Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer
Data for Network-Level Flexible
Pavement Management
Amy L. Crook, Sharlan R. Montgomery, and W. Spencer Guthrie
The objectives of this research were to investigate spatial and temporal
falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing rates employed in network-
level pavement management by selected state departments of transporta-
tion (DOTs) and to recommend specific methods of FWD analysis that best
reflected actual pavement conditions. With funding from the Utah DOT, a
literature review and a telephone questionnaire survey were performed.
FWD data collected from Legacy Parkway and Long-Term Pavement Per-
formance Program Site 49-1001 were analyzed with models by Noureldin,
Hoffman, Jameson, COST (European Cooperation in Science and Tech-
nology), Rohde, and AASHTO, as well as with multiple-layer linear elastic
analysis (MLLEA), which was assumed to be the most accurate of the
methods evaluated in this study. In consideration of (a) the results of
two-way comparisons with the MLLEA method, (b) applicability to
situations in which pavement layer thicknesses are not known, and
(c) simplicity, the COST method is recommended for general imple-
mentation. To the extent that the data sets analyzed in this research
are representative of the Utah DOT pavement network, the COST
model should be modified according to the regression results developed
in this research to produce more accurate calculations of structural
number. Application of temperature corrections to FWD deflections is
recommended for structural pavement monitoring.
Pavement engineers and managers at transportation agencies
throughout the United States often base decisions concerning
maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction on current or
predicted pavement structural capacity, or on both. Collected data
are frequently analyzed within a pavement management system
(PMS), which is generally divided into network and project levels
(1, 2). The network level provides a large-scale view of the pave-
ment infrastructure and assists decision makers with the task of
identifying pavement sections that require maintenance, rehabilita-
tion, or reconstruction. Pavement sections identified at the network
level for this work are evaluated in greater detail at the project
level (1–3).
Structural pavement evaluation at the network level is commonly
used to evaluate in situ structural capacity or the ability of a pavement
A. L. Crook, Professional Service Industries, Inc., 2779 South 600 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84115. S. R. Montgomery and W. S. Guthrie, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602.
Corresponding author: W. S. Guthrie, guthrie@byu.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2304, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2012, pp. 75–85.
DOI: 10.3141/2304-09
75
to withstand traffic loads over its anticipated service life (4). Because
structural data may be collected and analyzed by using a variety of
different methods, many of which have been developed to meet
specific agency needs in different locales, numerous protocols and
numerical models are available. With a desire to include analyses of
structural capacity data at the network level, the Utah Department
of Transportation (DOT) personnel recognized the need for research
to identify an appropriate method or methods for analyzing falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) data, in particular. Utah DOT personnel
needed to know which method produced structural numbers (SNs)
that corresponded best to actual pavement condition for facilities
within the Utah DOT pavement network. In addition, the Utah DOT
engineers needed information about recommended spatial and
temporal FWD testing rates for use in network-level assessments.
Therefore, the objectives of this research were to investigate spatial
and temporal FWD testing rates employed in network-level pavement
management by other state DOTs and to recommend specific methods
of FWD analysis that best reflect actual pavement condition.
Literature Review and
Questionnaire Survey
The primary objective of the literature review was to identify methods
of analyzing FWD data, and telephone questionnaire surveys were
conducted of selected state DOTs for which publications on this
topic were found in the literature.
Methods of Analyzing Deflection Data
Because of the uncertainty about actual pavement layer thicknesses
for many pavement sections throughout the Utah DOT network,
three conditions of FWD data analysis were addressed in this
research: no layer thicknesses known, total pavement thickness
known, and all layer thicknesses known. Utah DOT personnel indi-
cated primary interest in computing the SN from FWD data as an
indication of pavement structural capacity; therefore, only meth-
ods designed to calculate the SN were included, as described in the
­following sections.
No Layer Thicknesses Known
Many transportation agencies have incomplete or inaccurate records
of pavement layer thicknesses and lack the resources necessary to
76 Transportation Research Record 2304

obtain this information for the purpose of network-level pavement The subgrade modulus of elasticity and effective SN are then
management (5). Therefore, methods that do not require knowledge calculated by using Equations 4 and 5, respectively:
of pavement layer thicknesses are needed.
In a study by Noureldin, a method was developed to determine p n
Esg = m i il (4)
the SN when the pavement thickness is unknown (6): D0
0

( 4r − 36 )
12
x
2
where
SN eff = (1)
17.234 ( rx i Dx )
13
Esg = subgrade modulus (MPa),
p= pressure on loading plate (kPa),
where D0 = deflection directly under center of loading plate (µm),
l0 = characteristic length (cm), and
SNeff = effective structural number, m, n = curve-fitting coefficients determined from Table 1.
rx = distance from center of loading plate (in.), and
Dx = deflection at distance rx (in.).
SN eff = 0.0182l0 i 3 Esg (5)
The premise of this method is that at a horizontal distance rx from
the center of the loading plate, a deflection Dx of the pavement Hoffman stated that because of the assumptions inherent in the
surface equals the deflection of a point located at the pavement– Hogg model, Equation 5 underpredicts the effective SN and should
subgrade interface directly under the center of the loading plate. be corrected according to Equation 6 (7):
The rx-Dx pair having the highest product is selected for use in the
calculations. SN eff,corrected = 2SN eff − 0.5 (6)
A second method for determining the SN when pavement thickness
is unknown is presented by Hoffman (7). This method uses the Hogg where SNeff,corrected is the SN corrected for the thin-slab assumption
deflection basin area from FWD testing to calculate an effective SN. inherent in the Hogg deflection basin area calculation, and SNeff is
Specific characteristics of the Hogg deflection basin are defined in the effective SN determined from Equation 5.
Equations 2 and 3: Two additional methods are available for calculating SN in the
absence of layer thickness information: Jameson introduced the
 D D D  model given as Equation 7 (G. W. Jameson, unpublished work,
area = 6  1 + 2 30 + 2 60 + 90  (2)
 D0 D0 D0  Nov. 1993), and the research group European Cooperation in Science
and Technology (COST) published a modified version of this equation
where (Equation 8) (8):
area = Hogg deflection basin area (in.),
 842.8   42.94 
D0 = deflection directly under center of loading plate (µm), SN = 1.69 +  −  (7)
D30 = deflection at radial distance of 30 cm from center of loading  D0,corr − D60   D36 
plate (µm),
D60 = deflection at radial distance of 60 cm from center of loading  813   39 
SN = 1.7 +  −  (8)
plate (µm), and  D0,corr − D60   D36 
D90 = deflection at radial distance of 90 cm from center of loading
plate (µm). where

iarea D0,corr = peak deflection normalized to standard 9,000-lbf FWD

l0 = A i e B (3) load and corrected for temperature (µm),
D36 = deflection at radial distance of 36 in. from center of
where ­loading plate (µm), and
l0 = characteristic length (cm); D60 = deflection at radial distance of 60 in. from center of
A and B = curve-fitting coefficients, determined from Table 1; ­loading plate (µm).
and As indicated in the equations, both of these methods are intended
area = Hogg deflection basin area (in.), determined from to utilize temperature corrections for the FWD peak deflection.
Equation 2. Although the publication in which the COST model was presented
indicates that the deflections are corrected on the basis of air tem-
perature, a specific approach for accomplishing the correction was
TABLE 1   Curve-Fitting Coefficients for Hoffman Model
not given (8). Use of the equations without temperature correction
Range of Area would provide a value for SN specific to the temperature at which
Values (in.) h/l0 A B m n the flexible pavement was tested.

23.0 ≤ area 5 3.275 0.1039 926.9 −0.8595

21.0 ≤ area < 23.0 10 3.691 0.0948 1,152.1 −0.8782 Total Pavement Thickness Known
19.0 ≤ area < 21.0 20 2.800 0.1044 1,277.6 −0.8867
Area < 19.0 40 2.371 0.1096 1,344.2 −0.8945 At some transportation agencies, the total thickness of the pavement
structure, or the thickness of all layers above the subgrade, can be
Note: h = depth to bedrock (cm). estimated even in the absence of thickness information for individual
Crook, Montgomery, and Guthrie 77

pavement layers. For this situation, two methods of computing SN developed specifically for untreated base and subbase materials,
were identified in this research. respectively (3):
Rohde presented a method to approximate SN by using the
structural index of a pavement (SIP) when total pavement thickness a2 = 0.249 ( log E B ) − 0.977 (12)
is known (9). The SIP compares the peak deflection D0 with a
deflection located at a distance of 1.5 times the total pavement where a2 is the structural coefficient for the base layer and EB is the
thickness Hp measured radially from the center of the loading plate.
base layer modulus determined from backcalculation in pounds per
This method is based on the “two-thirds rule” suggested by Irwin,
square inch.
which assumes that a deflection measured at a distance of 1.5Hp
from the center of the loading plate is due entirely to deflection in
the subgrade (9). The basis of this assumption is that 95% of the deflec- a3 = 0.227 ( log ES ) − 0.839 (13)
tion manifest at the surface originates below a line deviating from the
horizontal by 34 degrees. Equations 9 and 10 are used to calculate the where a3 is the structural coefficient for the subbase layer and ES is
SIP and SN, respectively (9): the subbase layer modulus determined from backcalculation in pounds
per square inch.
SIP = D0 − D1.5 Hp (9) If the drainage coefficients are also known, an SN can then be
calculated for the pavement system (3):
where
SIP = structural index of pavement (µm), SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2 m2 + a3 D3m3 (14)
D0 = peak deflection under standard 9,000-lbf FWD load (µm),
D1.5Hp = deflection at radial distance of 1.5Hp under standard where
9,000-lbf FWD load (µm), and a1 = structural coefficient for asphalt layer,
Hp = total thickness of all layers above subgrade (mm). D1 = thickness of asphalt layer (in.),
D2 = thickness of base layer (in.),
SN = k1 i SIP k2 i H pk3 (10) m2 = drainage coefficient for base layer,
D3 = thickness of subbase layer (in.), and
where m3 = drainage coefficient for subbase layer.
Hp = total thickness of all layers above subgrade (mm), When the asphalt layer thickness, in particular, is known, ASTM
k1 = 0.4728 for asphalt concrete or 0.1165 for surface seal, D 7228-06a (Standard Test Method for Prediction of Asphalt-Bound
k2 = −0.4810 for asphalt concrete or −0.3248 for surface seal,
Pavement Layer Temperatures), also known as the Bells3 method, can
and
be used to perform temperature corrections specific to calculation of
k3 = 0.7581 for asphalt concrete or 0.8241 for surface seal.
the asphalt modulus as described in Equations 15 through 18 (13):
Published by AASHTO (2), a second method for calculating effec-
tive SN values in situations in which only total pavement thickness Eac = 10 −1.7718
i log10 ( D0 − D12 )+ 0.8395 i log10 ( D12 − D24 )− 2.5124 i log10 ( t )+ 0.0756 t + 4.8888
(15)
is available is
where
SN eff = 0.0045 D i 3 E p (11)
Eac = asphalt modulus (ksi),
D12 = deflection at radial distance of 12 in. from center of loading
where D is the total thickness of all layers above subgrade (in.)
plate (mils),
and Ep is the combined effective modulus of all layers above
D24 = deflection at radial distance of 24 in. from center of loading
­subgrade (psi).
plate (mils), and
t = asphalt layer thickness (in.).
All Layer Thicknesses Known
Td = 0.95 + 0.892 i IR + [ log10 ( d ) − 1.25]
When all layer thicknesses are known, modulus values for each
individual pavement layer can be computed from FWD test results
i[ −0.448 i IR + 0.621 i (1day ) + 1.83 i sin ( hr 18 − 15.5)]
by using any one of a number of multiple-layer linear-elastic analysis + 0.042 i IR i sin ( hr − 13.5) 18 (16)
(MLLEA) backcalculation programs. Example backcalculation
programs include MODULUS (2), WESDEF (2), ELMOD (10), and where
BAKFAA (11). Common assumptions associated with these programs
include static loading, continuity and homogeneity of the individual Td = pavement temperature at depth d (°C),
layers, and elastic behavior of the materials (2). For backcalculations IR = infrared surface temperature (°C),
of modulus values for pavement systems with more than two layers, d = depth at which asphalt temperature is to be predicted
a unique solution may not exist, in which case engineering judgment (mm),
is required (12). 1day = average of minimum and maximum air temperatures for
Once modulus values are determined, AASHTO structural previous complete 24-h day before testing (°C), and
layer coefficients can be determined by using empirically derived hr18 = time of day in 24-h system but calculated with 18-h
charts or relationships such as Equations 12 and 13, which were temperature rise-and-fall cycle.
78
i ( Tref − Td ) i ( 5 9 )
ATAF = 10 −0.021 (17)
where
ATAF = asphalt temperature adjustment factor;
Tref = reference temperature (°F), assumed as 68°F in the Utah
DOT database; and
Td = middepth asphalt temperature determined from ASTM
D 7228-06a (°F).
Eac,corr = Eac i ATAF (18)
where
Eac,corr = asphalt modulus corrected for temperature (ksi),
Eac = asphalt modulus determined from Equation 15 (ksi),
and
ATAF = asphalt temperature adjustment factor determined from
Equation 17.
Management Practices in Selected States
The following sections consider spatial and temporal FWD test-
ing rates employed in network-level pavement management by the
selected state DOTs: Indiana, Kansas, Texas, and Virginia.
Indiana
A study performed in Indiana investigated the use of the FWD in
network-level pavement evaluation (10). FWD data were used to
estimate pavement layer thicknesses following the Noureldin method
and were compared with actual thicknesses determined from limited
core sampling. FWD calculations generally underestimated the thick-
ness of the combined surface layers; however, the error was deemed
small enough that pavement thickness calculations with FWD data
were acceptable for network-level pavement management (10). The
authors also determined that testing 2,200 lane-mi annually with
three FWD tests per mile would be sufficient sampling from a statistics
perspective and would allow testing of the whole Indiana network
over a 5-year period. In addition, the authors recommended that
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data be collected every 5 years
as needed after an accurate inventory of pavement thicknesses was
established.
As of December 2008, Indiana DOT personnel reported using FWD
testing at the project level but not at the network level; network-level
FWD testing was practiced for a few years but was discontinued
because of increasing demand for project-level FWD testing. Also,
as an alternative to computing SN, modulus, or both, from FWD
deflection data, Indiana DOT personnel developed a rating system
based strictly on deflection data. The Indiana DOT performs FWD
testing at the project level from late April through November to deter-
mine SN, subgrade modulus, and remaining pavement life. Testing
is performed between the wheelpaths at 1-mi intervals along a given
project, with one 9,000-lbf drop applied at each location. For FWD
analysis, ELMOD is used in conjunction with in-house software
that solves the AASHTO remaining-life algorithm. GPR is used at
the project level to determine pavement layer thicknesses, generally
Transportation Research Record 2304
with sub-inch accuracy (T. Nantung, personal communication,
Indiana DOT, Dec. 9, 2008).
Kansas
A study performed in Kansas investigated the minimum FWD
spatial and temporal testing rates required for accurately assessing
pavement structural capacity for evaluation in the Kansas DOT
network-level PMS (14). For this study, FWD testing was performed
annually at 10 locations per mile. In accordance with AASHTO
recommendations (5), statistical limit-of-accuracy curves were
developed from these tests to determine the spatial and temporal
testing rates required for network-level pavement management. The
authors concluded that three FWD tests per mile would be sufficient
for network-level data collection and that performing FWD tests
on intervals as long as 3 years would be acceptable for pavements
similar to those tested in the study (14).
Kansas DOT personnel contacted in this research indicated that
FWD testing is performed in Kansas between the months of May
and October. Over the 8 years before 2008, Kansas DOT personnel
used the FWD to develop a network-level database of pavement
structural capacity, which they specifically use with pavement dete-
rioration models developed in-house to predict pavement distress
and estimate remaining service life. Kansas DOT personnel strate-
gically select locations for testing to populate their network-level
database with deflection data for a variety of pavement types and
traffic levels. In their testing, a sampling rate of every tenth of a
mile with three test drops per location is used (R. Miller, personal
communication, Kansas DOT, Oct. 22, 2008).
Texas
According to a Texas DOT technical advisory, network-level FWD
testing in Texas is performed mainly on farm-to-market roads,
although Interstates and state highways are tested in areas of con-
cern, such as those with high traffic volumes (15). Up to 25% of
the network is feasibly tested each year, so the entire network can
be evaluated as often as every 4 years. At the network level, data are
collected every half mile, although the results of a previous study
recommended increasing the testing rate to three FWD tests per mile
for network-level evaluation (5). At a given location, two FWD drops
are applied. The first drop is a seating load, and the second drop is a
9,000-lbf load for which data are recorded in the Texas DOT Pavement
Management Information System database. Though network-level
FWD collection is apparently optional for individual Texas DOT
districts, these data, when collected, are used to assess the structural
capacity of the pavement network and to determine whether specific
sections need rehabilitation of the subsurface or only preventive
maintenance, such as a surface treatment application (15). FWD data
are not reportedly used for project selection, however.
Texas DOT personnel contacted through the telephone question-
naire survey confirmed that network-level FWD testing is optional
and is primarily used to guide rehabilitation decisions. They indicated
that FWD testing is used much more extensively at the project level,
with testing performed every tenth of a mile, to support pavement
design activities, including forensic investigations and validation of
assumed design properties (D. Goehl and M. Mikhail, personal
communications, Texas DOT, Feb. 3, 2009).
Crook, Montgomery, and Guthrie 79

Virginia TABLE 2   Pavement Sections

The Virginia DOT supported a study to statistically determine the Pavement Layer Thickness (in.)
minimum FWD testing rate and minimum number of drop levels
Location OGSC HMA UTBC GB Total
per location required at a network level while maintaining testing
quality (16). The experimental testing consisted of 10 FWD testing Legacy Parkway
locations per mile with four drop levels per testing location and    500 S, NB off-ramp 1.0 6.0 7.0 16.0 30.0
two deflection basins per drop level (17). After analyzing the data,   500 S — 6.5 7.0 16.0 29.5
the researchers recommended that five locations per mile be tested,   1250 W — 6.5 7.0 16.0 29.5
  Center Street– — 4.5 5.0 8.0 17.5
with three drop levels per test location and two deflection basins per     Frontage Road
drop level (16).   Parrish Lane — 6.5 7.0 16.0 29.5
As of October 2008, Virginia DOT personnel reported 18 months   Redwood Road 1.0 6.5 7.0 16.0 30.5
of FWD use for network-level testing but expressed uncertainty    Parrish Lane, NB 1.0 6.0 7.0 16.0 30.0
    on-ramp
about long-term continuation of the program. In Virginia, FWD    Legacy, NB ramp 1.0 7.0 10.0 19.0 37.0
data are used at the network level for pavement assessment in     to I-15
connection with ride-quality measurements and video imaging to    Legacy, NB main line 1.0 7.5 10.0 19.0 37.5
identify pavement sections in need of rehabilitation. At the project LTPP site — 5.1 5.8 — 10.9
level, FWD data are typically supplemented with pavement coring
or GPR data to determine pavement layer thicknesses. The Virginia Note: — = given layer not present in pavement structure at given location.
OGSC = open-graded surface course; HMA = hot-mix asphalt; UTBC = untreated
DOT uses the MODTAG analysis program (18) to analyze FWD base course; GB = granular borrow; W = west; S = south; NB = northbound.
data (A. Babish and B. Saha, personal communications, Virginia DOT,
Oct. 17, 2008).
To analyze the Legacy Parkway and LTPP site data, the researchers
developed a spreadsheet to compute SN by using the Noureldin,
Procedures Hoffman, Jameson, COST, Rohde, AASHTO, and MLLEA methods.
Specific to the Rohde model, the coefficients for asphalt concrete
In this section the procedures are described that were utilized in this were selected for use in the calculations, and linear interpolation was
research to evaluate the various methods of FWD data analysis utilized to determine deflections at radial distances of 1.5Hp from
presented in the literature review. the center of the loading plate as required for computation of the
SIP and in turn the SN. To implement the AASHTO and MLLEA
methods, the researchers used a backcalculation program called
Data Preparation BAKFAA (11). For the AASHTO method, the pavement system was
modeled by two layers, and in the MLLEA method the pavement
FWD data from Legacy Parkway (State Route 67) and Long-Term system was modeled according to the actual number of layers present
Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program Site 49-1001 (U.S. High- in the structure. For both methods, a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 and
way 191 near Bluff, Utah) were evaluated in this research. The data an interface condition of full bonding were assumed for all layers.
from Legacy Parkway were collected by Utah DOT personnel from In the MLLEA method, the drainage coefficients were assumed to
nine different locations between Salt Lake City and Centerville, Utah, be 1.0 in all SN computations.
on September 11, 2008, with individual test sites at a given location
spaced between approximately 20 ft and 1 mi apart. Data included
deflections at radial distances of 0, 8, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 60 in.; pave- Data Analysis
ment layer thicknesses; pavement surface temperatures; and previous-
day air temperatures. For LTPP Site 49-1001, data collected during The SN values produced by a given method for both Legacy Parkway
1993 and 1994 at a station 100 ft from the beginning of the LTPP lane and the LTPP site were plotted against those produced by the MLLEA
were evaluated. Along with deflection data, the date and time of test- method, which was assumed to be the most accurate of the methods
ing and pavement surface and previous-day air temperatures were evaluated because it is informed by the most complete pavement
obtained from the DataPave website. Table 2 provides a summary information. In addition, linear regression of the form y = m • x + b
of the pavement layer types, including open-graded surface course, was utilized to characterize the relationship between the two sets of
hot-mix asphalt, untreated base course, and granular borrow, as well results in each plot, and the slope m, intercept b, p-value, R2-value,
as corresponding thicknesses. and standard deviation, SD, about the regression line were all
These data sets were selected for three reasons. First, both data recorded.
sets included known pavement layer thicknesses that were needed
to compare SN values using all of the methods described in the
literature review. Second, a wide range of SN values was ideal for Results
the analysis; the LTPP site provided relatively low values, and Legacy
Parkway provided high values. Third, both data sets included FWD Data Preparation
drop loads below and above a target 9,000-lbf load; for use in this
research, the FWD deflections were normalized to a 9,000-lbf drop Table 3 gives the SN values computed for each deflection basin with
load through linear interpolation between the deflections measured each of the models included in this study. Temperature corrections
at drop loads below and above the 9,000-lbf target. The FWD plate were not applied, so the computed SN is specific to the temperature
radius was consistently 5.91 in. at which the pavement was tested.
80 Transportation Research Record 2304

TABLE 3   Calculated SNs for Legacy Parkway and LTPP Site

Location Test Date Noureldin Hoffman Jameson COST Rohde AASHTO MLLEA

Legacy, 500 S, 1 9/11/2008 13.91 4.36 5.12 5.04 5.81 6.83 8.32
NB off-ramp 2 9/11/2008 13.52 4.81 5.06 4.97 5.58 6.82 8.45
3 9/11/2008 7.66 4.54 4.40 4.34 5.07 6.44 7.91
4 9/11/2008 13.38 5.00 5.60 5.50 5.97 7.17 9.11
5 9/11/2008 12.87 4.34 4.49 4.42 5.12 6.41 7.70
6 9/11/2008 12.77 4.04 4.41 4.35 5.04 6.32 7.59
Legacy, 500 S 1 9/11/2008 17.15 4.66 8.32 8.16 7.65 8.18 10.44
2 9/11/2008 16.29 3.94 6.01 5.91 6.30 7.18 8.84
3 9/11/2008 15.75 4.09 5.89 5.80 6.16 7.14 8.84
4 9/11/2008 15.65 4.21 5.81 5.72 6.12 7.10 8.89
5 9/11/2008 15.30 4.26 5.64 5.56 5.99 7.00 8.79
6 9/11/2008 15.44 4.27 5.93 5.84 6.18 7.15 8.81
7 9/11/2008 16.04 4.31 6.17 6.07 6.39 7.31 9.17
Legacy, 1250 W 1 9/11/2008 8.68 4.70 5.30 5.21 5.80 6.91 7.97
2 9/11/2008 14.33 4.85 5.56 5.46 5.95 7.06 8.93
3 9/11/2008 8.46 5.59 5.64 5.54 6.02 7.17 9.13
4 9/11/2008 8.63 4.96 5.66 5.56 6.03 7.12 9.07
5 9/11/2008 14.73 4.16 5.14 5.06 5.66 6.74 8.23
Legacy, Center Street– 1 9/11/2008 11.41 2.79 3.06 3.04 2.73 3.17 3.71
  Frontage Road 2 9/11/2008 11.92 2.95 3.33 3.30 2.96 3.34 4.02
3 9/11/2008 4.72 2.85 3.16 3.13 2.81 3.23 3.83
4 9/11/2008 11.70 2.55 3.07 3.05 2.70 3.12 3.63
5 9/11/2008 4.55 2.81 3.00 2.98 2.68 3.13 1.98
Legacy, Parrish Lane 1 9/11/2008 15.18 4.84 6.19 6.08 6.38 7.38 9.33
2 9/11/2008 9.18 4.90 6.05 5.94 6.33 7.34 9.33
3 9/11/2008 15.27 5.30 6.83 6.69 6.82 7.72 9.95
4 9/11/2008 9.39 4.58 6.00 5.90 6.30 7.26 9.17
5 9/11/2008 9.04 4.57 5.65 5.55 6.05 7.10 8.95
Legacy, Redwood Road 1 9/11/2008 6.10 4.40 5.28 5.20 5.91 7.09 8.61
2 9/11/2008 5.51 4.38 4.49 4.43 5.25 6.61 7.76
3 9/11/2008 5.36 4.26 4.22 4.17 5.02 6.41 7.50
4 9/11/2008 5.22 4.42 4.27 4.22 5.04 6.47 7.62
5 9/11/2008 14.90 4.84 5.88 5.78 6.27 7.45 9.15
Legacy, Parrish Lane, 1 9/11/2008 15.60 5.61 8.97 8.77 8.03 8.67 11.10
NB on-ramp 2 9/11/2008 16.26 4.63 7.59 7.45 7.30 8.03 10.05
3 9/11/2008 9.38 4.39 5.77 5.67 6.22 7.25 8.91
4 9/11/2008 5.87 4.46 5.10 5.03 5.69 6.89 8.47
5 9/11/2008 14.38 4.62 5.17 5.09 5.70 6.95 8.57
Legacy, NB ramp to I-15 1 9/11/2008 6.48 4.10 5.53 5.44 6.96 8.67 10.41
2 9/11/2008 15.52 4.43 5.68 5.59 6.99 8.73 10.52
3 9/11/2008 15.42 4.37 5.71 5.61 7.01 8.74 10.64
4 9/11/2008 15.15 4.36 5.88 5.78 7.13 8.79 10.66
5 9/11/2008 17.12 4.33 6.70 6.58 7.87 9.38 11.55
Legacy, NB main line 1 9/11/2008 18.63 3.81 7.10 7.00 8.47 9.69 11.89
2 9/11/2008 17.68 4.19 7.38 7.26 8.51 9.82 11.91
3 9/11/2008 16.97 4.10 7.05 6.94 8.22 9.60 11.79
4 9/11/2008 15.88 5.10 7.33 7.18 8.25 9.87 12.05
5 9/11/2008 15.78 5.09 7.33 7.18 8.24 9.84 12.03
6 9/11/2008 17.45 4.82 8.01 7.86 8.82 10.18 12.60
LTPP site 1 8/5/1993 5.10 3.67 3.78 3.74 2.87 2.69 3.55
2 8/6/1993 5.09 3.64 3.76 3.72 2.84 2.67 3.54
3 8/6/1993 5.06 3.41 3.59 3.56 2.71 2.57 3.31
4 8/6/1993 3.77 2.98 3.36 3.33 2.48 2.39 2.93
5 8/6/1993 5.05 2.64 3.17 3.15 2.28 2.24 2.53
6 11/4/1993 7.23 5.19 4.18 4.12 3.47 3.10 3.82
7 11/4/1993 7.22 4.89 4.02 3.96 3.27 2.98 3.86
8 12/2/1993 4.77 5.12 4.13 4.07 3.37 3.08 3.88
9 12/2/1993 7.21 4.91 4.04 3.98 3.30 3.01 3.90
10 12/2/1993 7.16 5.00 4.07 4.01 3.29 3.03 3.90
11 12/2/1993 7.13 5.13 4.09 4.03 3.42 3.07 3.87
12 1/14/1994 7.11 4.74 3.89 3.84 3.17 2.92 3.82
13 1/14/1994 7.13 4.65 3.84 3.79 3.11 2.88 3.77
14 1/14/1994 7.14 4.26 3.80 3.75 3.06 2.85 3.81
15 1/14/1994 7.16 4.57 3.84 3.79 3.10 2.87 3.72
16 2/11/1994 7.21 5.01 4.09 4.03 3.32 3.04 3.91
17 2/11/1994 7.12 4.70 3.96 3.91 3.15 2.93 3.91
(continued)
Crook, Montgomery, and Guthrie 81

TABLE 3 (continued)  Calculated SNs for Legacy Parkway and LTPP Site

Location Test Date Noureldin Hoffman Jameson COST Rohde AASHTO MLLEA

LTPP site 18 2/11/1994 7.20 4.87 4.03 3.98 3.24 2.99 3.89
19 2/11/1994 4.76 4.56 3.83 3.78 3.06 2.86 3.84
20 2/11/1994 4.78 4.66 3.91 3.86 3.12 2.90 3.86
21 3/11/1994 4.81 3.83 3.64 3.60 2.84 2.89 3.84
22 3/11/1994 4.83 4.00 3.75 3.70 2.93 2.75 3.74
23 3/25/1994 7.28 4.79 3.99 3.94 3.22 2.69 3.60
24 3/25/1994 4.84 3.92 3.72 3.67 2.90 2.76 3.76
25 3/25/1994 4.82 3.63 3.53 3.50 2.74 2.95 3.84
26 3/25/1994 4.79 3.57 3.47 3.44 2.70 2.73 3.75
27 3/25/1994 4.81 3.61 3.53 3.49 2.73 2.61 3.42
28 4/8/1994 7.40 4.77 4.08 4.02 3.23 2.58 3.39
29 4/8/1994 7.34 4.32 3.94 3.89 3.11 2.61 3.40
30 4/8/1994 4.86 3.88 3.71 3.66 2.90 2.97 3.93
31 4/8/1994 4.83 3.95 3.71 3.67 2.91 2.89 3.94
32 4/28/1994 4.83 4.63 3.90 3.85 3.13 2.72 3.72
33 4/28/1994 4.81 3.88 3.64 3.60 2.87 2.74 3.74
34 4/28/1994 4.77 3.62 3.48 3.45 2.71 2.89 3.83
35 4/28/1994 4.81 3.47 3.45 3.42 2.67 2.70 3.69
36 6/17/1994 12.17 3.29 3.58 3.55 2.63 2.59 3.38
37 6/17/1994 12.21 2.91 3.35 3.32 2.42 2.55 3.30
38 6/17/1994 12.08 2.63 3.17 3.15 2.26 2.53 3.10
39 6/17/1994 12.03 2.44 3.09 3.07 2.16 2.36 2.79
40 7/15/1994 12.23 3.11 3.50 3.47 2.54 2.23 2.52
41 7/15/1994 12.17 2.69 3.24 3.22 2.31 2.15 2.27
42 7/15/1994 12.17 2.77 3.30 3.27 2.35 2.46 3.02
43 7/15/1994 12.12 2.29 3.01 3.00 2.10 2.27 2.58
44 7/15/1994 12.14 2.43 3.11 3.09 2.17 2.31 2.65
45 9/9/1994 11.90 3.13 3.42 3.39 2.51 2.09 2.25
46 9/9/1994 11.81 2.94 3.31 3.28 2.39 2.16 2.26
47 9/9/1994 12.00 2.75 3.19 3.17 2.29 2.44 2.97
48 9/9/1994 11.80 2.80 3.27 3.25 2.34 2.35 2.86
49 10/20/1994 11.66 5.10 4.38 4.31 3.41 2.27 2.63
50 10/20/1994 11.61 4.05 3.90 3.85 2.98 2.30 2.72
51 11/8/1994 11.63 4.92 4.21 4.15 3.29 3.11 4.09
52 11/8/1994 11.45 4.77 4.17 4.11 3.20 2.80 3.79
53 11/8/1994 11.68 4.26 3.98 3.93 3.08 3.03 3.92
54 11/8/1994 11.65 4.68 4.09 4.04 3.15 2.98 3.99
55 12/1/1994 11.21 5.24 4.39 4.32 3.46 2.88 3.89
56 12/1/1994 11.41 4.99 4.33 4.26 3.35 2.94 3.97

Data Analysis
Figure 1 displays comparisons of SN values produced by a given
method and those produced by the MLLEA method for both the
Legacy Parkway and LTPP site data. The line of equality included
in each plot allows visual comparison.
The Noureldin method greatly overestimates SN across a wide
range of SN values; these instances usually occurred in this research
when the greatest rx-Dx product occurred at the sensor farthest from the
load plate. The Hoffman method greatly underestimates SN at values
above 6, whereas the Jameson, COST, Rohde, and AASHTO methods
exhibit comparably less deviation from the MLLEA SN values.
Table 4 presents the results of statistical analyses performed for
each regression, including the slope, intercept, p-value, R2-value, and
standard deviation about the regression line. For a perfect correlation,
the slope and intercept would be equal to 1.0 and 0.0, respectively.
Although both the Noureldin and AASHTO methods have slopes
close to 1.0, only the AASHTO method has an intercept near 0.0; all
of the other methods exhibit a consistent bias relative to the MLLEA
method. All of the methods have p-values less than or equal to the
standard error rate of 0.05 commonly used in statistical analyses;
therefore, sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the slope in
each regression model is nonzero. The R2-value, which explains the
fraction of variability in the dependent variable that can be explained
by variability in the independent variable, is highest for the Jameson,
COST, Rohde, and AASHTO methods, and the lowest standard
deviations are associated with the Rohde and AASHTO methods.
For the situation in which total pavement thickness is known,
both the Rohde and AASHTO models would be satisfactory given
the low p-values, high R2-values, and low standard deviations
associated with these models. However, although the AASHTO
model requires backcalculation work, the Rohde model requires
only simple calculations that could be readily programmed into a
pavement management database. Therefore, use of the Rohde model
may be a more cost-efficient approach for agencies operating a
network-level PMS.
For the situation in which no layer thicknesses are known, the
Jameson and COST models are clearly superior to the Noureldin and
Hoffman models because of the comparatively higher R2-values and
lower standard deviations associated with the former models. Although
differences between the Jameson and COST models are minimal,
the COST model exhibits a slightly higher R2-value and a lower
standard deviation than the Jameson model. Therefore, the COST
model may be preferred by pavement managers.
Overall, because many transportation agencies have incomplete
or inaccurate records of pavement layer thicknesses and lack the
82 Transportation Research Record 2304

20

18

16

14

Noureldin SN
12

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MLLEA SN
(a)

16

14

12

10
Hoffman SN

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
MLLEA SN
(b)

16

14

12

10
Jameson SN

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
MLLEA SN
(c)

FIGURE 1   Model comparisons: (a) Noureldin SN versus MLLEA SN, (b) Hoffman
SN versus MLLEA SN, and (c) Jameson SN versus MLLEA SN.
(continued)
Crook, Montgomery, and Guthrie 83

16

14

12

10

COST SN
8

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
MLLEA SN
(d)

16

14

12

10
Rohde SN

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
MLLEA SN
(e)

16

14

12

10
AASHTO SN

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
MLLEA SN
(f)

FIGURE 1 (continued)   Model comparisons: (d) COST SN versus MLLEA SN,

(e) Rohde SN versus MLLEA SN, and (f) AASHTO SN versus MLLEA SN.
84 Transportation Research Record 2304

TABLE 4   Statistical Analysis Results 5

COST SN Without Temperature

Method m b p-Value R2 SD
4
Noureldin 0.822 5.246 .000 .369 3.389
Hoffman 0.122 3.429 .000 .224 0.716

Correction
Jameson 0.399 2.240 .000 .856 0.517
3
COST 0.389 2.236 .000 .857 0.502
Rohde 0.611 0.739 .000 .980 0.278 2
AASHTO 0.813 −0.049 .000 .991 0.241

resources necessary to obtain this information, implementation of the 0

COST model is recommended in this research for general application Jun-93 Oct-93 Jan-94 Apr-94 Aug-94 Nov-94
to network-level evaluation of flexible pavements. The COST model Date
requires no knowledge of pavement layer thicknesses and is com- (a)
paratively simple; a single calculation involving three normalized
deflections gives the SN value directly.
5

COST SN With Temperature Correction

If the MLLEA method is assumed to be the most accurate of the
methods evaluated in this study and the data sets analyzed in this
research are reasonably representative of the Utah DOT pavement 4
network, the COST model as given in Equation 8 should be modified
according to the regression results shown in Table 4 to produce more
accurate SN values as reflected in Equation 19: 3

 813   39 
1.7 +  − − 2 .2 36
 D0,corr − D60   D36 
SN = (19)
0.389
where
D0,corr = peak deflection normalized to standard 9,000-lbf FWD
load and corrected for temperature (µm),
D36 = deflection at radial distance of 36 in. from center of
­loading plate (µm), and
D60 = deflection at radial distance of 60 in. from center of
­loading plate (µm).
Where possible, temperature correction is recommended when
the calculated SN values will be used in pavement design or for evalu-
ating pavement condition over time, or both (18). Figure 2 demon-
strates the usefulness of temperature correction as applied to the
LTPP site data analyzed in this research by using the COST method;
in this case, the Bells3 method was utilized, with temperature cor-
rection to 68°F being performed according to ASTM D 7228-06a.
Figure 2a clearly shows the effects of freezing, with higher SN val-
ues observed during fall and winter than during spring and summer,
whereas these effects are not apparent in Figure 2b. When the data
required to apply temperature corrections cannot be collected, pave-
ment managers must apply judgment in interpreting SN values for
use in pavement design, structural monitoring, or both.
Conclusion
The results of the literature review and telephone questionnaire
surveys indicated that for network-level evaluations, one to three
FWD tests are commonly performed every mile, with repeated testing
performed once every 3 to 5 years during the months of April or May
to October or November, depending on the agency. To supplement
the FWD data, some agencies perform additional tests such as coring
2
1
0
Jun-93 Oct-93 Jan-94 Apr-94 Aug-94 Nov-94
Date
(b)
FIGURE 2   Temporal trends in COST SN: (a) without temperature
correction and (b) with temperature correction.
and GPR surveying to acquire pavement thickness data required in
specific SN models.
Because of the uncertainty about actual pavement layer thicknesses
for many pavement sections throughout the Utah DOT network, three
conditions of FWD data analysis were addressed in this research for
computing the SN. For conditions in which no layer thicknesses are
known, the Noureldin, Hoffman, Jameson, and COST models are
available. When total pavement thickness is known, the Rohde and
AASHTO models are available, and when all layer thicknesses are
known, MLLEA models may be used.
For the situation in which total pavement thickness is known,
the Rohde model is recommended as a cost-efficient approach for
agencies operating a network-level PMS. For the situation in which
no layer thicknesses are known, the COST model may be preferred by
pavement managers. Overall, because many transportation agencies
have incomplete or inaccurate records of pavement layer thicknesses
and lack the resources necessary to obtain this information, imple-
mentation of the COST model is recommended in this research for
general application to network-level evaluation of flexible pave-
ments. The COST model requires no knowledge of pavement layer
thicknesses, thus requiring no GPR surveying or coring, and is
Crook, Montgomery, and Guthrie
comparatively simple; a single calculation involving three normalized
deflections gives the SN value directly. To the extent that the data sets
analyzed in this research are representative of the Utah DOT pave-
ment network, the COST model should be modified according to
the regression results developed in this research to produce more
accurate SN values for use by Utah DOT personnel.
Temporal trends in SN values for the LTPP site demonstrate the
variability associated with FWD deflections obtained in different
seasons and the benefit of applying temperature corrections, which
is recommended when the calculated SN values will be used in
pavement design or for evaluating pavement condition over time.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the Utah DOT for funding this research.
References
1. Pavement Preservation: Integrating Pavement Preservation Practices
and Pavement Management. NHI Course No. 131104. Publication FHWA-
NHI-04-050. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Dec. 2003.
2. Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2004.
3. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1986.
4. Zaghloul, S., Z. Ahmed, D. J. Swan, A. A. Jumikis, and N. Vitillo. Falling
Weight Deflectometer Correlation. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1905, Transporta-
tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2005,
pp. 90–96.
5. Damnjanovic, I., and Z. Zhang. Determination of Required Falling
Weight Deflectometer Testing Frequency for Pavement Structural Eval-
uation at the Network Level. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Vol. 132, No. 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 76–85.
6. Noureldin, A. S. New Scenario for Backcalculation of Layer Moduli of
Flexible Pavements. In Transportation Research Record 1384, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 23–28.
7. Hoffman, M. S. Direct Method for Evaluating Structural Needs of
Flexible Pavements with Falling-Weight Deflectometer Deflections.
85
In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1860, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 41–47.
8. COST 336: Falling Weight Deflectometer. Information Gathering Report,
Task Group 2—FWD at Network Level. Final Draft Report. March
1998. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/cost-transport/docs/336-rep.doc.
Accessed Sept. 7, 2009.
9. Rohde, G. T. Determining Pavement Structural Number from FWD
Testing. In Transportation Research Record 1448, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 61–68.
10. Noureldin, A. S., K. Zhu, S. Li, and D. Harris. Network Pavement Eval-
uation with Falling-Weight Deflectometer and Ground-Penetrating
Radar. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1860, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 90–99.
11. BAKFAA: Computer Program for Backcalculation of Airport Pavement
Properties. FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation. http://www.airtech.
tc.faa.gov/naptf/download/Readme.htm. Accessed Aug. 19, 2008.
12. Ullidtz, P. Modelling Flexible Pavement Response and Performance.
Polyteknisk Forlag, Lyngby, Denmark, 1998.
13. Long Term Pavement Performance. FHWA, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/ltpp/fwdcd/toc.htm. Accessed
Sept. 7, 2009.
14. Hossain, M., T. Chowdhury, S. Chitrapu, and A. J. Gisi. Network-Level
Pavement Deflection Testing and Structural Evaluation. Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 28, No. 3, May 2000, pp. 199–206.
15. FAQs: Network-Level Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Data
Collection. Technical Advisory. Texas Department of Transportation,
Austin, Jan. 2009.
16. Alam, J., K. A. Galal, and B. K. Diefenderfer. Network-Level Falling
Weight Deflectometer Testing: Statistical Determination of Minimum
Testing Intervals and Number of Drop Levels on Virginia’s Interstate
System. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1990, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 111–118.
17. Galal, K., B. Diefenderfer, J. Alam, T. Tate, and M. Wells. FWD Deter-
mination of the In-Situ Subgrade Resilient Modulus and Effective Struc-
tural Number of Virginia’s Interstate Network. In Airfield and Highway
Pavements: Meeting Today’s Challenges with Emerging Technologies—
Proceedings of the Airfield and Highway Pavement Specialty Conference,
Atlanta, Ga., ASCE, New York, 2006, pp. 695–706.
18. MODTAG: The FWD Analysis Program, Version 4. Virginia Department
of Transportation, Richmond, Aug. 2007.
The Pavement Management Systems Committee peer-reviewed this paper.