See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245326012

Characterization of NAPTF subgrade soils for mechanistic-based analysis and

design of airport flexible pavements

Article  in  International Journal of Pavement Engineering · December 2007

DOI: 10.1080/10298430600704174

CITATIONS READS

3 155

2 authors:

Kasthurirangan Gopalakrishnan Marshall Ray Thompson

Iowa State University University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
197 PUBLICATIONS   1,029 CITATIONS    80 PUBLICATIONS   943 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TRANSPORT (ISSN 1648-4142 / eISSN 1648-3480) View project

Evaluation of Otta Seal Surfacing for Low-Volume Roads in Iowa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kasthurirangan Gopalakrishnan on 24 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2007, 307–321

Characterization of NAPTF subgrade soils for mechanistic-

based analysis and design of airport flexible pavements
KASTHURIRANGAN GOPALAKRISHNAN†* and MARSHALL R. THOMPSON‡§

†Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, 498 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50011-3232, USA
‡Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 North Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2352,
USA

(Received 1 September 2005; revised 16 December 2005; accepted 6 February 2006)

The National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) was constructed to generate full-scale testing
data to support the development of advanced airport pavement design procedures. The NAPTF material
properties were characterized using test pit data obtained prior to full-scale heavy gear trafficking as
well as using test data obtained from trenches opened after the completion of traffic testing. In this
paper, the post-traffic subgrade characterization test results obtained from NAPTF subgrade trench
sections were evaluated and compared with the pre-traffic test pit data. The combined data were used to
evaluate the most commonly used correlations amongst subgrade soil properties. Subgrade moduli
backcalculated from Heavy Weight Deflectometer (HWD) test data were compared with the laboratory
test results and were also correlated to field California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. Regression
analyses indicated that subgrade resilient modulus is significantly related to the unconfined
compressive strength. These results may be used in the mechanistic-based analysis and design of airport
flexible pavements subjected to New Generation Aircraft (NGA).

Keywords: Resilient modulus; NAPTF; HWD; CBR; Backcalculation

1. Introduction appealing for characterizing subgrade soils which display

Subgrade soil characterization, in terms of modulus, stress-
strain, strength and permanent deformation performance
under repeated loading, is an important step in any
mechanistic-based pavement design procedure. The sub-
grade resilient modulus is a required input in Elastic Layer
Programs (ELPs) like JULEA in the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA) Layered Elastic Design FAA
(LEDFAA) procedure (FAA 1995), in the newly released
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG)
(NCHRP 2004), and in stress-dependent Finite Element
Programs (FEPs) like ILLI-PAVE (Raad and Figueroa
1980) in the University of Illinois (U of I) flexible pavement
design procedures.
The resilient modulus can be determined in the
laboratory using repeated loading tests under simulated
field loading conditions. It can also be estimated from
Non-Destructive Test (NDT) data using backcalculation
techniques. The backcalculation approach is particularly
large variability in subgrade modulus (as large as 35 –50%
over few miles of a pavement) (Thompson et al. 1998).
Several studies in the past have investigated the
relationship between laboratory-based and NDT-based
backcalculated resilient moduli (Anderson and Woods
1975, Newcomb et al. 1989, Daleiden et al. 1994, Akram
et al. 1994, Nazarian et al. 1998, Von Quintus and
Killingsworth 1998, Seeds et al. 2000). Alternatively,
subgrade resilient modulus can also be estimated from
other soil properties.
Several studies have attempted to develop correlation
between subgrade resilient modulus (MR) and California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) (Heukelom and Klomp 1962, Green
and Hall 1975, Powell et al. 1984). Airport flexible
pavement design procedures such as LEDFAA (FAA 1995)
and the modulus-based subgrade strain criteria such as the
Waterways Experiment Station (WES)/Corps of Engineers
(COE) (Barker and Brabston 1975) use MR – CBR
relationships to establish a priori subgrade modulus.

*Corresponding author. Email: rangan@iastate.edu

§Email: mrthomps@uiuc.edu

International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN 1029-8436 print/ISSN 1477-268X online q 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/10298430600704174
308 K. Gopalakrishnan and M. R. Thompson
Many studies have focused on determining the laboratory
test properties of subgrade soils that significantly relate to
MR. Thompson and Robnett (1979) indicated that MR can be
predicted from unconfined compressive strength data.
Bejarano and Thompson (1999) studied the resilient
response characteristics of National Airport Pavement Test
Facility (NAPTF) subgrade soils and concluded that the
unconfined compressive strength, Qu, is significantly related
to MR.
The main focus of this study is to evaluate these empirical
correlations using the resilient modulus test data obtained
from the NAPTF. The FAA’s NAPTF is located at the Atlantic
City International Airport, New Jersey, US. It was constructed
to generate full-scale test data needed to develop pavement
design procedures for the new generation of large civil
transport aircraft, including the Boeing 777 and Boeing 747.
2. Objectives
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the post-
traffic subgrade characterization data obtained from
NAPTF trench sections and compare them with the pre-
traffic test pit data and use both the data to evaluate the
most commonly used correlations amongst subgrade soil
properties. The following are the secondary objectives:
(1) To use the commonly used stress-dependent resilient
modulus models to characterize the resilient modulus
test data obtained from NAPTF trenches and evaluate
their prediction accuracy.
(2) To evaluate the suitability of using CBR to predict
MR for NAPTF subgrades and to evaluate the
relationship between backcalculated subgrade mod-
ulus from NDT data and in situ CBR.
(3) To develop correlations between:
(a) laboratory subgrade resilient modulus (MR)
and backcalculated MR;
(b) MR and Heavy Weight Deflectometer (HWD)
surface deflections;
(c) MR and unconfined compressive strength
(Qu);
(d) CBR and Qu; and
(e) CBR and HWD surface deflections.
A brief review of the commonly used subgrade resilient
modulus models is presented with some discussion on using
CBR and Qu to predict MR. Results from HWD tests conducted
at the conclusion of traffic testing are used to backcalculate the
subgrade modulus values and are compared with the trench
study results. The results from laboratory resilient modulus
tests conducted on pre-traffic test pit soil samples and post-
traffic trench section samples are compared.
3. Subgrade resilient modulus models
The resilient modulus (MR), in a repeated loading test, is
defined as the ratio of deviator stress (sD) and recoverable
elastic strain (1r) occurring in the soil:
sD
MR ¼ : ð1Þ
1r
The main factors influencing the resilient modulus of
subgrade soils are stress level, soil properties (% passing #200
sieve, clay content, plasticity index, liquid limit, organic
carbon content, group index, etc.), moisture-density con-
ditions, number of load repetitions, method of compaction,
thixotropy and free-thaw effects (NCHRP 1992).
The stress-dependency of resilient modulus of cohesive
fine-grained soils is well documented in literature
(Thompson and Robnett 1979). Cohesive fine-grained
soils display stress-softening resilient behavior (i.e.
resilient modulus decreases as applied deviator stress
increases) under repeated loading and several constitutive
models have been proposed to represent their stress-
dependent behavior (table 1). The bilinear model
(Thompson and Robnett 1979) is a commonly used
resilient modulus model for subgrade soils. As indicated
by Thompson and Elliot (1985), the value of the resilient
modulus at the breakpoint in the bilinear curve (point at
which the two linear curves intersect), MRi, can be used to
classify fine-grained soils as being soft, medium or stiff.
Robnett and Thompson (1973) established that repeated
unconfined compression testing is adequate for testing
cohesive soils. They found that small magnitudes of
confining pressure up to 34.5 kPa (5 psi) had no significant
effect on the resilient behavior of the soils studied. Later
studies confirmed that confining pressure has no significant
effect on the resilient response for soils compacted wet of
optimum (Fredlund et al. 1977). Over the years, simple
correlation equations have been developed to predict MR
from CBR values and from other soil properties.
4. Using CBR to predict resilient modulus
Flexible pavement design procedures such as LEDFAA
(FAA 1995) and Asphalt Institute (1987) suggest the use
of available MR – CBR relationships to establish a priori
subgrade modulus. The most commonly used relationship
between the resilient modulus of fine-grained soils and
CBR is as follows (Heukelom and Klomp 1962):
M R ðpsiÞ ¼ 1500 CBR: ð2Þ
Some states such as Ohio have modified this equation
such that the constant is 1200, instead of 1500. Virginia
uses 1500 with the maximum CBR value of 10. Table 2
displays some of the commonly used M R – CBR
relationships around the world. The following are some
of the main concerns in using the CBR to estimate MR:
(1) The CBR is a measure of the shear strength of the
material and therefore does not necessarily correlate
with a measure of stiffness such as MR (Bejarano and
Thompson 1999).
 Table 1. Commonly used stress-dependent subgrade resilient modulus models.

No. Subgrade resilient modulus model Coefficients References

b
1 Bulk stress model M R ¼ au Bulk stress, u ¼ s1 þ s2 þ s3, a and b ¼ model constants Uzan (1985), Witczak and Uzan (1988) and Brown
and Pappin (1981)
2 Power model M R ¼ As BD A and b ¼ model parameters that depend on soil type and moisture-density conditions Monismith (1989) and Moossazadeh and Witczak
(1981)
3 Bilinear model K1 and K2 ¼ slopes, sDi ¼ Deviator stress (s1 2 s3), MRi ¼ Breakpoint resilient modulus, Thompson and Robnett (1979)
( sDi ¼ Breakpoint deviator stress
M R ¼ M Ri þ K 1 ðsD 2 sDi Þ where sD # sDi
M R ¼ M Ri þ K 2 ðsD 2 sDi Þ where sD . sDi

NAPTF subgrade characterization

4 Semi-log model log M R ¼ a þ bsD a and b ¼ model parameters Fredlund et al. (1977)
5 Hyperbolic model a0 and b0 ¼ model parameters Drumm et al. (1990)

a 0 þ b 0 sD
MR ¼
sD

6 Loach model C and D ¼ model parameters Loach (1987)

D
P00
M R ¼ C *sD
sD

7 Universal model M R ¼ K 1 u K 2 sKD3 K1, K2 and K3 ¼ model parameters Uzan (1985)

8 Triaxial stress state model satm ¼ atmospheric pressure Puppala and Mohammad (1997)



MR s3 K 2 sD K 3
¼ K1
satm satm satm

309
310 K. Gopalakrishnan and M. R. Thompson

(2) Several studies have shown that the MR –CBR relations

Black (1961) and Duncan and Buchignani (1976)

are not unique (Robnett and Thompson 1973).
(3) The mode and state of load application in the laboratory

Powell et al. (1984) and NCHRP (2004)

resilient modulus tests and CBR test procedures are
different. Monotonic load is applied in CBR tests and
Newcomb and Birgisson (1999)
high deformations are obtained. In repeated load MR
References

Webb and Campbell (1986)

testing, resilient deformations comparable to those
obtained from traffic loading are obtained.
Green and Hall (1975) (4) The high deformations obtained in CBR tests indicate
the soil’s resistance to punching failure and does not
characterize the subgrade response to repeated loading.
The resilient modulus obtained from repeated load
testing depends on the state of stresses.
–

5. Using unconfined compressive strength (Qu)

to predict resilient modulus
and M–E Pavement Design Guide-Level2 (USA)

Based on extensive U of I data, Thompson and Robnett (1979)

found a significant relation between MR and the unconfined
Alabama Department of Transportation (DOT)

compressive strength (Qu) for fine-grained subgrade soils. For

Transport and Road Research Lab (TRRL);

South African Council on Scientific and

typical Illinois soils compacted at 95–100% AASHTO T-99

Table 2. Commonly used MR –CBR relationships.

and moisture contents of optimum, optimum þ1%, and

optimum þ2% (1 ksi ¼ 6895 kPa):
Agency

US Army Corps of Engineers

industrial Research (CSIR)

M R ðat sD of 6 psiÞðksiÞ ¼ 0:86 þ 0:317 Qu ðpsiÞ

R 2 ¼ 0:468; SEE ¼ 2:61 ksi: ð3Þ
Georgia DOT

Bejarano and Thompson (1999) developed procedures

and methodologies for characterizing subgrade cohesive
soils for airport flexible pavement mechanistic-based design
procedures. Based on the laboratory repeated load test data
–

and analysis of NAPTF subgrade soils, they proposed the

following model (a ¼ 0.01) for predicting subgrade resilient
modulus (MR in ksi):

M R ðat sD of 6 psiÞðksiÞ ¼ 21:287 þ 0:219 Qu ðpsiÞ

Where Su ¼ undrained shear strength; PI ¼ plasticity index

R 2 ¼ 0:914; SEE ¼ 1:32 ksi: ð4Þ

In determining the stress-strain characteristics and

M R ¼ 500 2 1500 su PI , 30
: M R ðpsiÞ ¼ 160 to 2420 CBR
M R ¼ 100 2 500 su PI . 30

compressive/shear strength of soils at the target strength

values, they defined the unconfined compressive strength
MR –CBR relation

(Qu) as the maximum value of compressive stress, or the

compressive stress at 5% axial strain, whichever occurs first.
ð0:85 logðCBRÞþ2:971Þ

The relationship between CBR and Qu is expressed as

M R ðpsiÞ ¼ 3116 CBR0:67797

(Crovetti 2002):
M R ðpsiÞ ¼ 2555 CBR0:64

M R ðpsiÞ ¼ 5409 CBR0:71

M R ðpsiÞ ¼ 3000 CBR0:65

Qu ðpsiÞ
CBR ¼ : ð5Þ
CBR ¼ 0.62 su(psi)

4:5
8
>
>
<
>
>
M R ðpsiÞ ¼ 10

6. The national airport pavement test facility (NAPTF)

6.1 Background
The introduction of New Generation Aircraft (NGA) such as
the Boeing 777 (B777) in 1995 necessitated a fundamental
need to develop new pavement design procedures based on
No.

sound theoretical principles and with rational models verified

1
2

3
4

5
6
 NAPTF subgrade characterization
from full-scale test data. A joint funding provided by the FAA
and the Boeing Company under a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRDA) laid plans for the
construction of the NAPTF. The facility was dedicated on
April 1999 and the first test program began in February 2000
and was completed in September 2001.
6.2 Pavement sections
The NAPTF test pavement area is 274 m (900 feet) long
and 18 m (60 feet) wide. It has a total of nine test sections
(six flexible and three rigid) built on three different
subgrade materials: low-strength (target CBR of 4),
medium-strength (target CBR of 8) and high-strength
(target CBR of 20).
Two different base sections were used: conventional
(granular) and stabilized (asphalt concrete). A three-
character code is used to identify each NAPTF test section,
where the first character indicates the subgrade strength
(L for low, M for medium and H for high), the second
character indicates the test pavement type (F for flexible and
R for rigid) and third character signifies whether the base
material is conventional (C) or stabilized (S).
Cross-sectional views of the as-built NAPTF flexible test
items are shown in figure 1. The P-401 asphalt mix was
used in both the Asphalt Concrete (AC) surface layer as
well as in the stabilized base layer. The items P-209, P-154
and P-401 are as per standard specifications detailed in the
FAA Circular No. AC 150/5370-10A. A MH-CH soil
classification (ASTM Unified Soil Classification System)
material known as County Sand and Stone Clay (CSSC)
was used for the low-strength subgrade while Dupont Clay
(DPC) (CL– CH soil classification) was used for the
medium-strength subgrade. The naturally-occurring
sandy-soil material (SW –SM soil classification) at the
NAPTF site underlies each subgrade layer.
The low-strength subgrade soil had a plastic limit of 21.9,
Liquid Limit (LL) of 41 and Plasticity Index (PI) of 19,
while the corresponding values were 28.8, 48.5 and 19.7,
respectively for the medium-strength subgrade. The
gradation information as well as the laboratory compaction
properties for the subgrade soils, P-209 crushed stone base
Figure 1. Cross-sectional views of as-built NAPTF flexible test sections.
311
and P-154 subbase (stone screenings) are presented
elsewhere (Hayhoe and Garg 2001).
The subgrade and pavement test sections were constructed
to exacting standards of uniformity. The low-strength and
medium-strength subgrades were constructed in controlled
lifts of approximately 20 cm (8 in.) to controlled depths shown
in figure 1. For these subgrades, clayey materials imported
from off-site borrow pits were processed and moisture and
density were carefully controlled to achieve uniform support
conditions for construction of pavement test sections
(McQueen et al. 2001).
6.3 NAPTF traffic test program
The objectives of the NAPTF traffic test program were to
explore gear configuration/load and wander effects on
pavement responses (stresses, strains and deflections) by
monitoring pavement responses and performance (rutting
and cracking) as a function of number of load repetitions
(N). A six-wheel dual-tridem B777 landing gear configur-
ation with 137-cm (54-in) dual spacing and 145-cm (57-in)
tandem spacing was loaded on the north wheel track
(LANE 2). The south side (LANE 5) was loaded with a
four-wheel dual-tandem Boeing 747 (B747) landing gear
having 112-cm (44-in) dual spacing and 147-cm (58-in)
tandem spacing. The wheel loads were set to 20.4 tonnes
(45,000 lbs) each and the tire pressure (cold) was 1295 kPa
(188 psi). In the LFC and LFS test sections, the wheel loads
were increased from 20.4 tonnes (45,000 lbs) to 29.4 tonnes
(65,000 lbs) after 20,000 initial load repetitions. Traffic
testing continued until the pavement sections exhibited
25.4-mm (1-in) surface upheaval adjacent to the traffic lane
as per NAPTF failure criterion.
7. Heavy weight deflectometer (HWD) tests
During NAPTF traffic testing, HWD tests were period-
ically conducted to monitor the effect of time and traffic
on the structural condition of the pavement.
For HWD testing, the FAA HWD equipment configured
with a 30-cm (12-in) loading plate and a 27– 30 m s pulse
width was used. The HWD tests were performed at nominal
312 K. Gopalakrishnan and M. R. Thompson
Figure 2. NAPTF HWD (LANE 2, 5 and C/L) test lanes and post-traffic trench locations.
force amplitudes of 53.4-kN (12-kip), 106.8-kN (24-kip)
and 160.2-kN (36-kip). The deflections were measured
with six seismometers at offsets of 0, 305 mm (12 in.),
610 mm (24 in.), 914 mm (36 in.), 1219 mm (48 in.) and
1524 mm (60 in.) intervals (D0 – D5) from the center of the
load. These tests were performed on the centerline (C/L),
LANE 2 (B777 traffic lane) and LANE 5 (B747 traffic
lane). The location and orientation of FWD and HWD test
lanes are illustrated in figure 2.
8. NAPTF trench study
At the conclusion of NAPTF traffic testing, trenches
perpendicular to the centerline of the flexible test sections
were dug to investigate into the failure mechanism of the
pavement structures (Garg 2001). In each medium-strength
test section (MFC and MFS), two trenches: one at the east
location and one at the west location (figure 2), were dug
perpendicular to the centerline of the test item. In each of the
low-strength test sections (LFC and LFS), one trench was dug
at the east location. Each trench was 1.2-m (4-ft) wide and has
an east face and a west face. The final trench dimensions were
18.3 m (60 feet) long (across the width of the test section),
1.2 m (4 feet) wide, and 1.2 m (4 feet) deep.
The trench walls were cleaned to clearly expose the layer
interfaces. In order to quantify the contribution of each
component layer to the total pavement rutting and upheaval,
pavement layer profile measurements relative to a horizontal
string were made using a level string line. Tests conducted on
the pavement component layers included CBR, in situ
densities and moisture contents, and dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) tests. In addition, resilient modulus
tests were performed on thin-wall or “Shelby” tube samples
(ASTM D1587) extracted from all trench sections.
The CBR tests (AASHTO T193/ASTM D1883) were
performed at 0.6-m (2-ft) intervals along the length of the
trench and each CBR test consisted of three penetrations.
A minimum center-to-center spacing of 30 cm (12 in.)
between the adjacent penetrations was used (US Army Field
Manual FM 5-430-00-2) and samples for measuring
moisture contents were taken from the middle penetration
of the CBR tests. After testing on subgrade surface was
completed, five 1.2-m £ 1.2-m (4-ft £ 4-ft) test pits were
excavated at 15-cm (6-in) depths (depths of 15 cm [6 in.],
30 cm [12 in.], 45 cm [18 in.], and 60 cm [24 in.]). The
locations of test pits were selected such that maximum
information about the subgrade in critical locations
(locations of maximum rut depths and maximum upheaval)
could be obtained.
Laboratory resilient modulus tests were conducted in
accordance with Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP) P-46 procedure (LTPP 1996) on subgrade Shelby
tube samples obtained from all trench sections. The SHRP
P-46 protocol describes the laboratory testing procedure
for the determination of the resilient modulus of subgrade
soils. It is based partially on the test standard AASHTO
T292-91I, “Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and
Untreated Base/Subbase Materials”.
In SHRP P-46 procedure, a repeated axial deviator
stress of fixed magnitude, load duration (0.1 s), and cycle
duration (1 s) is applied to a cylindrical test specimen.
During testing, the specimen is subjected to a dynamic
deviator stress and a static confining stress provided by
means of a triaxial pressure chamber. The total resilient
(recoverable) axial deformation response of the specimen
is measured and used to calculate the resilient modulus.
Resilient modulus tests were conducted on Shelby tube
subgrade soils samples obtained from both NAPTF pre-
traffic test pits as well as post-traffic trench sections.
9. Laboratory subgrade resilient modulus test results
9.1 Post-traffic trench sections
The results of laboratory resilient modulus tests conducted
on Shelby tube samples obtained from medium-strength
subgrade (MFC and MFS) post-traffic trench sections at
the west trench locations are shown in figure 3. Results for
 NAPTF subgrade characterization
Figure 3. Resilient modulus versus deviator stress for NAPTF post-traffic trench medium-strength subgrade soils (MFC and MFS).
low-strength subgrade (LFC and LFS) post-traffic trench
sections at the east trench locations are displayed in
figure 4. The data are classified based on traffic lanes in
order to observe the effect of traffic on the stress
dependency of subgrade soils. Note that the results
reported in figures 3 and 4 are for subgrade samples taken
from the test sections after the completion of traffic
testing. The figures show the stress-softening behavior of
NAPTF subgrade soils. The low-strength subgrade soils
are more stress-dependent than the medium-strength
subgrade soils. The subgrade in MFS trench section shows
the least stress-sensitivity and the resilient modulus
remains almost constant.
For low-strength soils, the modulus varies from
13.8 MPa (2000 psi) to 58.6 MPa (8500 psi) depending
on the deviator stress and confining pressure. For medium-
strength soils, the modulus varies approximately between
55 MPa (8000 psi) and 110 MPa (16,000 psi).
313
9.2 Pre-traffic test pits
The NAPTF material properties database (Hayhoe and
Garg 2001) contains resilient modulus test data performed
in accordance with SHRP P-46 procedure for samples of
low-strength and medium-strength subgrade soils obtained
from the NAPTF pre-traffic test pits. Three Shelby tube
samples from low-strength subgrade (stations 0 þ 60,
1 þ 50 and 2 þ 70) and three from medium-strength
subgrade (stations 3 þ 75, 4 þ 60 and 5 þ 65) were
obtained from pre-traffic test pits (i.e. prior to traffic
testing) and tested. The resilient response characteristics of
pre-traffic pit low-strength subgrade soils and medium-
strength subgrade soils are presented in figures 5 and 6.
Again, the low-strength subgrade soils show greater stress-
sensitivity than the medium-strength subgrade soils. For
low-strength soils, the modulus varies from 17.9 MPa
(2600 psi) to 51.7 MPa (7500 psi), and for medium-
314 K. Gopalakrishnan and M. R. Thompson
Figure 4. Resilient modulus versus deviator stress for NAPTF post-traffic trench low-strength subgrade soils (LFC and LFS).
strength soils, the modulus varies from 34.5 MPa
(5000 psi) to 86.2 MPa (12,500 psi).
10. Regression analyses of laboratory resilient
modulus data
The traxial shear strengths (average quick shear failure at
5% strain), moisture contents and dry densities measured
during SHRP P-46 resilient modulus testing is presented in
table 3 for post-traffic NAPTF trench samples and in table 4
for pre-traffic test pit samples. The sample ID in table 3 gives
information on the trench location where the sample was
obtained and the traffic lane information for each sample. For
example, sample “MFS-W-B747” was obtained from the
B747 traffic lane of MFS section from the west trench
location. Comparison of CBR measurements taken from the
pre-traffic test pits with those from the post-traffic trench
sections indicated that the low-strength subgrade CBR
increased as a result of trafficking while the medium-strength
subgrade CBR decreased as a result of trafficking
(Gopalakrishnan 2004). This might have lead to higher dry
densities in the low-strength soils compared to the medium-
strength soils as reported in table 1.
Four stress-dependent models were used in the
regression analyses of resilient modulus test data
(table 1): (1) arithmetic model, (2) bilinear model, (3)
semi-log model, and (4) Uzan’s universal model. The
results of regression analyses are presented in table 5. The
bilinear model is consistent. It shows higher R 2 values
compared to other models in the case of medium-strength
subgrade soils. In general, higher R 2 values and lower
Standard Error of Estimate (SEE) values were obtained for
low-strength soils. Thompson and Robnett (1979)
indicated that the resilient modulus at the breakpoint
(about sD ¼ 41.3 kPa [6 psi]) is a good indicator of soil’s
resilient response. The resilient modulus values predicted
by all four models at a sD value of 41.3 kPa (6 psi) are
 NAPTF subgrade characterization 315

Figure 5. Resilient modulus versus deviator stress for NAPTF pre- Figure 6. Resilient modulus versus deviator stress for NAPTF pre-
traffic test pit medium-strength subgrade soils. traffic test pit low-strength subgrade soils.

Table 3. Summary of compaction strength properties for NAPTF post-traffic trench subgrade samples.

Subgrade NAPTF trench section Sample ID Triaxial shear strength (kPa) Moisture content (%) Dry density (kg/m3)

Medium-strength soils MFS MFS-W-B747 217 28.7 1527

MFS-W-B777 138 29.5 1513
MFS-W-CL 257 28.8 1528
MFS-E-B747 197 28.9 1501
MFS-E-B777 222 28.6 1477
MFS-E-CL 220 28.8 1506
MFC MFC-W-B747 208 29.6 1499
MFC-W-B777 121 30.2 1483
MFC-W-CL 191 30.3 1484
Low-strengh soils LFS LFS-E-B747 112 25.7 1582
LFS-E-B777 109 26.7 1548
LFS-E-CL 119 26.2 1577
LFC LFC-E-B747 127 27.0 1668
LFC-E-B777 131 27.3 1551
LFC-E-CL 125 26.5 1576

E-East trench location (figure 2); W-West trench location (figure 2); B777-Boeing 777 traffic lane; B747-Boeing 747 traffic lane; CL-Pavement centerline.
316 K. Gopalakrishnan and M. R. Thompson
Table 4. Summary of compaction strength properties for NAPTF pre-traffic test pit subgrade samples.
Subgrade Sample ID Station
Medium-strength soils Tube 1 3 þ 75
Tube 2 4 þ 60
Tube 3 5 þ 65
Low-strength soils Tube 1 0 þ 60
Tube 2 1 þ 50
Tube 3 2 þ 70
summarized in table 6 for both post-traffic trench samples
and pre-traffic test pit samples.
In order to support the FAA’s research on airport pavement
failure criteria and comparative effects of B747 and B777
landing gears on test pavements, it is necessary to establish
resilient modulus inputs (for low-strength and medium-
strength soils) for mechanistic airport flexible pavement
structural analysis and design. Based on the results of this
research, values of 20.7 MPa (3000 psi) for low-strength
subgrade and 75.8 MPa (11,000 psi) for medium-strength
subgrade are suggested as inputs for mechanistic analysis of
NAPTF test sections.
11. MR – Qu correlation
Bejarano and Thompson (1999) indicated that the use of
MRi—unconfined stress-strain or strength relationships are
suitable for a priori pavement design. In the current study,
the resilient modulus values predicted by the bilinear model
at the breakpoint (MRi) (table 6) was correlated to unconfined
compressive strength (Qu). Resilient modulus data from both
the post-traffic trench sections and the pre-traffic test pits
were used in developing the model. The following model
was established:
M R ðat sD of 6 psiÞðksiÞ ¼ 29:23 þ 0:7067 Qu ðpsiÞ
R 2 ¼ 0:970; SEE ¼ 0:897 ksi:
12. Backcalculation of subgrade moduli from HWD
test results
The use of backcalculation techniques to predict resilient
modulus from NDT data provides a viable alternative to
laboratory testing and has a great potential for supporting
subgrade inputs to a priori mechanistic pavement design
procedure. The overall time and expense associated with
NDT testing is less than laboratory testing. A better
representation of the natural and random variability of
properties along the pavement is obtained in using
backcalculated modulus values.
Although there are many benefits associated with
NDT-based backcalculation procedures, there are
limitations and uncertainties associated with them as
well. They do not always provide unique solutions. That
is, there may be more than one combination of layer
moduli for the same deflection basins. In reality,
Triaxial shear strength (kPa) Moisture content (%) Dry density (kg/m3)
197 29.8 1519
194 29.1 1482
152 32.4 1466
121 26.6 1512
119 26.7 1552
109 21.5 1618
pavements are subjected to dynamic loads, whereas
most backcalculation programs assume that pavements
are loaded statically from the FWD load. Sebaaly et al.
(1986) indicated that static backcalculation process
on dynamic NDT data do not seem reasonable. Most
backcalculation programs assume that pavement layers
are linear elastic and use elastic multi-layer theory in
forward calculation whereas in reality, AC is an elastic
visco-plastic material and the base, subbase and
subgrade layers are stress-dependent. Also, accurate
structure and subsurface information are required as the
results of backcalculation are sensitive to characteristics
of the pavement structure.
In this study, the FAA’s latest backcalculation software,
BAKFAA (previously FAABACKCAL), was used for
backcalculating subgrade modulus from 160-kN (36-kip)
HWD test data. Results from HWD tests conducted at the
conclusion of traffic testing were used in the analyses.
The HWD test locations used were approximately the
same locations at which the Shelby tube samples were
obtained after the trenches were dug.
The BAKFAA backcalculation software uses the FAA
layered elastic analysis program LEAF (Hayhoe 2002)
for forward calculations of deflections (McQueen et al.
2001). A stiff layer, defined at a depth where the native
soil meets the constructed subgrade, was used in the
ð6Þ backcalculation analyses with a modulus of 6.89 GPa
(1,000,000 psi) and a poisson’s ratio of 0.50. As per
NAPTF construction records, the stiff layer was set at
3 m (10 feet) for medium-strength sections (MFC and
MFS) and at 3.66 m (12 feet) for low-strength sections
(LFC and LFS).
The backcalculated subgrade moduli are summarized
in table 7 along with laboratory subgrade moduli and
CBR values. The laboratory resilient modulus values are
those predicted by the bilinear model (table 1). The 160-
kN (36-Kip) HWD deflections measured at offsets of
91 cm (36 in.) [D3], 122 cm (48 in.) [D4], and 152 cm
(60 in.) [D5] from the center of HWD load are also listed.
These deflections are considered to have significant
influence on the subgrade properties. In analyzing the
FWD/HWD data acquired at the NAPTF, McQueen et al.
(2001) found that the subgrade moduli backcalculated
from the initial FWD/HWD data (from tests conducted
after completion of construction) and test pit FWD/HWD
data using BAKFAA are generally consistent with the
laboratory resilient modulus data obtained at 41 kPa
(6 psi) confining pressure and 13 kPa (2 psi) deviator
 Table 5. Summary of analysis of resilient modulus data for NAPTF post-traffic trench subgrade samples (1 psi ¼ 6.895 kPa).

Bilinear model

M R ¼ M Ri þ K 1 ðsD 2 sDi Þ where sD # sDi

NAPTF Arithmetic model Semi-log model Uzan’s universal Model

NAPTF subgrade characterization

test MR(psi)=a+bsD(psi) log MR(psi)=a+bsD(psi) M R ¼ M Ri þ K 2 ðsD 2 sDi Þ where sD . sDi M R ðpsiÞ ¼ K 1 u K 2 sKD3
section Sample ID
SEE s Di MRi K1 K2
a b R2 (psi) a b R2 SEE (psi) (psi) (psi/psi) (psi/psi) R2 SEE (psi) K1 K2 K3 R2 SEE

MFS MFS-W-B747 15,175 2 305.0 0.68 481.2 4.184 2 0.0099 0.68 0.017 6.2 13,600 2 163.2 2 489.8 0.73 540.7 12,374 0.099 2 0.126 0.69 0.041
MFS-W-B777 15,071 2 461.0 0.65 754.2 4.185 2 0.0163 0.66 0.025 6.0 13,200 2 173.5 2 840.4 0.73 818.8 12,111 0.112 2 0.186 0.53 0.085
MFS-W-CL 16,602 2 249.5 0.54 464.8 4.221 2 0.0071 0.54 0.013 6.0 15,200 2 119.2 2 443.5 0.59 600.2 13,252 0.101 2 0.095 0.67 0.034
MFS-E-B747 13,240 2 547.0 0.96 307.8 4.136 2 0.0237 0.95 0.013 5.8 10,200 2 453.0 2 639.5 0.97 282.9 13,785 0.023 2 0.239 0.81 0.064
MFS-E-B777 15,343 2 240.9 0.49 480.3 4.187 2 0.0075 0.41 0.013. 6.0 14,200 2 109.7 2 425.2 0.53 657.3 11,478 0.130 2 0.110 0.72 0.035
MFS-E-CL 16,518 2 464.6 0.85 492.1 4.224 2 0.0147 0.85 0.017 6.0 14,200 2 279.0 2 729.2 0.90 445.0 15,907 0.036 2 0.151 0.68 0.056
MFC MFC-W-B747 15,595 2 455.2 0.73 644.7 4.200 2 0.0155 0.73 0.021 5.9 13,600 2 173.3 2 850.6 0.82 613.5 15,055 0.033 2 0.152 0.51 0.077
MFC-W-B777 14,533 2 633.5 0.93 468.9 4.178 2 0.0255 0.92 0.021 5.6 11,200 2 471.4 2 779.8 0.94 427.2 14,019 0.056 2 0.261 0.77 0.077
MFC-W-CL 14,359 2 590.0 0.91 490.9 4.171 2 0.0236 0..90 0.021 5.5 11,400 2 373.6 2 786.7 0.94 409.4 13,500 0.061 2 0.241 0.73 0.078
LFS LFS-E-B747 6,356 2 554.6 0.86 562.6 3.862 2 0.0692 0.93 0.049 5.7 2,400 2 880.1 2 147.6 0.95 371.4 5,826 0.200 2 0.778 0.97 0.069
LFS-E-B777 6,951 2 608.4 0.86 658.4 3.906 2 0.0709 0.94 0.049 5.8 2,500 2 956.3 2 152.9 0.95 380.6 6,479 0.206 2 0.808 0.98 0.067
LFS-E-CL 7,301 2 640.8 0.89 584.3 3.930 2 0.0718 0.96 0.041 5.8 2,700 2 991.6 2 171.8 0.97 303.4 8,693 0.105 2 0.783 0.97 0.067
LFC LFC-E-B747 8,705 2 703.9 0.92 547.6 3.993 2 0.0613 0.97 0.029 5.6 3,900 2 1017.2 306.7 0.97 337.8 8,678 0.140 2 0.665 0.97 0.064
LFC-E-B777 6,085 2 498.0 0.86 516.1 3.833 2 0.0621 0.93 0.045 5.6 2,500 2 794.5 2 136.6 0.95 336.6 5,714 0.175 2 0.708 0.98 0.061
LFC-ELCL 8,692 2 749.7 0.92 582.4 4.009 2 0.0705 0.97 0.029 5.8 3,400 2 1096.6 2 281.3 0.98 288.2 10,427 0.096 2 0.757 0.97 0.080

317
318 K. Gopalakrishnan and M. R. Thompson

Table 6. Summary of resilient modulus values predicted by regression models.

MR (MPa) at sD ¼ 41 kPa (6 psi)

Subgrade Sample ID Arithmetic Semi-Log Bilinear Universal

Post-traffic trench sections Medium-strength soils MFS-W-B747 92.0 91.8 93.8 92.1
MFS-W-B777 84.8 84.2 91.0 84.8
MFS-W-CL 104.2 104.0 104.8 104.2
MFS-E-B747 68.7 67.9 70.3 68.7
MFS-E-B777 95.8 95.6 97.9 95.9
MFS-E-CL 94.7 94.3 97.9 94.7
MFS-W-B747 88.7 88.2 93.8 88.7
MFS-W-B777 74.0 73.1 77.2 74.0
MFS-W-CL 74.6 73.8 78.6 74.6
Low-strength soils LFS-E-B747 20.9 19.3 16.5 20.9
LFS-E-B777 22.8 20.8 17.2 22.8
LFS-E-CL 23.81 21.8 18.6 23.8
LFS-E-B747 30.9 29.1 26.9 30.9
LFS-E-B777 21.4 19.9 17.2 21.3
LFS-E-CL 28.9 26.6 23.4 28.9
Pre-traffic test pits Medium-strength soils Tube 1 65.7 65.1 69.0 65.7
Tube 2 72.0 71.5 74.5 72.1
Tube 3 44.0 42.9 41.4 44.0
Low-strength soils Tube 1 27.3 25.7 22.1 27.3
Tube 2 25.5 23.9 21.7 25.5
Tube 3 17.9 16.4 14.1 17.9

stress. For this reason, laboratory MR values at a deviator regression equations were obtained (n ¼ 14):
stress of 13 kPa (2 psi) are also listed in table 7.
The laboratory MR and the backcalculated MR values M R ¼ 1545 CBR; R 2 ¼ 0:87
are compared in figure 7. A reasonable agreement M R ¼ 1709 CBR0:9483 ; R 2 ¼ 0:85: ð8Þ
(R 2 ¼ 0.48) between the two methodologies is found
using laboratory MR at a deviator stress of 13 kPa (2 psi). After combining McQueen et al. (2001) data with the
In general, backcalculated moduli are higher than their current data, the following regression equations were
laboratory counterparts for low-strength soils, whereas the obtained in this study (n ¼ 20):
reverse is true for medium-strength soils.
M R ¼ 1268 CBR; R 2 ¼ 0:80
13. CBR-based correlations M R ¼ 2596 CBR0:7564 ; R 2 ¼ 0:92: ð9Þ
Flexible pavement design procedures such as LEDFAA
In correlating Qu to CBR values (using both trench data
(FAA 1995) and Asphalt Institute (1987) use MR – CBR
and test pit data), the following relations were obtained in
relationships to establish a priori subgrade modulus.
this study (n ¼ 14):
McQueen et al. (2001) used the initial and test pit data
from the NAPTF to verify the commonly used MR (in Qu
psi) ¼ 1500 £ CBR relation. Their results indicated that CBRðtop 30 cmÞ ¼ ; R 2 ¼ 0:728 ð10Þ
3:5
the use of MR (in psi) ¼ 1500 £ CBR relation is
reasonable when applied to the subgrade modulus
Qu
backcalculated from FWD and HWD measurements. CBRðall layersÞ ¼ ; R 2 ¼ 0:301: ð11Þ
They developed the following regression equations based 3:7
on limited test data (n ¼ 6) (MR in psi):
The 160-kN (36-kip) HWD deflections farther from
M R ¼ 1171 CBR; 2
R ¼ 0:83 the load center such as D3, D4 and D5 were correlated
with the average CBR (top 30 cm [12 in.]) values. The
M R ¼ 3363 CBR 0:6863
; R 2 ¼ 0:97: ð7Þ following relations were obtained (n ¼ 16) (D3, D4 and D5
in milli-inches):
In this study, the HWD test data and CBR data (average
of top 30 cm [12 in.]) obtained from the NAPTF trench
sections were used to evaluate these correlations. It was
found that significant correlations were obtained when CBR ¼ 20:409 D3 þ 12:798; R 2 ¼ 0:411
using the average CBR of top 30 cm (12 in.) rather than
CBR ¼ 20:645 D4 þ 12:992; R 2 ¼ 0:716
using average CBR of all layers. More field data are
required to verify these correlations. The following CBR ¼ 20:918 D5 þ 13:191; R 2 ¼ 0:805: ð12Þ
 Table 7. Summary of laboratory MR (bilinear model), backcalculated MR, and CBR values for NAPTF post-traffic trench sections.

Laboratory MR(Mpa) HWD Average CBR (%)

NAPTF
trench sD ¼ 41 kpa sD ¼ 14 kpa Backcalculated D3(mm) D4(mm) D5(mm) Top 30.5 cm
Subgrade section Sample ID (6 psi) (2 psi) MR(MPa) (deflection at 91 cm) (deflection at 122 cm) (deflection at 152 cm) (12 in) All layers

NAPTF subgrade characterization

Medium- MFS MFS-W-B747 93.8 98.5 90.2 0.280 0.189 0.135 8.0 8.1
strengh soils MFS-W-CL 91.0 95.8 89.0 0.287 0.193 0.141 7.8 7.2
MFS-W-B777 – – – – – – 6.2 6.2
MFS-E-B747 70.3 82.2 85.9 0.281 0.188 0.136 8.8 8.0
MFS-E-CL 97.9 105.6 89.4 0.282 0.190 0.138 8.8 8.0
MFS-E-B777 97.9 100.9 71.0 0.301 0.189 0.132 8.4 7.5
MFC MFC-E-B747 – – 93.4 0.308 0.185 0.135 8.7 8.2
MFC-E-CL – – 89.6 0.307 0.193 0.145 8.0 7.3
MFC-E-B777 – – 87.6 0.356 0.199 0.140 8.0 7.5
MFC-W-B747 93.8 98.4 90.1 0.324 0.189 0.133 8.7 8.2
MFC-W-CL 77.2 88.9 87.1 0.324 0.199 0.144 8.0 7.3
MFC-W-B777 78.6 87.6 78.2 0.388 0.218 0.153 8.0 7.5
Low-Strengh LFS LFS-E-B747 16.5 39.0 54.5 0.444 0.318 0.224 6.3 6.2
soils LFS-E-CL 18.6 44.6 62.5 0.329 0.253 0.195 5.4 5.4
LFS-E-B777 17.2 42.3 58.6 0.431 0.310 0.225 5.3 5.8
LFC LFC-E-B747 26.9 52.1 59.1 0.444 0.294 0.214 6.2 6.5
LFC-E-CL 23.4 52.2 54.5 0.353 0.257 0.196 4.7 4.8
LFC-E-B777 17.2 37.0 73.9 0.399 0.271 0.198 5.2 5.5

319
320 K. Gopalakrishnan and M. R. Thompson
Figure 7. Laboratory MR versus backcalculated MR.
14. Summary and findings
The subgrade resilient modulus (MR) is a required input
for a priori mechanistic-based analysis and design of
flexible pavements. Several studies in the past have
investigated the relationship between laboratory-based MR
and NDT-based backcalculated MR, correlation between
M R and CBR, and between M R and unconfined
compressive strength (Qu). The main objective of this
study was to evaluate the post-trafficking test data
obtained from NAPTF subgrade trench sections and
compare them with the resilient modulus test data
obtained from NAPTF pre-traffic test pit samples and
use both the data to evaluate the most commonly used
correlations amongst subgrade soil properties. The
following correlations were developed: (1) laboratory
MR and backcalculated MR, (2) MR and Qu, (3) CBR and
Qu, and (4) CBR and HWD deflections. The following are
the findings of this study:
. Four commonly used resilient modulus models were
used in the regression analyses of resilient modulus test
data. The bilinear model was consistent. It showed
higher R 2 values compared to other models in the case
of medium-strength subgrade soils. In general, higher
R 2 values and lower SEE values were obtained for
low-strength soils.
. Regression analyses of resilient modulus data from
both the post-traffic trench sections and the pre-traffic
test pits indicated that MR is significantly related to Qu.
. An R 2 value of 0.48 was achieved in correlating the
backcalculated MR values (from 160-kN HWD test data)
with laboratory MR values at a deviator stress of 14 kPa
(2 psi).
. The results from NAPTF post-traffic trench sections and
pre-traffic test pits were used to verify the commonly
used MR (in psi) ¼ 1500 £ CBR relation. The results
indicated that the use of MR ¼ 1500 £ CBR relation is
reasonable when applied to the subgrade modulus
backcalculated from FWD and HWD measurements for
NAPTF test sections.
. Better correlations were obtained between MR and CBR
using the average CBR of top 30 cm (12 in.) rather than
using the average CBR of all layers.
. The CBR was found to be significantly related to 160-kN
(36-kip) HWD deflection, D5 (deflection measured at
152 cm [60 in.] offset from the load center).
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared from a study conducted in the
Center of Excellence for Airport Technology. Funding for
the Center of Excellence is provided in part by the FAA
under Research Grant Number 95-C-001. The Center of
Excellence is maintained at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign who works in partnership with
Northwestern University and the FAA. Ms Patricia Watts
is the FAA Program Manager for Air Transportation
Centers of Excellence and Dr Satish Agarwal is the
Manager of the FAA Airport Technology R&D Branch.
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors
who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data
presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the official views and policies of the FAA. This paper does
not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr Navneet
Garg, Dr David Brill, Dr Umit Seyhan, Prof. Erol
Tutumluer and Dr Franco Gomez-Ramirez for their help in
collecting and analyzing NAPTF materials characteri-
zation test results.
References
Akram, T., Scullion, T. and Smith, R.E., Comparing laboratory and
backcalculated layer moduli on instrumented pavement sections.
Nondestructive Testing of Pavement and Backcalculation of Moduli,
p. 1198, 1994 (ASTM STP: West Conshohocken, PA).
Anderson, D.G. and Woods, R.D., Comparison of field and laboratory
shear modulus. Proceedings of the Conference on in situ
Measurements of Soil Properties, 1975 (ASCE: Raleigh, NC).
Asphalt Institute, Thickness Design—Asphalt Pavements for Air Carrier
Airports, Manual Series No. 11, 3rd ed., 1987 (Asphalt Institute:
College Park, MD).
Barker, W.R. and Brabston, W.N., Development of a structural design
procedure for flexible airport pavements, Technical Report S-75-17,
final report, 1975 (Soils and pavements laboratory, US army engineer
waterways experiment station, Vicksburg, MS).
Bejarano, M. and Thompson, M.R., Subgrade soil evaluation for the
design of airport flexible pavements, final report, COE report No. 8,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1999.
Black, W.P.M., The calculation of laboratory and in situ values of
California bearing ratio from bearing capacity data. Geotechnique,
1961, 11, 14 –21.
Brown, S.F. and Pappin, J.W., Analysis of Pavements with Granular
Bases, Transportation Research Record No. 810, pp. 17–23, 1981
(TRB, National Research Council: Washington, DC).
Crovetti, J.A., Comprehensive subgrade deflection acceptance criteria—
executive summary, Report Number WI/SPR-05-02, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation Madison, WI, 2002.
Daleiden, J.F., Killingsworth, B.M., Simpson, A.L. and Zamora, R.A.,
Analysis of Procedures for Establishing in situ Subgrade Moduli,
Transportation Research Record No. 1462, 1994 (TRB, National
Research Council: Washington, DC).
Drumm, E.C., Boateng-Poku, Y. and Johnson, P.T., Estimation of
subgrade resilient modulus from standard tests. J. Geotech. Eng.,
1990, 116(5), 774–789.
 NAPTF subgrade characterization
Duncan, J.M. and Buchigani, A.L., An engineering manual for settlement
studies, Geotechnical report of civil engineering department,
University of California Berkeley, CA, 1976.
FAA, FAA Advisory Circular AC-150/5320-16: Airport Pavement Design
for the Boeing 777 Airplane, 1995 (Federal aviation administration,
US Department of transportation: Maryland).
Fredlund, D.G., Bergan, A.T. and Wong, P.K., Relation between Resilient
Modulus and Stress Conditions for Cohesive Subgrade Soils,
Transportation Research Record No. 642, pp. 73–81, 1977 (TRB,
National Research Council: Washington, DC).
Garg, N., Posttrafficking testing at the national airport pavement test
facility: test item MFC, Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN01/49, 2001,
US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
NJ, 2001.
Gopalakrishnan, K., Performance analysis of airport flexible pavement
subjected to new generation aircraft, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, December, 2004.
Green, J.L. and Hall, J.W., Jr. Nondestructive vibratory testing of airport
pavements, Report No. FAA-RD-73-205, volume 1, September NTIS,
Washington DC, 1975.
Hayhoe, G.F. and Garg, N., Material properties database for the test
pavements at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF),
Report, 2001, Airport Technology Research and Development
Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, NJ, 2001.
Hayhoe, G.H., LEAF—a new layered elastic computational program for
FAA pavement design and evaluation procedures. Proceedings of the
Federal Aviation Administration Technology Transfer Conference,
Chicago, IL, 2002.
Heukelom, W. and Klomp, A.J.G., Dynamic Testing as a means of
controlling pavements during and after construction. Proceedings of
the First international Conference on Structural Design of asphalt
Pavements, 1962 (University of Michigan: Ann Arbor).
LTPP Protocol P46, Resilient modulus of unbound granular base/subbase
materials and subgrade soils. Long-Term Pavement Performance,
1996 (FHWA, US Department of Transportation: McLean, VA).
Loach, S.C., Repeated loading of fine grained soils for pavement design,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 1987.
McQueen, R.D., Marsey, W. and Arze, J.M., Analysis of nondestructive
data on flexible pavement acquired at the National Airport Pavement
Test Facility. Proceedings of the 2001 Airfield Pavement Specialty
Conference, 2001 (ASCE: Chicago, IL).
Monismith, C.L., Resilient modulus testing: interpretation of laboratory
results for design purposes. Proceedings of the Workshop on Resilient
Modulus Testing, 1989 (Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR).
Moossazadeh, J. and Witczak, M.W., Prediction of Subgrade Moduli for
Soil that Exhibits Nonlinear Behavior, Transportation Research
Record No. 810 pp. 9–17, 1981 (TRB, National Research Council:
Washington, DC).
Nazarian, S., Rojas, J., Pezo, R., Yuan, D. and Abdallah, I., Relating
laboratory and field moduli of Texas base materials, Transportation
Research Record No. 1639 1998 (TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC).
Newcomb, D.E., Lee, S.W., Mahoney, J.P. and Jackson, N.C., The use of
falling weight deflectometer data in monitoring flexible pavement
systems. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation
of Moduli, pp. 470–486, 1989 (ASTM STP 1026: Baltimore,
Maryland).
View publication stats
321
NCHRP, Calibrated mechanistic structural analysis procedures for
pavements—phase 2, volume 1—final report and volume 2—
appendices, NCHRP project 1 –2, 1992 (TRB, National Research
Council: Washington, DC).
NCHRP, Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabili-
tated pavement structures, Final Report, NCHRP project 1–37A
2004 (TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 2004.
Newcomb, D.E. and Birgisson, B., Measuring in situ Mechanical
Properties of Pavement Subgrade Soils, NCHRP Synthesis of
Highway Practice 278, 1999 (TRB, National Research Council:
Washington, DC).
Powell, W.D., Potter, J.F., Mayhew, H.C. and Nunn, M.E., The structural
design of bituminous pavements, TRRL laboratory report No. 1132,
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, UK, 1984.
Puppala, A.J. and Mohammad, L.N., A regression model for better
characterization of resilient properties of subgrade soils. Proceedings
of the 8th international Conference on asphalt Pavements, Seattle,
WA, 1997.
Raad, L. and Figueroa, J.L., Load response of transportation support
systems. Transport. Eng. J. ASCE, 1980, 106(TE1), 111 –128.
Robnett, Q.L. and Thompson, M.R., Resilient properties of subgrade
soils—phase 1—development of testing procedure: interim report,
Illinois Cooperative Highway Research Program Series No. 139
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1973.
Sebaaly, B.E., Mamlouk, M.S. and Davies, T.G., Dynamic analysis of
Falling Weight Deflectometer Data, Transportation Research Record
No. 1070, 1986 (TRB, National Research Council: Washington, DC).
Seeds, S.B., Alavi, S.H., Ott, W.C., Mikhail, M. and Mactutis, J.A.,
Evaluation of laboratory determined and nondestructive test based
resilient modulus values from WesTrack experiment. Nondestructive
Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli, 2000 (ASTM
STP 1375: Baltimore, MD).
Thompson, M.R. and Elliot, R.P., Transportation Research Record No.
1043 ILLI-PAVE Based Response Algorithms for Design of
Conventional Flexible Pavements, pp. 50 –57, 1985 (National
Research Council: Washington, DC).
Thompson, M.R. and Robnett, Q.L., Resilient properties of subgrade
soils. Transport. Eng. J. ASCE, 1979, 105(TE1), 71 –89.
Thompson, M.R., Tutumluer, E. and Bejarano, M., Granular material and
soil moduli—review of the literature, Final Report, Center of
Excellence for airport pavement research COE report no. 1,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1998.
Uzan, J., Characterization of Granular Materials, Transportation
Research Record No. 1022, 1985 (TRB, National Research Council:
Washington, DC).
Von Quintus, H.L. and Killingsworth, B.M., Comparison of laboratory
and in situ determined elastic layer moduli. Proceedings, 76th annual
Meeting of the TRB (CD-ROM), 1998 (TRB, National Research
Council: Washington, DC).
Webb, W.M. and Campbell, B.E., Preliminary Investigation into
Resilient Modulus Testing for New AASHTO Pavement Design
Guide, 1986 (Office of materials and research, Georgia Department
of Transportation: Atlanta, GA).
Witczak, M.W. and Uzan, J., The universal airport pavement design
system, Report I of IV : Granular material characterization,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD, 1988.