See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343919198

Construction Quality Control of Unbound Base Course using Light Weight

Deflectometer where Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregate is Used as an
Example

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · August 2020
DOI: 10.1177/0361198120934473

CITATION READS

1 224

4 authors:

Emre Akmaz Saad Ullah

George Mason University Tetra Tech Inc.
8 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Burak F Tanyu Erol Guler

George Mason University George Mason University
61 PUBLICATIONS   1,519 CITATIONS    90 PUBLICATIONS   617 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Performance of Geosynthetic-Encased Stone Columns View project

Microbial Induced Calcite Precipitation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saad Ullah on 28 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–14
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Construction Quality Control of Transportation Research Board 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Unbound Base Course using Light sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0361198120934473

Weight Deflectometer Where Reclaimed journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Asphalt Pavement Aggregate Is Used as

an Example

Emre Akmaz1, Saad Ullah1, Burak F. Tanyu1, and Erol F. Guler1

Abstract
Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is already being recycled as a construction and building material. One of the commonly
considered applications is to create an unbound aggregate from this material. However, since the particles of RAP have binder
coatings, traditional quality control procedures applied during construction such as use of a nuclear density gauge does not
provide accurate results. Therefore there is a need to find another method that can be applied during construction to con-
firm that the placement in the field meets the design criteria. For this reason, in this study, the suitability of using light weight
deflectometer (LWD) has been investigated. The presented methodology outlines how to implement the use of LWD to cre-
ate a target modulus in the laboratory as part of design criteria and compare with the field measurements. In the field,
depending on the thickness of the constructed aggregate layer, the LWD measurements may be influenced by more than just
the layer of interest. The presented methodology also provides a solution for such multilayer conditions. Although the study
primarily focuses on using RAP as the investigated material, the methodology developed in this study can be applied to any
type of unbound aggregate as demonstrated in this study.

In the U.S., the highway construction industry annually
consumes 100 million tons of reclaimed asphalt pave-
ment (RAP) material (1). Some of the produced RAP
is already being recycled as part of the construction
of hot mix asphalt (HMA), however this utilization
does not consume all of the reclaimed asphalt. In the
Commonwealth of Virginia alone, 4.7 million tons of
RAP is reported as excess, which is stored as large
volumes of stockpiles (2). Generating and maintaining
these stockpiles is costly, as it requires the land to be
allocated just for this purpose. Therefore, there is a sig-
nificant interest in creating an unbound aggregate from
this material to be used in different construction activi-
ties. The most common application of such is to use the
RAP to construct base course in roadways (3, 4).
Previous research has indicated that, in the case of creat-
ing a base course aggregate, it is best to blend RAP with
virgin aggregate (VA) rather than using 100% RAP (5–
7). Also, detailed guidelines on how to properly blend
RAP with VA to create blends that are suited for road
construction exist in the literature (8, 9). Additionally,
twelve Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies in
the U.S. and abroad including France, Germany,
Netherlands, and United Kingdom have specified target
blends to mix RAP with VA to create a base course for
road construction (2). Using RAP to create base course
aggregate for road construction not only reduces the
stockpile volumes but also provides an opportunity for
sustainable development (8, 10, 11).
During the placement of granular base course materi-
als in road construction, it is very important that proper
quality control measures are implemented. This is tradi-
tionally achieved in the U.S. by using a nuclear density
gauge (NDG), where the moisture and wet density of the
aggregate are measured, and the dry density is calculated
(12). This dry density that represents the field conditions
is then compared with the target maximum dry density
1
Volgenau School of Engineering, Sid and Reva Dewberry Department of
Civil, Environmental & Infrastructure Engineering, George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA
Corresponding Author:
Burak F. Tanyu, btanyu@gmu.edu
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
obtained from the Proctor test that is conducted in the
laboratory. However, in the case where the unbound
aggregate is created from RAP, as reported in the litera-
ture, the NDG does not provide accurate results for
moisture content measurements (13). This is because the
binder content of the aggregates within the RAP contains
hydrocarbon compounds, which absorb gamma rays
from the radioactive source and affect the moisture con-
tent results (12). Therefore, the calculated dry density
from the NDG equipment also becomes inaccurate.
Because of this limitation, currently DOT agencies in the
U.S. do not have quality control guidance specifically for
RAP-VA blends and this challenge limits the broader use
of RAP as base course (2). The sand-cone test method
can be implemented for density measurements but it is a
technique not preferred by most DOTs to be implemen-
ted as the only source of measurement because of time
limitations. Therefore, there is a need to seek other meth-
ods that may be applied for construction quality control
that can particularly be suitable for RAP.
The most commonly available tools for construction
quality control are dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP),
soil stiffness gauges (SSG), and light weight deflect-
ometer (LWD). The previous findings show that DCP is
not always suitable to be used with aggregates as the
individually larger particles affect the repeatability of the
results (14, 15). Although SSG could be used for this
purpose, when used with aggregate particles, the repeat-
ability of results often is questioned and the depth of
influence of the equipment becomes a limiting factor
compared with the typical lift thicknesses of base course
layers (16, 17). Therefore, the use of LWD in the case of
RAP base aggregates has been of interest to several
researchers in the past (14, 18, 19). However, in the pre-
vious RAP studies with LWD, the researchers have not
provided specific guidelines on how to handle layered
systems and the effects of blending RAP with VA. It is
important to note that many DOT agencies have been
using Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design
Guidelines (MEPDG) for their design, which are based
on considering resilient modulus as one of the design
parameters. Although not a direct comparison, measur-
ing elastic modulus values in the field could also serve to
create additional databases for the agencies to better
modify their initial design assumptions.
The LWD device is the portable version of the falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) and was developed in 1981
in Germany (20, 21). Both the FWD and LWD are used
to estimate the stiffness and the elastic modulus from the
energy transmitted because of a weight being dropped.
The depth of influence of this energy propagation is typi-
cally dependent on the diameter of the LWD plate.
Several previous studies suggest that the depth of influ-
ence for LWD may vary between 0.9 and 1.1 times the
plate diameter (20–27). Therefore, if the thickness of the
base course layer is less than the plate diameter, the
determined modulus is the result of the combined
response of the tested layer and the layer underneath it.
The combined modulus is often mistaken as the modulus
of the base course as indicated in the literature (20).
Therefore, the guidance on how to correctly estimate the
elastic modulus of the tested layer is missing in the litera-
ture. Although a generic formula to calculate the stress
distribution and settlement of a two-layer system already
exists, this formula does not incorporate the solution for
cases where each layer has a different Poisson’s ratio
(28). However, the settlement is affected by the stiffness,
Poisson’s ratios, and thickness of the involved layers.
Therefore, when estimating the elastic modulus of the
top layer from the LWD measurements, the solution
must take into account all of these parameters. When
LWD is considered for quality control, just as is the case
for NDG, a target value must be established so that the
field measurements can be compared with this target and
as a result the quality in the field can be verified. One of
the innovative solutions on how to determine the target
value came from Khosravifar (19). In that study, the
researchers suggested to characterize the modulus of the
base course by conducting an LWD test on the soil in a
compaction mold and then to utilize this information as
the target modulus in field (29). Khosravifar made an
attempt to correlate the LWD modulus values obtained
from the field and from the mold for subgrade and base
layers (19). The results showed strong correlation for the
subgrade but poor correlations for the base course (gran-
ular material). The discrepancy for the base course corre-
lation has not been provided by the previous researchers
although noted as a limitation in their study.
Purpose of This Study
The above-described studies acknowledge the potential
benefits of using LWD for quality control; however, they
were not able to (i) capture the effects of LWD’s depth
of influence to properly characterize the modulus of the
granular base course alone, and (ii) relate the laboratory
measurements to develop a target value to be used in the
field as a confirmation of proper compaction during con-
struction. Also, the previous studies have not confirmed
the suitability of using LWD with blends of RAP and
VA and did not demonstrate a methodology on how to
use this equipment as part of quality control in the field.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to address these
concerns and develop a methodology that will allow the
use of LWD for the quality control measures in the field
for the base courses constructed with RAP blended with
VA. However, it should be noted that the application of
the methodology developed in this study is not limited to
Akmaz et al
being used with RAP and is valid for any types of natu-
ral VAs as well.
Modulus of compacted materials are affected by the
moisture content (19, 30). It is important to document
the moisture content of the material before LWD testing.
However, LWD equipment does not provide such infor-
mation. Therefore, although not the primary focus of
this study, the authors also demonstrated that a speedy
moisture content tool can be used to determine the
moisture content of the unbound base course created
from RAP with the modifications developed in this
research.
Evaluating the Multilayer System
The thickness of the base course layer may vary depend-
ing on the design. During construction, typically the
maximum base course thickness installed in one lift is
determined based on the depth of influence of the com-
paction equipment. When the first lift of the base course
is placed on the subgrade and compacted, in the majority
of circumstances its thickness will be smaller than the
depth of influence of the LWD. Since each lift of the
base course must be tested, this condition will create a
multilayer system when the LWD measurements are
taken from the surface of the base course. Additionally,
the total base course thickness may create a multilayer
system because for secondary roads in the U.S. the typi-
cal pavement design guide requires the minimum thick-
ness of the base course to be 0.15 m (31–33).
To account for the multilayer system in the evaluation
of the LWD results, a model must be created to take into
consideration the influence of the elastic modulus of
both of the materials (e.g., subgrade and base course)
within the influence zone of the LWD. When the weight
of the LWD is dropped, it is expected that the soil will
undergo a settlement and in the case of LWD measure-
ments, this settlement is referred as surface deflection.
Balunaini et al. used a finite element approach to provide
a method to relate this surface settlement to the applied
load and elastic properties of the layers (33). The
researchers have compared their finite element results to
Steinbrenner’s classical approach to estimate surface set-
tlement for a multilayer system and showed that there
was an almost perfect match (34). Therefore, in this
study, the Steinbrenner’s approach given in Equation 1
has been implemented. The re-arrangement of this equa-
tion allows the estimation of the elastic modulus of the
top layer (Equation 2):



1v21
1v22
Dz j2 = qsurface D½ Ip1 Ip0 +
E1 E2
3
Figure 1. Schematic of the multilayer system.


(qsurface D)(1v21 ) Ip1 Ip0
E1 =
ð2Þ
ð1v2 Þ
Dz j2 (qsurface D)½ E2 2 Ip2 Ip1 
where E1 is equal to the elastic modulus that is estimated
for the top layer and E2 represents the measured elastic
modulus of the bottom layer (as shown in Figure 1), Dz j2
is settlement of the two-layer system that is measured by
the LWD equipment, qsurface is the applied stress by the
LWD, D is the diameter of LWD plate, v1 and v2 are the
Poisson’s ratio of top and bottom layers. Ip0, Ip1, and
Ip2 are symbolizing the corresponding settlement factors
for various depths.
Equation 2 provides an opportunity to back-calculate
the modulus of the base course because the load applied
from the LWD is known and the surface deflection is
measured by the equipment. For this calculation to be
possible, the modulus of the subgrade and the Poisson’s
ratios of both the subgrade and base course have to be
known. In this study, it is proposed that the best way to
determine the elastic modulus of the subgrade is to mea-
sure this value with LWD directly on the surface of the
subgrade before the placement of the base course at the
same location where LWD measurements for the base
course will then be conducted. It is further proposed that,
based on previous literature, the Poisson’s ratios of the
base course and subgrade were assumed as 0.3 and 0.45
respectively unless specific laboratory values are deter-
mined (29, 31, 35).
The settlement factors referred to in the above equa-
tions were developed by Vesic as a function of Poisson’s
ratio and depth of the layers (35). At the surface (z = 0),
Ip0 equals to zero. At the interface of the two layers
(which corresponds to the bottom of the first layer,
z = H1), the settlement factor is represented by Ip1. At
the bottom of the second layer, which is defined by the
LWD’s depth of influence (z = H1 + H2), the settlement

factor is represented by Ip2. The settlement factors (Ip1,
Ip2 Ip1 
and Ip2) that were used in this research are given in
ð1Þ Table 1.
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Table 1. Settlement Factors Used in the Multilayer Analyses
Settlement factors
Depth ratio (z/a)
Ip1
(base course)
0.5 0.253
1.0 0.505
1.5 0.565
2.0 0.624
2.5 0.659
3.0 0.694
3.5 0.718
4.0 0.743
Note: z/a = ratio of depth to the radius of the light weight deflectometer
plate.
Equipment Used in This Study
Light Weight Deflectometer Testing Device
The LWD operates based on the principals of wave pro-
pagation created by a weight falling on a circular plate
that is placed over the soil (18, 36, 37). The equipment
used in this study was manufactured by Dynatest, model
no. 3031, although a variety of other similar equipment
exists in the market (19, 38). This particular equipment
comes with a rubber pad that can be placed directly over
the surface of the aggregate/soil that is tested. This fea-
ture helps maintain a uniform contact area between the
LWD’s plate and the surface that is being tested. The
LWD tests in this study were conducted using the stan-
dard 10 kg weight, which was dropped from the maxi-
mum height of 850 mm on to the plate. Although, it
should be noted that the previous study showed that the
drop height does not affect the elastic modulus esti-
mated by LWD (39). The configuration used in this
study resulted in maximum of 6.5 kN force applied to
the ground. The plate diameter of the equipment used in
this study was 300 mm, which resulted in the depth of
influence of the equipment to be approximately 300 mm
(23). At each location, the weight of the LWD was
dropped eight times and the average of the last six drops
was used in evaluating the elastic modulus and stiffness
values. The first two drops were not used in the calcula-
tions to determine the average modulus because at this
stage the equipment establishes full contact with the
testing surface. The precision (or the repeatability) of
the results from the LWD tests were determined based
on the coefficient of variation (COV) values that were
calculated from the last six drops of the weight at the
same location. The target for maximum acceptable
COV is conservatively set as 15% per ASTM E2583
guidelines (39).
Speedy Moisture Content Testing Device
The speedy moisture content device works based on the
principals of moisture of the material (free water) react-
Ip2 ing with calcium carbide that is added to the device to
(subgrade)
form acetylene gas as depicted in the following chemical
0.229 reaction:
0.459
0.524 CaC2 ðsÞ + 2H2 0ðlÞ ! CaðOH Þ2 ðsÞ + C2 H2 ðg Þ
0.588
0.626 Calcium carbide + water ! calcium hydroxide
0.664
0.691
+ acetylene gas
0.718
Once the acetylene gas (C2H2) is generated, the pressure
created by forming this gas is recorded by the pressure
gauge on the speedy moisture content test device (40). The
higher the moisture content in the material, the higher the
measured pressure reading becomes. The standard proce-
dure on how to conduct the speedy moisture content tests
is outlined in the AASHTO standard T217, where empiri-
cal charts are used to relate the gas pressure to moisture
content of the material (40). The standard procedure to
perform this test suggests placement of 20 g of sieved (No.
4) soil into the speedy moisture test device chamber, add-
ing three scoops of calcium carbide, two ball bearings that
are 31.75 mm in diameter, and spinning the material for
3 min followed by a 1-min resting time (40). The ball bear-
ings that are placed inside the speedy moisture content
device with the soil are used to pulverize the sample.
Testing Methods
Large-Scale Model Evaluation in the Laboratory
To replicate the field conditions as closely as possible
within a laboratory environment, a test pit that is 1.2 m
long, 0.8 m wide, and 1 m high was used to conduct large-
scale model evaluations (LSME) (Figure 2). This set-up
allowed the materials to be conditioned and compacted
simulating the field conditions. The purpose of LSME
was to investigate the effects of the multilayer system on
LWD measurements where different layer thicknesses
could be investigated. The dimension of the test pit was
selected based on the evaluations that showed that the
chosen dimensions would eliminate the boundary effects,
where the applied load in the middle propagates toward
the edge but does not bounce back. To confirm this effect,
during the experimentation, stress measurements were
also obtained from a vertically and a horizontally placed
earth pressure cell (Figure 2b). This information con-
firmed that when the load is dropped at the top of the last
layer (shown as the layer with E3 in Figure 2b), during the
LWD testing no significant stress increases were recorded
from the earth pressure cells. This information was used
to confirm the 2:1 stress distribution assumption and the
depth of influence of the LWD used in this study.
Akmaz et al 5

Figure 2. Schematic of the large-scale model evaluation test pit: (a) plan view and (b) cross-sectional view and theoretical stress
distribution from light weight deflectometer.
Note: CMU = concrete masonry unit; EPC = earth pressure cell; LWD = light weight deflectometer; RPC = rectangular pressure cell.

LSME tests were conducted with a base course aggre-

gate and RAP where the materials before placement into
the test pit were placed into a mixer (simulating pugmill
conditions) with water (based on their optimum moisture
content) and blended. After this process, the material
was then spread into the test pit with a shovel in lifts.
Each layer was targeted to be 0.15 m thick after compac-
tion. The compaction of each layer was achieved by using
an electric plate compactor, which had a depth of influ-
ence of 0.2 m as reported by the manufacturer. Sand-cone
test (per ASTM 1556) was used in each layer to confirm
the consistency of the proper compaction (41). The total
height of each LSME was 0.45 m, although LWD tests
were conducted at each 0.15 m thick layer of the material
shown in Figure 2.

Bench Scale Evaluation in the Laboratory

Performing LWD tests in a test pit based on LSME was
important to evaluate the depth of influence of the LWD
equipment and to incorporate the multilayer system
evaluation to determine the modulus that was represen-
tative of the base course aggregate layer (without the
effects of the foundation). In field applications, this
back-calculated modulus in the laboratory would serve
as the target value. However, not all users of LWD may
have a test pit to determine a target modulus value for
the base course material. Therefore, LWD tests were also
conducted on materials that were compacted into a
152.4 mm diameter mold (Figure 3). The diameter of the
LWD plate used in this test was 150 mm, which allowed
Figure 3. (a) Schematic of light weight deflectometer (LWD)
test set-up with compaction mold, (b) compaction mold with
sample, and (c) photograph of the assembled LWD over the mold.
the LWD’s bottom plate to directly fit over the material
compacted in the mold (Figure 3c). It is recognized that
the elastic modulus values measured in a compaction
mold (EMold) may have boundary condition issues
because of the size of the set-up (assuming that a similar
2:1 stress distribution exists as shown in Figure 2b).
Therefore, a correlation is created in this study to relate
the LSME results to the values obtained from the com-
paction mold.
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
In the compaction mold, all materials were compacted
in equally divided three lifts using a vibratory compactor
to the same target relative compaction (density) used in
the LSME. The methods used to obtain modulus values
from the mold were exactly the same as in LSME. The
elastic modulus from the mold tests (EMold) were esti-
mated using Equation 3 as determined from previous
studies as (19):
2v2 4H
EMold = ð1 ) k ð3Þ
1  v pD2
where H is height of the mold, D is diameter of the plate/
mold, v is Poisson’s ratio of the material placed into the
mold, k is the soil stiffness provided by LWD which is
estimated as the ratio of the applied peak load (FPeak) to
the corresponding measured deflection (d).
Field-Scale Model Evaluation
To validate the correlation between EMold and ELSME a
field trial is implemented. This effort is referred to here
as field-scale model evaluation (FSME). In this evalua-
tion, the base course was placed into a wooden box that
is 0.2 m high, 1.2 m wide, and 1.2 m long. The box was
directly placed over the subgrade in the field. The config-
uration of the FSME was similar to what is shown in
Figure 1. The subgrade classified as low plastic silt (ML)
and both the subgrade and the base course were com-
pacted with the same handheld electric compactor that
was used during the LSME. LWD tests were performed
on both subgrade and the unbound aggregate placed
inside the wooden box representing the base course layer
in an actual construction. The results obtained from the
FSME were used to confirm the validity of Equation 2.
The information gained from the FSME was then used
in an actual road construction to implement the use of
LWD as part of the quality control measurements.
Field Implementation: Actual Road Construction
The objective of the field-testing program was to verify
the applicability of the developed methodology in this
research to be used in a real-life project as a quality con-
trol tool. The project involved construction of a road
section at Minnieville, Virginia, to create test sections
with RAP blended with VA to create base course for a
roadway. Five sections that were each 46 m long with
0.15 m base course layer thicknesses were constructed.
The base course was constructed directly over the top of
the subgrade, where the subgrade was classified as low
plastic silt based on the Unified Soil Classification
System. The average California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
the subgrade was 20 and the average Atterberg Limits
were LL = 46 and PL = 34. LWD tests were used to
control the compaction quality of the base course sec-
tions, and also the water content was measured using the
speedy moisture test. Each section was divided into four
subsections and at each location LWD tests were per-
formed on both subgrade and base layers. Since the
depth of influence of the LWD used in this study
exceeded the layer thickness of the base course, imple-
mentation of the multilayer system procedure proposed
in this study was necessary to estimate the modulus of
the base course aggregate. However, to implement this
approach, it was necessary that the LWD measurements
from the subgrade and base course be conducted at a
location that were very close to each other. To achieve
this, locations of the subgrade tests were marked in the
field using red flags along the side of the road. At each
of these locations, sticks with colored flags were placed
into the ground, and the height of the sticks remaining
above the subgrade were measured before the base
course was placed. After placement and compaction of
the base course layer, the remaining height of the sticks
were re-measured to calculate the thickness of the base
course at that particular location. LWD tests were then
conducted on top of the base course for each test point,
where previously subgrade was characterized. The modu-
lus determined at these locations represented the multi-
layer that consisted of both the base course and the
subgrade. The procedures implemented to perform
LWD testing in the field were exactly the same as for the
laboratory tests and FSME. At each location, complet-
ing the set of LWD measurements took about 5–7 min to
obtain and analyze data.
To confirm the limitations, NDG was also used in all
sections to estimate the dry unit weight and the moisture
content of the materials used for base course construc-
tion. The readings were obtained using the direct trans-
mission method and by setting up the depth of the
nuclear probe to penetrate approximately 80 mm into the
base course layer (approximate mid-height). The water
content estimates obtained from the NDG were com-
pared against the moisture content values determined
from the speedy moisture content tests.
Determination of Moisture Content of the RAP Blends
with Speedy Moisture Content Testing Equipment
AASHTO T217 states that the speedy moisture content
method may not be accurate for granular materials that
contain particles larger than No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve (40).
This is because the coarser particles may not be totally
pulverized by the ball bearings used in the test and this
discrepancy may affect the accuracy of the test.
The aggregates used in this study had particles larger
than the No. 4 sieve. If the coarser fraction of the parti-
cles is removed, this would satisfy the maximum particle
Akmaz et al
requirement for the test but would also change the per-
centages of particle distribution in a given blend. This
challenge was overcome by increasing the sample weight
to become a minimum of 30 g (as opposed to the 20 g
suggested by the AASHTO T217 standard). This amount
was determined empirically based on number of tests
conducted in this study. This procedure resulted in a
deviation from the AASHTO T217 standard and there-
fore a correction factor had to be created for the charts
suggested by AASHTO T217 to estimate moisture con-
tents (40). This correction was achieved by dividing the
pressure reading from the chamber of the speedy moist-
ure device to the ratio of the weight of the sample placed
into the chamber in grams to the reference amount (i.e.,
20 g). In addition to the speedy moisture tests, each sam-
ple was also air-dried, and the results were compared
against the moisture content values estimated from the
speedy moisture test. This comparison was used to con-
firm the accuracy of the measurement from the speedy
moisture test to estimate air-dried moisture values. The
results were not compared against the oven drying
method as oven drying does not provide the most accu-
rate results for the RAP and RAP-VA blends.
Material Characterization
Virgin Aggregate
The VA used in this study was classified as a typical base
course material (21 aggregate gradation) by Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) as defined by
their Road and Bridge Standards (32). This was the same
material used in the previous study conducted by the
authors when the performance of the RAP blended with
VA was evaluated in the laboratory (8). The aggregate
was created from the crushing of diabase rock and con-
sisted of a maximum particle size of 25.4 mm and 11%
fines.
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
The RAP used in this study was obtained from two dif-
ferent asphalt plants in Virginia. These were also the
same materials that were previously used by the authors
as part of the laboratory performance evaluation study
(8). Both of these RAP materials classified as fine pro-
cessed RAP with maximum particles being less than
12.7 mm sieve size. The binder contents of the RAP from
these two different sources varied at an average of 5.59
(here referred as high binder content [HB]) and 4.89
(here referred as low binder content [LB]). Having to test
these two different materials was important because, as
previously described, difference in binder content of
RAP results in different elastic modulus values, which
effect the LWD measurements (8).
7
RAP-VA Blends
The VA and RAP materials were blended by weight
based on their individual as-is gradation following the
methods previously described (8). The maximum particle
size of the blends was less than 25.4 mm and fines con-
tent ranged between 7% and 9.7%. The RAP-VA blends
used in this study was previously evaluated by Ullah
et al. (8). Additional information in relation to the mate-
rial properties can be found from that publication. The
permanent deformation tests previously conducted by
Ullah and Tanyu concluded that 30% RAP-VA created
from high binder RAP and 20% RAP-VA created from
low binder RAP had equal or less cumulative strains
than 100% VA (9). Therefore, the RAP-VA blends were
created in this study to have maximum of 30% RAP in a
given blend.
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of each RAP-VA blend was determined from the
compaction test conducted with a handheld vibratory
compactor based on ASTM D7382 Method A (42). This
procedure was followed to achieve results consistent with
the compaction methods implemented in the LSME,
FSME, and field demonstration study. The maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content of the VA
that was used to create these blends and to construct the
field VA section were 24.2 kN/m3 and 3.9%, respectively.
The maximum dry density of 30% HB RAP-VA, 20%
HB RAP-VA, 30% LB RAP-VA, and 20% LB RAP-VA
mixtures were 22.6 kN/m3, 23.1 kN/m3, 22.9 kN/m3, and
23.2 kN/m3, respectively. The corresponding optimum
moisture content values were 6.3%, 6.2%, 6.1%, and
6.2%, respectively.
Results and Analyses
Large-Scale Model Evaluation
The elastic modulus values obtained from each layer of
the LSME test pit for each aggregate tested in this study
are depicted in Table 2. All layers within the LSME
study were compacted based on relative compaction
between 95% and 99%, which satisfies VDOT’s mini-
mum compaction criteria for base course aggregate (33).
The consistency of each LWD measurement in relation
to repeatability and sensitivity at a given location was
checked based on the COV values, which was calculated
as a percentage from the ratio of standard deviation and
average of modulus values obtained from LWD test
drops. Considering that all of the COV ranged between
0.76% and 1.56% indicated that the LWD measure-
ments that were used to estimate the average values
reported in Table 2 were acceptable. When the average
elastic modulus values from each layer are compared,
the results showed that the average elastic modulus of
8 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 2. Results of the Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) Laboratory Testing from Large-Scale Model Evaluation (LSME) and Mold

LSME test pit Mold

Average elastic Average elastic Average Average
modulus, modulus, elastic elastic
E1 E1 E2 E2 modulus, E3 E3 modulus, EMold EMold
Material (MPa) COV (%) (MPa) COV (%) (MPa) COV (%) (MPa) COV (%)

100% HB RAP 143.5 0.85 177.5 0.59 176.2 1.45 202.7 2.18
100% LB RAP 116.2 1.58 161.0 0.68 161.5 0.76 192.5 0.78
30% HB RAP 68.3 3.42 77.5 1.08 149.7 1.09 192.2 0.75
30% LB RAP 82.8 0.91 118.3 0.75 124.2 1.56 151.6 4.39
20% HB RAP 89.8 2.58 113.0 1.77 112.8 1.04 135.6 2.36
20% LB RAP 104.8 1.64 108.7 1.02 109.7 0.90 130.5 6.82
100% VA 85.8 1.71 92.2 0.82 106.2 1.51 128.7 2.84

Note: Maximum allowed coefficient of variation (COV) is 15% according to ASTM E2583. VA = virgin aggregate; HB RAP = high binder content reclaimed
asphalt pavement; LB RAP = low binder content reclaimed asphalt pavement.

layer 1 (E1) has been significantly influenced by the pres-

ence of the concrete foundation of the test pit. This is
not a surprising observation as the thickness of the first
layer was 0.15 m and the depth of influence of the LWD
was approximately 0.3 m. On layer 2, the average elastic
modulus (E2) was also slightly influenced from the pres-
ence of concrete foundation. This effect was more evi-
dent in the tests conducted with 30% HB RAP, 30% LB
RAP, and 100% VA. Therefore, for the purposes of this
study, only the average elastic modulus values of layer 3
(E3) were used to determine the elastic modulus of the
base course materials (E3 = ELSME). At this thickness,
the LWD measurements did not get influenced by the
presence of the concrete foundation. The results showed
that 100% HB RAP has the highest elastic modulus
(176.2 MPa) and 100% VA has the lowest elastic modu-
lus (106.2 MPa) of all the materials tested.
Table 2 also shows that higher binder content and
higher mixture of RAP results in higher elastic modulus Figure 4. Correlation between the elastic modulus values of the
values. This finding is consistent with the previous study base course material obtained from large-scale model evaluation
conducted by the authors to evaluate these materials (LSME) (ELSME = E3) and compaction mold tests (EMold).
based on resilient modulus tests (8). This observation Note: HB RAP = high binder content reclaimed asphalt pavement; LB RAP
confirms the validity of the measurements obtained from = low binder content reclaimed asphalt pavement; LSME = large-scale
model evaluation.
LWD equipment.

Bench-Scale Evaluation validates the relevance of the proposed method. However,

Although the LSME results provided the E3 (also
referred as ELSME) values that could be used in the field
as a target value, to provide a simple solution to the
actual field application, LWD tests were also performed
in the compaction mold. These values are also presented
in Table 2, where they are marked as EMold. The COV
values from these tests were between 0.75% and 4.39%,
which also indicates these results to be acceptable. That
EMold and ELSME values showed a consistent trend also
because of the differences in boundary conditions, the
actual values were different from each other (as expected).
Therefore, a correlation had to be made to relate the val-
ues obtained from one set-up to another. Figure 4 shows
this correlation, which is expressed as Equation 4:
ELSME = 0:836EMold  1:089 ð4Þ
The coefficient of correlation (R2 = 0.96) for this
relationship indicates a strong correlation. Using this
Akmaz et al
correlation, a field target elastic modulus (ETarget) could
then be determined for LWD users. The principal of this
approach requires the user to obtain modulus value
using the LWD from the mold test (EMold) and then to
relate this value to ELSME, which becomes the target elas-
tic modulus (ETarget) for the field application.
Field-Scale Model Evaluation
To put into perspective how to implement the given
methodology of compaction quality control in the field,
where an actual subgrade material may exist below the
base course, results of the FSME test with 30% HB RAP
have been evaluated. In this evaluation, the modulus of
the base course had to be back-calculated from the mea-
sured LWD deflections. The back-calculated base course
modulus (EComputedBase) was then compared against the
previously established ETarget value as described above.
The modulus value measured by the LWD over the top
of the base course could not be directly used for this
comparison because the thickness of the selected base
course in this demonstration was smaller than the
LWD’s depth of influence. Therefore, the modulus deter-
mined from these measurements were affected by both
the modulus of the base course and the subgrade under-
neath. This measured value is referred as EMultilayer,
which in this study had a value of 65.2 MPa. The COV in
these tests was calculated as 0.63, which is well below the
maximum threshold, confirming the repeatability of the
LWD tests. The back-calculation of the base course
modulus was established with Equation 2 (i.e., resulted
in EComputedBase = 163.6 MPa). The LWD results from
the mold set-up for the 30% HB RAP is 192.2 MPa (see
Table 2). When converted to ELSME (using Equation 4),
this value becomes 159.6 MPa, which was used as ETarget.
When EComputedBase is compared against the ETarget, the
difference between these two values is very small (i.e.,
approximately 2%). This shows that the proposed meth-
odology based on laboratory evaluation stays valid in
the field application where the bottom layer consists of
subgrade. The similarity of the ETarget and EComputedBase
was the expected outcome because the field test site was
constructed to match the degree of relative compaction
and moisture content that was followed during the mold
and LSME tests.
These findings showed that the proposed methodol-
ogy could be implemented for quality control in the field.
This validation was important before initiating the actual
full-scale implementation in the field.
Field Implementation: Actual Road Construction
In the field implementation (actual road construction),
LWD tests were first performed on the subgrade layer of
9
each of the five test sections. The average elastic modulus
values obtained from these field tests on the subgrade
(depicted as Esubgrade) are shown in Table 3. Following the
placement of the base course, additional LWD tests were
conducted at the same locations where the previous tests
were conducted on the subgrade. These test results are also
shown in Table 3, The measured thickness of the base
course at each of these locations were known (Table 3).
Considering the thickness of the base course layers and the
depth of influence of the LWD equipment (i.e., 0.3 m), the
average modulus obtained from the top of the base course
indicates the modulus of the multilayer system consisting
of both the base course and the subgrade, therefore
depicted in Table 3 as EMultilayer. In all tests, the calculated
COV values were within the acceptable threshold (Table 3)
indicating the acceptability of the LWD test results.
When the overall methodology developed in this
study is put together, to determine the acceptability of
the constructed base course layers, the computed base
course modulus needs to be compared with the target
modulus (which in this study has been determined previ-
ously in the laboratory). This comparison is presented in
Table 4. When compared, the results show that at each
location in the field within each section, the LWD modu-
lus values for the base course is greater than the target
elastic modulus (ETarget). This indicates that the sections
were constructed to a compaction level that is considered
satisfactory. On the contrary, when the actual NDG
results obtained from each section were compared against
the target relative compaction that was set forth in this
project (i.e., 95% or greater), the results showed that only
the section that was constructed with VA satisfies this cri-
terion (Table 4). This observation indicates that the pre-
dicted relative densities computed from the NDG tests
for sections constructed with RAP blends were not accu-
rate. Figure 5 presents the summary of this comparison.
It is a known fact that the density is affected by the
moisture content of the aggregate, therefore it also
effects the modulus. Therefore, to support that all aggre-
gates (VA and RAP blends) in this field demonstration
were successfully compacted, it is also important to
know the water content of these materials at the time
they were compacted and tested in the field. In the case
of RAP, the only two options to determine a reliable
water content are the air drying and speedy moisture
content tests. However, during the field application,
there is not enough time to wait for air drying of the
aggregates created with RAP. Therefore, in this study,
the moisture contents of the aggregates were determined
from the speedy moisture test and compared against the
moisture content values determined from air drying.
This comparison is provided in Table 5.
The comparison in Table 5 confirms that the modified
speedy moisture content test provides results that are
10 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 3. Modulus Values Obtained from Field Implementation and Computed Modulus for the Base Coursea

COV EMultilayer COV Thickness of base

Field sections ESubgrade (MPa) (%) (MPa) (%) course (m) EComputedBase (MPa)

30% HB RAP 40.0 4.47 83.8 12.61 0.16 173.1

40.0 4.47 97.5 6.89 0.18 171.5
54.2 5.01 101.7 5.55 0.15 167.9
43.5 5.58 95.7 4.66 0.17 168.3
20% HB RAP 27.8 1.47 61.5 3.04 0.18 113.7
29.9 1.37 64.7 3.62 0.18 118.1
29.8 1.37 61.8 2.79 0.17 116.8
24.2 3.11 55.7 3.70 0.17 118.9
30% LB RAP 27.3 2.99 48.5 5.01 0.14 139.1
29.7 8.70 53.5 2.83 0.18 131.0
23.3 3.50 52.8 3.86 0.18 141.3
23.5 3.56 50.3 4.65 0.15 128.5
20% LB RAP 25.3 7.76 55.5 2.48 0.17 114.4
28.0 2.26 61.5 3.53 0.17 112.9
36.3 1.42 74.5 4.86 0.17 118.1
36.9 1.52 73.0 2.45 0.17 114.7
100% VA 68.8 3.10 76.8 5.99 0.19 113.8
86.8 7.65 76.3 3.94 0.18 108.6
67.7 3.11 75.6 4.88 0.19 111.9
38.7 2.11 72.3 3.23 0.19 108.8

Note: ESubgrade = average subgrade layer elastic modulus, EMultilayer = average multilayer elastic modulus, EComputedBase = average base course layer elastic
modulus; COV = coefficient of variation; VA = virgin aggregate; HB RAP = high binder content reclaimed asphalt pavement; LB RAP = low binder content
reclaimed asphalt pavement.
a
To determine the modulus of the base course (without the influence of the subgrade) (EComputedBase), the modulus values obtained from the field were
used in Equation 2 along with the thicknesses of the base course determined in the field. The computed values are shown in Table 3.

Table 4. Comparison of the Computed Base Course Modulus with Target Values and Relative Compaction from Nuclear Density Gauge
(NDG)

EComputedBase ETarget Ratio of Average ratio of Compaction

Field sections (MPa) (MPa) EComputedBase and ETarget EComputedBase and ETarget from NDG (%)

30% HB RAP 173.1 159.6 1.08 1.07 89.3

171.5 1.07
167.9 1.05
168.3 1.05
20% HB RAP 113.7 112.3 1.01 1.04 90.4
118.1 1.05
116.8 1.04
118.9 1.06
30% LB RAP 139.1 125.7 1.11 1.07 91.8
131.0 1.04
141.3 1.12
128.5 1.02
20% LB RAP 114.4 105.2 1.09 1.09 93.4
112.9 1.07
118.1 1.12
114.7 1.09
100% VA 113.8 108.5 1.05 1.02 96.0
108.6 1.00
111.9 1.03
108.8 1.00

Note: EComputedBase = average base course layer elastic modulus, ETarget = target elastic modulus from Equation 4; VA = virgin aggregate; HB RAP = high
binder content reclaimed asphalt pavement; LB RAP = low binder content reclaimed asphalt pavement.
Akmaz et al 11

it should be noted that the methodology developed in this

study may also be implemented for the base course con-
structed with VA alone, the focus of this study was to par-
ticularly demonstrate the advantage of using LWD for the
quality control of the sections constructed with RAP. This
is because the traditional method of using NDG as a qual-
ity control measure works well with VA but does not work
with base course aggregate constructed with RAP.
As demonstrated, the methodology developed based on
multilayer analyses in this study may successfully be imple-
mented to separate the effect of the subgrade on the elastic
modulus values measured for the base course using the
LWD equipment. The need to implement the multilayer
analyses should be evaluated based on the comparison of
the thickness of the base course and the depth of influence
of the LWD equipment. In the case that the multilayer
analysis is needed, the modulus of the subgrade and the
thickness of the base course at each testing location must
be determined as part of the procedure.
Figure 5. Comparison of average ratio of computed base course Quality control measures in the field require the users
and target modulus values from light weight deflectometer (LWD) to have a target value before the field implementation so
test versus relative compaction values obtained from nuclear
that the users can compare the field results to this target
density gauge (NDG).
Note: VA = virgin aggregate; HB RAP = high binder content reclaimed value to determine the acceptability of the base course.
asphalt pavement; LB RAP = low binder content reclaimed asphalt Although the LWD results do not provide a value to
pavement. determine the degree of compaction in the field (such as
relative compaction of 95%, etc.), this study demon-
strated a methodology to obtain target elastic modulus
value based on a laboratory LWD test conducted in a
Table 5. Comparison of Measured Moisture Content Values of compaction mold representing a specific compaction con-
Base Course Aggregates from the Field
dition that relates to the desired relative compaction. To
Field sections Air dry tests (%) Speedy moisture tests (%) determine the target modulus, a relationship was devel-
oped (as shown in Equation 4) between the elastic modu-
30% HB RAP 3.61 3.47 lus measured in a compaction mold and the modulus of
20% HB RAP 3.49 3.56 the base course aggregate (excluding the effect of the sub-
30% LB RAP 2.80 2.64
20% LB RAP 4.65 4.75 grade). Equation 4 is valid for all of the RAP, RAP/VA
100% VA 3.60 3.20 blend, and VA samples tested in this study; however, it
should be noted that the maximum fines content of the
Note: VA = virgin aggregate; HB RAP = high binder content reclaimed materials tested in this study was 11%. Therefore, for
asphalt pavement; LB RAP = low binder content reclaimed asphalt base course materials with higher fine percentages,
pavement.
Equation 4 may have to be validated.
The moisture content is also an important parameter to
very similar to the values obtained from air drying both
assure a proper compaction of the unbound aggregate. The
for RAP blends and 100% VA. Also, it is important to
standard speedy moisture content test cannot be directly
note that when these moisture content values were com-
implemented because of the maximum particle size of the
pared against the target moisture content values that
aggregates used in this study. Therefore, a modification was
were established for the project, the results obtained from
foreseen as previously explained. Based on this modified
the field confirms the intent of the design.
procedure, a demonstration has been presented to show
that speedy moisture content test may be used in the field
to determine the moisture content of the RAP blends.
Conclusions and Practical Implications
LWD tests provide an opportunity to determine elas-
The purpose of this research was to evaluate the suitability tic modulus of the aggregates. Considering that MEPDG
of using LWD as a tool for compaction quality control in are based on the modulus of the pavement layers, use of
the field when the unbound base course aggregate is con- LWD also provides an opportunity to directly compare
structed using RAP, or VA blended with RAP. Although the design assumptions with the field conditions.
12
Figure 6. The procedure to be followed for a quality control method using light weight deflectometer (LWD) equipment for unbound
granular base course.
Figure 6 is created to provide guidance to the practi-
tioners and DOT agencies to implement the methodology
developed to use LWD for field quality control measures
for RAP base course aggregate. The provided procedure
takes into account two different scenarios for the base
course thickness. In the case that the thickness of the base
course is less than the depth of influence of the LWD
equipment, the modulus of the base course from the field
is determined using the multi-layer solution discussed in
this article. In the case that the thickness of the base
course is equal or greater than the depth of influence of
the LWD, the result from the field LWD measurement
can be directly compared with the target elastic modulus.
It should be noted that the elastic modulus of the
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
subgrade must be measured at the same locations of the
measurements on the base course. Also, the thickness of
the base course layer at that location must be determined
as closely as possible since this influences the results of
the analyses for the multilayer system.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge that parts of the LWD
equipment used in this research were donated by Dynatest.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: B. F. Tanyu; data collection: E. Akmaz,
Akmaz et al
S. Ullah; analysis and interpretation of results: B. F. Tanyu,
E. F. Guler, E. Akmaz, S. Ullah; draft manuscript preparation:
B. F. Tanyu, E. F. Guler, E. Akmaz, S. Ullah. All authors
reviewed the results and approved the final version of the
manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The research presented in this paper was funded by the
Virginia Transportation Research Council of VDOT.
References
1. Copeland, A., C. Jones, and J. Bukowski. Reclaiming
Roads. Publication FHWA-HRT-10-001. US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2010.
2. Hoppe, E. J., D. S. Lane, G. M. Fitch, and S. Shetty. Fea-
sibility of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Use as Road
Base and Subbase Material. Publication VCTIR 15-R6.
Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and
Research. Charlottesville, NC, 2015.
3. Locander, R. Analysis of using Reclaimed Asphalt Pave-
ment (RAP) As a Base Course Material. Colorado Depart-
ment of Transportation, 2009.
4. Puppala, A., S. Saride, and R. Williammee. Sustainable
Reuse of Limestone Quarry Fines and RAP in Pavement
Base/Subbase Layers. Journal of Materials in Civil Engi-
neering, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2012, pp. 418–429.
5. Taha, R., G. Ali, A. Basma, and O. Al-Turk. Evaluation
of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregate in Road Bases
and Subbases. Proc., 7th International Conference on Low-
Volume Roads, Baton Rouge, LA, 1999, pp. 264–269.
6. Ullah, S., and B. F. Tanyu. Effect of Variation in Moisture
Content on the Mechanical Properties of Base Course
Constructed with RAP-VA Blends. Proc., Geo-Congress
2020: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Special
Topics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
2020, pp. 612–620.
7. Bennert, T., W. J. Papp, A. Maher, and N. Gucunski. Uti-
lization of Construction and Demolition Debris under
Traffic-Type Loading in Base and Subbase Applications.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2000. 1714: 33–39.
8. Ullah, S., B. F. Tanyu, and E. J. Hoppe. Optimizing the
Gradation of Fine Processed Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
and Aggregate Blends for Unbound Base Courses. Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of Transportation
Research Board, 2018. 2672: 57–66.
9. Ullah, S., and B. F. Tanyu. Methodology to Develop
Design Guidelines to Construct Unbound Base Course
with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP). Construction
13
and Building Materials, Vol. 223, 2019, pp. 463–476. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.196.
10. Faysal, M., M. Mahedi, Al. Aramoon, B. Thian, M. S.
Hossain, and M. S. Khan. Strength Characterization of
Untreated and Cement Treated Recycled Flex-Base Mate-
rials. Proc., Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Con-
gress, Phoenix, AZ, 2016, pp. 1233–1244. https://doi.org/
10.13140/RG.2.1.3842.5366.
11. Al-Qadi, I. L., M. Elseifi, and S. H. Carpenter. Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement – A Literature Review. Report No.
FHWA-ICT-07-001. Illinois Center for Transportation,
Rantoul, 2007.
12. Smith, B., and B. Diefenderfer. Comparison of Nuclear
and Nonnuclear Pavement Density Testing Devices. Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of Transportation
Research Board, 2008. 2081: 121–129.
13. Viyanant, C., E. Rathje, and A. Rauch. Compaction Con-
trol of Crushed Concrete and Recycled Asphalt Pavement
using Nuclear Gauge. Proc., Geotechnical Engineering for
Transportation Projects, Los Angeles, CA, 2004, pp. 958–
966.
14. Hossain, M. S., and A. K. Apeagyei. Evaluation of the
Lightweight Deflectometer for In-Situ Determination of
Pavement Layer Moduli. Publication FHWA/VTRC 10-
R6. Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and
Research, Charlottesville, NC, 2010.
15. Siekmeier, J., C. Pinta, S. Merth, J. Jensen, P. Davich, F.
Camargo, and M. Beyer. Using the Dynamic Cone Penet-
rometer and Light Weight Deflectometer for Construction
Quality Assurance. Minnesota Department of Transporta-
tion, 2009.
16. Chang, G., Q. Xu, J. Rutledge, B. Horan, L. Michael, D.
White, and P. Vennapusa. Accelerated Implementation of
Intelligent Compaction Technology for Embankment Sub-
grade Soils, Aggregate Base, and Asphalt Pavement Materi-
als. Publication FHWA-IF-12-002. US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2011.
17. Alshibli, K., M. Abu-Farsakh, and E. Seyman. Laboratory
Evaluation of the Geogauge and Light Falling Weight
Deflectometer as Construction Control Tools. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2005,
pp. 560–569. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561
(2005)17:5(560).
18. Ebrahimi, A., and T. Edil. Lightweight Deflectometer for
Mechanistic Quality Control of Base Course Materials.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechni-
cal Engineering, Vol. 166, No. 5, 2013, pp. 441–450.
19. Khosravifar, S. Large-Scale Controlled-Condition Experi-
ment to Evaluate Light Weight Deflectometers for Modulus
Determination and Compaction Quality Assurance of
Unbound Pavement Materials. (Order No. 10129826).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1799923138). 2015.
20. Nazzal, M., M. Abu-Farsakh, K. Alshibli, and L. Moham-
mad. Evaluating the Deflectometer Light Failing Weight
Device for In Situ Measurement of Elastic Modulus of
Pavement Layers. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2016: 13–22.
14
21. Vennapusa, P., D. White, J. Siekmeier, and R. Embacher.
In situ Mechanistic Characterizations of Granular Pave-
ment Foundation Layers. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2012, pp. 52–67.
22. Kudla, W., R. Floss, and C. Trautmann. Dynamic Test
with Plate – Quick Method of Quality Assurance of Road
Layers without Binder (Dynamischer Plattendruckversuch
– Schnellprüfverfahren für die Qualitätssicherung von
ungebundenen schichten). Streets and Highways (Strasse
and Autobahn), Vol. 2, 1991, pp. 66–71. (In German).
23. Mooney, M., and P. Miller. Analysis of Lightweight
Deflectometer Test Based on In Situ Stress and Strain
Response. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 2, 2009, pp. 199–208.
24. Ryden, N., and M. Mooney. Analysis of Surface Waves from
the Light Weight Deflectometer. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 7, 2009, pp. 1134–1142.
25. Kavussi, A., K. Rafiei, and S. Yasrobi. Evaluation of
PFWD as Potential Quality Control Tool of Pavement
Layers. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol.
16, No. 1, 2010, pp. 123–129.
26. Senseney, C., and M. Mooney. Characterization of Two-
Layer Soil System using a Lightweight Deflectometer with
Radial Sensors. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of Transportation Research Board, 2010. 2186: 21–28.
27. Ullah, S., B. F. Tanyu, E. F. Guler, E. J. Hoppe, and E.
Akmaz. Evaluation of the Long-Term Performance of
Woven Geotextile Used between Base Course and Subgrade
of a Paved Road. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of Transportation Research Board, 2019. 2673: 310–321.
28. Burmister, D. M. The General Theory of Stresses and Dis-
placements in Layered Soil Systems. Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1945, pp. 89–94.
29. Schwartz, C. W., Z. Afsharikia, and S. Khosravifar. Stan-
dardizing Lightweight Deflectometer Modulus Measure-
ments for Compaction Quality Assurance. Publication MD-
17-SHA/UM/3-20. Maryland Department of Transporta-
tion State Highway Administration, 2017.
30. Haider, I., Z. Kaya, A. Cetin, M. Hatipoglu, B. Cetin, and
A. H. Aydilek. Drainage and Mechanical Behavior of
Highway Base Materials. Journal of Irrigation and Drai-
nage Engineering, Vol. 140, No. 6, 2014. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000708,04014012.
31. Han, J. Principles and Practice of Ground Improvement.
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2014.
View publication stats
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
32. VDOT Road and Bridge Standards, 2016. http://www.virgi-
niadot.org/business/locdes/2016_road_and_bridge_stan-
dards.asp. Accessed September 2, 2017.
33. Balunaini, U., Y. Damalla, and M. Madhav. Settlement
Due to Uniform Circular Load: On Finite Two-Layer Sys-
tem. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 31, No.
1, 2013, pp. 255–265.
34. Steinbrenner, W. Tafeln zur Setzungberechnung. Dic
Strasse, Vol. 1, 1934, p. 121.
35. Vesic, A. Discussion, Session III, Proc 1st International
Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements.
University of Michigan, 1963, pp. 283–290.
36. Fleming, P. R., M. W. Frost, and C. D. F. Rogers. A
Comparison of Devices for Measuring Stiffness In Situ. In
Unbound Aggregates in Road Construction: Proceedings of
the Fifth International Symposium on Unbound Aggregates
in Roads (Dawson, A. R., ed.), UNBAR 5, Nottingham,
2000, pp. 193–200.
37. Dynatest, 2010. 3031 LWD Instruction Manual for Use
and Maintenance. Glostrup, Denmark: The Dynatest
Group.
38. Lin, D., C. Liau, and J. Lin. Factors Affecting Portable
Falling Weight Deflectometer Measurements. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132,
No. 6, 2006, pp. 804–808.
39. ASTM E2583. Standard Test Method for Measuring Deflec-
tions with a Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD). ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
40. AASHTO T217. Determination of Moisture in Soils by
Means of a Calcium Carbide Gas Pressure Moisture Tester.
American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials, Washington, D.C., 2014.
41. ASTM D1556. Standard Test Method for Density and
Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08, ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
42. ASTM D7382. Standard Test Methods for Determination
of Maximum Dry Unit Weight and Water Content Range
for Effective Compaction of Granular Soils using a Vibrating
Hammer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2008.
The conclusions and recommendations in this article are solely
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or
policies of VDOT or any other organizations.