers (SLD) and

Multidepth Deflectometers (MDD) were compared against one another and the pros

and cons of each were presented. Also, suggestions for installation of these assemblies

were made. The problems with calibrating pressure cells and recommendations on how

to overcome these problems were presented.

Ullidtz and Busch [5] conducted a test on a two-layer road structure. The

layers consisted of a bituminous base and a silty sand subgrade. Thermocouples were

used to measure temperature, H-gauges were used to measure the strain throughout the

asphalt, pressure cells measured the soil stress, strains in the subgrade were measured

by L VDT's, and accelerometers or geophones measured the deflection. Insitu testing

was accomplished by using the FWD and the lightweight deflectometer (LWD). The

validity of different design procedures was checked by road-testing machines (RTMs)

and it was concluded that the RTM appeared to be well suited to simulate various

climate conditions and effects of heavy traffic loading on full-scale pavement

structures.

1.3 OBJECDVES

The primary objectives of this project are as follows:

ate
Develop a field instrumentation program for monitoring short and long term
structural performance of flexible pavements.
 5
ale
Determine the influence of environmental effects such as temperature, moisture
content, and freezing on pavements.

ale
Compare field results from nondestructive testing such as Falling Weight ·
Deflectometer with data obtained from insitu testing.

ale
Develop a reliable installation technique for various kinds of
instrumentation that is to be used for monitoring pavement response.

ale
Compare the structural response of flexible pavement subjected to static and
dynamic loading.

1.4 OUTLINE

The following report contains information regarding the installation, calibration,

and layout of instrumentation used in the flexible pavement project. Data analysis will.

also be presented on selected instruments.

Clu1pter 2 gives details on the instrumentation selected for the project, project

location, and installation procedures.

Clu1pter 3 describes the testing procedures for the FWD and the data acquisition

system.

Clu1pter 4 describes the process in which the data was analyzed including the

equations used for conversion.

Chapter 5 presents the data obtained from the FWD tests from section 2, 4, and 6.

Clu1pter 6 discusses conclusions and recommendations for future flexible pavement

instrumentation projects.
 CHAPTER 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION, INSTRUMENTATION,

AND INSTALLATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

This project is located in West Central Ohio on State Route 33, east of the city

of Bellefontaine. Six sections were instrumented in newly constructed road that was

expanded from two lanes to four lanes in a four mile stretch. Each section was

instrumented in the same manner and have the same cross sectional dimensions as

shown in Figure 2.1. The sections were twenty-nine feet in length and their locations

for instrumenting were decided by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and

Center for Geotechnical and Environmental Research (CGER) personnel. All the

sections were instrumented in the east bound driving lane. The driving and passing

lanes were 12 feet wide, and the berms along the driving and passing lane were 10

feet and 4 feet wide respectively. The varying thicknesses of asphalt and base along
 4' 12' 12' 10' 6-8'
14 ~14 ~14 ~14 J... ~

Pullbox

29' ~:= =~ =~ ==:= =:

Berm Eastbound Eastbound Shoulder

~:::~n:ti:n Cabling
Passing Lane Driving Lane
(instrumented)

Pullbox

3'

Instrumentation
Cabling
4" PVC Conduit

Figure 2.1- Plan and Cross Sectional Views of a Typical Instrumentation Site.
......,J
 8

with the different bases for each section are shown in Table 2.1.

2.2 INSlRUMENTAnON SELECI10N

The foremost concern of this project was to ensure that the instrumentation

selected can endure many factors and still perform as expected. The instrumentation

was expected to survive construction, installation, environmental effects, and repeated

heavy loading. Particular concerns included high temperatures and moisture.

Instrumentation was selected to monitor the following: (1) Vertical stresses between

the base and the subgrade material; (2) Vertical stresses between the pavement and

base material; (3) Deflection of the pavement on the wheelpath; (4) Volumetric

moisture content of the base and subgrade material; (5) Temperature profile of the

pavement; and (6) Strain measurement from FWD impulse loads.

2.2.1 Strain Measurement

The strain in the pavement was to be measured along the wheelpath by three

different types of strain gages; Dynatest Past II strain gage, Tokoyo Sokki KMI00B

strain gage, and the Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik (HBM) DA 3 strain gage.

Careful selection of each gage was made to ensure desired bonding of the asphalt and

gage to obtain an accurate reading.

The Dynatest Past II strain gage is distributed by Dynatest Consulting Inc. of

Ojai, California. This gage operates as a 120-ohm quarter Wheatstone bridge with a

temperature range of -30 to 150 degrees celsius, and a gage factor of 2.00. It has a

range of 1500 microstrains and a service life greater than 36 months. The Past II gage
 9

Table 2.1 - Asphalt Thicknesses, Base Types and Thicknesses.

Section Station Base Type Base Thickness Asphalt Thickness

Asphalt Treated
954 + 50 4"
1 304 Aggregate 11"
Base 4"

Concrete 'Treated 4"

2 986 +00 11"
304 Aggregate 4"
Base

Non-Stabilized
Drainage Base 4"
3 1049 +00 1YPe'Nl 11"
304 Aggregate 4"
Base
Non-Stabilized
Drainage Base 4"
1056 +00 'JYpe'IA'
4 11"
304 Aggregate 4"
Base

1115+ 00 304 Aggregate

5 Base 8" 11"

304 Aggregate
6 1132 + 00 Base 6" 13"
 10

is an H-type gage and is coated with an epoxy-silicone-titanium coating by means of a

multi-layer "coating" process to protect against mechanical and chemical deterioration.

The heart of the gage is completely embedded in a strip of glass-fiber reinforced

epoxy, a material with a relatively low stiffness and a high flexibility and strength.

Each end of the epoxy strip is securely fastened to a stainless steel anchor to ensure

proper mechanical coupling to the asphalt concrete. The gage measures 132·mm in

length with two 75 mm arms.

The KMIOOB strain transducer, distributed by Texas Measurements Inc. of

College Station, Texas is a 350 ohm full Wheatstone bridge gage and has a strain limit

of ± 5000 microstrains. Each transducer has a varying gage factor of approximately

1.00, and an operating temperature range of -4 to 176 degrees Fahrenheit. The gage is

100 mm in length with a diameter of 20 mm. This gage is generally used for strain

measurement in concrete, but it was decided to install these gages in the asphalt

pavement.

The DA 3 strain gage is distributed by Hottinger Baldwin Measurements Inc.,

of Marlboro, Massachusetts "and operates on a 350 ohm quarter bridge. This gage

measures 88 mm in length with a thickness of 1.2 mm. It's operating temperature

range is -60 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit and has a varying gage factor of approximately

2.11. This poly-carbonate gage is mainly used for strain measurement in asphalt and

must be installed at a temperature less than 248 degrees Fahrenheit.

2.2.2 DeOecbon Measurement

Deflection of the asphalt was measured using accelerometers and Linear

 11

Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDTs). The accelerometers were mounted

directly in the asphalt while the LVDTs were placed in a Single Layer Displacement

(SLD) unit as shown in Figure 2.2.

The accelerometers used in this project were distributed by Measurement

Instruments East Inc., of Blairsville, PA. The model 793L Piezoceramic accelerometer

is made of Lead-Zirconate Titanate and is used in measuring low amplitude vibrations.

The accelerometers have a frequency range of 0.4 to 1000 Hz, and an output range of

up to 500 mY/G. They have a charge sensitivity of 350 picoCoulombs per Newton

(pC/N) and can be used successfully in temperatures exceeding 500 degrees

Fahrenheit.

The LVDTs are manufactured by Schlumberger Industries of Buffalo, New

York. The LVDTs used were DC type with a spring return and are submersible in any

liquid compatible with their stainless steel construction which in tum helps protect

against the corrosive environment in the pavement. Each LVDT has a linear stroke of

±15 mm and a sensitivity of 8J?proximately 0.131 inch/volt varying for each LVDT.

They have an operating temperature range of -20 to 80 degrees Celsius and operate at

12V DC excitation. While enclosed in the SLD, the armature of the LVDTs rests on

an anchored reference rod at four different depths for each section. This helps

minimize the deflection of that point due to surface deflection. Their response is

measured by a change in voltage with a linear range of ± 5 volts. The response is

then multiplied by a calibration factor that was obtained using a digital micrometer and

software from the data acquisition system that correlated the output voltage with the
 12

Brass Cap
Epoxy Filled
LVDT Pit - - - - - + -.....

LVDTClamp 11" and 13"

LVDT

Finished End of
Reference Rod - - - - - + - - - - I - + - l l - -. .
1 1/2"
--L
Styrofom Insulation
Cable
PVC Pipe Cap
PVC Spacer -------//

2" PVC Pipe

Sand --------fA;.,

2', 4', 6', 10'

II

I" Steel
Reference Rod

Concrete -----~~
approx.8"

L 6"Dia.-J
Hole

Figure 2.2 - Single Layer Deflectometer (SLD) Construction

 13

measured displacement of the core of the LVDT. The calibration factor was measured

in inches/volt. Each LVDT was calibrated more than once to verify the calibration

factor and was repeatable to within 1% as shown in Figure 2.3.

2.2.3 Moisture Measurement

The volumetric moisture content of the soil was measured using a system

developed by Campbell Scientific Inc. of Logan, Utah. The system uses Time Domain

Reflectometry to measure the soil moisture. This is a process of sending pulses along

a coaxial cable to two 12-inch long stainless steel rods in the soil and observing the

reflected waveform.

A waveform traveling down a coaxial cable or waveguide is influenced by the

type of material surrounding the conductors. If the dielectric constant of the material

is high, the signal propagates slower. Because the dielectric constant of water is much

higher that most other materials, a signal within a wet or moist soil propagates slower

than in the same soil when dry. Ionic conductivity affects the amplitude of the signal

but not the propagation time. Thus, moisture content can be determined by measuring

the propagation time over a fixed length probe embedded in the soil beneath the

pavement [6].

2.2.4 Temperature Measurement

Thermocouples are the most commonly used instruments for monitoring

pavement temperature. Single point thermocouples, distributed by Measurement

Instruments East Inc., of Blairsville, PA, were used on this project. Thermocouples
 LVOT CALIBRATION PLOT
Serial M799940-09
Tested 6-22-93

0.6
.r>. 0.5 Manufacturer Calib. Factor= .1334 inches/volt
(f)
Q) Calibration Foctor= .1356 inches/volt
£
0.4
U
C
0.3
"-.-/

+-J
0.2
C 0.1
Q)

E 0.0
Q)
u -0.1
o
o, -0.2
(f)
-0.3
o
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6 b I I I I I I ! I , I I I ,I I ! I

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Output (Vo Its)

~
Figure 2.3 - Typical LVDT Calibration Plot. ~
 15

were placed in the top and bottom layers of the asphalt (the same layers as the strain

gages), and one was placed in the subgrade/base interface. Each thermocouple was

sealed in a stainless steel tube to protect it from moisture, high temperature of the

asphalt, and other harmful elements.

2.2.5 Interface Pressure Measurement

Two types of pressure cells, distributed by GEOKON Inc. of Lebanon, New

Hampshire, were used to measure the vertical stresses under the pavement. The 3650

strain gage pressure cell and the 4800E vibrating wire pressure cell were selected to

perform this task. Both pressure cells were used to measure the pressure changes

between the base and subgrade interface, and also the pressure changes between the

pavement and base. The strain gage pressure cells measured the pressure changes

caused by both the static and dynamic loading while the vibrating wire pressure cells

were only used for static loading.

Both cells consist of two 9 inch circular stainless steel plates welded together

and spaced apart by a narrow cavity filled with an antifreeze solution. External

pressures acting on the cell are balanced by and equal pressure induced in the internal

fluid. The pressure is then converted by the pressure transducer, which is connected to

the cavity by a stainless steel tubing, into an electrical signal which is transmitted by a

direct burial cable to the data acquisition system. A diagram of the pressure cells is

shown in Figure 2.4.

To ensure the volumetric displacement of the cells both cells were degassed to

a maximum dissolved gas content of 2.0 ppm. A thick backplate was welded to each
 16

Thick Backplate

9" Diameter

Sensitive Face
. . . - - - - - Stainless Steel Tubing

16"

Transducer

~--3/4"

Direct Burial Cable

Plan View Profile View

Figure 2.4 - Pressure cell Diagram.

 17

of the cells to ensure good physical contact between the cells and the surrounding

materials. Each pressure cell has a 30 psi pressure range. The transducer of the strain

gage pressure cell was read as a voltage change and the transducer for the vibrating

wire pressure cell was read as a frequency change.

The calibration numbers for the pressure cells were supplied by GEOKON.

These numbers were obtained using a hydrostatic system which applied equal pressure

to the entire surface area of the pressure cell. For the purpose of our project, the

pressure cells were installed to measure the pressure between the interface of different

layers, therefore, a unidirectional system best simulates the load being applied to each

cell. With this in mind, the pressure cells were recalibrated using a unidirectional load

simulation.

During recalibration, each pressure cell was placed in a wood box that was

three feet long, one foot wide, and four inches thick. The bottom of the box contained

a layer of sand approximately an inch thick. After the pressure cell was installed in the

box, a thin PVC ring was placed around the periphery of the pressure cell face. The

ring is approximately one inch high and was also filled with sand. A nine inch

diameter steel loading plate was placed on top of the sand followed by an adjustable

loading plate. The sand, steel loading plate, and adjustable loading plate were used in

calibration to ensure that when the pressure cell is loaded, the load is distributed

across the entire face of the pressure cell. Load was applied to the pressure cells

using an MTS system, which can apply a steady, constant load while outputing the

magnitude to a digital display.

 18

Each pressure cell was loaded to 80 percent of its maximum output and

maintained for a few minutes to help seat the cell in the sand. The load was then

removed and a zero load pressure cell output was recorded. The cell was then loaded

in 80 pound increments until 80 percent of the pressure cell's maximum output was

obtained. At each increment, the pressure cell output and load was recorded. Each

pressure cell was loaded twice to obtain to sets of calibration data.

The vibrating wire pressure cells were calibrated in the same manner as the

strain gage pressure cells. The output from the vibrating wire pressure cells was

obtained using a GEOKON vibrating wire readout box model GK-401. This readout

box displayed the output on a digital display. Two sets of calibration data was

recorded to ensure consistency of the calibration factor.

For both the strain gage and vibrating wire pressure cells, the calibration data

was plotted as load versus output and a best fit linear line was established using

regression analysis. The slopes obtained for each pressure cell from the calibration

data were averaged to obtain the calibration constant. An example of a plot for each

pressure cell is shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6.

2.3 INSTRUMENTAnON LAYOUT

The instrumentation was to be placed in the asphalt concrete where the greatest

amount of strain, deflection, and pressure would occur. It was determined that the

wheel path would produce the most valuable information. The wheel path was located

30 inches from the edge of the lane or 114 inches from the center of the road. In all

the sections instrumented, gages would be installed in a straight line along the wheel
 STRAIN GAGE PRESSURE CELL CALIBRATION PLOT
Tested 7-6-93 (Cal. Test 1 )
Serial Number 3650-30-501

1400 Manufacturer Calibr. Factor = 3.00 psi/volt

1200 Calibration Number= 2.458 psi/volt
-<>:
-
(f) 1000
o
<:>
Q)
L
800
:::"J
(f)
(J)
Q)
600
L
CL
400

200

0
o 1 2 3 4 .~ 6 7 8 9 10
EGAA Reading (VOLTS)

~
Figure 2.5 - Typical Strain Gage Pressure Cell Calibration Plot. \0
 VIBRATING WIRE PRESSURE CELL CALIBRATION PLOT
Tested 7-8-93 (Cal. Test 1 )
Serial Number 21288
29
Manufacturer Calib. Factor = .0071 8 psi/digit
24 Calibration Number = .00608 psi/digit

(J)
19
n.
'----'"
Q)
L
=:J 14
(f)
(f)
Q)
L
n 9

-1
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
Readout Box Output (Digits)

Figure 2.6 - Typical Vibrating Wire Pressure Cell Calibration Plot. tv

o
 21

path of the driving lane. Figure 2.7 shows the position of the various types of

instrumentation in the plan and cross sectional views of a typical section.

The LVDT's were installed along the wheel path three feet apart. The

reference rods varied in depth for each SLD assembly unit. The depths for each

reference rod for the four LVDT's were 10, 6,4, and 2 feet respectively. Different

depths were used in order to compare the deflection of the pavement referenced at the

midpoint of different soil layers with the 10 foot reference being deep enough not to

be influenced by the FWD impulse load.

All of the strain gages were installed in two layers within the asphalt. It was

determined that the strains would be the greatest at the top and bottom of the

pavement. The first layer of gages were installed approximately I-inch from the

bottom of pavement. The second layer of gages were installed I-inch from the top of

the pavement. Gages were spaced at a distance of 2 1/2 feet apart along the wheel

path. After the final layer of pavement was laid in the summer of 1994, the top gages

were at a depth of approximately 2 1/4-inches from the top of the pavement.

Earth pressure cells were installed at two different locations. The first location

was at the subgrade and base interface. The second location was at the pavement and

base interface. The pressure cells were installed on top of on another along the wheel

path aligned vertically within their respective layers. This installation procedure was

followed for both types of pressure cells.

The moisture content was also monitored at two different locations. The first

location was at a depth of 6-inches from the to of the subgrade material. The second
 22

A t 12'
A

+ 12'
~

Ivl
-
Iv2 Iv3
-
Iv4
-
ace sm
-- -
sg vw
-- -
dyn
. hbm tmi
-
tc

+
--L
10'
0
I~
l~
0

9"
0 0
-,-
... 1.-
• !!!I
• f,;31

29"
~ I.:J ~

... 1
-I

Plan \eiw

lv l Iv2 Iv3 Iv4 dvn2 hbm2 tm12 tc3

ace • IfJ III L:l

• dynl hbml tmll tc2

Asphalt

-
sg vw
~
• IfJ II] L:l

sm
!!!I
tel
sg vw ea
2' • ~

sm
!!!I
4'

Subgrade
6'

10'
Profile A-A

Symbols Description Abb

•
!!!
Accelerometer
Soil Moisture Probes
acc
sm
fS1 Vibrating Wire Pressure Cell vw

..
•
[;]
Strain Gage Pressure Cell
Dynatest Strain Gage
HBM Strain Gage
sg
dyn
hbm
.:I TML Strain Gage tml
t:::J Theromcouple tc
0 Linear Volatage Displ. Transucers Iv

Figure 2.7 - Typical Instrumentation Positioning

 23

location was at the midpoint of the base layer. The typical depth of the base was

approximately 8-inches so this would put the moisture probes at a depth of 4-inches.

Soil moisture probes were located along the wheel path, and the probes were aligned

vertically in their respective layers.

2.4 INSTRUMENTAnON INSTALLAnON

The installation of the sensors was probably the single most important part of

this project. The main goal in our installation procedure was that the sensors survive

the paving process. In achieving this goal, it was important not to interfere with the

construction process or slow down the paving procedure.

The following are detailed accounts of the instrumentation techniques used in

this project.

2.4.1 Soil Moistwe Probes

In order for the soil moisture probes to be installed in the subgrade material, a

hole approximately 6-inches deep, 3-inches wide, and I5-inches long was excavated.

The two I2-inch long stainless steel probes were placed parallel to each other 5

centimeters apart in the hole. The excavated subgrade material was then replaced on

top of the probes and compacted. This step was completed the day before the base

was to be installed. Once the base was installed, the same procedure was used to

place the probes in the base material. The depth of the hole was 4-inches in order for

the probes to be in the center of the base material. In both cases, the cable attached to

the probes was buried along the top of the respective material and run toward the
 24

center of the section and then outward towards the berm. A plastic, fluid filled

junction connects the two lead cables from the probes to a main cable which runs to

the Campbell Scientific data acquisition system. When burying the cable, sand was

placed around the junction to help cushion it from the surrounding aggregate.

2.4.2 EardI Pressure Cells

The pressure cells were installed in two different locations; (1) subgrade-base

interface, and (2) base-pavement interface. In each case, the installation procedure

remained the same. The main concerns when installing the pressure cells was that the

sensitive side was flush with top of the layer it was installed in and that no aggregate

irregularities came in contact with the sensitive contact surface.

First, the subgrade or base material was excavated approximately 2-inches in

depth at the location it was to be installed. Then a layer of sand was placed in the

excavated hole. The pressure cell was then placed in the hole, thick backplate side

down, and covered with a layer of sand. The reason for surrounding the pressure cells

in sand was to help simulate the set up used for calibrating the cells, protect the

transducer part of the cell, and help ensure that the sensitive side of the pressure cell

would remain in good contact with the material it was being covered with. The cable

connected to the transducer was buried along the top of the subgrade or base towards

the center of the section and then towards the berm.

2.4.3 Single Point 1bennocouples

The thermocouples were positioned at the same depth as the other gages,
 25

placed in the same layer. A I inch layer of either base or asphalt material was placed

under the thermocouple to obtain the desired height. The thermocouple was then

placed in the horizontal position on top of the layer and covered with the same

material. The cable from the thermocouple assembly was laid across the top of the

layer towards the center of the section and then run outward towards the berm. When

the thermocouples were placed in asphalt, paving material was placed on top on the

cable in spots to keep it from moving during the paving process.

2.4.4 Single Layer DeOectometers (SLD)

The SLD assembly used on this project had to be installed after the paving

process was complete. It consisted of an LVDT enclosed in a steel housing, and

epoxyed in the pavement above a fixed reference rod. The deflection of the pavement

was measured by the SLD unit relative to a fixed point of various depths below the

road surface.

The LVDT housing was constructed using a 4-inch diameter, I/4-inch thick

steel pipe, a 3 I/2-inch steel coupling, and a 3/8-inch thick steel plate. The steel plate

was used to mount the LVDT inside the housing, and to help affix the housing to the

pavement by bonding with the epoxy. A stainless steel clamp was constructed to hold

the LVDT firmly to the steel mounting plate above the reference rod. The clamp

utilized a set screw to secure the L VDT so that it could be adjusted, removed, or

recalibrated after installation. The housing was capped with a 3 I/2-inch brass plug

which could be removed to access the LVDT whenever needed. Figure 2.8 shows a

material list for each component of the SLD assembly.

 26

LVDT Housing

11" or 13" O.D. Steel Pipe

6" x 6" x 112" Steel Plate
r r\ 3-1/2" Black Steel Coupling
I fI I I fI I
\. ~ 3-1/2" Brass Cap

LVDTClarnp

il
1" xl" O.D. x 1/4" ID. Stainless Steel Tubing
3" x 1-1/8" x 1/4" Stainless Steel Flat Stock

Ji •
3/8" Long Quarter-20 Hex Head Screws
5/8" Stainless Steel Screws

Reference Rod

2',4', 6', 10' xl" O.D. Steel ROWld Stock

-,

Miscellaneous

2" PVC Pipe and Cap

1-112" x 1/2" Spacer
I " Styrofoam Insulation
Masonary Sand
Concrete Mix

Figure 2.8 - Material List for SLD Assembly

 27

Since the asphalt was paved in layers, all the cabling had to be installed prior

to the road being paved. The cables were laid out in the subgrade material at their

respective positions. A two foot long piece of 2-inch diameter PVC pipe was cut and

placed at each location of the LVDT's. The PVC pipe was used to hold the extra wire

that would be needed to be pulled through the housing and connected to the LVDT.

The end of the PVC pipe was placed exactly at 30-inches from the edge of the road

(wheel path) so that when the paving was finished, the hole could be cored and the

wire would be accessible. Referencing the location of PVC pipes was extremely

important since the buried wire could not be located once the road was paved.

Once the paving was complete, a coring machine and drilling rig were brought

in by ODOT. A 4 inch diameter core was made at all four LVDT locations at each

section and the holes were then augured to the four different depths of 2, 4, 6, and 10-

feet below the surface of the base material. Each of these holes would contain one

SLD assembly.

After the holes were cored, the cable was located at the end of the PVC pipe

and pulled up to the top of the hole so that the reference rod could be placed. The

bottom of the holes were tamped with the end of a spud bar to compact any loose soil

that was remaining. The reference rods were then placed in the center of the hole and

driven down so that approximately two inches of the rod remained above the top of

the base material, into the asphalt layer, so that the LVDTts armature would be able to

rest on the end of the rods inside the housing. The reference rods were secured at the

bottom of the hole by pouring in approximately 8-inches of concrete mix. A 2 inch

 28
diameter PVC pipe was placed over top of the rod to isolate the rod by keeping the

subgrade material away from it. A machined PVC spacer was used at the top of the

rod to help dampen the vibrations and keep the reference rod centered within the PVC

pipe. The hole was then backfilled with sand to the top of the base layer.

When placing the LVDT housing in the cored hole, we had to make sure that

the top of the housing was flush with the top of asphalt, the hole in the mounting plate

was centered overtop of the reference rod, and that no epoxy would enter the housing

from either the top or the bottom. To accomplish this, sand was used first to level the

housing flush with the top of the asphalt. Then the sand was poured around the

outside of the housing approximately 1/4-inch high to keep the epoxy from seeping

underneath the bottom of the housing. All this was accomplished while keeping the

hole in the LVDT clamp centered overtop of the reference rod.

Before pouring the epoxy around the housing, brass caps were installed on the

top of the housings to keep the excesses epoxy from entering the housing and to

provide a smooth transition of traffic across the top of the SLDs (Figure 2.9). The

epoxy was then carefully poured around the SLD assembly (Figure 2.10). Once the

epoxy had cured, the brass caps were removed to make sure that the epoxy didn't seep

under the housing or "freeze" the cap to the top of the housing. All twenty-four

L VDT housings were found to be centered above their respective reference rods and

flush with the top of the asphalt. After inspection of the housings, the LVDTs were

installed as close to electrical zero as possible.

 29

Figure 2.9 - SLDBrass Cap

f"j~ure 2.10 - Epoxy Used to Fix SI.JD Unit.

 30

2.4.5 Strain Gages (Dynatest, HBM, TML)

The post paving survivability of the gages was our first priority during the

installation procedure taking into account many factors such as the temperature of the

asphalt during paving and the varying sizes of aggregate used in the asphalt concrete

rmx.

Since all the strain gages were to be installed along the wheelpath at the same

depth, the installation procedure for each gage was relatively similar. After the

position for the gages were laid out, asphalt was hauled from the paver to the gages to

be sieved through a custom made sieve with 1/4 inch wire hole openings as shown in

Figure 2.11. The sieved asphalt was placed at each gage position up to the desired

height of I-inch from the bottom of the pavement for the bottom gages and I-inch

from the top of the asphalt for the top gages. Once the desired height was reached,

the gages were placed in position and covered with more sieved asphalt to a height

just below the final asphalt layer thickness. The asphalt was then compacted by

placing a 2 inch thick, 12 inch wide, 2 foot long board over the gages and applying a

static load by two people standing on the ends of the boards (Figure 2.12). The wire

connected to the gages was pulled towards the center of the section and then outward

towards the berm. Asphalt was also placed over the wires to help protect them and

keep them in place during the paving process. Placing the asphalt over the gages

approximately 10 minutes before the paver arrived allowed the asphalt time to cool so

that the gages would not be harmed by the extreme heat placed directly on them.

The majority of the gages survived the paving process. The only trouble
 31

Figure 2.11 - Seive Used to Separate Large Aggregate.

Figure 2.12 - Compaction of Asphalt on Gages.

 32

encountered was the lead wire on the HBM gages was not resistant to high

temperatures. This fact was known before the installation of these gages and a special

heat-resistive shrink tubing was placed overtop of the wire. The problem occurred

when a very small portion of the wire was still exposed next to the gage and the heat

melted the wire disconnecting the gage from the wire. This problem was corrected by

placing a piece of duct tape over the exposed wire shielding it from the extreme heat.

2.4.6 Instnunentation Cabling and Labeling

The majority of the instrumentation used on the project was purchased with a

sufficient amount of lead cable to reach the pullboxes that would house all the

instrumentation wiring. The other instrumentation with short lead wires were spliced

with direct burial cable and sealed with several layers of water proof heatshrink to

protect them from moisture. Instrumentation requiring splices included all three types

of strain gages.

All instrumentation cabling converged and exited from the center of each

section. To prevent the cables from being cut by the finish grader, the pavement was

chipped back approximately 6-inches. This was decided after all the cabling in section

5 was cut although it was clearly marked by florescent spray paint. Once the cables

exited the pavement, they were buried approximately 2 feet below the expected grade

line and enclosed in 4 inch pvc pipe from the edge of the pavement all the way to the

pullbox.
 33

All the instrumentation cables were marked with a unique label to identify each

gage and to determine its position. A typical label read :

S2DYNOI

The first letter and number refers to the section were the sensor is located. The next

set of letters describes what type of gage it is while the last two numbers give the

gages location in the pavement. This particular example illustrates that this is a

Dynatest gage located in section 2 and is the first gage installed which means it is in

the bottom layer of the asphalt.

2.4.7 Insttumenta1ion Locaoon Reference

Before placing any of the base material or paving any part of the road, a

coordinate system had to be established in order to locate the instrumentation at any

time. This was a critical portion of this project to help ensure that all the gages would

be placed along the wheelpath and that each layer of instrumentation was placed atop

it's respective gage. Once each layer of material was placed, there was no way of

determining the position of the preceding gages without a reliable coordinate system.

A reliable coordinate system was also needed to locate the buried LVDT wires.

Once the stations for each section were determined, an ODOT surveying crew

marked the center line of the road so that the wheelpath location could be established.

On each side of the road, stakes with the corresponding station number had already

been surveyed and were spaced every 50 feet. It was decided to use these stakes to

help layout each section and place the reference pins.

First, a line was strung across the road at two consecutive station markers and
 34

tied off on these stakes (i.e. Station 1049 + 00 and 1049 + 50). From the center line

marks in the road, the wheelpath was measured along each line and marked in the

road. Since our sections were only 29 feet long, another line was stretched between

these two wheelpath marks connecting the lines of the two consecutive station

markers. A straight line was painted on the roadway connecting these two marks.

This line would mark the wheelpath. Next, a measurement of 29 feet was marked on

the wheelpath measuring from the first station which was the beginning of the

section. Two other lines were strung up connecting the consecutive station markers on

the edge of the road and a measurement of 29 feet from the first station was marked.

This would place a rectangle around the section as shown in Figure 2.15. Finally,

marks were made 2-feet from each of the four comers of the rectangle measured away

from the road. This is where the 2-foot long, I-inch diameter steel reference pins

would be placed. Holes for the reference pins were dug with posthole diggers at a

depth of approximately 4-feet. This would place the pins well below the proposed

final grade. The pins were driven in the ground approximately 8-inches and then

anchored by 8-inches of cement. All reference measurements were taken from the

pins in order to locate the instrumentation when needed. When the pins became

buried, they were located by the use of a metal detector and uncovered using post hole

diggers.

This layout scheme worked very effectively in that all the gages were easily

found and were installed in the wheelpath of the pavement as planned. The accuracy

of the reference layout was verified when all 24 wires were located for the LVDTs.
 35

Reference Dimentions

Sections Dim A DimB

Section #1 16'-7" 16'-8"

Station 954+50
Section #2 16'-6" 16'-1"
Station 986+00
Section #3 16'-6" 16'-5"
Station 1049+00

Section #4 16'-8" 16'-10"

Station 1056+00

Section #5 16'-8" 16'-1"

Station 1115+00

Section #6 16'-4" 15'-10"

Station 1132+00

Pin
.-
I ..... A 1-
r .... '
LVDT I fPin
-
.... ~
~ 30"
I
(Wheelpath)
I
I
I
Pin
~I-1~ B ;:= TC I ,rPin
J
~
~
~
I
/ V ~
10' 12' /I 12' / 4' /

Shirl Lane Lane Shirl

Figure 2.13 - Plan Veiw of Instrumentation Layout

 CHAFfER 3

TESTING PROCEDURE AND DATA COLLECTION

3.1 TESTING

One of the primary goals of this project was to compare field results of

dynamic loading from nondestructive testing such as Falling Weight Deflectometer

(FWD) with data obtained from static loading. Because of time constraints and

unavailability of the environmental system enclosures, only FWD results were obtained

during different seasons.

3.1.1 FWD Tesfing Equipment

To be able to compare the different data results, large amounts of data had to

be collected from multiple channels in small increments of time by a data acquisition

system. The system used comprised of a 486/25 ffiM compatible personal computer,

a 16-channel analog to digital (AID) plug-in interface with accompanying software,

 37

signal conditioners/amplifiers for each channel, and the Enhanced Graphics Acquisition

and Analysis (EGAA) software package developed by R. C. Electronics of Golet,

California. Figure 3.1 shows the data acquisition used.

The 16-channel AID interface could record up to 16 separate instruments

simultaneously with up to 2000 samples per channel per second. The input range of

the AID board is ± 10 volts. With the I6-channel AID interface, the system has a

special feature which enabled the user to sample and hold the input signal from the

instrumentation and display a "picture" of the instrumentation response. This was an

important feature in determining whether or not the data collected would be useful and

if the sensor was responding correctly.

Before the data was recorded, the sensor signals were run through a sensitive,

high speed signal conditioner/amplifier. This conditioner/amplifier was used to place a

specific gain on each instrument to amplify the signal so that the maximum amount of

the signal from each instrument could be obtained and also to enlarge the "picture" of

the instrumentation response so that it could be seen more clearly.

The conditioner/amplifier was also used to provide an excitation voltage to

some of the instrumentation. Both the Dynatest and the HBM strain gages received an

excitation voltage of 1.75 volts. The TML strain gage received an excitation voltage

of 5 volts while the SLDs received an excitation voltage of 12 volts. The only other

gage that required an excitation voltage was the semiconductor pressure cell. This

gage required an excitation voltage of 28 volts.

 38

BNCBox-------...

eeeeeeeee
••
•• •• •• •• ••

e e e e e e e e e
Signal
ConditionerlAmplifier •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Gold Plated Pin

Connection of
/ Instrumentation

~--- Direct Burial Cable

Instrumented Section

Figure 3.1 - FWD Data Acquistion Equipment

 39

3.1.2 Testing Procedure

To simulate a traffic load, the Dynatest Model 8000 Falling Weight

Deflectometer applied an impact load to the pavement with an applied pressure in the

range of 140 to 175 psi. This pressure is equivalent to a load somewhere between

14,300 to 19,000 pounds transferred to the pavement. Before each drop of the falling

weight, seven geophones were lowered and placed on the pavement surface so that the

surface deflection could be measured during each drop. The deflections were

measured at 0, 8, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 60-inches away from the center of the loaded

area. After the test has been completed, the Dynatest Model 8000 prints out a copy of

all the drops made along with the outside temperature, all seven deflection

measurements, the applied load pressure and exact load equivalent, station number,

time of day, and gage name that the load was applied (Figure 3.2).

During each of the FWD tests, three drops were applied to the instrumentation.

The instrumentation included the strain gage pressure cells, accelerometers, LVDTs,

and the Dynatest, TML, and HBM strain gages. Their responses were monitored by

the EGAA system. To capture the instrumentation response, the EGAA system had to

be manually triggered. Since the sample frequency of 500-micro seconds was used to

capture 2000 sample points, the trigger operator had to activate the system within 1

second of the impact of the load on the pavement to ensure that the sensor response

was collected.

After the system has been triggered, the "picture" of the instrumentation

response appears on the screen. The responses appear on the screen as a large spike
 40

09:1994092

File: A:\4603394C
Road: LOG US33
Subsection: FLEXIBLE

FWD SIN : 8002-036

Operator ID : RDM

Stationing...: Manual Input

Diameter of Plate: 11.8

Deflector distances: 8 12 18243660

OHIO UNIVERSITY
Sequence: 4

BEGIN TESTS IN SECTION #1

--
- -- ------ -- ---- -- --
-- --
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
-
Stn: lLVOI Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 sc. 09:54
Sto Hgt psi Ibf Df1 Df2 Df3 Df4 DB Df6 Df7
* 4 155.1 17000 12.47 10.49 9.44 8.09 6.83 4.95 2.43
Stn: 2LVOI Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 uc. 09:54
Sto Hgt psi Ibf Df1 Df2 Df3 Df4 DB Df6 Df7
* 4 154.6 16952 12.39 10.45 9.40 8.04 6.83 4.95 2.48
Stn: 3LVOI Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 l/C: 09:55
Sto Hgt psi lbf Df1 Df2 Df3 Df4 Df5 Df6 Df7
* 4 155.2 17016 12.27 10.53 9.31 8.00 6.79 4.91 2.43
Stn: lLV02 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 uc. 09:58
Sto Hgt psi Ibf Df1 Df2 Df3 Df4 Df5 Df6 Df7
* 4 153.2 16800 18.75 10.86 9.81 8.37 7.04 5.20 2.48
Stn: 2LV02 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 l/C: 10:00
Sto Hgt psi Ibf Dfl Df2 Df3 Df4 DfS Df6 Df7
* 4 156.4 17100 18.47 10.76 9.34 8.59 6.63 4.95 2.40
Stn: 3LV02 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 l/C: 10:02
Sto Hgt psi lbf Df1 Df2 Df3 Df4 DB Df6 Df7
* 4 155.1 17000 18.27 10.41 9.04 8.05 6.73 4.85 2.33
Stn: ILV04 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 l/C: 10:02
Sto Hgt psi lbf Dfl Df2 Df3 Df4 DfS Df6 Df7
* 4 155.1 17000 12.47 10.49 9.44 8.09 6.83 4.95 2.43
Stn: 2LV04 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 l/C: 10:03
Sto Hgt psi lbf Dfl Df2 Df3 Df4 DfS Df6 Df7
* 4 155.4 17120 12.57 10.89 9.24 8.19 6.80 4.85 2.44
Stn: 3LV04 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 l/C: 10:04
Sto Hgt psi lbf Dfl Df2 Df3 Df4 DB Df6 Df7
* 4 155.1 17000 12.47 10.49 9.44 8.09 6.83 4.95 2.43
Stn: 1ACC01 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 l/C: 10:05
Sto Hgt psi lbf Dfl Df2 Df3 Df4 Df5 Df6 Df7
* 4 150.1 16500 11.47 9.49 8.44 7.09 6.83 4.95 2.43
Stn: 2ACCO1 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 sic. 10:06
Sto Hgt psi lbf Dfl Df2 Df3 Df4 DfS Df6 Df7
* 4 150.7 16300 11.27 9.39 8.44 7.09 6.83 4.95 2.43
Stn: 3ACCO1 Lane:4/4 Temp: 62 lie: 10:07
Sto Hgt psi lbf Dfl Df2 Df3 Df4 DfS Df6 Df7
* 4 152.2 16680 11.87 10.28 9.15 7.84 6.59 4.66 2.35
Table 3.2 - FWD Deflection Printout
 41

in the plot of output signal in volts versus time in milli-seconds. It is then determined

whether or not the data collected is acceptable before proceeding with the next drop.

Four sets of FWD testing were conducted on the project from April of 1994

through January of 1995. The first one was conducted in December of 1993. This

test involved only the first four sections of the project due to construction on the

existing two lanes near sections 5 and 6. This was also the case for the second test in

April of 1994. But for the last two tests in August and September of 1994, all the

sections were able to be tested. The east bound driving lane of the newly constructed

road was closed off to traffic until the completion of the FWD test. As mentioned

before, three successive drops were applied to each gage which were all located in the

wheelpath.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

To obtain a complete comparison of the data throughout the different seasons,

we must know the condition of the pavement and base materials at the time of testing.

While collecting the data from the FWD tests, the temperature from the top and the

bottom of the pavement as well as the temperature of the base material was taken and

recorded. In addition, volumetric moisture content of the subgrade and base material

was recorded. This would assist in determining the effects of temperature and

moisture on the pavement response.

3.2.1 Testing Equipment

To measure the temperature of the pavement and base material, the Omega
 42

Model HH21 Microprocessor Thermometer was used. This is a hand held device that

allows the lead wires of the thermocouples to be connected directly to it's terminals, so

that the temperature could be read immediately in either Fahrenheit or Celsius. The

Omega HH21 could read a variety of types of thermocouples including the J, K, or T-

type. The thermocouples used on this project were of the J-type. This unit was

powered by a 9-volt battery and read the temperature to an accuracy of ± .1 degree.

The reading was displayed on a LED screen on the top of the instrument.

The Campbell Scientific datalogger and Tektronix 1502B cable tester along

with a Toshiba T31 00 laptop computer were used to monitor the soil moisture content

(Figure 3.3). This system uses Time Domain Reflectometry (as explained in Chapter

2) to calculate the volumetric moisture content of in-situ soil and base materials. The

Toshiba T31 00 was used to download the commands to start up the system and the

values of the moisture content were read recorded directly from the screen.

The Tektronix 1502B sends the actual pulse down the coaxial cable that is used

to determine the moisture content in the soil. The 1502B is also used when a problem

is encountered with one of the probes not getting a realistic value or when the length

of the cable used is unknown. The 1502B TDR is a short range metallic cable tester,

sensitive to impedance changes, capable of finding faults in metal cable. The 1502B

sends an electrical pulse down the cable, and detects any reflections made by

discontinuities. Problems in the cable will be detected and displayed as changes in

impedance along the cable. These will be displayed as hills and valleys in the

reflected pulse (Figure 3.4). The 1502B is capable of finding shorts, opens, defects in
 43

Toshiba
Laptop
Computer

Campbell Scientific
Datalogger
and Tektronix Cable
Tester

Mutiplexer

Soil Moisture
Probes

Figure 3.3 - Campbell Scientific System

 MetallicTDR
Tektronix 1502B CableTester

• . . Position
••••••••• • ••• •••• • •••
~ :•
.... .... •••• • •••
•••• • • ••• •••• •
Input
[;D •••• •••• • ••• • ••• • •••
Store
a;] •••• • ••• ••••
•••• •••• ••••
• •••
• •••
• •••
• •••
••••
• •••
co Position

Off
•••• • ••• • ••• •••• •••• ••••
~ •••• • ••• •••• •••• •••• • ••• *0
El •••• • ••• • ••• •••• •••• • •••
••••• •••• • ••• • ••• •••• ••••
I avg .2 ft
NoiseFilter Vert Scale DistJDiv
Do Not Apply ---Vp ---
Ext Voltage IPowe,
(Pull On) 01
~ 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 3.4 - Tektronix TDR Cable Tester Display

~
~
 45

the shield, foreign substances in the cable (water, etc.), kinks and more. Since the

cable tester displays the cable as the pulse is sent, the length of the cable can be

determined simply by observing the display screen.

3.2.2 Tesang Procedure

During each of the falling weight tests, the soil moisture and temperature were

collected. The soil moisture probes were hooked up first so that the Campbell system

could initialize itself and take the moisture readings. After the system was initialized,

the displayed moisture results were recorded on field notes for the section being tested.

While the soil moisture was being read, each thermocouple was connected to the

Omega HH21 and their corresponding temperatures were recorded in the field notes

along with the soil moisture. This process took approximately 10 minutes.
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 FWD TEST DATA

Data collected on the project site had to undergo many processes before any

formal analysis or conclusions could be made. These processes were preformed in the

lab using various types of software packages. This included using digital filtering

programs to eliminate unwanted frequencies from the captured signals, implementing

different calibration factors to convert the data into desired units of measure, and the

use of various mathematical algorithms to obtain useful relations such as stress and

strain. By the use of these different processes, the raw data could be converted into a

more useful and informative form.

The raw data collected was saved on the EGAA system in binary format. This
 47
data was then downloaded onto diskettes so that it could be filtered. The reason for

filtering the data was that the captured signal was influenced by a noisy power source

and high gain setting on the amplifier/conditioner. Since the EGAA system collected

data on all sixteen channels for each drop, a list of file names and channels had to be

made so that when filtering the data, the channel corresponding the gage that the

weight was dropped on would be the only one saved. The filter used was a finite

impulse response low pass filter which was designed by the Kaiser Window Method.

This filter was implemented in the frequency domain. The first stage of the filter

changes the data into frequency domain which gives the energy spectrum at each

frequency. The second stage of the filter cuts off any unwanted frequencies and does

an inverse of the frequency domain to project it back into a time domain. The desired

frequency in which the data is filtered is chosen by the user. For instance, if the user

chooses 60 Hz, any frequency 60 Hz and above would be removed. Since the power

source used on the project operated a frequency of 60 Hz, any filtering below this

frequency help in "cleaning" up the data. It was discovered that a frequency of 55 Hz

is about the lowest it could be filtered at without cutting of any peaks in the graphed

data. Filtering at this frequency greatly improved the data signal to a more

manageable form.

Once the data was filtered, it was downloaded into Axum, an engineering

spreadsheet and graphing software package, for processing. The data appeared in

columns in this software package. The first column being the time tags corresponding

to each sample taken during the test and the next columns being the actual gage
 48

response.

Since each gage had a different electrical configuration or resistance, separate

calculations had to be performed for each gage before being applied to the filtered

data. The following paragraphs explain these different calculations.

4.1.1 Dynatest

The Dynatest strain gage was set up as a quarter bridge in a Wheatstone Bridge

configuration (Figure 4.1). The Wheatstone Bridge was employed to determine the

change in resistance which a gage undergoes when it is subjected to the FWD load.

Once the response signal of the gage was captured, the conversion of the voltage

change into strain was accomplished in accordance with the resistance change of the

Wheatstone Bridge from Equation 4.1.

Eqn 4.1

where

~ : voltage change
\l~ : excitation voltage
R} : strain gage resistance
R2 , R3 , R4 : resistance of internal precision resistors
~ R} : resistance change of strain gage
 49

A c E

Figure 4.1 - Wheatstone Bridge Layout

The resistance of the internal precision resistors did not change, therefore, the

last three terms of Equation 4.1 were set to zero. To relate the voltage across the

strain gage to strain, Equation 4.2 was used.

4R=F*e Equation 4.2

R

where

~ R : resistance change of strain gage

R : resistance of strain gage
F : gage factor supplied by manufacturer
E : strain
 50

By combining these two equations, a direct conversion of voltage to strain can

be accomplishes by Equation 4.3.

Equation 4.3

Rewriting Equation 4.3 and including the amplifier/conditioner settings yields in

Equation 4.4.

Equation 4.4

where

G : gain setting on amplifier/conditioner

To convert the calculated strains into stresses, the strains were simply

multiplied by the modulus of elasticity of the asphalt concrete.

4.1.2 Strain Transducers

Once the data was cleaned by the digital filter, it was downloaded into Axum

for processing. Strain was calculated from the filtered data using Equation 4.4.

b. V* (R 1 +R2 ) 2
E = Equation 4.4
(R 1 *R2 ) *G*Ve*F

The KMIOOB strain transducers have a full bridge configuration. The strain
 51

gages within the transducers cast are set up by the manufacturer to only read 1/4 of

the real strain. Therefore, equation 4.1 must be multiplied by four to obtain the real

strain, but since there are four active gages in the strain transducer design, the gage

factor must also be divided by four. Substituting in these numbers and the values for

R} and R 2 (350 ohms) results in Equation 4.5.

Equation 4.5

The actual strain is obtained by multiplying the manufacturers correction

coefficients for gage factor variance to the real strain as shown in Equation 4.6.

Equation 4.6

where

Ba : actual strain
e, : real strain
A : manufacturer correction coefficient

In order to calculate the change in stress (psi) in the asphalt concrete, the strain

was multiplied by the modulus of elasticity (ksi) which was obtained by testing 4-inch

diameter core from the project site.

4.1.3 HBM Strain Gage

The conversion of strain for the original raw data for the HBM strain gage,

after filtering, requires the use of the same equation as used for the Dynatest gage.

Even thought the resistance for the two gages is different, the equation still comes out
 52

to be the same.

4.1.4 Soil Moisture

The Campbell Scientific System datalogger calculates the ratio of the apparent

length of the probe to the actual length entered into the program. The datalogger

corrects the length to what it would be if the propagation velocity (V p) was the speed

of light. Thus, the ratio of lengths is the same as the ratio of the speed of light

divided by the velocity of the signal down the probe [6]. By using Ledieu's

calibration, the volumetric water content can be determined by using Equation 4.7.

W = 0.1138_0.1758 Equation 4.7

v V
p

where

wv :Volumetric Water Content

Vp : Propagation Velocity

The soil moisture content can be determined by using the measured volumetric

water content and the unit weight of the soil the moisture probes placed in by

implementing Equation 4.8.

Equation 4.8

where

W m : soil moisture content

Ys : unit mass of soil solids
 53

The unit weight of the subgrade material was determined to be 1.81

grams/cubic centimeters by drying out samples from the project site. All the samples

tested were very similar in unit weight. The 304 limestone base had an average unit

weight of 2.33 grams/cubic centimeters as determined by ODOT site tests.

4.1.5 LVDTs

To convert the raw data signal captured for each LVDT, no specific equation

needed to be used. The voltage output captured was simply multiplied by each

LVDT's calibration factor (inches/volt) to determine the deflection in inches. To

insure that the deflection was read from the zero baseline, the first data point was

multiplied by negative one and added to the rest of the data points. Both of these

steps were conducted in Axum.

4.1.6 1bennocouples

In order to collect the temperature reading from the theromcouples, the Omega

Model HH21 Microprocessor Thermometer was used. This hand held device displayed

a direct temperature reading after connecting each individual thermocouple to the unit.

Therefore, no conversions or separate equations were needed to determine the

temperature readings.

4.1.7 Intelfsce Pressure Measurement

The pressure cell readings, like the LVDT's, didn't need any special conversion

equations. The responses (volts) were multiplied by each of the pressure cell's

calibration factors (psi/volt) to convert the data into the correct engineering units. This
 54

was accomplished by the use ofAxum.

4.1.8 Accelerometers

In order to collect data for the accelerometers, the signal that was produced by

the accelerometers had to be converted into a signal of voltage rather that acceleration.

Once converted, the signal was captured on the EGAA system. Before analyzing the

data, the signal was converted back into an acceleration and integrated twice to find

the displacement.
 CHAYfER5

FWD DATA RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND SUMMARY

5.1 FWD RESULTS

Results discussed in this chapter are from four separate FWD tests. Deflection,

pressure, and strain results are listed on separate tables corresponding to each section

and the respective season when the test was conducted. Each of the gage responses

show the influence of the impulse load on the asphalt concrete in correspondence with

the environmental conditions at the time of testing.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDIDONS

Table 5.1 displays the environmental conditions for each of the sections during

each test. This includes the soil moisture content in the base and subgrade as well as

the temperature in the base and the top and bottom layers of asphalt.

Moisture content in the subgrade and base stayed fairly consistent in each
Table 5.1- Environmental Data From FWD Tests.

sours 33 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

Month Tested Section Soil Moisture Volumetric Moisture Moisture Content Termocouple Temperature
Probe Content % DeJUeeF
SM-02 22.3 9.57 TC-03 39
1 SM-Ol 14.7 8.12 TC-02 32
TC-Ol 34
SM..Q2 17.9 7.68 TC-03 37
2 SM-Ol 32.2 17.79 TC-02 33
December TC-Ol 33
SM-02 21.7 9.31 Te-03 34
3 SM..Q} 23.9 13.2 TC-02 32
TC-Ol 35
SM..Q2 34.9 14.98 TC-03 32
4 SM.()1 23.3 12.87 TC-02 31
TC-Ol 33
SM-02 16.1 6.91 TC-03 71
2 SM-Ol 32.5 17.96 TC-02 66
TC-OI 63
SM-02 • • TC-03 75
April 3 SM-Ol • • TC-02 67
TC-OI 63
SM:.o2 28.4 12.19 TC-03 84
4 SM-Ol 31.7 17.51 TC..o2 71
TC-OI 65
SM-02 16.8 7.21 TC-03 63
1 SM-ol 15.2 8.4 TC-02 62
TC-Ol 66
SM-02 16.8 7.21 TC-03 64
September 2 SM-Ol 31.9 17.62 TC-02 63
TC-Ol 65
Continued on next page

VI
0\
Table 5.1 - Continued.
SM-02 22.9 9.82 TC-03 68
3 SM-ol 40.4 22.32 TC-02 66
rc-oi 68
SM-02 22.9 9.82 TC-03 71
4 SM-OI 40.4 22.32 TC-02 69
September rc-or 68
Cont. SM-02 41.9 17.98 TC-03 73
5 SM-Ol 42.8 23.65 TC-02 70
TC-Ol 69
SM-Q2 26.6 11.41 TC-03 73
6 SM-ol 30.7 16.96 TC-02 70
TC-Ol 68
SM-D2 31.9 13.36 TC-03 37
1 SM-OI 15 8.29 TC-02 37
TC-OI 33
SM-02 16.5 7.08 TC-03 37
2 SM-OI 31.4 17.35 TC-02 3S
TC-Ol 35
SM-02 28.2 12.1 TC-03 38
3 SM-Ol 29.8 16.46 TC-02 37
January TC-Ol 38
SM...Q2 28.2 12.1 TC-03 38
4 SM-OI 29.8 16.46 TC-02 37
TC-OI 35
SM-02 41.5 17.8 TC-03 38
5 SM-Ol 32.9 18.18 TC-02 37
TC-Ol 36

Vl
'-J
 58

section for the FWD tests. This can be attributed to the fact that the asphalt was

newly laid and no cracking was observed. This in tum would allow the water to drain

off the pavement with little to no infiltration, thus allowing the moisture content to

stay the same throughout the changing seasons. A greater response for deflection,

strain, and pressure was seen in the warmer months of April and September as

expected rather than during the tests conducted in December and January. This can be

attributed to the freezing of the base and subgrade during the December and January

tests to help stiffen the ground as well as the moisture softening the ground during the

warmer months.

Temperature is considered the most influential factor in determining the

stiffness. Since the modulus in the asphalt changes significantly with temperature, a

more flexible pavement is expected in the warmer months. Figure 5.1 shows a graph

of the change of modulus in the asphalt with respect to temperature [7]. In the tests

that were conducted, the modulus in the asphalt ranged from 2000-ksi in April to 250-

ksi in December.

5.3 DATA ANALYSIS BY SECDON

The following is the analysis of sections 2, 4, and 6. The analysis will include

strain, pressure and deflection readings for each section and a comparison will be

made for each of the tests. Numerical results will be given for each individual section

and a final conclusion will be made after all the data is presented. A greater detailed

analysis on LVDTs will be made later in the chapter on all test sections.
 Plot Relating Asphalt Modulus to Temperature

2000
.r>.
co 1800
I
w
~
1600
U)
:J 1400
-
:J
u 1200
0
2 1000
-+--J •
-
0 800
-C
CL
(j) 600
«
400
200
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Temperature (Degree F)

Figure 5.1 - Plot of Temperature versus Asphalt Modulus. V1

\0
 60

5.3.1 Cement Treated Base Type (Section 2)

This section of pavement contains experimental cement treated free draining

base. Four inches of this experimental base overlies four inches of standard 304

limestone base. This section was expected to be the most rigid section in terms of

resistance against strain and deflection in all the seasonal tests because of the strength

of concrete.

The strain results analyzed are from the Dynatest and HBM gages. Although

the TML gage results were recorded, they will not be analyzed or discussed since they

are concrete embeddment gages and were only used on this project to test their

measurements in asphalt. The Dynatest and HBM strain gages were installed at the

top and bottom of the asphalt to read the compressive and tensile strains respectively.

In this chapter, a negative sign will represent a compressive strain whereas a positive

reading will represent a tensile strain.

For the tests conducted in December and January, the bottom Dynatest strain

gage recorded strains of 27 and 13 micro-strains respectively. The HBM strain gage

recorded 24 micro-strains for the December test but did not respond during the January

test. The top gages for these tests read -22 and ~12 micro-strains for the Dynatest and

-27 for the HBM in December where again, no response for the top gage in January

was detected for the HBM. In April and September, the readings for the Dynatest

strain gage were 23 and 20 micro-strains respectively for the bottom gage and -22 and

-10 micro-strains for the top gage. In April, only the bottom gage recorded a response

from the FWD which was 11 micro-strains. The responses for the HBM gage were 14
 61

and -46 micro-strains for the gages in September. Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show a typical

graphical response of these two gages. Table 5.2 lists the strain gages, their responses,

and the impulse load induced for section 2 during all four FWD tests.

Deflections were measured by all four LVDTs, but the deflection measured by

. the LVDT with the 10-foot reference is the one that comes closest to the true

deflection. The reasoning is that the deepest referenced rod will be influenced the

least from the impulse load. All deflections were measured with a negative response

since the deflection of the pavement was a downward movement. Results will be

displayed as positive numbers. The deflections of 7.5 and 5.3 milli-inches, measured

during the April and September tests respectively, were much larger than 3.8 and 3.5

milli-inches measured during the December and January tests. This was expected due

to large change in the asphalt's modulus created by the temperature difference.

LVDT responses are shown in Tables 5.5 - 5.8 later in the chapter.

The pressures measured by the strain gage pressure cells (SGPC) were both

negative readings (Figure 5.4). The reasoning of this is that there is no real bending

of the cell and that it only reads contact pressure between the different layers.

Therefore the downward pressure in read as negative. The pressures that were read

concur with the LVDT readings with the fact that larger readings occurred during the

warmer months. The responses of the bottom cells did not change through the

different seasons but the top cells changed dramatically. For April and September, the

readings of the top cell were 10.9 and 4.7 psi respectively, while for December and

January the readings were 0.7 and 0.9 psi. Table 5.2 lists all the SGPC results and
 Oynatest Strain Gaqe Response From
Falling Weight Deflectometer Test

30

20
rr>.
1O 10
I
w
~

.-c0 0
L
+--'
(f)
-10

-20 Bottom Gage

Top Gage
l ~
-30' I I I I I I I I ! ! ! ! , ,

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0+8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Time (seconds)

Figure 5.2 - Typical Dynatest Response From FWD. 0\

tv
 HBM Strain Gaqe Response From
Fcllinq \Neight Deflectometer Test

L
')0 i i i I I i i i i i '

10
r---...
CD
I f ~ p
w o VAAlAW'~
--....-/
..... ~ "

c I
o
L
-+--J -10
(J)

-20 Bottorn Gage

Top Gage

-30' , " ! " ,

O~O O~1 O~2 O~3 O~4 O~5 O~6 O~7 O~8 0.9 1 ~O 1 ~1
Ti m e (s e con d s )

Figure 5.3 - Typical HBM Response From FWD. 0\

VJ
.~ -UI

-'-~ I

Table 5.2 - Section 2 Strain Gage and Pressure Cell Responses.

Section 2 Strain Gage Results From FWD Tests

H8Ml 17415
88M2 I I_I I ~;;:: II ~ I ~:~: I 17415

TMLI 17431
TML2 I -:3 I :;;:: II -~I i ::;:: I 17431

SGPC 01 17415
SGPC 02 17415

0\
~
 (1 0 D r'\
'--.J \
trol ,-,j
q ~ rOC:'
\..../"'---'····00'IJ p II R· e c; 0 (--.JIrl <
,---,,\-./ '-..J.
v~ ( ' j
I~)

IIIn 9 Wei 9 h tOe fie c tom e t e s t

.3 ' i

/'(1,,/f0./,<1
~/ YJI 1v!1'\/"~-' \\ ("l
~\\~'\ 7\~~\ ;:~~
-1 \~ \I(
I i il l
-.3
II III
(/)
CL III '~I
-5
III II
-7 ~I \J

-9 Ii BOTTOM CELL
II TOP CELL
~
- 1
c).c) (J.1 (J0
.L fJ-Z:
1\ .\..J\
(-""4
U. 05
J..
~(,.-.,
\ .CI r',(
J. / 08
,,-, (,,{""
1,-_).'::) 1 ,0 /1.1
Tlfv1E (SEC') \. /

0\
Figure 5.4 - Typical SGPe Response From FWD. Vl
 66
impulse loads induced.

5.3.2 Iowa Base Type (Section 4 )

The Iowa nonstabilized drainage base in similar in composition to that of the

standard 304 aggregate base. The differences between the two is that the Iowa base

contains less fine particles due to the gradation of the base. This assists in the

drainage of the water from the base away from the asphalt.

In this section, the top Dynatest gage was non responsive during all four FWD

tests. However, the bottom gage responded for three of the tests. April and

September recorded a response of 110 and 95 micro-strains respectively while during

the January test, 6.3 micro-strains was measured from the bottom gage. These

readings support the fact that larger responses are expected during the warmer months.

Both HBM gages were responding during the tests. The bottom gage gave responses

of 20 and 16 micro-strains for December and January, and 66 and 82 micro-strains for
April and September. Readings of -45 and -70 micro-strains for April and September

were recorded for the top gage, while the readings for December and January were

-150 and -21 respectively. Table 5.3 presents strain gage responses.

Strain gage pressure cell responses were very similar to those in section 2. The

difference being the large responses for the bottom cells during April and September.

The readings of 8.3 and 7.5 psi for these tests were much larger than the readings of .5

and 1.7 psi for December and January. The difference in the responses for the top cell

for these tests were just as large. Table 5.3 presents the pressure cell responses along

with applied loads for section 2.

Table 5.3 - Section 4 Strain Gage and Pressure Cell Responses.

Section 4 Strain Gage Results From FWD Tests

HBMl 20 66 15550 82 15872 16 18241

8BM2 I -150 I 15432
15432 II -45 I 15550 II -70 I 15872 II -21 I 18241

TMLl - 15528 165 16008 20 15832 13 18893

TML2 I - 15528
I II -190 I 16008 II -61 I 15832 II -44 I 18893

SGPC 01 I -0.5 15512 -8.3 15400 -7.5 16056 -1.7 18257

SGPC 02 . I 15512 II -9.2 I 15400 II -10.5 I 16056 II -3 I 18257

0'.
~
 68

Deflections of this section correlate with the deflections in section 1 with April

having the largest deflection of 13 milli-inches and the other warm weather month of

September reading a deflection of 7.5 milli-inches.

5.3.3 304 Aggregate Base (Section 6)

This section is comprised of 6-inches standard 304 aggregate base. With the

inability to close down the driving lane to traffic, only one FWD test was conducted

on this section.

Both Dynatest gages responded to the FWD test giving a reading of 35 micro-

strains for the bottom gage and -15 micro-strains for the top. The top HBM gage was

lost during the installation of this section so only a response 30 micro-strains was

collected for the bottom gage.

Pressure cell readings for this section were 3.5 psi for the bottom cell and 5.5

psi for the top cell. There is no 10-foot LVDT for this section so a true pavement

deflection could not be compared. Table 5.4 shows strain gage and pressure cell

responses.

5.4 Strain and Pressure Comparisons (Sections 2, 4, and 6)

Since there was only one test conducted on section 6, it is hard to make any

comparisons to that section. There is just not enough data to draw any conclusions.

Therefore, sections 2 and 4 will be analyzed. Some of the readings for April and

December may be larger because of the fact that the final 1-1/4 inch asphalt layer was

not installed until after the April test. The strains is section 4 are significantly larger
 69

Table 5.4 - Section 6 Strain Gage and

Pressure Cell Responses.
Section 6 Strain Gage Results
From FWD Tests

September
Strain Load
(E-6) Obs)
Dynl I 35 I 15864
Dyo2 I -15 I 15684
HBMI I 30 I 15752
HBM2 I - I 15752
TMLI I 35 I 15704
TML2 I - I 15704
SGPC 011 -3.5 I 15840
SGPC 021 -5.5 I 15840
 70

than those in section 2 for both the Dynatest and HBM gages. With the soil moisture

and temperatures being relatively the same, this difference must be attributed to the

bases. The strength of the cement-treated base depends in part upon the curing of this

base just as other cement-treated materials. Also, compaction at optimum moisture

content and adequate density throughout the mix assists in the strength of the cement-

treated base. Whereas the strength of the Iowa nonstabilized drainage base depends in

part by the interlocking of the gravel particles and the percentage of fines that the base

contains. The moisture had a greater effect on the Iowa base than the cement treated

base. During the winter months the' moisture would freeze in tum stiffening the base,

but in the warmer months is would help soften the base. This is why larger readings

were taken during April and September.

The section 2 Dynatest strain gage readings for all four tests gave larger

readings for the bottom gages than for the top. When this occurs, it shows that the

pavement is acting as a beam in bending. Since the top gage in section 4 was lost,

this comparison can not be made.

During some of the tests, a few gages responded the same in both tension or

compression for the same drop. So during the September FWD a test was conducted

on section 6. The load was dropped directly over the Dynatest gage and the responses

were recorded. Then a load was dropped about 3-inches of the center of the gage and

this response was also recorded. During the analysis of the two drops, it was shown

that for the first drop, both the top and bottom gages responded in tension, but during

the second drop the gages responded correctly with the top in compression and the
 71
bottom in tension. See Figures 5.5 and 5.6 for gage responses. One theory for this

occurrence in that a crack may have developed in one of the layers allowing the top

gage to go into tension.

Pressure readings were consistent with strain and deflection measurements in

the fact that larger values were seen during April and September. For cold weather

tests, the load was distributed throughout the pavement and base much better during

warmer months because of the higher modulus. With a lower stiffness, the load could

be transferred more directly to the pressure cells therefore creating larger readings.

There was a concern with the contact surface of the pressure cells in that some large

aggregate of the base would corne in contact with the sensitive face and not evenly

distribute the load, or there would be a gap in between the asphalt and the pressure

cell face creating false readings. Since the readings were consistent and reasonable,

the installation procedure seemed to be successful.

5.5 FWD Deflections

As stated before, not all the sections were tested during each FWD test.

Therefore, a detailed analysis on deflection will focus on the first four sections.

Figures 5.7 - 5.10 show the deflections of all four LVDTs in section 2 during

each of the FWD tests. In each case, the 10' referenced LVDT had the greatest

deflection. In comparing the measured L VDT deflection with the geophone deflection,

the geophone deflection was much larger, sometimes up to 50%. Tables 5.5 - 5.8 list

all the deflections for each test for all four LVDTs. The following are a few reasons

which may contribute to this large variance.

 vnotest trcin age Response in ection ro
Septerr,ber Ilin(~ \lvei(;ht De.cle(:ton'-leter~ st

60 I

5(J ~
30t-corll Gage
r-- ("-'''ag p-..-'
i~ 'J

-r>: 41~
\...J
CD
I

I /,)
~
W .».
<c:>
C r) {~
~-
L-U
0
L
+-J
01 I

~ l/i~l"\
o~ ~. ~~
-1(JI- ~J\I\J

- / I
f)J
L-

0.0 0./ 0.2 0.,5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 .0 1 .1
Ille (seconds)

......:J
Figure 5.5 - Dynatest Response in Section 6 From FWD. tv
 ynotesc troin qge
~sponse in ecti n ro
SerJte,~rlber- Follli-1g V\lelght Deflectoilrleter st
ej(J~~lt VVos DrcJPr=)eej off Cer.t er of Ot;Je
4 (~) ~ r'-r---r-----,--..,...----r-r---r---,---r----,--r---r-----r--r----r--,....-....,----,.-..,..----r--.,....---i

~()
'---" \.J B ,'\;1 E
I~
II p ('E
l,.J
.r~

CD 2(J
, 1'1 1\
W
<.:»
\ \
i~) 1
\--/

o::...-
I( 1 \
-+----J
(/) p-v'.--.- ~~ \A \..... ~ \ (\
II
(J \ ~ - .1\
J I
~\'--------- ,I , 'v~)"
--"""-~~,./"./\J\)' I ~\ I ~-v\/
\l ! \ (
'[ I \" /
'I I I
1/
1

II
II\ Ii
-1 rJ d v

\)

L- _ _----.l_--...l-_--l..-._..l..-_l..-..---J.._--L._...l.-_L----l._-.L_....l.-_L---I._--l._....l-_L_l..-..---.l_--I-_..L_~~,
-/IJ •
1 .1
Irrle (sece]ilds
\

-.....,J
Figure 5.6 - Dynatest Response in Section 6 From FWD -Off Center. f~
 CTIC; - \V\....J
T RO c: P f'l C:?=J
I -....J"-......
f rr')' I'Tl i '-
[)?=J i: P
' \ - - - . / ' -.....
<:» ber~
Foiling eight Deflectc)!'lr-1 e t e r - st

().001

~
(J)
Q) ().OC)O
~
(J
c
'~ -0.00
c
o
.+-J
l)
(]) -0.002
~
Q)
o
-(J.003
nee
')J
L
-0.004
fj 4 ~ ~I C ~ I n ~ /1 r)
0.0 (J.'l r)~. 2 0 .'-j ~. tJ.:J (.J.() C)./ \~.u nq
'J. V .L /1 . 1
/ j \
T·IlTle (,sec'orcs)

~
Figure 5.7 - 10',6',4', and 2' LVDT Response From December FWD Test. ~
 Ie) I~ o esponse from Apr-il
Iling eight Deflect()'lleter- st

0.00

/..----....."
0.000
(f)
Q)
-C
-OuOtJ
()
l
c _'l )

.- L. JL-
on
"-.....-/

C
0 -0.003
.-
--+---J
u -0.004
Q)
-
4-
Q) -0.005
0
1 O~ Refe,-ence
-0.006 6' Reference
4 ' Reference
-0.007 2) Refet/"ence
-0.008
0.0 0.1 'J ~
(.L n
U. 3 ~)
(\J.~ J r
l.::J 0 . b~ /J 7
\. 0 .UR n.J.~q 1 .0 1.1
ime (seconds)

Figure 5.8 - 10',6',4', and 2' LVDT Response From April FWD Test. .....J
Vl
 E esplse rom epte r)er
lIirlg ei(;Jrlt Deflect()n~eter st

0.00/

0.000 -1.Jw~·
~ II .~.I'\ ..>·
'i~.M..Itr~·>.·
I I II 1
~ I I . Jy,
en ! I · I (i
Q)
.-C
-0.00
(J
\:
i I
~lIi
r:
L-
II
.-
<::» -Cl.002 II I I

C V I
r '
\II
.-
0
-+--J -0.003 ~ \J
u J
CD
-
4-
Q) -0.004
0
-lO'R renee
-0.005 6' Reference
4'R rece

-().O06
0,,4 0.5 .0
I r--y-- e (...--, . . . ...-..,,~\nds~
'll.\~e(,--,lJ ,)

----.J
Figure 5.9 - 10',6', and 4' LVDT Response From September FWD Test. 0'\
 /)

1 ~j - LV i esponse fr-om January

Iling VVeigrlt Oeflect()n'~:eter st

o.o;

,.~ 0.000
(])
J:=
u
c
~ -Cl.C·O/\
c
o
-+-..J
U
Q) -0.002
4-
Q)
o 1 0' Referenc e
-().003 6' rene e
4' Referenc e
Referenc e

-().004 ' ,
i'lr') 11 1 ("\'1 L~-Z 0/ 1 r=: 07 1\8 cq ~11
~J.L,I L,. U.L J.J .Lt u'--'>\.j L.
t'lbr---'"'\ . Li.(......, ).'---' 1•0 •

Time (seconds)

~
Figure 5.10 - 10',6',4', and 2' LVDT Response From January FWD Test. '-J
 78

Table 5.5 - LVDT and Geophone Responses from December FWD Test.

DECEMBER TEST

Drop Location Reference Depth (ft) Measured Deflection (milli-inches)

CGER-LVDT FWD - Geophone
SILVDTI 10 4.9 6.91
SlLVDT2 6 5.6 6.84
SlLVDT3 4 4.4 6.32
S1LVDT4 2 4.1 6.4
S2LVDTI 10 3.8 4.79
S2LVDT2 6 3.6 4.31
S2LVDT3 4 2.4 4.59
S2LVDT4 2 1.4 4.18
S3LVDTl 10 * •
S3LVDT2 6 * *
S3LVDT3 4 * *
S3LVDT4 2 * *
S4LVDTl 10 5.2 6.36
S4LVDT2 6 5 7.24
S4LVDT3 4 3.7 6.52
S4LVDT4 2 2.8 6.64
S5LVDTI 10 * *
S5LVDT2 6 * *
S5LVDTI 4 * *
SSLVDT4 2 * *
S6LVDT2 6 * *
S6LVDT3 4 * *
S6LVDT4 2 * *
 79

Table 5.6 - LVDT and Geophone Responses from April FWD Test.

APRIL TEST

Drop Location Reference Depth (ft) MeasuredDeflection (milli-inches)

CGER .. LVDT FWD - Geophone
SILVDTI 10 * *
S1LVDT2 6 * *
S1LVDT3 4 • *
S1LVDT4 2 * •
S2LVDTI 10 7.5 11.63
S2LVDT2 6 5.3 9.86
S2LVDT3 4 6.4 10.46
S2LVDT4 2 2.7 9.21
S3LVDTl 10 * *
S3LVDT2 6 7.4 9.98
S3LVDT3 4 5.3 9.74
S3LVDT4 2 4.8 9.38
S4LVDTI 10 13 14.04
S4LVDT2 6 8.5 15.4
S4LVDT3 4 11 13.52
S4LVDT4 2 7 12.84
S5LVDTI 10 * *
S5LVDT2 6 • •
S5LVDT3 4 • *
S5LVDT4 2 * *
S6LVDT2 6 • •
S6LVDT3 4 * *
S6LVDT4 2 • *
 80

Table 5.7 - LVDT and Geophone Responses from September FWD Test.

SEPTEMBER TEST

Drop Location Reference Depth (ft) Measured Deflection (milli-inches)

CGER-LVDT FWD - Geophone
SlLVDTI 10 9.8 12.39
S1LVDT2 6 8.9 12.51
S1LVDT3 4 • •
SlLVDT4 2 10.1 12.28
S2LVDTI 10 5.3 6.62
S2LVDT2 6 5.2 7.94
S2LVDT3 4 • •
S2LVDT4 2 2.6 7.28
S3LVDTI 10 12 6.32
S3LVDT2 6 9 6.56
S3LVDT3 4 • •
S3LVDT4 2 3 6.44
S4LVDTl 10 7.5 9.38
S4LVDT2 6 6.6 9.6
S4LVDT3 4 * •
S4LVDT4 2 6.4 9.61
SSLVDTI 10 9.5 11.71
S5LVDT2 6 8 11.15
S5LVDT3 4 • •
S5LVDT4 2 6 9.29
S6LVDT2 6 5.9 7.21
S6LVDT3 4 * *
S6LVDT4 2 4.5 7.02
 81

Table 5.8 - LVDT and GeophoneResponses from January FWD Test.

January Test

Drop Location Reference Depth (ft) MeasuredDeflection (milli-inches)

CGER-LVDT FWD - Geophone
SILVDTl 10 4 5.9
S1LVDT2 6 3.9 5.6
SlLVDT3 4 3.3 5.5
SlLVDT4 2 2.7 5.4
S2LVDTI 10 3.5 5.4
S2LVDT2 6 2.8 5.5
S2LVDT3 4 3 5.4
S2LVDT4 2 1 5.4
S3LVDTI 10 2.5 3.9
S3LVDT2 6 1 3.9
S3LVDT3 4 1.1 4
S3LVDT4 2 1.2 3.9
S4LVDTI 10 1.4 3.7
S4LVDT2 6 1.5 3.2
S4LVDT3 4 1.5 3.3
S4LVDT4 2 1 3.8
S5LVDTI 10 3.6 5.4
S5LVDT2 6 3.1 5
S5LVDT3 4 2.9 4.7
S5LVDT4 2 2 4.6
S6LVDT2 6 • •
S6LVDT3 4 * *
S6LVDT4 2 * •
 82

The 10' referenced LVDT was thought to be anchored deep enough so that the

deflection created by the impulse load from the FWD could be measured accurately

from this fixed point below the road surface. During the installation of the reference

rods, the ODOT personnel that were auguring the holes went too deep on some the

holes. An effort was made to help stabilize or stiffen the bottom of the hole by

tamping the loose soil, mixed with some gravel, with the end of a spud bar. Even

though the rods were fixed at the bottom on the hole with cement, the unstable bottom

may have contributed to some of the deflection. This is one factor that may have

contributed to the large difference in deflection.

During the FWD tests, the Dynatest 8000 was positioned directly overtop of

the cap of the SLD unit. When the load was applied, the deflection was measured at

that location. If the brass cap is slightly below the surface of the road so that there is

a small gap between the brass cap and the bottom of the rubber pad on the FWD, the

deflection read by the geophone would include the extra deflection created by this gap.

Therefore, when comparing the two different deflections between the LVDTs and the

geophone, a noticeable difference was encountered. This is yet another reason for the

large difference in the two deflections.

Section 1 produced the largest deflections during the FWD tests. This section's

base consist of 4-inches of 304 aggregate base topped with 4-inches of Asphalt

Treated Permeable Base (ATPB). This is a base that consists of coarse angular

aggregate covered with a thick asphalt film. The ATPB is a highly permeable base

that provides rapid drainage for subsurface water. Although this base has a smaller
 83

modulus than most bases, the ability to remove the water from the base becomes very

beneficial in preserving the life of the asphalt. However, to be effective, the layer

must be either delighted or connected to edge of tile drains. During installation of the

base, caution must be taken during compaction not to exceed more than two or three

roller passes in order not to break it up. Like asphalt, the base becomes stiffer in

colder weather and more flexible in warmer weather which would attribute to the large

deflections during the September test. The smallest deflections were recorded by

section 2 with the cement treated base. This was expected since half of the base was

cement treated which remains stiff during all environmental conditions.

In comparing the deflections of the other two special base test sections, the

New Jersey (NJ). and Iowa (IA) non-stabilized drainage bases, the NJ experimental

base seemed to be stronger. Going only by the deflections recorded by the FWD

geophones, there is no question that the NJ was the stronger base, but during the

January test, the LVDTs with the IA base recorded a smaller deflection in the

pavement. Since the difference in deflection was so small the results from the LVDTs

concur with the geophone results. These two bases are similar to the 304 aggregate

base and vary with the percentage of fines each contain. Table 5.9 shows a

description of the non-stabilized base materials (NJ, lA, and 304). The NJ contains

the least amount of fines of the three bases with the 304 base containing the most.

The amount of fines contained by the base goes hand in hand with the amount of

moisture the base holds and the amount of deflection that occurs. The moisture

contained by the fine particles may allow the larger aggregate to slip in tum reducing
Table 5.9 - Decription of Non-Stabilized Base Materials
Total Passing PercentPassing
Base Type: IA NJ 304 IA NJ 304

Sieve Size
(inches)
2 100% 100
1-1/2 lOOOA. 100
1 lOOOA. 100% 88% 100 95-100 10-100
3/4 15% 50-90
1/2 73% 74% 590A. 60...80
3/8
No.4 46% 49010 40-55 30-60
No.8 24% 190~ 32% 10-35 5-25
No. 16 5% 24% 0-8
No. 30 180/0 7·30
No. 40
No. 50 5% 3% 100,.4 0-15 0-5
No. 10
No. 200 3.5% 2.4% 6.4% 0-6 0-13

NJ Non-Stabilized Free Draining Base

Proposed Aggregate Blend of 50% No.6 Limestone,
37.5% No.9 Limestone, and 12.5% Limestone Screenings.
IA Non-Stabilized Free Draining Base
Proposed Aggregate Blend of 50% No.6 Limestone,
33.5% No.9 Limestone, and 16.5% Limestone Screenings.

00
~
 85

the stiffness of the base. Since the NJ base has a smaller percentage of fines, the

aggregate comes in contact with one another more frequently which produces a larger

friction angle between the large aggregate increasing it's stiffness.

5.6 SUMMARY

Results from data analysis conclude that the cement treated base is the stronger

of the five bases with the asphalt treated base being the weakest. Analysis of the

"304 type bases" (i.e. NJ, lA, 304) displayed varying results. One of these bases may

appear stronger for one test, then be the weakest during another. An overall

conclusion was made that the NJ base is the strongest of the "304 type bases".

Comparison of geophone and L VDT results show that the reference rod needs

to be set deeper. Reference of 10 feet below the pavement is not enough to read true

deflection.
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

The installation of 120 instruments in the 4-mile test section was considered to

be successful while only losing three gages. An HBM strain gage was lost in section

6 due to the extreme heat of the asphalt melting the wire connected to the gage. As

stated in chapter 2, the small gap between the temperature resistant heat shrink and the

gage left the wire vulnerable to the extreme heat of the asphalt. Since this was the

first section instrumented, the mistake was corrected for the other five sections by

covering the exposed wire with duct tape. Along with the heat of the asphalt, a

concern that the large aggregate in the asphalt mix may sever the gage wires. With

this in mind, a sieve was made to separate the small aggregate so no large aggregate

would be placed over the gages or gage wires. Also, this procedure allowed the
 87

asphalt to cool down so that when placed overtop of the gage, the concern of the high

temperature was decreased. In this same section, the 10-foot referenced LVDT was

lost. It wasn't a problem with the gage itself, but with the reference rod. The

reference rod sunk several inches after installation which made it impossible for the

armature of the LVDT to rest on the rod. Therefore no data was collected for this

instrument. The problem was corrected by auguring down only nine feet so that the

rod could be driven down to the correct depth to ensure that the cement would set to

fix the rod at the correct depth without moving. The third gage lost was a Dynatest

strain gage in section 1.

The performance of the instrumentation during the FWD tests was very

acceptable. A problem was not encountered with any of the thermocouples, pressure

cells, accelerometers, or LVDTs. As of January of 1995, all the instrumentation in

sections 2, 4, and 6 was functioning except for the top Dynatest gage in section 4, and

the top HBM and TML gage in section 6. All functioning strain gages gave

reasonable responses to the impulse loads that were induced. During the winter test

months some of the gages had trouble recovering from the initial impulse load in that

the second "spike" did not start from zero. This made it look like the gage signal was

drifting which in fact was not.

From the data collected from the FWD tests several conclusion and

observations were made.

As explained earlier, the FWD deflections measured by the geophones were

larger than deflections measured by the LVDTs. It can be concluded that the subbase
 88

deflected under the load a distance equal to the measured geophone deflection minus

the deflection measured by the L VDTs. This conclusion concurs with another CGER

project that measured the pavement deflection at a reference depth of seven feet.

These two projects show that the reference for the LVDT must be larger that ten feet.

The rigidity of the SLD unit was proven to be successful after inspection of the unit a

year after the installation. Neither the LVDT clamp screw nor the screws fastening

the clamp to the assembly showed any signs of loosening.

With the soil moisture measurements staying consistent throughout the four

FWD tests, it can be assumed that there weren't any significant cracks in the asphalt

allowing the infiltration of water to the bases. Table 6.1 displays the subgrade

moisture content readings for each section tested during the FWD tests.

6.2 RECOMMENDAnONS

From the results of the data analysis and installation procedure, a list of

recommendations were drawn for future flexible pavement projects.

1. Instrumentation cabling exiting the pavement should be protected by chipping

back the pavement at least six inches to allow the finish grater to trim the edge

of pavement without cutting the exiting cables. Once the cabling has exited the

pavement it should be placed in conduit and buried at least a foot below the

proposed final grade all the way to the monitoring station.

2. Visible markings should be placed where instrumentation wiring exits the

pavement and along the path which it was buried to avoid the cutting of the

wires when any work is done after the completion of the project (ie. guardrails,
 89

Table 6.1 - Subgrade Moisture Content Readings

Subgrade Moisture Content Readings

Month Tested Section Volumetric Moisture MoistureContent

Content %
1 22.3 9.57
December 2 17.9 7.68
3 21.7 9.31
4 34.9 14.98
2 16.1 6.91
April 3 * *
4 28.4 12.19
1 16.8 7.21
2 16.8 7.21
September 3 22.9 9.82
4 22.9 9.82
5 41.9 17.98
6 26.6 11.41
1 31.9 13.36
2 16.5 7.08
January 3 28.2 12.1
4 28.2 12.1
5 41.5 17.8
 90
underground power lines, telephone wires, etc.)

3. Any ground level pull boxes should have adequate drainage to keep all

instrumentation wiring dry.

4. Instrumentation should be labeled at both ends of each cable with a durable

waterproof label to ensure is placed in it's correct location and the correct gage

is monitored during data collection.

5. When possible, instrumentation should be purchased with an adequate length of

cable to reach monitoring station. Instrumentation with short lead cable should

be spliced to shielded cable to protect the gage signal from unwanted noise

caused by power lines.

6. Conduct environmental tests that study the change in stress and deflection over

long periods of time under varying climatic conditions. More data is needed to

compare soil moisture readings with pavement responses.

7. Any pressure cells used to measure interface pressure measurements should

have the thick backplates attached to them. The pressure cells with thin

backplates, when tested, produced inconsistent results.

 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Bonaquest, R., Surdahl, R., and Mogawer, W., "Effect of Tire Pressure on

Flexible Pavement Response and Performance", Transportation Research Board 1227 -

Rigid and Flexible Pavement Design and Analysis, 1989, p. 97-106

2. Sevaaly, P. E., Tabatabaee, N., and Scullion, T., "Comparison of

Backcalculated Moduli from Falling Weight Deflectometers and Truck Loading",

Transportation Research Board 1377 - Nondestructive Deflection Testing and

Backcalculation for Pavements, 1992, p. 88-98

3. Brown, S. F., "State-of-the-Art Report on Field Instrumentation for

Pavement Experiments", Transportatioin Research Record 640, Transportation

Research Board. Washington D. C., 1977, p. 13-27

4. Tabatabaee, N., Sebaaly, P., "State-of-the-Art Pavement Instrumentation",

Transportation Research Record 1260 - Measurement of Pavement Surface Condition,

1990, p. 246-255
 92

5. Ullidtz, Per and Bush, Christian, "Laboratory Testing of a Full-Scale

Pavement: The Danish Road-Testing Machine", Transportation Research Record 715,

Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1979, p. 52-62

6. Cambell Sceintific Inc., Soil Moisture Measurement System Manual, 1992

7. Sargand, S. M., Hazen, G. A., Wilson, Russ, "Evaluation of Resilient

Modulus by Back-Calulation Technique, "Ohio Department of Transportation, and

Federal Highway Administration, Project Number 5156 C, 1991.