Nwnber Report

96-29

DEFLECTION SENSOR OFFSET, mm
0

-100

IM

Mo

Bm

1Mo

1200

lIM

lam

lKa

rn

b

.
b

,
b b

b

* I i?

.
b

b

1
1

Selection of Flexible Pavement Backcalculation Software for the Minnesota Road Research Project

I -

1 ReportNo.

IVIN/I'R - 96/20 -4 . Title and Subtitlc

---3
.-.----.-----

..I.----

-,---.-----

Technical Report Documentation Page v

3. Recipient's .4ccession No.
,

.-.----5 . Report Date:

I -

-

SELECTION OF FLEXIBLIE BACKCALClUI,ATI( IN SOFTWARE FOR THE MINNESOTA ROAD RESEARCH PROJECT
7 . Author(s)

Dave Van Deusen
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Minnesota Road Research 1400 Gervais Avenue Maplewood, MN 55 109
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

-.-._.----1 1 . Conluact (C) or Grant (G)No.

-

---

1 3 . Type oflRelport and Period Covered

Minnesota Department of Transportation 3'95 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 Slt.Paixl Minnesota, 55155

Final Report 1!>96
1 4 . Sponsoring Agency Code

1
~~

1 5 Supplementary Notes

--

I . . I -

---

1 6 Abstract (Limit 200 words)

This report presents the results of an evaluation process of' several different flexible pavtmenl backcalculation programs. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of tht: candidate programs in terms of useability and accuracy of backcalculation results. This was accomplished by evaluxting Ihe selected programs using both field and siimulated (data.The results of the analysn; were used as the basis, for selecting a program for routine analysis of hlln/RBAD pavement deflection data. In situ pavernent strains were measured during falliingweight deflecto1nt:teir tests. The measured strains were tlheri compared to backcalculated strain values firam each program. I[n addition to the fiield tests, a series of hypothetiical d pavement structureswith a range of prescribed layer thicknesses m moduli wwc: malyzed to obtain surface deflection data. These surface deflections were then used as input for each program involved in the study. The output from e<ach program was compared to the expected vallues. Four different programs were evaluated in the study: EVERCALC v. 3.3, EVERCALC v. 4.1, WESDEF, ,and hdQDCOMP3. Based on results from the analyses, thho progam recornmelacled fix routine research of the Mrrt/RO,AD test sections is EVERCALC v. 4.1 Recommendations arid general guiidelmes for performing backcalculation analysis are provided.
1'7. Document habysis/Descriptors

I

Flexible Pavement Modeling Elackcalculatiori Pavement Response

I

114. Availability Statement

No rc:stric:tEons. Document available from: National '1'e:clhnicalInfomiiation Services, Sprirrgfieltl,Virginia 22 161

.

responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein.ion Office o f Rese.FOR ‘THE MINNESOTA ROAD N3SEARCIH PROJECT -Final Report Prepared by: David A. Van Deusen Rer. Mail Stop 64s Maplewood.SE:LECTIOIV OF FILEXIBLE F’AVEMENT BACKCALCULATION SOFTWARE. Minnesota 55 I09 August 1996 Puhllished by: Minnesota Department of Transporla1.earch E’rqject Engiineer Minnesota Ilepariment of ‘~ransporlai ion Office of Minnesota Road IReseacYn 1400 (.r:rvais Avenue. The author and the Minnesota Department of Transportafion do ncit endorse products or manufacturers. or regulation. This report does not constitute a standard. Mail Sdop 330 1 1’7 University Avenue St I’aul. 5 5 1fjS ~ ‘The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who it. . The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Minnesota Departtnent o f ’Irreinsportatiion at the timi: o f publlicatioin.archAdministration 200 Ford Building. Trade or manufacturer’s names appear ht:re:in !solelybecause they are considered essential to this report. Minnesota. specification.

.

]Research Engiiicer Shongtao Dai. Research Iinfomatian Assistant Michael Beer. Databaise System Manager US Army Cold Regions Resetarchand IEngineering Lab01atory . Research Environment Scientist Greg Johnson. Scientisl Monica Penshorni. Highway Technician Craig Schrader.uVz. Research Engiineer Ron L. Senior Highway Techniician Greg Larson.ACKTVOWILEDGEM EIWT'S The author cxpresses his sincere appreciation lo all of tlhe people iinvolvedl in this project. especially the personnel that conducled the FPJD testing and fielld dala collection at Mn/ROAD: Michael Miezvva. Research Soil:.

.

Estimating critical pavement responses to traffic loads is a cnucial part of a mechanistic design procedure for newly construcled or rchabilitaled pavements. 'This wai backcalculation programs in terms o f useability and accuraicy of 1biick~:. in p ~ r t from MdROAD data.ocedure. a fiull-scale test f a d ty construckdl by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MdDOT). The deflection data can be used to obtain information regarding the 1 relative strengths of the various layers >within he pavement silruciwe by doing a bacltcalculation analysis. The main objective of thiis study was to compare the p e r f o ~ m i ~of~ c : ~ several different results. were used to analyze ddta from €ield deflection testing that was conducted on five . . are [.alil)ratte:pavement response models as design The calibratcd models will in turn be u!jt>d the basis for ithe meclha~unistic-empirical procedure that will be developed. will be implemented statewide in light of the oncoming mechanistic design pr.aturesof the Minnesota Road Research Project ( M d ROAD). It i s hoped that the recommendations made in this re:port. The scope oi'this report deals the evaluation of'backca1c:ulation ainalysis software leading to the selection of a program folr routine use on both IMxdROAI) researdi and geineral Mn/I)OT projects.EXIECXJTTVE SUMMARY In many current pavement mmagemerit strategies.~lculation accomplished by evaluating the selected programs using two approaches.. One: of Ihe fe. bearing caipacilty is determined using a falling weight deflectometer (FUD).heiin-situ pavement reslponse sensors Measurements from these sensors will1 lbe used to verify and c. In the first approach the progrm:.

unreasonable results.. 3.lMn/ROAD flexible pavement tesl sections.y for the heriimntal strain in the surface (AC) layer. P The use of EVERCALC v. ad long computation times i were observed. These tests. Large RMS percent e:rrors. >a The output of the MODCOMP3 program frequently became unstable during the analysis of the field data.3 was the best among the programs investigated. especia1l. 4. > For the simulated deflection study the agreement between expected m d backcalculated stress and strain was good for all of the programs.he minimum recommended subgrade thickness is 30 m. the moduli 1pr~:dlicted compared to the expected values and the percent error m7as ciilcu1~i-d.-infinitesubgrade l. were conducted over the locations of inZjitu strain sensors so that the measwedl strains could be com1parr:cl againLst values obtained from was the backcalculation results.1 as a ‘‘standard” backcallculation program should be implemented (at least for ILln/KOAlD and research work). Based upon the results presented in this report it is reasonable to conclude the following: >> For the field testing data the agreement between the: WESIDI.:E: and EVERCALC: v. P When using the W. In the second approalch an e:~periirnexlt conducted in which the 1Frorn each program were programs were run on iheorelical deflection data.SDEF program to model a semi. . The agreement between stresses anld strains in the under!iying layers was also good.

The effects of uncertainty of surface layer thickness on esitim. An alternative approach would be to use AC moduli-temperature data from thicker test sections with similar nnnr characteristics to fix the thin layer moduli at a known value. 'This could be tilone by performing a wnsitivity analysis to determine the range of effect of assumed pavernent Ihickness on the magnitude of backcalculated strain. The modulx of the iuntlerlying. c .General comments regarding pavement layer rinodulus bac kcalcuilatiom and the various programs evaluated in this study are as follows: Backcalculation analysis using static.gs. This j s consistent with observations and recommcndations found in the literature.for a variety 01 strucliures. Another approach riiiight involve the use of some other parameter as the primary response transfer h c t i o m input. . Assumed surface layer thickness can have it dramatic effelct on thle bac kcalculation results. linear elastic theory on deflltxtion data obtained during the spring thaw period is highly problematic.curvature OR deflectwm obtained directly from FWD dala. It is not recommended that backcalculation analyses of deflection data from sections having i surface layer thicknesses less that 100 m be done.itted strains should be investigated more formally.. layers could then be backcalculated. This is due io tlie contrast in stiffness between shallow frozedunfrozen zones and thus deviations from the leal (field) situation and assumptxons implicit in the theory.

.

.........................................*.................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 4 RES EARCH APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................... CHAPTE............................ .........................................................................TAlEQkE CONTENTS OF CHAPTER 1 ...................*................................................ ............................................................................................................ ..................... .................................... Simulated Deflection Data .......................... 19 Simulation Study ...... 1NTROD........................................................................... CHAPTER 6 ........................................ 5 Description of Programs .................................22 ..................................................................................... 3 Pavement Respnse r?Mnalysis. 15 18 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 15 Field Deflection ....... -21 Program Selecltion ...... 19 Field T&ng .......... CHAPTER 2 BA(IKGROUN1) 1 Deflection Analysis.....................................................................*...........................Data..........................................................................R 3 OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 6 11 CHAPTER 5 SELECTION STUDY .. ..............................................................................-........................................UCTION....... ...................... .....................................

.. ...... .. 2 APPENDIX A .OD.. .........(.. ."."-. I ....I....%.. ~ * ... eoe .. ... 5 . I o......... .. ...*.......... ....Summary of results f k m pavement silnuliatk)nstudy APPENDIX B .. ~... ..... . ..Comparison of moduli result?.... .CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEhIDATIONS . ....D...... I ~ . ."..... 23 REFERENCES .... .. ..........+.. .* . ...Y1.. ~. . ..fiorn MODCONIP3 program NOTE: Copies of the appendices may be obtained from the author or ihe Mn/DOT Office of Research Administration...l............ . . ..

.. .Swimary of simulated slructures and subsurface res1pons...........................1 ...Structural data used for hypothetical sections in simulation study .................. A1 Table A.....Suxmary of simulated structures amd deflection hasins.....................................2 .......2 .......................................Sunnmary of modulus percent pretlictj.LIST OF TABLES Table 4..MdROAD test sections sellected fbr the deflection study ..................e:s.................. 27 27 Table 6 ........... Table 4.I ............ A23 ....... Table A.......1 ..............on errors from b a c kalculatisn program 28 performance study .............................

...rains .....-... 6.. 3.."....l....... ~ a o... 3.......".... .....D A.. ~ .. ...l.ted and measured transawse AC si.nsshowing effixts of thickness .*.cIe..** m.".~ ~.... +* . 5..ll...... ............. 6...... ...1 ....s. 6. .. .........irnulated cleflection basixnis and subsurface responses ...... 6.......... ..(. -. .....5 ..:INESDEF vs..... .. P ' 43 .. . ........ .....Comparison of backcalculated and nieasilred ~ti:ansvers.3 ....~.. .....-.Y..."..29 ....... aI ......D ..... .. .. . 3.. O ~ Fig.....~.. .. ....... 30 ~ ~ ~ ~ Fig.. ...."..... l......... ... . .... from TS 22: EVERCALC v..Y... 3....... 3......*..."....O...... 3. ...Comparison of backcalculated and meawlred transverse AC strains from TS 2.3 . .. 3.D...l.: W S D E F vs......O ......oa . assumption and program .Locations of calculation points for s..l.. I .-... .......39 Fig...comparison of backcalcu1at:ed and measured longitudi!nall AC strains ...... .......Example of experirnental relationship between AC strain arid modulus ...Comparison of AC moduli l'cx TS 4..........~. .....O. ....~ ..."* ... 6...... ...-. I Fig.j.... .Comparison of backcalculated AC sl. ".3 .Mn/ROAD ttxt sections selelcted for the deflection study ". I I . 31 32 Fig.. ~..... . ....l.* .37 ... ...D I..Y. 5.. I........ D ... ...te subgratde layer irriodulii fix 1 S 4...lI..tec1and mneaiswed transverse AC strains I 4: .... from TS 4: EVERCALC v..C €ig..." . from TS 27::EVERCALC v.....I .... ....rai..I....YO. from TS 27: EVERCALC v....4 I Fig.. 40 .Y.. ........ .OI ~ ~ Fig...< .*.... from TS 22: EVERCALC v..... OI. a + u D ..... ...... r ......*.. 38 a s Fig....."......... .. .. 36 from TS 17: EVERCAIX v..D..........2 .*....... ... ~...3 .. EWERCALC v.......33 ~.. 6... v O ...... 3....4 ...Comparison of backcalcula. D ..".LIST OF F1GIIREi...Comparison of backcalculated and meawlred transverse AC strains . 6..~_ . . ~ ...... ..+.....Comparison of backcalculated and n:ieasured transverse AC strains .... . ....~ ~ .."..Comparison of intermedia.Comparison of backcalcula.*...... o ...1 1 ...D.. ... . 4.II............I. ~ O ....... . . . ..2 . .9 ..l...6 ......... ....3 .....3 ...I .. Fig. and GBR ......~~ ~.Y ee.42 Fig.... ....O.m.. ..... Fig..7 ."......l... ........~.......... .~... ...... .........10 .".... ....... .e....... ID.......... .ll.3...... . .. .. 3. .. ..Comparison of backcalculated and xyieasilred longitudimll AC strains .... Fig.. O........5 a D slo.."... ... .. 4...I.... mo ...... ~ ...2 . -...Comparison of AC pavement thickness detenmined by corlinj.. I. ..."...3. ss. . ..... 6....5: EVERCALC v.. * * ...O1..".". Fig.... !.*.... ...... 6. EVEKCALC v. l l O ~ ~~~~ ~ . 6.*....3 ...... .. ~. 3. . .... .."...* . O ~ ~~ ~ ~ D ~ .1 ...................-. ..3 . 34 from ' S WESDEF *.. Fig..........--..... .. ". .....e strains ......-..1 .* -...........8 . -..".. 6..

. ...... .... 6.... EVERCALC v ..............Comparison of RMS error for TS 4: WESDEF vs....... 1-:VERCAI........... 3..parison of subgrade layer modiili for TS 25: WESDEIIF vs ........... 6..... 6...........Comparison of subgrade layer motliuli for TS 1'7: 'WESIDEIF vs . 6... ETERCXL(C:v ...52 Fig...........(2 v .............12 ........Fig ...............Comparison of subgrade llayer moduli for TS 4: WESDEIF 'CIS..... EVERCALC v .... 3. .....................For TS 22: WSIIEIF vs .... 3....... EVERCALC v ............24 .....28 ......3 ....... 6........ 6.........47 ..........Comparison of AC modulli fix TS 17: WESIIEIF vs.......3 ...........27 .. 3..20 .... 6..........13 ...14 ............ (3 v .....3 .. 3...Comparison of base layer moduli k:)rTS 17: WESDEF VS.. E~..3 ................26 ........... I WERCAILC v .... 3. 3. 6........16 ..... 6.3 ..Comparison of RMS error f i x TS 22:WESDEE... IEVERCALC v ........... 3.3 ...Comparison of AC strain ffor TS 25: W3SDEF vs ......18 ... 3..!S: 'WESDEF vs ........Comparison of AC strain for TS 1'7: W S D E F vs ..21 .....3 . 6..................61 .Comparison of base layer moduli for ITS 22: WESDEF vs....................................3 ... EVERC.. 44 Fig .55 Fig ....... EVERCALC v ............ 60 Fig ......Comparison of subgrade layer motliili for TS 22: WESDEIF vs . 3....... EVERCALC v ..... IEVERCALC v .............. E\7l.3 .23 .... 6.......15 .......3 ...... 58 Fig ..3 .. Comparison of backcalculated AC: straiin for 'TS 4::WESD:E:'Fvs.....41.......... EVERCALG v .................. 3..C v ... 6..... 3...... v ...C:orn............ 46 Fig ... 6.......22 ............ EVERCAL...17 ............... Fig ......... Comparison of RMS error fix TS 2 5 : WESDEF v!i... EYERCAL.........3 ............. ........ 59 Fig .. 6............. 3...VE~RCAI....Comparison of RMS error fix TS 1'7: WESDEF v..3 1 Fig .........C v .............45 Fig ........57 Fig. vi......3 .C v ........................ 3................ 6.3 53 Fig ...Coniparison of AC: moduli for TS 25: WESDEF vs . 3....29 .56 C Fig. 6.. 3............Comparison of AC: strain for TS 22: 'MrE:SBEF vs .....19 .......3 ... ....3. ETIERCALC v ............3 48 Fig ....... 3........Comparison of AC moduli .......... .25 ...3 . 6........... 49 50 Fig ...........Comparison of intermediate subgrde layer moduli fbr TS ... 3.41... Fig . 6..........................iRC:................. EVERCALC v........ 54 Fig ............

.. AC layer .-..4LC v..e for sirriiilated pavement sections ...racle fbr simulated .....Fig' 6...."..o.....2 .... 4.. ...a. ...*..35 .. B u ...11.~. ......_...Backcalculated vs.OO ao......Y...... expected vertical stress in base foir simulated . expected horizoiital stresrs in b....... .~O.O. " * . .*** . .41..Comparison of AC moduli lFor TS 2!7: WES1DE:IFvs.DD.. A....~DDI1ID.3 . expected AC strains for simulated...~D pavement sections ..."....~.....O O ..eO.)n..~. A.67 Fig.. .. . ... .. ... ... s ~ Fig. ....a a ..*.. ....~...A47 Fig.... ..3 1 ..... o Y ..aY.. O ~ . . .".1 j.ic...".I.65 Fig.. ..lll.Comparison of bacltcalculated and expected moduli: PdODCIOMP3..2@3-3 v.~......62 Fig...O.....lll l. E7JEMCAI. .a...........I~.....A46 ."...~..~. .....l." ".... 6. . ... . D Fig.. ..... ...*.33 .37 . ..Backcalculaied vs...*..*. 1t:VEMC:AIX v.Backcalculated vs.Backcalculated vs... 3.. 1 .. ...-.Comparison of bacltcalculated and expected motluli: I!:VERC.. pavement sections ... ..l~ 69 ~...".... ... ...O. 6... ..I .* Fig......... pavement sections .D ...... I. .* "... o .... expected vertical siubgracle strain for simulai." . A50 base layer ....."."...68 Fig.. . ...... . syf.. .ed .. ... 3.."....ID.. ..os o.-. IWERCALC v........3 .e..O... ~ ... O .....5 Comparison of bacltcalculated and expected motluli: \IVESI)I3?....s..O.... EVERCALX v....Comparison of baclccalculated and expected motluli: XI:VERCAL.~... I . .30 ..*."..Comparison of base layer moduli for 'r13 27: WESDEF VS....... -.Comparison of bacltcalculiarted and expected moduli: \KESI)II?F."....... .sll.... e e e ...3 ... ." ..* . ........ *-.....l..36 Backcalculated vs..40 .......".s.. 6..32 ... .... O ....DO..~. . .... ....e..j......OI...D a I ......72 . .......~....loo...D .expected horizorital stress on snbg.D .I.....l.. ~ ....... .....e ~ ...Comparison of subgrade 1ayt:r moduli for TS 27: "WEBDEF vs. "..... ~ .llI ..I.....34 .*.*.6 ... *...... D ~ ~ ~ ~ Fig.*. 4. 6...I A48 Fig." . e . pavement sections ... A. ....... .... D....*.... base layer . ~ ~ ~ ...~.. .... ...l. ... ~ ... 3....... pavement sections .. ~~..-(. ...~..) . .. ..... .Y. .........3 8 . .... AC layer ....".).O...l...Comparison of FWS error firsr TS 2'7: WES1):EF VIS...... 6.4 ..... AC: layer .I ...... 64 L........... ..3 .. ."....... 70 Fig." . 3. ..3 . 6.. 6.. ~ . .....Y... *.. 6... 71 Fig....A45 Fig...Comparison of AC: strain for TS 27: VESDIEF vs.."..l.........Y....C v... ... ..D ...... e ..... .expected vertica..". e*e ......... ...O...39 .. .. ..~ .. -. O .. *.D......*......... ......D..3 63 Fig.......I.-.... . . A.66 Fig. .. 6... ...D. ...". A.....s..... . .. aO. D... .......... 3. AC layer .I...EIVER.....~I...@v..... A..^Comparison of bacltcalculated and expected moduli: �I:VERC::..Backcalculated vs. "..... ..0... . 6.."..D m.a..... ...... A49 '- Fig.e.......1 stress on subgrade: ffm simulated "..C:LZLCv.... ..".0.....

... B............e+... . ~ ~ o.....-... . ....Comparison o f bacltcalcu1:nte:d moddi: MOD(IOMP3 v s 'WEISIIEF...~.... B.... ... B. subgrade layer ..."........I ... ....'WEISDEF........ ........ ........ ~ ~ Fig.... .......*.......~~~~........nttt::d moduli: MODCOMP3 v s 'WEISDEF.... D ... O ..... ._.. 11 .... B ... ... B5 Fig.. TS 22..... ........ . ..... .... AC layer ..D........ .. TS 4.. ...... .Comparison o f backcalculated modi. ........ ...... .....o...Y. 'WESIDEF........ .........l..* Fig..... ......_..... 4......itte:dlmoduli: MODCOMP3 vs. I ...... 1 +........*..4 .*....."..*.. base layer .....~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...3..... ~.. !.5 .... .Comparison of bacltcalcu1att::d moduli: MODCOMP3 vs.-...~....O1..........oduli: IXER.. .. ... .....B4 O .. subgrade layer...* --.. B l....~.....3....6 ... l .... ......~ I.... ~ . a..............o..~. . .. .. .~............ .. 3.. .....~.. .CALCv...~ ~.... ...*. D.B6 ..".. .. ~ .A5 4 Fig..A54 ~ O .".. TS 17.....O... subgrade layer ... ~.Comparison of backcalculated and expected m. B..... .. ~ ~ t... ..".. .. ~................ . l.A52 . A.........Comparison of bacJtca1cul.. Comparison olf bac:kcalculated and expected moduli: 1IWEX.7 ..l.."... A56 subgrade layer .....~... D........ ... .. 3. ..". ......... A..Comparison of backcalculated and expected moduli:: EVEIIRCALC v...Fig. TS 17. ~ . ....l... .. .~..Comparison of backcalculatedl modidi: MODCOM:P3 vs. TS 4.... .. ....... ". o..../.. B. ..9 . ....... ....0.... ... subgrade layer ..... l.. A........~...."...~... ... ~ Fig... ~ Fig. ...... subgrade layer .............~~....". l n l . .Y... .Comparison of bacltcalcul...... B.... 'WESIDEF...~... *... O 1 .l. . .....e... . ..... O ........... 'WESDEF..... 10 ... l l .. ...o......... B ..8 -..... TS 17. I . ....... l. .... *. .. . base layer ..a L/ Fig..O."....... B3 Fig.... . .....~........A55 subgrade layer ... ~.... .....o L. '.. .....".. ....... I . . ... .............~. 'WIISDEF.. . B. ... ..Comparison of backcalculatted moduli: MODCOMIP3 vs... l ...2 ..e .......... ". TS 22......... AC layer "....... Fig.7 ........* ..U.....".~~.. .. ~ ~ o.. ...B7 TS 22... base layer.............O1 l.. .....I .~....l ~ .o . ....... ....... ....Y..3 .... .Comparison o f backcalcu1ate:d modhli: MODCOMP3 vs. . .. ......... I ..oduli: M:ODCOMP3............Comparison of backcalculiatted and expected moduli: MOlDCOIUIP3........ ~ Fig....... .. .....-........ base layer.*.. base layer ......~.... ...O1...I.... ..". . .... "...... . ~ .... TS 4. A.......... .. D.. ...(. ... ~ Fig... ... ~ ................ A......... A....Comparison of bacltcalcu1.. .........~...."".... "..* .. .~........".....". ....B9 .uli:MODCClMP3 V:L 'WESDEF.....CALC v... .. .. ... ........~~...... B8 -.....D..... AC 1aye..o. -"......... B2 ~ ~ _ .. ..... ~ ~ l ...... . ...._.Comparison of backcalculated and expected m.e Fig. .... ... ...ili: MODCOMIP3 vs. ..e ~ I I *...*........-..... ...... ......l.. . ....... Fig.r...... (..... .... ." .....8 .... .....".9 ......."..... O . ......I ........L... ....Comparison of backcalculated and cxpected moduli: 'WESDEIF.n. ...ntt::dmod..... ...ly....~..........Y.. .....'WESDEF.. ..... ..... 12 .... .. ....... . . ......_.......... ".A53 Fig.

B13 ~ e...... ........o ~ O ...... TS 25........D1 Fig..~. *.......... VdESIIEF...... . 7's 25...... *................ W......"...... ................DEIF.... . \VESDE:F.D...... .......................~................. O ..... .I ~.. .........B17 .'..* ......... B12 Fig......... TS 27.. . ....... TS 25. ..... WESDEF.~~~...... a aD.. simulated deflection data....... 'WESIIEF....... B.~.Comparisorr of backcalculated mocluli: MODCOMP3 vs. 'vs.. Fig...Comparison of backcalcullated moduli: ....I...B 18 ..... 16 ........" *..........a.l ... .... Comparison of backcalculated moduli...... AC layer ... ~ Fig.... B... o . B........ ..~............. base layer ....... .Y..........."......... .... TS 27............: MODCORA. ..... .. . . AC layer ...< ..o...*. 17 . ee . slO.. ").. ..........l.... . .. 10 ....... B. B..... ..P3w.....base layer .... D o ... .. ......s........ ~...... .. . I . AC layer ............ .. ...... ........* .-....."...... 18 -..... ) o . ..... ~ Fig..ES. simulated deflection daia...........~... . B 15 ..Fig.............."..YI.".....-................ O ......... ....... base layer ... ... B....3 vs.. BI 0 1.lD l..-....Comparison of backcalculaited modiulii: MODCOMIP3 'vs."..... subgrade layer .. .sO l. ................. ~..... ... ...".......... .........Comparison of backcalcullated moclulj.......: MODlCOM:P:3 'vs.....".... B........... ....... ~....... 14 ....'. -..... ..................... ..l. B.. 7's 27.. ~ o... simulated deflection dat. ...... ..-. D .. B14 Fig.a.Comparison of backcalculated motilu1...... 'vs. . ...... subgrade layer "......i:MODCOMP.. 11 ....... ....Comparison of backcalcu1iai:ed moclulii: MODICOMP~ 'VVESIIEF...Comparison of backcalculiai~~:$ moduli.Comparison of backcalculated moduli: MOlCCOMP3 vs........... B............... subgrade layer ...".... 15 ....ESDEF....I316 Fig..........~.~......... B1 1 Fig........ e ... ........lle..... ........: MODlCOhAP:3 v!jo'Vdl3SIIEF.... 12 ....... 13 .....MOD~C:OMP3 WIESDEF. W..

a full-scale test facility constnuctcd by the Minnesota Department Measurements fkom of Transportation (MdDOT).he best agreement between the measured and calculated deflections. in part. bearing capacity is determined using a fallingweight deflectometer (FIND). The scope of this report deals with the c:valuat.mechanistic &:sign procedure. One of the featturc::. are the in-situ paveiment response >. Estimating critical pavement responses to traffk loads is a cnicial jpa~rlof a[ mechanistic design procedure. .zveiment:. one has data consisting o I' measured loads.iic-erpiiRicnl design procedure that will be developed. The deflection data can be used to obtain information regarding the relative strengths of the various layers within the pavement stmciure by doing a backcalculation analysis.ilon of backciilculakn analysis software leading to the selection of a progrann for routine usz: on both Mn/ROAD research and general Mn/DOT projects. from Mn/ROAll data. these sensors will be useti to verify and calibrak pavement re. deflections.s. of the I!vlinnesota Road Research Project (Mn/lROAD). and information regarding the structural thicknesses. Confidence in the accuracy of pavewneni response calculation models is also importan1 for a reliable design model fox new p.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In many current pavement managemmt strategies. It is hoped that the recammmdations made in this report will be implemented statewide in light of the oncoming .sporiseimlotlels.ensor. In a backcalculation analysi:j. These data x e used in a calculation or search procedure for the layer moduli that provide 1. The calibrated models will in turn be used as the basis for the mechani!.

.

Pavement engineering andl research experts were called upon to perform analyses with the candidate programs. pressure at the mid-depth of the intermediate (granular base) layer.CHAPI'ER 2 Z%ACKIGIROUIYP) Deflection Analysis There are a multitude of'different pavement analysis proceidwes i programs available for use i d today. e. etc. The main shortcoming of this particular study is that the program coniparisons and evaluations were lbased only or1 the individual layer moduli and not subsixface responses.ation software selection ]processfor the Strai.g strain at the bottom of the surface layers. viscoelastic model paramleters based on dynamic forward-c:alculalion solutions [] Since mechanistic-empincal pavement design procedures are based on in-situ response o€ pavement sections.hecalculated tleflectioms within a specified 3 .egicHighway Research different programs using Program (SI-�RE')an intensive study was undentakeii to evalualte s8evel-all both field and computer generated dala [3]. Some of these are more sophisticated tlim others and range from simple models that compute effective pavement and subgrade moduli [ I] to more sophistic:atedmodels that estimate 2. As part of the backcalcu1. MdDOT felt it was necessiw to evaluate difkrent pirograms from the standpoint of both pavement surface imd subsurface responses. The basic procedure for multi--layerpavement backcalculation is outlined below. Many backcalculation programs are based on an iterative procedure in which the layer modluli are adjusted until the measured deflections match [.

The iteration process stops if one of the following occxrs: 1. Such basins should always be checked criticallly. The combined change of modulus for all lalyersb from one iteration l o the next is less than a given value. the search i . or both. The second criterion requires some explanation The program will base the adjusted moduli on the effect a change of the modulus has on the deflection error. but may be accepled if‘the deviation from the measured basin i s not too large. The maximum number of user-sptxified iterations hias been reached. may is deter a satisfactory match of the basins.nA steep slope will bead to a quick solution. Thus. the shortcomings of the lint:ar elastic model. if the malch is near perfect. The mean root-mean-square o f the relative difference betwem mea:zured and backcalculated readings is less than a given value. a change of‘ 4 . It is expire::sedl as the root-meansquare (RMS) deviation. This could be expressed as a slope. The first criterion is obvious. 3.tolerance. ~ ~ and a slope is determined for each ~ n k r i lqyer. for all calculations in the present study was an M S tolerance of one percent. 2. but a shallow slope may take longer or even lead to nom-coI1’v~:rgh:X1C(:.. The criteria used The last criterion is as obvious as the first and is needed1 for practical ir~itsons. when the change ~)f‘rnsclulus small for each layer. the resolution of the sensors may not be adequate fbr reaching the stipulated IWS-critterion. the program is unable to arrive zit a better match anyway and the iteration procedure stops. I:tukher. :stopped. faulty assumption of layer thiicknesses. The difference between the two basins is referred to as the deilection error. In addition.

Pavement Response Analysis One of the factors considered in flexible pavement design . the loading condition is dynamic in matitre. plate is iin realil y semi-rigid.modulus of one percent. and a maxinium of 25 iterations. Assumption of strain at a point. asphalt concirete layer thickness is crucial. static conditions.and p e r f o ~ ~ l i ~ c t : prediction is the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete layers. Uncertainty in location of FWD plate relalive to sensor. howledge of the total. homogeneous materials. asphalt concrete is inherently viscoelastic. Research has sholwn that good comparisons between strains measured in-situ and strains estimal etl from backcalculiated layer moduli can be obtained from FWD tests [4. Uniform load distribution. load plate offset relative to gage may have dramatic effect. 5 .. gage may locally stiffen material1 in which it is present. damping 11spreseni. IJniform layer thickness. in real system. Static conditions. 51There are many factors that influence tlxe accuracy of measurcd and backcalculated strains as well as modulus values. Strain gage inclusion effect. gage senses average strain oveir its length. They include: Assumption of linear elastic.

many features of the program are customized for Texas conditions From the SHRP study it was found that the WIESDEF program had the highest level of user sensitivity.The effect of assumed vs. VKSDEF. In general. Both the strain-averaging and location effect work to lower the nieaswed sitrain relative to backcalcxlated n ones. program for rout ixie ust: on SHRP arid LTlPP data. For this study. in addition. ifthe AC thickness can not be determined accurately (at least to within 25 mm) then the bac kcalcul. That study led to the eventual selection of the NOlDUI. to obtain a accurate comparison between the measured a n d calculatedl values all ihese effects should be accounted for. Description of Programs A detailed study of different programs IR. aol ISSlf3M4. that this coidd have been because the default depl h-to-rigidlayer of 6 meters was not overridden lby the users in castes where a semi-infinite subgrade was being modeled [ 31.further evaluation: MODULUS.U~*. outlinedl in the SIHRP' selection report [3]. MODCOMP3. Four different programs for flexible pavements were selectd in the initial part of that study fix. In general. The discrepancy depends on the AC thickness and modulus. actual AG thickness is dramatic. It was noted. however.The primary reason uc that the MODULUS program was not chosen It'or evaluation in o w study is the inflexibility of thc program: it requires deflections from specific sensor posiitions arid.ationand response calculations should be ieviewed critically and moderatecl by Ihe accuracy of the inputs. the key items that were examincd in the wndidatte: I3T'QglXImS are: .

3. WESDEF [8].DOS. Flexibility in selection of deflection sensor positions. MODCOMP3 v. Program doc:urrientation with exaimnples and case studies. Accuracy of backcalcxdated modiiili and forward calculated rcsponse results. An efficient rncthod QIF analyzimg these data i s needed. The preferred candidate program would lhave the ability to operate in ai UNIX environment to fiicxlitate transfer of results to the Mn/RBAD database but also be cnapabk of running in it DOS environment for the benefit of routine users.C: v. 130th EVEKCA1. 5.’ 3. 8.k and fixwad calculations. 4 I [9]. All €our programs. and strains contained in one output file.uise linear elastic forward calculation subroutines. ability ta process data files in hatch mode. and EVERCAILC v. 2. The seventh item above is due to the large numiber of deflection basins that have been collected at MdROAD. 4.3[6].D datalbase. 31. Use of the same forward calculatiion program for both lbac. Adaptability for users with different computer resources. m 7 . Computational efficiency. ability to run in Windows. 6 . obtain source: code if possible. MODCOMP3 lhas the: capability of alpproximating non-linear elastic layers but this feature was no1 used in the investigation..3 and MODCOMP3 use linear elastiic solution subroillines that are Ibasd o the CHEVRCN program. mdor TJNIX environments. 3. Calculated moduli. stresses. Ability lo interface with MnIR0A.1.6 [7]. 7. The following programs were selected for this study: EVERCJAIC v.

1 all of Ihe progrm:. are DOS-based applications. 4.R@PL( is that input and output files use binary code instead of ASCIl text making data. environment. which gives this pmgriun a n advantage over the others The main disadvantage of this particular version o F EV E. since the existing WESDEIF code does not have an interface. a program suitable for use by routine uscrs would most likely come only at the cost of considerable programming time. The code can also be easily compiled orn a U N X nnac. This makes l.1 use the WESLEA forward calculatiom program which w.: capable of m i r i g in batch mode. Part of this rnanual contains documentaltilon oin the EVERCALC v. An advantage with rthe "ESDEF program is access to the source code. Botlh W313DEIF a EVIZRCAEC v. With the exception of IIVERCALC v.asdeveloped far the: US Army Coqp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station [S].. 4.:om:t:rns . except for EVERCAIX v. exchange witltr the Min/lliOAD database and other applications difficult. iwc.1 program with examples and case studies.hlineto interface with the MnROAD computer system. a large number oj'input data files (prepxed bcforehand) can be run without someone being present to emter new files. 8 . 4. All programs. In other words.bout possible calculation " inaccuracies in the original CHEVROPJ code.however.1 is the only one ofthe group that operates in a Wintb~ws Washington State Department of Transportatron (WSDOT) has piiblislied a pavement engineering manual [S]. 4.OAI) and hislorical MdDOT FWTI databases. the code in MQDCOMP3 has been revised dise to (.he program flexible in that an imerface customized for Mn/DOT use could be created to interact with both the Ivln/Iy. 3 . 3 . However. The IWERCALC v.

3. The recomiendlations from this study will be used to specify a program to be used for pavement evaluation and research on MnROAII FWD d.mis in terms of accuracy and useability. 2.ata. Identify situations in which backcalculatiioxi prccedurer.ron backcalculations.r.n prog. Compare the perfomiance of sevcral different backcalculatio. brealc down. 9 .The objectives of this study are 'to: 1. Compare measured sitrain values against calculated values obdainiedl from deflec1.

.

technicians. and a heavy-weigh1 deflectometer (HWD) testing machine. the values and the percent error moduli predicted fiom each program were compared to the e~~pected was calculated. using the MrdDOT FWQ and USA CRREL €iWD (obtained approximately twice per day for routine tests mid once per day for sensors). which was chosen to coiiarcide with the end-of-winter thawing period. Intensive data cml1ec:tion and testing was conducted with the assistance of the US Armiy Carps of Erngiiieeirs Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (USA CIWXL) who supplied enginefxs.io~i experiment was conducie:d in which ilhe programs were iruni 011 theoretical deflection data.1 and Fig. . Table 4.1 give thie dctails of the MnmOAD flexible pavement test sections that were tested using the C X W I . Information obtained during this period. 4. 1'I . The field data in this study were collwted ducriiig a six-week periotl i n the spring of 1994 that began in mid-March and extended though late April. IH[\NII diuring spring 1994.CHAPTER 1 The objectives of this study were accornplished by evaluating thc sdected programs using two approaches. In the second approach an be compared against values obtained fi-om the lsackcalculal. included: P Non-destructive deflection testinj. In the first approach the progranlls wm: used to analyze data from field deflection testing that was conducted on five MtdROAB flexible pavement test stxtions. Strain response data fiom in-situ sensors were obtained during each FWI) drcap so that the measured strains could1 results.

(3) s e q u ~ ~ inumber. A typical flrxible test section strain gage installation consists of tlrree gages. Selected dynamic sensor responses iising the HWD 2nd tliie Il/ln/KOA. in mechanistic design.E< (Longitudinal Ehnbedrnent gage) and TE (Transveirse Embed me:nt gage). respectiively. (2) ~modeli. (AC) Typically. To1 facilitate database storage and retrieval at the MdROAD project each individual sensor has . the long-lemi pc:rfoma. This number antl ~ce consists of three parts: (1) test section number. P Frost and thaw penetration depths fiom the soil resistivity probes (obtained daily). These sensors were installed (duringconsltructiort and were pllaced directly on the seclions. A detailed description of the environmental a n d load reslponse sasors that are installed at MnROAD can be found elsewhere [lo]. 12 .nce of a given pavement section is related to the strain which has been shown to be a c:ontrolling factor in the fatigue liie of Alil mixtures. Details prepared granular base or subgrade for conventional and fidl-~deptli on the installation procedure are given iln [lo]. The primary pavement iresponse investigated d wing these tests were the 1ransversally antl longitudinally oriented strains at the bottom of the bound asplhah ~0~11cirete layers. The gages are spaced transversally at 305 m apart and are numbered such thiat the selqiit:nc:e of the gage in the wheelpath is 002. probes (obtained once per day sat most sites and one site recorded several times per day).I unique identi6cstjon number.E)mobile data acquisition trailer.P Subsurface in-situ moisture contents obtained fiom the TWK. straddled across the wheelpath. For the two types of strain gages discussed in this report the model desigriations arfcL.

il:lle combinations of tlnt. . A series of rnany different hypothetical.2 and Fig. A range of stniicfural configurations and pwanieters were modeled as given in Table 4.2.:jc= permeters there are 648 individual cases. This is the sirbroutine that 11sused in the WESLEA forward calculation prograim and the WBDEF and EVERCALC v. These surface deflectilc71riswere then used as input for each program studied. 4.1 backcalculation programs. ELC is a “Fror~t-end” program to Ihe WES5 subroutine and was developed specifiically for ihis study.In addition to the field data the programs were also evaluated using tlheoretically generated data. 4. The forward calculaitions were dome using the WES5 subroutine [S 1 in a program callled IZLC (Elaetic Layer Calculatmxis). cases with prescribed layer thicknesses and moduli were analyzed to obtaiin surface deflection data. With a11 pos!.

.

C v.1 program was not available. 4. 2. use resulting moduli to create input fles for MESS. In the case olf WESDEF. 6 .nluies (seed moduli) in accordance with [ 111.layeretl. In all cases a three-. linear elastic 15 . static.etpredicted responses. 3. Create input files for various progrmns.Field Deflection Data This section discusses the details reg. 7. The basic process includes the following steps: 1. At the time the evaluations of the data vvere: performed the EVERCALC v. 5. 4. compare moduli between various programs. Tabulate output for analysis. Analyze sensor response time-histories to determine peak reslponse. MODCOMP3. cad d a t e initial nrodidus v. Run backcalculation :programs.3. run forward analysis to g.xrding backcalculation analysis of' tlhe field data. Select layer thicknesses. Compare peak measured responses to p r d i cted values.and WESDEF. 3. Three programs were used for the evaluation o€the field data: EVERCA1.

were used. was asswined to be equal to the design value (see Table 4. calculations with an intemnediate siubgnde layer having a thickness equal to approximately three times the total thickness of the asphalt layers gives reasonable results. assumes ithat the hdfspace is 11 igid.1). In the cases of the twlo full-depth pavements the sectioxis were modeled as three layer systems to represmt modulus chamges with depth. if present. respectively.ayerswere assurned to be equal to the thickness determined fiom the GRR survey [12] and the thickness at the F'WD test station was assumed equal to the nearest GPR test station. respectively. A non-rigid halfspacc: 16 . T'HICKNE!:SS) where the GPR and core thicknesses are in mil (see Fig. The K2.0 mm. 5. The thickness of the granular base layer.wid SEE values for the regression were 0. All three programs that were used in this part of the study modeli i2 laycredl system on a semiinfinite halfspace. Expwieince Ihsts.1). shiown that. when modeling a full-depth section.Ol*(CORF.system was modeled. The initial mot~ulus values (seed moduli) assigmcd to each layer were calculated using the regression equations developed at tlie University of Washington [1 1 The total thickness of the AC: surfacx: 1. These veilues are given in .99 arad 6. WESDEF. Inteirmediate subgrade layers with thlichesses equal1 to 9 15 mm and 305 inches for 'I'S 4 and 25. however. A regression analysis of the thicknesses determined from the cores and GI'R data revealed the following: GPR THICKNESS = 1.the pnentlieses in Table 1. The core thickmsses nuiged from about 75 to 300 m.

calculated rnodiuli. An (algorithmand program specially developed for the MdROAD data was used for this purpose [ 131. These values were then compared tlo strains computed using the t)ack.-lo-seri. After several atbempts at using MODCOMP3 ir: was observed that the program frequently A 1 became unstable with exceedingly large or srneill moduli and Ihigli M S percent values.. The calcullations were first done for a system with a 6-meter thick subgrade.)I:F by inserting a thick. Several different approaches were taken with the layer-to-sensor assigrments but no improvements were observed. As will. they vvere then repeated for a 30-meier Ihick subgrade. The sensor lraces were analyzed to dctenmine tlhe rriaximm rlesponse.sorassignments ((1 recluirecl input to the program). 3. a the iresults fiom these tam programs (both moduli and ld '17 . be discussed shortly. Strains for the WESDEF results were computed by using the moduli as input to the ELC progr.alculation:. E b t h versions of EVERCALC provide subsurface responses (xxduding strain) directly in the backcalculation output file whereas WESDEF does mot. Lrynamic smsor responses were obtained using the OPI'IM MEGADACs.elastic layer on top ofthe rigid halfspace. only the wheelpath sirain gages were tested.3 performed well on the field data . The mobile daia acquisition trailer was used for tht: ofMine low-volume sections (TS 25 and 27) while a laptop computer was used to control tlhe on-line: MEGADACs in the mainline roadside cabinets.was thought that this may be due to the layer..can presumably be modeled in WESI.mi. 1 . both WESIDEF and EVERCALC v. The sensitivity of the WESDEF program output to the thickness of the subgrade layer was investigated by doing two sets of' c. In all tests the H WD plate was positioned over the center of the wheelpal h strain gage.

A description of'the riomenclature used for designating the various response qumtiities is given in Fig 4.2). Because of this it and calculated strains using moduli pre:tlicted by the MIC)I>COI\/~P~ was decided that the MODCOMP3 prolgrans sliould be dlisqualified. it is likely that there would. the ELC program was used to malyze the hypothetical sections which have the structural parameter:.2. 5. Rt:sults from the MODCOMP3 program are presented in Apperndix B. 18 . Simulated Deflection Data As discussed previously.responses) were in good agreement. After obtaining the predicted outlined above was surface and subsurface responses f'rom ELC the backcalculation processb followed. h e to the tacts that (1) the: moduli from MODCOMP3 and WESDEF did not compare well and (2) there is a strong cornelahon 1xtwe:enthe AC strain and layer modulus (see Fig. be a poor agreement between measured prc~gram.2. The results of the calculations were iiniilyzed by cciirnparing the expected (known) and backcalculated moduli and subsurface responses. listed in Table 4.

strains. although there is considerable scatter for ‘TS 25. respectively.24. Fig. 4. As can be seen the. 6. 6.3) and nieawred strains for the TE002 sensor in TS 4 are shown in Fig.4 through 6. 6. vexy 1301c)r are obtained on sections JwithAC thicknesses less than 11 00 mm. 6. ]Fig.3 ailso shows the relative agreement between the: strains obtained from both programs. Fig. 6.29. 6.P‘FER6 IDISCUSSION Field Testing A comparison of calculated (using EVEIICAIX v.1. The agreement between measured and mlculatled strains is favor. 22.9.CH[A.2. assumed thickness value (GIF’R or design) has a dramatic effect.3.15 through 6. Fig.25. 3.14 show comparisons of moduli.10 though 6.19. 6.34. 6. ‘The design thickness of TS 2’7 is 7 5 nun whille the GPR survey estimates the backcalculation results thickness near the strain senscprs to btr about 89 mm. Tlhe sane data fiom WEISDEF c:alcullations are shown in Fig.3 and WESIDEF programs for 1’s. 6. Comparisons of calculated and measanred strains for each of the remaining test sections are shown in Fig. An example ofthe effects of tliickness a:jsumptiom on the baclccalculated strain are shown in Fig. c d KM ! percent error between the m i i EVERCALC v. Typically.tblef‘or all but TS 27. high R2 values were obtained although the .30 through 6. It is evident that the worst agrwment comes From the calculations done for TS 27.20 through 6. Similar graphs for ITS 17. Generally. and Fig. 3. and 27 are shown in Fig.25 through 6. 6.

The best agreement came from * N I22: With the exception of TS 27. In all cases.). More rapid iimnprovements i n the IU4S error were seen for the 20 . the strains and mocluli obti2inecil from EVI3RC:ALC v.and the clhimge hi RMS percent error stabilized near mid-April. unifommi load) but also the important fact that.lope of the regression lines were geinerally greater than uunit. Thiere was still1 cansjderable scatter in the comparisons for TS 27 owing to problems witlh the thin surfiiice layer. This may reflect the inability of the rri~odlel represent a thin wction (where the departure from assumptions and reality become prtevalent.14 (04TE002. The thickness of the subgrade had a definite eI‘fect on olutput fi-om the VJESDEF program. The predicted strains for TS ‘2’7 i u e considerably higher than the measured ones. It was noted that mo!. e g .88 (22LE002) to 1. the use of the thick (30 m) subgrade resulted in a. better RMS fits were obtained as the thaw period progressed .ontributetl by the innmnost three to sensors.y: 1 he rannge of slopes was 0. 3.:. with only three sensors within 300 nmi ofthe load plate center.3 and WESDEF compare fairly well. This coincides with the approximate itiming of the disappearance of subsoil frost (based on RP data). The changes in RMS and strain estimation error lover time were inve:stiigated. there i s little deflection information regarding the bending lilnd tlefomiation o � the AC Layer.t of the EWS error was c. In general. more: favorable agreement between the moduli and strains from the two proograirns.

the known moduli fairly well 1.1. 1. It was noted that the WESDEF program had consisttntly l o w mean pretlictiori"eryorsiis well as low ranges (spread between maximum and miniinurn perclenl. Again. The differences in results fjrotn the viuio1xs programs axe likely due to differences in the specific backcalculation and forward calculation rschemes used by eachi program. appear to be ahle t o baicltcalculate.ignificatnt v a iiatmi. the calculated and expecAcd AC strain (EH1) ffroiwn tlx sjmiulated basins are shown. Simulation Study The results of the backcalculations done on the simulated data are swmmarized in Table 6 1 Table 6. No discernible trend between M S and t:rror could be found for ilhe xnaiinline sections. the reason for this is not known but may be due to the mon-imiform phde loading conditions..g.) were ilnvcstigated but none could be found.. In Fig.1 gives the stalistics on the pc:rcent predictiion errors lor each program studied..35. 6.thiche!j!. etc . The reason for this could possibly ble due to the effects of warmer air temperatures on the AC mixture stiffness resulting in non-mi forim plale loading conditions.thinner sections (25 and :27) but both these also displayed an nncxease in backcalculation RMS towards the end of April. Correlations be tween the prediction errors and structural parameters (e. All programs. modulus. error). Several things are noted from Talble 6. This may be attributed to the fact that the majority of the discrepancy is colntrjbuted by the base and subgrade layers as they thaw. There was s. however. For the two low-volume road sections an increase in the discrepancy between measured and calculated strain was found as the tlhaw pcriod progressed.0 atccura!elly predict this parlicular 21 . A description of the nomenclature used for designating the veu-ious response quantities is given in Fig. It is evident from this that all programs are i3bk 1. at lleast on ~ average.

rcementbet ween expected and backcalculated results is very good.wo EVIER. 4. 4. 2:2 . is extensive. it appears as though the i. 6. Program Selection 13ased on the results of this sludy ii is believet1 that the I3VEIIICA1. From these results.response.1. Graphs showing comparisons of'the remaining su1)surface:responses are given in Fig. The doculmeritaition on EVERGALG v. Extra programming would be required lo make it useabde. The current version of NrEESI)EF does not have an adequate user interface. however. theire is virtually no documentation or users manual avaiilable on the software.36 through 6.40. Even though the performance o f the EVERCXLC v 3 3 program was comparable to the others it will ji not be considered because it is not capable of processing batch 1iles i ~ ~ n tthe developers no longer support the program. The program is used extensively by 'WSDO lr personnel imd is an integral part of their pavement management program. In additjon.1 backcalculation program should be adopted as the backxalculation program of choice h r Mn/KOAI) work.C v.@ALCprograms and WESDEF performed comparably anti that the ag.

. 3. P When using the WIZSDEF program to model ii :. The agIce:ment between stresses mtl strains in the widedying layers was also good.inlinitesubgradt: the minimum recommende:d subgralde thickness is 30 mi. P ‘Theuse of EVERCAILC v.emi-.tfor Mn/ROAX) and research work).1 as a “stantli%d” backcalculiition progrmn should be implemented (at 1eac. P For the simulated deflection study the agreement between expected and backcalculated stress strain in the surface and strain was good fbr all. Large PMS percenl errors..3 was the best among the programs investigated P The output of the MObDCOMP3 program f‘requtmtlybecame rrmstable dluring the analysis of the field data. 4. of the programs.ERCALC v. especially ffor the h i z o l ~ t i d (AC) layer. and long computation times were observed. tuneasonable results.CHA PlrlER ’7 Based upon the iresults presented in this report it is reasonable to conclude the following: P For the lield testing data the agreement between the Wl3SIDEIF and EV.

Another approach might iirivolve thle use (of:XXIX: ofher parameter as the primary response transfer function input... The imod. 24 . curvatwe or dle:flect:ionobtained dlirectly from FWD data.This is mnsis'tent with observations and recommendations found in the literature. This is clue to the con1rast in stiffness between shallow frozedunfirozen zones iald thus dcviations from the real (field) situation and assumptions implicit in the theory. k i n alternative approac:lh would be to use AG modulus-temperature data from thicker test sections with sirmiilar rnix characteristics to fix the thin layer modulus at a h o w n value.: > Backcalculation analysis using static. > It is not recommended that backcalculation analyses of dlefltxtiorn data. from sections having surface layer thicknesses less that 1100 m be tlone.timinins should be investigated more formally. for a variel y of structures.uli o f the imderIyirig layers could then be backcalculated. linear elastic theory on tleflection data obtained during the spring thaw period is highly pnoblemalic.cmsitjvity analysis to determine the range of effect of assumed pavement thickness on fhe magnitude (of backcalculated stram.the lbackcalculation results. P Assumed surface layer thickness can have a tlramatic efkct 030. This could be done by perfoxlniing a :.General comments regarding pavement layer modulus backcalc ulatioxi and the various programs evaluated in this study are as follow:. The effects of uncertainty of surface layer thickness on estinnatetl :. cg.

ocal Roads Program Pub1xc. WR.” Report SHRP-P-65 1. . PCS/Law Engineering. arid ll3arlks:r. 6. Transportatiorli Research Board. 9. F J. No.. Wli~4~i11gtor~ Txansportation Center. 1093.ressiorn Method to Interpret Dynamic Pavement Deflections.aiioiii No. 199%. 1986.L.P.Structures. 1995. 10. ASTM $TI) 1026.? “‘Multilayer Ehstic Program for Backcalculatmg Layer Moduli in Pavermeiit I~valiuation. ASTM STI) 1026. 1989.IEREFERIENCES 1.” proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the I3e. C.. Alexander.Report No. “Investigatitm of Asphalt Concrete Pavement Cracking firom Heavy Vehicles P’hast: 2: Invest]gal ion of Dynamic Loading of Truck Suspensions. 1994. 3.a.” Ph.uing Capacirty of1Roads and Airfields. Newcomb. Chatti.. 8. 1993 2. I>.P4avement Analysis Computer !$oftware and Case Studies. American Society for Testing and Materials.A. Lenngren. Volurlrie 3 . 7. T.” ’T’rmsportationResearch Record. C.ayer Properties. Dissertatio~l.D. Washington State Department of Transportation. RTA-65K23’7-2.” Caliiornia l3epartmein.honcy. ‘‘Instructional Guide For Back-ICalculatisn and the Use of MODCOMP3 Version 3. C. 1994.structiveTesting of Pavements and Backcalculation e f Moduli. WSDOT Pavement Guide..” American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. L.3 User’s Guide. 1293. Monismith. Schrader. Lytton.. “Layer Moduli Bac kc. “Backcalculation of hvement 1. k L .H.. 4..” Noncle.. 1989. 1I. 1991 a 5. D.t of ‘Transportaltion. 25 . Strategic Hngliway Research Program. University of Washington.6.R.”Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and I3ackcaXculation of Mocluli. White. 94-10. and M. 1995. K. “Relating Deflection Data to Pavement Strain. “AASHTO Guide €or Design of I’avemerl . American Society for Testing and Materials. Irwin.E.. University S tatc of Washington. and Johnson.“IDevelopment and EvaXuationi of Reg. J. Van Cauwelaert. Delpartment of Civil Engineering. 6‘Sluk)surface Instruments Iiistallaticon Procedures.” CornelI University L. G-.ilculatisn Procc:dure: Software Seltxtion.. EVERCALC Version 3.D..

12. MI\T/PR ..96/09.R. 1996.A. I994.” Mn/DOT Report No. Dai. “Ground Penetrating Radar Survey of Pavement ‘Thiclmesson Mm/ROAD Sections.. 13.T. Maser. K. S. D.. and Van Deusen. 24 . “Digital Signal Processing for MiflOAD Offline bata.” Final Report to the Minnesota Ilepartment of Transportation.

. _ I - 22 ML 25 27 LV LV Note: ML.Structural data used for. . . I - 27 . _ _ _ I - . bottom of AC LE = Longitudinal strain gage.225 and 280 ..-- ______ ---- . = h4ainline 1.-- 35.bottom of AC All thicknesses are dt:sign values except ..- -.--- Base - . 1 FACILITY 4 ML ML 17 . .Table 4.Is-built AC in pareruthese:s (from GPR survey) Table 4. 105.2 . . and 175 _ I _ . LAYER AC THICKNESS.----. IMPa Ibl[ODIJLIJYS.___-__-.-.MxflOAll:) test sections selected fix the deflection study. mni 200.-94 LV = Liow volunne road TE = Transversal strain gage:.Ihylpothetical sections irr simulation study.

n 0 G 8 a m i 3 7 a 3 3 I.. u z 0 u 0 z 0 .c .I d .

TS 4 230 nnm AC n..W Q A D tesl sections selected for the: deflection study.1 .. 17 205 mrn AC TS 22.-. 205 m AC 710 mnn c:13 Clay subgrade R12 460 m CX6 Clay subgrade R12 "S 25 125 r m A(: n 'rs :27 / 75 :280 mm C16 AC Sand subgrade R70 (Chy subgrade LA 29 I _-. .-- I"'" Fig.4.--.

PZS 1 916 019 LSP SO� &OZ urrUO=i I I I I I .

-- t 0 0 m 0 0 m m v-4 C> C> 0 M :3 1 .

a 2 .0 t-c t-c 0 c 0 0 .

Ic) 0 .0 0 m C) C) clr 0 3 m 0 0 7 1 C.

\ h 8 0 N 0 m d 0 z * m $5 0 I1 0 1 0 u 0 2 0 :3 4 .m N 0 \\ .

mfersstrain Fig 6 3 . 3. EVE3 = EVERCALC v.02*W-S STRA!PJ+ 3.55 R2 = 0.C Q I T I ~ ~ ~ ~ S O ~ of backcalculated AC strains showing effects of thickness assumption and program .99 .300 EHl: HORIZONTAL STRAIN AT BOTTOM OF SURFACE LAYER A EV-3 STP-A-I= 0 0 0 !.3 150 !00 J" <n 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 BACKCALCULATED STRAIN. WESDEF (GPR).

I3 a - I I -\ 0 0 c 4 C> C> *..- r A 0 H z aa 8 3 3 2 . -I 0 :36 .

4 . 4 w 0 0 10 m 0 0 C> c3 0 r-l 0 m c4 I n :3 7 ..

:3 8 .0 0 M w 0 N 0 0 c\l IA 3 0 0 0 3 L! II w 0 0 0 0 0 m .

0 0 0 -3- nrr m C> C> M 0 1 0 0 0 0 m & c 3 c 3 T . 3 0 v7 0 ol ol .

M d d 3 I It 0 0 \B 0 0 l. r C) C) 'd 0 0 m 0 0 0 CN .

0 0 m 0 0 C> C> F-l 0 ol 41 .d o \ a\ 3 0 0 \D C :) C3 TI.

n I c4 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \o .

300

I 1

250

1994 CRREL HWD TS 4 j INT. SUBGRADE LAYER (E2)

P

2
m
77T

200

E
7 - #-T rn
7 P .

+ J

g

0 150

c

EVE3 = EVERCALC v. 3.3 WES = WESDEF C V E 4 = EVEKLALL v. 4.1 MOD3 = MODCOW3

-T

$ 100

50

I
7 AP,
1w

0

E2(WES)

E2(WES,DEEP)-1:1/

0
50
v

A

.--

qnn

W

i 3i;

LUU

250

300

EVERCALC Y. 3.3 MODULI, MPa

Fig. 6.11 - Comparison of intermediate subgrade.layer moduli for TS 4:WESDEF vs, EVERCALC v 3 3

0

0

0

a

a
0

0

o

I

n

0 0

r'.

u3

0

0

C> C 3

-3-

0

0

m

W

W

0

N

WESDICF RMS, ]percent
0 0
U I
,--!,

c1

w
ul

ul

h)

r\, u l

w

P

+
ul

ul

46 .

3 I _____-^I__.+ TI- 47 ..._ 0 0 0 W 3 7-- (3 0 0 .0 I5 2 1 .

U 171 I u .-> v . 0 0 wl m 48 .

C I 0 0 C) C) 00 0 0 \o C) 0 d ' .

0 0 hl 0 Y I n 3 2 M Q 0 N v7 3 0 .

8 0 .

0 0 0 5 ol -1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 aD 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 0 0 s 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ CJ IXI 0 0 \D 0 d 0 0 0 52 .

3 53 .

0 0 0 0 0 00 r- 0 0 0 0 \B 0 0 M 0 0 d- 0 0 m h 0 0 c\1 0 2 0 0 54 ..

.0 0 a a W I. 0 0 a a 0 a 0 am 41 a 0 0 a e 0 0 0 \ I .

PJ C) C) PJ 0 v. I I I I 0 0 8 0 m 0 v. 0 0 d 0 v . d .I n 0 m 0 0 M 0 v. N N 0 0 0 v.

0 0 0 2 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 00 0 0 \D 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 C> C> C> 0 0 0 c> 0 00 0 0 \o C) C) -4- C) .

2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 U 0 00 0 \o 0 d 0 c x E 0 0 00 w 2 :5 8 0 Yt c:> c\1 0 0 .

0 0 t-3 0 ry) r - 0 .

‘ \..-. .. \ -\ \ 0 0 II 7 II .t . 7-- .-.

3. . _ A i 50 200 250 300 350 400 BACKCALCULATED STRAIN. EVERCALC v.29 .for TS 25: WESDEF vs. EVERCALC v. 3. microstrain Fig.3.400 2 200 L a 0 0 50 1 uu .3.Comparison of AC strain. 6.

2 0 0 0 C) 0 \r) 0 C> C> Tr C> 62 .

E13 WESlDElF IMODW LI. MPa + I - + 0 0 Y I-& 0 0 C> C> C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID 0 O 0 4 0 e t a 0 Y ' 0 0 .

0 0 \o I 0 0 9.I n 0 0 rn d 0 0 d 0 0 0 vl a m 0 0 m '\ R 0 w 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 vl + 5 0 0 4 0 I n .f 0 0 c > rn 0 0 C> C> C> C> r-4 0 CCI 61 4 .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *I 8) 1 1 4D 4D "0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 .

0

2

0

0 0

2

0 0

0
w

0 00

8

0

0 0 W

0

3

0 0

e

PI;
o c c
d
w

0

a

0 0

(3
0 0 0 0

2

0 0

0
t--l

0 0
00

' 0

'0 '0

68

0 " : 69 .

l 0 0 c> c 4 I-4 2 c> u3 C> C> c: 9 c: > Yt c .0 0 00 0 0 \D 3 0 0 s 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 00 0 0 \D d 0 0 0 0 c\l 0 0 0 00 d 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 c'. 0 c\1 70 . : C : .

? ' c') - :> 0 hl 0 b' 0 .

0 0 0 m m b - ' .

.

... i: . .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful