Improved Method for Evaluating the
Pavement Structural Number with Falling
Weight Deflectometer Deflections
Moo Yeon Kim, Dae Young Kim, and Michael R. Murphy
The pavement structural number (SN) is used in various applications
worldwide. One application is the structural condition index. The struc-
tural condition index was developed for the Texas Department of Trans-
portation (DOT) to support maintenance and rehabilitation decisions at
the network level and is calculated as the ratio of two SN values (effective
SN/required SN). A direct method of determining the SN from falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) testing has been used to evaluate the effec-
tive SN. This study sought to increase the accuracy of the structural con-
dition index by improving the method of determining the effective SN
from FWD deflection data. A new equation was developed by modifying
the equation that was previously used, and new coefficients for four dif-
ferent flexible pavement types were used. The new equation was improved
by the addition of new variables for considering the depth to a rigid layer
and by the use of a large database consisting of hypothetical pavement
structures and responses. This effort not only benefits the Texas DOT by
allowing increased accuracy in implementing the structural condition
index but also helps other agencies improve their evaluation of the SN by
FWD deflection at the network level. In this study, only surface-treated
pavement and asphalt concrete pavement were evaluated; portland
cement concrete pavement was not addressed.
To preserve or improve the surface condition of pavements, the
Texas Department of Transportation (DOT) has employed measures
such as extensive seal coats, thin overlays, and other types of surface
treatments. Although these treatments improve the surface condition
temporarily, the general state of the surface condition deteriorates
continuously because of the structural deformation of pavement
systems. Accordingly, accurately characterizing a pavement’s struc-
tural condition is essential to choosing an appropriate treatment to
effectively help prevent or delay pavement deterioration.
Zhang et al. developed a structural condition index for the Texas
DOT to assist with maintenance and rehabilitation decisions (1).
This index was based on currently available information such as
falling weight deflectometer (FWD) deflection data and data from
the Texas DOT’s Pavement Management Information System (PMIS).
The structural condition index is calculated as a ratio of the effective
and the required pavement structural numbers (SNs):
M. Y. Kim and M. R. Murphy, Center for Transportation Research, University
of Texas at Austin, 1616 Guadalupe Street, Suite 4.202, Austin, TX 78701.
D. Y. Kim, Department of Architectural Engineering, Dong-Eui University, 176
Eomgwangno Busanjin-Gu, Pusan 614-714, South Korea. Corresponding author:
M. Y. Kim, mooyeon@utexas.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2366, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2013, pp. 120–126.
DOI: 10.3141/2366-14
120
SN eff
structural condition index = (1)
SN req
where SNeff is the effective SN and SNreq is the required SN. Because
SN values are sensitive enough to pavement deterioration, Zhang et
al. concluded that an SN value could be a good indicator of the
effective structural condition of a pavement.
The structural condition index can be interpreted as follows: if the
value is 1 or greater than 1, then the effective pavement condition
is better than the required pavement condition. In other words, the
pavement is in sound condition for the estimated future equivalent
single-axle loads. If the value of the structural condition index is less
than 1, the pavement will need a certain kind of treatment. Peddib-
hotla et al. conducted a threshold analysis to establish guidelines for
selecting the appropriate category of maintenance and rehabilita-
tion treatment, such as preventive maintenance, light rehabilitation,
medium rehabilitation, or heavy rehabilitation (2).
The Austin District of the Texas DOT has adopted the structural
condition index as a pavement evaluation tool at the network level.
To provide a convenient way for Texas DOT engineers to estimate the
structural condition index, the Center for Transportation Research at
the University of Texas at Austin developed an automated program
that uses a Microsoft Excel macro to calculate the index. In the cal-
culation of the structural condition index, the required SN can be
obtained from the AASHTO design method, which is based on esti-
mated equivalent single-axle loads for the subsequent 20 years. The
effective SN is calculated by determining the SN from FWD testing
as proposed by Rohde (3); this method depends on FWD deflections
and the total thickness of the pavement layers. Although the struc-
tural condition index is a sound concept, its accuracy relies entirely
on Rohde’s equation. Therefore, an examination of the equation and
an endeavor to improve its accuracy are desirable.
This paper presents a new equation modified from Rohde’s original
analysis (3). The new equation was improved by the addition of new
variables for considering the depth to a rigid layer and by the use of
a large database consisting of hypothetical pavement structures and
responses.
Background
Equation for Estimating SN Directly
from FWD Deflections
Rohde presented the equation for determining the SN directly from
the FWD deflection basin (3). His methodology was based on the
two-thirds rule proposed by Irwin (4), which is illustrated in Figure 1.
Kim, Kim, and Murphy
FWD Load Plate
FWD Load
34°
1.5 Hp 17.75” (450mm)
FWD Deflection Bowl
FIGURE 1   Stress distribution and measured deflection bowl beneath FWD load (3).
This law states that about 95% of deflections originate below a line
angling 34° from the horizontal surface. In this approach, deflection
beyond 1.5 times the total thickness of the pavement layer (Hp) is
primarily affected by the subgrade. On the basis of this assumption,
the difference between the peak deflection and the deflection at
1.5 Hp strongly correlates with the pavement structure. Rohde’s
equation is as follows:
SN = k1SIP k2 Hp k3 (2)
where
SN = structural number (in.);
SIP = structural index of pavement, D0 − D1.5Hp (µm);
Di = surface deflection (in. • 10−3) normalized to 9,000-lb
(40-kN) load at offset i (ft; 1 mil = 25.4 µm);
Hp = total thickness of pavement (mm); and
k1, k2, k3 = coefficients.
To obtain Equation 2, Rohde created 7,776 hypothetical pavement
structures with various combinations of stiffness–thickness. The SN
was calculated with Equation 3, which was taken from the AASHTO
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (5, 6):
n
 E 3
1
SN = ∑ hi ag  i  (3)
i =1  Eg 
where
ag = layer coefficients of standard materials (AASHO road test),
Ei = in situ layer modulus,
Eg = resilient modulus of standard materials (AASHO road test),
hi = layer thickness (in.), and
SN = structural number (units of hi).
Equation 2 and its coefficients were then evaluated to find the best
relationship between the SN values calculated from the two differ-
ent methods. As shown in Table 1, fairly good correlation was found
for both types of flexible pavement—surface seals and asphalt
concrete pavement. However, Rohde noted that the relationship
is purely theoretical and is based on layer elastic theory (3). Real
pavement structures are not likely to have pure elastic behaviors;
121
FWD Sensors
Hp
SIS
SIP
instead, viscous, viscoelastic, or plastic behaviors accompany the
elastic response.
This method’s advantage is that determination of the thickness
of each pavement layer is not necessary. The total thickness used
in the equation is relatively easy to obtain as compared with the
individual layer thickness, which is one reason that the calculation
of the structural condition index uses this approach. However, this
method has a few drawbacks. First, the depth to a rigid layer is not
taken into account. For that reason, with the same value of SN cal-
culated from Equation 3, it is possible to have a rather large range
of SNs estimated by this method. For instance, it is indicated that
data points are vertically aligned at the same SN as calculated
by the AASHTO equation (x-axis) in Figure 2. The magnitude of
this dispersion is up to approximately two units in a typical SN
range. The amount of deviation can be reduced by employing the
concept of the depth to a rigid layer, which increases the accuracy
of SN evaluation.
Another downside of this method is the number of hypothetical
pavement structures involved. Rohde’s study analyzed 7,776 struc-
tures of various combinations of stiffness and thickness. Although the
range of pavement combinations led to a reasonable result, it was not
enough to represent most cases of flexible pavement in Texas. There-
fore, the present study employed a large, Texas-specific database
(NETFWD) to improve the method.
NETFWD Method
NETFWD is a structural evaluation methodology based on a data-
base search methodology developed by Murphy to take advantage
of existing information in the PMIS database as well as to com-
pensate for the lack of information on layer thickness in the PMIS
TABLE 1   Coefficients for SN versus SIP Relationships (3)
Surface Type k1 k2 k3 r2 n
Surface seals 0.1165 −0.3248 0.8241 .984 1,944
Asphalt concrete 0.4728 −0.4810 0.7581 .957 5,832
Note: r2 = coefficient of determination; n = sample size.
122 Transportation Research Record 2366

FIGURE 2   Correlation of SN obtained by using Equation 3 versus Equation 2 (3).

(7). Murphy built an extensive database of hypothetical pavement divided by ranges of surface thickness, predict the depth to a rigid
structures and responses based on surveys that investigated the typi- layer as a function of zero deflection point (r0) and FWD deflection
cal ranges of layer thickness and modulus in Texas. This database basin parameters, including the surface curvature index (SCI), the base
contains FWD deflections, stresses, and strains computed by the damage index (BDI), and the base curvature index (BCI). Rohde and
BISAR program, which is based on linear elastic layered theory. Smith verified this equation with field data, and later Mahoney et al.
FWD deflection-matching criteria can be used to search the data- evaluated these equations (9), developing a method adopted for use in
base to find a pool of candidate solutions for pavement structures, the Washington State DOT’s backcalculation program EVERCALC.
stresses, and strains. The database uses three layers—(a) surface, The proposed equations are as follows:
(b) base, and (c) subgrade and rigid bottom—as hypothetical struc-
tures. Each layer has various ranges of thickness and moduli; there- 1
= 0.0362 − 0.3242r0 + 10.2717r 02 − 23.6609r 03 − 0.0037BCI
fore, the database yields a large number of combinations, as shown B
in Table 2. NETFWD consists of four different Texas DOT PMIS
(4)
pavement types (Types 4, 5, 6, and 10) categorized by total surface
layer thickness. In total, 15,554,347 pavement combinations exist
1
in the NETFWD database. = 0.0065 + 0.1652r0 + 5.42898r 02 − 11.0026r 03 + 0.004BDI
B
(5)
Method for Estimating the Depth to a Rigid Layer
1
Rohde and Smith developed four regression equations for estimating = 0.0413 + 0.9929r0 − 0.0012SCI + 0.0063BDI
B
the depth to a rigid layer with FWD data; these equations were for
use in the MODULUS backcalculation program (8). These authors − 0.0778 log ( BCI ) (6)
used the Boussinesq equations and the relationship between surface
deflection and the inverse of radial offset to estimate the depth at which 1
= 0.0409 + 0.5669r0 + 3.0137r02 + 0.0033BDI
zero deflection would occur, as shown in Figure 3. The four equations, B
− 0.0665 log ( BCI ) (7)

TABLE 2   Categorization and Number of NETFWD Data where

Total Surface Number of B = depth to a rigid layer (ft),
PMIS Class Pavement Type Thickness (in.) Structures r0 = 1/r intercept by extrapolating the steepest section of the 1/r
versus deflection curve,
4 ACP >5.5 8,261,212
SCI = D0 − D1,
5 ACP   2.5–5.5 4,459,908
BDI = D1 − D2, and
6 ACP <2.5 2,041,292 BCI = D2 − D3.
10 Surface treatment <2.5 791,935
Total — — 15,554,347 Equations 4 through 7 were not directly used in the present study
because the authors questioned the efficiency of developing a regres-
Note: ACP = asphalt concrete pavement; — = not applicable. sion equation on the basis of another regression equation. However,
Kim, Kim, and Murphy 123

FIGURE 3   Deflection versus inverse of offset (1/r) for several hypothetical pavement
structures (8).

the zero deflection point and FWD deflection basin parameters were Determination of Variables for New Equation
adopted to account for the depth to a rigid layer.
Rohde’s method of estimating the SN from FWD deflections (Equa-
tion 2) has variables such as SIP and Hp (3). The authors considered
Methodology four additional variables, including the zero deflection point (r0) and
three FWD deflection basin parameters (SCI, BDI, and BCI) to take
Reduction of NETFWD Data into account the depth to a rigid layer.
The SIP plays a critical role in evaluating the SN with Rohde’s
A reduced set of data from the original NETFWD database was approach. To obtain the SIP, the surface deflection at the offset of
used because dealing with a large database causes difficulties such 1.5 Hp has to be interpolated by using the other known deflections.
as regression, interpolation, and other calculation-based errors. A Rohde’s study proposed use of the Lagrange polynomial interpolation
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet accommodates approximately 1 mil- with n = 3, as follows (3):
lion rows, which provides a target number for reduction of the data
set. Therefore, the original data set was divided into four data sets ( Rx − RB )( Rx − RC ) ( R + RA )( Rx − RC )
Dx = DA + x DB
according to PMIS pavement type. The data set was further reduced ( RA − RB ) ( RA − RC ) ( RB − RA ) ( RB − RC )
by omitting rare or uncommon cases of pavement structural com-
( Rx − RA )( Rx − RB )
binations in Texas. Because the developer of the NETFWD data- + DC (8)
base considered extreme cases to meet all possible future situations, ( RC − RA )( RC − RB )
some rare combinations were generated that do not represent typi-
cal pavement structures in Texas. In addition, the intervals of layer where
thickness and modulus were expanded to avoid redundant calcu- Dx = deflection at offset of Rx;
lations. As a result of this procedure, the data extracted from the Di = deflection at sensor i;
original NETFWD data were reduced to the totals shown in Table 3. Ri = offset of sensor i;
In total, 1,194,514 combinations—a figure that provides sufficient i = A, B, C, being three closest sensors to point x; and
pavement structures for evaluation—were prepared for this study. x = point for which deflection is determined.

TABLE 3   Reduced NETFWD Data

Surface Base Subgrade

Number of
PMIS Class Structures Thickness (in.) Modulus (ksi) Thickness (in.) Modulus (ksi) Thickness (in.) Modulus (ksi)

Type 4 567,159 6–12 20–1,250 4–18 15–500 60–720 4–45

Type 5 390,663 2.5–5.5 50–1,250 6–18 10–500 60–720 4–45
Type 6 161,188 1.5–2 50–1,250 4–18  5–500 60–720 4–45
Type 10 75,504 1–2 50–150 4–18  4–500 60–720 4–45

Note: 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa.

124 Transportation Research Record 2366

Deflection (mils)

W0
100

80

60

40

Interpolating Point
20 W12
W24
0 Sensor Offset (in.)
5 10 15 20 25 30

−20

FIGURE 4   Example of wrong interpolation of FWD deflection basin.

The authors noticed that, in some cases, the suggested interpolation
method yielded unrealistic values, such as negative deflection. Fig-
ure 4, for example, shows one of the cases in which the interpolated
value was negative in the FWD deflection versus the offset plot.
Because of this observation, the linear interpolation was used in
the evaluation of the SIP, which should always have an adequate
approximation.
The zero deflection point r0 can be obtained by comparing the
FWD deflection to the inverse of the offset plot and finding the inter-
cept by extrapolating the steepest section. As shown in Figure 3,
the value of r0 decreases proportionally to the depth to a rigid layer.
Thus, r0 can be a useful variable in calculating the depth to a rigid
layer. The three FWD deflection basin parameters were used as
variables because Rohde’s equations for estimating the depth to a
rigid layer (Equations 4 through 7) used those three variables, and he
found a good correlation between the depth to a rigid layer and the
FWD deflection basin parameters.
Development of New Equation
where
SN = structural number (in.),
SIP = D0 − D1.5Hp (mils),
Hp = total pavement thickness (in.), and
k1, k2, k3, k4, k5, k6, k7, k8 = coefficients.
The coefficients for the relationship are given in Table 4.
Figure 5 demonstrates the effect of using the NETFWD data and
the new equation (Equation 9). For each of the four PMIS pavement
classifications, the figure compares the results from three different
approaches:
Approach 1 (left graph). Correlation between the SN calculated
from Rohde’s equation (Equation 2) with its original coefficients
and the SN calculated from the AASHTO equation (Equation 3).
Approach 2 (middle graph). Correlation between the SN calcu-
lated from Equation 2 with the modified coefficients calibrated by
NETFWD and the SN calculated from Equation 3.
Approach 3 (right graph). Correlation between the SN derived from
the new equation (Equation 9) and the SN calculated from Equation 3.

With the determined variables, several equation formats were cho-
sen as candidates. After several trials to determine the appropriate
form of equation among the candidates, the authors found a non-
linear regression equation with eight coefficients for each PMIS
pavement type.
SN = k1SIP k2 Hp k3 + k4 (1 + r0 ) 5 + k6SCI k7 BDI k8
k
(9)
For Type 10 (surface treatment pavement), Approach 1 shows that
Rohde’s equation (Equation 2) generally underestimates the SN. In
contrast, Approach 2 clearly corrects such underestimation by adopt-
ing the calibrated coefficients, as shown in Table 5. Moreover, the
deviation of Approach 3 is visibly smaller than that of Approaches
1 and 2. This result becomes clearer when values of the coefficient
of determination in Tables 4 and 5 are compared. In Approach 3,

TABLE 4   Coefficients for Equation 9

PMIS Class k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 k6 k7 k8 r2

Type 4 1.5136 −0.1749 0.5718 −1.7876 1.9035 1.2479 0.1411 −0.8383 .960
Type 5 0.9712 −0.3129 0.7521 −0.3422 2.9334 0.0657 0.8854 −2.5504 .970
Type 6 0.2797 −0.3770 1.1606 −0.0149 3.4038 1.2251 −0.8397 0.6901 .989
Type 10 0.2296 −0.4112 1.2626  0.1629 0.7919 1.5146 −1.4247 1.0960 .988
 (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

FIGURE 5   Comparison of results obtained from three approaches for four types of pavement: (a) Type 10, (b) Type 6,
(c) Type 5, and (d) Type 4.
126
TABLE 5   New Coefficients for Rohde’s Equation
Original Coefficient
PMIS Class k1 k2 k3
Type 4 0.4728 −0.4810 0.7581
Type 5 0.4728 −0.4810 0.7581
Type 6 0.4728 −0.4810 0.7581
Type 10 0.1165 −0.3248 0.8241
the new equation provides the highest coefficient of determina-
tion. A tendency to increase the dispersion of estimated values as SN
increases is evident in the Approach 3 graph. However, in practice,
typical Type 10 pavement rarely has an SN value above 4. Thus,
such deviations are tolerable.
For Types 5 and 6—asphalt concrete pavements with a surface
thickness of between 2.5 in. and 5.5 in. (Type 5) and less than 2.5 in.
(Type 6)—the correlations seem fairly good for all approaches,
although the data points are more dispersed as the surface layer thick-
ness increases. Nonetheless, Approach 1 illustrates moderately good
correlation, Approach 2 shows a better relationship, and the new
method provides even better results in terms of dispersion. In other
words, the use of the NETFWD database increased the accuracy
of Rohde’s equation, and the use of the new equation together with
NETFWD resulted in significant improvement.
Type 4, the thickest pavement classification (>5.5 in.), shows
a very wide band of data. Rohde’s approach (Approach 1) shows
the worst relationship. Approach 2 also displays a wide and split
band, as does Approach 1. That tendency might result from a lack in
Rohde’s study of data on pavements with a surface thickness greater
than 8 in. The new method found a better relationship for this type
of pavement. However, this correlation should be used with care
because of its wide range.
All in all, the proposed new method provides improved results for
evaluating SN with FWD surface deflection data.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper described the improvement of a method for evaluating
pavement SN by using FWD deflections. The use of NETFWD, a
large database of hypothetical pavement structures, provided strong
theoretical correlation between the SN evaluated by the new method
and the SN from the AASHTO approach. By employing the concept
of the depth to a rigid layer, it was possible to improve the SN evalu-
ation method. Moreover, the new method provides coefficients for
four different PMIS pavement classifications as opposed to the orig-
inal approach (3), which has coefficients for two pavement types. In
this respect, the new method demonstrates significant improvement.
This improvement increases the accuracy of evaluation of the struc-
tural condition index and thus enhances the accuracy of identifying
structurally sound pavements and those that require treatment at the
network level.
Transportation Research Record 2366
New Coefficient
r2 k1 k2 k3 r2
.841 0.0875 −0.2926 0.8860 .890
.929 0.1361 −0.3719 0.8752 .962
.940 0.1070 −0.3715 0.9179 .980
.977 0.0811 −0.3994 0.9904 .980
The new equation proposed here can be used to determine a reason-
able SN value solely from FWD deflection data and total pavement
thickness; no other information is required. This effort not only ben-
efits the Texas DOT by allowing increased accuracy in implementing
the structural condition index, but also helps other agencies improve
their evaluation of the SN by FWD deflection at the network level.
Acknowledgment
This study was conducted as part of a research project sponsored by
the Texas Department of Transportation.
References
1. Zhang, Z., G. Claros, L. Manuel, and I. Damnjanovic. Development
of Structural Condition Index to Support Pavement Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Decisions at Network Level. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1827, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2003, pp. 10–17.
2. Peddibhotla, S. S. S., M. R. Murphy, and Z. Zhang. Validation and Imple-
mentation of the Structural Condition Index (SCI) for Network-level
Pavement Evaluation. FHWA/TX-11/5-4322-01-1. Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, 2010.
3. Rohde, G. T. Determining Pavement Structural Number from FWD Test-
ing. In Transportation Research Record 1448, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 61–68.
4. Irwin, L. H. User’s Guide to Modcomp2, Version 2.1. Local Roads Program,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1983.
5. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
1986.
6. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
1993.
7. Murphy, M. R. A Mechanistic-Empirical Approach to Characterizing
Subgrade Support and Pavement Structural Condition for Network-level
Applications. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, 1998.
8. Rohde, G. T., and R. E. Smith. Determining Depth to Apparent Stiff
Layer from FWD Data. Research Report FHWA/TX-91-1159-1. Texas
Department of Transportation, Austin, 1991.
9. Mahoney, J. P., B. C. Winters, N. C. Jackson, and L. M. Pierce. Some
Observations About Backcalculation and Use of a Stiff Layer Condi-
tion. In Transportation Research Record 1384, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 8–14.
The Pavement Management Systems Committee peer-reviewed this paper.