2010.28 Pierce Advanced - Pavemt.Design PDF

Workshop on Advanced Pavement Design
17th Annual Fall Pavement Management Conference October 26 29, 2010
Linda M. Pierce, PhD, PE Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Outline
Deflection testing g and analysis y y Backcalculation y Overlay thickness design
y y
This presentation Thi i will ill be b available il bl at www.nwpma-online.org
providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance
DEFLECTION TESTING AND ANALYSIS
What Do You Use?

Do not use deflection equipment q p y Dynatest FWD y Jils FWD y KUAB FWD y Road R dR Rater y Other
y
Purpose of Deflection Testing

Overlay y design g y Load restriction analysis y Forensic analysis y Concrete pavements
y
Load L dt transfer f Underlying voids
What Do You Need?

y y
Existing g layer y thickness

Core/boring samples
Condition data
Load-related distress Variation along project length
Environmental conditions
Depth to water table Monthly mean temperature
Deflection Testing Equipment

y
Static load
Benkelman Beam p p Based on level arm principles Measures only maximum surface deflection Low cost Labor intensive

y
Steady-State y
Dynaflect and Road Rater g (vibratory) ( y) load Produces an oscillating Measures a deflection basin Suitable for thinner pavements

y
Impulse p load
Falling weight deflectometer (Jils, Dynatest, KUAB) Most commonly used deflection testing device More M closely l l simulates truck traffic loading
FWD Schematic
FWD imparts dynamic force on pavement and measures resultant deflections
Load Plate
Weight
Drop Height Buffering System
Weight
Pavement
Testing Details
Number of load levels y Spacing between deflection tests y Deflection testing location
y
Center of lane Inner/outer wheelpath Shoulder
Testing Details
y
Safety y
Operator g public p Traveling
Mobilization time y Productivity y Workday length y Project P j l length h

y
Determines D t i test spacing
General Testing Recommendations

y
Sensors
7 sensors (0, 8, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 60 in.) (0, , 8, , 12, , 18, , 24, , 36, , 48, , and 60 in.) ) 9 sensors (
Load levels
Seating drop (12 000 lbs) (12,000 6,000 lbs 9 000 lbs 9,000 12,000 lbs 16,000 16 000 lbs (optional)
General Testing Recommendations

y y
Distance between tests

100 500 ft (250 ft is typical)
Record surface temperature

HMA is a temperature dependent material
Other Sources of Information
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ pavement/ pub details.cfm?id=480 pub_details.cfm?id 480

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ p g pavement/ltpp/pubs/ p 06132/06132.pdf
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ http://onlinepubs trb org/ onlinepubs/nchrp/ nchrp syn 381 pdf nchrp_syn_381.pdf

y y y
ASTM D4694, Standard Test Method for Deflectio s with Deflections ith a FWD Impulse-Load I p lse Load De Device ice ASTM D4695, Standard Guide for General Pavement Deflection Measurements AASHTO R 32, Standard Practice for Calibrating the Load Cell and Deflection Sensors f a Falling for F lli Weight W i ht Deflectometer D fl t t AASHTO R 33, Standard Practice for Calibrating the Reference Load Cell Used for Reference Calibration for Falling Weight Deflectometer
Using FWD Data

Normalized deflection ( (9,000 lbs) ) y Deflection indices
y
Normalized Deflections
y
Normalize deflection to a standard load of 9,000 lbs

Tire load single g axle Relative measure y within and between sections Variability
9,000 Norm Di = Di P
DeflectionDeflection -Based Indices

Used to characterize existing g pavement p structure y Co Common o indices: ces:
y
Radius of Curvature Base layer index Middle layer index Lower layer index AREA method
Base Layer Index

aka Surface Curvature Index y Structural condition of the base layer
y
BLI = D0 D12 where, D0 = surface deflection at center of load, in. D12 = surface deflection at 12 in.
Middle Layer Index

aka Base Curvature Index y Structural condition of the subbase layer
y
MLI = D12 D24 where, D12 = surface deflection at12 in. D24 = surface deflection at 24 in.
Lower Layer Index

aka Base Damage g Index y Structural condition of subgrade layer
y
LLI = D24 D36 where, D24 = surface deflection at 24 in. D36 = surface deflection at 36 in.
Radius of Curvature
y
Structural condition of the surface and base course

RoC = L2 2D0 (1-D8/D0)
where, L = 8 in. D0 = surface deflection at center of load D8 = surface deflection at 8 in.
Typical Values
Structural Condition Sound Granular Warning Base Severe Sound Cementitious Warning Base Severe Sound Bituminous Warning B Base Severe Pavement Section RoC >4 24 <2 >6 36 <3 > 10 4 10 0 <4 BLI <8 8 16 > 16 <4 4 12 > 12 <8 8 16 6 > 16 MLI LLI <4 48 >8 <2 24 >4 <4 46 >6 <2 24 >4 <2 23 >3 <2 23 >3
AREA Method
y
Normalized area of deflection basin

AREA = 6 x (D0 + 2D1 + 2D2 + D3) D0 where, D0 = surface f deflection f at center of f load, in. D1 = surface deflection at 12 in. D2 = surface deflection at 24 in. in D3 = surface deflection at 36 in.
AREA Method Typical Values

Pavement Type PCC Thick HMA ( 4 in.) Thi HMA (< 4 i Thin in.) ) Chip seal Weak chip seal D0 (mils) 10 20 20 40 30 50 30 50 40 60 AREA Value 24 33 21 30 16 21 15 17 12 15
AREA Method General Trends

D0 Low High g Low High AREA Comment Value Low Weak structure, strong subgrade Low Weak structure, weak subgrade g High Strong structure, strong subgrade High Strong structure, weak subgrade
WSDOT AREA Program

y
Determines and plots p

Center deflection AREA value Estimate of subgrade modulus
Needs to be in a specific file format

Pavement Data Deflection Exchange (PDDX)
WSDOT AREA Program

Adjusts j deflections to 9,000 lbs y Adjusts to standard temperature 77F y Download at:
y
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/pavement/fwd.htm Includes software documentation
WSDOT AREA Program
SR 395 Chewelah, WA
y
Existing g structure
4.2 6.5 in. HMA 13 18 in. crushed rock
Deflection testing g
Dynatest FWD 6,000, 9,000, 12,000, and 16,000 lbs
AREA Value - Results
AREA Value Results

Strong subgrade (> 15,000 psi) )
0 10 20 30 40
Typical R Range (20 40 mils)
10
15
20
25
Typical Range (21 30 in.)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
50
Deflection ( (mils) )
Area ( (in.) )
Subgrade g Modulus (psi) (p )
QUESTIONS?
BACKCALCULATION
What Do You Use?

Do not use backcalculation y ELMOD y MODCOMP y MODULUS y Evercalc E l y Other
y
Purpose of Backcalculation
y
Determine moduli of in situ layers y from pavement deflection data

Hot mix asphalt p Concrete Unbound base Subgrade
Backcalculation Assumptions
Surface load circular area y Materials
y
FWD Tire
Homogenous uniform in composition Isotropic identical properties in all directions Linearly elastic linear relationship between loading g and deformation
y
Layers extend horizontally to infinity
So What Is Backcalculation?
Iterative mathematical approach pp y Match estimated deflection (equations relating e at g material ate a properties p ope t es to deflection) e ect o ) to measured deflection
y
Need to know x Poissons Ratio (assumed values) x Layer thickness
How It Works (over (over-simplified)
H1, 1 1,E1? H2, 2,E2?
H3, 3,E3?
Goodness of fit is based on root mean square error

Finding the Results

y y y
Root mean square q error ( (RMSE) ) <3%

Encouraging outcome
Root mean square error > 4%

Potentially questionable results
Use a large RMSE value to indicate problems with model y Assessment requires
Experience with backcalculation Pavement P materials i l k knowledge l d
What Do You Need?

y
FWD testing g configuration g and results

Load plate diameter Sensor locations Load level g locations Testing Resulting deflections
Pavement temperature at time of testing
What Do You Need?

y
Pavement structure
Layer type y thickness Layer Poissons ratio y Material density Subgrade (type, depth to stiff/wet layer)
Modulus values
Seed or initial moduli Modulus range
What Do You Need?

y
Existing g pavement p conditions

Cracking Presence of moisture Frozen conditions
READILY AVAILABLE PROGRAMS
Evercalc
y
Developed: University of Washington Evaluates flexible pavements only
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Apps/ EPG.htm
MICHBACK
y
Developed: University of Michigan Evaluates flexible and composite pavements
http://www.egr.msu.edu/~harichan/software/mfp http://www egr msu edu/~harichan/software/mfp ds.shtml

MODCOMP
y
Developed: Cornell University Evaluates flexible pavements
C t tL Contact Lynne I Irwin i - lhi1@cornell.edu lhi1@cornell edu

MODULUS
Developed p by y Texas A&M y Evaluates flexible pavements y http://pavementdesign.tamu.edu/download http://pavementdesign tamu edu/download ing.htm
y
PCASE
Developed p by y US Army y Corps p of Engineers y Evaluates va uates rigid, g , flexible, e b e, and a composite co pos te pavements y http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpu http://www erdc usace army mil/pls/erdcpu b/www_welcome.navigation_page?tmp_n ext page=46322 ext_page 46322
y
THE THE BEST BEST PROGRAM IS THE ONE YOU KNOW HOW TO USE AND FITS YOUR NEEDS (L. IRWIN)
Things to Consider
Number of layers y y Thickness of layers y Seasonal variation y Depth to stiff layer
y
Number of Layers
y
Ideally y no more than 3 or 4

Combine like layers (e.g., seal coats, chip seals, HMA) Using more layers tends to increase the prediction error
HMA BST HMA Base Subbase Subgrade HMA Base Subgrade
Thickness of Layers
y
Difficult to obtain moduli on bituminous layers y <3 thick

Fix moduli
Temp. (F) ( ) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 00 100
HMA Modulus (psi) (p ) 2,600,000 2, 200,000 1,700,000 1,300,000 900 000 900,000 600,000 350 000 350,000 190,000 100,000 00,000
Same is true with thin unbound base layers
Seasonal Variation Unbound Layers

Summ mer State ID NV WA Layer Base Subgrade Base Subgrade Base Subgrade Winte er 0.65 1.00 0.27 1.20 0.87 0.95 0.77 0.81 0.75 1.10 0.85 1.10 Spring Fall
0.65 0.85 0.43 0.90 0.68 0.70 0.70 0.79 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.90
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.02 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90
Depth to Stiff Layer

y
Stiff layer y
Shallow bedrock y layer y Stiff clay High ground water table
Can have a significant effect on backcalculated layer moduli

Deeper than ~40 40 ft ft, little or no influence
Typical Layer Moduli HMA

y y y
New
300,000 to 600,000 psi (at 77F)
Fatigue cracked Fatigue-cracked

100,000 to 200,000 psi (at 77F)
Severely fatigue-cracked
Can exceed expected ranges
x Fix moduli to 100,000 100 000 - 200,000 200 000 psi or x Remove from analysis
Typical Layer Moduli - PCC

y
Uncracked
4,000,000 to 6,000,000 psi (initial) , , to 10,000,000 , , p psi ( (range) g ) 1,500,000
Cracked
400 400,000 000 to 500 500,000 000 psi (initial) 100,000 to 3,000,000 psi (range)
Typical Moduli Stabilized

Material Type Asphalt Treated Sand Asphalt Cement-Aggregate Lean Concrete Cement Treated Lime Stabilized Soil Cement Initial (k i) (ksi) 100 200 100 200 400 500 600 700 200 300 30 40 300 500 Range (k i) (ksi) 100 3,500 100 3,500 300 3,000 650 6,500 100 400 5 200 150 1,000
Typical Moduli Base/Subbase

Material i Type Uncrushed Gravel Crushed Stone/Gravel Sand Soil-Aggregate (fine) Soil Aggregate (coarse) Soil-Aggregate Initial (ksi) 20 30 30 50 15 20 15 20 20 30 Range (ksi) 7 10 10 150 7 100 7 100 9 120
Typical Moduli Subgrade

Material Type NoWet-Freeze Dry Freeze (ksi) Wet Unfrozen Frozen (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
Clay Silt Silty/Clayey Sand Silty/Clayey Gravel Gravel
15 15 20 40 50
6 6 10 30 50
6 5 5 20 40
50 50 50 50 50
Typical Poissons Poisson s Ratio

Material Type HMA PCC Stabilized Base or Subbase U t bili d B Unstabilized Base or S Subbase bb Fine-Grained Subgrade Coarse Grained Subgrade Coarse-Grained Stiff Layer Poissons Ratio 0.35 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.35 0 35 0.40 0.35 0 40 0.45 0 35 0.40 0.35 0 40 0.35 or less
Backcalculation Tricks Tricks

y
If unrealistically y low values for base layer y

Consider eliminating base layer, run as a twolayer system (e.g., HMA over subgrade) Consider using stiff layer
Unrealistically y high g subgrade g modulus

Consider using stiff layer
Are Layer Moduli Reasonable?

Check RMS error ( (< 3% ideal) ) y Confirm layer thickness y Errors in deflection data??? y Review pavement condition
y
S Severe rutting tti Severe cracking
Potential P l for f higher error
Other Things to Consider

y
Testing g near major j cracks, pavement p edge, g or concrete joints

Drastically y affect deflection assumptions p Operator should note any anomalies
Layer thickness
Often not known - coring may be needed Not uniform
Materials are not homogeneous
Backcalculation B k l l i Example
Setting Up the Analysis

FWD testing g conducted in April p y Existing pavement condition
y
10% low to med. severity alligator cracking 30% med. to high severity long. cracking
y
Subgrade Hodgson Silt Loam (ML)

February to April perched water table at depths of 24 to 35 inches Moderate susceptibility to frost action
Existing Pavement Section

MP 210.00 209.80 209.40 209.05 209.00 208.50 208 00 208.00 207.85 HMA (in) 4.4 6.5 5.9 4.2 4.6 4.7 60 6.0 5.0 Base (in) 14.4 15.6 13.2 12.0 12.0 12.0 18 0 18.0 18.0 Comments Fatigued area, crack full depth Core intact Core at crack, crack full depth Fatigued g area, , crack full depth p Very fatigued, core broke apart Core at crack, crack not full depth Core at crack, crack delamination Core at crack, crack full depth
Deflection Results
Strong Su ubgrade
0 10 20 30
Typical R Range (20 40 0 mils)
10
20
30
40
50
60
Typical R Range (21 30 in.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
40
50
Deflection (mils)
Area (in.)
Subgrade Modulus (psi)
Backcalculation Results
Evercalc y Approaches
y
No stiff layer Stiff layer at 50,000 psi (moist layer) 1,000,000 000 000 psi (rock layer) Stiff layer at 1
Backcalculation Inputs
Layer 1 2 3 4 4 Type HMA Agg. Base Subgrade Stiff layer Stiff layer Poissons Ratio 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.35 0.30 Modulus Initial Min. (ksi) (ksi) 400 100 25 5 15 5 50 --1,000 --Max. (ksi) 2,000 500 500 -----
Results No Stiff Layer

MP 210.00 209 80 209.80 209.40 209 05 209.05 209.00 208.50 208.00 207.85 Ehma Ebase Esub RMSE (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) 297 14 10 2.3 142 12 17 10 1.0 60 5 8 2.0 169 6 9 20 2.0 88 5 13 13.4 530 17 36 3.4 131 18 15 0.1 165 17 12 3.1
Results Moist Stiff Layer

MP 210.00 209 80 209.80 209.40 209 05 209.05 209.00 208.50 208.00 207.85 Ehma Ebase Esub RMSE ( i) (ksi) (ksi) ( i) ( (ksi) i) 165 29 7 0.8 113 21 13 16 1.6 94 5 5 1.4 90 19 5 53 5.3 251 17 5 24.6 368 43 22 5.4 107 24 12 1.8 142 22 10 4.1
Results Rock Stiff Layer

MP 210.00 209 80 209.80 209.40 209 05 209.05 209.00 208.50 208.00 207.85 Ehma Ebase Esub RMSE (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) 145 33 6 1.0 100 26 11 24 2.4 95 5 5 21.8 185 12 5 10 1 10.1 367 5 5 41.9 203 110 9 10.7 98 28 10 2.5 135 24 9 4.5
So What Whats s the Right Right Answer?

Review RMSE y Select reasonable values
y
So What Whats s the Right Right Answer?

HMA MP Condition (ksi) 210.00 No stiff 297 50 ksi 165 1,000 ksi 145 209 05 209.05 N stiff No tiff 169 50 ksi 90 1 000 ksi 1,000 185 Base (ksi) 14 29 33 6 19 12 Subgrade RMSE (ksi) 10 2.3 7 0.8 6 1.0 9 20 2.0 5 5.3 5 10 1 10.1
QUESTIONS?
OVERLAY THICKNESS DESIGN
What Do You Use?

Do not use p pavement design g software y AASHTO y Asphalt Institute MS-1 y Everpave y Others Oh
y
Design Objectives
y
Provide a surface that is:

Strong (structural) ( ) Safe and smooth(functional) Economical
For the given:

Climate Subgrade Performance period/design traffic
What Do You Need?

y y
Traffic
Equivalent single axle load (ESAL)
Climate y Materials
Type Properties Thicknesses
y
Joint design
Empirical Based Design

y
Based on observed performance p
MechanisticMechanistic -Empirical Based Design

y
Based on relationships p between calculated pavement responses (stress, strain, deflection) ) and p performance
MechanisticMechanistic -Empirical Based Design

Miners theory y y Cumulative damage approach y Uses pavement responses to predict pavement performance
y
Minors Minor s Theory

Each load consumes an infinitesimal amount of fatigue life y Su Summation at o of o damage a age from o all a loadings oa gs y Pavement theoretically fails when fatigue damage equals 1 1.0 0 (100 percent)
y
ni F ti Fatigue D Damage = Ni
Critical PCC Pavement Response

z y
Surface deflection y Tensile stress at bottom o botto of PCC CC slab

y
Ts > Tb Slab Tb < Ts
Ts = Slab surface temperature Tb = Slab bottom temperature
(a) Day (slab surface temp > bottom temp)
Ts < Tb Slab Tb > Ts (b) Night (slab bottom temp > surface temp)
(c) Constrained Transverse Joints (High slab mean temp., slab surface temp > bottom temp.)
Critical HMA Pavement Response

Surface deflection y Tensile strain at botto bottom o of HMA layer(s) y Compressive strain on subgrade
y
C L Tire with specified load and pressure
Bituminous bound layer (Finite thickness)
1 2 3
Base course layer (Finite thickness) Subgrade soils (Assumed to have infinite depth) 4
1. Pavement surface deflection 2. Horizontal tensile strain at bottom of bituminous layer 3. Vertical compressive strain at top of base p strain at top p of subgrade g 4. Vertical compressive
Failure Criteria (HMA)

y
Fatigue g cracking g
HMA log N = 5.0 log t + 2.665 log + 0.392 14.22
R i Rutting
0.005511 N = v
6.527
Design Programs
Mech MechD i Program Design P Empirical E i i l Empirical Asphalt p Institute ( (MS-17) ) 9 AASHTO DARWin 9 AASHTO DARWin DARWin-ME ME 9 WSDOT Everpave 9 NCAT PerRoad 9
Asphalt Institute (MS (MS-17)

y
Deflection based approach pp

Center deflection RRD = (x + 2s)(f)(c) x = mean of individual deflections (in.) s = standard deviation of deflections (in.) f=t temperature t adjustment dj t t factor f t c = critical period adjustment factor
Asphalt Institute (MS (MS-17)

RRD (mm) 0.50 400 Ove erlay Thicknes ss of Asphalt t Concrete (mm) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 RRD (in.) (in ) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 (in.)
0 00 , 0 00 , 50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
,0 00
3.50
00
4.00
4.50
EAL 10,000,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 500 000 500,000 200,000 100,000 50,000 20,000 10 000 10,000 5,000
20
,0
AASHTO DARWin (1993)

y
Overlay y design g
Estimate structural number for projected traffic Estimate structural number for existing structure Overlay thickness: SNprojected SNexisting x l layer coefficient ffi i
AASHTO DARWin DARWin-ME

y
NCHRP Project
Climatic effects Axle load spectra Predicts individual pavement distress
AASHTO version available 2011

WSDOT Everpave
y
Developed: U i University it of Washington Failure criteria Seasonal S l effects

Rutting Cracking
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Apps/ EPG.htm
PerRoadXPres
NCAT y HMA only y Designed for
y
Low to medium volumes Parking Lots

y
http://www.eng. http://www eng auburn.edu/ users/timmdav/Software html users/timmdav/Software.html

PerRoad 3.5 35
NCAT y Perpetual Pavement ave e t Design and Analysis y y HMA only y http://www. http://www eng.auburn. edu/users/timmdav/Software html edu/users/timmdav/Software.html
y
Development of Recommendations
y
New Design
Pavement thickness Base/subbase type and thickness Drainage considerations Mix design J Joint spacing Joint sealant L dt Load transfer f
Development of Recommendations
y
Rehabilitation
Overlay design thickness g depths p Milling Pre-overlay repairs g Mix designs
Factors to Consider
y y y y y y
Pavement condition Coring results Support conditions Normalized deflections B k l l t dl Backcalculated layer moduli Localized areas of weakness
y y y y
Projected j traffic Structural capacity Grade constraints Operational constraints
OVERLAY DESIGN EXAMPLE
Setting Up the Problem

Deflection data/backcalculation results from previous examples y Traffic a c conditions co t o s
y
ADT = 5,500 vehicles 13% trucks ESAL (15-year) = 2,900,000
AASHTO Results
MP HMA (in ) (in.) Base (in ) (in.) SN Future SN Exist Exist. SN Calc Calc. Overlay Thickness (in.)
210.00 209 80 209.80 209.40 209 05 209.05 209.00 208.50 208.00 207.85
4.4 65 6.5 5.9 42 4.2 4.6 4.7 6.0 5.3
14.4 15 6 15.6 13.2 12 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 18.0 18.0
4.05 3 38 3.38 4.77 4 48 4.48 4.37 2.70 3.46 3.72
3.07 3 75 3.75 2.44 2 20 2.20 2.19 3.58 3.98 3.80
0.98 0 2.33 2 28 2.28 2.18 0 0 0
2.2 0 5.3 52 5.2 5.0 0 0 0
Everpave Results
MP HMA (in ) (in.) Base (in ) (in.) Ehma Ebase Esub Overlay Thickness (in.)
210.00 209 80 209.80 209.40 209 05 209.05 209.00 208.50 208.00 207.85
4.4 65 6.5 5.9 42 4.2 4.6 4.7 6.0 5.3
14.4 15 6 15.6 13.2 12 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 18.0 18.0
161 112 96 75 100 414 109 143
30 21 5 20 18 35 24 22
7 13 5 5 5 25 12 10
2.2 16 1.6 4.7 39 3.9 3.9 0.6 1.6 2.2
Comparison of AASHTO/Everpave
MP AASHTO Overlay y Thickness (in.) Everpave Overlay y Thickness (in.) Difference (in ) (in.)
210.00 209 80 209.80 209.40 209 05 209.05 209.00 208.50 208.00 207.85
2.2 0 5.3 52 5.2 5.0 0 0 0
2.2 16 1.6 4.7 39 3.9 3.9 0.6 1.6 2.2
0 +1 6 +1.6 -0.6 -1 3 -1.3 -1.3 +0.6 0.6 +1.6 +2.2
Questions Q esti ns Thank You for Your Attention Presentation available at nwpmanwpma -online.org

2010.28 Pierce Advanced - Pavemt.Design PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010.28 Pierce Advanced - Pavemt.Design PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workshop on Advanced Pavement Design

17th Annual Fall Pavement Management Conference October 26 29, 2010

Linda M. Pierce, PhD, PE Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.

This presentation Thi i will ill be b available il bl at www.nwpma-online.org

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

DEFLECTION TESTING AND ANALYSIS

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

What Do You Use?

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Purpose of Deflection Testing

Load L dt transfer f Underlying voids

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

What Do You Need?

Existing g layer y thickness

Deflection Testing Equipment

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Deflection Testing Equipment

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Deflection Testing Equipment

Drop Height Buffering System

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Center of lane Inner/outer wheelpath Shoulder

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Mobilization time y Productivity y Workday length y Project P j l length h

Determines D t i test spacing

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

General Testing Recommendations

General Testing Recommendations

Distance between tests

Record surface temperature

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Other Sources of Information

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ pavement/ pub details.cfm?id=480 pub_details.cfm?id 480

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Other Sources of Information

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Other Sources of Information

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Other Sources of Information

Using FWD Data

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Normalize deflection to a standard load of 9,000 lbs

DeflectionDeflection -Based Indices

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Base Layer Index

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Middle Layer Index

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Lower Layer Index

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Structural condition of the surface and base course

where, L = 8 in. D0 = surface deflection at center of load D8 = surface deflection at 8 in.

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

Normalized area of deflection basin

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

AREA Method Typical Values

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

AREA Method General Trends

providing engineering solutions to improve pavement performance

WSDOT AREA Program

Determines and plots p