Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 1

THE EFFECT OF ALLOWABLE THICKNESS VARIATION ON

BACKCALCULATED MODULI

FRITZ J. JOOSTE, STEPHEN V. KEKWICK AND MARSHALL MUTHEN

Over the past decade the backcalculation of layer moduli, primarily from Falling Weight

Deflection (FWD) measurements, has become a primary component of pavement evaluation and

rehabilitation design methods. Despite the many limitations of layered elastic theory in

modelling real pavement behaviour, almost all backcalculation programs utilize layered elastic

theory or some derivative thereof, and popular examples include MODULUS (1), EVERCALC

(2), and ELMOD (3). The input typically required for such programs consists of measured

deflections, layer thicknesses, seed moduli or moduli ranges, and the applied load or pressure.

Whilst a substantial amount of research has been done on the development and validation

of backcalculation programs, comparatively little work has been done to quantify the influence

of errors in input data on backcalculated moduli.

There are two generic types of error involved: systematic and random. Systematic errors

can be limited or even eliminated through proper measurement and analysis procedures (such as

the Strategic Highway Research Program, SHRP, calibration procedure for FWDs). However

random errors in input data are unavoidable, due to the nature of road building equipment,

materials and processes. The inherent variability in material properties and the relatively large

tolerances allowed in construction therefore stand in direct contrast to the complexity and

notional accuracy of the models that are used to characterize pavement behaviour.

F.J. Jooste, Division of Roads and Transport Technology, CSIR, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa,
telephone: +027-12-841-2224, facsimile: +27-12-841-3095
S.V. Kekwick, Division of Roads and Transport Technology, CSIR, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa,
telephone: +027-12-841-3080/3901, facsimile: +27-12-841-3095
M. Muthen, Division of Roads and Transport Technology, CSIR, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa,
telephone: +027-12-841-2115, facsimile: +27-12-841-3095
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 2

One of the primary sources of error in backcalculation procedures is an incorrect estimate

of layer thickness. At project level, the accuracy of estimated layer thicknesses can be improved

by increasing the frequency of coring and test pit positions. In many instances, however, cost

limitations or the mere scope of the project preclude such an accurate determination. In such

cases thicknesses must then be derived from secondary sources of information, such as design

or as-built plans, with this approach being typical for pavement analysis carried out at network

level. The information is then used to define uniform pavement sections for which the layer

thicknesses are therefore established.

A factor that is seldom taken into account during backcalculation is the variation in layer

thicknesses due to construction tolerances. Even within an acceptably uniform pavement section,

an inevitable variation in layer thickness will exist. Provided that this variation is within

specified tolerances, it is not a construction error, yet it may have a significant influence on the

backcalculation process.

Although the influence of layer thickness variation on backcalculated moduli has been

investigated by other researchers (4,5), such work normally deals with incorrect estimates of

layer thicknesses. This paper, on the other hand, deals with the effects of inherent, acceptable

variations about the correct estimate of layer thicknesses on backcalculated moduli.

ANALYSIS APPROACH

Since most backcalculation programs make use of layered elastic theory, this study uses the same

basis and is, in effect, an analysis of the sensitivity of layered elastic theory to small variations

in layer thicknesses.

In order to isolate the effects of layer thickness variation, and to exclude effects such as

nonlinearity and anisotropy, all deflection data were generated by means of a layered elastic
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 3

program for which the exact input values (i.e. moduli, Poisson’s ratios and layer thicknesses)

were known.

Layer modulus values were then backcalculated using only the average (design)

thicknesses. By comparing the backcalculated moduli to the values originally used to generate

the deflection bowls, an indication of the error due to layer thickness variation could be obtained.

Three nominal structures were used in this study, described in the following section, and

for each structure the analysis process was as follows:

(i) Generate permissible layer thickness variants

For each layer of each structure one hundred layer thickness variants were

generated, having a mean equal to the nominal design thicknesses and following

a normal distribution. Standard deviations were chosen such that the generated

thicknesses would comply with allowable construction tolerances.

(ii) Generate deflection bowls for each variant of the nominal structural

For each structure, the generated layer thickness variants and the assumed moduli

shown in Figure 1 were used to generate one hundred deflection bowls. For each

layer the modulus and Poisson’s ratio was kept constant and only the layer

thickness varied. WESLEA (6) was used for these calculations.

(iii) Derive moduli for each variant of the nominal structure based on design

thicknesses

Backcalculation on these generated deflection data was performed using only the

design thicknesses as input for layer thickness. MODULUS (1) was used for all

backcalculation.

(iv) Compare backcalculated moduli with those used originally

The derived moduli were then compared with those used originally to generate
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 4

the deflection bowls. Differences were expressed as error percentages.

GENERATION OF DEFLECTION DATA

Pavement Structures Used

Figure 1 shows the three nominal pavement structures analysed, together with the

modulus values assigned to each material. The structures were chosen from the South African

pavement design catalogue (7), and represent three different classes of road.

Structure 1 is a relatively heavy structure for high volume major arterial routes,

comprising a high quality crushed stone base on a thick cement-stabilized subbase, with hot-mix

asphalt surfacing. Expected design trafficking is in the range of 3 to 10 million ESALs

(equivalent 80kN standard axle loads).

Structures 2 and 3 are designed for successively lower utility roads, respectively. The

former would be typical of a secondary feeder route, in this case designed for a traffic loading

of 0.3 to 1 million ESALs, with the latter typifying a very low volume local road (design

trafficking 0.003 to 0.010 million ESALs). While both use a double surface treatment, they

differ in the base and subbase layer thicknesses, the quality of the granular materials and the use

of a cement-stabilized subbase for the feeder road.

Typical layer modulus values were chosen based on the ranges recommended in the South

African Mechanistic Design Method (8) for the various materials. In the case of the thin hot-mix

asphalt surfacing for Structure 1, a modulus value of 2,500kPa was assumed. Poisson’s ratio

values of all materials were kept constant at 0.40, which would not necessarily represent expected

actual values but was considered expedient for this study, and unlikely to have any significant

influence on the principal findings.

It should be noted that the structures shown in Figure 1 are normally constructed on well-
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 5

prepared selected and upper subgrade layers. For the purpose of this analysis, however, these

layers were not modelled individually but were combined with the subgrade to form one single

support layer. The subgrade modulus used for Structure 1 was 100 MPa, while that used for

Structures 2 and 3 was 80 MPa, in each case the values regarded as providing realistic

representations of actual conditions. This simplification still gives a good representation of the

actual support conditions, allowing faster processing without jeopardising the validity of the

comparison.

Layer Thickness Variation

The thicknesses shown in Figure 1 are the nominal design thicknesses. In the generation

of deflection data these layer thicknesses were varied while the selected moduli values remained

constant, and for each structure deflection bowls were generated using the layer thickness

variants. The simulated FWD load was kept constant at 40 kN, which corresponds to a plate

pressure of 565 kPa over the 300 mm diameter circular load footprint.

In South Africa, the allowable variation of layer thicknesses for road construction are

given in the Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridge Works (9). Limits are placed on

variations from the specified nominal thickness in terms of average values, 90% of sampled

values and for individual localised points. Table 1 gives these limits, designated respectively

Davg,, D90, and Dmax. For the prescribed sampling regime, requiring at least 30 measurements of

thickness, a layer is deemed to comply with the thickness requirements if:

a) at least 90 per cent of all thickness measurements taken are equal to or thicker than the

specified thickness minus the D90 tolerance specified in Table 1.

b) the mean layer thickness of the sample lot is not less than the specified layer thickness

minus the Davg tolerance specified in Table 1.

Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 6

Localized areas where the sampled thickness is less than the specified thickness minus

the Dmax value specified in Table 1 would have to be repaired.

To generate the layer thickness variants it was first assumed that all layer thicknesses will

be normally distributed, with a mean equal to the design thickness. The standard deviation of

the distribution was then selected such that a random sample of 50 data points met the specified

tolerance levels.

Table 2 summarizes the sampled thickness parameters for each pavement structure,

indicating their compliance with the specification requirements, and Figure 2 shows an example

of the distribution of the generated layer thicknesses (for the 150mm base of Structure 1, in this

case). Figure 3 illustrates the entire variation in layer depths for Structure 1 for all 100 thickness

variants. Figure 4 shows some of the generated deflections for Structure 2.

Table 2 shows that all layers essentially conform to the specified tolerances for layer

thicknesses, except one sampled point was outside specification on the subbase of Structure 1.

Although such localized positions would in practice have to be repaired, the layer thicknesses

were not changed for the purpose of this analysis, as the other thickness parameters were well

within specifications.

It should also be noted that the selected standard deviations, necessary to ensure that the

thickness variations comply with the specification, were considered to be low. For example,

typical standard deviations on actual constructed layer thicknesses reported by Darter et al (10)

were all greater than the standard deviations that had to be used to conform to the South African

standard specifications (9). Thus a pavement with standard deviations similar to those reported

by Darter et al (10) would not have conformed to the South African standard specifications. It

is possible, however, that the assumption of a normal distribution for layer thicknesses is not

fully applicable and is therefore the cause of this discrepancy.

Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 7

Depth To Stiff Layer

The MODULUS backcalculation program has the capability to determine the depth to

stiff layer, or subgrade thickness (11). If this depth is used in the backcalculation model then

subgrade moduli estimates are normally more realistic than for models that assume a semi-

infinite subgrade. In the subsequent backcalculation of data, the correct subgrade thickness was

used as input to MODULUS, instead of using the calculated depth to stiff layer supplied by the

program. This was decided since the objective of this study is not to evaluate the efficiency of

the depth-to-stiff layer calculation procedure in MODULUS, but rather to determine the effect

of layer thickness variability on backcalculated moduli.

To broaden the scope of the study, two cases for which different depth to stiff layer

conditions apply were analysed. In the first, a set of deflection data was generated by keeping

the thickness of the subgrade fixed at 1500 mm. In the second case the subgrade modulus was

varied according to a normal distribution with a mean of 1500 mm and with a standard deviation

of 150 mm (i.e. a coefficient of variation of 10 per cent was assumed). This second scenario is

considered to lead to deflection bowls that are more similar to those that would be measured in

the field, where the depth to stiff layer varies from point to point.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The influence of the generated layer thickness variation was evaluated by comparing the

backcalculated modulus with the modulus that was originally used to generate the deflection data

for each layer and variant. Thus, for each of the 100 data points, for each layer and each

pavement, a backcalculation error was calculated that was defined as follows:

MODgenMODback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Equation 1)
Err (%)  [ ]×100
MODgen
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 8

Where: MODgen = Modulus used to generate deflection data, using variable

layer thicknesses, and

MODback = Modulus obtained from backcalculation, using only

average layer thicknesses as input.

It should be noted that there is also an error in the backcalculation process that is not

related to variations in layer thickness, but is due only to errors in matching generated

(representing ‘measured’) and calculated deflection bowls. This error was determined for each

structure by generating one deflection bowl, using the design layer thicknesses, and then

backcalculating the moduli from that deflection bowl. A comparison of the actual and

backcalculated moduli for that deflection bowl therefore gives the error due only to inefficiencies

in the particular backcalculation procedure used. Table 3 gives the backcalculation errors for

each structure, together with the moduli ranges used in all backcalculations, based on such

comparison.

It is clear from Table 3 that the moduli values backcalculated by MODULUS generally

compare very well with those used to generate the deflection data. Except for one case, the

backcalculated moduli are in all cases within 2 percent of the actual moduli. Since the version

of MODULUS used for this study utilized imperial units, deflections and backcalculated moduli

had to be converted to metric units, and it is also therefore possible that a small roundoff error

is contained in the backcalculated moduli. Nonetheless, the results of this comparison clearly

show that, for the pavements analysed here, any errors larger than 4 per cent are likely to be

caused by differences between actual and design layer thicknesses.

Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 9

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

General

The backcalculation errors due to variations in layer thicknesses are summarized in Table

4 which shows the frequency of occurrence (as a percentage) of error ranges calculated from

Equation 1. It should be noted that the Table 4 shows the effects of both assuming a fixed

subgrade depth and of a varying subgrade depth. In general, the errors due to layer thickness

variations were largest in the case of the varying subgrade depth.

In all cases the subbase proved to be the most sensitive to small variations in layer

thicknesses. This was especially so in the case of the cemented subbase of structure 2. For this

layer and structure, more than half of the backcalculated moduli had errors in excess of 20 per

cent. The use of a varying subgrade depth in genereting deflection data always increased the

backcalculation errors dramatically.

Table 5 summarizes the average backcalculation error due to variations in layer thickness.

Since most pavements will exhibit a significant variation in the apparent depth to stiff layer, the

case where subgrade depth was varied is probably the most representative of real pavement

conditions. It can be seen from Table 5 that, for the case where subgrade depth was varied, the

average error for all layers and all structures was always in excess of 5 per cent. In the case of the

subbase, the average error was always in excess of 10 per cent.

Table 6 summarizes the average backcalculated modulus of each layer for each pavement

structure. It is interesting to note that, despite the large variation in backcalculated moduli at

individual data points, the average backcalculated moduli for the data set compares very well

with the actual modulus value.

Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 10

Structure 1

For Structure 1, the heaviest structure with a high quality crushed stone base on a thick

cement-stabilized subbase, the largest modulus errors arising from layer thickness variation

occurred for the stabilized subbase. For this layer, more than 45 per cent of all data points had

errors larger than 10 per cent. In contrast, the base layer seemed relatively insensitive to layer

thickness variations, with less than 10 per cent of the data having errors greater than 10 per cent.

The subgrade modulus also seemed relatively insensitive to small variations in the

pavement layer thickness, with all errors being below 10 per cent for the case where the subgrade

thickness was kept constant. In the case where subgrade stiffness was varied, significantly larger

errors occurred, with more than 20 percent of all data points having errors that are in excess of

20 per cent.

Structure 2

Except for the subgrade, the backcalculation errors due to variations in layer thickness

were generally the highest in the case of Structure 2. As with Structure 1, the subbase modulus

proved to be the most sensitive to small variations in layer thickness. For this layer, more than

50 per cent of all backcalculated moduli had errors in excess of 20 per cent. The base modulus

also contained significant errors, with more than 40 per cent of all data having errors larger than

10 per cent. Figure 5 shows the variation of the backcalculated moduli of the subbase of

structure 2 about the correct modulus value (i.e the modulus value that was used to generate

deflections).

For this structure, the subgrade proved to be insensitive to pavement layer thickness

variations as long as the subgrade thickness was kept constant. When the subgrade thickness was

varied, approximately 20 per cent of all data had errors in excess of 10 per cent.
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 11

Structure 3

It is perhaps surprising that Structure 3, which is the thinnest pavement structure that was

analysed, generally proved to be less sensitive to layer thickness variations than the other two

structures. For Structure 3, the subbase also exhibited the largest errors in backcalculated moduli.

For the base, no data points had errors larger than 10 per cent when the subgrade thickness was

kept constant. When subgrade thickness was varied, nearly 30 per cent of all data points had

errors in excess of 10 per cent.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The influence on backcalculated moduli of variations in pavement layer thicknesses, variations

that are acceptable in terms of construction tolerance specifications, was investigated. The study

revealed that even small variations in layer thicknesses can significantly affect the values derived

for the backcalculated moduli. Specific conclusions include the following:

` The backcalculation error due to small variations in layer thicknesses is at least 5 per cent

for the case where subgrade depth is variable;

` For the structures investigated in this study, the average backcalculation error for the

subgrade was always in below 10 per cent;

` Not all layers are equally sensitive to layer thickness variations. For each of the

structures evaluated the subbase appeared to be the most sensitive to small variations in

layer thicknesses, regardless of subbase type;

` The results of this study demonstrate that thin, stiff layers such as stabilized subbases are

very sensitive to small variations in layer thicknesses, as might be expected. For one of

the structures studied more than 60 per cent of all data points had backcalculation errors

in excess of 20 per cent;

Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 12

` The backcalculation error due to small variations in layer thickness was generally lowest

on the low standard pavement structure (Structure 3), even though this structure had fairly

thin layers. A probable reason is that this pavement did not have an inverted structure

with a stiff stabilised subbase, and the moduli of all layers were generally quite similar

and decreased gradually with depth.

` Despite the relatively large variations in backcalculated moduli at individual data points,

the average backcalculated moduli for the data set compared well with the correct

modulus value (i.e the modulus value used to generate the deflection bowls).

The above conclusions highlight that, even when the average layer thickness is

determined correctly for a properly constructed pavement, backcalculated moduli may contain

significant errors due to small and probably unavoidable variations in layer thickness. Clearly

an incorrect estimate of layer thickness, which may be attributable to numerous practical factors

such as insufficient data, incorrect data or poor sampling, will result in even larger errors in

backcalculated moduli.

This study also suggests that there are limits to the precision that can be attained in the

backcalculation of moduli. Thus the effort involved in trying to get a better fit between measured

and calculated deflections may be spent more effectively by trying to get a better indication of

layer thicknesses.
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 13

REFERENCES

1. Modulus Reference

2. Evercalc Reference

3. Elmod Reference

4. Briggs, Scullion and Maser in TRR 1377

5. Zaniewski and Hossain in TRR 1377

6. Weslea Reference

7. TRH4

8. South African Mechanistic Design Method

9. CSRA Specification

10. Darter et al., page 501 in Huang

11. Rohde et al. - depth to stiff layer reference

Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 14

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Schematic representation of analysis procedure

2. Pavement Structures used in Analysis

3. Typical distribution of generated layer thicknesses: base layer for Structure 1

4. Typical pavement structure after generation of layer thicknesses

LIST OF TABLES

1. Standard Specifications for Layer Thicknesses

2. Layer Thickness Parameters For A Sample of Generated Data

3. Sampled Layer Thicknesses for Three Pavement Structures

4. Typical Backcalculation Errors and Range of Moduli Values used in Backcalculation

5. Average Moduli Backcalculated for the Entire Data Ser for each Pavement Section
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 15

Table 1 Allowable Tolerances on Layer Thicknesses According to South African Standard

Specifications (9)

Thickness Tolerance on:

Average 90 per cent of all Individual
thickness measurements localized areas
Layer Type Davg (mm) D90 (mm) Dmax (mm)
Asphalt Surfacing 2 5 8
Gravel or Crushed Stone Base 5 21 27
Gravel or Crushed Stone Subbase 5 21 27

Table 2 Sampled Layer Thicknesses for Three Pavement Structures

Selected Minimum
Layer Standard Sampled
Pavement and nominal Deviation Average Thickness % of Points
Structure thickness (mm) (mm) a (mm)a Failing D90b
1 Asphalt Surface 3.5 40.0 33.3 4
40 mm (38) (32)
Base 16 153.2 124.3 1
150 mm (145) (123)
Subbase 15 248.2 218.6 4
250 mm (245) (223)
2 Base 12 127.2 102.0 2
125 mm (120) (98)
Subbase 14.5 147.8 126.3 5
150 mm (145) (123)
3 Base 12 125.3 104.5 0
125 mm (120) (98)
Subbase 12 126.1 103.4 2
125 mm (120) (98)

a
Values in brackets denote allowable minima according to Table 1.
b
Denotes the percentage of sampled data points less than design thickness minus D90 (specified
in Table 1). A maximum of 10 per cent is allowed.
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 16

Table 3 Typical Backcalculation Errors in Moduli Attributable to Lack of Fita

Structure Layer Actual Moduli Backcalculated

Modulus Range Modulus
(Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) % Error b
1c Base 400 200 - 600 392 2.0
Subbase 1000 600 - 1400 1014 1.4
Subgrade 100 103 (seed) 96 4.0
2 Base 300 150 - 450 297 1.0
Subbase 800 500 - 1100 802 0.3
Subgrade 80 103 (seed) 79 1.3
3 Base 220 100 - 340 221 0.5
Subbase 120 60 - 180 122 1.7
Subgrade 80 103 (seed) 79 1.3
a
Errors listed in this table are not due to layer thickness variation, only to lack of fit between
generated and backcalculated deflection bowls, when the exact layer thicknesses are provided
as input.
b
Error was calculated using Actual Modulus (column 3) as base value.
c
Because of the small thickness of the asphalt surfacing for Structure 1, the modulus of this layer
was fixed at the correct value during backcalculation.
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 17

Table 4 Backcalculation Errors due to Variation in Layer Thicknesses

Frequency of occurrence (%)

Percentage
variation Fixed subgrade Varying subgrade
from depth depth
Layer original Structure Structure
modulus
(%) 1 2 3 1 2 3
Base <5 56.4 31.7 83.2 60.4 27.7 30.7
5 - 10 34.7 37.6 16.8 30.6 29.7 40.6
10 -20 8.9 30.7 0.0 9.0 41.6 24.7
> 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0
Subbase <5 34.7 11.9 37.6 33.7 7.9 18.8
5 - 10 19.8 10.9 29.7 14.8 11.9 22.9
10 -20 29.7 20.8 20.8 28.7 23.8 24.7
> 20 15.8 56.4 11.9 22.8 56.4 33.6
Subgrade <5 92.1 100.0 100.0 49.5 36.7 49.5
5 - 10 7.9 0.0 0.0 27.7 37.6 33.7
10 -20 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 22.7 16.8
> 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 0.0
Jooste, Kekwick and Muthen 18

Table 5 Average Backcalculation Errors due to Variation in Layer Thicknesses

Average Error (%)

Structure Layer
Fixed Subgrade Varying
Depth Subgrade Depth
1 Base 5.2 5.1
Subbase 11.4 12.1
Subgrade 4.0 7.6
2 Base 7.8 7.3
Subbase 22.8 24.0
Subgrade 1.4 6.8
3 Base 2.4 8.3
Subbase 8.1 15.8
Subgrade 0.9 5.7

Table 6 Average Moduli Backcalculated for Entire Data Set for Each

Average Backcalc. Moduli (MPa)

a
Structure Layer
Fixed Subgrade Varying
Depth Subgrade Depth
1 Base (400) 398 399
Subbase (1000) 1006 995
Subgrade (100) 96 98
2 Base (200) 298 300
Subbase (800) 813 798
Subgrade (80) 79 80
3 Base (220) 224 224
Subbase (120) 121 121
Subgrade (80) 81 81
a.
Values in brackets denote correct moduli