Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Use of falling weight deflectometer data to

determine the effective structural number of full-
depth asphalt pavements for structural condition
assessment

Bongsuk Park, Seonghwan Cho, Reyhaneh Rahbar-Rastegar, Tommy E.

Nantung & John E. Haddock

To cite this article: Bongsuk Park, Seonghwan Cho, Reyhaneh Rahbar-Rastegar, Tommy
E. Nantung & John E. Haddock (2024) Use of falling weight deflectometer data to
determine the effective structural number of full-depth asphalt pavements for structural
condition assessment, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 25:2, 276-290, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2023.2200843

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2023.2200843

Published online: 19 Apr 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 157

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
2024, VOL. 25, NO. 2, 276–290
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2023.2200843

Use of falling weight deflectometer data to determine the

effective structural number of full-depth asphalt pavements for
structural condition assessment
Bongsuk Park a , Seonghwan Chob , Reyhaneh Rahbar-Rastegara , Tommy E. Nantungb and
John E. Haddocka
a Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; b Division of Research and
Development, Indiana Department of Transportation, West Lafayette, IN, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The effective structural number (SNeff ) determined from the falling weight Received 6 November 2021
deflectometer (FWD) has been widely used for pavement structural evalu- Accepted 4 April 2023
ations. In Indiana, the AASHTO 1993 method is currently used to determine KEYWORDS
SNeff , but it was found to be inaccurate for full-depth asphalt pavements. Full-Depth asphalt
Thus, this study developed an enhanced model to more accurately esti- pavement; structural
mate SNeff of full-depth asphalt pavements. The AASHTO 1993 method and number; falling weight
the Rohde model tend to overestimate the SNeff , and the Rohde model deflectometer; pavement
was calibrated using the FWD deflection thresholds. Since the calibrated management system
Rohde model requires an interpolation procedure sometimes resulting in
negative deflections, a more practical method was developed using an FWD
database generated by finite element analyses. New model provides SNeff
values nearly identical to the calibrated Rohde model without the problem
of negative deflections. Therefore, this enhanced SNeff prediction model is
recommended for evaluating the structural conditions of full-depth asphalt
pavements.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background and objectives
The concept of a pavement structural number was originally developed by the American Association of
State Highway Officials (AASHO) for use in flexible pavement design, with the effective structural num-
ber (SNeff ) representing the structural strength of an existing pavement (AASHTO, 1993). The SNeff has
been widely used to evaluate in-service pavement structural conditions for network-level pavement
management systems (PMS), since the SNeff is sensitive to pavement distresses (M. Y. Kim et al., 2013;
Zhang et al., 2003). Many structural indices have been developed using the SNeff , the most common
index being the structural number ratio (SNR, also known as the structural condition index), defined as
the ratio of the SNeff and the required structural number (SNreq ) (Abd El-Raof et al., 2020; Rohde, 1994).
Zhang et al. (2003) found that the SNeff provides a reasonable estimation of current pavement struc-
tural condition and concluded the structural condition index (same as the SNR) can easily determine
the degree of pavement structural deficiency. In New Jersey, the SNR was used to calculate the struc-
tural adequacy index (SAI) to prioritise the need for pavement maintenance (Zaghloul et al., 2004).
In addition, Bryce et al. (2013a) employed the SNR concept to develop, and successfully apply, the
modified structural index (MSI) to predict the structural adequacy of in-service asphalt pavements

CONTACT Seonghwan Cho scho@indot.in.gov

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 277

for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) PMS. As indicated by these previous studies,
the SNR concept is a reliable approach to evaluate existing pavement structural conditions, the SNeff
being a key parameter affecting the accuracy of SNR (M. Y. Kim et al., 2013). Therefore, the SNeff must
be accurately predicted to ensure an appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation strategy.
Many transportation agencies use falling weight deflectometer (FWD) deflection data to predict
the SNeff , since non-destructive testing (i.e. FWD) is simpler, and requires less effort than a laboratory
evaluation (Abd El-Raof et al., 2020). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ (AASHTO) 1993 pavement design guide introduced a non-destructive testing (NDT) method
to estimate the SNeff using total pavement thickness and effective pavement modulus determined
using the FWD deflection data (Abdel-Khalek et al., 2012; Elseifi et al., 2015). However, a trial-and-
error procedure is required to determine the pavement effective modulus, an impractical method for
network-level PMS (Kavussi et al., 2017; Nasimifar et al., 2019). In order to avoid the trial-and-error
procedure, researchers have developed alternative methods for predicting the SNeff . Rohde (1994)
developed a SNeff prediction model using 7,776 FWD deflection datasets analysed with layered-elastic
theory; several state agencies, such as those in Texas, Virginia, and New Jersey, have adopted the
Rohde model for their network-level PMS.
While the AASHTO 1993 method and Rohde model use both FWD deflections and pavement thick-
ness as input parameters, other researchers have proposed the SNeff prediction models be based only
on the FWD data (Crook et al., 2012; Kavussi et al., 2017; Schnoor & Horak, 2012). For example, Kavussi
et al. (2017) identified the relationship between SNeff and FWD deflections using 2,453 FWD test results
and the resulting SNeff prediction model was used for pavements in southern Iran. Schnoor and Horak
(2012) used the FWD deflection basin parameters as predictor variables for the SNeff , and verified
the model with the 171 pavement sections in South Africa. Crook et al. (2012) modified the model
developed by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) for Utah’s pavement net-
work based on the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) data. While these prediction models
have been used with success, it should be understood that they were developed, calibrated, or devel-
oped and calibrated using local field data. Abd El-Raof et al. (2020) found that additional calibration is
needed to improve model’s accuracy for use in an expanded region. Therefore, a field investigation is
necessary to identify, or develop, a proper approach to predicting the SNeff of in-service pavements
accurately.
Currently, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) employs the AASHTO 1993 method
to predict the SNeff of pavements. However, INDOT engineers have raised doubts about the accu-
racy of the AASHTO 1993 method for estimating the SNeff of full-depth asphalt pavements, one of
the most common pavement types in Indiana. VDOT identified a similar issue, that the AASHTO 1993
method could lead to error in the predicted SNeff , as compared to the SNeff obtained from their empir-
ical relationship (Bryce et al., 2013b). Since the AASHTO 1993 method is mainly dependent on total
pavement thickness, it may not be suitable for full-depth asphalt pavements, which in Indiana have
a considerably thicker asphalt layer (minimum 254 mm) than conventional flexible pavements, which
have been used to develop most existing SNeff prediction models. For example, Peddibhotla et al.
(2011) reported that a 10% difference in total pavement thickness has a significant impact on SNeff and
resulted in 7–12% error in the structural condition index (i.e. SNR). Further, Peddibhotla et al. (2011)
used the Rohde model to calculate SNeff , a model that is less sensitive to pavement thickness than is
the AASHTO 1993 method. This suggests the AASHTO 1993 method could induce even greater error
in the structural condition index.
Given INDOT’s wide use of full-depth asphalt pavements, and the likelihood of error introduction
using the AASHTO 1993 method for determining SNeff , an enhanced method may be needed to prop-
erly estimate the SNeff of full-depth asphalt pavements to reflect the true pavement structural capacity.
The primary objectives of this study were therefore to (i) fully evaluate the AASHTO 1993 method and
determine its efficacy in estimating the SNeff of full-depth asphalt pavements; and (ii) if necessary,
develop a new SNeff prediction model using numerical and field FWD data.
278 B. PARK ET AL.

Figure 1. Schematic of FWD sensor locations and deflection basin curve.

1.2. Scope
A total of 1,354 field FWD data and 3,927 model-based FWD data were used to evaluate the AASHTO
1993 method and to develop an enhanced SNeff prediction model. This FWD database covered a broad
range of full-depth asphalt pavement structures, to increase the model accuracy. The model-based
FWD data was generated by finite element (FE) method, which is widely used to simulate the pavement
behaviour. Using the FWD deflection thresholds and FWD database, the AASHTO 1993 method was
evaluated to determine whether the resulting SNeff accurately represents the structural conditions of
full-depth asphalt pavements. Then, the enhanced SNeff prediction model was developed using the
model-based FWD data, and it was verified with the filed FWD data.

2. Falling weight deflectometer and deflection basin parameters

Pavement surface deflections are key parameters to predict SNeff , and FWD is the non-destructive test-
ing device, which is commonly used, to measure the pavement surface deflections for the pavement
structural evaluation. The FWD applies an impulse load to the pavement surface with three load levels
(31, 40, and 49 kN) and measures surface deflections using nine geophones, placed at various dis-
tances from the FWD loading centre, as shown in Figure 1. Dx denotes the deflection measured at ‘x’
distance from the FWD loading plate centre, (e.g. D0 is the central deflection and D1500 is the deflec-
tion 1,500 mm from the load centre). Deflections measured with 40-kN load level are typically used
to generate deflection basin curve for the pavement structural evaluation, and this study applied the
same 40-kN load level for FWD data analysis.
In addition, the FWD deflection basin parameters (DBPs) have been developed to provide addi-
tional insights regarding pavement structural conditions by interpreting the deflection basin curve
(Gopalakrishnan et al., 2010; Horak et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2002). Four widely used DBPs were selected
for use in this study, as summarised in Table 1. The area under pavement profile (AUPP) proposed by
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 279

Table 1. Deflection basin parameters.

Deflection basin parameter Equation
5×D0−2×D300−2×D600−D900
AUPP Area Under Pavement Profile 2
SCI Surface Curvature Index D0 − D300
BDI Base Damage Index D300 − D600
BCI Base Curvature Index D600 − D900

Table 2. Field section information for FWD tests.

Asphalt
Number of layer thickness
Section ID Total length (km) Test year FWD tests (mm)
7-EB 20.6 2017 203 406
7-WB 20.6 2017 198 406
11-WB 14.5 2017 131 249
13-EB 12.2 2017 104 457
13-WB 12.2 2017 103 457
31-NB 4.6 2018 46 406
31-SB 4.6 2018 45 406
42-EB 11.0 2019 124 318
42-WB 11.0 2019 115 318
F19-EB 4.6 2019 14 419
F19-WB 4.6 2019 13 432
F27-EB 4.2 2015 59 325
F27-WB 4.2 2015 56 325
F29-EB 4.5 2018 40 330
F29-WB 4.5 2018 41 330
F30-EB 3.5 2020 32 330
F30-WB 3.5 2020 30 328

Hoffman and Thompson (1981) is the area parameter characterising the upper pavement layer con-
ditions and is determined by the normalised area under a deflection basin curve near the load (from
0 to 900 mm). The surface curvature index (SCI) is also used as an indicator of upper pavement layer
condition (Plati et al., 2016; Vyas et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2002). For a specific asphalt layer thickness range,
Xu et al. (2002) found the SCI and asphalt layer modulus to be linearly related on a log–log scale. The
base damage index (BDI) was developed to estimate the structural conditions of lower pavement lay-
ers and is sensitive to the base modulus value (Xu et al., 2002). Similarly, the base curvature index (BCI)
assesses lower pavement layer conditions such as subbase and subgrade (Pierce et al., 2017; Rabbi &
Mishra, 2021).

3. Falling weight deflectometer deflection database

FWD field data and model-based data were used in developing a new SNeff prediction model. The
model-based FWD data, covering an extensive range of full-depth asphalt pavement structures, was
employed to develop a new SNeff prediction model, while the field data was used to verify the new
model.

3.1. Field section description

A total of 1,354 FWD deflection data were collected from nine field sections in Indiana, as shown in
Table 2. All field sections were full-depth asphalt pavements with asphalt layer thickness ranging from
249 to 457 mm. For each field section, FWD testing was conducted in both travel directions at approx-
imately 100 m intervals. The deflection at the loading centre (D0) was corrected to 20°C according to
the AASHTO 1993 method.
280 B. PARK ET AL.

Figure 2. Finite element model description.

3.2. Model-based FWD data

A FE model was developed and used to generate 3,927 model-based FWD data points. The axisym-
metric model was selected to simulate the full-depth asphalt pavements under FWD loading. The
axisymmetric model has been widely used to simulate circular loads, since it can provide accurate pre-
diction results with less computational time, as compared to a 3D FE model (Li et al., 2017). The FWD
loading was simulated by applying a 40-kN load on a 300 mm diameter circular load area, with a 550
kPa pressure. Figure 2 illustrates the FE model which is composed of both a main body and far-field
region. The main body uses four-node axisymmetric elements (CAX4), with a finer mesh applied to the
area nearer the loading, to obtain more accurate deflection results. The far-field region is applied as
a boundary condition using infinite elements (CINAX4) to minimise lateral boundary effects. A fixed
boundary condition is applied to the bottom of the subgrade, and a subgrade thickness of 25.4 m is
used to minimise bottom boundary effects.
Before generating data for the project, the FE model was validated with field FWD data by match-
ing the model-generated deflection basin curve with field FWD deflection data, following the method
known as ‘deflection-based calibration’. This method (matching deflection) has been widely used for
numerical model validation, since deflection is an important pavement structures factor (K. Kim et al.,
2021; X. Xu et al., 2021). The elastic moduli backcalculated from the FWD deflection basin were applied
to the FE model, and then adjusted to match the FE-predicted deflection basin with the deflection
basin measured from the FWD test and the layered elastic analysis result. As shown in Figure 3, the
FE model deflection basin curve is an excellent match to the FWD field-measured basin curve. Fur-
thermore, the FE deflection results agreed well with the deflection basin obtained from the layered
elastic analysis program WESLEA. It should be noted that an elastic FE analysis was sufficient to pro-
vide the resulting deflection basin curve, due to short duration FWD loading (approximately 30 ms),
thus minimising the viscoelastic response effect on deflection. Using elastic FE analysis requires less
computational time than a viscoelastic FE analysis and was therefore used to develop the model-based
FWD deflection database.
Table 3 shows the values of layer thicknesses and elastic material properties ranges used to develop
the model-based FWD data. A three asphalt-layer system, typical for INDOT full-depth asphalt pave-
ment cross-sections shown in Figure 4, was employed. The layer thicknesses of asphalt layers were
selected in accordance with the INDOT standard specification (INDOT, 2020). The asphalt surface layer
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 281

Figure 3. Finite element model validation.

Table 3. Pavement structures and materials properties for finite element analysis.
Thickness Elastic modulus Poisson’s
Layer type (mm) (GPa) ratio
Asphalt surface 38.1 3.31–10.34 0.35
Asphalt intermediate 63.5 5.52–10.34 0.35
Asphalt base 152.4, 228.6, 304.8 0.69–8.27 0.40
Subgrade 25,400 0.03–0.69 0.45

thickness is always 38.1 mm, while the smallest asphalt intermediate layer thickness (63.5 mm) from
the INDOT specification (63.5, 76.2, and 88.9 mm) was selected, to be conservative. Three thicknesses
(152.4, 228.6, and 304.8 mm) were selected for the asphalt base layer, to cover the typical range of
asphalt base thickness in INDOT full-depth asphalt pavements. For each layer, a broad range of elas-
tic moduli was employed to consider various pavement conditions. For example, low values of elastic
moduli (3.31–5.52 GPa with 0.69 GPa interval) were included for the asphalt surface layer, to repre-
sent a damaged pavement surface condition. In addition, the elastic modulus ranges for asphalt base
(0.69–8.27 GPa with 0.69 GPa interval) and subgrade (0.03–0.69 GPa with 0.069 GPa interval) were used
to express both weak and strong conditions. All elastic modulus ranges in Table 3 were determined
based on typical values identified from INDOT historical data.

4. Current effective structural number (SNeff ) prediction methods

According to the literature, there are two common methods to predict the SNeff using FWD data and
the total pavement thickness: (i) the AASHTO 1993 NDT method currently used by the INDOT, and
(ii) the Rohde model. These two methods were selected for further evaluation because both consider
the pavement thickness, a main factor differentiating full-depth asphalt pavements from conventional
flexible pavements.
In the AASHTO 1993 method, the total pavement thickness (Hp ) and the effective modulus of the
pavement above subgrade (Ep ) are used to calculate the SNeff , as expressed in Equation 1. The Ep
can be determined by an iterative process using Equation 2, with the maximum surface deflection
measured beneath the FWD loading plate (D0), subgrade modulus (MR ), and Hp . The D0 is adjusted
to the reference temperature (20°C) using the AASHTO temperature correction chart, to eliminate
282 B. PARK ET AL.

Figure 4. Schematic of full-depth asphalt pavement cross-section used for finite element model.

temperature effects.

SNeff = 0.0045 × HP × 3 EP (1)
⎛ ⎞
1
1−
⎜ Hp 2 ⎟
⎜ 1 1+ ⎟
D0 = 1.5 × p × a × ⎜ ⎟
a
⎜   + ⎟ (2)
⎝  2 Ep ⎠
Hp Ep
MR × 1+ a × 3
MR

where, p is the contact pressure (psi), a is load radius (in.), Hp is total pavement thickness above the
subgrade (in.), MR is the subgrade modulus (psi), Ep is the effective pavement modulus above the
subgrade (psi), and D0 represents the measured deflection at the centre of FWD loading plate (in.).
The Rohde model was developed based on Irwin’s ‘two-thirds rule’, that the deflections measured
beyond an offset of 1.5Hp from the loading centre are mainly affected by the subgrade. Rohde (1994)
defined the structural index of pavement (SIP) as the difference between D0 and the deflection mea-
sured at 1.5Hp (D1.5Hp ). The SIP parameter is used to characterise the structural conditions of pavement
layers above the subgrade and was employed to calculate the SNeff , as presented in Equations 3 and 4.

SNeff = 0.4728 × SIP−0.481 × Hp 0.7581 (3)

SIP = D0 − D1.5Hp (4)

where, Hp is total pavement thickness above the subgrade (mm), D0 is the deflection measured at the
centre of the FWD loading plate (μm), and D1.5Hp is the deflection measured at 1.5Hp from the loading
centre (μm).
One major drawback of the Rohde model is that D1.5Hp is not directly measured from the FWD
testing, but is dependent on the Hp . Thus, Rohde suggested the Lagrange polynomial interpolation to
determine D1.5Hp using the three nearest deflections to D1.5Hp . However, M. Y. Kim et al. (2013) found
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 283

Figure 5. Comparison of AASHTO 1993 and Rohde methods: (a) model-based FWD data, and (b) field FWD data.

Table 4. Thresholds of FWD maximum deflection (D0).

D0 Thresholds (microns)
Road classification Good Fair Poor
Interstate Highway D0 < 149.1 149.1 < D0 < 214.9 214.9 < D0
U.S. Highway D0 < 227.6 227.6 < D0 < 259.8 259.8 < D0
State Road D0 < 359.9 359.9 < D0 < 388.6 388.6 < D0

that in some cases, the interpolation method generated a negative D1.5Hp which is an unrealistic value.
Therefore, caution must be exercised when using the Rohde model.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between AASHTO 1993 and Rohde methods. Overall, the Rohde
model provided greater SNeff compared to the AASHTO 1993 method for both model-based FWD data
and field FWD data. It should be noted that the FWD data used for this study was obtained from the full-
depth asphalt pavement cases, which were not considered during Rohde model development. This
indicates that the Rohde model may further overestimate structural conditions of full-depth asphalt
pavements, compared to the AASHTO 1993 method. Since there is a concern about the overestimated
SNeff from the AASHTO 1993 method, both Rohde model and AASHTO 1993 method may need a
calibration to be used for the full-depth asphalt pavements.

5. Calibration of current methods to estimate full-depth asphalt pavements SNeff

The AASHTO 1993 method, INDOT’s current approach for determining SNeff , was evaluated using the
D0 thresholds to determine whether it can be used with the INDOT PMS. The D0 thresholds used for
this study were established in a concurrent INDOT research project, and Table 4 summarises D0 thresh-
olds for all road classifications in Indiana, including Interstate highways, U.S. highways, and State roads.
These threshold values were determined by a design reliability concept to consider current conditions
of Indiana full-depth asphalt pavements, and 717 Interstate highways, 605 U.S. highways, and 1,561
State roads field FWD data of full-depth asphalt pavements were used for a reliability analysis in a con-
current study. In this study, the D0 thresholds presented in Table 4 were used as reference values to
evaluate the current methods for SNeff estimation.
The model-based FWD data (3,927 data points) were used to evaluate the AASHTO 1993 method.
The SNeff values obtained from AASHTO 1993 method were used to calculate the SNR and compared
with D0 threshold values, since no clear SNeff criterion currently exists. The SNR is commonly used to
determine maintenance needs of using a network-level pavement management system and can be
284 B. PARK ET AL.

calculated with Equation 5 (Nasimifar et al., 2019; Zaghloul et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2003).
SNeff
SNR = (5)
SNreq

The SNreq is theoretically the minimum pavement structural number necessary to withstand the
applied traffic load over the remaining pavement life, while the SNeff represents the existing pave-
ment structural condition. Thus, the minimum SNR requirement is theoretically unity, to have sufficient
pavement structural strength to ensure a pavement can adequately perform over its design life. In this
study, the SNreq was calculated using Equation 6, AASHTO equation widely used in the United States
(AASHTO, 1993).
PSI
log 4.2−1.5
log ESAL = ZR · S0 + 9.36 · log(SNreq + 1) − 0.2 + 1094
0.4 +
(SNreq +1)5.19
+ 2.32 · log MR − 8.07 (6)
0.24 · P
MR =
dr · r
where, ESAL is the equivalent single axle load, PSI is a reduction in serviceability, S0 is a standard
deviation, ZR is a standard normal deviate, MR is the subgrade resilient modulus (psi), P is a FWD load
(lb), r is a distance from the centre of load (in.), and dr is a deflection at a distance r from the centre of
the load (in.).
Figure 6 shows comparisons of AASHTO 1993-based SNR and D0, along with SNR limit and D0
thresholds for all road classifications. Overall, SNR values decreased as D0 increased, because a smaller
SNR value indicates a lower pavement structural strength resulting in a greater D0 value. However, in
some cases, AASHTO 1993-based SNR overestimated structural conditions when comparing with the
D0 thresholds. As shown in Figure 6, AASHTO 1993-based SNR values in the red rectangular shaded
area were greater than the minimum SNR requirement, while D0 values were greater than the maxi-
mum D0 threshold. Since the AASHTO 1993 method was mainly developed for conventional flexible
pavements and it was sensitive to the total pavement thickness, the AASHTO 1993 method resulted
in high values of SNeff and SNR for full-depth asphalt pavements. Thus, the AASHTO 1993-based SNR
exhibited contradictory results to the D0 thresholds established based on the field data of full-depth
asphalt pavements. This further confirmed that the AASHTO 1993 method may need a calibration to
accurately estimate the SNeff of full-depth asphalt pavements.
Due to a complexity of equation and iterative procedure in the AASHTO 1993 method, Rohde model
was used in lieu of AASHTO 1993 method to calibrate the SNeff of full-depth asphalt pavements.
Rohde model is more beneficial than the AASHTO 1993 method, in terms of a calibration, because
Rohde model can be calibrated by changing three coefficients. A calibration was performed using the
model-based FWD data to match the maximum FWD D0 limit and SNR requirement. For example, the
maximum value of SNR was limited to the SNR requirement, when the D0 is greater than the maxi-
mum FWD D0 limit for each road classification during calibration. Consequently, the calibrated Rohde
model is expressed in Equation 7.

SNeff = 0.698058 × SIP−0.33493 × Hp 0.511506 (7)

Figure 7 verifies the calibrated Rohde model by comparing Rohde-based SNR and the FWD D0 thresh-
olds. As shown in Figures 6 and 7, the calibrated Rohde-based SNR was generally smaller than the
AASHTO 1993-based SNR, because the calibrated Rohde model provided smaller SNeff . This means
that the calibrated Rohde model can reduce concerns about overestimation of pavement structural
conditions. Furthermore, Figure 7 shows that the calibrated Rohde-based SNR agreed well with the
D0 maximum limits for all road classifications. The calibrated Rohde-based SNR values were smaller
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 285

Figure 6. Comparison of AASHTO 1993-based SNR and D0 thresholds: (a) Interstate highways, (b) U.S. highways, and (c) State roads.

than the SNR requirement for the datasets, which exhibited greater D0 than the D0 maximum limits.
Therefore, the calibrated Rohde model may be a better approach to evaluate the structural conditions
of full-depth asphalt pavements, compared to the AASHTO 1993 method.

6. New SNeff prediction model for full-depth asphalt pavements

While the calibrated Rohde model appears to do a better job of estimating SNeff than does the AASHTO
1993 method, it is impractical for use in PMS due to the additional procedure needed to interpolate the
D1.5Hp , which is not a direct measurement during FWD testing. Furthermore, in some cases, negative
values of D1.5Hp can be obtained from interpolation procedure, that may result in inaccurate decision
of maintenance during PMS. Therefore, further analysis was conducted to develop a more practical
and simpler SNeff prediction model to avoid the interpolation procedure.
A new model was developed based on the SNeff from the calibrated Rohde model. Ten parameters,
including five FWD deflection locations (D0, D300, D600, D900, and D1500), four DBPs (AUPP, SCI, BDI,
and BCI), and Hp , were examined to determine an appropriate input parameter for the SNeff predic-
tion model. It should be noted that the five deflection values were selected among nine deflection
measurements, because these five deflections are mainly used to calculate DBPs for the pavement
structural evaluation. The Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) and Spearman’s rank correla-
tion coefficient (Spearman’s ρ) were used to identify the most relevant parameters for SNeff prediction.
286 B. PARK ET AL.

Figure 7. Comparison of Calibrated Rohde-based SNR and D0 thresholds: (a) Interstate highways, (b) U.S. highways, and (c) State
roads.

Pearson’s r provides the strength of linear correlation, while Spearman’s ρ is commonly used to assess
monotonic relationships (either linear or nonlinear) between two variables (Liu et al., 2017; Uddin
Ahmed Zihan et al., 2018; Zhao & Liu, 2018). Both Pearson’s r and Spearman’s ρ can assume values
ranging from −1 to 1, with negative values indicating negative correlation and positive values indicat-
ing positive correlation. As indicated in Table 5, all FWD parameters are negatively correlated with the
SNeff , while Hp is positively correlated, based on Pearson’s r and Spearman’s ρ results. These negative
and positive correlations seem logical, as increased deflections and larger (more curved) deflections
basins would tend to indicate a smaller pavement SNeff (negative correlation). Conversely, thicker
pavement layers, which typically increase a structural capacity, would tend to have increased SNeff
(positive correlation). The AUPP, which exhibited the highest correlation with SNeff , was selected as
an input parameter for the SNeff prediction model, along with Hp , which is considered a key factor for
estimating full-depth asphalt pavement SNeff and exhibited fairly high correlation coefficients.
A new SNeff prediction model was developed using nonlinear regression analysis of the model-
based FWD data, as expressed in Equation 8.

SNeff = 3.097 × Hp0.2746 × AUPP−0.3247 (8)

 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 287

Table 5. Correlation coefficients between effective struc-

tural number and deflection parameters.
Correlation to SNeff
FWD
parameters Pearson’s r Spearman’s ρ
Hp 0.704 0.731
D0 −0.672 −0.727
D300 −0.617 −0.654
D600 −0.545 −0.553
D900 −0.489 −0.482
D1500 −0.416 −0.381
AUPP −0.839 −0.954
SCI −0.828 −0.927
BDI −0.831 −0.944
BCI −0.751 −0.801

where, Hp is the pavement thickness above subgrade (in.), and AUPP is the area under pavement
profile (mils).
The accuracy of the new SNeff prediction model was investigated based on the goodness-of-fit tests
shown in Equations 9 through 12 (Abd El-Raof et al., 2020; Khattab et al., 2014).


 1  n
Sy = 
2
(SNeff ,Rohde − SNeff ,Rohde ) (9)
n−1
i=1

n
i=1 (SNeff ,NewModel − SNeff ,Rohde )2
Se = (10)
n−p
 2
n − p Se
R2 = 1 − (11)
n − 1 Sy

 n
1 
RMSE =  (SNeff ,NewModel − SNeff ,Rohde )2 (12)
n
i=1

where, Sy is the standard deviation of the SNeff from the calibrated Rohde model, Se is the standard
deviation of the error, R2 is the coefficient of determination, and RMSE is the root-mean-square error.
The coefficient of determination (R2 ) and Se /Sy are measures of data spread between predicted
and target values, with respect to the line of equality. Higher R2 and lower Se /Sy values denote data
points closer to the line of equality, indicating higher prediction result accuracy. The root-mean-square
error (RMSE) is the absolute measure of difference between predicted and target values; lower RMSE
indicates higher model accuracy.
Figure 8a shows a comparison of the SNeff predicted by the new model with the SNeff calculated
using the calibrated Rohde model, using the model-based FWD data. The new model yields highly
accurate prediction results, as indicated by the goodness-of-fit test results. All data points are close
to the line of equality and R2 = 0.99. The low values of Se /Sy (0.07) and RMSE (0.034) also indicate
the error in the new model is very low. It should be noted that the same analyses were conducted for
other FWD parameters, BDI and SCI, which exhibited similar levels of correlation in Table 5, and R2 of
BDI (0.96) and SCI (0.98) were smaller than the AUPP (0.99). This further confirmed that the AUPP is the
best input parameter to predict SNeff .
Additionally, both the calibrated Rohde and new models were used to determine the SNeff using
the field FWD data. It is important to note that the field FWD data was not used for the new predic-
tion model development, but only used for the model validation. As shown in Figure 8b, the new
model again exhibited high accuracy in terms of SNeff prediction, as compared to the calibrated Rohde
288 B. PARK ET AL.

Figure 8. Comparison of the effective structural numbers predicted from the new model and calibrated Rohde model: (a) model-
based FWD data, and (b) field FWD data.

model. With the field data, the new model shows R2 = 0.99 and Se /Sy = 0.06, while the RMSE slightly
increased from 0.034 to 0.07. These results indicate the new model can provide SNeff nearly identical
to the calibrated Rohde model for full-depth asphalt pavements. However, this new model is more
practical than the calibrated Rohde model, since it does not require an interpolation procedure for
D1.5Hp , a key parameter for the calibrated Rohde model.

7. Summary and conclusions

In this study, the current method for estimating the SNeff of full-depth asphalt pavements was cali-
brated based on the FWD deflection thresholds. Then, a new SNeff prediction model was developed
using both field- and model-based FWD data. A summary of findings is presented as follows:

• The AASHTO 1993 NDT method, the current INDOT approach, tends to overestimate the SNeff of
full-depth asphalt pavements. The AASHTO 1993-based SNR indicates a good structural condi-
tion, while the D0 was greater than the maximum D0 threshold. This overestimation can lead to
inaccurate maintenance and rehabilitation strategies.
• The Rohde model resulted in a greater SNeff than the AASHTO 1993 method, indicating that the
Rohde model may need a calibration to be used for the full-depth asphalt pavements.
• The Rohde model was calibrated using the model-based FWD data, and the calibrated Rohde-
based SNR agreed well with the FWD D0 maximum limits for all road classifications. This means
that the calibrated Rohde model may be a better approach to evaluate the structural conditions
of full-depth asphalt pavements, compared to the AASHTO 1993 method and the original Rohde
model.
• Of the various FWD deflection basin parameters examined, the ‘area under pavement profile’, or
AUPP exhibits the best correlation with the SNeff . Additionally, the total pavement thickness, Hp ,
an important factor for full-depth asphalt pavements, exhibits high correlation coefficients with,
and is the only parameter positively correlated with, the SNeff .
• The newly developed SNeff prediction model is able to determine the SNeff nearly identical to the
calibrated Rohde model, while using only two input parameters (AUPP and Hp ), a more practical
approach.

Based on these findings, it is concluded that the SNeff predicted by the newly developed model can
represent structural conditions of full-depth asphalt pavements more accurately than the currently
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 289

used AASHTO 1993 method. Since the new model uses only FWD deflection data and pavement thick-
ness information, it can be easily and practically incorporated into the network-level PMS for pavement
structural evaluation.
Even though the new model was verified using INDOT full-depth asphalt pavements, it may be
applied to full-depth asphalt pavements in other states or countries when the total pavement thick-
ness and layer moduli are within the range evaluated in this study. Additionally, further research is
recommended, to extend the new SNeff prediction model to other full-depth asphalt pavement struc-
tures (i.e. additional layer thicknesses and layer moduli combinations) and other pavement types,
including flexible, rigid, and composite pavements, following the approach presented herein.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).AcknowledgementsThe contents of this paper reflect the
views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do
not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration.

Funding
This work was supported by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) under contract number SPR-4443.

ORCID
Bongsuk Park http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4606-4408

References
Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Elseifi, M. A., Gaspard, K., Zhang, Z., & Dasari, K. (2012). Model to estimate pavement structural number
at network level with rolling wheel deflectometer data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2304(1), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.3141/2304-16
Abd El-Raof, H. S., Abd El-Hakim, R. T., El-Badawy, S. M., & Afify, H. A. (2020). Structural number prediction for flexible pave-
ments using the long term pavement performance data. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 21(7), 841–855.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1511786
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1993). Aashto guide for design of
pavement structures. AASHTO 1993.
Bryce, J., Flintsch, G., Katicha, S., & Diefenderfer, B. (2013a). Developing a network-level structural capacity index for asphalt
pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.000
0494
Bryce, J., Flintsch, G. W., Katicha, S. W., & Diefenderfer, B. K. (2013b). Developing a network-level structural capacity index for
structural evaluation of pavements. Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, VCTIR 13-R9.
Crook, A. L., Montgomery, S. R., & Guthrie, W. S. (2012). Use of falling weight deflectometer data for network-level flexible
pavement management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2304(1), 75–85.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2304-09
Elseifi, M. A., Gaspard, K., Wilke, P. W., Zhang, Z., & Hegab, A. (2015). Evaluation and validation of a model for predict-
ing pavement structural number with rolling wheel deflectometer data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2525(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.3141/2525-02
Gopalakrishnan, K., Kim, S., & Ceylan, H. (2010). Non-destructive evaluation of in-place rehabilitated concrete pavements.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(4), 552–560. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.61
Hoffman, M. S., & Thompson, M. R. (1981). Mechanistic interpretation of nondestructive pavement testing deflections
FHWA/IL/UI-190 Intrm Rpt.
Horak, E., Hefer, A., Emery, S., & Maina, J. (2015). Flexible road pavement structural condition benchmark methodology
incorporating structural condition indices derived from falling weight deflectometer deflection bowls. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Construction, 4(1), 1–14.
INDOT. (2020). Standard specifications. Indiana Department of Transportation.
Kavussi, A., Abbasghorbani, M., Moghadas Nejad, F., & Bamdad Ziksari, A. (2017). A New method to determine mainte-
nance and repair activities at network-level pavement management using falling weight deflectometer. Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management, 23(3), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1073173
290 B. PARK ET AL.

Khattab, A. M., El-Badawy, S. M., Al Hazmi, A. A., & Elmwafi, M. (2014). Evaluation of Witczak E∗ predictive models for
the implementation of AASHTOWare-pavement ME design in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Construction and Building
Materials, 64, 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.066
Kim, K., Chun, S., Park, B., & Han, S. (2021). Precast prestressed concrete pavement (PPCP): effect of thermal gradient on curl-
ing deflection and stress. Construction and Building Materials, 274, 121966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.
121966
Kim, M. Y., Kim, D. Y., & Murphy, M. R. (2013). Improved method for evaluating the pavement structural number with
falling weight deflectometer deflections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2366(1), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.3141/2366-14
Li, M., Wang, H., Xu, G., & Xie, P. (2017). Finite dlement modeling and parametric analysis of viscoelastic and
nonlinear pavement responses under dynamic FWD loading. Construction and Building Materials, 141, 23–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.096
Liu, J., Yan, K., You, L., Liu, P., & Yan, K. (2017). Prediction models of mixtures’ dynamic modulus using gene expression
programming. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 18(11), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2016.
1138113
Nasimifar, M., Thyagarajan, S., Chaudhari, S., & Sivaneswaran, N. (2019). Pavement structural capacity from traffic speed
deflectometer for network level pavement management system application. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(2), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118825122
Peddibhotla, S. S. S., Murphy, M., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Validation and implementation of the structural condition index (SCI)
for network-level pavement evaluation FHWA/TX-11/5-4322-01-1.
Pierce, L. M., Bruinsma, J. E., Smith, K. D., Wade, M. J., Chatti, K., & Vandenbossche, J. (2017). Using falling weight deflec-
tometer data with mechanistic-empirical design and analysis, Volume III: Guidelines for deflection testing, analysis,
and interpretation federal highway administration, FHWA-HRT-16-011.
Plati, C., Georgiou, P., & Papavasiliou, V. (2016). Simulating pavement structural condition using artificial neural networks.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 12(9), 1127–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1086384
Rabbi, M. F., & Mishra, D. (2021). Using FWD deflection basin parameters for network-level assessment of flexible pave-
ments. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 22(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2019.1580366
Rohde, G. T. (1994). Determining pavement structural number from FWD testing. Transportation Research Record (1448).
Schnoor, H., & Horak, E. (2012). Possible method of determining structural number for flexible pavements with the falling
weight deflectometer. Southern African Transport Conference (SATC 2012).
Uddin Ahmed Zihan, Z., Elseifi, M. A., Gaspard, K., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Development of a structural capacity prediction
model based on traffic speed deflectometer measurements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2672(40), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118758058
Vyas, V., Singh, A. P., & Srivastava, A. (2020). Prediction of asphalt pavement condition using FWD deflection basin parame-
ters and artificial neural networks. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2020.
1797855
Xu, B., Ranjithan, S. R., & Kim, Y. R. (2002). New relationships between falling weight deflectometer deflections and asphalt
pavement layer condition indicators. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1806(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.3141/1806-06
Xu, X., Augello, R., & Yang, H. (2021). The generation and validation of a CUF-based FEA model with laser-based exper-
iments. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, 28(16), 1648–1655. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2019.
1697473
Zaghloul, S., Marukic, I., Ahmed, Z., Vitillo, N., Sauber, R., & Jumikis, A. (2004). Development of network-level structural
adequacy index model for New Jersey department of transportation pavement management system. Transportation
Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Paper No. 04-3282.
Zhang, Z., Claros, G., Manuel, L., & Damnjanovic, I. (2003). Development of structural condition index to support pavement
maintenance and rehabilitation decisions at network level. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 1827(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.3141/1827-02
Zhao, S., & Liu, J. (2018). Rutting evaluation of alaskan asphalt pavement containing sustainable materials. Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, 46(4), 1366–1375. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20170514