CHAPTER 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Development of road infrastructure is currently being given high priority by the government
of India to (i) meet the requirement of growing travel demand and (ii) help the growth of
economic activity at a faster rate. Construction of divided four and six-lane highways under
the National Highway Development Programme (NHDP), presently in progress, aims at
connecting (a) four metropolitan cities namely Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai forming
the golden quadrilateral and (b) Srinagar to Kanyakumari and Silchar to Porbandar,
constituting the North-South and East-West corridors. The Pradhana Mantri Gram Sadak
Yogana (PMGSY), launched recently aims at providing all-weather connectivity to the
villages of India by 2007. It is obvious that the highway infrastructure that has been created
at a great cost needs to be evaluated on a regular basis to assess the requirement of
rehabilitation measures. It is important to adopt a rational approach for the evaluation of
the pavements so that more efficient use of materials can be made to improve the
pavement performance and lower the life cycle cost.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT

It is during the last three decades that the approach to design of flexible pavements has
begun to undergo transformation from empirical method to mechanistic method because of
the improved understanding of the behaviour of materials and the availability of analytical
tools for the analysis of pavements. Examples of some of the popular analytical design
methods currently used in different countries are those developed by SHELL [1978], Asphalt
Institute [1981] and Austroads [1992]. The AASHTO [1993] guideline for design of
Pavement structures is being replaced by a new guideline [Development of 2002 Guide,
2003], which uses a mechanistic approach for design and rehabilitation of pavement
structures. In India also, a massive pavement performance study was undertaken during
1983 to 1993 [Research Schemes R-6, 1995; R-19 and R-56, 1999] as a result of which a
new standard for design of flexible pavements was published by Indian Roads Congress
[IRC: 37, 2001].

The new design method uses a mechanistic approach for the

determination of design pavement thicknesses.

Properties of different pavement layers are essential inputs for mechanistic pavement
design. These properties can be obtained by conducting laboratory tests under near-field

conditions on representative samples of pavement materials. The properties of these

materials can also be estimated from empirical relationships developed from field evaluation.
Alternatively, realistic values of layer moduli can be obtained from the structural evaluation
of in-service pavements. For this purpose, nondestructive testing [NDT] techniques are
being popularly used all over the world.
The Indian Roads Congress [IRC: 37,2001] guidelines for design of flexible pavements
recommend the use of different models for estimating the moduli of subgrade and granular
layers. Typical moduli obtained from extensive laboratory investigations [Road Research
Scheme R-56, 1999] for various types of bituminous mixes are frequently used for analysis
of pavements in India. The main concern among the researchers in India in using the
empirical relationships recommended by IRC is that there has not been any validation of the
relationships for the specifications and construction practices adopted in India. Thus, it is
essential to have adequate data for selection of realistic layer moduli appropriate for the
conditions prevailing in India. Hence, a rational approach for predicting the pavement layer
moduli is desirable for the analytical design of pavements and overlays.
As far as the structural evaluation of in-service pavements is concerned, since its
development in 1953 [Zube and Forsyth, 1966], Benkelman Beam became a standard tool
used by several agencies for nondestructive testing of pavements. Indian Roads Congress
(IRC) recommends the evaluation of in-service pavements using the Benkelman beam for
design of flexible overlays.

In the IRC design method [IRC: 81, 1997], the measured

pavement deflections, corrected for standard temperature and moisture, are used to
determine the required overlay thickness. As only one surface deflection is measured using
this equipment, it is not possible to get sufficient information regarding the structural
condition of different layers of the pavement. Thus, this method does not permit a reliable
prediction of the performance of pavements. With the advances made in the mechanistic
approach, some attempts were made in India [Reddy and Pandey, 1994; Road Research
Scheme R-56, 1999] to incorporate mechanistic principles in overlay design procedure.
For the mechanistic design of an overlay, the properties of the existing pavement layers can
be evaluated in the laboratory by taking cores from the field. The remaining life of the
pavement and the requirement of overlay thickness can be determined using mechanistic
approach. A more rational approach is to carryout structural evaluation of in-service
pavements by nondestructive testing of pavements, which is quick and causes least the
disruption to the traffic.

Chapter 1 Introduction
A number of NDT equipments have been developed during the last three decades for
evaluating in-service pavements. Among them, FWD is considered to be the most
appropriate since it simulates the short duration loading of a moving wheel. Since six or
more deflections are measured by the FWD, it is possible to explain the structural behaviour
of pavements more accurately. The deflections measured by the FWD can be used for
backcalculating the pavement layer moduli, which in turn, can be used for the analysis and
estimation of the remaining life of the pavement and for determination of the requirement
for overlay.
Realistic data for moduli of different layers of highway pavements in India are not available
currently and hardly any investigation was made on the variation of layer moduli with
season. With the adoption of analytical approach for design of flexible pavements in India
[IRC: 37-2001], it has become necessary to develop a proper pavement evaluation system
for estimating pavement layer moduli based on field evaluation of Indian Highways. The
models adopted in the Indian Roads Congress guidelines for design of flexible pavements
for the estimation of elastic moduli are based on pavement performance studies during
1985 and 1993 and must be re-examined because of use of better specifications in the
construction of Highway pavements in India.
FWD is the most suitable equipment for pavement evaluation as indicated earlier. Though
different types of FWDs are available commercially [Irwin, 2002], the high cost of the
imported FWDs is making it difficult for most of the agencies in India to use them. Hence,
the present study is aimed at the development of an FWD at a low cost and evaluating
some in-service and new pavements. It is also necessary to develop software for estimating
the effective pavement layer moduli from measured deflections and to suggest overlay
design procedure by incorporating mechanistic principles. Using the field data, it is proposed
to develop models for estimating the moduli of different layers of the pavement.
In the light of the discussion presented in the preceding paragraphs, the objectives of the
research scheme R-81 are identified as given below.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH SCHEME

In view of the demand for adoption of mechanistic approach in the pavement design and
evaluation, Transportation Engineering Section of Civil Engineering Department, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur has taken up research scheme (R-81) Structural
Evaluation of Pavements in Eastern India using Falling Weight Deflectometer sponsored by
the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India at a cost of Rs.22.07
lakhs. Following were the terms of reference.

i.

To modify the existing Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) developed in-house in the
Transportation Engineering laboratory, Civil engineering Department, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur.

ii.

To review available literature on the structural evaluation of pavements using FWD,

various procedures available for the backcalculation of pavement layer moduli and
different pavement design procedures in vogue.

iii.

To evaluate the structural condition of selected Highways in Eastern India using

modified FWD.

iv.

To develop a computer program for backcalculating the effective pavement layer moduli
using the FWD evaluation

v.

To develop methodology for design of overlays using FWD evaluation.

1.4 EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF THE OBJECTIVES

Besides the objectives mentioned in the terms of reference of the research scheme, it was
necessary to extend the scope of the work for better understanding the material behaviour
under varying climatic conditions. The extended objectives of the research scheme are as
follows.

As a part National Highway Development Programme (NHDP), National Highway NH-6

was taken up for widening and strengthening to have a four-lane divided carriageway.
The four-lane pavement consists of the existing carriageway strengthened to have a
two-lane carriageway and a new two-lane carriageway. Some of the newly constructed
pavement sections on NH-6 were selected for FWD evaluation during different stages of
construction.

Bituminous layer modulus changes with temperature. No studies are conducted to

findout the effect of temperature on layer moduli. Keeping this in view, some of the
newly pavement sections on NH-6 were considered for evaluation under different
temperatures.

Recycling of bituminous layers is a recent practice in Indian paving industry. In one of

the projects being implemented on National Highway-6, which is very near to
Kharagpur, the top portion of the damaged bituminous surfacing was being milled and
recycled in some stretches. Considering that there is hardly any experience in India with
recycled pavement layers, the pavement stretch was selected for evaluation with FWD
before and after recycling.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH SCHEME

Transportation Engineering Section of Civil Engineering Department, IIT Kharagpur was the
organization, which has executed the research scheme R-81 sponsored by Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways (MORT&H). The scope of the research project was extended at
various stages to bring the completeness to the present research scheme.
Mr. M. Amaranatha Reddy, a full time Junior Project Officer, was appointed for the
research scheme R-81 to carryout research. Improvements to the existing FWD, data
collection, analysis, reports preparation of the research scheme have been carried out by
the project officer under the guidance of the Principal and Co-Principal Investigators of the
research scheme (R-81) at the Transportation Engineering Section of Civil Engineering
Department, IIT Kharagpur.

1.6 PREVIOUS TECHNICAL REPORTS AND RESEARCH DIGEST

In the first technical report submitted to the MORH&H [Technical Report-I, December 1999]
review of various back-calculation procedures was presented. Details of the Falling Weight
Deflectometer developed in the Transportation Engineering Section through a number of inhouse projects, were also given. Deflection data collected in September 1999 using the
semi-automated FWD on a number of pavement sections situated close to Kharagpur were
presented.
The second technical report [Technical Report-II, June 2000] contains the details of the test
sections selected on different highways in the states of Orissa, West Bengal and Bihar.
Deflection data collected using the semi-automated FWD during March 2000 was presented.
Detailed drawings of the proposed automated in-house FWD were also given.
Salient features of the Genetic Algorithm (GA) based backcalculation program (BACKGA)
developed for the backcalculation of pavement layer moduli were presented in the third
technical report [Technical Report-III, February 2001]. Also, the salient features of the new
In-vehicle automated Falling Weight Deflectometer developed by the Transportation Section
of Civil Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur were discussed. Some photographs of the
equipment were given.
The fourth technical report [Technical Report IV, April, 2002] has the research work carried
out for the selection of Genetic Algorithm parameters for backcalculation of pavement layer
moduli using Genetic Algorithms. Also presented in that report was the data collected from
the structural evaluation of some of the pavement sections on National Highways, state

Highways and major district roads using modified FWD designed and developed by
Transportation Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur. The deflection data collected
during winter (2001) was also presented. Soft copy of the BACKGA program was also
enclosed (in a floppy) along with this technical report for analyzing three layer pavement
systems.
In the, fifth technical report, being submitted to MORT& H [Technical Report-I, July 2002]
contains the deflection data collected during summer reason on selected pavement sections
on different highways using the modified FWD. Also analysis of the data for the estimation
of backcalculation of pavement layer moduli using BACKGA program was also presented.
Various models developed to predict the layer moduli were also included along with some
conclusions.
Research digest [Research Digest, August 2002] contains the salient features of a FWD
system consisting of a Falling Weight Deflectometer, Data Acquisition system and analysis
carried out using backcalculation software developed by the Transportation Engineering
section of IIT, Kharagpur for evaluation of highways in India. Various models developed for
estimating layer modulus values from different pavement parameters was also reported in
the research digest.

1.7 ORGANISATION OF THE REPORT

The various chapters of the report have been organised in the following manner.

The first chapter gives an introduction and objectives of the research project.

The second chapter deals with the review of relevant literature related mostly to various
methods of nondestructive testing of pavements, backcalculation techniques, pavement
material characterization including models available for the estimation of pavement layer
moduli and FWD based overlay design procedures.

In the third chapter, the details of the improvements made to the existing Falling
Weight Deflectometer are presented.

Chapter four gives the details of the structural evaluation carried out on in-service
pavement (old and new) sections.

Salient features of BACKGA, a genetic algorithm program for backcalculation of effective

moduli of pavement layers, are discussed in chapter five. The method adopted for
selection of the GA parameters is also presented in this chapter.

Chapter six contains the details of backcalculation analysis for the deflection data
collected on both in-service and new pavements. Various models developed for the

Chapter 1 Introduction
estimation pavement layer moduli from different parameters are included in this
chapter.

Seventh chapter contains the proposed flexible pavement overlay design methodology
based on FWD evaluation.

Conclusions drawn from the present investigation and scope for further research is
presented are given in Chapter eight.
In addition to the above, an user friendly executable program BACKGA for the
estimation of effective layer moduli of the pavement system is also included in the
report on a floppy.

CHAPTER 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
A Large sum of money is being invested in India for the construction of expressways, and
highways. These facilities need to be evaluated periodically in terms of their functional and
structural performance to assess the requirement for maintenance and rehabilitation
measures. The methodology to be adopted, especially for the structural evaluation of
pavements, should have a rational basis and also be compatible with the current design
trends and practices. Since the present research is aimed at the development of a method
for structural evaluation of pavements, relevant literature on various commonly used
pavement evaluation techniques has been reviewed with emphasis on impulse loading
equipment such as the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD). As a large portion of the
construction activity on highways in India involves flexible pavements, the review has been
confined to the work relevant to flexible pavements. The review covers various models used
for the analysis and interpretation of the data obtained from structural evaluation of
pavements. Different models available for the selection of properties of pavement layers,
including those developed from the evaluation of in-service pavements, have been
examined. Some mechanistic methods currently in use for the design of new flexible
pavements and overlays have also been reviewed. The following sections of this chapter
present an overview of different structural evaluation methods, backcalculation techniques,
selection of appropriate material properties for the analysis of pavements and some
mechanistic methods of design of flexible pavements and overlays to know the current
practices adopted around the world.

2.2 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PAVEMENTS

Structural evaluation of pavements commonly involves applying a standard load to the
pavement and measuring its response. The response measured can be stress, strain or
deflection. The most commonly measured response is deflection. Benkelman has been
among the earliest equipment used for structural evaluation of pavements. Since its
development in 1953, the Benkelman Beam has become a standard tool used by several
agencies for nondestructive testing of pavements. Significant developments have taken
place since then in the equipment used and the analytical tools adopted for the evaluation
of pavements. The following paragraphs deal with some Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

equipment used for pavement evaluation. Depending on the duration of the load applied,
these equipment are broadly classified under two categories- a) static and b) dynamic.

2.2.1 Static / Creep Loading Equipment

In this category, either a static or a slow-moving load is applied to the pavement surface
and the resulting deflections are measured at one or more locations. Plate load testing,
deflection measurement using equipment such as Benkelman beam, Double Benkelman

beam, Multiple Benkelman beam, Modified Benkelman beam, Lacroix deflectograph,

Traveling deflectometer, etc., can be considered under this category.
Benkelman Beam [Zube and Forsyth, 1966] is a 3.66 m long, portable instrument used to
measure surface deflection of the pavement loaded by the rear axle of a standard truck.
The main disadvantage with this equipment is that the support legs of the beam often lie
within the deflection basin, which affects the measured deflections. Also, a single deflection
does not give adequate information about the condition of various layers of the pavement.

Double, multiple and modified Benkelman beams have been used to measure deflections at
different radial distances under static loading condition. The Lacroix Deflectograph
[Nondestructive Testing- Lacroix Deflectograph, 2003] is essentially a truck-mounted
Benkelman Beam, which moves forward with the vehicle. Testing with this equipment is
faster compared to Benkelman beam. The Traveling Deflectometer [Zube and Forsyth,
1966] developed by the California division of highways has dual probes to simultaneously
measure the deflections between each set of dual wheels. CEBTP Curviameter [Paquet,
1978] is another device that operates on the principle of Benkelman beam and measures
not only the pavement surface deflections, but also the radius of curvature of the pavement
deflection bowl, which is more useful for evaluating the pavement strength.
Though deflection measurement under static load is simple, it does not simulate the loading
conditions produced by a moving vehicle in pavements. The evaluation of pavements by
such methods is, in general, slow.

2.2.2 Dynamic Loading Equipment

Two types of devices are, in general, considered in this category. While vibratory loading is
produced in one category of equipment, the other category consists of impulse loading
equipment. Dynaflect, Heavy Vibrator and Road Rater are some of the vibratory equipment
used for pavement evaluation. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD), Loadman Portable FWD
and Rolling Weight Deflectometer (RWD) fall into the category of impulse equipment.

Chapter 1 Introduction
Dynaflect pavement testing device [Scrivner et al, 1966] produces sinusoidal vibration at a
frequency of 8 Hz. It is fitted with five velocity transducers (geophones), each spaced 305
mm apart. The output from the transducers is integrated to measure pavement deflection.
The use of the Shell heavy vibrator for pavement evaluation was reported by Heukelom and
Foster [1960], Heukelom and Klomp (1962), Nijboer and Metcalf [1962], and Jones et al
[1967]. In this method, the modulus of elasticity of each layer can be computed from the
wave velocity and wavelength for a spectrum of frequencies of oscillation. In Road Rater
[Hoffman and Thompson, 1982], a dynamic force is applied by a steel mass accelerated by
a servo-controlled hydraulic actuator. Deflections are measured using four or more
transducers. Load magnitudes vary for different models. Road Rater is available as trailer
mounted and in-vehicle models.
Though the vibratory equipment are useful for structural evaluation of pavements, they are
not very popular because of certain limitations. In the case of Dynaflect, the maximum
peak-to-peak force that can be applied is 1000lb. Magnitude and frequency of load cannot
be varied. The main drawback of Heavy vibrators is that they can operate only at slow
frequency rates. Heavy static (or seating) loads are required. The technical limitations of

Road Rater device are: - a) limited load level for some models and b) high static pre-load for
heavier models which changes the stiffness of the material and produces deflections that
are not representative of a moving wheel load.
The development of an impulse loading equipment, which closely simulates the timing and
amplitude of a rolling wheel load, began in the sixties. Isada [1966] reported the use of a
falling mass device to study the seasonal changes in the strength of flexible pavements.
Bonitzer and Leger [1967] and Bohn et al [1972] discussed about the evaluation of
pavements using Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD). This equipment has undergone
several improvements over the last three decades. Some of the current FWDs have
sophisticated features such as electronic distance measurement, and Global Positioning
System (GPS) hardware to make the equipment more versatile.
Major applications of the FWD are in the following areas.

Evaluation of structural capacity of in-service flexible, semi-rigid and rigid

pavements.

Quality control of subgrade and granular layers of pavements during the

construction stage.

Assessment of the need for and design of thickness of overlays.

Determination of the rate of deterioration of pavement structures.

Evaluation of the degree of bonding between pavement layers.

Assessment of equivalent moduli of concrete blocks in block pavements.

Evaluation of the load transfer capacity in the joints of concrete pavements.

Detection of voids under rigid pavements.

The operating principle of FWD and the salient features of a few commercially available
models of FWD are discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.3 OPERATING PRINCIPLE OF FWD

The basic working principle of the impulse loading equipment is to drop a mass on the
pavement to produce an impulse load and measure the surface deflections. The mass is
dropped on a spring system, which in turn transmits the load to the pavement through a
loading plate. The resulting deflection bowl characteristics are observed and used in the
backcalculation of pavement material properties. The principle is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Falling Mass
Spring (Rubber Pads)
Load Cell
Deflection Sensors

Deflected Surface

Figure 2.1 Working Principle of FWD

2.4 SOME COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FWD MODELS

Some of the commercially available FWD models are:
Dynatest (with manufacturing facilities in Denmark and the United States)
KUAB (Sweden)
JILS, Foundation Mechanics, Inc. (United States) and
Carl Bro (Denmark)
In addition to the above-mentioned models, Komatsu company of Japan also manufactures
FWDs [Irwin, 2002]. There are a few other models of FWD that were developed in small
numbers by individual entrepreneurs and academic institutions. The two models developed
at IIT Kharagpur in India [Kumar et al, 2001; Reddy et al, 2002a] can be listed in this
category.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Dynatest FWD
Dynatest company manufactures two FWD models 8000 and 8081 [Dynatest FWD/ HWD
Test Systems, 2003] used for evaluation of road and airport pavements respectively. These
two models are complete with back-up battery and all other accessories for evaluation of
pavements. Both the models are trailer-mounted and have the capability to apply loads in
the ranges of 7 to 120 kN and 30 to 240 kN respectively. The microcomputer based
software system, ELMOD, is used for the analysis of flexible as well as rigid pavements.
Elastic moduli, residual life and overlay requirement are the main outputs from the analysis.
WINPCN program, which computes Pavement Classification Number (PCN) values is used for
the analysis of airfield pavements.

KUAB 2m-FWD
The KUAB 2m-FWD [KUAB Falling Weight Deflectometer, 2003] is a trailer mounted dynamic
impulse loading device, which can be towed by any suitable towing vehicle. The equipment
is completely enclosed by a metal housing for protection against harmful elements. Testing
can be done with all the protective features in place. Bay doors in the bottom of the housing
open automatically during testing, eliminating the need for the FWD operator to leave the
tow vehicle. In this equipment, a two-mass configuration is used for the production of a
load pulse that simulates the actual effects of a moving vehicle. The loading plate is
segmented to ensure uniform pressure distribution over the full area of the plate. The three
most widely used models of the KUAB 2m-FWD vary primarily in terms of their loading
capacity. The KUAB 50 model is a light and versatile testing system suitable for a broad
range of highway, street and parking lot pavements, with a loading range of 13.3 to 62.2
kN. The largest KUAB 2m-FWD available, Model 150, is capable of generating a dynamic
load of 290 kN.

JILS FWD
JILS-20-FWD model [JILS Falling Weight Deflectometer, 2003] is mounted in a two-axle
trailer that can be towed by a van or pick-up. The machine is operated by the driver from
his seat in the tow vehicle. The loading capability ranges from 9 kN to 120 kN. The loading
plate used is a 300 mm diameter rigid steel disc with an 8 mm thick heavy duty, neoprene
pad attached to it for uniform distribution of the applied loading. Upto nine sensors can be
used for measuring deflections and there is facility to record the pavement temperature.

Carl Bro FWD

Phonix FWD [Carlo Bro Falling Weight Deflectometer, 2003] is the commercial name of Carl
Bros FWD. The latest FWD model is PRI 2100, which is modular in design, i.e., the loading

capability and sensor configuration can be varied as per requirement. The equipment is
available as trailer and vehicle built-in models.
FWDs are extensively used in many countries because of the following features.

cost effective and highly accurate- for many models, only one operator is required.

wide acceptance as it is possible to simulate traffic loading closely compared to

other available equipment.

efficiency - a typical test sequence can be completed in a short time.

mobility - highly maneuverable in traffic.

multi-purpose pavement applications-evaluation of different types of facilities

ranging from unpaved roads to airfields.

wide loading range.

repeatability of results.

2.5 OTHER FWD MODELS

In addition to the commercially available FWD models, a few indigenously developed FWD
models are also available. Details of a few such models are given in the following
paragraphs.

Nagaoka FWD
Nagaoka FWD is a modified KUAB FWD model-50 developed by Himeno et al [1989] for the
evaluation of local highways in Nagaoka city area in Japan. This is a trailer model enclosed
by a metal housing and towed by a truck. The magnitude of the impulse load is sensed by
pressure gauge placed on the loading plate. Deflections are measured using LVDTs mounted
on the reference frame. The surface temperature of the pavement and the distance
travelled are also recorded. The software used for operating the FWD consists of three
modules - system, measurement and data processing. System module is used for
conditioning of the pavement and calibrating the FWD. Measurement module is used to
monitor deflections where as the data processing module is for processing the data using
LMBS (Layer Moduli Backcalculation System) software, which uses ELSA (Elastic Layer
System Analysis) as a subroutine.

IITKGP_FWD1
The first indigenous FWD model in India was developed [Kumar et al, 2001] by the
Transportation Engineering Section of the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur, India. A view of FWD1 is shown in Photograph 2.1. This model
is mounted in a trailer, which can be towed with the help of a jeep. With this model, it is
possible to apply a load of magnitude ranging from 20 kN to 65 kN with a loading time of

10

Chapter 1 Introduction
about 20 to 30 milli-seconds. This loading time is similar to that produced by a vehicle
moving at 50 to 60 km/h. Rubber pads of suitable stiffness were used as spring system to
obtain these loading times. Six surface deflections can be measured at radial distances of
0, 300, 600, 900, 1200 and 1500mm with the help of geophones.

Photograph 2.1 IITKGP_FWD1

A chain and pulley arrangement is used for lifting and lowering the mass whereas a chuck
arrangement is made for holding the mass at any desired height. One load cell and six
geophones are used to measure the magnitudes of load and deflections respectively. The
load and deflection signals are recorded in the computer with the help of a data acquisition
system.
Extensive field studies were conducted using this equipment and the data collected during
field investigations was used to backcalculate the pavement layer moduli [Kumar, 2001].
This low-cost equipment is quite suitable for developing countries like India. Some of the
shortcomings of this model are: - a) many of the operations such as pulling of chain for
lifting the mass, placing the geophones on the pavement surface and releasing the mass,
are done manually and hence longer time is needed for data collection. Also, maneuvering
the equipment on heavily trafficked two-lane two-way highways in India was found to be
difficult.

2.6 VARIATIONS OF FWD

Besides the standard models of FWD discussed in the previous sections, some variations of
the equipment are also available.

LOADMAN [Livneh et al, 1995] is a portable FWD,

available in two models (light and heavy weight) and is currently used by many

11

organizations. The heavier version of this model is mounted inside a vehicle [Loadman,
2003]. It is used for compaction control of bound and unbound layers and for measuring the
bearing capacity of the pavement.
Rolling Wheel Deflectometer (RWD) is the most recent and advanced NDT equipment for
evaluating pavements. RWD device measures pavement deflections under an 18-kip rolling
wheel load using a laser sensor. Designed to operate at 35 mph, the RWD can travel at
highway speeds and cover greater distances than a standard FWD. It gathers real-time
deflection data as it travels [Bay and Stokoe II, 1998; Rolling Wheel Deflectometer, 2003].
There is no risk to workers and no decrease in the traffic-carrying capacity of the highway
while deflection measurements are taken.

2.7 BACKCALCULATION OF PAVEMENT LAYER MODULI

The response measured with the FWD is the surface deflection of the pavement at different
distances from the centre of the load. The measured deflections along with other relevant
information are used as inputs either to backcalculate the effective pavement layer moduli
for use in analytical evaluation methods or to estimate the overlay requirement from
empirical relationships. Salient features of some existing backcalculation procedures are
presented in the following sections.
Determination of Youngs modulus of elasticity for pavement materials using measured
surface deflections by working backwards is generally called Backcalculation. More
specifically, it is the process of selection of layer moduli using a suitable technique (iteration,
database searching, closed-form solution, optimization) so that the deflections computed
using the layer moduli are close to the measured deflections.
Scrivner, et al. [1973] developed the first closed-form solution for two-layer pavement
system based on Burmisters [1945] layer theory. The first closed-form solution for
backcalculating layer moduli for multi-layer pavements was developed by Yih Hou [1977]
using least squares method. The first graphical method for determining the moduli of twolayer pavements was developed by Swift [1973]. Odemarks [1949] equivalent layer concept
was used in some backcalculation models to simplify the pavement systems and thereby
facilitate the use of Boussinesq's theory for the analysis of pavements. The backcalculation
method developed by Ullidtz [1987] is based on this concept and reportedly gives
reasonable layer modulus values for pavements in which the layer stiffness decreases with
depth. Lytton and Michalak [1979] used a more general form of Odemarks assumptions to
convert a multi-layered pavement into a single layer placed above a rigid base. With

12

Chapter 1 Introduction
advances in the computational facility, a number of computer based backcalculation
programs are available now.
The computer based backcalculation procedures are typically associated with (i) a suitable
theory selected for the analysis of layered pavement systems (ii) an optimization techniques
for selection of a set of layer moduli that produce computed responses (deflections) similar
to the observed responses and (iii) an objective function which reflects the differences
between the measured and computed responses. The backcalculation procedures differ
from one another in terms of the following features.
a)

b)

Pavement system considered

i)

Number of layers

ii)

Type of interface (rough, smooth)

iii)

Presence of rigid layer (bed rock)

iv)

Depth of rigid layer

Theory used for the analysis of the pavement

i)

Linear or non-linear material behaviour

ii)

Elastic or visco-elastic

iii)

Static or dynamic analysis / Layered or FEM analysis

c)

Requirement of seed moduli and range of moduli

d)

Backcalculated parameters: - Pavement layer moduli and/or thicknesses

e)

Number of loads used (corresponding to the FWD system used) and the type
of contact area

f)

Responses measured, sensor configuration

g)

Convergence criteria

h)

Backcalculation Technique: - Regression models, ANN models, traditional

optimization techniques and Genetic Algorithm models.

Salient features of some backcalculation programs are presented briefly in Table 2.1.

13

Table 2.1 Salient Features of Some Backcalculation Programs [Irwin, 1977],

[Ullidtz and Coetzee, 1995], [SHRP, 1993], [Fwa et al, 1997], [Rwebangira et al, 1987]

Program

Forward Backcalculat Non

Theoretical
Calculation
-ion
linear
Model
Analysis

ELMOD

WES5

Iterative

Yes

EVERCALC

WESLEA

Iterative

Yes

MODULUS

WESLEA

Data base

No

Iterative

Yes

MODCOMP3 CHEVRON

Number
of
Layers

No

Relative error on
5 sensors

Five

Generated Sum of absolute

error
Yes
Sum of relative
squared error
Yes
Relative
deflection error
at sensors
Yes
Sum of percent
errors

Five

MET

Iterative

Yes

BISDEF

BISAR

Iterative

No

CHEVDEF

CHEVRON

Iterative

No

Multilayer
elastic

Yes

ELSDEF

ELSYM5

Iterative

No

Multilayer
elastic

Yes

WESDEF

WESLEA

Iterative

Yes

Yes

COMDEF

DELTA

Database

No

DBCONPAS

FEACONS

Database

Yes

MICHBACK

SAPIV

Iterative

Yes

PADAL

ILLIPAVE

Iterative

Yes

FPEDD1

BASINPT

Iterative

Yes

UMPED

PAVRAN

Iterative

No

ISSEM4

ELSYM5

Iterative

Yes

DIPLOBACK DIPLOMAT

ANN

No

NUSGABACK CHEVRON

GA

No

Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic
Finite
Element
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic

Iterative

No

GREEN

N.A: Information not available

Method of
Equivalent
Thickness
Multilayer
elastic

Convergence
Scheme

BOUSDEF

BKGREEN

14

Method of
Equivalent
Thickness
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic
Multilayer
elastic

Seed
Moduli

Multilayer
elastic

Yes

Yes

Four
Four
Four

Sum of squares
of absolute error

Best
for
three
Sum of squares Best
of absolute error
for
three
Sum of squares Best
of absolute error
for
Three
Sum of squares Four
of absolute error
Various schemes Five

No

N.A

N.A

Yes

Four
Three

Generated

Sum of relative
squared error
Sum of relative
squared error
N.A

No

N.A

N.A

Yes

Relative
deflection error
N.A

N.A

Yes

N.A
Yes
No

Root mean
squared
difference
N.A

N.A

Three
Four
Four

SID, SIDMOD, FEDPAN, BACKLAY, DAPS, FEAD, PEDD, MFPDS, CARE, CANUV, LMBS,
PROBE, LMBS, DEFMET, RPEDD1, PHONIX, PEACH, FALMAN, CLEVERCALC, EPLOPT, OAF,
SEARCH, EFROMD [Ullidtz and Coetzee, 2003] are some other backcalculation programs
available for estimating the layer moduli.
It can be observed that almost all the backcalculation programs use linear multi-layer elastic
theory. Most of the methods follow an iterative approach in which an initial set of layer
moduli is assumed and the moduli are then used to compute surface deflections. The
computed deflections are compared to the measured deflections. The moduli are adjusted
suitably to reduce the differences between the measured and computed deflections. The
process is repeated until the calculated deflections match with the measured deflections
within some specified tolerance value. Seed moduli are required for many backcalculation
programs.
Backcalculation models can be used for the estimation of the effective properties of
pavement materials for use in the analysis of in-service pavements. Discussion of various
other approaches usually followed for the selection of layer moduli is presented in the
following section. These approaches include laboratory testing of representative samples
and use of empirical relationships obtained from the evaluation of in-service pavements.

2.8 SELECTION OF LAYER MODULI FOR ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLE

PAVEMENTS
Selection of appropriate layer moduli for analysis is a key element in the mechanistic design
of new pavements and overlays. Various agencies use different methods for the selection of
the moduli values. For new pavements, these properties are determined by conducting
laboratory tests on representative samples of materials or by using empirical relationships
that estimate layer moduli from material properties which can be obtained with relative
ease. While assessing the condition of the in-service pavements also, laboratory tests can
be conducted on samples collected from the pavements. But most of the current overlay
design procedures require structural evaluation of pavements besides using some laboratory
based material properties. Results of the structural evaluation are used either for designing
the overlay directly or backcalculating the material properties. The backcalculated
properties, in turn, can be used in the design of the overlay.
The following paragraphs present some of the approaches commonly adopted for
determination or selection of material properties for analysis of pavements.

15

2.8.1 Elastic Modulus of Subgrade

Laboratory Evaluation
Elastic modulus of subgrade soils is normally determined by conducting repeated triaxial test
in the laboratory simulating the triaxial stress condition expected in highway pavements.
The elastic modulus, frequently termed as Resilient Modulus (MR), is computed using the
following expression.

MR = (1 3 ) / ra
(2.1)
where ra = recoverable axial strain; 1, 3 = principal stresses
Hveem [1955] introduced the term resilient deformation to represent the elastic
component of the total deformation.
Shifley and Monismith [1968] represented the non-linear behaviour of fine-grained soils
using the following bi-linear equations.
MR = k2 + k3 (k1 - (1 - 3)) when k1 > (1 - 3)

(2.2)

MR = k2 + k4 ((1 - 3) - k1) when k1 < (1 - 3)

(2.3)

where k1, k2, k3 and k4 = Material constants.

Another relationship used for estimating the stress dependent resilient modulus of finegrained soils is
M R = k 1 ( ( 1 3 ) / 3 ) k 2
where k1 and k2 = material constants

( 2 .4 )

A more involved relationship [Uzan, 1985] correlating the resilient modulus with the state of
stress is given as
MR= k1 pa (/ pa)

k2

(oct/ pa)

k3

(2.5)

where oct = octahedral shear stress; Pa = atmospheric Pressure; = bulk

stress; k1, k2, k3 = material Parameters

Estimation
A number of empirical relationships are available for estimating the subgrade modulus. The
most common parameter used to estimate elastic modulus of subgrade soil is the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR). Equation 2.6 gives a generalized relationship used for the estimation of
elastic modulus from CBR. The values of k suggested by different investigators/agencies
are given in Table 2.2.
Subgrade Modulus= k x (CBR)

16

(2.6)

Table 2.2 Values of k suggested by Different Investigators/ Agencies

Design method/ Researchers
IRC: 37 [2001]
Shell [1978], AASHTO [1993]
Dauzats and Linder [1982]
Dauzats and Linder [1982]
Wiseman et al [1977]
Freeme et al [1982]
Skok & Finn [1962]

K (MR in MPa)
10 for all soils
5 for CBR <15 %
5 for CBR <15 %
20 for all soils
15 for CBR 3 to 15 %
13.4 for all soils

The Shell relationship (MR= 10 x CBR) is commonly used in several design procedures.
Some non-linear relationships between MR and CBR are also available. The general form of
the non-linear relationships is given by Equation 2.7.
Subgrade Modulus= k1 x (CBR) k2

(2.7)

where k1 and k2 = material constants.

The constant values suggested by different researchers are tabulated in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Values of k1 and k2 suggested by Different Investigators/ Agencies

Investigator/ Agency

Constants (MR in MPa)

Jeuffroy and Bachelez [1962]

Ullidtz [1987]
Lister and Powell [1987]

k1

k2

6.5
10
17.6

0.67
0.73
0.64

Cardoso and Witczak [1991] presented a relationship to estimate the resilient modulus of
soils from CBR value and stress condition () as given in Equation 2.8.
MR = 179.0412(CBR )1.08774 1.43833 / 1.18598
1

(2.8)

where MR, , and 1 are in psi.

Kirwan and Snaith [1976] developed a simple chart for predicting the resilient modulus
value of glacial silty soils from moisture and density information, applicable in the plasticity
index range of 14 to 20. Farzin et al, [1975] suggested a method that can interpret the
results of conventional triaxial test to obtain elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of soils.

Structural Evaluation of Pavements

Efforts were also made in the past to estimate subgrade modulus from the surface
deflections measured during NDT evaluation. AASHTO [1993] recommends backcalculation
of the subgrade resilient modulus from a single deflection measurement, using the following
equation.
MR = 0.24P / dr x r

(2.9)

17

where

MR = backcalculated subgrade resilient modulus (psi); P = applied load

(pounds); dr = deflection at a distance r from the center of the load (inches); r =

distance from the center of load (inches); Poisson ratio assumed as 0.5.
The subgrade modulus value estimated from Equation 2.9 has to be adjusted for using it for
pavement design in AASHTO method to be consistent with the modulus values used to
represent the AASHTO road test soils.
Garg and Thompson [1998] proposed regression equations for estimating the subgrade
modulus from FWD test using pavement deflection, D3 in mils (0.001 inch) measured at
1097 mm radial distance from the centre of the loading plate. The equations are:

For conventional pavements:

Log ERi = 1.51-0.19 D3 +0.27 log (D3)

(2.10 a)

For full depth AC pavements:

Log ERi = 24.7-5.41 D3 +0.31 (D3)2

(2.10 b)

where ERi = subgrade modulus ( ksi)

Roque et al, [1998] presented the following equation for the estimation of subgrade
modulus based on the deflections measured using a dual loading FWD system.
MR (ksi) = 36.334(D x / 60) 1.015

(2.11)

where Dx/60 = FWD deflection (mils) measured at 60 inches radial distance

from the center of the dual plates.
Molenaar and Van Gurp [1982] developed the following equation to predict subgrade soil
modulus from the FWD deflections.
E sub (MPa) = 6.614 x 10 3 x d2

1.00915

(2.12)

where d2 = FWD deflection (in metres) measured at a radial distance of 2000 mm.
Wimsatt [1999] developed a regression model given as
E Sub (MPa) =

0.24 x P
(W 7 x 1828.8)

(2.13)

where W7 = FWD deflection (mm) measured at a distance of 1828.8 mm from the

center of the load plate; P= FWD load level (N)
Choubane and McNamara [2000] proposed the following empirical equation for predicting
embankment subgrade modulus from FWD deflection data.

18

ESFWD =0.03764 (P/dr)

0.898

(2.14)

where ESFWD = predicted embankment modulus based on FWD data (psi);

P= applied load (lbs); dr = Deflection measured at a radial distance of 1097 mm.
Alexander et al, (1989) proposed an equation for evaluating subgrade modulus from the
deflection (mils) measured at a radial distance of 1830 mm (D72) from the centre of the
loading plate for an applied load of 111206 N.
Es (psi) =59304.82 (D72)-0.98737

(2.15)

Kim et al (2000) established a relationship between the Base Damage Index (BDI) and
Shape Factor F2 for different subgrade moduli, where BDI is (1- 2) and F2 is ((1- 3)/
2) and 1, 2, 3 are the deflections measured at 305, 610 and 914 mm distances
respectively from the centre of the FWD load. Figure 2.2 shows the relationship.

Figure 2.2 Relationship between BDI, Shape factor and Subgrade Modulus
Dai et al [1998] found that the subgrade modulus backcalculated using EVERCALC 5.0
matched with the laboratory results obtained for low deviator stress levels. Tests on soils
having higher plasticity index resulted in lower subgrade modulus values.
Subgrade modulus can also be determined [Harr, 1966] from the average deflection value
measured during the third, fourth and fifth drops of the load in a Portable Falling Weight
Deflectometer using Equation 2.16.

19

Es (MPa)= 2 P (1-2) r a/ A/d

(2.16)

where P = dynamic load (kN); = Poisson ratio; r = Plate radius (m); a =

plate shape and rigidity factor (0.79 for rigid, 1 for flexible); A= plate area
(m2); d= deflection (mm).

2.8.2 GRANULAR LAYER MODULUS

Laboratory Tests
Granular materials constitute a major portion in the thickness of flexible pavements. Moving
wheel load induces rotational principal stresses in the unbound pavement layers. The
estimation of representative resilient modulus value of granular layers has always been a
difficult task due to the high degree of stress dependency of the modulus value. Since 1960,
numerous efforts were made to characterise the resilient behavior of granular materials.
Repeated triaxial test is generally conducted for determining the modulus value of granular
materials in the laboratory.
Considering the nonlinear behavior of the granular material, Dunlap [1966] and Monismith
et al, [1967] suggested that the resilient modulus of a coarse soil increases with
confinement stress and is less affected by the deviator stress and proposed a relationship
between the resilient modulus and the confinement stress given by the following equation.
MR = k1(3)

k2

(2.17)

where 3 = confinement stress; k1, k2 = regression constants,

Several earlier studies [Monismith et al 1967; Hicks, 1970; Smith and Nair, 1973; Uzan,
1985; Sweeere, 1990) indicated that the resilient modulus of untreated granular material
has a high degree of dependence on the confining pressure and the sum of the principal
stresses. Monismith et al [1967] reported an increase as large as 500 % in the MR value for
a change in confining pressure from 20 to 200 kPa.
Some other researchers (Pezo, 1993), Garg and Thompson (1997) found it necessary to
include deviator stress in the expression for estimation of resilient modulus.
MR = N1qN2 3 N3

(2.18)

where N1, N2, N3 = constants, q = deviator stress (1- 3)

Tam and Brown (1988) expressed MR as a simple function of stress ratio
MR = k1 (p/q)

k2

where k1= constant; P= mean normal stress (1+2+3)/3

20

(2.19)

Johnson et al [1986] showed that MR is dependent on both the first invariant of stress and
the stress ratio and suggested the following model.
MR = k1 (J2/oct)

k2

(2.20)

where J2= first stress invariant =12 +23+31 ; oct = shear stress
Seed et al [1965], Brown and Pell [1967] and Hicks and Monismith [1971] suggested that
resilient modulus is a function of the sum of principal stresses or bulk stress as expressed by
Equation 2.21.
MR = k1 ()k2

(2.21)

where = bulk stress (sum of principal stresses), k1, k2 = regression

constants.
Equation 2.21, popularly known as K- model, was adopted by several researchers and
organizations [Allen and Thompson, 1974; Boyce et al, 1976]. Table 2.4 gives the
regression constant values obtained by different researchers for the K- model for unbound
materials.

Table 2.4 Regression Coefficients for K- model for Different Unbound

Granular Materials
Material studied
Crushed gravel and stone [Hicks, 1970]
Unbound base materials [Hicks and Monismith, 1971]
In-service base and subbase materials [Zhou et al, 1992]
Crushed stone [Zhou et al, 1992]
Crushed gravel and stone [Allen, 1973]
Well graded crushed aggregate [Boyce et al, 1976]
Crushed aggregate (saturated) [Zhou et al, 1992]
Crushed aggregate (at O.M.C)
Well graded crushed lime stone [Brown and Papin, 1981], kPa
Uniformly graded crushed lime stone [Brown and Papin, 1981]
Dense graded crushed stone base material [Thompson, 1989]
Winter
Unbound granular materials
Summer
[Khosla and Ali, 1989]
Spring
Fall
Crushed rock [Pandey and Naidu, 1994] in kPa, MR =MPa
MR, - are in psi

k1
1600-5000
2100-5400
2900-7750
4000-9000
1800-8000
8000
1300-2000
2000-2600
8634
19455
9000
3250
3850
3900
4000
3.47

k2
0.57-0.73
0.61
0.46-0.65
0.46-0.64
0.32-0.70
0.67
0.69-0.78
0.70-0.73
0.69
0.5
0.33
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.7375

In addition to the above mentioned studies, May and Witczak [1981] and Zaman et al
[1994] observed that the resilient modulus values for granular materials varied from 51 to
159 MPa for the corresponding variation of the sum of the principal stresses from 100 to
690 kPa. Smith and Nair [1973] observed an increase of 50% in the MR value when value
increased from 70 to 140 kPa. Hicks [1970] suggested that the MR value is unaffected by

21

the magnitude of deviator stress applied, provided the specimen is not subjected to
excessive deformation. Hicks and Monismith [1971] reported a slight softening of the
material at low deviator stress levels and slight stiffening at higher stress levels.
Though the K- model is extremely useful, it has some deficiencies. The effect of shear
stresses induced due to the shear resistance provided by strong confinement is not
considered. As the deviator stress increases, the MR value decreases initially before showing
an increasing trend. This phenomenon is also not explained by the K- model. Studies
conducted by May and Witczak [1985], and Uzan [1985] resulted in the following model
which takes into account the effect of shear stress on MR value.
MR = k 1k 2 oct

k3

(2.22)

where oct= octahedral shear stress; k1, k2 and k3 = material constants

Studies by Trollope et al (1962), Hicks (1970), Robinson (1974), Rada and Witczak (1981)
and Kolisoja (1997) suggested that MR value generally increases with increasing density.
Kolisoja [1997] included the effect of material density in the K- model, which is
represented by Equation 2.23.
MR = A (nmax- n) po (/po)

0.5

MR = B (nmax- n) po (/po) 0.7(q/po)

(2.23a)
0.2

(2.23b)

where A, B = constants; nmax, n = maximum porosity and material

porosity respectively
The above equations are based on laboratory triaxial tests conducted with constant
confining pressure.
Nataatmadja and Parkin (1989) and Nataatmadja (1992) proposed the following equations
for MR values for constant confining pressure (CCP) and variable confining pressure (VCP).
MR = / q (A+Bq) for CCP

(2.24a)

MR = / 1 (C+Dq) for VCP

(2.24b)

where A, B, C, D = constants
Itani [1982] developed a multiple regression equation to arrive at a model that included
bulk stress, shear stress and confining stress for estimation of MR.
MR = k9 (/3) k10 d k11 3 k12

(2.25)

where k9, k10, k11, k12 = regression constants

Feliberti [1991] developed another model where axial strain (d) is used rather than deviator
stress in evaluating MR value.

22

MR = k13 () k14 dk15

(2.26)

where k13, k14, k15 = regression constants

Estimation
A widely used expression for estimating the modulus of granular layer adopted in the Shell
design procedure [1978] is given as
MR (Granular ) / MR (Subgrade) = 0.2 x h0.45

(2.27)

where MR (granular), MR (subgrade) are in MPa; h = thickness of granular layer (mm)

Extensive studies were carried out by various researchers for establishing the ratio of the
granular layer modulus to subgrade modulus. The modular ratio values (ratio of elastic
modulus of granular layer to elastic modulus of subgrade) suggested by various researchers
are given in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Modular Ratio Values Suggested by Various Researchers

Investigator

Modular
Ratio
Heukelom and Klomp [1962] 2 to 4
Smith and Witczak [1981]
5
3 to 4
Brown et al [1982]
1.5 to 7.5
Deen et al [1971]
Smith and Witczak [1981]
Shook et al [1982]

1.9 to 6.7.

Bose [1993]
Kumar [2001]

3.47 to 4.0

Remarks
Shell Criteria
On strong base (Vibratory test)
On normal base (Vibratory test)
Finite Element Analysis
Dependent on moduli of asphalt layer and
subbase independent of base course thickness
Modular ratio increases as h1, E1, h2 decrease,
E3 increases
Varies with Traffic, subgrade modulus and
asphalt concrete thickness
Modular ratio increases as h1, h2 decreases
and E3 increases for granular layers with
asphalt concrete surfacing
Modular ratio more in monsoon season
compared to other seasons

E1= Surface Modulus; E2= Base Modulus; E3= Subgrade Modulus; h1= Surface thickness; h2= Base thickness

Smith and Witczak [1981] proposed the following equations for the estimation of subbase
and base moduli from thicknesses and other layer moduli.
For subbase course material
Esb = Esg(1+0.003 * hsb)

(2.28a)

For base course material

Eb = Esg(1+0.067 * hb)

(2.28b)

where Eb , Esb, , Esg = moduli of base, subbase and subgrade (MPa) respectively;

23

hb , hsb, are base and subbase thicknesses in mm.

Generalized equations were developed for the estimation of base and subbase moduli by
USACE based on the investigations of Barker et al, [1977]. The equations are given as:
For base course material
MRn = MRn +1 (1 + 10.52 x log(t) 2.10 x log(MRn +1 ) x log(t))

(2.29a)

For sub-base course

MRn = MRn +1 (1 + 7.18 x log(t) 1.56 x log(MRn +1 ) x log(t))

(2.29b)

where MRn= elastic modulus of the nth layer; MRn+1= elastic modulus of the
(n+1)th layer; t= thickness of the nth layer(inches)
Smith and Witczak [1981] carried out extensive analytical investigations on the elastic
moduli of granular layers used in flexible pavements. The equation developed for the
estimation of base modulus as a function of different layer thicknesses and moduli is given
as
log(E Granular ) = 1.079 0.511 x log(h1 ) 0.008 x log(h2 ) 0.155 x log(E1 ) +
0.279 x log(E 3 ) + 0.888 x log(k 1 )

(2.30)

where h1 = thickness of the asphalt concrete layer (inch); h2 = thickness of the

granular layer (inch); E1 = modulus of the asphalt concrete layer (psi); E2 =
modulus of the granular layer (psi); E3 = modulus of the subgrade (psi); k1 =
material constant for granular layer obtained from repeated triaxial test
The equation used for the estimation of granular layer moduli (psi) in the DAMA computer
program of Asphalt Institute [DAMA, 1983] is of the form given by Equation 2.31.
MR (Granular ) = k1 x (h1 ) k 2 x (h2 ) k 3 x (MR (Bitu min ous)) k 4 x (MR (Subgrade))k 5 x (F)k 6 (2.31)
where h1, h2 = thicknesses of bituminous and granular layers (inches);
k1 to k6= regression constants with the following values k1 = 10.447,
k2= 0.471, k3 = 0.041, k4 = 0.139, k5 = 0.287, k6 = 0.868, F = a factor representing
the type of unbound aggregate layer
AASHTO [1993] recommends the following relationships for the estimation of MR value of
unbound granular materials from CBR values.
MR (Granular , psi) = 740 x CBR for = 100 psi ;
340 x CBR for = 340 psi;

440 x CBR for = 30 psi;

250 x CBR for = 10 psi

where is the sum of principal stresses.

24

(2.32)

Austroads [1992] recommends the following options for estimation of granular layer
modulus (i) laboratory triaxial testing (ii) backcalculation from deflection bowls (NDT) and
(iii) presumptive values in the absence of any data. In the case of cemented materials, the
following equations were developed relating elastic modulus (MPa) with Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UCS).
E (MPa) = 1814 UCS 0.88 +3500 for cemented crushed rock

(2.33a)

E (MPa) = 2240 UCS 0.88 +1100 for cemented natural gravel

(2.33b)

where UCS is in MPa

Structural Evaluation of Pavements

Badu et al, [1989] suggested the following equation from multiple regression analysis of
FWD data for the estimation of base course layer moduli.
log EBase = 3.280 0.03326(t1 ) 0.1179 log(D7 ) + 3.3562 log(D1 D2 )
9.0167 log(D1 D 4 ) 4.8423 log(D1 D5 )

(2.34)

where EBase = base course modulus (ksi); D1, D2, D4, D5, D7 = measured deflections
at 0, 200, 500, 800, 1600 mm from center of the loading plate; t1= thickness of
surface course (inch)
Roque et al, [1998] presented the following equation for the prediction of subbase moduli
from deflections measured with a FWD having dual load configuration.

MR (subbase, ksi) = 105.81136(t 2 )1.0785(Dx / 36 Dx / 60 )

6.02523+ 2.4888 / D x / 60

2.16091.6202 / D x / 60 5.302 / t 2

1.15Dx / 36 ]

x[(Dy / 0 + Dx / 12 )

3.67060.0498t 1 0.686t 2 3.09 / D x / 60)

x (Dx / 60 )

(2.35)

where all the thicknesses (t) are in inches and deflections (D) are in mils (0.001 inch)

2.8.3 Bituminous Layer Modulus

Determination of bituminous layer modulus is quite complex, as its value is affected by a
large number of factors including temperature and loading time. Modulus of bituminous mix
can be determined either by laboratory tests on cores obtained from the field or on samples
prepared under representative conditions. The moduli can also be estimated from
nondestructive evaluation of in-service pavements. The laboratory tests are usually
conducted under repeated load conditions in constant load or constant strain mode.
Rada et al [1991] developed a relationship for estimating the asphalt concrete layer
modulus using SHRP (Strategic Highway Research Program) data, which is given as
Equation 2.36.

25

Eac= 0.553833 +0.28829 * P200 * f -0.17033 -0.03476*Va + 0.070377

*70.10 6 +0.000005 * [tp 0.3+ 0.49825
[tp

0.3+ 0.49825 log (f)

* Pv0.5 *f

4.4

log (f)

* Pv

0.5

] 0.00189

0.02774

] +0.931757 *f

(2.36)

where Eac = asphalt concrete modulus (10 psi); Va = percentage of air voids in mix; f =
test frequency; tp = mid-depth AC layer temperature (oF); P200 = Percentage of aggregate
weight passing #200 sieve; = Asphalt viscosity at 700F; Pv = percentage of asphalt
content by volume of mix.
Badu et al [1989] suggested the following equation from multiple regression analysis of
FWD data for the estimation of asphalt layer moduli.
log E AC = 2.215 0.2481(t1 ) 12.445 log(D1 D 2 ) + 17.205 log(D1 D3 )
5.871 log(D1 D 4 ) (2.37)

(2.37)

where EAC = asphalt layer Modulus (ksi); D1, D2, D3, D4 =measured deflections at 0,
200, 300 and 500 mm radial distances respectively from center of the loading plate;
t1= thickness of surface course layer (inch)
Roque [1998] developed a regression equation for estimating the bituminous layer modulus
from FWD test conducted with 300 mm diameter loading plates (dual load configuration).
Es (ksi) = 78.2254 (t1)
- Dx/200)

0.5554

(Dy/0 - Dy/305)

(-0.7966-19.1332/t1)

* (Dy/0

17.4791/t1

(2.38)

where t1 =thickness of surface layer (inches); Dy/0, Dy/305 = deflections (mils) at 0,

305 mm radial distances respectively from centre of the loading plate in longitudinal
direction; Dx/200 = Deflections (mils) at a distance of 200 mm from centre of the
loading plate in the lateral direction

2.9 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON BITUMINOUS LAYER MODULUS

Properties of bituminous mixes vary with temperature. Modulus values determined at
different temperatures are normally adjusted to correspond to a standard temperature for
design of pavements and overlays. Different temperature adjustment factors and equations
were given by various researchers for adjusting the modulus and or deflections for
temperature.
Ullidtz and Peattie [1982] utilized the deflection data from AASHO road test and the SHELL
procedure for estimation of mix stiffness and developed the following equation for
comparing the moduli obtained at two different temperatures.

26

2.6277 1.38 log10 T1

E T1
=
E T2
2.6277 1.38 log10 T 2

where

(2.39)

ET1, ET2 = moduli of bituminous mix at T1 and T2 temperatures (0C)

respectively
Rada et al [1988] gave the following expression for modeling the variation of stiffness with
temperature.
1.798
1.798
4
E T1
= 10 3.245 x 10 ( T1 T2 )
E T2

(2.40)

Antunes [1993], based on the analysis of backcalculated moduli obtained from the FWD
data collected at different temperatures, proposed the following Equations.
For Asphalt Concrete

E T1 1.635 0.0317 T1
=
E T 2 1.635 0.0317 T2

For Bituminous Macadam

(2.41a)

E T1 1.795 0.0398 T1
=
E T 2 1.795 0.0398 T2

(2.41b)

Kim et al [2000] gave the following equations for adjusting deflections and moduli for
temperatures.
For Deflection
(2.42)

D 68 = D T x [10 (68 T ) ]
where D68 = deflection (inches) corresponding to a temperature of 680F
DT = deflection (inches) corresponding to a temperature of T 0F
=3.67 x 10-4 x t

1.4635

for wheel paths and 3.65 x 10-4 x t

1.4241

for lane

centers; t= thickness of the Asphalt Concrete (AC) layer (inch) and T = AC

layer mid-depth temperature (0F) at the time of FWD testing.
For Modulus
E 68 = E T x [10 0.0153 ( 68 T ) ]

(2.43)
0

where E68 = AC Modulus at temperature of 68 F (psi);

ET = backcalculated AC Modulus (psi) from FWD testing at temperature of T 0F
Chen et al [2001] suggested the following equation for adjusting the layer modulus for a
given temperature.
ETw = ETC/ [(1.8Tw +32)2.4462. (1.8Tc +32)-2.4462]

27

(2.44)

where ETw = modulus adjusted for a temperature of Tw (oC); ETc = modulus at a

temperature of Tc (0C)
Johnson and Baus [1992] recommended the following equation for adjusting the bituminous
layer modulus for a standard temperature of 700 F.
E = 10 0.0002175(70

1.886

T 1.856 )

(2.45)

where E =adjustment factor and T= temperature at which the modulus has been
obtained
Ullidtz [1987] developed a model for temperature correction based on backcalculated moduli
values obtained from AASHO Road Test deflection data. The model is given as
ETo= (1/3.177-1.673 log10 T) ET

(2.46)

where ETo= Asphalt Concrete (AC) modulus value at temperature To;

ET = backcalculated AC modulus at temperature T (0 F)
Baltzer and Jansen [1994] developed the following temperature correction model based on
statistical analysis of backcalculated moduli and measured AC temperatures.
ETo= 100.018(T-20) x ET

(2.47)

where ETo and ET have the same meaning given for Equation 2.46
Ali and Slezneva [2000] developed a relationship for estimating AC layer modulus as a
function of average AC layer temperature (oC) and temperature gradient in the AC layer
(oC/m).
E AC = 934 + e

( 9.53 0.033* ( Tp ) + 0.0018* ( TG )

(2.48)

where EAC= AC Layer Modulus (MPa); TP = average AC layer temperature (oC); TG =

temperature gradient in the AC layer ( oC/m).

2.10 POISSON'S RATIO

For most of the pavement materials, the influence of Poissons ratio () on various critical
parameters is normally small. This allows the use of typical values in the analysis rather
than resorting to complex laboratory testing [Mitchell and Monismith, 1977]. For clayey
subgrades, Poisson's ratio varies from 0.4 to 0.5. A value of 0.5 is normally adopted for wet
condition [Brown and Pell, 1972]. Mitchell and Monismith [1977] recommended a value of
0.5 for saturated clays and 0.35 for sands. A value of 0.4 was selected for subgrade soils.
Typical values of for unbound granular material vary from 0.2 to 0.5. Allen and Thompson
[1974] recommended a range of 0.35 to 0.4 for Poisson's ratio of granular material. Uzan et
al,[1972] discussed about the non-linearity of value of granular material and reported that

28

it may even assume a value of 0.6 to 0.7. Poissons ratio () of bituminous mixtures ranges
from 0.35 to 0.50 and a value of 0.50 is relevant for higher temperatures [Pell, 1987]. The
value of Poissons ratio considered for analysis of flexible pavements in different pavement
design procedures are given in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 Poissons Ratio Values adopted in Different Design Procedures

Design
Method
AASHTO
[1993]

Austroads
[1992]

IRC: 37
[2001]

Layer

Range

Typical
Value

Asphalt

0.15-0.45

0.35

Granular

0.30-0.40

0.35

Subgrade

0.30-0.50

Asphalt
Granular
Subgrade

0.35-0.50
0.10-0.50
0.35-0.45

0.4
0.35
--

Asphalt

0.35- 0.5

Granular
Subgrade

Remarks
Dependent upon temperature; low value
for cold temp. (<300 F) and high value for
warm temp. ~1200 F.
Lower value for crushed material and high
value
for
uncompressed
rounded
gravel/sand
0.3 for non-cohesive and 0.5 for cohesive
soil
Lower value (0.2) for cemented material
0.35 for non cohesive soil and 0.45 for
cohesive soil
0.5 for temperatures of 350C and 400C
0.35 for temperatures of 200C and 300C
---------------

0.4
0.4

2.11 ANALYTICAL DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

Flexible pavement design procedures adopted by different countries and states around the
world can broadly be classified into two categories, empirical and analytical. The use of
empirical relationships developed the basis of observed performance of pavements is the
main philosophy of empirical design approach. The performance is usually not explained in
terms of the mechanistic behavior of component layers of pavements. On the other hand, in
analytical procedures, it is attempted to control the identified mechanistic parameters
(stress, strain etc.,) to limit the major modes of structural failures. The major modes of
failures considered in the case of bituminous bound pavements are fatigue cracking of
bound layers, rutting (permanent deformation) along wheel paths and low temperature
cracking. Vertical subgrade strain (v) on top of the subgrade is considered to be an index
for the rutting failures occurring along the wheel paths of pavements. Similarly,the
horizontal tensile strain (t) at the bottom of the bituminous bound layer is taken to be
causative for fatigue cracking in the layer.
Linear elastic layer theory has commonly been used for the analysis of pavements.
Pavement layer moduli and Poisson ratio values are the key input parameters required for
analysis. There are numerous analytical procedures available for design of new pavements

29

and overlays. The following sections briefly present the salient features of a few design
methods.

2.11.1 Asphalt Institute Method [1981]

In this method, the pavement is considered as a multi-layer elastic system and each layer is
characterized by its modulus of elasticity and Poisson ratio. Traffic is expressed in terms of
repetitions of 80 kN axle load having dual tyres with radius of contact of 115 mm spaced at
345 mm apart with a tyre pressure of 0.483 MPa. The failure modes considered are fatigue
cracking in bituminous bound layer and rutting along wheel paths.
The performance criteria used in the Asphalt Institute design method are: -

Fatigue:
Nf = 18.4 x (10M ) x 0.004325 x ( t ) 3.291 x (E ac )

0.854

(2.49)

M = 4.84[( Vb / Vb + Vn ) 0.69]

where Nf = number of load repetitions to failure; t= magnitude of tensile strain at

the bottom of asphalt concrete layer; Eac = dynamic modulus of elasticity of asphalt
concrete (psi); Vv= percentage volume of air voids; Vb= percentage volume of
asphalt

Rutting:
Np = 1.365 x 10 9 x c

4.477

(2.50)

where Np = number of load applications; c = vertical compressive strain

Selection of layer moduli for analysis is done in the following manner.
Subgrade resilient modulus: - (a) laboratory tests (AASHTO Method T 193 or ASTM D 1883)
(b) Estimation of MR from either of the following relationships MR = 10.342 x CBR or
Resistance (R) value (ASTM D 2834 or AASHTO method T 190) - MR = 7.963 + 3.826 R.
Unbound granular layer modulus is estimated from the predictive equation [Shook et al,
1982]. Asphalt concrete modulus is estimated from the regression equation incorporated in
the DAMA program.

2.11.2 Shell Pavement Design Method [1978]

In this procedure also, the pavement structure is considered as a linear elastic multi-layer
system. 80 kN standard axle load (circular contact area radius of 105 mm and a centre to
centre spacing between tyres of 310 mm) is considered for analysis. The performance
criteria adopted are: -

30

Fatigue:
Nf = 0.0685( t ) 5.671 x (E ac ) 2.363

(2.51)

where Nf = number of load repetitions to failure; Eac = modulus of asphalt concrete

in psi; t= magnitude of tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete layer

Rutting:
Nr = 6.15 x 10 7 x ( c ) 4

(2.52)

where Nr = number of load repetitions to rutting failure ; c = vertical compressive

strain at the top of the subgrade.
Subgrade modulus is estimated using the Equation MR = 10 x CBR. Granular layer modulus
is obtained using Shell relationship given by Equation No. 2.27. Modulus of bituminous layer
is determined from binder properties, mix proportions, temperature and loading time.

2.11.3 Australian Road Design Method (AUSTROADS) [1992]

This is another procedure similar in framework to the Shell method. The performance
criteria are given by Equations 2.53 and 2.54.
N= [6918(0.856 Vb +1.08/s

0.36

t)]5

(2.53)

where N = allowable number of the load applications before an unacceptable level

of cracking develops; Vb = percentage by volume of bitumen in the asphalt; s =
stiffness of mix (MPa) ; t = tensile strain (in units of micro strain) at the bottom of
the asphalt layer.
N = [8511/ s] 7.14

(2.54)

where s = vertical compressive strain (in units of micro strain) at the top of the
subgrade; N = allowable number of the load applications before an unacceptable
level of rutting develops.
Evaluation of Pavement Layer Modulus:

Subgrade support from: CBR (field or laboratory) or elastic parameters.

Modulus of unbound granular materials is to be determined from repeated triaxial

tests.

Asphalt concrete modulus: Using Shell nomographs or from laboratory tests.

2.11.4 Indian Roads Congress Method [IRC: 37, 2001]

Linear elastic layer theory is used in this method to analyse the pavements. Two major
structural distresses, namely rutting and fatigue cracking of bituminous layer, are
considered.

31

The fatigue criterion adopted is

Nf = 2.21X10-4 (t)

3.89

(1/ Eac)

0.854

(2.55)

where Nf = number of cumulative standard axles to produce 20 % cracked

surface area; t

= Tensile strain at the bottom of the bituminous concrete layer

(micro strain); Eac = Elastic Modulus of bituminous surfacing (MPa)

Rutting criterion is given as
Nr = 4.1656X10-8 (1/s)

4.4337

(2.56)

where Nr = number of cumulative standard axles to produce rutting of 20 mm

s = vertical subgrade strain (micro strain)
Subgrade modulus is estimated using the Equation Es = 10 x CBR for CBR 5 % and 17.6
x CBR0.64 for CBR>5 %. Equation 2.27 is used for estimating granular layer modulus.
Bituminous modulus values suggested for different temperatures are given in Table 2.7. The
values suggested by IRC are presented in the table after rounding off the same to the
nearest 10.

Table 2.7 Suggested Elastic Modulus Values for Bituminous Materials

[IRC: 37, 2001]
Elastic Modulus (MPa) values at Temperature oC
Mix Type
20
25
30
35
40
BC and DBM for 80/100 Bitumen
2300
1970
1450
980
800
BC and DBM for 60/70 Bitumen
3600
3130
2580
1700
1270
BC and DBM for 30/40 Bitumen (75
6000
4930
3810
2950
2280
blows compaction and 4 % air void)
BM for 80/100 Bitumen
500
BM for 80/100 Bitumen
700
BC: Bituminous Concrete; DBM: Dense Bituminous Macadam; BM: Bituminous Macadam

2.12 FLEXIBLE OVERLAY DESIGN PROCEDURES

The purpose of overlay design is to determine the requirement of the thickness of either the
bituminous layer or the granular layer which, when placed on the existing pavement, will
overcome the strength deficiencies of the pavement and ensure that the pavement retains
its structural integrity throughout the design period. An important aspect of any overlay
design procedure is to assess the structural soundness or strength of the existing pavement.
Various equipment are available to evaluate the structural condition of the pavements.
Some popularly used overlay design procedures are discussed briefly in the following
sections.

32

2.12.1 Overlay Design Procedures based on Structural Evaluation using

FWD

AASHTO pavement design guide [AASHTO, 1993] recommends the use of FWD for the
evaluation of roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) and the effective Structural Number (SNeff)
of in-service pavements. MR of the subgrade is estimated using the Equation 2.9.
The overlay thickness required to increase the structural capacity to carry the future traffic
is determined by the following equation.
SNol = aol * Dol = SNf - SNeff

(2.57a)

where, SNol= required overlay structural number; aol= structural coefficient for the
AC overlay; Dol= required overlay thickness, inches; SNf = structural number
required to carry future traffic; SNeff = effective structural number of the existing
pavement
SNeff = 0.0045 D 3 Ep

(2.57b)

where, D = total thickness of all pavement layers above the subgrade

(inches); Ep= effective modulus (psi) of all pavement layers above the
subgrade computed from Equation 2.57c.

1
do = 1.5 p a
D

MR 1 +
a

1
1
2

D
1+

+
EP
Ep
MR

(2.57c)

where p = load contact pressure (psi); a = FWD load plate radius (inches); do= deflection
measured at the centre of the load plate (inches) corrected for a temperature of 68oF.
Sidess et al [1992] developed an overlay design procedure based on FWD measurements.
In this procedure, the measured deflections are used to calculate Surface Curvature Index
(SCI). Equivalent modulus of the pavement section is determined using DEFMOD
backcalculation program and is correlated to SCI. Pavement is classified as weak, medium
and strong based on the deflection measured at 1800 mm (D6) and the SCI value. Using
these values, pavements are again classified in a quantitative manner such as the Structural
Index (SI). Overlay thickness charts were developed for different SI values and for weak,

33

medium and strong subgrades for different traffic levels. Figure 2.3 shows a typical overlay
design thickness chart for medium subgrade.

Figure 2.3 Overlay Thickness Versus Structural Index (SI) for Medium Subgrade
Mamlouk [1990] proposed a rational overlay design method for flexible pavements in
Arizona State based on roughness, fatigue and plastic deformation models. FWD tests were
conducted and the backcalculated moduli values were used to develop fatigue and plastic
deformation models. These models were incorporated in the microcomputer program CODA
which calculates overlay design thickness and the remaining life of the pavement.
PAVMAN computer program was developed by Richer and Irwin [1988] to calculate required
overlay thickness and remaining life of the existing pavement. MODCOMP 2 was used to
determine the pavement layer moduli from FWD data, which is also a part of the overlay
design program.
Abdallah et al, [2000] developed Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models for the
determination of critical strains at layer interfaces for three and four layer flexible pavement
systems from which the remaining life and overlay thickness required for an existing
pavement can be estimated using available fatigue and rutting criteria. The deflections
measured using FWD are main among the inputs to artificial neural network models.

34

Brown et al, [1987] proposed an approach for overlay design based on FWD deflection
measurements. In this method, FWD deflection studies are conducted at two places i.e, at
the center of the lane and along the wheel track. These deflections are used to
backcalculate the layer stiffnesses which are then adjusted for temperature and speed. The
life of the pavement against fatigue cracking and permanent deformation modes of failure is
calculated using Nottingham performance criteria [Brown and Brunton, 1986]. The
backcalculated layer moduli obtained using center lane deflections are used to determine
the original fatigue life of the pavement. Fatigue damage is computed as
Fatigue damage = Np / Nt

(2.58a)

where Np = traffic carried by the existing pavement in msa; Nt = estimated fatigue

life of the existing pavement.
Overlay thickness requirement is obtained using Miners principle in which the total damage
must be less than or equal to 1. If the design traffic is N then
Np / Nt + N / Nn =1

(2.58b)

where Nn = new total fatigue life of the pavement at the reduced level of tensile
strain due to overlay thickness.
Thickness requirement from permanent deformation consideration is also determined
similarly. Using the backcalculated moduli values adjusted to the design conditions,
maximum vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade is calculated. The desired
overlay thickness is obtained from a plot of traffic-induced strain versus thickness. The
larger of the two thicknesses obtained from fatigue and rutting criteria is chosen as the
overlay thickness.
Arnold [1999] proposed the following limiting subgrade strain criterion for the design of
granular overlays for thin surfaced pavements in New Zealand.
cvs = sub x R 0.23

(2.59)

where cvs = limiting design vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade
R = ratio of future to past traffic (Nf/NP); sub = backcalculated (before overlay or
in-situ stabilization) vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade.
The backcalculated strains are computed using the backcalculated moduli obtained from
FWD measured deflections.

Idaho Flexible Overlay Design Method

This overlay design method proposed by Bayomy et al [1996] adopts the Asphalt Institute
fatigue and rutting failure criteria. In-situ moduli are evaluated either by backcalculation

35

using FWD deflection basins or by suitable laboratory tests. Seasonal adjustment factors for
subgrade, base, subbase and asphalt materials are considered in the design approach.

WSDOT Overlay Design Method

EVERPAVE, a computer program developed by Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) for mechanistic - empirical overlay design [Mahoney and Pierce,
1996; Pierce and Mahoney, 1996] makes use of the effective layer moduli backcalculated
from FWD deflections using EVERCALC backcalculation program. The failure modes
considered are (i) rutting and (ii) fatigue cracking.
Nf = 1.05 X 10-2 /[ v] 4.4841

(2.60)

where Nf = Allowable number of 80 kN single axles so that rutting does not exceed
12.7 mm; v = Vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade layer
The fatigue cracking failure criterion is based on a laboratory-based model. The laboratory
fatigue life is calibrated (shifted) using a shift factor (SF) to correspond to field
performance.
Nfield = (Nlab) (SF)

(2.61)

where Nfield = number of load applications to cause 10 % or less fatigue cracking in

wheel path; Nlab = laboratory fatigue life = 10(14.82-3.291 log t-0.854 Eac; t = horizontal
tensile strain at the bottom of AC layer (X 10-6); Eac = modulus of AC layer (ksi) that
changes with seasonal temperature; SF = shift factor (3 to 10) depending on the
asphalt concrete thickness, equivalent standard axle loads, climate and construction
quality.
WSDOT overlay design flow chart is shown in Figure 2.4.

North Carolina DOT Method

The North Carolina DOT method [Corley, 1996] is based on FWD measured deflection bowls
and performance data obtained in North Carolina. Asphalt layer strain is calculated using the
curvature of the deflection bowl. The expressions for the calculation of radius of curvature
and asphalt strain are given below.
R = -a2/[2*(Do-Dedge)]
AC

strain

= ac thick/(2*R)

(2.62a)
(2.62b)

where Do = deflection under the load plate, Dedge = deflection at edge of load plate
calculated from curve fit to individual deflection bowl; a= radius of load plate; R =
reciprocal of radius of deflection bowl.

36

Pavement Layer Data

FWD Deflection Data

Pavement Layer
Moduli

Backcalculation
Programme
(EVERCALC)

Traffic Data- ESAL for

Design Period or ESAL per
year or Average Daily
Traffic

General Data: - Load,

Tyre Pressure & Spacing,
Shift factors, Seasonal
Temperature &
Adjustments

Pavement Data:Poissons Ratio &Overlay

Moduli, Initial Overlay
thickness & increment,
Existing layer moduli&
Poisson ratio,

Overlay Design
(EVERPAVE)

Overlay Thickness

Figure 2.4 WSDOT Overlay Design Flow Chart

The strain values computed using Equation 2.62a are used in Equation 2.63 to
estimate the life of the pavement.
N = (5 x 10-6)(1/ac

strain)

(2.63)

where N = number of equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) to failure.

2.12.2 Overlay Design Using Other Methods

Austroads [1992] overlay design procedure uses the curvature of the deflected pavement
surface in addition to single maximum deflection as acceptable criteria since deflection alone
does not give reliable indication of the likelihood of fatigue cracking. For deflection
measurement, Benkelman beam and Lacroix Deflectograph are used. Charts are available
for determining the overlay thickness required from characteristic deflection and curvature
only adjusted for temperature. The design thickness is checked against fatigue cracking
and permanent deformation also.
In the Shell method [1978] for flexible overlay design, fatigue cracking of bound layers
and rutting are the two modes of failure considered in design. BISAR computer program,

37

which is based on linear elastic layer theory, is used for the analysis of pavements. The
residual life of the existing pavements is determined as the difference between the original
design life of the pavement and the life used prior to testing [Shell, 1978]. The main steps
followed in the design method are:

Select an appropriate mix code for the bituminous mix of the existing structure or
determine from measurement.

Determine the subgrade modulus from FWD measurements on the existing

pavement.

Calculate the original life of the pavement (ND1) from the chart using other data
such as effective thickness, weighted mean average air temperature (w-MAAT), mix
type, subgrade modulus.

Estimate traffic carried to date (NA1) and traffic expected (NA2)

Calculate the future design life (ND2) from the data on future traffic satisfying the
relation NA1/ND1 + NA2/ND2 =1 (based on asphalt strain criteria)

Determine the total asphalt overlay thickness required from ND2 using the same
chart to calculate the original life of the pavement.

Check the overlay thickness required from asphalt strain criterion if it is estimated
from subgrade strain criteria. Also check the overlay thickness, which should not be
more than the thickness of new asphalt layer on the existing pavement when the
existing pavement is regarded as unbound base material.

In the Indian Roads Congress Method [IRC: 81,1997], overlay design thickness is
estimated from Benkelman Beam deflection study conducted on the stretch where
rehabilitation is needed. The measured deflections are corrected for a standard temperature
of (35oC) and for season. Design charts are available for estimating the required overlay
thickness in terms of bituminous macadam based on design traffic and characteristic
deflection.

38

2.13 SUMMARY
The following observations are made on the basis of the review of literature presented in
this chapter.

There has been a gradual shift all over the world in the pavement design, from being a
purely empirical one to a rational approach. Mechanistic approach attempts to correlate
the performance of the pavements to the mechanistic behaviour of the pavements. The
recently revised Indian Roads Congress guideline [IRC: 37-2001] adopted mechanistic
approach for flexible pavement design. Linear elastic layer theory is used in most of the
mechanistic procedures for the analysis of flexible pavements. Elastic properties of the
component layers are the main inputs for analysis of the pavements. Selection of
appropriate layer properties for design of new and in-service pavements is a key
component in the mechanistic design procedure. A great deal of attention has been
focussed on the evaluation of properties of in-service pavement layers.

Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is considered in many countries for the structural
evaluation of pavements because of its ability to simulate traffic loading conditions
better compared to other equipment. However, the use of this equipment in developing
countries like India is very limited because of the high cost and other maintenance and
operational problems. Hence to promote the use of rational tools for the evaluation and
design of pavements, there is a need to develop a low-cost FWD that will be affordable
to a larger number of organizations.

The process of evaluating pavement layer moduli using the deflection data collected by
FWD is termed as back calculation. This technique, more specifically, means the
selection of layer moduli using any suitable technique (iteration, database searching,
closed-form solution, optimization) that will yield deflections closest to those measured
in the field. Many of the procedures/programs are found to work satisfactory with some
limitations as they suffer from being sensitive to the seed moduli and as the possibility
of reaching global optimal solution is doubtful. Genetic Algorithm (GA) technique can
prove to be a promising tool for backcalculation solution. It is necessary to adjust the
backcalculated layer moduli obtained from deflections to correspond to a standard
loading and temperature conditions to obtain moduli values applicable for standard
conditions.

Various types of relationships are available for estimating moduli of pavement layer
using different parameters. CBR value of subgrade soil is commonly used for estimating
subgrade modulus. Modulus of granular layer above the subgrade is obtained by

39

multiplying it by a factor. Validity of different expressions used for estimating the moduli
of pavement materials need to be established for the traffic and climatic conditions of
India.

Backcalculated layer moduli values are used as input parameters by many pavement
and overlay design procedures. Hence, there is a need to evaluate the in-service
pavements to arrive at appropriate layer moduli values to be used in the design. Also,
the development of an overlay design methodology based on FWD evaluation is highly
desirable to implement analytical methods in the rehabilitation programmes in India in
place of the currently used Benkelman Beam method of overlay design.

40

CHAPTER 3
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF
FALLING WEIGHTDEFLECTOMETER
3.1 GENERAL
This chapter presents the salient features of an indigenous Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD) developed during the course of the present research scheme. In the terms of
reference of the present research scheme, the old FWD (IITKGP_FWD1) fabricated at
Transportation Engineering Laboratory of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur was
to be modified. It was, however, found that the old FWD cannot be modified and a new one
with automated hydraulically controlled FWD has to be developed.
The salient features of the earlier model of FWD (IITKGP_FWD1) have been presented in
Chapter 2. Many of the operations in the earlier model were being done manually. Raising
or dropping of the mass was done with the help of a chain and pully system. The mass was
held at a desired height with the help of a chuck arrangement. Placing the geophones on
the pavement surface was done manually. Though this model is less expensive and simple,
operating the trailer mounted FWD in heavily trafficked two-lane two-way highways of India
was found to be difficult and risky. As many of the operations are done manually, more time
is required for conducting the evaluation. Keeping these difficulties in view an in-vehicle
FWD was developed in the present study for structural evaluation of pavements. The
following sections of the chapter present the details of the various components of the FWD.

3.2 IN-VEHICLE FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER

Photograph 3.1 shows the external view of the in-vehicle FWD. A schematic diagram of the
FWD developed in the present investigation is shown in Figure 3.1.

41

Photograph 3.1 An External View of the In-Vehicle FWD

42

Figure 3.1 A Schematic Diagram of the FWD (IITKGP_FWD2)

Figures 3.2 to 3.4 show the details of important components of the FWD. Figure 3.5 shows
the hydraulic circuit.

Figure 3.2 Schematic Details of the Falling Mass System

43

Figure 3.3 Schematic Details of the Geophone Frame

Figure 3.4 Schematic Diagram of the Loading Plate Arrangement

44

Figure 3.5 Schematic Diagram of the Hydraulic Circuit

3.2.1 Main Components of FWD

The main components of the FWD system are described in the following paragraphs. In
describing these parts, reference is made to part numbers given in Figure 3.2.

i.

The vehicle
A vehicle was suitably modified for housing the entire FWD system including
hydraulic and electronic circuits. Modifications were made in the vehicle to
accommodate necessary furniture for personal computer, electronic circuits and for
working personnel. An alternator was used to draw power from the engine of the
vehicle for charging the batteries. Sine wave inverter was used to supply power to
the computer and the electronic circuit. A 550 mm diameter hole was made in the
floor of the vehicle to allow the loading plate and the falling mass to pass through it.
The vehicle is equipped with flashing lights to caution the road users during the test.

ii.

Supporting Frame
A rectangular frame of size 1500 X 600 mm (Part: 15) was fabricated and fixed to
the floor of the vehicle.

iii.

Mass and Rubber Pad Arrangement

The base of a two-stage cylinder (part: 9) is attached to the top horizontal member
of the supporting frame.The loading plate assembly is connected to the bottom
flange of the cylinder. A load cell of 100 kN capacity is placed on the loading plate
assembly. A 110 mm dia, 4mm deep groove is made in the top plate of the loading
assembly to seat the load cell. The loading plate assembly consists of a bottom plate
of 300 mm dia with a rubber sole fixed to its bottom for uniform distribution of load.

iv.

Loading Plate Assembly

Figure 3.4 shows the details of the loading plate assembly. A universal joint is fixed
at the bottom of top plate of the assembly to provide flexibility and to ensure that
the loading plate rests evenly on the pavement surface. A casing was made to hold
the central geophone.

v.

Six Rubber Pads (part: 6), semi-circular in shape, of hardness 80 HA (Shore

Hardness Scale) are placed above the base plate of the two-stage cylinder with
cylinder casing serving as guide. Both halves of the rubber pads are connected to

45

each other with nuts and bolts. The number of rubber pads were selected in such a
way that the duration of the load pulse ranged between 20 and 30 milli-seconds.
A 100 Kg steel plate of 450 mm diameter is used as a fixed mass. Additional mass is
used whenever necessary. Circular discs, each weighing 25 kg, are attached. These
discs are cut into two halves for easy placement. The total mass is raised and
allowed to drop over the rubber pads with the help of catch cylinders.
vi.

Catch Arrangement (part: 10 and 11)

Catch arrangement consists of Catch-up, Catch-down, Catch-in and Catch-out
controls. Catch-up and down controls are used to hold the mass at any desired
height (100 to 600 mm) above the rubber pads. The Catch-in arrangement is
necessary for holding the mass at a predetermined position. Similarly, the Catch-

out arrangement is used to release the mass and allow it to fall on the rubber pads.
vii.

Geophone Arrangement
Out of the seven geophones, six geophones are arranged in a geophone frame at
radial distances of 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500 and 1800 mm from the centre of the
loading plate to measure the pavement surface deflections. The first geophone is
located in the loading plate assembly. The geophone frame is a hollow beam of size
1800 x 100 x 150 mm. Figure 3.3 presents the details of the frame. The geophone
frame can be folded and made flush with the body of the vehicle during travel.
Geophones are placed in 80 mm diameter slots made in the frame and these are
arranged using a probe, spring and a cover plate. A spring is arranged around the
geophone so that the geophone is pressed against the pavement surface.
Straightening/ folding and vertical movements of the geophone frame are performed
by the hydraulic system.

Photographs 3.2 and 3.3 show the some of the details of the FWD system.

3.2.2 Power Supply

The hydraulic pump is operated by a belt connected to the engine shaft. The same belt
operates an alternator for charging the battery. Two 12-V D.C batteries connected in series
are provided inside the vehicle to supply power for the Programmable Logic Controller
(PLC). These batteries get continuously charged by the engine of the vehicle. An 80 AH 12V rechargeable battery along with a 230-V 60 HZ sine wave inverter is used to supply power
to the computer and the electronic circuit consisting of an instrumentation amplifier and an
integrating circuit.

46

Photograph 3.2 Rear View of the

FWD

Photograph 3.3 A View of Data

Acquisition System

3.2.3 Data Acquisition System

The data acquisition system consists of a data acquisition card, software, screw terminal
board and signal integration circuit. The following paragraphs give the details of different
components in the Data acquisition system.
Figure 3.6 shows a schematic representation of the components of the data acquisition
system.

Load cell
and
Geophone
Signal

Integration
and
Amplification
Circuits

PCLD780
Screw
Terminal
Board

PCL208 A/D
Card
Fitted inside
a PC

Figure 3.6 General Arrangement of Data Acquisition System

Data Acquisition Card

47

output

A high performance, high speed and multifunctional data acquisition card (PCL-208) with
built-in Analog-Digital (A/D) converter having 16 single ended channels fitted inside a
personal computer is used for data acquisition. Some of the salient features [Dynalog
Microsystems, 1993] of this card are:

Channels

: 16 single-ended or 8 differential analog

input channels.

Analog input ranges

: Bipolar range 10 and unipolar +10 V.

Resolution

: 12-bit

Analog to Digital (A/D) trigger modes

: software trigger, programmable pacer and

external

pulse trigger.

Analog to Digital (A/D) sampling rate

: 60 KHz in Direct Memory Access (DMA)

mode.

Accuracy

: 0.01 % of reading 1 bit.

Screw Terminal Board

The signals from load cell and geophones conditioned by an electronic circuit are sent to a
data acquisition card PCL-208 fixed inside a computer through a PCLD-780 screw terminal
board.

3.2.4 Amplification /Integration of Load Cell and Geophone Signals

General
Output voltages of the load cell and geophones are in the range of a few milli-volts and thus
require amplification for data acquisition. Since geophone gives voltage output proportional
to the velocity of the ground, an integrator consisting of IC OP-07, a capacitance and a
resistance was designed [Coughlin and Driscoll, 1994; Gayakwad, 1993] to obtain
deflections from geophone signals. ICS 24 AD was used to amplify the strain gauge based
load cell signal. An excitation voltage of 5 V DC was given to the strain bridge of the load
cell. The output of the integrator is given by the following equation.
X out (t) =

1
Vin (t) dt
RC

(3.1)

where Xout(t) = output voltage at time t; Vin(t) = input voltage at time t;

R = Resistance; C = Capacitance.
Seven integration circuits were prepared on a PCB for seven geophone signals.
The load cell amplification circuit, geophone integration circuit, transformer for power supply
and the screw terminal board are all placed inside a rectangular aluminum box.
Photograph 3.4 shows a view of the electronic circuits.

48

Photograph 3.4 A View of the Signal Integration and Amplification Circuits

LABTECH NOTEBOOK software [LABTECH NOTEBOOK, 1992] was used for data acquisition.
Photograph 3.5 and Figure 3.7 show the details of the data acquisition setup. Data is
collected in a high-speed mode at a sampling rate of 2000 HZ per channel.

Photograph 3.5 Data Files Storage Setup using NOTEBOOK Software

49

HIGH SPEED DATA ACQUISITION SETUP

.
Interface Device
[1: PCL-208/EXP]
Starting Pt./Channel Number [0..143]
1
Ending Pt./Channel Number [0..143]
8
Block Name
FWD
Input Range
[10 V]
Scale Factor
1.000
Offset Constant
0.000
Sampling Rate, Hz
2000.000 CLOCKED
Run Duration, sec.
1.200
Start Method
[Immediate]
Trigger Device [0..3]
0
Trigger Point/Channel [0..0]
0
Trigger Pattern to AND [0..255]
1
Trigger Pattern to XOR [0..255]
0
Time Delay, sec. [0.0..1.0E+08]
0.000
Analog Trigger Value
0.000
Analog Trigger Polarity
[High]
.
.

Figure 3.7 High Speed Data Collection Setup using NOTEBOOK Software
Important components of the FWD and their functions are briefly summarized in Tables 3.1
and 3.2.

3.3 OPERATION OF THE FWD

The main objective of the FWD is to apply an impulse load to the pavement surface and
measure surface deflections at different radial distances. A number of operations are
involved in this process. The equipment can be operated either in the automated mode in
which all operations will be carried out sequentially at preset time intervals or in the manual
mode by operating push buttons for each activity. The following are the main operations to
be carried out.

Vertical Movement of Loading Plate Assembly

Pressing the Main cylinder down button activates the directional solenoid valve (Part: 8
of Figure 3.5) resulting in the flow of fluid into the bottom chamber of the main cylinder
through pilot check valve making the cylinder to move down. The upper chamber of the
cylinder gets drained out and the load plate assembly, connected to the cylinder, comes
down to the pavement surface. Pressing the Cylinder up button moves the cylinder up
and then the fluid flows into the top chamber of the cylinder. The loading plate presses
against the pavement and this will result in a seating load of about 5 kN on the
pavement.

50

Table 3.1 Main Components of FWD Equipment with their Functions

(Referring to Figure 3.2)
Part
No
1

Component in FWD
Mass

Fixed Mass

Load cell holder

Base Plate

Geophone Housing

6
7

Rubber pad

Load cell
Central Geophones

Specifications

Function

450 mm dia- 25 kg
masses
450 mm dia-100kg fixed

To induce required impulse

load
To induce required impulse
load
To hold the load cell in
proper position

Circular plate (200mm)

with four holes (12mm)
and universal joint at one
end
450 mm dia
450 mm dia hollow
cylinder
300 mm dia, 25.4 mm
thick
10 Ton capacity
41.25 mm dia, 42.5 mm
height, 240 gm weight,
4.5 HZ natural frequency,
1250 ohms coil resistance,
Vertical orientation
90X 75/ 63X 45
Total stroke: 650 mm

Double acting-twostage Cylinder (main

cylinder)

10

Catch cylinder

50X 36 20 mm stroke

11

50X 36
stroke

12
13

Catch adjustment
cylinder
Catch Fork
Guide Rod

Mid Steel Rod

14

Loading plate

300mm dia

15
16

Supporting Frame
Rubber soling

MS-channel 500X1450X50
300 mm dia, 6 mm thick

450 mm

51

To provide base for rubber

pads
To attach central geophone
and loading plate
To act as spring system
which helps in achieving
desired loading time (20-30
milli-seconds).
To measure load
To
measure
pavement
surface deflections at center
of the loading plate
To raise and lower the
loading
plate
to
the
pavement surface and to act
as a guide to falling mass
To hold the falling mass at
the desired height
To adjust the position of the
falling mass
To hold the mass
To guide the movement of
cylinder
To
transfer
load
to
pavement surface
To support FWD equipment
To distribute load uniformly
to the pavement

Table 3.2 Some Components of FWD Equipment with their Functions

(Referring to Figures 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5)
Sl No
1

Component in FWD
Geophone Frame

Specifications
100 X 100X1800 mm

Geophone Cylinder

50X 36 240 mm stroke

Geophone
lifting
Cylinder
Hydraulic tank
Limiting Switches

50X 36 400 mm stroke

Hydraulic Pump
Alternator
Programmable Logic
Controller (PLC)
24 V Battery

Operated by engine

4
5
6
7
8
9

700X250X300 mm
Electrical contact switches

2 Nos, 12 V batteries

Function
To hold Geophones at
required radial distances
To straighten or fold the
geophone frame
To raise and lower the
geophone frame
Hydraulic fluid container
To restrict the movement
beyond certain point
For fluid circulation
For Battery charging
To Control FWD operations
Power supply to PLC

Height of Fall
The catch arrangement can be moved up or down using the Catch buttons. The catch
flap can accordingly be positioned at any specified height corresponding to the height of
fall desired. A limit switch prevents the mass from moving up beyond the specified
height. It is possible to vary the height of fall between 100 to 600 mm. Once the mass is
raised to a desired height, pressing the Catch in button arrests the falling mass at the
desired height. Pressing the Catch out button releases the catch flap and allows the
mass to fall freely on the rubber pads.

Geophone Frame Movement

In its normal position, the geophone frame is folded back flush with the body of the
vehicle. On operating the Geophone Straight button, the frame opens out and becomes
straight. A limiting switch is used to prevent the frame from moving after it becomes
straight. The frame can be folded back by pressing Geophone fold button.
The geophone frame, consisting of six sensors positioned at 300 mm intervals can be
moved up or down with the help of Geophone up or Geophone down buttons. The
probes of the geophones are fabricated in such a way that once they touch the
pavement the springs continue to press the geophones to the pavement. Lowering of
the frame is continued till all the geophones are in contact with the pavement. The PLC
controls are set in such a way that the geophone frame will not fold back unless the
frame is lifted to the desired height fixed by a limiting switch.
Photographs 3.6 to 3.9 show various stages of FWD operations.

52

Photograph 3.6 Catch -In Position

Photograph 3.8 Catch- Out

Photograph 3.7 Geophone Frame Down

Photograph 3.9 Geophone Straightening

The salient features of the indigenous FWD equipment are:

The FWD is housed inside a vehicle for easy mobility and maneuverability on busy
roads. The vehicle also provides protection to the equipment from sunlight, dust and
rain.

Most of the operations can be done with the help of push buttons.

Load in the range of 10kN to 100kN can be obtained.

Loading times in the range of 20 to 30 milli-seconds can be produced.

Surface deflections can be measured at seven locations.

Geophones can be positioned at different radial distances.

Geophone frame is foldable to keep it within the vehicle during travel.

Provision is made for attaching larger dia (up to 450mm) loading plates if necessary.

Adequate room is available inside the vehicle for computer, battery and for personnel.

3.4 CALIBRATION OF SENSORS

It is necessary to calibrate the sensors initially and every now and then since the values of
the resistances and capacitances of the electronic circuit may change with time. Load cell

53

and geophones fitted in the equipment require calibration. The calibration procedure
adopted is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Load Cell
A simple procedure was adopted for calibration of load cell. A known load is applied to the
load cell through a reaction frame and the corresponding amplified output (in terms of volts)
is recorded. Photograph. 3.10 show the arrangement used for calibration of the load cell.
The calibration factor for the load cell was obtained as 10.000 kN/Volt. The coefficient of
determination for the calibration equation was found to be 0.9988.

Photograph 3.10 Laboratory Calibration of Load Cell

Calibration of Geophones
Each geophone is calibrated in order to interpret the signals produced by the geophones in
terms of deflection. The calibration was done by a Bruel & Kjaer vibration meter (Type
1511). The meter can measure acceleration, velocity and displacement of ground or any
object in the frequency range of 0.3Hz to 15kHz. Peak-hold facility of the meter was used
for the calibration process. The vibration meter itself was calibrated by conducting an inbuilt self-test.
Each of the geophones was calibrated in the range of deflections expected in field. The first
three geophones were calibrated in the deflection range of 0.3 to 1.4 mm. For the other
geophones the calibration was done in the range of 0.05 to 0.7 mm deflection. For this
purpose, the first three geophones were placed one over the other and tied together with
the help of elastic rubber bands to act as a single unit. This assembly was glued to the
pavement surface using a thin layer of bitumen. The accelerometer (pickup) of the vibration
meter was then placed over the top geophone and fixed with an adhesive tape. Photograph

54

3.11 shows the arrangement made for calibrating the geophones in the field. Data
acquisition system along with LABTECH NOTEBOOK software was made ready for data
acquisition.

Photograph 3.11 Arrangement made for Calibrating the Geophones in the Field
A number of calibration tests were conducted by dropping the mass of the FWD from a pre
selected height. In each of these tests, the geophone signals were recorded in the PC and
the peak deflection obtained from the vibration meter was noted. Table 3.3 gives the data
collected from the first three geophones and vibration meter.

Table 3.3 Data obtained for Calibrating the First Three Geophones
S Vibration
Geophone Responses (Volts)
No
Meter
Geo
Geo
Geo
Reading
1
2
3
(mm)
1 0.4826 4.1034
7.8451
14.318
2 0.6604 5.6704 10.7673
19.4579
3 0.5588 4.7853 9.09978
16.4367
4 0.4318 3.6937
7.0379
12.7453
5 0.2540 2.1898
4.1512
7.4903
6 0.9144 7.7381 14.8860
NR
7 0.3810 3.2704
6.2205
11.2189
8 0.7620 6.6018 12.4077
NR
9 0.3556 3.0562
5.7756
10.4370
10 1.0922 9.4772 17.7979
NR
11 0.4064 3.4727 6.62330
11.9521
12 1.1092 11.9820 17.7565
NR

S Vibration
No Meter
Reading
(mm)
13 0.5301
14 0.6858
15 0.4572
16 0.8382
17 0.3048
18 0.2286
19 0.5334
20 0.6350
21 0.4064
22 0.5588
23 0.6350
24 0.3556

Geophone Responses (Volts)

Geo
Geo
Geo
1
2
3
4.6017
5.8624
3.8580
7.1705
2.6087
1.9584
4.5692
5.4386
3.4766
4.7876
5.4489
3.0469

8.6652
11.1774
7.4463
13.6370
4.9675
3.7250
8.6879
10.4011
6.6303
9.1107
10.3562
5.7759

15.7326
NR
13.4409
NR
8.9784
6.7209
15.6978
19.0342
11.9342
16.3573
18.9098
10.4978

NR: Not recorded, as output is more than 10 V.

The deflections recorded from the vibration meter were correlated with the magnitude of
peak geophones signals (voltage) to obtain calibration factor for each geophone. The

55

summary of calibration factors is presented in Table 3.4. The results indicate that there is an
good correlation between output voltage of the geophone signal and the actual measured
deflection. Calibration factors of the individual geophones are found to be different because
the capacitance and the resistances used in the integration circuits of individual geophones
are not identical.

Table 3.4 Calibration Factors for Different Geophones

Geophone No
1
Calibration Factor 0.1176
(mm/volt)
R2
0.9999

2
0.06134

3
0.03393

4
0.03389

5
0.02794

6
0.02544

7
0.02352

0.9999

0.9995

0.9989

0.9995

0.9991

0.9988

Typical deflection signals obtained from the geophones is shown in Figure 3.8 along with
the corresponding load pulse.

6
Load

4
Voltage, Volts

Geo 1
Geo 2

Geo 3
0
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-2

Geo 4
Geo 5
Geo 6
Geo 7

-4
-6
Time, milli-seconds

Figure 3.8 Typical Responses of Geophones and Load Cell

3.5 REPEATABILITY OF THE FWD DATA

In order to study the consistency of the test results obtained by FWD, the deflection and
load data were measured for selected load of 125 kg dropped from 380mm height. The test
was repeated a number of times. Table 3.5 presents the deflections normalized to 40 kN
load. As can be seen from the table, the observations show good repeatability of deflection
measurement.

56

Table 3.5 Repeatability of Deflection Data for IITKGP_FWD2

Sl.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD
COV

Normalized deflections (mm) at different radial distances (mm)

0
0.71031
0.71243
0.71566
0.71784
0.71395
0.71927
0.71802
0.71098
0.71441
0.71384
0.71464
0.0028
0.39

300
0.37803
0.37753
0.38034
0.37942
0.37790
0.37522
0.37992
0.38015
0.37164
0.37652
0.37763
0.0027
0.71

600
0.23171
0.23983
0.23292
0.23998
0.23877
0.23672
0.23161
0.23496
0.23862
0.23691
0.23623
0.0032
1.35

900
0.16126
0.16230
0.16721
0.16277
0.16626
0.16492
0.16583
0.16851
0.16185
0.16344
0.16443
0.0024
1.45

1200
0.11480
0.11872
0.11561
0.11924
0.11853
0.11390
0.11931
0.11290
0.11823
0.11767
0.11692
0.0023
1.96

1500
0.09831
0.10124
0.09963
0.09656
0.09838
0.09693
0.10024
0.09432
0.09678
0.09861
0.09804
0.0020
2.01

1800
0.07655
0.07798
0.08021
0.07653
0.08124
0.07761
0.07432
0.07860
0.07643
0.07752
0.07773
0.00199
2.56

Test
load (N)
41651.0
41357.0
40992.3
40801.8
41944.6
41781.0
40982.5
41002.8
40739.0
40698.5
41195.0
456.04
1.10

SD - Standard Deviation; COV- Coefficient of Variation

3.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Details of various components of the in-vehicle Falling Weight Deflectometer developed in
the present investigation are presented in this chapter. The main operational details of the
FWD system are also described. Methodology adopted for the calibration of load cell and
geophones has been discussed. Tests conducted for examining the repeatability of the data
shows that the FWD system yields repeatable results. The indigenous FWD system is
expected to perform well for the evaluation of in-service pavements in India and give a
boost to the application of FWDs in the pavement rehabilitation programmes in India.

57

CHAPTER 4
4.0 FIELD EVALUATION OF PAVEMENTS
USING FWD
4.1 GENERAL
This chapter gives the details of structural evaluation of some in-service and new
pavements using the Falling Weight Deflectometer developed as a part of the present work.
Various types of in-service pavements with different thicknesses of bituminous surfacing and
granular base were selected for detailed investigation. The test sections are located in
different parts of the states of West Bengal (WB), Orissa (OR) and Jharkhand (JH) in
Eastern India. Figure. 4.1 shows the locations of various test sections investigated. While
most of the sections are old pavements, some newly constructed pavements were also
selected for investigation. A few pavement sections overlaid with thick bituminous overlays
were also considered. One Stretch of National Highway-6 having cold mix recycled layer was
investigated. Details of the test sections investigated and the deflection data obtained using
FWD in different seasons are presented in this chapter.

Figure 4.1 Locations of Various Test Sections

58

4.2 IN-SERVICE PAVEMENT SECTIONS

For the present study, some pavement sections in the states of West Bengal, Orissa and
Jharkhand were selected for detailed investigation. Average daily two-way traffic on these
roads ranged from 300 to 7000 commercial vehicles per day (cvpd). The granular subbase
and base of in-service pavements consisted of layers of sand, brickbat and crushed stone
aggregates in varying thicknesses. All the granular layers in a pavement section were
treated as a single layer (granular base) for analysis. Similarly, the bituminous surfacing
layer consisted mostly of bituminous macadam covered with premix carpet and seal coat.
One or more layers of bituminous material placed over the granular layer at different times
with varied thicknesses were also considered as one layer. It was observed at the time of
investigation that some of the pavement sections were badly cracked and some were
showing cracks covering nearly 20% of the pavement area. Details of the selected test
sections are given in Table 4.1.

Stretch

Table 4.1 Details of In-service Pavement Test Sections Investigated

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Name of the
Location
Road &
Carriage
Km
State
Way Width
In-Service Pavements
1.820-2.000
5.5
SH WB
2.895-3.000
5.5
2.370-4.000
55
4.625-5.000
5.5
NH-60 WB 15.000-15.270
6.5
123.750-124.000
7.0
125.000-125.270
7.0
134.000-134.270
7.0
134.800-134.860
7.0
150.000-150.245
7.0
151.000-151.305
7.0
NH-6
152.000-152.245
7.0
WB
153.000-153.245
7.0
NH-6 JH 188.000-188.270
7.0
NH- 6 OR 206.500-206.710
6.5
NH-5 OR 270.00-270.300
7.0
NH-33 JH 319.600-319.870
6.7
New Pavements
109.100
7.0
112.000-112.540
7.0
125.000-125.540
7.0
NH-6
126.000-126.540
7.0
WB
131.220-131.910
7.0
131.020-131.200
7.0

Average thicknesses (mm)

Remarks

Surface
SDBC
B

Base
WBM S+CS

------------50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
-----BC
40
40
40
40
40
--

279.1
Thin
Pavement
282.0
359.1
340.5
346.9
124.8 395.5
298.0 326.5
134.6 411.0
130.2 421.0
139.5 445.6
133.8 375.3
Thick
140.0 424.8
Pavement
131.0 345.6
152.4 222.6
443.5
424.9
148.1 230.9
WMM
DL
500
200
New
500
200
500
200 Carriage500
200 Way (CW)
500
200
217
225
Old CW

45.0
45.0
66.9
63.5
46.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
94.2
95.3
95.4
95.0
95.3
100.0
97.7
87.0
86.7
DBM
170
170
170
170
170
100

JH: Jharkhand State; WB: West Bengal State; OR: Orissa State; NH- National Highway; SH: State Highway
SDBC: Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete; DBM: Dense Bituminous Macadam; B: Bituminous; BC: Bituminous Concrete;
WBM: Water Bound Macadam; S: Sand; CS: Crushed Stone: DL: Drainage Layer; WMM: Wet Mix Macadam

59

The annual average rainfall in the region is about 1250mm and the pavement temperatures
vary in the range from 20oC to 50oC. All the stretches have single carriageway carrying twoway traffic. The average shoulder width was in the range of 1 to 2 m. Many of the in-service
pavement sections (Sl No 6 to 17 of Table 4.1) considered in the study have thick
bituminous layers. Bituminous surfacing having more than 75 mm thickness was considered
as thick. The thicknesses of the pavement sections differed from location to location. Since
the variation was not reflected in the construction records, pavements were cut open at
many locations to measure the actual thicknesses. The details of the layer thicknesses at
each test location of the pavement stretch are investigated and given in Appendix-A.
Photographs 4.1 (a) and (b) show the cross sectional details of an existing carriageway on
NH-6.

a) Cross-Sectional Details of the Existing Carriageway at Km 131 of NH-6

b) Excavation of Shoulder Portion for Thickness Details at Km 270.000 of NH-5

Photograph 4.1

60

Cross-sectional Details of Two In-service Pavements

4.3 NEW PAVEMENT SECTIONS

The Golden quadrilateral scheme initiated in India as a part of the National Highway
Development Programme (NHDP) for connecting the major metropolitan cities of India is
one of the prestigious infrastructure development projects that are currently in progress in
India. As a part of this, National Highway NH-6 was taken up for widening and
strengthening to have a four-lane divided carriageway. The four-lane pavement consists of
the existing carriageway strengthened to have a two-lane carriageway and a new two-lane
carriageway (widened portion). Some of the newly constructed pavement sections on NH-6
were selected for FWD evaluation during different stages of construction.
The following section presents, in brief, the details of the structural evaluation of pavements
carried out using the indigenously developed FWD during different seasons during 2001 and
2002.

4.4 EVALUATION OF SELECTED PAVEMENTS USING FWD

It is necessary to ensure that various sensors used in the FWD, such as load cell and
geophones, are calibrated before starting the structural evaluation. The general functioning
of the equipment, battery and data acquisition system is to be verified. It is also necessary
to have adequate arrangements for traffic control and the safety of the personnel. The steps
involved in the collection of deflection data using the FWD are as listed below.
i.

Suitable arrangement is made for the control of traffic.

ii.

The test location is marked with paint for future identification.

iii.

General condition of the pavement surface is observed and recorded.

iv.

Air and pavement temperatures are measured.

v.

The FWD is positioned over the test location in such a way that the loading plate is
positioned directly above the identified location.

vi.

Geophone frame is straightened and brought down to the pavement surface so that
the probes of the geophones touch the ground. The loading plate is pressed against
the pavement until the wheels of the vehicle get lifted up slightly from the ground.

vii.

The mass of the FWD is raised to the desired height and the loading plate assembly
is lowered to the ground.

viii.
ix.

The mass is dropped.

The mass is raised, held in position and dropped again. This process is repeated
three times to ensure conditioning of the test location.

x.

The data acquisition software is initialized with appropriate configuration.

xi.

The mass is dropped and the signals from load cell and geophones are recorded in
the computer.

61

xii.

The data is processed to determine the magnitude of the applied load and the
surface deflections at different radial distances.

xiii.

The height is adjusted in such a way that the amplitude of the impulse load is close
to 40 kN.

xiv.

At each location, the load is dropped three times and data is recorded.

xv.

Pavement temperature of each section was measured during the investigation. A

small hole was punched in the pavement and filled with mineral oil. A thermometer
was inserted into the oil and temperature was measured.

The lengths of the selected test stretches varied from 300 m to 800 m. Typical layout of test
location used in the present study is shown in Figure 4.2.

Paved
shoulder

7m

Unpaved
shoulder

30 m
Test Location

60 m

30 m

1.5 m

7m
2 Lane 2 way Carriageway

4 Lane Divided Carriageway

Figure 4.2 Sketch Showing the Typical Layout of Test Locations for 4 Lane
Divided and 2 Lane 2way Carriageways
A study was also conducted on NH-6 to examine the differences in the surface deflections
along in the longitudinal as well as transverse directions. Deflections were initially measured
at a location, which is at 1.0m from the edge of the carriageway. The vehicle was
repositioned transversely in such a way that the center of the loading plate was at 1000 mm
distance from its previous position. Deflections were measured for five positions of FWD.
Photograph 4.2 (a), 4.2 (b) and 4.3 show different views of the FWD being used for
structural evaluation of pavements.

62

a) General View

b) Geophone Frame Lowered to the

Pavement Surface

Photograph 4.2 Two Views of Structural Evaluation at Km 152.000 of NH-6

Photograph 4.3 Structural Evaluation at Km 131.000 of NH-6

Deflections were measured during three seasons of the year, i.e. monsoon (M), winter (W)
and summer (M) seasons. The deflections for monsoon season were measured immediately
after the monsoon receded. In addition to the deflection data, air and pavement
temperatures were also recorded at each test location. Tables B-1 to B-23 of Appendix- B
contain deflection data. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 present typical deflection data measured during
three different seasons on three pavement sections on two pavement sections.
A limited study was conducted to evaluate the effect of pavement temperature on measured
deflections and layer moduli. This study was conducted at Km 112, 126 and Km 131 (stretch
Nos. 19, 21 and 22) of National Highway No.6. At each test location, the defections were
measured at different time intervals as the pavement temperature was varying. The
deflection data collected for evaluation of temperature effect is presented in Tables B-27 to
B-42 of Appendix B. Figure 4.5 shows the variation of deflection with temperature for Km
131.000.

63

Measured Surface Deflection

,mm

1.2
1
Monsoon
Winter
Summer

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Radial Distance (mm) from the centre of the Loading Plate

Measured Surface
Deflection,mm

Figure 4.3 Measured Surface Deflections at Km 1.895 of SH

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Monsoon
w inter
Summer

500
1000
1500
2000
Radial Distance (mm) from Centre of the Loading Plate

Measured Surface Deflection,

mm

Figure 4.4 Measured Surface Deflections at Km 134.030 of NH-6

0.5
0.4

Temp-25 C

Temp-30C

Temp-35 C

Temp-40 C

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Radial Distances (mm) from the Centre of the Loading Plate

Figure 4.5 Measured Surface Deflections at Km 131.100 of NH-6

A study was conducted to examine the linearity of surface deflection with load. A number of
deflection sets were measured at Km 109.100 of NH-6 with different loads. The deflections
measured at different loads are given in Table B-43 of Appendix-B.

64

4.5 EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT SECTION WITH RECYCLED LAYERS

Recycling of bituminous layers is a recent practice in Indian paving industry. In one of the
projects being implemented on National Highway-6, which is very near to Kharagpur, the
top portion of the damaged bituminous surfacing was being milled and recycled in some
stretches. Considering that there is hardly any experience in India with recycled pavement
layers, the pavement stretch was selected for evaluation with FWD. Details of the stretch
(No. 23) are given in Table 4.1 and in Table A-18 of Appendix-A.
Cold mix recycling process is a technique adopted to enhance the strength of the existing
pavement surface using stabilizing agents without going for new construction with new
materials. In the pavement stretch investigated, the existing pavement was milled to a
predetermined depth to recover the material used in the original construction and this
material was mixed simultaneously with a slurry cement and bituminous emulsion to form a
new strengthened pavement layer. Pavement surface was milled to 100 mm depth and cold
mix recycling was carried out using a mixture of 2 % cement and 4.5 % bituminous
emulsion content by weight of milled material [Sivannarayana, 2003]. The mix was derived
from the mix design carried out by the executing agency.
The following steps were followed in the recycling process.

At first the required quantity of cement was spread on the pavement ahead of milling

The pavement was milled to the predetermined depth using the recycler.

Specified quantities of emulsion and water were spread with the help of built-inautomatic metering device of the recycler.

Thorough mixing of the milled material with cement and emulsion was done in the
mixing chamber.

Laying and pre-compacting the mix through a built- in hydraulic screed attached at the
rear of the recycler was carried out.

The pre-compacted, laid material was further compacted with a 10-Tonne vibratory
roller followed by a pneumatic tyre roller to achieve the required compaction.

Figure 4.6 shows a schematic diagram depicting the main processes involved in the cold mix
recycling operation. Photographs 4.4 (a) and (b) show two different views of recycling work
done at Km 131.000 of NH-6. Photographs 4.5 (a) and (b) present two views of the FWD
during structural evaluation of the recycled pavement. In the present study, deflections
were measured using the FWD on the existing pavement surface before it was recycled.
Deflection tests were also conducted over the recycled layer after 7 and 28 days of
recycling. The data collected before and after recycling is presented in Tables B-24 to B-26
of Appendix-B.

65

Figure 4.6 Main Processes in Cold Mix Recycling Operation

a) Milling Operation

b) Rolling the Cold Mix

Photograph 4.4 Two Views of Cold Mix Recycling Machine

(a)
(b)
Photograph 4.5 Field Evaluation of Recycled Portion at Km 131.000 of NH-6

4.6 SUMMARY
Details of structural evaluation conducted on different pavement sections in Eastern India
using the FWD developed by IIT Kharagpur are presented in this chapter. Salient features of
the sections selected, steps involved in the structural evaluation of pavements, etc., are
discussed. Investigations conducted for evaluating the effect of temperature on the
deflections have been discussed. Details of tests conducted on a pavement stretch having a
recycled layer are also presented. While the deflection data is presented in the form of
Appendices, the analysis of the data is given in the following chapters. The next chapter
presents the details of a computer program developed for the analysis (backcalculation) of
the structural evaluation data for assessing the strength of various component layers of
pavements.

66

CHAPTER 5
5.0 BACKGA PROGRAM FOR
BACKCALCULATION OF LAYER MODULI
5.1 GENERAL
Backcalculation is the process of estimation of elastic properties of pavement layers using
measured structural responses. A number of backcalculation programs are available for
estimating effective pavement layer moduli from surface deflections. Details of some of the
programmes have been presented in Chapter 2. The existing backcalculation methods adopt
widely varying techniques that include regression equations, ANN models, and different
optimization techniques [Meier and Rix, 1994; Ullidtz and Coetzee, 1995]. Genetic Algorithm
(GA) is one of the techniques used recently for this purpose. Fwa et al [1997] and
Kameyama et al [1997] developed Genetic Algorithm (GA) based backcalculation programs.
A potentially good backcalculation procedure is the one having a strong global search ability
to overcome the problem of local minima. GA has been used successfully for the solution of
several complex problems in the recent past. This chapter presents the salient features of a
backcalculation programme BACKGA developed for the estimation of effective pavement
layer moduli using the surface deflections measured by FWD. Selection of optimal values of
parameters, such as population size, number of generations, crossover and mutation
probabilities, is crucial for the performance of GA models. Normally, these parameters are
selected from a number of trials or based on empirical relationships or thumb rules.
However, the optimality of the parameters thus selected needs to be evaluated in terms of
the accuracy attained and the computational effort involved before a final GA parameter set
is adopted. The performance of the GA-based backcalculation program has been
demonstrated with the help of some hypothetical problems.

5.2 GENETIC ALGORITHMS

Genetic Algorithms are a family of adaptive techniques, devised by John Holland [1973].
GAs are inspired by biological evolution and are based on the principle, survival of the
fittest. To begin with, GAs work with a population of "chromosomes of individuals", each
representing a possible solution to the given problem [Goldberg, 2000]. Each chromosome
is assigned a "fitness value" indicating how good a solution it is to the problem. The highly
fit chromosomes are given the opportunity to "reproduce" by "cross breeding" with other
individuals in the population. This produces new chromosomes as "offsprings", which share

67

some of the features taken from each "parent". The least fit members of the population are
less likely to get selected for reproduction, and

"die out". A whole new population of

possible solutions is thus produced by selecting the best individuals from the current
"generation", and mating them to produce a new set of chromosomes. This new generation
contains a higher proportion of the characteristics possessed by the good members of the
previous generation. In this way, over many generations, good characteristics are spread
throughout the population. By favouring the mating of the more fit individuals, the most
promising areas of the search space are explored. If the GA is designed well, the population
will converge to an optimal solution to the problem. The global solution is possible only
when the parameters are properly chosen. Improper selection of parameters can result in
local minima.

While different types of GA algorithms are available, a simple GA usually works with the
following four operators [Deb, 1995].

Coding:

Genetic Algorithms operate on population of strings, with the string coded

(binary alphabet) to represent some underlying parameter set.

An initial random

population of n strings is chosen and coded.

Reproduction: In this step, some of the strings of the earlier population are copied
into a mating pool. Strings with higher fitness values have a higher probability of
contributing one or more offsprings to the mating pool. Fitness value is a measure of
profit, utility or goodness of the solution that is to be maximized. The probability of the
ith string getting selected, Ps (i) can be calculated using the following equation.
Pi (i)

n f (i)
n

(5.1)

f (i)

i=0

where f (i) = fitness of the ith string; f (i)/ n = average fitness value of the strings;
n = total number of strings.

Crossover: In the crossover operator, exchange of information among strings of

mating pool leads to the creation of new strings. In most crossover operators, any two
strings (parent) are picked from the mating pool at random and some portions of the
strings are exchanged between the strings to form two new (child) strings. A single
crossover operator is performed randomly by choosing a crossing site and by
exchanging all bits on the right side of the crossing site. In order to preserve some of
the good strings that are already present in the mating pool, not all strings in the mating
pool are used for crossover. The crossover operation is depicted in Figure 5.1

68

Parent-1
0

Child-1
0

Crossover site
Parent-2
1

Child-2
1

Before Crossover

After Crossover

Figure. 5.1 Crossover Operation

Mutation: The mutation operator changes the 1s to 0s and vice versa in the string
with a selected mutation probability. The need for mutation is to create a new point in
the neighborhood of the current solution. The mutation operator alters a string locally to
hopefully create a better sub-string.

5.3 DETAILS OF BACKGA PROGRAM

This section describes the salient features of the GA based program, BACKGA, developed in
the present investigation for backcalculation of layer moduli from measured deflection
basins. The flow chart for this algorithm is presented in Figure 5.2. ELAYER computer
program developed for elastic layered system [Reddy, 1993] was used as the forward
calculation routine. BACKGA program has been developed keeping in view the general
features of the FWD developed in the present investigation. The program does not
backcalculate Poissons ratio and thicknesses. Normally typical values of Poisson ratio values
are selected for the analysis as Poisson ratio values, when chosen within practical range, do
not have significant influence on the deflections [Rodriguez et al, 1992; Vennalaganti et al,
1994]. Similarly, thicknesses of different layers are also assumed to be known. The typical
objective function normally used in the case of backcalculation analysis is the minimization
of the sum of the squared differences of calculated and measured deflections.

69

Start

Input Parameters
Pavement
Thickness of Layers
Number of Layers, Number of Deflection Sensors
Surface Deflections and radial Distances
Layer Moduli Range, Poissons Ratio
Mutation Load and Tyre Pressure

GA
Total Chromosome Length
Size of Each Chromosome Length
Population, Generation Size
Probabilities of Crossover and
Seed Number

Random Generation of Population Set

Evaluation of Parent Pool [Each set is decoded and moduli is calculated]
Forward Calculation using ELAYER Program [ using
Moduli values of each set, deflection are calculated]
Fitness Evaluation
n

Objective Function: (Di di ) 2 / n ; Fitness= 1/ (1+ Objective)

i =1

Generation and Selection of Offsprings

By Crossover and Mutation Operation on Parent set- To Generate
Offsprings- Calculation of Fitness of each offspring and select
offspring with best fitness values

Stopping Criteria
Is no. of generations
< Max. Generations

No
Stop

Figure 5.2 Flowchart for BACKGA

70

Yes

The objective function selected in the present model is given as Equation 5.2.
OBJ = nI=1 (DI- dI)2

Minimize

(5.2)

where DI is the measured deflection and dI is the computed

deflection. I is the deflection sensor number
The fitness of a given solution can be computed using the following expression.
Fitness = 1/ 1+OBJ

(5.3)

Backcalculation using GA does not require seed moduli. Lower and upper bounds (range) of
the layer moduli are required. Length of chromosome used to represent the variable is
based on the required accuracy of back-calculated values. In the present case, the length of
chromosome corresponding to each layer modulus has been taken as 10. The accuracy with
which the parameter can be decoded is given by the following expression.
(xi(u)-xi(l))/2l-1

(5.4)
th

where xi(u) and xi(l) = upper and lower limits of the i modulus range respectively
and l is the length of chromosome.
For example, if a range of 500 MPa to 3000 MPa is considered for surface course modulus,
the corresponding accuracy for a length of 10 bit chromosome is 3000-500/210-1 =
2.443MPa.

5.4 PARAMETER SETTING

The performance of a GA-based model is dependent on many factors such as the type of
crossover operator, rate of crossover, rate of mutation, population size, the encoding used,
etc. Setting the parameters of GA usually requires a lot of experimentation. Though GA is
robust enough to handle some variations in the parameters, a poor choice of parameter set
can result in poor performance of the GA. Past efforts made towards understanding the
effect of different parameters on the performance of GA include both theoretical and
empirical studies. Lobo [2000] presented an overview of some of these efforts in his thesis.
In most of the theoretical works carried out for evaluating the influence of GA parameters,
the effect of one parameter at a time was studied while ignoring the others. Holland [1975]
and De Jong [1975] dealt population sizing as a statistical decision making problem.
Goldberg et al [1992] gave the first population sizing equation. This was later refined by
Harik et al [1997]. Muhlenbein [1992] and Back [1993] conducted theoretical investigation
on the effect of mutation rate on the performance of GA. They suggested that, for fixed
mutation rate approach, the optimal mutation rate is 1/l for uni- modal problems, where l is
the problem length. The approach of parameter adaptation has also been used by some

71

investigators. In this method, the parameter values are changed as the search progresses.
The adaptation can be either through a centralized control as adopted by Davis [1989],
Julstrom [1995], Smith and Smuda [1995], Lobo and Goldberg [1997] or by decentralized
control method as suggested by Back and Schwefel [1995]. Another approach on parameter
adoption is the use of meta-GAs in which a higher level of GA is run to search for good set
of parameters for a lower level GA, which was attempted by Mercer and Sampson [1978]
and Grefenstette [1986].
Although the theoretical and adaptive approaches give a general insight into the effect of
GA parameters on the performance of GA, it is difficult to set the GA parameters following
any generalized guidelines. This led to the adaption of various empirical approaches for
parameter setting. In these approaches, the performance of GA for a selected problem is
evaluated by varying the parameters systematically. The parameters normally considered
are: - population size, number of generations, probabilities of crossover and mutation.
Occasionally, the effect of selection scheme was also investigated.
In an early work on setting the parameters empirically, De Jong [1975] used a GA with
roulette wheel selection, one point crossover and simple mutation. The effect of various
combinations of parameters on a set of five functions was investigated. The parameters
considered are: - population size, crossover and mutation probabilities and generation gap.
The major conclusion was that increasing the population size resulted in better long-term
performance. It was, however, noted that smaller population size responded faster and
therefore could exhibit better initial performance. It was also recommended that mutation
should be kept at a low rate. A crossover probability of 0.6 was identified as optimal. The
ranges of parameters that were observed to yield good results are: - population in the range
of 50 to 100, crossover probability of 0.6 and mutation probability of 0.001. Schaffer et al
[1989] extended the work of De Jong by working with five additional functions. Six
population sizes (10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200), ten crossover rates (0.05, 0.15, 0.25,..0.95),
seven mutation rates (0.001, 0.002, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.05 and 0.1) and two crossover
operators were selected. It was observed that an inverse relationship existed between
population size and mutation rate. The ranges recommended by Schaffer et al [1989] for
good performance of GA are: - population size (20-30), crossover rate (0.75-0.95) and
mutation rate (0.005-0.01). Grefenstette [1986], following the approach of De Jong,
recommended the following parameter values: - population of 30, crossover probability of
0.95 and mutation probability of 0.01.

72

It is evident from the discussion presented in the preceding paragraphs that the earlier
efforts made for recommending guidelines for the selection of optimal GA parameters did
not result in any uniform policy. There are wide variations in the optimal GA parameter
values suggested for a variety of problems by different investigators. The population size,
maximum generations and probabilities of crossover and mutation used in NUS-GABACK
[Fwa, 1997] are 60, 120, 0.85 and 0.15 respectively. In the program developed by
Kameyama et al [1997] a population size of 50 and a maximum of 150 generations were
used. Not much information is available on the methodology adopted for the selection of GA
parameters in the earlier models. Hence, for selecting GA parameters for the backcalculation
of pavement layer moduli a heuristic approach was adopted in this work.
While the parameters are to be selected to yield accurate results, the computational effort
associated with various combinations of GA parameter sets also needs to be considered
before a set is finally selected. The GA parameters corresponding to the highest fitness
value may give the best solution for the problem considered. But there may be other
parameter sets, which can yield nearly the same fitness value with significantly less
computational effort. Also, the parameters with the highest fitness for a particular problem
may not necessarily give the best fitness with different input data. The parameter set
selected should result in a robust algorithm so that its performance is not overly sensitive to
the inputs used. The following approach was used for the selection of GA parameters for
backcalculation of moduli for a typical three-layer pavement system. A hypothetical
pavement section shown in Figure 5.3 was considered for this exercise. Details of
thicknesses, elastic moduli and Poisson ratio values of different pavement layers are given in
the figure. Loading considered is a 40 kN load uniformly distributed over circular area at
0.56 MPa contact pressure.
40kN, 0.56 MPa

Surface course H1=175 mm

1 = 0.5

E1 = 2000 MPa

Base Course

H2=400 mm

2 = 0.4

E2 = 400 MPa

Subgrade

H3 =

3 = 0.4

E3 = 70 MPa

Figure 5.3 A Typical Three Layer Pavement System Considered

For the pavement system considered, the surface deflections computed using ELAYER
program [Reddy, 1993] at radial distances of 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200 and 1500 mm are
0.3682, 0.2730, 0.2081, 0.1653, 0.1345 and 0.1122 mm respectively. Using these

73

deflections and other input parameters like layer thicknesses, elastic moduli (E1, E2 and E3)
were backcalculated so that they can be compared with known moduli to evaluate the
performance of BACKGA. Different combinations of GA parameters were used. A total of
1217 parameter sets were selected randomly. The ranges considered for each GA parameter
set are 20 to 160 for both population size and number of generations 0.6 to 0.95 was the
range considered for crossover probability where as a range of 0.001 to 0.2 was used for
mutation probability.
For each combination of GA parameters, the corresponding best solution (elastic moduli set)
was obtained. Fitness of the solutions was computed using Equations 5.2 and 5.3. Fitness
values of the solutions obtained for various GA parameter sets are presented in Figure 5.4.
1
0.9995
0.999
Fitness value

0.9985
0.998
0.9975
0.997
0.9965
0.996
0.9955
0.995
1

201

401

601
801
Parameter Set Index

1001

1201

1401

Figure 5.4 Fitness Values Obtained with Different GA Parameter Sets

The computational effort (CE) associated with a particular set of GA parameters and
computed as the total number of functional evaluations was computed [Deb, 1995] as
CE = P x G x Pc

(5.5)

where P = Population size, G = Number of Generations, Pc = Probability of crossover

All the parameter sets were ranked based on the associated fitness value. Table 5.1 gives
the fitness value and computational effort corresponding to the best twenty parameter sets.
Extra computational effort (Extra CE) given in the table was computed as the difference
between computational effort of a particular GA parameter set and that of the best
parameter set, expressed as percentage. Incidentally, the first ranking solution with the best
fitness value happened to have the lowest computational effort among the top twenty
solutions presented in the table. However, a number of other solutions yielding reasonably

74

Table 5.1 Fitness and Computational Effort Values for the Best Twenty
Parameter Sets
Rank

Pc

Pm

Fitness

CE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

100
140
140
100
140
100
100
100
100
120
100
120
120
140
140
100
100
120
120
120

60
60
60
120
120
80
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
80
80
120
120
120

0.90
0.88
0.88
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.75
076
0.80
0.75
0.93
0.83
0.90
0.83
0.93
0.76
0.84
0.79
0.82
0.87

0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.001
0.002
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.999970972538
0.999970972538
0.999970972538
0.999970972538
0.999970972538
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999968290329
0.999967098236
0.999967098236
0.999967098236
0.999967098236
0.999967098236

5400
7360
7392
10800
14784
7040
9000
9120
9600
10800
11160
11952
12960
13944
15624
6080
6720
11376
11808
12528

Extra CE
(%)
0.0
36.60
36.89
100.0
173.78
30.37
66.67
68.89
77.78
100.0
106.67
121.33
140.0
158.22
189.33
12.59
24.44
110.67
118.67
132.0

Decrease in
fitness (%)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004

Extra CE= 100 x (CE for any set- CE for best parameter set)/ CE for best parameter set; Pm = Probability of mutation

good fitness values with computational effort less than that of the first solution were also
obtained. Figure 5.5 presents good fitness values with computational effort less than that of
the first solution were also obtained. Figure 5.5 presents the fitness values and the
computational efforts for all the parameter sets. As can be seen from the figure, no specific
trend exists between the fitness value and computational effort. Higher CE did not
necessarily result in higher fitness value.
Fitness value
CE

Fitness Value

0.9995

20000
18000

0.999

16000

0.9985

14000

0.998

12000

0.9975

10000

0.997

8000

0.9965

6000

0.996

4000

0.9955

2000

0.995

CE

0
1

201

401

601

801

1001

1201

1401

Rank of Parameter Set

Figure 5.5 Fitness Value and Computational Effort for Different Parameter Sets

75

The backcalculated moduli of some of the solutions presented in Table 5.2 give an indication
of how the variations in the fitness values obtained for different parameter sets are reflected
in the backcalculated moduli values. It can be seen that for the top twenty-five ranked
solutions, there is hardly any difference in the backcalculated moduli.

Table 5.2 Backcalculated Moduli obtained with Some GA Parameter Sets

Rank

CE

Fitness value

1
6
16
22
25
127
807
844
900
1175

5400
7040
6080
11160
13440
2440
2044
1776
1044
864

0.999970972538
0.999968290329
0.999967098236
0.999964714050
0.999963283539
0.999868345868
0.997355465792
0.996575325693
0.996512678901
0.996165431219

Backcalculated moduli, MPa

E1
E2
E3
1999.8
400.4
70.0
1999.8
400.3
69.9
1999.8
400.3
69.9
1999.8
400.3
69.7
1999.8
400.3
69.6
1973.7
404.5
69.9
2245.5
365.1
70.7
1720.0
436.0
69.7
1748.2
449.7
68.7
1719.4
477.3
66.9

To further verify the optimality of the best parameter set (100, 60, 0.9, 0.02) for the given
problem, a number of solutions were obtained by varying one of the parameters keeping
the others constant. The variation was done within the neighborhood of the best value. The
results are presented in Figures 5.6 to 5.9.

1
Fitness value

Fitness value

1
0.9995
0.999

90

95

100 105
Population

110

115

Figure 5.6 Variation of Fitness with

Population

50
100
Generations

150

Figure 5.7 Variation of Fitness with

Generations

1
Fitness value

Fitness value

0.999
0.9985

0.9985

0.999
0.998
0.997
0.78

0.82 0.86 0.9 0.94

Probability of crossover

0.98

Figure 5.8 Variation of Fitness with Pc

76

0.9995

1
0.9995
0.999
0.9985
0

0.02
0.04
0.06
Probability of mutation

0.08

Figure 5.9 Variation of Fitness with Pm

It can be seen from Figures 5.6 to 5.9 that no superior solution is available in the
neighbourhood of the parameter set considered as the best.
Besides the accuracy of solution obtained, computational effort required to get the solution
is also important. Out of all the combinations of GA parameters investigated, it was
observed that there are several combinations that give fitness values very close to that
obtained for the best combination while requiring lower computational effort. Hence, it was
considered worthwhile to examine the possibility of reducing the computational effort at the
cost of marginal loss of accuracy. Also, the best combination obtained for the current
problem may not necessarily work out to be the best for other pavement problems even
though good results can be expected. Hence, the suitability of different parameter sets was
examined in terms of their effect on the remaining lives of the pavement computed using
the backcalculated moduli. Ten solutions with computational effort less than that of the first
ranked solution were selected for this purpose. Details of the parameter sets and the
associated computational efforts are given in Table 5.3.

Sl
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(*)

Table 5.3 Performance of Some GA Parameter Sets having CE less than

that of the Best Set
GA parameter set
Backcalculated
Remaining life
Rank
Moduli, MPa
CE
(msa*)
E1
E2
E3
Fatigue
Rutting
1
100, 60,0.9, 0.02
1999.8 400.4 70.0 5400
339.3
891.9
44
100,60, 0.85, 0.02 1999.7 404.2 69.8 5100
339.6
901.7
87
60, 80, 0.84, 0.1
1984.4 403.8 69.9 4032
334.9
890.3
104
60, 80, 0.70, 0.1
1963.6 406.1 69.8 3366
343.7
890.3
127
60, 60, 0.74, 0.1
1973.7 404.5 69.9 2644
342.2
891.9
807
40, 60, 0.85, 0.01
2245.5 365.1 70.7 2044
317.7
891.9
844
60, 40, 0.74, 0.02
1720.0 436.0 69.7 1776
359.6
901.7
900
60, 20, 0.87, 0.03
1748.2 449.7 68.7 1044
379.5
956.1
1100
60, 20, 0.73, 0.03
1719.4 477.3 66.9
876
441.3
999.0
1200
60, 20, 0.7, 0.01
1482.3 506.5 66.9
840
465.6
990.0
Million standard axle load repetitions

Moduli obtained with these parameters are also given in the table. As seen from the table,
errors in the moduli values (especially those of the top two layers) start increasing after
certain reduction in the computational effort. It is thus possible to identify a threshold
parameter set, below which the performance of the algorithm starts diminishing rapidly.
However, it was considered more appropriate to evaluate the effect of GA parameters using
a more practical performance indicator, the remaining life of pavement. Remaining lives
were estimated from fatigue and rutting considerations using Equations 5.6 and 5.7. These
are the performance criteria adopted in the latest revision of the Indian Roads Congress
guidelines for design of flexible pavements [IRC: 37, 2001]. The critical strain parameters
used in the equations were computed using the backcalculated moduli.

77

Fatigue Performance
Nf = 2.414 x 10-4 (1/t)

3.56

(1/Es)

0.854

(5.6)

where Nf = number of cumulative standard axles required to produce 20 % fatigue cracking

of paved area ; t = tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous bound layer; Es = elastic
modulus of bituminous layer (MPa)

Rutting Performance
Nr = 4.1656 x 10-8 (1/z)

4.5337

(5.7)

Where Nr = number of cumulative standard axles required to produce an average rutting of

20 mm; z = vertical strain on top of subgrade
Remaining lives estimated using the moduli obtained with different GA parameter sets are
also given in Table 5.3.
The remaining lives in fatigue and rutting modes of failure estimated using actual moduli
values (2000, 400, and 70 MPa) are 339.26 and 882.3 msa respectively. Variation of
average error (%) in remaining life estimated using the backcalculated moduli obtained for

Average error in life (%)

different GA parameter sets is presented in Figure 5.10.

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

2000

4000

6000

Computational effort

Figure 5.10 Variation of Average Error in Remaining Life with Computational

Effort
It can be observed from figure 5.10 that, beyond a certain level of computational effort, the
average error in pavement life does not vary significantly. Further reduction in
computational effort resulted in substantial increase in average error. Hence, the threshold
parameter set (60, 60, 0.74, 0.1) at which this change occurs was selected for the current
problem. This parameter set produced results that are practically the same as those
produced by the best parameter set. At the same time, the associated computational effort
is nearly half of that required for the best combination.

78

5.5 SUITABILITY OF THE SELECTED GA PARAMETERS FOR OTHER

THREE LAYER PROBLEMS
It has been seen that the GA parameter set (60, 60, 0.74, 0.1) gives satisfactory
performance for the specific problem considered. A number of hypothetical were solved with
BACKGA to examine whether the same set can be used to get satisfactory results for other
problems also. Table 5.4 gives the details of the hypothetical pavement problems
considered and also the surface deflections computed using ELAYER program for different
radial distances.

Table 5.4 Details of Three Layer Hypothetical Pavement Sections Considered

Sl
No

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Layer moduli
(MPa)
E1

E2

E3

Layer
thicknesses
(mm)
H1
H2

700
900
650
2500
1000
2000
2200
1500
700
1200

180
150
200
400
300
350
500
350
125
200

45
45
55
90
40
95
90
50
60
50

90
225
150
125
95
225
155
150
95
200

600
450
600
300
300
425
450
500
275
350

Surface deflection (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

0.8452
0.6237
0.6336
0.3979
0.8481
0.2874
0.3026
0.5053
1.0540
0.5754

0.4649
0.4480
0.3743
0.2762
0.5778
0.2088
0.2133
0.3527
0.5505
0.424

0.3216
0.3335
0.2591
0.1912
0.4200
0.1573
0.1596
0.2685
0.3076
0.3150

0.2535
0.2594
0.2030
0.1406
0.3181
0.1227
0.1269
0.2198
0.2072
0.2436

0.2064
0.2071
0.1670
0.1089
0.2473
0.0987
0.1036
0.1831
0.1542
0.1925

0.1707
0.1707
0.1385
0.0862
0.1975
0.0811
0.0869
0.1539
0.1217
0.1553

For the hypothetical problems considered, backcalculated moduli obtained with the selected
GA parameter sets are given in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Details of Backcalculated Moduli Obtained for Different Hypothetical

Pavements
Performance with
Sl
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

E1
704.8
944.2
655.2
2665.9
1095.6
2113.4
2280.7
1382.4
750.0
1245.3

Selected GA parameters
Average error (%) in
E2
E3
Moduli Estimated life
181.5 45.1 0.58
3.1
140.7 45.5 4.07
2.2
198.5 54.8 0.65
0.6
391.6 90.1 2.93
1.6
305.3 39.9 3.37
8.1
340.1 95.7 3.08
1.9
491.4 89.8 1.87
2.6
384.1 50.2 5.99
18.0
117.4 60.8 4.85
6.7
213.5 49.4 3.91
12.3

79

E1
696.0
891.6
598.5
2541.3
906.1
2026.6
2194.4
1598.5
756.6
1247.4

Best GA parameters
Average error (%) in
E2
E3 Moduli Estimated life
179.7 45.0 0.24
1.1
159.6 43.8 3.33
5.4
206.3 55.1 3.75
2.5
391.8 89.5 1.42
1.9
319.9 40.0 5.34
15.1
344.7 95.2 1.02
3.7
502.6 89.8 0.33
3.3
323.8 49.8 4.81
10.1
118.4 60.7 4.84
6.8
193.2 50.7 2.92
2.3

It can be noted from the table that the backcalculated moduli and the corresponding
remaining lives are close to the actual values in almost all the cases. This indicates that the
use of the selected GA parameters in BACKGA worked satisfactorily in backcalculating the
layer moduli and estimating the remaining lives with reasonable accuracy. It can also be
seen that the best GA parameter set obtained for the 3-layer problem investigated earlier
has not given much different performance

5.6 WORKING WITH BACKGA PROGRAM

General
In order to have more clarity for giving inputs to BACKAGA Program, a screen mode (user
friendly) program IITFWD_BACK is developed. This program evokes BACKGA program
during its execution. BACKGA and IITFWD_BACK work in any PC and do not require any
support of operating systems. In order to install in the computer, simply copy the
executable files of BACKGA and IITFWD_BACK from the floppy and paste in any directory of
the computer.

Execution of the Program

Double click on the IITFWD_BACK program executes the program. The first screen displays
the name of the program and the organization involved in the development of the software
program. Photograph 5.1 shows the details of the first window screen.

Photograph 5.1 First Screen Window of the IITFWD_BACK Program

80

Second to four window screens contains the input data required for estimating pavement
layer moduli. The user has to type the data accordingly. The various data to be given is as
follows.
Screen Window-2

No. of layers

: 3 (For solving Three layer pavement Section)

Total string length

: 30 ( 20 for 2-layers, 30 for 3-layers, 40 for 4-layers)

Population

: 60 (Fixed value-obtained from parameter study)

Generations

: 60 (Fixed value obtained from parameter study)

Crossover Probability

: 0.74 (Fixed value obtained from parameter study)

Mutation Probability

: 0.1 (Fixed value obtained from parameter study)

Individual String length

: 10 10 10 ( For Three layer Pavement Section)

Units

:1 ( 1 for SI ,2 for MKS units)

Single wheel Load

: 41000 ( Standard Wheel Load, N)

Tyre Pressure

: 0.56 (standard Tyre Pressure, MPa)

No. of Deflections

: 7 ( No. Measured Surface Deflections from FWD)

Photograph 5.2 shows the screen window of the input data.

Photograph 5.2 Input Data in the Second Screen Window

81

Input Data from Third Screen Window is as follows.

Deflection

Radial Distance

Deflection

Radial Distance

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection

Radial Distance

Radial Distance

Radial Distance

Radial Distance

Radial Distance

The measured surface deflections in the FWD test and the corresponding radial distances of
the measured deflections from the center of the loading plate are to be entered in the
above screen window.
Photograph 5.3 gives the details of the input in the third screen window.

Photograph 5.3 Details of the Input in the Third Screen Window.

82

The remaining input data is given through fourth window screen as given below.
Layer Thickness

: -----

Poissons Ratio

: 0.5

----0.4

(Individual thicknesses, mm)

0.4 (for surface, base course and
subgrade)

Lower_Upper Bound layer Moduli

: -----

------ (Expected range of

st

for 1 layer

layer moduli in MPa for Surface

Course)
Lower_Upper Bound layer Moduli

: -----

------ (Expected range of

nd

for 2 layer

layer moduli in MPa for Base Course)

Lower_Upper Bound layer Moduli

: -----

------ (Expected range of

for 3rd layer

Seed Number

layer moduli in MPa for Subgrade)

: 0.9 (fixed Value- No need to Change)

The expected range of moduli for old in-service pavements can be considered as 200-1200
MPa, 100-400 MPa and 20-100 MPa for the three layers respectively. Similarly for new
pavements, 400-2500 MPa, 100-500 MPa and 20-100 MPa values may be considered.
Photograph 5.4 gives the details of fourth screen window.

Photograph 5.4 Details of Fourth Screen Window.

83

The backcalculated layer moduli values (output of the program) are stored in Backout file.
To see the results, click on the Backout file and open with notepad.

5.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS

While selecting appropriate equipment for structural evaluation of pavements is crucial, it is
equally important to have a suitable tool to analyse the data obtained and to assess the
strength of different layers of the pavement. Though various techniques have been used in
the past for backcalculation of pavement layer moduli using measured deflections, Genetic
Algorithms have been used in the present study as they have the potential of yielding global
optimal results. BACKGA, the GA based program developed in the present study has been
found to perform highly satisfactorily. The following set of GA parameters have been found
to give good results.
Population Size

: 60

Probability of Mutation : 0.1

Number of Generations: 60
Probability of Crossover: 0.74

IITFWD_BACK, a user-friendly program, which evokes BACKGA, is also developed for screen
mode input data entry.

84

CHAPTER 6
6.0 ANALYSIS OF PAVEMENT EVALUATION
DATA
6.1

INTRODUCTION

Field data collected in the present study over a period of two years on State Highways (SH)
and National Highways (NH) during different seasons was analyzed. Data available from an
earlier study [Kumar, 2001] was also considered for the analysis and BACKGA program was
used for backcalculating the effective pavement layer moduli using the measured
deflections. Effective layer moduli obtained for various pavements sections under different
conditions are presented in this chapter. Linearity of deflections with load and the effect of
temperature on backcalculated moduli were also examined. Modulus value of cold recycled
mix layer based on FWD test was estimated. The relationship between the layer moduli and
different pavement parameters was also established and models were developed for
estimating the subgrade and granular layer moduli. Seasonal variation of pavement layer
moduli has been discussed in this chapter. An overlay design method based on FWD
evaluation has been proposed for the study area.

6.2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS FROM DEFLECTION DATA

The deflection data collected during different seasons are given in Tables B-1 to B-43 of
Appendix-B. The range of deflections observed and statistical parameters such as standard
deviation and coefficient of variation (COV) are also included in the tables.
Variation in the strength of in-service pavement sections in different seasons is reflected
clearly in terms of the measured deflections. As expected, the deflections measured on the
in-service distressed pavement sections are, in general, larger than those observed on
recently constructed/overlaid pavement sections. Maximum deflection measured on old
pavements with 40 mm premix carpet surfacing was in many cases as high as 1.4 mm
whereas for thick pavements with more than 75 mm bituminous surfacing, the maximum
deflection was of the order of 1.0 mm. The deflections measured on newly constructed
pavements with Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) and Bituminous Concrete (BC)
[Specification of construction of Roads and Bridges, 2001] of having a thickness of 200 mm
surfacing much lower with an average deflection was of about 0.4 mm. Similarly, the
measurements on cold mix recycled surfaces yielded central deflections of the order of 0.7

85

mm. The variability of layer thicknesses and material specifications is clearly reflected in
terms of the measured deflection. As expected, the deflections observed on pavements with
thin bituminous surfacing showed much larger variability compared to other pavements.
Variability in the deflection data observed on recently constructed DBM surfaces (new
pavements) represented by coefficient of variations values (COV) are significantly less than
those obtained for the old in-service pavements.
The summer deflections were expectedly lower whereas they were found to be larger soon
after the monsoon. Even though the modulus of the bituminous bound layer is expected to
be lower in summer when temperatures are high, the subgrade and granular layers have
higher elastic modulus in summer resulting in lower overall deflections in case of thin
bituminous surfacing layers. The behaviour of cracked bituminous layers is close to that of
granular layers and has high elastic modulus in summer than the modulus obtained during
the monsoon. Examination of the deflections measured at different pavement temperatures
indicates that the variation of deflections with temperature is maximum in the case of
deflections close to the center of the loading plate. There is not much effect of temperature
on the deflections measured away from the load. It is widely recognized that deflections at
locations closer to the load are mostly dependent on the moduli of all the layers whereas
defections, at large distances depend on modulus of subgrade only. Since the properties of
the bituminous layer are significantly affected by temperature, the corresponding effect is
observed in the deflections measured close to the load.
Figure 6.1 shows that the variation of deflections with applied load is linear and the linearity
assumption made in normalizing the deflection data of FWD test to a standard load of 40kN
is valid.

Measured Deflection, mm

0.7
0.6

D1

D2

D3

D5

D6

D7

D4

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20

25

30

35

Load, kN

40

45

50

Figure 6.1 Linearity of Deflections Observed at Km 109.100 of NH-6

86

55

6.3 BACKCALCULATED LAYER MODULI

The structural behaviour of pavement layers in mechanistic analysis is denoted by its elastic
modulus and Poissons ratio. In pavement terminology, elastic modulus of bituminous
materials is also designated as Stiffness, Dynamic Modulus, Complex Modulus etc. Modulus
of most pavement materials varies from point to point depending upon the triaxial state of
stress under the moving load. In context of the present study, a effective modulus is the
representative modulus of a layer which produces same response as obtained by FWD.
Deflection data obtained using the FWD was used to backcalculate effective pavement layer
moduli and BACKGA program was used to compute the layer moduli. The pavement sections
were considered as three layer elastic systems consisting of bituminous surfacing, granular
base and subgrade. Salient features of BACKGA have been discussed in chapter 5. The
inputs required for backcalculation analysis are the thicknesses of the first two layers and
Poisson ratio values of all the three layers. Thicknesses measured by excavating test pits
were used in the analysis. Since the moduli of granular bases and subbases are not much
different, two layers were considered as a single granular layer termed as Granular Base
(GB). Similarly, the thicknesses of different layers of bituminous materials were added for
getting the surface course thickness.

Poisson ratio values of bituminous layer, granular

layer and subgrade were taken as 0.5, 0.4 and 0.4 respectively. The moduli ranges
considered in the backcalculation for different situations are given in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Moduli Ranges Considered for Different Situations

Type of
Surfacing
Thin- PC
Thick-BM
New

Bituminous
Lower
Upper
200
600
200
1000
500
2200

Modulus Range (MPa)

Granular
Lower
Upper
Lower
100
300
20
100
400
20
100
500
20

Subgrade
Upper
100
100
100

Thin- PC: - Periodical application of 20mm Premix carpet (total surface thickness <75 mm)
Thick- BM: - Periodical application of bituminous macadam and Premix carpet (total surface thickness >75 mm)

The surface loading considered for analysis is 40kN acting over a circular contract area with
a radius of 150mm. Surface deflections measured at radial distances of 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 mm were the main inputs to BACKGA. These deflections were
normalized to correspond to a load of 40 kN. The following GA parameters were used for
the analysis.
Population Size = 60; Maximum number of Generations = 60; Probability of Crossover =
0.74; Probability of Mutation = 0.1

87

6.3.1 Layer Moduli of Thin Old Pavements

Pavement sections with thickness of bituminous surfacing less than 75 mm were considered
as thin pavements (Thin PC) in this investigation. Tables 6.2 to 6.8 show the details of
backcalculated pavement layer moduli for pavements with thin bituminous surfacing.
Sectional details for these pavements are presented in Tables A-1 to A-5 of Appendix- A.
Surface deflections measured in different seasons are given in Tables B-1 to B-7 of
Appendix- B. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values computed using Equation 6.1 are given
in Tables 6.2 to 6.8.

RMSE (%)=

100 x

2
(DI dI ) / n

(6.1)

I =1

Where DI and dI = Measured and computed deflections at Ith sensor

respectively; n= number of sensors.

Table 6.2 Layer Moduli for Km 1.865 to 2.000 of SH * (Salua Road) for the
Deflection Data Collected during the Year 2001-02.
Location
(Km)
2.000L
1.970L
1.940L
1.910L
1.880L
1.865R
1.985R
1.955R
1.925R
1.895R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
RMSE
Summer
Bitu
GB Sub (%) Bitu
GB Sub (%) Bitu
GB Sub
278.4 292.8 42.9 1.19
302.1 288.8 42.3 1.59
253.7 252.7 40.7 3.70
248.8 227.9 40.7 1.52
276.3 266.4 46.2 3.28
333.3 317.8 44.5 0.73
336.5 256.3 43.1 1.70
230.1 225.5 38.6 1.71
236.5 214.9 38.1 1.95
320.4 269.5 39.7 2.52
336.5 317.8 46.2 3.70
230.1 214.9 38.1 0.73
281.6 261.3 41.7 1.99
39.7 32.8 2.59 0.92
14.09 12.55 6.21
Bitu: 312.93 MPa

320.4 311.2 51.0 1.51

360.2 269.9 50.7 1.93
346.2 309.9 48.2 1.74
247.3 249.7 41.1 2.36
335.4 326.8 47.9 2.71
341.3 286.6 44.1 2.47
321.6 291.0 43.0 2.60
296.7 259.8 40.0 2.09
283.8 306.0 42.7 2.81
254.8 316.5 47.5 1.38
346.2 316.5 51.0 2.81
247.3 249.7 40.0 1.38
310.7 292.7 45.6 2.16
38.8 25.9 3.9 0.51
14.48 8.84 8.55
GB: 288.77 MPa

332.8
324.7
374.1
270.9
397.9
325.8
394.6
367.7
341.9
334.4
374.1
270.9
346.5
38.2
11.02

316.1 53.0 2.40

322.7 51.4 2.14
348.2 52.6 2.18
283.5 42.0 2.66
309.5 50.6 2.91
333.7 53.2 1.90
312.1 50.0 2.05
262.0 45.1 2.44
297.5 50.0 2.10
338.1 49.3 1.93
348.2 53.0 2.91
262.0 42.0 1.90
312.3 49.7 2.27
26.1 3.6
0.33
8.35 7.24
Sub: 45.67 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A Moduli- Average of Moduli for three seasons; L: Left-Towards Salua; R-Right- Towards Kharagpur;
*SH: State Highway

88

RMSE
(%)

Table 6.3 Layer Moduli for Km 2.850 to 3.000 of SH* (Salua Road) for the
Deflection Data Collected during the Year 2001-02.
Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)
RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
(%)
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub (%) Bitu GB Sub (%)

Location
(Km)

3.000L
227.9 134.4 37.2 3.93
2.970L
325.0 207.0 38.9 3.53
2.940L
241.0 197.7 40.8 8.39
2.910L
327.9 205.7 44.8 1.73
2.880L
193.5 214.0 38.6 5.33
2.850L
229.0 226.8 38.8 6.88
2.985R 295.6 230.7 43.6 1.66
2.955R 225.8 192.5 42.2 3.01
2.925R 213.9 195.1 34.3 2.92
2.895R 258.0 204.3 38.2 3.27
Maximum 327.9 230.7 44.8 8.39
Minimum 193.5 134.4 34.3 1.66
Average 253.7 200.8 39.7 4.07
Std. Dev 46.9 26.5 3.14 2.18
COV (%) 18.48
13.19 7.90
A. Moduli
Bitu: 329.87 MPa

304.3 203.5 39.8 1.67

347.1 226.1 41.1 1.67
404.3 226.3 44.6 6.34
326.8 254.9 50.1 2.15
289.2 278.3 53.8 2.59
455.9 243.5 43.3 2.29
308.6 232.5 55.5 1.29
405.3 271.2 51.8 1.11
283.8 243.1 44.7 4.06
387.0 231.2 43.6 1.66
455.9 278.3 55.5 6.34
283.8 203.5 39.8 1.11
351.2 241.1 46.8 2.48
58.7 22.4 5.5 1.59
18.62 9.29 11.7
GB: 237.50 MPa

296.7 231.3 44.8 4.44

333.3 276.1 44.9 2.69
384.9 284.4 54.0 4.76
463.4 274.7 55.8 2.80
375.2 259.8 52.8 2.28
461.2 298.9 50.2 1.04
338.7 308.7 57.4 4.07
497.8 295.0 52.1 1.80
301.0 231.2 51.6 1.82
395.4 245.8 52.0 4.28
497.8 308.7 57.4 4.76
296.7 231.2 44.8 1.04
384.7 270.6 51.6 3.00
70.4 27.7 4.11 1.30
18.29 10.23 7.96
Sub: 46.03 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A Moduli- Average of Moduli for three seasons; L: Left-Towards Salua; R-Right- Towards Kharagpur
*SH: State Highway

Table 6.4 Layer Moduli for Km 4.625 to 5.000 of SH (IIT Bypass) for the Deflection
Data Collected during the Year 2001-02.
Location
(Km)
5.000 L
4.970L
4.940L
4.910L
4.695L
4.925 R
4.900 R
4.705 R
4.645R
4.625R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
Bitu
GB Sub (%) Bitu
GB
Sub (%) Bitu
GB Sub (%)
246.2 189.0 39.0 3.38
216.1 191.6 41.9 2.40
287.0 151.6 44.1 1.14
239.7 180.2 48.2 1.87
265.5 182.4 50.8 1.41
297.8 163.4 41.7 0.98
264.3 184.9 42.3 1.00
233.3 193.4 40.8 3.44
261.2 173.1 40.4 3.78
231.1 157.7 39.6 1.31
287.0 193.4 48.2 3.78
216.1 157.7 39.0 0.98
254.2 176.7 42.9 2.19
25.7 14.7 3.8 1.10
10.11 8.35 8.85
Bitu: 308.47MPa

262.3 194.7 41.8 1.42

290.3 240.9 54.6 1.79
337.6 214.5 55.6 1.07
387.0 190.7 58.8 0.46
329.0 214.9 61.1 0.98
387.2 192.5 53.6 0.45
290.3 235.1 54.0 2.69
241.9 215.3 49.2 3.00
234.4 209.6 50.2 3.64
305.3 252.7 53.5 1.15
387.2 252.7 61.1 3.64
234.4 190.7 41.8 0.45
306.5 216.1 53.2 1.67
54.1 21.1
5.4 1.10
17.65 9.76 10.1
GB: 202.23 MPa

373.1 227.2 45.0 2.23

298.9 236.0 55.1 2.19
395.6 203.0 58.1 0.50
411.8 189.0 60.7 0.65
368.8 202.2 66.5 3.55
391.3 186.8 55.7 0.27
392.4 236.5 54.5 0.67
286.6 206.1 50.7 1.03
370.9 219.7 57.2 0.80
358.0 232.9 57.7 0.90
411.8 236.0 66.5 3.55
286.6 186.8 45.0 .027
364.7 213.9 56.1 1.28
41.2 18.9 5.7 1.04
11.29 8.83 10.16
Sub: 50.73 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A Moduli- Average Moduli for three seasons; L: Left-Towards Salua; R-Right- Towards Kharagpur

89

Table 6.5 Layer Moduli for Km 1.835 to 2.000 of SH (Salua Road) for the Deflection
Data Collected during the Year 2000-01 [Kumar, 2001]
Location
(Km)
2.000L
1.985R
1.970L
1.955R
1.940L
1.925R
1.910L
1.895R
1.880L
1.865R
1.850L
1.835R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Monsoon
Bitu
GB Sub
373.2
673.6
410.1
360.9
586.0
517.6
333.6
350.6
386.2
649.6
357.9
346.2
637.6
333.6
445.5
126.1
28.30

200.5 35.9
200.8 38.0
245.7 46.4
228.3 47.6
198.5 41.0
260.7 42.5
200.9 39.8
197.1 39.5
163.1 34.5
190.9 37.8
200.3 38.6
185.9 39.9
260.7 47.6
163.1 34.5
206.0 40.1
26.6 3.86
12.91 9.62
470.01

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
RMSE
Winter
Summer
RMSE
(%)
(%)
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
Bitu
GB Sub
0.68
0.25
0.31
0.31
0.77
0.38
1.08
1.39
1.83
1.43
1.76
1.85
1.85
0.25
1.00
0.63

222.7
232.7
451.8
469.0
200.7
867.8
247.7
365.9
458.8
960.1
438.5
386.1
960.1
200.7
441.8
242.6
54.91

197.3 40.7
235.1 41.9
247.5 45.9
294.1 51.3
219.3 53.6
257.4 49.9
250.7 57.3
299.3 67.4
292.7 69.0
399.4 69.1
397.6 66.6
314.0 58.1
399.4 69.1
197.3 40.7
283.7 55.9
63.80 10.4
22.48 18.6
255.08

0.99
0.78
0.30
0.35
0.78
0.30
0.25
2.81
0.53
0.82
0.32
0.67
2.81
0.25
0.74
0.69

280.0
283.7
634.0
320.0
834.2
810.7
324.1
653.1
318.4
768.5
768.5
277.7
834.2
277.7
522.7
239.0
45.72

250.0 50.7
253.9 50.7
188.3 58.1
290.9 71.9
181.2 59.9
226.1 55.1
308.2 70.8
400.0 91.0
206.5 74.3
399.7 85.8
399.7 85.8
201.4 70.8
400.0 91.0
181.2 50.7
275.5 68.7
84.2 13.9
30.56 20.2
54.92

1.79
1.78
1.90
0.42
3.34
3.09
2.21
1.23
7.25
0.43
0.29
6.09
7.25
0.29
2.48
2.19

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A Moduli- Average Moduli for three seasons; L: Left-Towards Salua; R-Right- Towards Kharagpur

Table 6.6 Layer Moduli for Km 3.370 to 4.000 of SH (IIT Bypass) for the Deflection
Data Collected during the Year 2001-02
Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)
Location
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
RMSE
Summer
RMSE
(Km)
(%)
(%)
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
4.000L
3.985R
3.970L
3.955R
3.940L
3.925R
3.910L
3.710R
3.695L
3.680R
3.665L
3.650R
3.400L
3.385R
3.370L
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

90

406.7
330.8
506.3
430.6
380.1
460.3
439.1
390.3
400.1
444.2
380.7
360.7
340.2
330.5
490.7
506.3
330.5
406.1
55.2
13.59

155.9 42.5
144.3 43.6
130.1 36.9
103.7 35.7
101.7 37.5
100.9 43.3
139.3 41.3
124.4 43.7
130.7 49.1
100.7 46.9
131.2 44.0
126.5 44.4
114.1 68.4
115.5 61.9
116.3 72.0
155.9 72.0
100.7 35.7
122.4 47.4
16.8 11.1
13.72 23.4
464.51 MPa

1.53
2.39
1.08
1.80
1.10
1.52
1.71
1.57
1.21
1.20
1.62
5.72
0.87
1.00
0.67
5.72
0.67
1.66
1.20

412.5
400.8
453.3
454.7
438.3
360.6
599.4
607.0
505.2
451.6
533.3
547.5
643.1
341.2
560.0
643.1
341.2
487.2
92.1
18.90

165.7 52.7
146.7 66.6
130.7 41.0
119.7 41.3
159.2 43.0
121.4 40.3
120.1 56.0
156.7 49.0
177.3 66.0
206.4 52.9
146.1 46.1
125.4 63.2
269.5 73.5
215.4 75.0
274.1 80.0
274.1 80.0
119.7 40.3
168.9 56.4
51.1 13.
30.25 23.7
167.16 MPa

1.89
1.11
0.98
1.26
1.15
0.95
1.08
1.22
0.66
1.35
1.94
3.27
0.77
1.25
1.28
3.27
0.66
1.34
0.63

412.0
404.4
488.0
460.1
549.5
368.4
501.1
477.1
594.0
464.7
454.6
646.2
627.1
635.0
649.5
643.5
368.4
515.4
94.7
18.37

189.8
161.1
120.2
119.0
145.1
117.9
170.2
150.3
189.2
179.5
168.9
161.5
271.3
272.1
269.4
272.1
117.9
179.0
52.8
29.49
52.38

61.7
69.7
56.5
45.8
53.0
43.0
65.5
56.0
77.3
65.9
48.7
72.4
77.1
65.2
88.5
88.5
43.0
63.1
12.8
20.2
MPa

1.12
0.78
1.38
0.89
1.13
1.14
0.83
0.95
0.72
0.51
1.49
2.85
0.51
0.56
0.38
2.85
0.38
1.01
0.60

Table 6.7 Layer Moduli for Km 15.000 to 15.270 of NH-60 for the Deflection Data
Collected during the Year 2001-02
Location
(Km)
15.000L
15.030R
15.060L
15.090R
15.120L
15.150R
15.180L
15.210R
15.240L
15.270R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
RMSE
RMSE
(%)
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
263.7
228.9
333.5
302.0
298.0
357.1
243.8
261.8
328.3
268.4
357.1
228.9
288.5
41.99
14.55

201.2 37.9
195.4 41.9
215.4 58.6
172.9 49.5
145.8 40.9
146.0 39.7
150.1 35.1
169.2 39.4
141.9 39.5
139.4 40.1
215.4 58.6
139.4 35.1
167.7 42.3
27.7 6.82
16.51 16.1
321.27 MPa

1.67
2.01
0.88
3.04
3.70
2.29
1.59
4.19
3.59
2.00
3.70
0.88
2.50
1.08

340.1
330.8
448.1
301.2
433.1
407.0
485.9
319.0
305.0
411.0
485.9
301.2
278.1
66.6
23.94

191.9 47.3
157.6 43.6
231.7 43.2
134.7 44.6
173.8 41.5
148.5 42.8
145.0 42.6
201.0 44.6
141.4 46.5
156.0 41.1
231.7 47.3
134.7 41.1
168.1 43.7
31.1 2.02
18.50 4.62
172.48 MPa

1.87
1.45
2.90
3.81
1.47
0.99
1.92
1.20
2.77
1.04
3.81
0.99
1.94
0.93

304.0
276.2
216.2
282.1
203.1
228.5
234.8
321.2
436.9
468.3
468.3
203.1
297.1
90.7
30.52

230.5
182.3
289.4
189.2
129.3
167.5
169.2
153.9
149.3
154.8
289.4
129.3
181.5
46.7
25.73
44.28

45.1
43.5
46.3
45.4
50.6
46.6
47.1
48.5
51.6
43.2
46.8
43.2
51.6
2.77
5.36
Mpa

2.00
1.94
0.67
0.94
1.76
1.88
2.43
3.22
1.40
0.76
3.22
0.76
1.70
0.79

Table 6.8 Layer Moduli for Km 15.000 to 15.270 of NH-60 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2000-01
Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)
Location
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
RMSE
RMSE
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
15.000L
15.030R
15.060L
15.090R
15.120L
15.150R
15.180L
15.210R
15.240L
15.270R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

473.6
500.0
500.0
467.2
484.2
484.2
225.5
258.4
336.9
261.6
500.0
225.5
399.2
114.4
28.65

165.7 33.9
163.6 39.6
146.9 40.5
131.4 51.3
145.5 40.6
145.5 40.6
143.6 37.2
149.3 37.3
140.0 40.1
129.9 31.0
165.7 51.3
129.9 31.0
146.1 39.2
11.6 5.3
7.93 13.5
313.1 MPa

2.37
2.77
2.69
2.86
2.90
4.80
2.02
1.88
4.09
2.07
4.80
1.88
2.84
0.93

495.8
418.7
493.8
470.1
483.9
47.07
209.1
486.5
289.4
267.7
495.8
47.1
366.2
155.3
42.41

160.9
192.4
158.9
198.8
175.4
139.0
151.3
136.4
162.7
141.9
198.8
136.4
161.7
21.5
13.29
167.7

58.2
45.9
43.8
38.7
44.5
38.3
36.4
38.4
40.9
31.6
58.2
31.6
41.7
7.2
17.2
MPa

2.00
1.78
2.74
2.54
2.73
2.01
2.47
5.48
1.94
2.50
5.48
1.78
2.62
1.06

634.0
656.9
680.5
692.7
693.2
693.2
212.7
608.1
452.5
324.6
693.2
212.7
564.8
173.9
30.78

262.5
228.3
185.1
163.2
190.6
190.6
223.1
158.5
191.3
158.8
262.5
158.5
195.2
33.7
17.26
44.2

71.4
56.2
47.3
50.9
50.8
50.8
50.0
47.8
48.2
44.4
71.4
44.4
51.8
7.6
14.6
MPa

0.54
1.36
2.33
2.14
2.22
1.81
0.54
4.03
0.76
2.01
4.03
0.54
1.77
1.05

The bituminous top of the thin pavement sections considered in the present study consisted
of repeated applications of wearing course of 20 mm premix carpet [Specification of
construction of Roads and Bridges, 2001] with seal coat laid every five to six years of
interval and the thickness at the time of observations was in the range of 40 to 60 mm. It
can be noted from the results that the moduli values of all such the pavement layers
including the bituminous top are small during post-monsoon period and highest during the

91

summer. This is due to the presence of moisture in the subgrade, base and weathered
surfacing during the monsoon and the resulting in lower moduli values. Because of the
strong dependence of the upper layers on that of the supporting layer (subgrade), the
variations in moduli of granular and bituminous layer show similar trends. The computed
average bituminous layer modulus in summer season were found to be higher than those
observed in winter, though a bituminous material is expected to have a lower modulus
during summer. This can be explained from the fact that the bituminous layer was brittle,
cracked and weathered and gave higher modulus because of confinement and the loaded
area coupled with absence of moisture.

6.3.2 Layer Moduli of Thick Old Pavements

The pavement sections considered in the present study also included a number of thick
pavements bituminous layer thickness with more than 75 mm. The bituminous surface
consisted of repeated application of bituminous macadam (BM) [Specification of
construction of Roads and Bridges, 2001] and premix carpet over a period of time. Sectional
details of the pavements are given in Tables A-6 to A-17 of Appendix-A. Deflection data are
presented in Tables B-8 to 23 of Appendix-B. Tables 6.9 to 6.22 give the backcalculated
layer moduli. Thickness of bituminous layer thicknesses ranged from 90 to 200 mm. A few
sections had bituminous concrete overlay of 50 mm thickness. The thicknesses granular
base varied from 300 to 690 mm.

Table 6.9 Layer Moduli for Km 123.795 to 124.000 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2000-01 [Kumar, 2001]
Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)
Location
RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
(Km)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub
124.000L
123.995R
123.950L
123.945R
123.900L
123.895R
123.850L
123.845R
123.800L
123.795R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

92

721.6 209.0 55.0 0.48

742.0 160.7 49.5 1.18
640.5 180.4 46.3 1.77
841.9 164.4 41.6 0.46
719.4 159.4 36.0 0.48
802.2 162.8 39.6 0.74
854.4 200.2 41.9 1.49
866.5 137.5 36.7 0.57
500.4 210.5 32.1 3.84
761.6 170.4 35.5 2.74
866.5 210.5 55.0 3.84
500.4 137.5 32.1 0.46
734.8 175.3 41.8 1.38
129.7 26.7
8.1 1.14
17.65 15.23 19.3
Bitu: 761.97 MPa

956.2
856.2
690.2
995.4
954.8
745.3
790.4
968.5
893.9
543.5
968.5
543.5
825.5
163.5
19.80

242.9 56.1
252.9 55.2
233.7 54.1
380.6 72.2
399.3 63.1
251.3 58.4
260.5 63.2
396.5 80.0
393.1 51.2
384.2 55.0
396.5 80.0
233.7 51.2
318.7 61.6
76.7 10.4
24.06 16.8
GB: 249.8 MPa

0.87
7.23
3.09
3.59
5.88
4.33
8.03
6.88
2.20
3.66
8.03
0.87
4.58
2.34

517.5
965.7
656.5
614.0
633.9
798.8
810.8
655.3
649.6
852.2
965.7
517.5
715.4
135.4
18.92

311.1 69.5
203.5 59.5
294.8 65.3
249.8 62.4
204.5 73.3
322.7 76.7
315.6 76.4
278.3 65.3
170.4 49.4
218.2 68.8
322.7 76.6
170.4 49.4
256.9 66.6
55.0
8.3
21.41 12.4
Sub: 56.5 MPa

0.23
0.49
1.87
0.28
0.24
0.16
1.12
3.78
3.32
0.64
3.78
0.16
1.21
1.34

Table 6.10 Layer Moduli for Km 125.000 to 125.270 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during Summer Season of the Year 2001-02.
Location
(Km)
125.000L
125.030R
125.060L
125.090R
125.120L
Maximum
Minimum
Average
COV (%)
Std. Dev

Backcalculated Layer Moduli

(MPa))
Bitu
GB
Sub
603.7
595.9
359.3
488.4
355.4
618.5
359.3
478.7
21.78
104.3

268.5
247.0
291.2
296.3
295.5
296.3
230.6
273.7
7.78
21.3

66.4
62.4
62.2
63.8
59.8
66.4
59.0
61.9
3.68
2.28

RMSE
(%)
3.29
4.03
1.07
1.17
1.17

Location
(Km)
125.150R
125.180L
125.210R
125.240L
125.270R

Backcalculated Layer
Moduli (MPa)
Bitu
GB
Sub

RMSE
(%)

618.5
450.2
532.3
375.9
407.2

1.38
1.13
1.73
1.69
1.64

276.7
268.1
230.6
278.7
284.5

63.2
62.6
59.0
60.3
59.7

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
L- Left side: Towards Kharagpur; R-Right side: Towards Kolkata

Table 6.11 Layer Moduli for Km 134.000 to 134.270 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2001-2002.
Location
(Km)
134.000L
134.030R
134.060L
134.090R
134.120L
134.150R
134.180L
134.210R
134.240L
134.270R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
311.8 156.8 50.5 0.80
352.8 172.4 54.6 0.06
270.2 151.4 48.2 0.07
308.6 138.4 36.6 3.74
329.0 148.9 53.5 0.95
320.4 146.7 52.3 1.09
280.6 178.0 49.0 1.36
372.0 169.2 35.3 5.01
308.6 152.9 51.2 1.64
289.2 156.8 46.8 1.15
372.0 178.0 54.6 3.73
270.2 138.4 35.3 0.06
314.3 157.2 47.8 1.59
31.30 12.44 6.68 1.58
9.95
7.91 13.9
Bitu: 363.26 MPa

454.8
423.6
440.8
332.2
375.2
350.5
444.0
357.3
413.9
378.4
454.8
332.2
397.1
43.70
11.00

197.8 61.2
214.7 62.9
196.4 58.1
185.4 48.5
115.5 56.5
181.5 51.1
221.1 60.5
210.5 61.7
216.7 60.8
210.9 59.0
221.1 62.9
115.5 48.5
155.1 58.0
30.98 4.75
19.97 8.18
GB: 175.3 MPa

0.43
0.41
0.72
1.40
6.98
1.48
0.37
0.70
0.44
0.84
6.98
0.37
1.38
2.01

447.3 217.1 66.6 1.14

424.7 196.0 71.5 0.91
402.1 230.7 60.6 2.25
348.3 204.4 53.6 1.95
353.7 197.3 60.1 1.08
304.6 209.8 62.3 1.38
376.3 265.1 64.2 2.22
365.5 215.8 68.4 1.27
396.7 250.1 64.0 0.98
364.5 223.7 65.1 0.59
447.3 265.1 71.5 2.25
304.6 196.0 53.6 0.59
378.4 221.0 63.6 1.38
40.98 22.42 4.95 0.57
10.82 10.14 7.78
Sub: 56.5 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation

A. Moduli- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

93

Table 6.12 Layer Moduli for Km 134.800 to 134.860 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2000-01 [Kumar, 2001]
Location
(Km)
134.800L
134.815R
134.300L
134.845R
134.860L
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMS
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
RMS
Bitu
GB
Sub (%) Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
Bitu
GB
Sub
763.8 131.1 47.2
283.6 135.7 57.9
993.7 185.6 59.9
739.6 131.6 41.8
564.4 131.1 50.6
763.8 185.6 59.9
283.6 131.1 47.2
669.0 143.0 51.5
264.0 23.9
7.5
39.46 16.7 14.5
Bitu: 480.27 MPa

0.73
0.36
0.31
0.55
0.81
0.81
0.31
0.55
0.22

242.2 220.8 56.4

657.9 148.1 64.3
338.4 296.7 53.8
381.4 198.5 55.3
490.9 130.8 56.9
657.9 296.7 64.3
338.4 148.1 53.8
422.2 198.9 57.3
159.2 65.7
4.1
37.07 33.03 7.15
GB: 185.23 MPa

4.54
4.60
3.06
2.55
5.15
5.15
2.55
3.98
1.11

278.2 268.9
294.6 196.5
504.2 217.1
321.9 236.4
349.4 150.4
504.2 268.9
278.2 150.4
349.6 213.8
90.5
44.4
25.8
20.7
Sub: 61.93 MPa

79.2
77.6
79.2
77.6
71.4
79.2
71.4
77.0
3.23
4.19

RMS
(%)
1.06
2.09
2.53
1.43
3.74
3.74
1.06
2.17
1.05

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Moduli- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

Table 6.13 Layer Moduli for Km 150.000 to 150.245 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2001-02
Location
(Km)
150.000L
150.060L
150.120L
150.180L
150.240L
150.005R
150.065R
150.125R
150.185R
150.245R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMS
RMS
RMS
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
254.8 203.9 44.9
404.6 192.9 44.9
384.9 162.1 48.0
375.2 200.8 52.4
377.4 169.2 47.4
375.2 162.1 47.6
393.5 139.5 44.8
384.3 206.8 45.7
260.2 227.7 52.6
266.6 134.4 47.9
404.6 227.7 52.6
254.8 134.4 44.8
347.7 179.9 47.6
60.8
31.0 2.87
17.48 17.23 6.02
Bitu: 366.87MPa

2.26
1.55
1.06
1.85
1.21
2.41
1.50
2.90
1.22
2.20
2.90
1.06
1.82
0.61

401.0 198.6 73.1

375.2 239.1 57.4
329.0 169.9 55.8
375.2 190.7 54.9
448.3 210.9 56.9
489.2 328.4 63.1
375.2 322.7 57.4
376.3 218.4 63.6
423.6 274.7 70.0
387.2 248.9 59.4
489.2 328.4 73.1
329.0 169.9 54.9
398.0 240.2 61.2
45.2 54.07 6.22
11.35 22.51 10.1
GB: 232.33 MPa

1.70
4.34
1.32
1.20
0.84
1.28
3.66
1.73
1.83
2.06
4.34
0.84
2.00
1.13

439.7 263.3 71.1

381.7 268.6 67.8
268.8 246.2 62.9
375.2 352.6 54.3
295.6 241.7 61.1
345.1 320.9 59.7
268.4 240.9 53.0
303.2 242.2 71.2
426.8 346.0 82.2
444.0 246.6 65.6
444.0 352.6 71.2
268.4 240.9 54.3
354.9 276.9 64.9
68.8
45.1
8.7
19.38 16.28 13.4
Sub: 57.89 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Moduli- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

94

1.46
1.60
2.02
1.56
1.61
2.06
3.53
1.49
1.73
4.29
4.29
1.46
2.14
0.97

Table 6.14 Layer Moduli for Km 150.000 to 150.275 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2000-01[Kumar, 2001]
Location
(Km)
150.000L
150.060L
150.120L
150.180L
150.240L
150.005R
150.065R
150.125R
150.185R
150.245R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMS
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
RMS
RMS
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub (%) Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
952.1
942.5
919.2
998.6
993.8
950.7
997.9
845.3
973.9
939.8
998.6
845.3
951.4
46.19
4.85

186.9 54.3
146.7 39.4
152.8 38.7
148.5 38.1
133.8 42.0
148.8 38.8
236.7 57.6
211.1 50.3
147.6 41.5
165.7 44.0
236.7 57.6
133.8 38.1
167.8 44.5
33.26 7.07
19.82 15.8
614.8

0.64
0.90
0.99
1.27
0.29
0.64
0.52
0.62
0.78
1.02
1.27
0.29
0.76
0.28

413.6
479.3
365.0
380.7
380.7
508.0
425.9
445.7
438.2
438.2
508.0
365.0
427.5
44.9
10.50

233.6 74.5
239.2 69.1
215.1 61.9
250.5 54.2
251.4 54.2
339.0 74.6
279.9 72.9
224.8 65.2
198.6 61.1
198.6 61.1
339.0 74.6
198.6 54.2
243.1 64.8
41.97 7.70
17.26 11.8
247.91

3.03
3.72
3.92
3.43
1.78
2.47
2.38
3.90
4.86
5.26
5.26
1.78
3.47
1.09

477.9
429.3
499.8
372.5
404.0
670.1
391.7
520.3
386.9
502.5
670.1
372.5
465.5
90.01
19.33

398.9 79.8
398.3 80.0
221.7 69.8
387.3 73.9
323.7 79.4
395.2 79.9
290.8 79.9
321.3 80.0
353.1 78.1
237.8 67.4
398.9 80.0
221.7 67.4
332.8 76.8
66.06 4.74
19.84 6.17
62.06

3.64
2.33
4.42
3.88
2.06
3.14
2.21
2.63
1.63
3.86
4.42
1.63
2.98
0.94

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Moduli: - Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

Table 6.15 Layer Moduli for Km 151.000 to 151.245 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2001-02
Location
(Km)
151.000L
151.060L
151.120L
151.180L
151.240L
151.005R
151.065R
151.125R
151.185R
151.245R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMS
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
RMS
RMS
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub (%) Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
507.5 205.9 55.1 2.91
501.3 201.6 46.6 3.64
306.1 264.6 32.6 0.78
424.0 236.0 75.4 0.98
438.5 195.0 54.0 1.05
369.1 199.7 51.5 1.46
361.2 189.5 48.0 0.97
408.2 265.3 47.2 0.69
324.7 202.6 74.0 0.95
387.6 200.0 56.7 2.36
507.5 265.3 75.4 3.64
306.1 195.0 32.6 0.69
402.8 216.0 54.1 1.58
67.5 28.57 12.8 1.03
16.75 13.22 23.6
Bitu: 400.13 MPa

422.5
358.0
374.1
375.2
412.9
346.2
339.7
324.7
340.8
375.2
422.5
324.7
366.9
31.8
8.66

246.1 70.0 1.88

246.6 57.4 1.68
212.3 64.1 2.44
204.3 57.4 1.37
317.0 73.7 1.52
201.7 57.3 2.46
190.9 54.3 0.60
271.7 57.6 1.24
218.9 63.6 1.21
270.3 63.3 1.66
317.0 73.7 2.46
190.9 54.3 0.60
237.9 61.9 1.61
39.8
6.3
0.57
16.72 10.2
GB: 236.00 MPa

511.8 261.1 88.8

477.4 366.7 76.2
429.0 288.8 68.2
383.8 232.5 82.5
501.0 386.0 72.7
374.2 210.7 70.0
375.2 200.4 68.9
257.1 201.7 70.0
554.8 192.0 61.0
443.0 218.9 82.0
554.8 366.0 88.8
257.1 192.0 61.0
430.7 255.9 74.0
86.8
70.2
8.3
20.15 27.43 11.2
Sub: 63.33 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Moduli: - Average Moduli of the Three Seasons;; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

95

0.90
2.26
0.91
1.39
0.68
1.12
1.67
1.41
2.51
5.23
5.23
0.68
1.81
1.34

Table 6.16 Layer Moduli for Km 151.000 to 151.245 of NH-6 for the
Deflection Data collected during the Year 2000-01 [Kumar, 2001]
Location
(Km)

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
RMSE
RMS
(%)
(%)
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
E

(%)

151.000L
151.060L
151.120L
151.180L
151.240L
151.005R
151.065R
151.125R
151.185R
151.245R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

715.3
852.8
477.9
756.4
932.9
625.0
648.3
750.9
727.6
666.7
932.9
477.9
715.4
125.0
17.47
543.72

191.9
153.5
238.3
201.9
149.1
162.6
222.0
166.3
252.3
341.8
341.8
149.1
207.9
59.2
28.47

50.6
41.8
54.1
48.4
43.1
41.8
47.1
43.6
50.1
66.4
66.4
41.8
48.7
7.47
15.3

0.51
2.49
0.22
0.55
0.41
0.55
0.29
0.37
0.38
0.26
2.49
0.22
0.60
0.67

551.8 263.6 76.1 3.76 599.0 396.6

566.2 217.3 62.7 5.03 444.4 343.9
375.9 315.5 77.9 1.86 396.5 341.6
440.9 200.1 50.3 5.22 360.9 314.5
432.6 201.9 50.8 7.58 374.4 330.9
341.7 201.1 52.4 4.43 356.1 223.8
373.9 218.7 49.7 4.36 420.4 286.7
380.1 174.2 46.7 6.20 404.7 346.3
584.3 296.2 64.7 2.94 687.3 398.3
501.2 310.2 66.8 5.30 565.4 331.2
584.3 315.5 77.9 7.58 687.3 398.3
341.7 174.2 46.7 1.86 356.1 223.8
454.8 239.8 59.8 4.66 460.9 331.4
89.79 51.8
11.4 1.61
114.9 50.63
19.74 21.60 19.1
24.9
15.27
259.74
62.21

79.8
79.9
79.7
79.8
79.5
72.6
75.9
74.3
80.1
79.7
80.1
72.6
78.1
2.78
3.55

3.57
2.31
1.71
1.84
1.90
3.63
2.78
2.31
3.58
2.33
3.63
1.71
2.59
0.75

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Moduli: Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

Table 6.17 Layer Moduli for Km 152.000 to 152.245 of NH-6 for the
Deflection Data collected during the Year 2001-02
Location
(Km)
152.000L
152.060L
152.120L
152.180L
152.240L
152.005R
152.065R
152.125R
152.185R
152.245R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)
A. Moduli

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
RMSE
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
Bitu
GB Sub (%)
372.0 199.1 47.8 4.14
402.4 165.1 46.0 7.97
383.8 160.8 40.1 1.02
415.0 181.0 42.4 8.93
410.7 181.0 59.1 1.00
308.6 201.7 49.4 7.78
423.6 205.2 44.7 7.46
381.7 227.2 55.7 5.04
350.5 186.3 44.9 6.06
358.0 198.6 46.0 8.82
423.6 227.2 59.1 8.93
208.6 165.1 40.1 1.0
380.6 190.6 47.6 5.8
35.1
19.8
5.8
2.9
9.22 10.38 12.2
Bitu: 397.83 MPa

423.6
352.6
406.5
375.2
461.2
237.6
381.7
462.3
375.2
319.3
462.3
237.6
379.5
67.3
17.7

240.0 62.9 1.86

198.6 46.0 2.11
190.7 52.8 1.20
240.3 51.1 2.38
250.5 70.0 1.70
218.9 54.4 1.34
200.4 51.7 0.85
274.7 60.3 2.10
190.7 44.9 2.32
218.9 57.4 1.81
274.7 70.0 2.38
190.7 44.9 0.85
222.4 55.2 1.77
28.4
7.7 0.50
12.76 13.9
GB: 221.77 MPa

451.6 371.9 88.1 5.78

511.8 274.7 82.5 1.05
405.3 201.3 57.4 1.66
382.7 203.5 58.6 2.44
478.4 240.0 83.5 1.67
411.8 185.9 67.2 1.26
361.2 223.3 55.0 2.25
470.4 287.3 79.1 1.33
430.1 273.9 76.0 1.55
431.1 260.7 73.0 1.45
511.8 371.9 88.1 5.78
361.2 185.9 55.0 1.05
433.4 252.3 72.0 2.04
45.9 54.7 11.9 1.38
10.5 21.6 16.5
Sub: 58.27 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A.Moduli- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons;; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

96

Table 6.18 Layer Moduli for Km 152.000 to 152.245 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2000-01[Kumar, 2001]
Location
(Km)

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
RMSE
Bitu GB Sub (%) Bitu
GB Sub (%)
Bitu

152.000L 347.2
152.060L 504.6
152.120L 659.2
152.180L 328.1
152.240L 321.2
152.005R 410.2
152.065R 427.9
152.125R 728.3
152.185R 551.1
152.245R 756.4
Maximum 756.4
Minimum 321.2
Average 539.9
Std. Dev 188.0
COV
34.8
A. Moduli

180.1 45.6
162.9 41.8
134.4 43.4
215.8 61.9
228.6 68.6
147.5 37.2
155.1 42.4
138.2 46.4
129.4 38.7
159.5 50.4
228.6 68.6
134.4 41.8
162.6 47.0
31.2 9.7
19.2 20.6
Bitu: 506.4

0.64
0.30
0.45
0.32
1.25
0.58
0.67
0.56
0.43
0.83
1.25
0.29
0.56
0.27

414.2
518.9
365.7
427.3
551.8
393.7
440.3
711.9
430.0
491.6
551.8
365.7
473.8
94.6
19.9

302.7 58.4
161.3 53.7
164.4 43.1
181.4 79.7
286.1 79.9
105.9 53.9
207.9 55.5
281.8 64.3
146.6 56.1
203.5 53.9
302.7 79.9
116.9 43.1
193.6 60.26
65.5 11.48
33.8 19.1
GB: 208.37

2.66
6.78
6.21
4.94
3.02
10.3
4.68
4.13
7.06
5.22
10.3
2.66
5.50
2.23

543.3
477.9
629.8
357.5
527.2
438.2
425.9
715.3
544.3
395.8
629.8
357.5
505.5
109.8
21.7

Summer
GB

Sub

RMSE
(%)

379.4 79.8
400.0 79.9
163.8 59.0
288.9 79.9
320.5 79.8
130.1 62.1
203.8 62.2
244.2 78.8
179.5 62.5
379.0 80.0
400.0 80.0
130.1 59.0
268.9 72.4
98.7
9.5
36.7
13.1
Sub: 59.89

3.36
3.13
7.18
2.17
2.77
8.16
4.57
4.51
6.22
2.05
8.16
2.05
4.41
2.14

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Moduli- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons;; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

Table 6.19 Layer Moduli for Km 153.000 to 153.245 on NH-6 for the
Deflection Data collected during the Year 2001-02
Location
(Km)

RMS
Monsoon
Bitu
GB Sub (%)

153.000L
153.060L
153.120L
153.180L
153.240L
153.005R
153.065R
153.125R
153.185R
153.245R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV
A. Moduli

375.2 155.1 50.0 0.62

419.3 183.2 53.1 2.07
375.2 209.2 53.3 1.42
382.0 179.3 51.6 1.68
334.4 175.3 55.3 1.86
384.9 156.8 43.3 2.40
427.9 189.0 50.8 1.40
368.8 191.6 48.9 1.42
386.0 200.0 51.3 1.15
364.5 213.6 51.2 1.05
427.9 213.6 55.3 2.40
334.4 155.1 43.3 0.62
381.8 185.3 50.9 1.51
26.6 19.7 3.2 0.52
6.96 10.6 6.28
Bitu: 430.03 MPa

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

Winter
Summer
RMS
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub
447.3 171.8 61.3 8.69
475.2 183.7 65.9 9.72
478.4 230.7 68.5 2.53
389.2 236.0 65.2 2.36
339.7 229.8 59.5 2.79
448.3 186.8 59.0 1.85
419.3 252.3 63.8 1.38
398.9 276.1 69.8 1.75
448.3 222.4 55.0 1.02
469.8 244.8 57.6 1.32
448.3 276.1 69.8 9.72
339.7 171.8 55.0 1.02
431.4 223.4 62.6 3.34
44.5 33.2 4.9 3.15
10.3 14.8 7.8
GB: 216.50 MPa

432.2 279.6 78.0

527.9 225.9 79.5
640.8 303.3 74.1
410.7 247.0 65.5
362.3 207.4 64.1
452.6 210.5 62.7
475.2 212.3 69.9
576.7 246.6 75.9
402.1 223.3 64.7
489.2 251.9 66.5
640.8 303.3 79.5
362.3 207.4 62.7
476.9 240.8 70.1
85.2 31.6 6.28
17.8 13.1 8.95
Sub: 61.20 MPa

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Modul- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

97

RMS
(%)
0.75
0.65
1.26
1.39
2.13
1.95
1.65
1.09
0.72
0.58
2.13
0.58
1.22
0.56

Table 6.20 Layer Moduli for Km 153.000 to 153.245 of NH-6 for the Deflection Data
collected during the Year 2000-01[Kumar, 2001]
Backcalculated layer moduli (MPa)
RMSE
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
RMSE
RMSE
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB Sub (%)

Location
(Km)
153.000L
153.060L
153.120L
153.180L
153.240L
153.005R
153.065R
153.125R
153.185R
153.245R
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV
A. Moduli

814.5 204.8 57.5 2.16

967.1 262.0 53.9 0.75
891.2 120.0 42.9 0.60
703.0 100.0 37.5 1.53
986.3 182.2 47.3 2.78
543.5 163.8 37.9 2.21
543.5 164.7 38.7 0.72
502.5 199.2 42.8 1.53
488.2 170.1 42.9 0.37
388.3 167.8 45.0 0.53
986.3 262.0 57.5 2.78
388.3 100.0 37.5 0.37
682.8 173.5 44.6 1.32
218.6 44.8
6.7 0.85
32.0
25.8 15.0
Bitu: 505.47 MPa

544.9
585.2
298.4
313.1
412.2
392.4
372.5
336.9
449.1
367.1
585.2
298.4
407.2
94.9
23.3

177.6 70.4
170.3 77.5
210.8 76.8
131.1 59.6
165.3 61.8
158.8 63.0
111.9 51.3
212.8 62.4
130.7 55.8
144.1 50.9
212.8 77.5
111.9 50.9
161.3 62.9
33.4
9.5
20.7 15.1
GB: 209.47 MPa

5.94
1.47
0.74
7.57
5.85
6.28
9.85
3.13
8.93
7.34
9.85
0.74
5.71
3.04

546.3 394.8 80.0

672.3 398.3 79.9
307.5 240.9 79.9
325.3 223.1 73.9
317.1 334.6 79.6
395.7 356.7 79.9
388.3 205.5 79.6
534.7 272.1 79.5
453.3 244.3 79.9
323.6 265.9 78.0
672.3 398.3 80.0
307.5 205.5 73.9
426.4 293.6 79.0
123.2 71.5 1.89
28.8
24.3 2.4
Sub: 62.17 MPa

3.18
4.32
2.70
3.44
1.86
3.13
4.35
3.56
3.82
2.34
4.35
1.86
3.27
0.81

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation
A. Moduli- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

Table 6.21 Layer Moduli for Km 188.000 (NH-6), 270.000 (NH-5) and 206.000 (NH-6)
for the Deflection Data collected during Winter Season of the Year 2001-02
Layer Moduli RMSE
Layer Moduli RMSE
Layer Moduli RMSE
Location
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%) Location
(%) Location
(%)
(Km) Bitu GB Sub
(Km) Bitu GB Sub
Bitu GB Sub
188.000L
188.030L
188.060L
188.090L
188.120L
188.150L
188.180L
188.210L
188.240L
188.270L
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

492.5
481.5
549.5
611.3
760.7
600.4
326.7
662.2
510.4
532.3
760.7
326.7
552.7
21.1
116.9

230.3
251.6
273.6
249.8
213.7
234.8
282.1
218.4
222.6
241.3
273.6
213.7
241.8
9.4
22.8

66.2
65.8
64.5
66.3
58.6
59.8
64.5
55.2
52.6
52.9
66.3
52.6
60.6
9.2
5.56

0.67
0.23
0.11
0.42
0.76
0.43
0.31
0.79
0.78
0.43
0.79
0.11
0.49
0.24

270.000L
270.030R
270.060L
270.090R
270.120L
270.150L
270.180R
270.210L
270.240R
270.270L
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

461.5 185.6 42.9

542.9 145.4 50.0
506.4 200.2 51.4
374.5 178.4 43.1
571.6 172.4 50.4
305.4 223.1 41.2
422.4 163.9 41.8
369.1 197.6 43.1
860.4 116.1 42.3
326.0 234.8 44.2
860.4 234.8 50.4
369.1 116.1 41.2
474.0 181.7 45.0
162.8 35.2 3.9
34.3 19.4 8.6

1.25
2.20
0.57
0.98
1.40
1.02
0.88
0.47
0.80
1.30
2.20
0.47
1.08
0.49

206.500R
206.530R
206.560R
206.590R
206.620R
206.650R
206.680R
206.710R

746.4
644.7
703.4
598.8
632.1
557.7
610.5
573.4

234.0
251.6
213.2
212.0
211.4
216.1
215.8
214.9

59.4
63.8
64.2
64.8
60.7
64.9
65.3
58.9

0.86
0.58
0.69
0.66
3.06
0.75
0.86
3.84

Maximum 746.4 251.6 65.3

3.84

Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

0.58
1.41
1.28

557.7 211.4 59.4

645.9 224.5 63.0
70.9 16.8 2.6
10.9 7.5 4.1

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation; NC: Data not collected
A.Moduli- Average Moduli of the Three Seasons; L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

98

Table 6.22 Layer Moduli for Km 319.600 to 319.870 on NH-33 for the Deflection
Data collected during the Year 2001-02
Location
(Km)
319.600L
319.630R
319.660L
319.690R
319.720L
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

Backcalculated layer moduli

(MPa)

Bitu

GB

Sub

395.5
436.9
368.1
427.9
436.2
599.7
368.1
451.8
73.65
16.3

221.2
211.8
207.2
219.6
192.1
239.3
184.1
211.8
16.10
7.6

57.9
56.2
59.0
60.5
52.2
60.5
52.2
56.7
2.57
4.5

RMSE
(%)

Location
(Km)

0.68
0.22
0.85
1.21
1.14

319.750R
319.780L
319.810R
319.840L
319.870R

Backcalculated layer
moduli (MPa)

Bitu

GB

Sub

RMSE
(%)

599.7
516.9
532.4
409.5
395.1
1.21
0.22
0.80
0.30

239.3
204.8
184.1
211.8
226.0

54.6
57.6
55.2
55.0
59.4

0.99
0.79
0.94
0.63
0.55

Bitu- Bituminous Material; GB- Granular Base; Sub- Subgrade; Std. Dev- Standard Deviation

L-Left: Towards Bahoragora; R-Right: Towards Kharagpur

The backcalculated subgrade modulus value was found to be higher during the summer
ranging from 50 to 88 MPa. Similarly, granular base modulus was also found to be higher
during summer (ranging from 150 MPa to 400 MPa). Lower subgrade and granular layer
moduli were observed during post-monsoon period. In the case of surface course modulus,
there was no clear trend regarding the variation of the modulus with season. While the
summer modulus is more in some cases, in other situations the winter values were higher.
This trend is due to the reason that the pavements considered in the investigation are
having cracked and weathered as well as uncracked surfaces. For pavements with
uncracked surfaces, the winter values were higher as the strength of the bituminous bound
layer in this case was significant. On the other hand, for pavements with cracked surfaces,
there is strong dependency of the behaviour of the bituminous layer on that of the
underlying layers. Hence, as noted in the case of thin pavements, the summer moduli were
higher.
The average values of the seasonal moduli of surface, base and subgrade are 500, 275 and
65 MPa respectively for the pavements considered. The moduli values of the surface course
formed due to periodical application of bituminous macadam and premix carpet is
considered as 500 MPa. The subgrade is formed of laterite soil in most of the in-service
pavements sections considered in the study.

6.4 EVALUATION OF COLD-MIX RECYCLED PAVEMENT SECTION

It has been mentioned in Chapter four that one pavement section on NH-6 was considered
for the structural evaluation using IITKGP_FWD2 before and after cold-mix recycling was

99

done using cement and bitumen emulsion. Using cold mix recycling process, it is possible to
rectify asphalt-aging problems and also to improve the structural condition of the pavement.
In the case of high traffic volume it is normally necessary to go for overlay of one or more
layers of hot-mixed asphalt on top of the recycled layer to further strengthen the pavement
to serve for the design life.
The pavement section Km 131.000 on NH-6 consisted of different layers of bituminous
material with a thickness of about 200 mm. Water Bound Macadam (WBM), moorum,
boulders and sand formed the base course. The deflection data collected before recycling
and after 7 and 28 days of recycling was used to compute the effective layer moduli. Table
6.23 gives the moduli values for the recycled section.

Table 6.23 Layer Moduli of Recycled Pavement Stretch

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

Location
Just before
RMSE
7 days after
RMSE28 days after RecyclingRMSE
(Km)
Recycling
(%)
Recycling
(%)
(%)
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
131.020
131.040
131.060
131.080
131.105
131.120
131.140
131.160
131.180
131.200
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std .Dev
COV (%)

305.5
323.9
482.0
304.8
358.8
486.8
343.8
306.8
368.4
607.2
607.2
304.8
388.8
102.3
26.3

233.7
241.2
249.7
235.7
253.3
217.3
257.1
216.9
237.6
214.8
257.1
214.8
235.7
15.4
6.5

55.2
60.4
56.3
56.4
60.5
58.6
60.3
51.9
54.0
60.0
60.5
51.9
57.4
3.1
5.4

0.99
0.73
0.92
0.97
0.47
0.64
0.69
0.91
0.95
0.64
0.99
0.47
0.79
0.18

410.2
434.1
680.4
458.1
631.2
518.9
456.7
538.1
366.3
456.7
680.4
366.3
495.1
98.4
19.8

240.3
223.1
233.7
248.9
222.3
238.4
244.3
245.1
221.6
213.7
248.9
213.7
233.1
12.13
5.2

58.8
60.2
57.2
58.6
60.1
58.9
59.1
56.9
54.9
61.5
61.5
54.9
58.6
1.8
3.1

3.29
1.03
2.45
1.28
3.96
0.77
0.79
0.79
0.92
0.91
3.96
0.78
1.62
1.18

481.8
549.6
807.6
781.6
472.6
517.6
494.3
575.1
489.5
408.1
807.6
408.1
557.8
132.7
23.7

254.2
253.1
228.7
219.6
236.9
227.1
239.2
223.2
234.1
266.1
266.1
219.6
238.2
15.1
6.3

55.9
56.6
55.7
55.9
55.8
58.8
60.4
58.2
59.6
58.7
60.4
55.7
57.6
1.78
3.1

0.87
3.22
1.45
1.65
0.88
0.68
0.51
1.10
1.12
0.47
3.22
0.47
1.20
0.32

The average modulus of the existing bituminous layer before recycling is about 390 MPa
indicating low strength. This is due to the presence of excessive fatigue cracks on the
surface of the bituminous layer. The modulus value of the recycled layer has been found to
increase to about 560 MPa. Recycling resulted in significant increase in strength as evident
even from the 7-day modulus value.

6.5 LAYER MODULI OF NEW PAVEMENTS

The equipment used and the specifications and quality control measures being adopted
currently for the construction of highway pavements in India is considerably superior to that

100

used in past. The information presented so far in this chapter dealt with the moduli values
of in-service pavements in various seasons. To get an idea of moduli of pavement layers
constructed as per latest Indian practices [Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, 2001],
new pavements on some stretches of National Highways were evaluated using the FWD.
The measured deflections are given in Tables B-27 to B-42 of Appendix-B.
The layer moduli backcalculated for granular layer consisting of 200 mm Wet Mix Macadam
(WMM), granular subbase and drainage layer of 250 mm each and two layers of Dense
Bituminous Macadam (DBM), each of 75 mm thick, are given in Table 6.24. The data were
obtained by conducting FWD tests immediately after the construction of each layer.

Table 6.24 Layer Moduli for the Deflection Data collected from Km 131.220 to
131.800 of NH-6 on Different Pavement Layers during Construction
Location
(Km)
131.220
131.260
131.320
131.380
131.440
131.500
131.560
131.620
131.680
131.740
131.800
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

RMSE
WMM
GB
Sub (%)
367.4
382.3
345.5
339.2
379.2
379.6
399.5
378.8
375.3
351.4
394.6
399.5
339.2
369.8
18.8
5.08

67.5
65.6
65.2
60.7
62.2
66.6
65.1
62.2
64.1
65.2
62.1
67.5
60.7
64.4
2.14
3.3

0.45
1.25
1.15
2.11
0.53
0.49
1.20
0.63
0.62
0.99
1.54
2.11
0.45
1.00
0.52

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

RMSE
DBM-I Layer
DBM-II Layer
RMSE
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub (%)
1034.8
1183.4
1149.2
1087.6
0963.9
1153.1
1016.4
1169.6
1140.4
NA
NA
1163.4
963.9
1099.8
77.9
7.1

296.8
303.5
289.7
308.5
295.3
293.5
298.4
308.5
301.7
NA
NA
308.5
289.7
299.5
6.5
2.2

62.7
60.2
63.1
60.8
63.9
61.4
60.3
58.3
61.1
NA
NA
63.9
58.3
61.3
1.7
2.7

0.65
2.60
0.53
0.52
0.74
0.76
0.97
0.79
0.81
NA
NA
2.60
0.52
0.93
0.64

1271.2
1336.1
1322.1
1356.4
1305.5
1220.4
1273.8
1306.8
1261.1
1173.4
1327.2
1356.4
1173.4
1286.7
54.07
4.2

277.7
280.6
263.3
252.2
250.2
270.7
259.2
283.6
256.9
277.1
271.3
283.6
250.2
267.5
11.76
4.39

57.0
55.7
54.9
54.7
57.6
57.6
56.9
55.2
56.1
56.6
54.5
57.6
54.6
56.1
1.14
2.03

1.20
1.25
1.15
0.94
0.84
0.67
1.56
1.03
0.79
0.81
1.85
1.85
0.67
1.10
0.36

NA: Information not available

It was observed from Table 6.24, that the subgrade modulus decreased when the FWD test
was conducted after the construction of one layer of DBM (85 mm thick) and further
decreased when the test was conducted on two layers of DBM (total thickness 170 mm).
Similar behavior was also observed in case of base course. With high thickness of
bituminous layers above the sandy subgrade and granular base course, the sum of the
principal stresses due to applied load becomes smaller resulting in lower modulus values.
Table 6.25 gives the results of backcalculated moduli for the deflection data collected
immediately after the construction of each DBM layer.

101

Table 6.25 Layer Moduli for Km 125.000 to 125.540 on NH-6

(Average Pavement Temperature 37 1oC)
Location
Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)
(Km)
After DBM-I Layer
After DBM-II Layer
RMSE
RMSE
(85 mm thickness)
(170 mm thick)
(%)
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub
125.000
125.060

926.3
897.9

234.5
244.9

61.9
60.1

1.93
0.32

967.4
977.1

221.6
230.2

65.5
57.3

0.78
0.68

125.120
125.180
125.240
125.300
125.360
125.420
125.480
125.540
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

888.2
915.5
819.7
772.2
749.4
827.6
664.9
778.9
926.3
664.9
824.1
84.4
10.2

259.1
288.7
256.4
255.7
258.7
266.9
257.6
245.5
288.7
234.5
256.8
14.5
5.6

61.9
60.8
62.5
61.6
59.9
61.9
88.5
58.8
88.5
58.8
63.8
8.7
13.6

0.18
1.49
0.11
0.26
0.26
0.12
5.62
0.63
5.62
0.11
1.09
1.71

1076.8
905.7
1074.8
947.8
1044.4
1118.2
1094.4
1073.9
1118.2
905.7
1028.1
72.4
7.0

238.8
207.5
230.9
230.9
231.8
230.2
237.6
264.6
264.6
207.5
232.4
14.36
6.2

52.3
57.7
54.8
55.9
57.1
53.6
50.7
55.9
65.5
50.7
56.1
4.0
7.1

0.97
1.24
0.64
0.92
0.81
1.88
1.58
1.85
1.88
0.64
1.14
0.48

It was found that the average bituminous layer modulus was 825 MPa and 1028 MPa for the
deflection data collected on each DBM layer at an average pavement temperature of 37
1oC. The increase in layer modulus was due to additional thickness of DBM layer.
FWD study was conducted on transverse direction at two test locations (Km 131.860 and
131.860).

Deflections were collected at 1m apart and total of five points at each test

location. The deflection data is presented in Table B-25 of Appendix-B.

The average

pavement temperature was found to be 32.5oC. The backcalculated moduli for the data are
given in Table 6.26.

Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)

DBM Layer (85 mm)
RMSE
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub

Distance from
Median (m)

Distance from
Median (m)

Table 6.26 Layer Moduli for the Deflection Data collected on Km 131. 860 and
131.910 on NH-6 along Transverse Direction (Average Pavement Temp.32.5oC)
Backcalculated Layer Moduli (MPa)
DBM Layer (170 mm)
RMSE
(%)
Bitu
GB
Sub

1
2

935.1
962.4

293.2
301.8

63.9
60.3

0.83
0.78

1
2

1282.7
1198.8

285.3
300.2

56.8
57.4

0.99
1.19

3
4
5
Max
Mini
Ave
Std. Dev
COV (%)

1096.4
1078.8
974.2
1096.4
953.1
1009.4
73.1
7.2

293.5
303.5
313.7
313.7
293.2
301.1
8.4
2.7

62.9
64.4
60.8
64.4
60.3
62.5
1.83
2.9

0.63
0.66
0.79
0.83
0.63
0.74
0.09

3
4
5
Max
Min
Ave
Std. Dev

1330.9
1280.1
1235.6
1330.9
1198.8
1265.6
50.3
3.9

290.0
292.7
290.3
300.2
285.3
291.7
5.46
1.8

56.0
55.7
57.2
57.4
55.7
56.6
0.7
1.2

1.33
1.13
1.24
1.33
0.99
1.18
0.13

102

On observing the effective layer moduli, the change in moduli from one point to other was
marginal indicating the uniformity in the construction at the above two locations.

6.6 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON PAVEMENT LAYER MODULI

Pavement layer moduli, especially that of bituminous layer varies with pavement
temperature. In order to study the effect on pavement temperature on the backcalculated
moduli, FWD tests were conducted on a few sections (Sl No.18, 20, 22 given in Table 4.1).
The pavement temperature was recorded at a depth of 25 mm during testing at each
location. The deflections were measured at temperatures of 25, 30, 35 and 40oC. Tables B34 to B-42 of Appendix-B give the details of the deflections measured and the
corresponding average temperatures. The backcalculated layer moduli values are shown in
Tables 6.27 to 6.29.

Table 6.27 Layer Moduli for the Deflection Data collected on KM 112. 000 to
112.540 of NH-6 at Different Pavement Temperatures
Backcalculated Layer
Backcalculated Layer
Backcalculated Layer
Moduli (MPa) at
Moduli (MPa)
Moduli (MPa)
Location Average Pavement RMSE Average Pavement RMSE Average Pavement RMSE
(Km)
Temperature of 41o C (%) Temperature of 35o C (%) Temperature of 31.5o C (%)
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
112.000
112.060
112.120
112.180
112.240
112.300
112.360
112.420
112.480
112.540
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

755.1
885.4
775.1
778.6
823.5
861.8
1031.9
898.2
896.7
926.4
1031.9
755.1
863.3
3.9
0.45

289.2
282.9
313.1
313.1
317.4
295.8
285.7
295.5
293.4
292.4
317.4
282.9
297.8
12.3
4.1

67.1
68.9
66.4
65.6
68.1
65.3
69.5
67.5
69.1
66.1
69.5
65.3
67.4
1.5
2.2

4.01
4.08
3.49
3.58
3.57
4.06
4.47
4.05
4.17
5.50
5.50
3.49
4.10
0.58

1037.5
1016.4
1038.7
1049.8
1003.5
1031.2
1007.0
937.2
1221.8
1073.1
1221.8
937.2
1041.6
72.9
6.9

285.7
303.3
287.3
281.4
297.9
301.7
275.9
259.1
235.7
261.9
303.3
235.7
278.9
21.5
7.7

NC: Data not collected

103

64.9
66.8
65.1
63.1
63.8
66.4
66.7
68.9
66.7
66.9
68.9
63.1
65.9
1.7
2.5

0.53
0.40
0.51
0.82
0.47
0.54
0.58
0.64
0.73
0.38
0.82
0.38
0.56
0.13
23.2

1390.2
1448.5
1415.5
1489.4
1219.2
1498.8
1429.6
1489.4
1390.9
NC
1498.8
1219.2
1419.1
85.7
6.0

291.3
276.6
273.2
282.3
282.2
318.5
268.5
263.7
277.9
NC
318.5
263.7
281.6
16.0
5.7

62.9
60.6
62.4
63.2
62.3
58.7
60.2
61.1
59.7
NC
63.2
58.7
61.2
1.6
2.6

0.258
0.494
0.597
0.626
0.635
0.799
0.881
0.809
0.687
NC
0.88
0.25
0.64
0.18

Table 6.28 Layer Moduli for the Deflection Data collected on KM 126. 000 to
126.540 of NH-6 at different Pavement Temperatures

Location

126.000
126.060
126.120
126.180
126.240
126.300
126.360
126.420
126.480
126.540
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev
COV (%)

Backcalculated
Backcalculated Layer
Backcalculated Layer
Moduli (MPa) at
RMSE Layer Moduli (MPa) RMSE
Moduli (MPa)
Average
Average Temperature (%)
(%) Average Temperature RMSE
Temperature of 35oC
of
of 31.5oC
(%)
o
41 C
Bitu GB Sub
Bitu
GB
Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
845.6
846.2
807.6
931.1
885.3
732.9
975.9
956.4
843.2
771.5
975.9
732.9
859.5
78.7
9.2

243.8
196.1
229.0
231.9
258.1
291.8
250.0
218.5
246.5
251.7
291.8
196.1
241.7
25.5
10.5

61.6
61.2
56.1
59.0
57.6
56.1
59.9
62.6
61.8
59.8
62.6
56.1
59.6
2.3
3.8

0.71
0.94
2.19
0.77
3.95
0.58
0.64
3.19
0.72
0.66
3.95
0.58
1.44
1.23

1144.5 252.9
1195.6 275.9
1028.4 271.2
1117.6 236.4
1221.9 284.9
973.3 300.1
1197.3 232.9
1119.9 275.5
1143.2 235.9
1128.1 228.2
1221.9 300.1
973.3 228.2
1126.9 259.4
76.5 25.3
6.7
9.7

66.6
67.9
67.9
71.1
65.8
67.3
69.4
67.4
69.7
68.1
71.1
65.8
68.1
1.6
2.3

5.62
5.19
5.07
5.82
5.08
4.49
6.06
5.14
5.95
6.20
6.20
4.49
5.46
0.55

1378.9 271.5
1365.9 265.4
1252.2 282.2
1420.0 277.5
1327.3 243.1
1315.8 282.2
1257.4 273.9
1243.4 257.2
1322.2 249.4
1461.9 230.6
1461.9 282.2
1243.4 230.59
1334.5 263.8
73.10 17.68
5.5
6.7

67.2
67.6
64.9
65.7
66.5
64.1
68.8
66.7
67.1
67.2
68.8
64.1
66.6
1.37
2.05

0.56
0.59
0.47
0.51
0.58
0.50
0.51
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.59
0.47
0.54
0.04

Table 6.29 Layer Moduli values for the Deflection Data collected on Km 131. 100 to
131. 640 of NH-6 at different Pavement Temperatures
Backcalculated Layer
Backcalculated
Backcalculated Layer
RMSE Layer Moduli (MPa) RMSE
Moduli (MPa) at
Moduli (MPa)
RMSE
Location Average Temperature (%)
Average
Average
(%)
of
Temperature of
Temperature of
(%)
41oC
25oC
31oC
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
Bitu
GB Sub
130.100
130.160
130.220
130.280
130.340
130.400
130.460
130.520
130.580
130.640
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std.Dev
COV (%)

893.2
758.4
879.2
832.3
774.8
910.8
866.6
995.3
817.0
874.5
995.3
758.4
860.2
69.0
8.02

273.9
298.2
274.4
265.0
261.9
272.0
284.5
281.4
270.5
275.2
298.2
265.0
275.7
10.4
3.77

79.3
78.2
82.2
81.0
83.2
81.8
81.2
79.0
80.7
84.0
83.2
78.2
81.1
1.85
2.82

0.471
0.526
0.563
0.526
0.558
0.463
1.657
0.368
0.479
0.240
1.66
0.24
0.59
0.39

1441.0
1364.8
1355.4
1303.1
1339.9
1412.4
1290.4
1404.8
1386.9
1301.9
1441.0
1290.4
1360.1
51.59
3.8

260.7
267.7
251.3
254.0
273.6
253.3
269.7
265.8
253.7
260.7
273.6
251.3
261.0
7.88
3.0

79.2
78.5
80.9
80.1
80.0
80.9
80.3
79.4
81.6
79.8
81.6
78.5
80.1
0.93
1.2

0.49
0.62
0.47
0.48
0.65
0.46
0.45
0.42
0.49
0.46
0.65
0.42
0.50
0.07

1759.3
1733.3
1834.6
1697.7
1805.8
1674.5
2075.2
1935.8
1799.0
1889.3
2075.2
1674.5
1820.4
120.8
6.63

271.6
269.3
266.2
290.4
263.8
271.6
247.8
264.6
270.1
239.2
290.4
239.2
265.4
13.9
5.23

75.4
76.8
74.4
72.7
75.1
76.8
78.2
72.3
73.4
75.9
78.20
72.30
75.10
1.92
2.55

0.47
0.48
0.52
0.57
0.56
0.43
0.44
0.60
0.48
0.84
0.84
0.43
0.54
0.12
22.2

The change in layer moduli, especially of bituminous layer was clearly observed from the
Tables 6.27 to 6.29. The modulus was observed as 860 MPa and 1900 MPa at an average

104

temperature of 41oC and 25oC respectively. The changes in moduli values of other layers
were not significant compared to bituminous layer modulus.

6.6.1 Development of Temperature Correction Factor

From the backcalculated moduli and the corresponding pavement temperature, an attempt
was made to obtain factors for adjusting the backcalculated moduli of bituminous layer for a
temperature of 350C is obtained. The correction factor is given as
E

(back T1)

= E(back T2)

1 0.238 ln T1
1 0.238 ln T2

(6.2)

(R2=0.858)

where E (back T2) = backcalculated moduli at temperature T2 (oC);

E (back T1) = backcalculated moduli at temperature T1 (oC);
= temperature correction factor
The above factor is valid for a pavement temperature range of 25 to 40oC.

6.7 DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS FOR ESTIMATION OF LAYER

MODULI FROM DIFFERENT PARAMETERS
6.7.1 General
Pavement layer moduli are key inputs to mechanistic design of flexible pavements. For inservice pavements, structural evaluation using FWD is considered to be the most
appropriate tool for evaluating layer moduli. However, it is not possible for most of the
agencies in developing countries like India to use FWD for routine evaluation of in-service
pavements because of its high cost. As the effective layer moduli backcalculated from field
responses are considered to be more appropriate for analysis of in-service pavements, it is
necessary to develop relationships that can estimate effective layer moduli from different
parameters such as pavement layer thicknesses and subgrade strength. Though a number
of empirical relationships are available for the estimation of layer moduli from different
parameters, their applicability to different types of pavements is yet to be established. The
applicability of Shell and TRRL relationships given by Equations 2.6 and 2.27 which were
adopted by Indian Roads Congress [IRC: 37, 2001] for the estimation of subgrade and
granular layer moduli is yet to be established. The applicability of the Shell relationship for
different conditions has also been questioned by different researchers [Smith and Witczak,
1981; Freeme et al, 1982; Brown et al, 1982; Shook et al, 1982, Bose, 1993].
Models were developed in the present investigation to estimate moduli from different
pavement parameters that are representative of the average condition of pavements during

105

their service period. This was possible as the pavement sections included pavements and
overlays having different ages at the time of structural evaluation.
6.7.2 Subgrade Modulus
In order to estimate the subgrade modulus from known subgrade soil characteristics, the
backcalculated subgrade moduli from the present investigation and the corresponding
soaked CBR values available from earlier investigations [Reddy, 1993; Kumar, 2001] were
used.
Equation 6.3 gives the relationship.
MR

(Sub_monsoon)

= 14.405 (CBR) 0.5181

Where MR

(Sub_monsoon)

(R2 =0.7157)

(6.3)

= Subgrade modulus in monsoon (MPa)

Table 6.30 gives the comparison of estimates made using different relationships.

Table 6.30 Subgrade Moduli estimated using Different Models

Design method/ Researcher

Shell [1978]
AASHTO [1993]
Dauzats & Linder [1982]
Wiseman et al [1977]
Freeme et al [1982]
Sko & Finn [1962]
Jeuffroy and Bachelez
[1962]
Ullidtz [1987]
IRC: 37 [2001]
Present Investigation

Subgrade Modulus for

CBR (%) value of
5
10
20
50
25
100
40
67
19.1

100
50
200
150
134
30.4

200
---400
--268
48.4

32.4
50
33.2

53.7
76.8
47.5

89.1
119.7
68.0

IRC: 37[2001] uses Shell equation for CBR value <5 % and TRRL relationship (given by
Equation 2.7) for CBR >5 % for the estimation of subgrade modulus. Equation 6.3 obtained
from the present study under-estimates the modulus values compared to the relationships
used in IRC: 37. The subgrade modulus values given by Ullidtz [1987] are similar to the
estimates made using Equation 6.3 for CBR values <10 %. The estimates given by Wiseman
et al, [1977] are more than those given by Equation 6.3.

6.7.3 Granular Base Modulus

Granular bases comprises of layers of Water Bound Macadam courses and brickbats. Using
the average (all seasons) backcalculated moduli, thicknesses of granular layer and average
(all seasons) subgrade modulus of thick pavements, empirical relationships were developed

106

for estimating moduli of granular base. These relationships are given in Equation 6.4 and
6.5.
EaBase = 10.144 (Easub)0.7588
(Granular Thickness range-350 to 650 mm)

(R2 =0.423)

(6.4)

EaBase = 2.823 ((Easub)+0.264(h2)-87.567

(R2 =0.40)
(6.5)
where EaBase= Average Base Modulus (MPa); (Easub) = Average Subgrade Modulus (MPa);
h2 = Thickness of Base Layer (mm)
Equation 6.5 shows that the influence of thickness of base layer on base modulus is small.
Table 6.31 gives the granular base modulus values suggested by different organizations and
researchers.

Table 6.31 Granular Base Modulus values Suggested by different Researchers

Organization/
Granular Base Modulus (MPa) Remarks
Researcher
for Subgrade Modulus (MPa) of
25
50
75
Shell [1978]
50-100
100-200
150-300 Modular Ratio =2 to 4
65.1
130.22
195.3
For base thickness of 300mm using
Equation 2.27
Smith and
75-125
150-250
225-375 3 to 5 for normal base
Witczak [1981]
Shook et al, 47-167
95-335
142-500 Modular Ratio =1.9 to 6.7
[1982]
Present
116
197
268
Modular Ratio = 2 to 5 for thick
Investigation
pavements using Equation 6.4
78.9
149.5
220.1
For base thickness of 300mm using
Equation 6.5
Table 6.31 shows that the modulus of granular layer computed from the properties of
underlying layer obtained from the present study are close to the values suggested by Shell.
The general guideline for the estimation of granular base modulus (2 to 5 times that of
subgrade modulus) is valid for the thick in-service pavements.
The modular ratios of granular layer modulus to subgrade moduli for all the pavements in
different seasons are shown in Table 6.32.

Table 6.32 Average Ratios of Moduli of Base Course and Underlying (Subgrade)
Layer
Pavement
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
Seasonal
System
Mean
Average
Range
Average
Range
Average
Range
Thick old
3.81
1.9-5.6
3.72
2.3-5.6
3.60
2.1-5.4
3.71
pavements
Thin old
4.38
2.1-7.1
4.52
2.0-7.7
4.2
2.2-6.8
4.36
pavements
Table 6.32 shows that the modular ratio for monsoon season was marginally higher

compared to the corresponding values obtained for the other two seasons. Modular ratio

107

values were lowest during the summer season. The granular layer is less affected by
moisture as compared to the subgrade. Upon the application of load, subgrade undergoes
larger deflections and consequently larger mobilization of friction across the contact point of
the overlying granular layer, results in large modular ratio. This is in agreement with the
observations of Smith and Witczak [1981], Edwards and Valkering [1982] who concluded
that the modular ratio tended to be high when granular layers are placed on weak
subgrades.
From the present study the modular ratio was, in general, observed to vary between 2 and
5 for thick old pavements and 3 to 6 for thin old pavements in general. For new pavements,
the ratio lies between 3 and 5.

6.7.4 Typical Modulus Values Obtained

From the evaluation of several in-service pavements having thin as well as thick bituminous
pavements on different highways, it was noted that the backcalculated moduli of all the
layers varied from season to season and stretch to stretch depending on the climatic,
pavement condition and other parameters.

The following table gives typical values of

pavement layer moduli values for different types of in-service and new pavements.

Table 6.33 Typical Values of Layer Moduli for Different Pavements

Type of Pavement
Thick bituminous
surfacing
Thin bituminous
surfacing
New Pavements

Average Backcalculated Moduli (MPa) of

Bituminous
Granular base
Subgrade
500

226

64

350

210

52

1850 to 830
for temp 25-40oC

270

60

Remarks
Cracked
pavements
Cracked
pavements
Uncracked
pavements

6.8 SEASONAL VARIATION OF LAYER MODULI

The backcalculated layer moduli were found to vary with season. The amount of variation is
different for different types of pavements. In general, the changes in subgrade moduli are
larger in different seasons compared to those observed in the case of granular and
bituminous layers.
Subgrade modulus during the summer was found to be the lowest during the monsoon
season. The moduli values of granular layers are found to be more during summer.
Presence of moisture has also been found to affect the moduli of granular layers also
considerably. The bituminous surfacing constructed on the pavements considered are not

108

very thick and the condition of the surfacing varied from pavement to pavement due to the
differences in the age of the surfacing. The seasonal variations in the surface moduli,
though not very significant, can be attributed to the changes in pavement temperatures and
to the variations in the strength of the underlying layers, especially that of subgrade. The
summer moduli of bituminous layers for a number of pavement sections were found to be
more than the values obtained for the other two seasons due to the effect of dry state of
underlying layers.
In a given stretch of pavement, there are variations in layer thicknesses, compaction levels
etc., from location to location. This is reflected in the spatial variation of the modulus
values. However, among the three seasons, the scatter was found to be the maximum in
the data collected in monsoon. This can be attributed to the spatial variation in the moisture
content present in the pavement at different locations and the corresponding variations in
the strength of the layers. Equations 6.6 to 6.14 present the relationship between the
average of the moduli obtained in three different seasons and the modulus value obtained
in a particular season at each location. The expressions are useful in determining the mean
modulus value from the modulus backcalculated using the deflections measured during any
one of the seasons. The relationships are also presented in Figures 6.2 to 6.4.

1000

Average Bituminous Modulus

(MPa)

900
800
700
600
500
400

Monsoon

300

Winter

200

Summer

100
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Seasonal Modulus of Bituminous Layer (MPa)

Figure 6.2 Average Modulus of Bituminous Layer from Seasonal Modulus

109

Average Base Modulus(MPa)

400
350
300
250
200

Monsoon

150

Winter

100

Summer

50
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Seasonal Base Modulus(MPa)

Average subgrade Modulus (MPa)

Figure 6.3 Average Modulus of Base Layer from Seasonal Modulus

90
80
70
60
50
40
30

Monsoon
Winter
Summer

20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Seasonal Subgrade Modulus ( MPa)

Figure 6.4 Average Modulus of Subgrade from Seasonal Modulus

For estimating seasonal bituminous modulus

(R2 =0.731)
E (bit-avg) = 15.29 (E (bit_mon) )0.5452
(E (bit_avg) )=0.4978 (E (bit_win) ) + 207.4
(R2 =0.659)

(6.6)
(6.7)

(R2 =0.572)

(6.8)

(E

(bit_avg)

where E

)= 0.7457 (E

(bit-avg)

(bit_sum)

) + 114.69

= average seasonal bituminous modulus; E

(bit_mon),

(bit_win),

(bit_win)

moduli of bituminous layer during monsoon, winter and summer respectively (MPa)

For estimating seasonal base modulus

E (base-avg) = 0.7224(E (base_mon) )+82.25
(E (base_ avg) )=7.623 (E (base_win) )0.624
E

110

(base_avg)

= 5.9244 (E

(base_mon)

)0.654

(R2 =0.5408)
(R2 =0.685)
(R2 =0.7071)

(6.9)
(6.10)
(6.11)

where E

(bit-avg)

= average seasonal base modulus; E

(base_mon),

(base_win),

(base_sum)

= moduli of

base layer during monsoon, winter and summer respectively (MPa)

For estimating seasonal subgrade modulus

E (sub-avg) = 0.7505(E (sub_mon) )+21.69
(E (sub_ avg) )=2.515 (E (sub_win) )0.7688
(E

where E

(sub_avg)

(sub-avg)

)= 0.6420 (E

(sub_sum)

) + 15.34

(R2 =0.438)
(R2 =0.808)

(6.12)
(6.13)

(R2 =0.819)

= average seasonal subgrade modulus; E

(sub_mon),

(6.14)
E

(sub_win),

(sub_sum)

moduli of subgrade during monsoon, winter and summer respectively (MPa)

6.9 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT OF SUBGRADE MODULUS

Subgrade modulus usually has the lowest modulus during monsoon season compared to
other seasons. Post monsoon modulus value is commonly used for design of pavements and
overlays. In order to estimate the monsoon subgrade modulus from other seasonal
modulus, the subgrade modulus estimated in different seasons are correlated and models
are developed and these are used in the design of overlays. Equation 6.15 and 6.16
represents the models are useful when modulus data is available different seasons and
subgrade modulus in monsoon is to be computed.

E(sub_mon) = 28.39+0.2888 E(sub_win)

E(sub_mon) = 21.821+0.3641 E(sub_sum) (R2 =0.616)

(R2 =0.422)

where E (sub_mon) = subgrade modulus in monsoon (MPa);

E (sub_win) = subgrade modulus in winter (MPa);
E (sub_sum) = Subgrade modulus in summer (MPa)

111

(6.15)
(6.16)

Chapter 7
7.0 ANALYTICAL DESIGN OF PAVEMENTS
AND OVERLAYS
7.1 GENERAL
Guidelines for analytical design of flexible pavements are given in the IRC: 37-2001. It
assumes some modulus value of different layers based on laboratory tests. In view of the
in-situ data collected during the present investigation, the moduli values given in IRC:372001 may require revision. Benkelman Beam method gives overall thickness of overlay and
thickness of bituminous layer to preclude cracking within the design cannot be evaluated.
The modulus values obtained during the investigation of in-service pavement by FWD
together with the fatigue and rutting equations of IRC: 37-2001 can be used for analytical
design of bituminous overlays. Examples are given to illustrate the design of overlay.

7.2 LAYER MODULI FOR DESIGN OF NEW PAVEMENTS

The key inputs to the design approach as per Indian Roads Congress guidelines [IRC: 37,
2001] are the modulus values of different layers. The modulus values of DBM as per the IRC
guidelines and those obtained during the present investigation are presented below.

Modulus of Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM)

Layer Modulus (MPa) at a Pavement
Temperature of
o
25 C
30oC
35oC
40oC
1900
1450
1250
850

Remarks

Values obtained from the present

study for Bitumen-60/70 Grade
IRC- Recommended Values

It can be seen that the computed modulus values of DBM are lower that the IRC values. It
may be noted that the FWD tests are conducted on newly constructed DBM layer without
subjected to any traffic. The traffic is expected to cause densification resulting in higher
modulus values after some wheel repetitions. Pending verification of the rise in modulus
values from field tests, IRC recommended modulus values may be used in the design.

Granular Base Modulus

The FWD test on newly constructed pavements resulted in granular base modulus of 250 to
280 MPa when base is consisted of Wet Mix Macadam (WMM), Sand and Crushed stone.

112

The modular ratio value for new pavements was found to be 3 to 5. Hence a modular ratio
of 4 may be used for design of pavements.

Subgrade Modulus
It is recommended to conduct soaked CBR test on subgrade material and estimate the
subgrade modulus from the Equation 6.3 developed from the present study when native soil
is strong (CBR>3 %). If the native soil is poor with CBR<3 %, the following procedure is
recommended for use for estimating the design CBR value.

7.3 ESTMATION OF DESIGN CBR VALUE FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

7.3.1 Introduction
Subgrade plays a key role in the performance of pavements. Its property is the main input
to any pavement design procedure. The parameters commonly used to characterize the
subgrade include CBR, resilient modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction etc. Although
mechanistic design approaches require elastic (resilient) modulus of subgrade as input, a
large number of the existing design procedures are based on CBR value of the subgrade.
Even in the case of some mechanistic design methods, it is common practice to estimate the
modulus value of the subgrade from its CBR value using empirical relationships.
The subgrade forms the foundation of a pavement. The usual practice in India is to compact
upper 500 mm of the embankment1,2 to a higher density than that of the rest of the
embankment and this compacted layer is defined as the subgrade. In case the embankment
soil is weak, borrow material of higher strength is used as subgrade and the CBR of this
layer is usually taken as the design CBR for the design of flexible pavements irrespective of
the CBR of the embankment material below the 500 mm subgrade. This does not appear to
be a sound practice since it is the composite strength of the subgrade and the embankment
soil below it that should enter into the design rather than the strength of 500 mm thick
subgrade alone. As a part of the current research scheme R-81, a method has been
developed for computation of design (effective/equivalent) CBR of the subgrade for design
of flexible pavements taking into account CBR values of subgrade as well as embankment
materials.

7.3.2 Selection of Design CBR in Different Guidelines

IRC-37: 2001 recommends that the subgrade, whether in cut or fill, should be well
compacted to utilize its full strength and to economize on the overall thickness of pavement
required. The top 500mm portion of the subgrade should be compacted to 95-100 % of the
modified density for heavy volume roads. For thickness design purpose, the subgrade

113

strength is assessed in terms of the CBR of the subgrade soil at the most critical moisture
conditions likely to occur. CBR value of the remoulded subgrade soil is usually taken as the
design CBR without any reference to the CBR of the soil below the 500 mm subgrade.
Austroads[1992] considered the following factors in determining the design strength of a
subgrade. (i) Compaction moisture content used and field density achieved (ii) Moisture
changes during service life (iii) Subgrade variability and (iv) Sequence of earthwork
construction. While it is suggested that the total thickness of pavement will be governed by
the presence of weak layers below design subgrade level, the method of evaluating effective
subgrade support has not been discussed.
Asphalt institute [1981] recommends the use of improved material between native soil and
the pavement structure. The improved subgrade is normally not required in the design and
construction of a full-depth asphalt pavement structure. It should be considered only when
a subgrade that can not support construction equipment is encountered. In such cases it is
used as a working platform for construction of the pavement layers. The use of the borrow
material does not affect the design thickness of the pavement structure. The resilient
subgrade modulus value is estimated using CBR values in the absence of vigorous
laboratory tests. For cohesive subgrades, a minimum of 95 % of AASHTO T 180, method D
density (modified compaction) for the top 300mm and a minimum of 90 % for all fill areas
below the top 300mm are recommended. For cohesionless subgrades, a minimum of 100 %
of modified compaction density for the top 300mm and a minimum of 95 % below this for
all the fill areas are recommended.
AASHTO Guide for design of pavement structures [1993] recommends the use of resilient
modulus values for pavement design, which are based on the properties of the compacted
layer of the roadbed (subgrade) soil. However, in some cases where in-situ materials are
weak, it may be necessary to include the consideration of the uncompacted foundation. In
such cases, the design of pavement structure is based on the average resilient modulus
value.
The Japan Road association manual for asphalt pavement [1978] recommends the use of
higher quality material on weak foundation (having less than 2 % CBR) to obtain a design
CBR value of 3 or more. For the purpose of estimation of effective subgrade CBR, the CBR
value of the original soil should be used as the CBR value of the bottom 200 mm of the
imported soil. The expression for estimating the effective CBR of subgrade is given as

114

1/3

CBR eff = (( T im 200)CBR im

+ 200 (CBR ex )1 / 3 / T im )3

(7.1)

where CBR eff = effective subgrade CBR.

T im = thickness of compacted imported soil mm
CBR im , CBR ex = CBR Values of imported and existing soil respectively
Example: If a subgrade with native soil CBR value of 1.5 % is to be filled to a depth of 1000
mm with borrow material of CBR value 10 %, then the effective (new) subgrade value is
CBReff= (((1000-200) 10

1/3

+200 (1.5)1/3) /1000)3 = 7.44 %

7.3.3 Determination of Effective Subgrade Strength

It is thus clear that if the compacted subgrade is laid over a weak soil, it is necessary to
evaluate the composite strength of the subgrade or the effective CBR of the subgrade for
pavement design. In this investigation, an attempt has been made to determine the
equivalent subgrade CBR values for the combination of natural soil bed and borrow material.
Subgrade surface deflection under the action of a single wheel load computed using layered
elastic theory has been used as the parameter to assess the equivalence. A number of
combinations of natural and borrow soil have been considered with different CBR values of
both materials and different thicknesses of the subgrade layer. The loading arrangement
considered is a single wheel load of magnitude 40 kN acting over circular contact area at a
pressure of 560 kPa. The two-layer and the equivalent subgrade systems with loading under
consideration are shown in Figure 7.1.
40 kN, 560 kPa

40 kN, 560 kPa

Borrow material

h=

Existing soil

Equivalent subgrade

a) Two layer system

b) Single layer System

Figure 7.1 Two layer and Equivalent subgrade systems

The two-layer system has been analyzed using ELAYER computer program [Reddy, 1993]
for which the inputs are selected as given below.
Single wheel load

= 40 kN

115

Contact pressure

= 560 kPa

Poisson ratio

= 0.4

Elastic modulus values of these two subgrade layers are estimated from their CBR values
using equation 2.7.
Subgrade Modulus = 10 x CBR for CBR <5 % and 17.6 x (CBR) 0.64
Deflection is computed along the axis of symmetry of the wheel load. From the computed
surface deflection of the two-layer subgrade system, the corresponding modulus value of
the equivalent single layer subgrade is determined from the following equation.
= 2.0 ( 1 2 ) p.a /E eq

(7.2)

= surface deflection, mm
p = contact pressure MPa = 0.56
a = radius of load contact area = 152.7 mm
= poisson ratio = 0.4
The corresponding equivalent subgrade CBR value is backcalculated from the modulus
values using equation 2.7. For different CBR values of existing soil and borrow material,
Figures 7.2 to 7.5 presents the equivalent subgrade CBR values for various compacted in
compacted thicknesses of borrow material.

116

Design subgrade CBR Value (%)

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Native soil CBR 7 %

5%

3%
2.5 %
2%
1.5 %

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Design Subgrade CBR value (%)

Borrow material CBR Value (%)

Figure 7.2 Design Subgrade CBR values for the 300 mm compacted thickness of
borrow material

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Native soil CBR value 7 %

5%

3%

2.5 %

2 %equivalent Subgrade, MPa

where E eq = elastic mod ulus value of
1.5 %

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Borrow material CBR value (%)

Figure 7.3 Design Subgrade CBR values for 400 mm compacted thickness of borrow
material

117

55

Design subgrade CBR value (%)

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Native soil CBR value 7 %

5%
3%

2.5 %

2%

10

15

20

25

1.5 %

30

35

40

45

50

55

Borrow material CBR value (%)

Design Subgrade CBR value(%)

Figure 7.4 Design Subgrade CBR values for 500 mm compacted thickness of borrow
material

36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Native soil CBR value 7%

5%

3%

2.5 %
2%
1.5 %

10

15

20

25

30

35

Borrow m aterial CBR value (%)

40

45

50

55

Figure 7.5 Design Subgrade CBR values for 600 mm compacted thickness of borrow
m aterial

7.4 PROPOSED FWD BASED OVERLAY DESIGN METHOD

Based on the results obtained in the present study, a method has been proposed for design
of bituminous overlays in India. The mechanistic criteria (fatigue and rutting) adopted in the
Indian Roads Congress guidelines [IRC: 37, 2001] formed the basis for the proposed
method. The following are the steps proposed for design of overlays for Indian highways
based on FWD evaluation.

i.

To measure surface deflections of the in-service pavement using FWD and to collect
pavement layer thicknesses.

ii.

118

Normalize the deflections to correspond to standard load of 40 kN.

iii.

Backcalculation of pavement layer moduli using the normalized deflections by

backcalculation software (BACKGA).

iv.

Adjust the bituminous layer modulus (backcalculated) to a standard temperature of

35oC using the correction factors recommended in the present study.

v.

Adjust the subgrade modulus to correspond to post-monsoon condition from the

model developed in the present study.

vi.

Analysis of In-service pavement, using elastic layer theory using the backcalculated
(corrected) moduli and layer thicknesses collected from field. Computation of critical
Strains (a) Horizontal Tensile Strain at the bottom fiber of bituminous layer and (b)
Vertical Compressive Strain on top of subgrade. The loading and the locations of
critical strains computed are shown in Figure 7.6.

P = 20 kN
310 mm

h1
h2

Contact Pressure=0.56 MPa

Bituminous Layer (E1) 1

z

Granular Base (E2),2

Subgrade (E3), 3

Figure 7.6 A Typical 3-Layer Pavement System with Strains considered in the
Design and their Location
vii.

Estimation of the remaining life of the pavement by using the strain values obtained
in step (vi) as inputs in the following performance criteria [IRC-37, 2001].
Fatigue Criterion:
Nf = 2.21 x 10-4 [1/t]3.89[1/Ebit]0.854

(7.3)

where Nf = number of cumulative standard axle load applications to produce 20 %

cracking of bituminous surfacing; t = horizontal Tensile Strain at the bottom of the
bituminous layer; Ebit = elastic modulus of bituminous layer (MPa);
Rutting Criterion:
Nr = 4.1656 x 10-8 [1/z]4.5337

(7.4)

where Nr = number of cumulative standard axle load applications to produce an

average rut depth of 20mm; z = vertical Compressive strain on top of subgrade

119

For design of bituminous overlay, a trial thickness of overlay of an appropriate material

(with known modulus value) has to be selected and the critical parameters to be
evaluated. The overlay thickness that results in critical parameter values less than those
given (for the selected design life period) by the performance criteria. Typical modulus
values of bituminous layers obtained in the present research work can be used for
analysis.

Overlay design -example

An overlay is required for National Highway-6 at Km 150.000. the existing pavement
consists of 170 mm bituminous layer made of periodical application of bituminous macadam
and premix carpet. The granular layer is 585 mm thick. Overlay design is required for 50
and 75 msa.
Solution
FWD test gave following data.

Table 7.2 Deflections measured at Km 150.000 of NH-6 during Winter Season of

the Year 2001-02
Sl
No

Measured Deflection at a radial distance of 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500 and 1800 mm at
standard loading conditions
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

0.57701
0.59062
0.65367
0.72386
0.65528
0.51829
0.58210
0.60122
0.55342
0.6112

0.29122
0.29949
0.34372
0.36784
0.37690
0.31934
0.33028
0.29044
0.26281
0.32848

0.20135
0.23993
0.26543
0.22609
0.25944
0.23401
0.25762
0.23186
0.21024
0.27962

0.17342
0.20781
0.21093
0.21093
0.20426
0.19012
0.20894
0.19395
0.18452
0.21937

0.11623
0.1545
0.17023
0.18123
0.16492
0.14672
0.16822
0.14894
0.15623
0.15347

0.10758
0.13460
0.17023
0.13965
0.12656
0.12373
0.11847
0.11002
0.12662
0.12301

0.07530
0.16211
0.12236
0.10234
0.09478
0.10373
0.07996
0.0992
0.10521
0.08925

Condition of the Pavement

= Surface cracks (>20 % area);

Date and month of the field study

= 21

Pavement Temperature

= 35oC

Thickness Details

st

January, 2002

= 170 mm of weathered bituminous

layer;585 mm of granular base

Design traffic
Overlay Design

120

Selection of layer moduli

= 50 msa and 75 msa

Table 7.3 Results of Backcalculated Moduli Values for Km 150.000

[Winter Season]
S No
RMSE
S No
RMSE
Layer Moduli
Layer Moduli
(%)
(%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
Bit
GB
Sub
Bit
GB
Sub
1
401.0 198.6 73.1
1.70
6
489.2
328.4
63.1
1.28
2
375.2 239.1 57.4
4.34
7
375.2
322.7
57.4
3.66
3
329.0 169.9 55.8
1.32
8
376.3
218.4
63.6
1.73
4
375.2 190.7 54.9
1.20
9
423.6
274.7
70.0
1.83
5
448.3 210.9 56.9
0.84
10
387.2
248.9
59.4
2.06
Avg
Bitu: 398.0 MPa
GB: 240.2 Mpa
Sub: 61.2 Mpa

Modulus of Bituminous Layer (at 35oC) for overlay

=1250 MPa

(From Present study)

Modulus of Bituminous Layer (Existing- from backcalculation)

= 398 MPa

(No temperature correction as the existing pavement was cracked)

Granular Base- Existing (corrected for seasonal modulus using

Equations 6.12 and 6.4)

= 216 MPa

Subgrade (Adjusted to monsoon condition using Equations 6.15 and 6.16)

MPa
Design thickness

= 46

Since the thickness of the granular layer is very large (585 mm), Road Research R-56
[1999] has clearly established that only fatigue criteria will be applicable to such cases and
number of standard axle load for causing 20 mm rutting is very large.
Table 7.4 gives the overlay thickness requirement using ELAYER, a linear elastic program
developed at IIT Kharagpur [Reddy, 1993].

Table 7.4 Overlay Design

Overlay
Modulus
(MPa)

Design
Life
(Msa)

Assumed
Thickness
(mm)

Critical Strain Values from

ELAYER
Allowable
Computed
(t) x 10-3

1250

1250

50

75

(t) x 10-3

Pavement Life as
per IRC:37-2001
(msa)

Remarks

Fatigue

75

0.2760

35

110

0.2473

53.7

Safe

140

0.2117

98.3

Safe

Unsafe

7.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN FWD AND BENKELMAN BEAM METHOD

Benkelman Beam (BB) Deflection technique has been a very common method in India for
the design of overlay thickness of flexible pavements. This method is based on local
experience and the permissible maximum allowable deflection for satisfactory performance
of a road stretch depends upon the traffic, material of construction as well as the

121

environmental factors. Maximum rebound BB deflection without regard to the curvature

cannot always be the right criteria for overlay design. To illustrate the inadequacy of
maximum BB deflection criteria, a flexible pavement with following data is used for design.
Design Traffic = 25 and 50 msa
Subgrade CBR= 2 and 6 %

Table 7.5 Comparison Between Elastic and Allowable Deflection of FWD and BB
Sl
No

Subgrade
CBR (%)

Design
Traffic (msa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

2
2
6
6
2
2
6
6

25

50

Thickness (mm)
Bituminous
Granular
304
190
231
130
333
218
257
156

100
600
100
600
100
600
100
600

Deflection (mm)
FWD,
BB,
Elastic
Allowable
0.79
0.72
0.91
0.72
0.47
0.72
0.48
0.72
0.73
0.58
0.84
0.58
0.44
0.58
0.43
0.58

Table 7.5 gives the elastic deformation values and allowable BB deflections [R-6, 1995]. BB
method prescribes a fixed allowable deflection for a particular traffic. As seen from Table
7.5, for design traffic of 25 msa, the elastic deformation of FWD is higher than BB deflection
for CBR of 2 % and lower for CBR of 6 %. This is also true for 50 msa. Thus, pavements
having same design life with different pavement composition and subgrade CBR yield
different elastic deflections under standard axle load. The maximum BB deflection value,
therefore, cannot always be the right criteria for overlay design. It is therefore, necessary
that deflected profile of the pavement should be taken into the account to determine the
elastic moduli of different layers, so that maximum tensile strain in the bituminous layer and
vertical subgrade strain can be estimated for evaluation of cracking and rutting potential of
the pavement. Thus comparison of BBD and FWD overlay design procedures is a not a
correct and scientific approach. Benkelman Beam cannot determine the thickness of
bituminous concrete overlay to preclude fatigue cracking and rutting along the wheel path.
This method should be replaced with Falling Weight Deflectometer.

122

CHAPTER 8
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR
FURTHER STUDY
Various issues emerging from the review of literature and different findings and
conclusions resulting from the present investigation of research scheme (R-81) are
presented in this chapter. The scope for further study is also discussed.

8.1 ISSUES EMERGING FROM LITERATURE REVIEW

The following are the issues that have emerged from the review of relevant literature in
the present study.

i.

Mechanistic approach is being adopted by many countries including India for the
design and evaluation of pavements in place of empirical approach, as the
performance of pavements can be explained better in terms of their basic
mechanistic parameters.

ii.

Properties of pavement layers are key inputs to the analysis of pavements in the
mechanistic approach and a proper estimation of these values is desirable for
optimal utilization of resources and materials. Measuring the structural responses of
the in-service pavements by Nondestructive Testing (NDT) is the most appropriate
among the different available methods for estimating pavement layer moduli. The
pavements and overlays designed with such scientifically evaluated material
parameters will be useful in predicting pavement performance with more reliability.

iii.

Though Benkelman beam has been used extensively in India and several other
countries for structural evaluation of in-service pavements, a number of other more
versatile equipment are available now. Among these equipment, Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) is considered to be the most appropriate equipment as it is
possible to simulate closely the loading conditions of a moving wheel.

iv.

The extent of use of FWD in developing countries like India is limited because of the
high cost of imported equipment. Maintaining such highly costly equipment is
proving to be difficult because of lack of expertise. Hence the development of a low

123

cost FWD will be helpful in the rationalization of the pavement evaluation approach
in India.

v.

The pavement surface deflections measured by FWD are used for backcalculating
the strength parameters like elastic moduli of different layers. Various techniques
were adopted in the past for backcalculation of layer moduli. Genetic Algorithm
technique (GA) appears to be highly suitable for backcalculation as the probability of
reaching global solutions with this technique is very high.

vi.

A number of methods are available for the estimation of layer moduli from different
parameters. However these models are valid for the climatic conditions and
construction practices for which they were developed. It is therefore, necessary to
examine the validity of these models for different conditions. The models used in the
Indian Roads Congress guidelines [IRC: 37-2001] for design of flexible pavements
require to be validated for their applicability to the new technology materials that
are now being used in Indian Highways.

vii.

Bituminous layer modulus varies with temperature. Different researchers suggested

different temperature correction factors for adjusting the backcalculated layer
moduli correspond to a standard temperature. No studies have been carried out in
India on the effect of temperature on moduli values. Thus there is a need to develop
temperature correction factors for the Indian conditions.

viii.

Different approaches are being practiced all over the world for design of overlays.
The Indian Roads Congress guidelines [IRC: 81,1997] for design of overlays are
based on the evaluation of in-service pavements using Benkelman beam. As it is not
possible to predict the behaviour of all the pavement layers from the single rebound
deflection measured using this technique, it is desirable to develop an overlay design
methodology based on a rational approach.

8.2 IMPORTANT FINDINGS/ CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PRESENT

STUDY
The following main findings/ conclusions are drawn from the present investigation.

i.

An indigenous In-vehicle Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) was designed and

fabricated for structural evaluation of pavements. Important features of the
equipment are: - (i) it is capable of applying an impulse load up to 100 kN with a
pulse duration of about 20-30 milli-seconds and (ii) all operations are hydraulically

124

controlled and thus the testing is quick. Numerous field tests conducted with the
indigenous FWD indicated that the equipment yields reliable and repeatable results.
This equipment is recommended for use of pavement evaluation in India in place of
Benkelman Beam. With technology developed at IIT Kharagpur, it is possible to
manufacture the equipment at a cost between Rs. 15 and 20 lakhs where the cost of
the imported equipment will be as high as Rs.80-100 lakhs.

ii.

BACKGA, a GA based backcalculation program developed in this study can be used

for determination of pavement layer moduli. A study conducted to find GA
parameters to be used in BACKGA resulted in the following Parameters. Population
Size: 60, maximum number of Generations: 60, Probability of Crossover = 0.74 and
Probability of Mutation = 0.1.

iii.

Structural evaluation of various in-service pavements yielded information on the

seasonal variability of pavement deflections and the variability of different pavement
parameters such as layer thicknesses, surface deflections and backcalculated moduli
within a selected stretch. Spatial variability of deflections was lower in the case of
thick pavements compared to pavements with thin surfacing. The uniformity of
thicknesses and deflections are quite significant in the case of the pavements being
constructed under the National Highway Development Programme. This is mainly
due to the differences in the quality control standards maintained in the construction
of different classes of roads. There is a greater variation in the thicknesses of
different pavement layers in the case of low volume roads with thin surfacing and
accordingly a larger variation in the deflections was recorded. The deflections were
found to be highest when measured in the post monsoon period and lowest during
the summer. This is due to the effect of variation in moisture levels of subgrade and
granular courses in different seasons of a year. The variability of deflections within a
given pavement stretch is significantly low in new pavements compared to in-service
pavements.

iv.

A regression model was developed for the estimation of monsoon subgrade modulus
from CBR value. The values given by the model developed in the present
investigation are lesser compared to Shell and TRRL relationships and close to the
values suggested by Ullidtz.

v.

The average modular ratio (granular layer modulus/ subgrade modulus) between
3.6 and 3.81 with an average of 3.71. The ratio between granular layer modulus and
underlying layer modulus is marginally larger during the monsoon season compared

125

to other seasons. This indicates that the relative contribution of the granular layer
becomes more when the strength of the underlying layer is lower. In general the
modular ratio was found to be in between 2 and 5 for in-service thick pavements, 3
and 7 for in-service thin pavements and 3 and 5 for new pavements.

vi.

The relationships developed for the estimation of granular base modulus yielded
similar estimations as those obtained from the widely used Shell relationship.
However, the dependence of the modulus on the thickness of granular base does
not appear to be as significant as considered in the Shell model.

vii.

From the present investigation, the effective modulus of in-service pavements with
40-75 mm thick bituminous layer was found to vary in the range from 195 MPa to
835 MPa with a mean value of about 350 MPa. For thicker pavements, the moduli
varied from 230 MPa to 1000 MPa with a mean value of about 500 MPa.

Low

moduli values of in-service pavements are mainly due to structural cracks and other
distresses commonly found on Indian Highways.

viii.

For new pavements, the modulus value of Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) at
different pavement temperatures was found to vary between 1900 MPa to 830 MPa
for the temperature range of 25oC to 40oC. The following relationship was developed
for adjusting the bituminous layer modulus for temperature applicable for the
temperature range of 25oC to 40oC.

ix.

The effect of moisture on the backcalculated layer moduli was found to be more
than the effect of temperature on the in-service pavements. This is due to presence
of cracks and smaller thickness of bituminous layer.

x.

Relationships were developed correlating the mean seasonal moduli of different

layers with the moduli obtained from deflections measured in a particular season.
These relationships can be used for arriving at the average seasonal layer modulus
when the FWD evaluation is made only in one season.

xi.

Cold mix recycling technique using cement and bituminous emulsion has shown
improved recycled layer modulus.

xii.

Typical values of moduli for Dense Bituminous Macadam suggested in the report for
different pavement temperatures can be used in the design of new bituminous
pavements.

126

xiii.

For design of new pavements, typical modulus values of Bituminous and Granular
layers are suggested. A method is developed for estimating the effective CBR of the
subgrade for flexible pavements when the native soil is poor and borrowed soil of
high CBR forming the top 500 mm of the subgrade.

xiv.

A mechanistic overlay design methodology based on FWD evaluation of pavements

has been proposed in the research report.

xv.

It was found that the comparison of FWD with Benkelman Beam overlay design
procedures is not compatible because of the different approach in the methods.
FWD method is scientific and Benkelman Bema is semi-empirical.

8.3 SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

i.

FWD studies should be conducted on pavements in different regions of India having

varying climatic conditions and soil characteristics so that the appropriate
relationships can be developed for each region.

ii.

Long-term pavement deflection studies and performance studies on new pavements

will be useful for revising the current performance criteria with appropriate inputs
obtained from the field.

127

REFERENCES
AASHTO. (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D. C.
Abdallah, I., Ferregut, C., Nazarian, S. and Lucero, O. M. (2000). Prediction of Remaining

Life of Flexible Pavements with Artificial Neural Networks Models. Nondestructive

Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli, 3

rd

Volume, Eds. Tayabji, S.D.

and Lukanen, E. O, ASTM STP 1375, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 484-498.
Allen, J. J. and Thompson, M. R. (1974). Significance of Variably Confined Triaxial Testing.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 100, TE4, pp. 827-843.
Alexander, D.R., Kohn, S.D. and Grogan, W.P. (1989). Nondestructive Testing Techniques

and Evaluation Procedures for Airfield Pavements, Nondestructive Testing of

Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli. ASTM STP 1026, Eds. Bush and Baladi,
ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 502-524.
Ali, H, and Selezneva, O. (2000). Seasonal Trends and Causes in Pavement Structural

Properties. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli, 3 rd

Volume, Eds. Tayabji, S. D. and Lukanen, E. O, ASTM STP 1375, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp.144-160.
Antunes, M.L. (1993). Pavement Bearing Capacity Evaluation using Dynamic Nondestructive

Tests. Ph. D Thesis, IST, Lisbon.

Arnold, G. (1999). Design of Rehabilitation Treatments for NewZealand's Thin-Surfaced

Unbound Granular Pavements. Transportation Research Record No. 1652,

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 43-50.
Asphalt Institute. (1981). Thickness Design- Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets.
Manual Series No: 1, Asphalt Institute.
AUSTROADS. (1992). Pavement Design. Syndey.
Back, T. (1993). Optimal Mutation Rates in Genetic Search. In Forrest, S. Eds., Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Mateo, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann, pp. 2-8.
Back, T. and Schwefel, H.-P. (1995).

Evolution Strategies I: Variants and their

Computational Implementation. In Winter, G., Periaux, J., Galan, M and Cuesta, P.

Eds. Genetic Algorithms in Engineering and Computer Science, Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons, pp. 111-126.
Badu, K.T., Manzione, C.W., Ruth, B. E. and Miley, W. G. (1989). Prediction of Flexible

Pavement Layer Moduli from Dynaflect and FWD Deflections. Nondestructive Testing
of Pavements, ASTM STP 1026, Philadephia, PA 19103, pp. 245-277.

128

Baltzer, S. and Jansen, J.M. (1994). Temperature Correction of Asphalt Moduli for FWD

Measurements. In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Bearing Capacity

of Roads and Airfields, Vol.1, Minneapolis.
Barker, W. R. Braston, W. N. and Chou Y. T. (1977). A General System for the Structural

Design of Flexible Pavements. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, pp. 209-248.
Bay, J.A. and Stokoe-II, K.H. (1998). Development of a Rolling Weight Deflectometer for

Continuous Deflection Testing of Pavements. Project summary Report 1422- 3F.

Centre for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, pp.1-238.
Bayomy, F.M., Al-Kandari F.A. and Smith R.M. (1996). Mechanistic Overlay Design System

for Idaho. Transportation Research Record No. 1543, Transportation Research

Board, Washington, DC, pp.10-19.
Bohn, A., Ullidtz, P., Stubstad, R. and Sorensen, A. (1972). Danish Experiments with the

French Falling Weight Deflectometer. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 1119-1128.
Bonitzer, J. and Leger, P. (1967). C.P.C Studies on Pavement Design. Proceedings of 2nd
International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, pp. 781-788.
Bose, S. (1993). Elastic Modulus of Granular Bases in Flexible Pavements. Ph. D Thesis, Civil
Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur, India.
Boyce, I.R., Brown, S.F. and Pell, P.S. (1976). The Resilient Behaviour of a Granular Material

Under Repeated Loading.

Australian Road Research Board Proceedings, Vol. 8,

pp.1-12.
Brown, S.F. and Brunton, J.M. (1986). An Introduction to the Analytical Design of

Bituminous Pavements. 3rd Edition, University of Nottingham.

Brown S.F., Brunton, J.M. and Pell, P.S. (1982) The Development and Implementation of

Analytical Pavement Design for British Conditions. Proceedings of 5th International

Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, pp. 3-16.
Brown, S.F. and Papin, J.W. (1981). Analysis of Pavement with Granular Bases.
Transportation

Research

Record

No.

810,

Transportation

Research

Board,

Washington, DC, pp. 17-23.

Brown, S.F. and Pell, P.S. (1967). An Experimental Investigation of the Stress, Strains and

Deflections in a Layered Pavement Structure Subjected to Dynamic Loads.

Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt
pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 487-504.

129

Brown S.F. and Pell, P.S. (1972). A Fundamental Structural Design Procedure for Flexible

Pavements. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Structural Design of

Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, pp. 369-381.
Brown, S.F., Tam, W.S. and Brunton, J.M. (1987). Structural Evaluation and Overlay Design:

Analysis and Implement. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Structural

Design of Asphalt Pavements, pp. 1013-1028.
Burmister, D.M. (1945). The General Theory of Stresses and Displacements in Layered

Systems. Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 16, Nos. 2, 3 and 5.

Cardoso, S.H. and Witczak, M.W. (1991). Permanent Deformation for Flexible Airfield

Pavement Design. Transportation Research Record No. 1307, Transportation

Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 111-121.

Carlobro

Falling

Weight

Deflectometer.

(2003).

www.pavement-consultants.com/

international.htm, Accessed on 21.03. 2003.

Chen, D.H., Bilyeu, J., Lin, H.H. and Murphy. (2001). Temperature Correction on Falling

Weight Deflectometer Measurements. Transportation Research Record No. 1716,

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 30-39.
Choubane, R. and McNamara, R.L. (2000). A Practical Approach to Predicting Flexible

Pavement Embankment Moduli using Falling Weight Deflectometer [FWD] Data.

Research Report, FL/DOT/SMO/00-442, State of Florida.
Corley-Lay, J.B. (1996). Efforts by North Carolina Department of Transportation to Develop

Mechanistic Pavement Design System. Transportation Research Record No. 1539,

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp.18-24.
Coughlin, R.F. and Driscoll, F. F. (1994). Operational Amplifiers and Linear Integrated

Circuits. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, 4th Edition, New Delhi.
Dai, S.T., Schrader, C., Van Deusen, D., Johnson, G. and Rettner, D. (1998). Characterizing

Subgrade Soil Conditions through Instrumented Pavements and Laboratory

Experiments. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Bearing Capacity of
Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, pp.1437-1446.
DAMA. (1983). Computer program- Pavement Structural Analysis using Multilayered Elastic

Theory, Users Manual, Asphalt Institute.

Dauzats, M. and Linder, R. (1982). A Method for the Evaluation of the Structural Condition

of Pavements with Thick Bituminous Road Bases. Proceedings of 5th International

Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. 1, pp. 387-409.
Davis, L. (1989). Adapting Operator Probabilities in Genetic Algorithms. In Schaffer, J. D.
Ed., Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San
Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 61-69.

130

Deb, K. (1995). Optimization for Engineering Design. Prentice- Hall of India, New Delhi, P.
310.
Deen, R.C., Southgate H. F. and Havens, J. H. (1971). Structural Analysis of Bituminous

Concrete Pavements. Research Report 305, Division of Research, Kentucky

Department of Highway.
De Jong, K. A. (1975). An Analysis of the Behavior of a Class of Genetic Adaptive Systems.

Doctoral Dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Development of 2002 Guide, http://www.2002designguide.com, accessed on 2.4.2003
Dunlap, W.A. (1966). Deformation Characteristics of Granular Materials subjected to Rapid

Repetitive Loading. Ph. D Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TEX, USA.
Dynalog Micro Systems. (1993). PCL-208 High Performance Data Acquisition Card. Users
Manual. Dynalog Micro Systems Private Limited, India.

Dynatest FWD/HWD Test Systems. (2003). www.dynatest.com/hardware/fwd_hwd.htm.

Accessed on 21.03. 2003.
Edwards, J. M. and Valkering, C. P. (1982).Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements for

Heavy Aircraft, Koninklijke/Shell Laboratorium, Amsterdam, Holland.

Farzin, M.H., Krizek, R.J. and Corortis R. B. (1975). Evaluation of Modulus and Poisson's

Ratio from Triaxial Tests. Transportation Research Record No. 537, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 69-80.
Feliberti, M. (1991). Critical Evaluation of Parameters Affecting Resilient Modulus Tests on

Subgrades. M.S Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

Freeme, C. R. and Marais, C.P. (1972). The Structural behaviour of Bituminous Surfacings in

an Experimental Asphalt Pavement. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, London, pp. 812-822.
Freeme, C.R., Maree J.H. and Viljoen, A.W. (1982). Mechanistic Design of Asphalt

Pavements and Verification Using the Heavy Vehicle Simulator. Proceedings of 5th
International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol.1, pp. 156173.
Fwa, T.F., Tan, C.Y. and Chan, W.T. (1997). Backcalculation Analysis of Pavement Layer

Moduli Using Genetic Algorithms. Transportation Research Record No. 1570,

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 134-142.
Garg, G. and Thompson, M.R. (1997). Triaxial Characterization Model for Granular Bases.
Transportation Research Record No. 1577, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, pp.27-36.
Garg, G. and Thompson, M.R. (1998). Structural Modelling of Flexible Pavements in the LVR

Test Sections at Mn/ Road project. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on

Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 419-428.

131

Gayakwad, R.A. (1993). OP AMPS and Linear Integrated Circuits. Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
Ltd, 3rd Edition, New Delhi.
Goldberg, D.E. (2000). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning.
Addison-Wesley, International Student Edition.
Goldberg, D.E., Deb, K. and Clark, J.H. (1992). Genetic Algorithms, Noise, and the Sizing of

Populations. Complex Systems, 6, pp. 333-362.

Grefenstette, J.J. (1986). Optimization of Control Parameters for Genetic Algorithms. In
Sage, A. P., Ed., IEEE

Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Volume

SMC-16 (1), New York, pp. 122-128.

Harik, G.R., Cantu-Paz, E., Goldberg, D.E. and Miller, B.L. (1997). The Gamblers Ruin

Problem, Genetic Algorithms, and the Sizing of Populations. In Back, T. Ed.,

Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
New York, IEEE Press, pp.7-12.
Harr, M.E. (1966). Foundations of Theoretical Soil Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, P. 81.
Holland, J.H. (1973). Genetic Algorithms and the Optimal Allocation of Trials. SIAM Journal
on Computing, 2(2), pp. 88-105.
Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan Press.
Heukelom, W. and Foster, C.R. (1960). Dynamic Testing of Pavements. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 86, No. SM1, New York: American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Heukelom, W. and Klomp, A.J.G. (1962). Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling

Pavements after Construction. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 667-679.
Hicks, R.G. (1970). Factors influencing the Resilient Properties of Granular Materials. Ph.D
Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Hicks, R.G. and Monismith, C.L. (1971). Factors Influencing the Resilient Response of

Granular Materials. Highway Research Board Record No. 345, Highway Research
Board, pp. 15-31.
Himeno, K., Maruyama, T. and Kasahara, A. (1989). Development of Pavement Evaluation

System Using the Falling Weight Deflectometer. 2nd International Symposium on

Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design, Brazilian Pavement Association, Rio, pp.
4.6.4-4.6.20.
Hoffman, M.S. and Thompson, M.R. (1982). Comparative Study of Selected Nondestructive

Testing Devices. Transportation Research Record No. 852, Transportation Research

Board, Washington, DC, pp. 32-42.

132

Hveem, F.N. (1955). Pavement Deflections and Fatigue Failures. U.S. Highway Research
Board Bulletin, No.342, pp. 172-214.
Isada, N.M. (1966). Detecting Variations in Load Carrying Capacity of Flexible Pavements.
National Cooperative Research Program Report 21. Washington, DC, National
Research Council, Highway Research Board.
Irwin, L.H. (1977). Determination of Pavement Layer Moduli from Surface Deflection Data

for Pavement Performance Evaluation. Proceedings of 4th International Conference

on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, pp.
831-840.
Irwin, L.H. (2002). Backcalculation: An Overview and Perspective. Proceedings of Pavement
Evaluation 2002, Virginia Institute of Technology, Roanoke, Virginia. (on CD ROM).
IRC: 37. (2001). Guidelines for Design of Flexible Pavements, Indian Roads Congress, New
Delhi, India.
IRC: 81. (1997). Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible Road Pavements using Benkelman

Beam Deflection Technique. Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India.

Itani, S.Y. (1982). Behaviour of Base Materials Containing Large Sized Particles. Ph. D
Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Jeuffroy, G. and Bachelez, J. (1962). Note on a Method of Analysis for Pavements.
Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavements, pp. 300-309.

JILS Falling Weight Deflectometer. (2003). http:// www.jilsfwd.com/index.asp. Accessed on

21.03.2003.
Johnson, A.M. and Baus, R.L. (1992). Alternative Method for Temperature Correction of

Backcalculated Equivalent Pavement Moduli. Transportation Research Record No.

1355, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 25-36.
Johnson, T.C., Berg, R.L. and Dimillio, A. (1986). Frost Action Predictive Techniques: An

Overview of Research Results. Transportation Research Record No. 1089,

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp.147-161.
Jones, R., Thrower, E.N. and Gatfield, E.N. (1967). Surface Wave Method. Proceedings of
2nd International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, pp. 441-453.
Julstrom, B. A. (1995). What have you done for me lately? Adapting Operator Probabilities

in a Steady State Genetic Algorithm. In Eschelman, L. Ed., Proceedings of the 6th

International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Francisco, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann, pp. 81-87.
Kameyama, S., Himeno, K., Kasahara, A. and Maruyama, T. (1998). Backcalculation of

Pavement Layer Moduli Using Genetic Algorithms. Proceedings of 8th International

133

conference on Asphalt Pavements, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,

pp. 1375-1385.
Khosla, N. P. and Ali, N. A. (1989). A Mechanistic Method for Evaluation of Layer Moduli

and Overlay Design. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of

Moduli: STP 1026, Eds. Bush and Baladi, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 355-367.
Kim, Y.K., Lee, Y.C. and Ranjithan, S.R. (2000). Flexible Pavement Condition Evaluation

using

Deflection

Basin

Parameters

and

Dynamic

Finite

Element

Analysis

Implemented by Artificial Neural Networks. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements

and Backcalculation of Moduli: Third Volume, STP 1375, Eds. Tayabji, S. D. and
Lukanen, E. O. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 514-530.
Kirwan, R.W. and Snaith, M.S. (1976). A Simple Chart for the Prediction of Resilient

Modulus. Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 212-215.

Kolisoja, P. (1997). Resilient Deformation Characteristics of Granular materials. Ph.D Thesis,
Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland.

KUAB Falling Weight Deflectometer. (2003). www.erikuab.com/kuab.htm,

Accessed on

21.03.2003.
Kumar, R.S., Kumar, S., Das, A., Reddy, K.S., Mazumdar, M. and Pandey, B.B. (2001).

Development of an Impact Apparatus for Evaluation of Elastic Modulus of Pavement

Layers. Indian Geotechnical Society Journal, Vol.31, No.3, IGS, New Delhi, July
2001, pp. 273-284.
Kumar, R.S. (2001). Structural Evaluation of Pavements using Falling Weight Deflectometer.
Ph. D Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.

LABTECH NOTEBOOK. (1992). Laboratory Technologies Corporation, Wilmington, MA, USA.

LoadMan FWD. (2003). http://www.al-engineering.fi/loadmanfwd.html. Accessed on
10.2.2003.
Lister, N. W. and Powell, W. D. (1987). Design Practice for Bituminous Pavements in the

United Kingdom. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Structural Design of

Asphalt Pavements, Vol. 1, pp. 220-231.
Livneh, M., Elhabad, E. and Livneh, N. (1995). A Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer

(PFWD) for Determining Pavement Moduli. Publication No. 95-097. Transportation

Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa.
Lobo, F.G. (2000). The Parameter-less Genetic Algorithm: Rational and Automated

Parameter Selection for Simplified Genetic Algorithm Operation. IlliGAL Report

No.2000030, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, USA.

134

Lobo, F. G. and Goldberg, D.E (1997). Decision-Making in a Hybrid Genetic Algorithm. In

Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 122-125.
Lytton, R.L. and C.H. Michalak. (1979). Flexible Pavement Deflection Equation Using Elastic

Moduli and Field Measurements. Research Report 207-7F, Texas Transportation

Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Mahoney, J.P and Pierce, L.M. (1996). Examination of State Department of Transportation

Transfer Functions for Mechanistic-Empirical Asphalt Concrete Overlay Design.

Transportation Research Record No. 1539, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, pp. 25-32.
Mamlouk, M.S. (1990). Overlay Design Method for Flexible Pavements in Arizona.
Transportation Research Record No. 1286, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
May, R.W. and Witczak, M.W. (1981). Effective Granular Modulus to Model Pavement

Response. Transportation Research Record No. 810, Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC, pp. 1-9.
May R. and Witczak, M.W. (1985). Effective Granular Modulus to Model Pavement

Responses. Transportation Research Record No. 1022, Transportation Research

Board, Washington, DC, pp. 1-9.
Meier, R.G. and Rix, G.J. (1994). Backcalculation of Flexible Pavement Moduli Using Artificial

Neural Networks. Transportation Research Record No.1448, Transportation Research

Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 75-82.
Mercer, R.E and Sampson, J.R. (1978). Adaptive Search using a Reproductive Meta- Plan.
Kybernetes, 7, pp. 215-228.
Mitchell, J.K. and Monismith, C.L. (1977). A Thickness Design Procedure for Pavements with

Thin Cement Stabilized Bases and Thin Asphalt Surfacings. Proceedings of 4th
International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. 1, pp.
409-416.
Molenaar, A.A.A. and Van Gurp Ch.A.P.M. (1982). A Pavement Management System for

Provincial Roads in the Netherland. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. 1, pp. 485-499.
Monismith, C.L., Seed, H.B., Mitry, F.G. and Chan, C.K. (1967). Prediction of Pavement

Deflections from Laboratory Tests. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 109-140.
Muhlenbein, H. (1992). How Genetic Algorithms Really Work: I. Mutation and Hill climbing.
In Manner, R. and Manderick, B. Eds., Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 2,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier Science, pp. 15-25.

135

Nataatmadja, A. (1992). Resilient Moduli of Granular Materials under Repeated Loading.

Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavements, Vol. I, London, pp. 172-185.
Nataatmadja, A. and Parkin, A.K. (1989). Characteristics of Granular Materials for

Pavements. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Ottawa, pp. 725-730.

Nijboer, L.W. and Metcalf, C.T. (1962). Dynamic Testing at the AASHO Road Test.

Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt

Pavements. Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 713-721.
Nondestructive Testing- Lacroix Deflectograph. (2003). www.geocisacarreteras.com/ ingles/
pdfs/ 10.20.60i.pdf. Accessed on 21.03.2003.
Odemark, N. (1949). Investigations as to the Elastic Properties of Soils for Design of

Pavements According to the Theory of Elasticity. Staten Vaeginstitat, Stockholm,

Sweden.
Paquet, J.A. (1978). New Instrument for Measuring Highway Pavement Deflection. Centre
Experimental de Recherches et d Etudes, du Batiment et des, Travaux Publics,
Paris, France, pp.1-22.
Pandey, B.B. and Naidu, P.K. (1994). Elastic Modulus of Materials in Flexible Pavement

Design. Indian Roads Congress, Highway Research Board Bulletin No.50, pp. 2-41.
Pell, P.S. (1987). Pavement Materials: Keynote Address. Proceedings of 6th International
Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. II, pp. 36-70.
Pezo, R.F. (1993). A General Method of Reporting Resilient Modulus Tests of Soils- A

Pavement Engineers Point of View. 72nd Annual meeting of the Transportation

Research Board, Washington, DC.
Pierce, L.M. and Mahoney,J.P. (1996). Asphalt Concrete Overlay Design Case Studies.
Transportation Research Record No. 1543, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, pp. 3-9.
Rada, G.R., Richter, C.A. and Stephanos, P.J. (1991). Layer Moduli from Deflection

Measurements: Software Selection and Development of SHRPs Procedure for

Flexible Pavements, Beltsville, Md.
Rada, G. and Witczak, M.W. (1981). Comprehensive Evaluation of Laboratory Resilient

Moduli results for Granular Material. Transportation Research Record No. 810,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 23-33.
Rada, G.R., Witczack, M.W. and Rabinow, S.D. (1988). Comparison of AASHTO Structural

Evaluation Techniques using Nondestructive Deflection Testing. Transportation

Research Record No. 1207, TRB, Washington, DC, pp.134-144.
Reddy, K.S. (1993). Analytical Evaluation of Flexible Pavements.
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.

136

Ph.D. Thesis, Indian

Reddy, K.S. and Pandey, B.B. (1994). Analytical Evaluation of Bituminous Overlays on

Flexible Pavements. Transportation Research Record No. 1449, Transportation

Research Board, 1994, pp.218-227.
Reddy, M.A., Kumar, R.S., Reddy, K.S. and Pandey, B.B. (2000). Development of Falling

Weight Deflectometer for Structural Evaluation of Pavements in India. Proceedings

of International seminar on Sustainable Development in Road Transport, 8-10th
November, New Delhi, pp. I.175-I.184.
Reddy, M.A., Reddy, K.S. and Pandey, B.B (2002a). Evaluation of Indian Highways using an

Indigenously developed FWD. Proceedings of on Pavement Evaluation 2002, Virginia

Institute of Technology, Virginia, Roanoke, USA. (on CD).
Reddy, M.A., Reddy, K.S. and Pandey, B.B. (2002b). Evaluation of Pavement Layer Moduli

using Genetic Algorithms. International Journal on Pavement Engineering and

Asphalt Technology, pp. 6-19.
Richer, C.A. and Irwin, L. (1988). Application of Deflection Testing to Overlay Design: A

Case Study. Transportation Research Record No. 1196, Transportation Research

Board, Washington, DC, pp. 193-200.
Road Research Scheme R-6, Draft Final Report. (1995). Development of Methods such as

Benkelman Beam Deflection Method for Evaluation of Structural Capacity of Existing

Flexible Pavements and also for Estimation and Design of Overlays for Strengthening
of Weak Pavements. Research Scheme R-6, submitted to MOST, New Delhi, by
Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi.
Road Research Scheme R-56. (1999). Final report on Development of a Computer Program

and Design Charts for Analytical Design of Flexible Pavement. Submitted to the
Ministry of Surface Transport by IIT, Kharagpur, India.
Robinson, R.G. (1974). Measurement of the Elastic Properties of Granular Materials using a

Resonance Method. TRRL Supplementary Report No 111UC, TRRL.

Rodriguez, J. G., Ferregut, C. and Nazarian, S. (1992). Impact of Variability in Pavement

Parameters on Backcalculated Moduli, Proceedings of the conference on Road And

Airport Pavement Response Monitoring Systems. Eds., Janoo, V.C and Eaton, R.A,
ASCE, Newyork, pp. 261-275.

Rolling Wheel Deflectometer. (2003). http://www.qi2.com/rwdorig.html. Accessed on 21.03.

2003.
Roque, R., Ruth, B.E. and Sedwick, S.C. (1998).

Limitations of Backcalculation and

Improved Methods for Pavement Layer Moduli Predictions. Proceedings of 5th

International Conference on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, BCRA, Vol. 1,
pp. 409-417.

137

Rwebangira, T., Hicks, R.G. and Truebe, M. (1987). Sensitivity Analysis of Selected

Backcalculation

Procedures.

Transportation

Research

Record

No.

1117,

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 25-36.

Schaffer, J. D., Caruana, R.A., Eshelman, L.J. and Das, R.

(1989). A Study of Control

Parameters affecting Online Performance of Genetic Algorithms for Function

Optimization. In Schaffer, J. D. Ed., Proceedings of International Conference on
Genetic Algorithms, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 51-60.
Scrivner, F.H., Swift, G. and Moore, W.M. (1966). A New Research Tool for Measuring

Pavement Deflection. Highway Research Record No. 129. National Research Council,
Highway Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 1-11.
Scrivner, F.H., Michalak, C.H. and Moore, W.M. (1973). Calculation of the Elastic Moduli of a

Two-layer Pavement System from Measured Surface Deflection. Highway Research

Record No. 431, Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
Seed, H.B., Mitry, F.G., Monismith, C.L. and Chan, C.K. (1965).

Prediction of Flexible

Pavement Deflections from Laboratory Repeated Load Tests. Report No.Te-65-6,

Soil Mechanics and Bituminous Material Testing Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Shell .(1978). Pavement Design Manual- Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for Road Traffic.
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, London.
Shifley, L.H. and Monismith, C.L. (1968). Test Road to Determine the Influence of Subgrade

Characteristics on the Transient Deflections of Asphalt Concrete Pavements. Report

No. TE-68-5, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Transportation and Traffic
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Shook, J.F., Finn, F.N., Witczak, M.W. and Monismith, C.L. (1982). Thickness Design of

Asphalt Pavements - The Asphalt Institute Method. Proceedings of 5th International

Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, pp.17-44.
SHRP. (1993). SHRPs Layer Moduli Backcalculation Procedure. Report No.SHRP-P-655,
Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC,
1993.
Sidess, A., Bonjack, H. and Zoltan, G. (1992). Overlay Design Procedure for Pavement

Maintenance Management Systems. Transportation Research Record No. 1374,

Transportation Research Board, pp.63-70.
Sivannarayana, A. (2003). An Investigation on Flexible Pavement Recycled Layer, M.Tech
Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.
Sko, E.L. and Finn, F.N. (1962). Theoretical Concepts Applied to Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Design. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt

Pavements, pp. 412-440.

138

Smith, B.E. and Witczak, M.W. (1981). Equivalent Granular Base Moduli Prediction.
Transportation Engineering Journal, ASCE, Vol.107, No. TE 6, pp. 635-652.
Smith, R.E. and Smuda, E. (1995). Adaptively Resizing Populations: Algorithm, Analysis, and

First Results. Complex Systems, 9, pp. 47-72.

Smith, W.S. and Nair, K. (1973). Development of Procedures for Characterization of

Untreated Granular Base Course and Asphalt Treated Base Course Materials. Report
No.FHWA-RD-74-61, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Smith, B.E. and Witczak, M.W. (1981). Equivalent Granular Base Moduli Prediction. ASCE,
Vol. 107, No. TE. 6, pp. 635-651.

Specifications for Road and Bridge Works. (2001). Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
4th Edition, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India.
Sweeere, G.T.H. (1990). Unbound Granular Basis for Roads. Ph. D Thesis, University of
Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
Swift, G. (1972). An Empirical Equation for Calculating on the Surface of a Two-Layer Elastic

System. Texas Transportation Institute Research Report 136-4, Texas A&M

University, College Station, TX.
Swift, G. (1973). Graphical Technique for Determining the Elastic Moduli of A Two-Layer

Structure from Measured Surface Deflections. Highway Research Record No. 431,
Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
Tam, W.A. and Brwon, S.F. (1988). Use of the Falling Weight Deflectometer for In-Situ

Evaluation of Granular Materials in Pavements. Proceedings of 14th ARRB

Conference, Vol.14, Part 5, pp. 155-163.
Thompson, M.R. (1989). ILLI-PAVE Based NDT Analysis Procedures. Nondestructive Testing

of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli, ASTM STP 1026, Eds. Bush and Baladi,
American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 487-501.
Trollope, E.H., Lee, I.K. and Morris, J. (1962). Stresses and Deformation in Two Layer

Pavement Structures under Slow Repeated Loading. Proceedings of ARRB, Vol.1,

Part 2, pp. 693-718.
Ullidtz, P. (1977). Overlay and Stage by Stage Design. Proceedings of 4th International
Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp.
722-735.
Ullidtz, P. (1987). Pavement Analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Ullidtz, P. and Coetzee, N.F. (1995). Analytical Procedures in Nondestructive Testing

Pavement Evaluation. Transportation Research Record No.1482, TRB, Washington,

DC, pp.61-66.

139

Ullidtz, P. and Coetzee, N.F. (2003). Analytical Procedures in NDT Pavement Evaluation.
http://www.dynatest.com/gallery/papers/analyticalframes_page.htm. Accessed on
20.3.2003
Uzan, J., Witczak, M. W., Scullion, T. and Lytton, R. L. (1972). Development and Validation

of Realistic Pavement Response Models. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference

on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, London, pp. 334-350.
Ullidtz, P. and Peattie, K.R. (1982). Programmable Calculators in the Assessment of Overlays

and Maintenance Strategies.

Proceedings of 5th International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol.1, Delft, pp. 671-681.

Uzan, J. (1985). Characterization of Granular Material. Transportation Research Record No.
1022, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 52-59.
Uzan, J., Witczak, M.W., Scullion, T. and Lytton, R.L. (1972). Development and Validation of

Realistic Pavement Response Models. Proceedings of 3th International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, London, pp. 334-350.
Vennalaganti, K. M., Ferregut, C. and Nazarian, S. (1994). Stochastic Analysis of Errors in

Remaining

Life

due

to

Misestimation

of

Pavement

Parameters

in

NDT.

Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Back calculation of Moduli, ASTM 1196,

pp. 261-276.
Wimsatt, A.J. (1999). Direct Analysis Methods for Falling Weight Deflectometer Data.
Transportation Research Record No. 1655, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, pp. 135-144.
Wiseman, G., Uzan J., Hoffman M.S., Ishai, I. and Livneh, M. (1977). Simple Elastic Models

for Pavement Evaluation. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Structural

Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol.2, pp. 416-426.
Yih Hou, T. (1977).

Evaluation of Layered Material Properties from Measured Surface

Deflections. Ph. D Thesis, University of Utah.

Zaman, M.M., Chen, D.-H. and Laguros, J. (1994). Resilient Moduli of Granular Materials.
ASCE, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.120, No. 6, pp. 967-987.
Zhou, H., Moore, L., Huddleston, J. and Gower, J. (1992). Free Drainage Base Materials

Properties. HPR Project No. 5283, FWA-OR-RD-92-11.

Zube, E. and Forsyth, R. (1966). Flexible Pavement Maintenance Requirements as

Determined by Deflection Measurement. Transportation Research Record No. 139,

Washington, DC, pp. 60-75.

140

APPENDIX-A
FIELD EVALUATION OF PAVEMENTS USING FWD
Thickness Details of Pavement Sections
Thickness details of test pavement sections of NH-6, NH-60, NH-5, NH-33 and SH
considered for evaluation in the present study are given in Tables A-1 to A-19. Pavement
are categorized as three types, namely (i) Thin (ii) Thick Old and (iii) New Pavements.
(i) Thin Old Pavements

Table A-1 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 1.820 to 2.000 of SH*
(SALUA Road)

Location
(Km)
2.000L
1.985R
1.970L
1.955R
1.940L
1.925R
1.910L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
40.0
46.0
45.0
45.0
42.0
45.0
43.0

Location

245.0
270.0
264.0
278.0
295.0
290.0
253.0

1.895R
1.880L
1.865R
1.850L
1.835R
1.820L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM
52.0
52.0
45.0
45.0
41.0
45.0

300.0
279.0
300.0
290.0
279.0
285.0

Statistical Details
Parameter
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

Bituminous, mm
52.00
40.00
45.08
3.57

WBM, mm
300.0
245.0
279.1
17.2

WBM: Water Bound Macadam; L: Left side - towards Salua: R: Right side- towards Kharagpur; MDR: Major District Road

Table A-2 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 2.850 to 3.000 of SH
(SALUA Road)

Location
(Km)
3.000L
2.985R
2.970L
2.955R
2.940L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
45
45
45
45
45

Location

290
282
279
270
295

2.925R
2.910L
2.895R
2.880L
2.850R

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WMM
45
45
45
45
45

Statistical Details
Parameter
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

Bituminous Macadam, mm
45.00
45.00
45.00
0.00

WBM, mm
295.00
270.00
282.00
8.58

141

280
290
290
270
280

Table A-3 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 4.625 to 5.000 of SH
(IIT Bypass)

Location
(Km)
5.000 L
4.970L
4.940L
4.910L
4.695L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
65
65
65
60
63

Location

300
250
300
390
360

4.925 R
4.900 R
4.705 R
4.645R
4.625R

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
67
60
60
65
65

395
320
345
395
350

Statistical Details

Parameter

Bituminous, mm

WBM, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

67.00
60.00
63.50
2.59

395.00
250.00
340.50
48.04

WBM: Water Bound Macadam; L: Left side - towards Salua: R: Right side- towards Kharagpur

Table A-4 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 3.370 to 4.000 of SH
(IIT Bypass)

Location
(Km)
4.000L
3.985R
3.970L
3.955R
3.940L
3.925R
3.910L
3.710R

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
68
67
68
61
60
65
67
66

Location

285.0
282.0
480.0
390.0
390.0
370.0
280.0
280.0

3.695L
3.680R
3.665L
3.650R
3.400L
3.385R
3.370L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
70.0
67.0
64.0
68.0
70.0
70.0
72.0

400.0
390.0
280.0
290.0
430.0
420.0
420.0

Statistical Details

Parameter

Bituminous, mm

WBM, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

72.0
60.0
66.9
3.3

480.0
280.0
359.1
69.1

Table A-5 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 15.000 to 15.270 of NH-60

Location
(Km)
15.000L
15.030R
15.060L
15.090R
15.120L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
51
50
50
61
50

384
370
375
373
373

Location
15.150R
15.180L
15.210R
15.240L
15.270R

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
49
42
41
35
36

311
291
334
340
318

Statistical Details

Parameter

Bituminous Macadam, mm

WBM, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

61.00
35.00
46.50
7.93

384.00
291.00
346.90
32.53

142

(ii) Thick Old Pavements

Table A-6 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 123.795 to 124.000 of NH-6

Location
(Km)

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
CS

123.795R
123.800L
123.845R
123.850L
123.895R

95
95
95
95
95

125
125
125
128
125

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous WBM CS

Location

395
295
285
437
435

123.900L
123.945R
123.950L
123.995R
124.000L

95
95
95
95
95

125
120
125
123
127

415
420
425
420
428

Statistical Details

Parameter

Bituminous

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Std. Dev

95.00
95.00
95.00
0.00

128.00
120.00
124.80
2.15

437.00
285.00
395.50
56.86

WBM: Water Bound Macadam; CS: Crushed Stone; L: left side- Towards Kolkata; R: Right Side- Towards Kharagpur

Table A-7 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 125.000 to 125.270 of NH-6

Location
(Km)

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
CS

125.000L
125.030R
125.060L
125.090R
125.120L

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

300.0
310.0
285.0
300.0
300.0

Location

315.0
310.0
340.0
320.0
320.0

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminou
WBM
CS
s

125.150R
125.180L
125.210R
125.240L
125.270R

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

300.0
290.0
295.0
300.0
300.0

340.0
335.0
330.0
330.0
325.0

Statistical Details

Parameter

Bituminous

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Std. Dev

100.0
100.0
100.00
0.00

310.0
285.0
298.0
6.7

340.0
310.0
326.5
10.3

Table A-8 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 134.000 to 134.270 of NH-6

Location
(Km)
134.000L
134.030R
134.060L
134.090R
134.120L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM
WBM
CS
50
50
50
50
50

95
95
95
95
95

135
133
135
135
135

410
407
410
403
425

Location

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over BM WBM
CS

134.150R
134.180L
134.210R
134.240L
134.270R

50
50
50
50
50

95
95
95
95
95

136
135
135
132
135

Statistical Details

Parameter

Over, mm

BM, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00

95.00
95.00
95.00
0.00

136.00
132.00
134.60
1.17

425.00
400.00
411.00
7.79

143

422
410
400
408
415

Table A-9 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 134.800 to 134.860 of NH-6
Layer Thickness (mm)
Surface
Base

Location
(Km)

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base

Location

134.800L

Over
50

BM
95

WBM
130

CS
420

134.815R
134.830L

50
50

92
95

127
134

418
428

134.845R

Over
50

BM
95

WBM
130

CS
424

134.860L

50

94

134

415

Statistical Details
Parameter

Over, mm

BM, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

50.00
50.00
50.00
0.0

95.00
92.00
94.20
1.30

134.00
127.00
130.20
2.49

428.00
415.00
421.00
5.09

Table A-10 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 150.000 to 154.245 of NH-6
Location
(Km)

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM
WBM
CS

150.000L
150.005R
150.060L
150.065R
150.120L

75
75
75
75
75

95
95
95
95
95

170
130
130
170
130

536
415
405
405
405

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM
WBM
CS

Location
150.125R
150.180L
150.185R
150.240L
150.245R

75
75
75
75
75

95
95
98
95
95

130
140
135
130
130

405
545
530
405
405

Statistical Details
Parameter

Overlay, mm

BM, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

75.00
75.00
75.00
00.00

98.00
95.00
95.30
0.95

170.00
130.00
139.50
16.41

545.00
405.00
445.60
63.75

Table A-11 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 151.000 to 151.245 of NH-6

Location
(Km)
151.000L
151.005R
151.060L
151.065R
151.120L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over BM WBM
CS
75
75
75
75
75

95
95
96
95
95

135
130
136
135
130

355
340
410
405
340

Location
151.125R
151.180L
151.185R
151.240L
151.245R

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over BM WBM
CS
75
75
75
75
75

95
95
98
95
95

130
132
135
135
140

330
358
340
400
475

Statistical Details

Parameter

Overlay, mm

BM, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

75.00
75.00
75.00
0.00

98.00
95.00
95.40
0.97

140.00
130.00
133.80
3.26

475.00
330.00
375.30
46.11

BM: Bituminous Macadam, Over: Bituminous Overlay; WBM: Water Bound Macadam; CS: Crushed Stone
L: Left Side- Towards Bahoragora; R: Right Side- Towards Kharagpur

144

Table A-12 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 152.000 to 152.245 of NH-6

Location
(Km)
152.000L
152.005R
152.060L
152.065R
152.120L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM
WBM
CS
75
75
75
75
75

95
95
95
95
95

132
132
130
132
140

415
412
400
460
488

Location

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM WBM CS

152.125R
152.180L
152.185R
152.240L
152.245R

75
75
75
75
75

95
95
98
95
95

127
130
130
130
130

390
400
420
415
448

Statistical Details

Parameter

Overlay, mm

BM, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

75.00
75.00
75.00
00.00

98.00
95.00
95.30
0.95

131.30
127.00
140.00
3.40

488.00
390.00
424.80
30.90

BM: Bituminous Macadam, Over: Bituminous Overlay; WBM: Water Bound Macadam; CS: Crushed Stone

Table A-13 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 153.000 to 153.245 of NH-6

Location
(Km)
153.000L
153.005R
153.060L
153.065R
153.120L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM
WBM
CS
75
75
75
75
75

95
95
95
95
95

130
135
130
127
134

428
440
300
290
405

Location

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM WBM CS

153.125R
153.180L
153.185R
153.240L
153.245R

75
75
75
75
75

95
95
98
95
95

134
130
130
130
130

310
305
335
328
315

Statistical Details

Parameter

Overlay, mm

BM, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

75
75
75
00

98.00
95.00
95.30
0.95

135.00
127.00
131.00
2.49

440.00
290.00
345.60
56.45

Table A-14 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 188.000 to 188.270 of NH-6

Location
(Km)
188.000L
188.030L
188.060L
188.090L
188.120L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM
CS
100
100
100
100
100

150
152
150
150
160

235
233
235
235
225

Location

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM
CS

188.150L
188.180L
188.210L
188.240L
188.270L

100
100
100
100
100

155
150
150
157
150

Statistical Details

Parameter

BM, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

100.00
100.00
100.00
00.00

160.00
150.00
152.40
3.66

235.00
128.00
222.60
33.40

BM: Bituminous Macadam, Over: Bituminous Overlay; WBM: Water Bound Macadam; CS: Crushed Stone
L: Left Side- towards Bahoragora; R: Right Side- towards Kharagpur

145

230
235
235
128
235

Table A-15 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 206.500 to 206. 710 of NH-6

Location
(Km)
206.500R
206.530R
206.560R
206.590R
Statistical Details

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM+CS
95
450
100
450
100
440
95
450

Parameter
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

Location
206.620R
206.650R
206.680R
206.710R

BM, mm
100.00
95.00
97.50
2.70

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM+CS
95
445
100
455
100
426
95
430
WBM+ CS, mm
455.00
426.00
443.53
5.16

BM: Bituminous Macadam, WBM: Water Bound Macadam; CS: Crushed Stone
L: Left side - towards Baripada: R: Right side- towards Bahoragora

Table A-16 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 270.000 to 270.270 of NH-6

Location
270.000R
270.030L
270.060R
270.090L
270.120R

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM+ CS
95.0
95.0
97.0
90.0
95.0

410.0
405.0
430.0
424.0
425.0

Location
270.150L
270.180R
270.210L
270.240R
270.270L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM+ CS
90.0
90.0
95.0
98.0
95.0

420.0
440.0
430.0
435.0
430.0

Statistical Details

Parameter

BM, mm

WBM + CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

97.0
85.0
94.0
2.3

440.0
405.0
424.9
10.8

Table A-17 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 319.600 to 319.870 of NH-33

Location
(Km)
319.600L
319.630R
319.660L
319.690R
319.720L

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
BM
WBM+ CS
85
90
95
80
75

400
380
360
380
380

Location
319.750R
319.780L
319.810R
319.840L
319.870R

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Over
BM
WBM+CS
82
90
85
90
95

Statistical Details

Parameter

BM, mm

WBM +CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Std. Dev

95.00
75.00
86.70
6.50

400.00
360.00
379.00
10.75

BM: Bituminous Macadam, WBM: Water Bound Macadam; CS: Crushed Stone
L: Left side- towards Jamshepur; R: Right side- towards Bahoragora

146

375
370
375
380
390

Table A-18 Thickness Details for the Stretch from Km 131.020 to 131.200 of NH- 6

Location
(Km)

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
CS

131.020
131.040
131.060
131.080
131.105

100
100
100
100
100

220
220
225
210
220

Location

200
200
205
225
200

131.120
131.140
131.160
131.180
131.200

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
Bituminous
WBM
CS
100
100
100
100
100

220
225
200
210
220

205
200
220
210
210

Statistical Details

Parameter

Bituminous, mm

WBM, mm

CS, mm

Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Std. Dev

100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00

225.00
200.00
217.00
7.89

207.50
200.00
225.00
8.90

WBM: Water Bound Macadam; CS: Crushed Stone: L: Left side- towards Kolkata; R: Right side- towards Kharagpur

(iii) NEW PAVEMENTS

Table A-19 Thickness Details for New Pavements
Test Stretch
From Km to Km
NH-6
109.000109.000
112.000112.540
125.000125.540
126.000126.540
130.100130.640
131.220131.910

BC
40*

Layer Thickness (mm)

Surface
Base
WMM GSB
DBM
DBM-II
DBMI
85

85

200

250

Remarks
DL
250

DBM-II Thickness
of Surface course=
170 mm
DBM-I- Thickness
of Surface
Course=85 mm

BC: Bituminous Concrete; DBM: Dense Bituminous Macadam; WMM: Water Bound Macadam
GSB: Granular Subbase; DL: Drainage Layer

* Laying of BC was not completed on these stretches at the time of testing

147

APPENDIX-B
FIELD EVALUATION OF PAVEMENTS USING FWD
[Deflection Data]

1
2.000L
2
1.985R
3
1.970L
4
1.955R
5
1.940L
6
1.925R
7
1.910L
8
1.895R
9
1.880L
10

Statistical Parameters

1.865R

Season

S
N0

Location

Table B-1 Measured Deflections for Km 1.895 to 2.000 of SH during 2001-02

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at 0,300,600,900,1200,1500 and 1800 mm from

the centre of the loading plate
D1
1.06391
0.92341
0.87538
1.07550
0.99750
0.90775
1.24110
0.94562
0.86532
1.23660
1.21720
1.12330
1.15590
0.93001
0.92493
1.01240
1.09770
0.89671
1.15390
1.07230
0.93256
1.30715
1.18470
1.07244
1.34310
1.04970
0.96180
1.18960
0.66460
0.91654
1.17792
0.10724
9.1041
1.00827
0.15779
15.6495
0.94767
0.08467
8.93454

D2
0.62187
0.52897
0.50124
0.63495
0.54643
0.52834
0.70855
0.55438
0.51883
0.69128
0.68439
0.65499
0.64488
0.55456
0.54786
0.61532
0.63849
0.52125
0.66256
0.64015
0.55012
0.73321
0.69189
0.62321
0.75295
0.62032
0.56342
0.68537
0.57406
0.55276
0.67509
0.04716
6.9857
.60336
0.05934
9.8349
0.55620
0.04811
8.6497

D3
0.42683
0.36684
0.35973
0.43563
0.37644
0.36708
0.45307
0.38575
0.35002
0.45023
0.46400
0.44243
0.43112
0.38681
0.37954
0.41790
0.42465
0.36596
0.43573
0.42908
0.39120
0.42464
0.45843
0.42432
0.48832
0.44412
0.38956
0.46191
0.39102
0.38197
0.44254
0.02119
4.7882
0.41271
0.03560
8.6259
0.38178
0.02884
7.4757

D4
0.30395
0.15932
0.25016
0.30820
0.26012
0.25995
0.32245
0.27661
0.26389
0.32114
0.31297
0.32187
0.31294
0.27678
0.27034
0.29650
0.30211
0.24996
0.31674
0.32121
0.27436
0.33372
0.33107
0.29097
0.34712
0.29543
0.27609
0.32896
0.28557
0.28022
0.31917
0.01496
4.68715
0.28212
0.04840
17.1558
0.27378
0.02130
7.7799

D5
0.23856
0.18705
0.17995
0.24056
0.19211
0.18430
0.25487
0.19060
0.19142
0.26530
0.23956
0.23896
0.24882
0.20032
0.17842
0.22012
0.23743
0.17123
0.24788
0.24223
0.18044
0.26710
0.26336
0.19995
0.26474
0.23886
0.18189
0.27123
0.19688
0.18195
0.25192
0.01599
6.3472
0.21884
0.02799
12.7901
0.18885
0.01923
10.1826

D6
0.17102
0.13219
0.12184
0.17838
0.13625
0.12972
0.18453
0.14323
0.11432
0.18856
0.18033
0.16022
0.17548
0.14234
0.11856
0.16731
0.14543
0.12057
0.18099
0.13907
0.12421
0.19025
0.18332
0.14857
0.18954
0.12034
0.12965
0.19256
0.14902
0.13188
0.18186
0.00868
4.7729
0.14715
0.01995
13.5575
0.12995
0.01425
10.9657

D7
0.13504
0.09671
0.07663
0.13997
0.09034
0.08838
0.14008
0.10564
0.07254
0.14101
0.13530
0.09751
0.13956
0.09450
0.06751
0.12844
0.10211
0.07672
0.13218
0.09344
0.08571
0.14138
0.11313
0.08761
0.12945
0.08123
0.07877
0.13003
0.10172
0.08643
0.13571
0.00527
3.8832
0.10141
0.01479
14.5843
0.08178
0.00890
10.8828

M-2: Monsoon 2001-02; W-2: Winter 2001-02; S-2: Summer 2001-02; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of Variation (%)

148

3.000L

2.985R

2.970L

2.955R

2.940L

2.925R

2.910L

2.895R

2.880L

10

Statistical Parameters

2.850R

M
W

Season

S
N0

Location

Table B-2 Measured Deflections for Km 2.850 to 3.000 of SH during 2001-02

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at 0,300,600,900,1200,1500 and 1800 mm

from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
1.81610
1.42670
1.25970
1.40240
1.29280
1.12440
1.39260
1.17860
0.95730
1.18710
1.01245
0.89552
1.42239
1.00680
1.02712
1.30510
1.11250
0.92678
1.21261
1.05350
0.87542
1.33080
0.95895
0.89522
1.49250
1.14260
1.07280
1.36578
1.15870
1.10448
1.39274
0.17548
12.599
1.13436
0.14224
12.539
1.01387
0.12585
12.4128

0.89902
0.79356
0.72414
0.78819
0.78556
0.65793
0.71654
0.66703
0.53733
0.63581
0.55803
0.49089
0.76507
0.54551
0.56705
0.73592
0.65489
0.54554
0.66423
0.54991
0.49905
0.68842
0.53795
0.52908
0.84183
0.62378
0.56870
0.75396
0.65598
0.56906
0.74890
0.08016
10.703
0.63722
0.09448
14.8269
0.56888
0.07159
12.5843

0.50165
0.47803
0.45013
0.49023
0.46610
0.42052
0.47580
0.42275
0.35067
0.40807
0.37795
0.33184
0.48545
0.33673
0.35886
0.48545
0.45740
0.36281
0.42567
0.34002
0.33056
0.44341
0.34992
0.35995
0.55034
0.41740
0.37950
0.45057
0.42385
0.37695
0.47166
0.04114
8.722
0.40701
0.05296
13.0119
0.37218
0.03760
10.1026

0.33457
0.32056
0.31159
0.32983
0.31698
0.29679
0.33007
0.29003
0.24407
0.29651
0.26496
0.23953
0.33761
0.26749
0.25102
0.33761
0.28675
0.26013
0.29735
0.23153
0.23961
0.30229
0.25793
0.25005
0.37826
0.29678
0.26470
0.33539
0.29629
0.26034
0.32796
0.02451
7.423
0.28293
0.02757
9.7444
0.26178
0.02421
9.2482

0.26311
0.23592
0.18347
0.24178
0.23997
0.21805
0.25227
0.21578
0.18749
0.21209
0.19805
0.17911
0.25432
0.18809
0.18707
0.25432
0.20892
0.19112
0.21839
0.16723
0.17067
0.22539
0.17957
0.17012
0.25690
0.22951
0.17555
0.25450
0.22502
0.17550
0.24331
0.01809
7.4349
0.20881
0.02489
11.9199
0.18381
0.01402
7.6274

M-2: Monsoon 2001-02; W-2: Winter 2001-02; S-2: Summer 2001-02; SD: Standard Deviation;
COV: Coefficient of Variation (%)

149

0.14953
0.18548
0.08330
0.18883
0.16123
0.14045
0.19238
0.14539
0.12054
0.16114
0.13007
0.11982
0.20936
0.12970
0.12855
0.20936
0.15448
0.15189
0.17021
0.13245
0.11115
0.17938
0.14591
0.12714
0.20448
0.18956
0.12184
0.18967
0.16632
0.12992
0.18543
0.02037
10.9852
0.15406
0.02167
14.0659
0.12346
0.01816
14.7029

0.12496
0.13945
0.07232
0.15479
0.11662
0.09450
0.15436
0.10342
0.08860
0.13433
0.09321
0.07700
0.12134
0.08674
0.08050
0.12134
0.09945
0.10826
0.13720
0.09432
0.07781
0.14285
0.10043
0.08121
0.15736
0.14574
0.08672
0.14591
0.11597
0.07981
0.13944
0.01386
9.9397
0.10954
0.01982
18.0938
0.08467
0.01046
12.3538

5.000L

4.970L

4.940L

4.910L

4.695L

4.925R

4.900R

4.705R

4.645R

10

4.625R

Statistical Parameters

M-2

W-2

S-2

Season

S
N0

Location

Table B-3 Measured Deflections for Km 4.625 to 5.000 of SH during 2001-02

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance at 0, 300, 600,900,

1200,1500 and 1800 (mm) from the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

1.32520
1.22321
1.09430
1.18730
0.94502
0.94321
1.34380
1.01553
0.98880
1.14310
0.95543
0.93274
1.11620
0.93011
0.90123
1.21030
0.97113
0.97014
1.13450
0.99814
0.94117
1.27510
1.68430
1.05420
1.28210
1.07810
0.89435
1.31230
0.92174
0.90546
1.24393
0.08254
6.6354
1.07227
0.23311
21.7398
0.96256
0.23311
21.7398

0.71799
0.65428
0.62672
0.60157
0.48312
0.47993
0.66756
0.52101
0.50334
0.54042
0.46032
0.45012
0.53947
0.45102
0.42503
0.61170
0.48945
0.47951
0.62057
0.57621
0.50767
0.67132
0.54551
0.53675
0.65628
0.54012
0.44763
0.65628
0.48568
0.46213
0.62918
0.06083
7.3361
0.52067
0.06149
11.8097
0.49188
0.06149
11.8097

0.40690
0.42893
0.40753
0.39732
0.31001
0.32843
0.41735
0.32692
0.31156
0.38135
0.29633
0.28875
0.35121
0.28834
0.26746
0.40902
0.32034
0.31285
0.33798
0.32887
0.32123
0.44243
0.36467
0.34668
0.43995
0.35002
0.29629
0.43995
0.32673
0.30553
0.40950
0.03030
7.3992
0.33412
0.04028
12.0555
0.31863
0.04028
12.0555

0.33342
0.31421
0.30756
0.28243
0.23995
0.22275
0.28261
0.22763
0.22021
0.25712
0.21478
0.20624
0.24835
0.20566
0.19126
0.29813
0.23136
0.22550
0.24034
0.23660
0.23312
0.31215
0.26123
0.25672
0.32153
0.25995
0.21379
0.32153
0.23732
0.21732
0.29525
0.02981
10.0965
0.24287
0.03043
12.5293
0.22945
0.03043
12.5293

0.26005
0.24053
0.21673
0.21243
0.18023
0.17045
0.21652
0.17011
0.16112
0.19432
0.16675
0.15476
0.18563
0.15875
0.14354
0.22703
0.17904
0.17153
0.18238
0.18022
0.17665
0.23200
0.19532
0.18674
0.24437
0.19018
0.16388
0.24437
0.17789
0.16365
0.22408
0.02436
10.8711
0.18390
0.02256
12.2675
0.17090
0.02256
12.2675

0.19688
0.17432
0.13875
0.16843
0.14118
0.13871
0.17001
0.13265
0.12553
0.15341
0.13054
0.12432
0.14721
0.12077
0.11156
0.17961
0.14012
0.13622
0.14780
0.14267
0.13945
0.18118
0.15424
0.15016
0.19268
0.15534
0.12945
0.19268
0.14003
0.12845
0.17579
0.01755
9.9835
0.14519
0.01504
10.3588
13226
0.01504
10.3588

D7
0.14112
0.12462
0.10556
0.13662
0.09122
0.08956
0.13532
0.09899
0.10321
0.12526
0.11032
0.10141
0.12002
0.10014
0.09230
0.14683
0.11516
0.11184
0.12171
0.11835
0.11451
0.14943
0.12552
0.11863
0.16012
0.11993
0.10574
0.16012
0.11432
0.09654
0.14165
0.01402
9.8976
0.11186
0.04457
10.3432
0.10393
0.01157
10.3432

M-2: Monsoon 2001-02; W-2: Winter 2001-02; S-2: Summer 2001-02; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

150

2.000L

1.985R

1.970L

1.955R

1.940L

1.925R

1.910L

1.895R

1.880L

10

1.865R

11

1.850L

12

1.835R

13

1.820L

Statistical details

Season

Sl No.

Location

Table B-4 Measured Deflections for Km 1.825 to 2.000 of SH during 2000-01

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance at 0, 300,600,900,1200,1500

and 1800 (mm) from the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

1.46705
1.40304
1.36888
1.35771
1.25383
1.03575
1.10571
1.10211
1.05239
1.06242
0.90792
0.78212
1.28834
1.10453
1.03652
1.07955
0.97052
0.9120
1.30165
0.98734
0.79927
1.27507
0.73642
0.56229
1.50574
0.98734
0.76465
1.30948
0.66951
0.60758
1.30136
0.71306
0.61508
1.34077
0.88021
0.85462
1.26278
0.76705
0.75872
1.28136
0.13408
10.4638
0.96022
0.21736
22.6364
0.85768
0.22400
26.1169

0.86072
0.79846
0.76312
0.77831
0.73367
0.60497
0.63581
0.64131
0.55806
0.61609
0.53935
0.41888
0.73529
0.59818
0.54583
0.65784
0.26236
0.52975
0.75643
0.53787
0.43776
0.75173
0.43142
0.32689
0.87188
0.53787
0.41409
0.76329
0.40673
0.34256
0.76501
0.42913
0.33573
0.77322
0.5055
0.45165
0.74648
0.42962
0.43496
0.74708
0.07554
10.1113
0.52704
0.14378
27.2806
0.47417
0.12385
26.1193

0.52526
0.46839
0.44333
0.50371
0.45021
0.38976
0.40807
0.4118
0.32978
0.38648
0.35793
0.25985
0.45782
0.35684
0.31022
0.43801
0.36916
0.33935
0.46856
0.33557
0.27238
0.46648
0.27734
0.21756
0.54808
0.33557
0.25692
0.47563
0.27871
0.22205
0.45875
0.28374
0.22513
0.46276
0.33442
0.26826
0.46579
0.25466
0.27108
0.46657
0.04317
9.2526
0.34726
0.06631
19.0952
0.29274
0.06771
23.1297

0.36515
0.31882
0.29975
0.34105
0.3096
0.26085
0.27851
0.28433
0.21964
0.26838
0.2598
0.17567
0.30632
0.23518
0.20297
0.30773
0.25758
0.23118
0.32595
0.22766
0.18151
0.32757
0.19737
0.14808
0.36061
0.22766
0.17341
0.32941
0.19088
0.15443
0.32266
0.20233
0.15319
0.31784
0.23112
0.17967
0.31892
0.17785
0.17074
0.32078
0.02745
8.5572
0.24001
0.04439
18.4950
0.19624
0.04538
23.1247

0.26965
0.23055
0.22484
0.25436
0.23185
0.20067
0.21209
0.21173
0.16051
0.20165
0.1861
0.13223
0.23916
0.16986
0.15074
0.2252
0.19214
0.17813
0.22783
0.16619
0.13112
0.23929
0.14493
0.11021
0.26654
0.16619
0.1266
0.24061
0.13798
0.11301
0.24011
0.14373
0.1167
0.23833
0.16631
0.1317
0.24303
0.13107
0.13412
0.23830
0.01911
8.0193
0.17528
0.03357
19.1522
0.14697
0.03514
23.9096

0.21099
0.18394
0.17367
0.19746
0.17998
0.15016
0.16114
0.16011
0.12825
0.15507
0.15041
0.10598
0.18796
0.1407
0.11876
0.18012
0.1526
0.13507
0.18592
0.1311
0.10145
0.18928
0.1134
0.08658
0.20992
0.1311
0.10103
0.1905
0.10957
0.0891
0.19014
0.11554
0.0908
0.18792
0.12941
0.10549
0.19268
0.10446
0.09912
0.18762
0.01582
8.4319
0.13864
0.02573
18.5588
0.11427
0.02603
22.7793

M-1: Monsoon 2001-01; W-1: Winter 2000-01; S-1: Summer 2001-01; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of Variation (%)

151

4.000L

3.985R

3.970L

3.955R

3.940L

3.925R

3.910L

3.710R

3.695L

10

3.680R

11

3.665L

12

3.650R

13

3.400L

14

3.385R

15

3.370L

Season

Sl
No

Location

Table B-5 Measured Deflections for Km 3.370 to 4.000 of SH during 2000-01

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1

Surface deflections (mm) at 0,300,600,900,1200,1500 and 1800 mm from

the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

1.30131
1.13178
0.99631
1.31547
1.08028
1.03045
1.27290
1.24178
1.20032
1.58168
1.38509
1.35092
1.60609
1.18396
1.11654
1.53154
1.43057
1.40108
1.38958
1.25713
1.01145
1.4514
1.18024
1.15579
1.21602
0.89981
0.81193
1.43359
0.92658
0.91563
1.41983
1.2525
1.20529
1.31617
1.10767
0.91086
1.1868
0.67074
0.65147
1.21076
0.7915
0.70217
1.1113
0.64015
0.61802

0.66413
0.55694
0.47419
0.66203
0.49134
0.45079
0.65779
0.6094
0.49825
0.78071
0.67102
0.62186
0.75483
0.60438
0.53846
0.68793
0.69011
0.65415
0.69611
0.60054
0.46923
0.68403
0.60971
0.55031
0.5539
0.42649
0.36209
0.62835
0.46086
0.42805
0.67309
0.66508
0.5906
0.59983
0.48874
0.40941
0.45495
0.34021
0.3256
0.48591
0.35411
0.36949
0.44219
0.31869
0.30097

0.42129
0.39347
0.2921
0.41507
0.26751
0.26344
0.42720
0.38753
0.2991
0.47621
0.41698
0.38758
0.46089
0.38843
0.32651
0.40314
0.43063
0.40868
0.43782
0.31675
0.27535
0.41325
0.35759
0.32215
0.34947
0.25559
0.21892
0.3732
0.32847
0.2643
0.40997
0.37867
0.37725
0.38714
0.27785
0.24036
0.25479
0.21880
0.21426
0.28332
0.20804
0.24886
0.23872
0.24412
0.19215

0.29479
0.23572
0.20187
0.28514
0.18159
0.18058
0.32618
0.29521
0.21573
0.33284
0.28956
0.2628
0.32969
0.29121
0.22958
0.27631
0.30861
0.28795
0.29518
0.21305
0.18648
0.2837
0.25019
0.22011
0.24992
0.19139
0.15726
0.26148
0.23068
0.1868
0.28316
0.26454
0.25912
0.27322
0.19133
0.16527
0.1765
0.15917
0.15761
0.19238
0.16192
0.18783
0.16908
0.14998
0.13729

0.22004
0.18032
0.15254
0.21728
0.14016
0.12986
0.25513
0.22475
0.16581
0.26003
0.23077
0.20113
0.24655
0.21308
0.17227
0.20959
0.23285
0.21783
0.22841
0.15982
0.14147
0.21023
0.19121
0.1585
0.19085
0.14097
0.12283
0.19565
0.18294
0.14207
0.20832
0.21051
0.19042
0.21208
0.14129
0.12702
0.13158
0.12618
0.11983
0.15424
0.12618
0.14458
0.12864
0.12082
0.10636

0.18041
0.14023
0.1208
0.17057
0.11282
0.1017
0.19326
0.17927
0.12786
0.21074
0.18443
0.15733
0.19563
0.17179
0.14241
0.17206
0.1797
0.1707
0.18044
0.13017
0.11045
0.17014
0.15362
0.13081
0.15305
0.11064
0.09843
0.15728
0.14063
0.11388
0.16794
0.15715
0.15446
0.16959
0.11578
0.10152
0.10147
0.09967
0.09773
0.11553
0.09967
0.11416
0.10116
0.09248
0.08835

M-1: Monsoon 2001-01; W-1: Winter 2000-01; S-1: Summer 2001-01; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

152

Monsoon

Wnter

Summer

Paramter

Season

Table B-6 Statistical Parameters for Km 3.370 to 4.000 of SH during 2000-01

Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of 0, 300, 600, 900,

1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

1.35630
0.14807
10.9172
1.07865
0.24316
22.5429
1.00532
0.24073
23.9479

0.62839
0.10251
16.3131
0.52584
0.12470
23.7144
0.46956
0.10705
22.7979

0.38343
0.07205
18.7909
0.32470
0.07469
23.0027
0.28873
0.06533
22.6266

0.26864
0.05207
19.3828
0.22761
0.05408
23.7599
0.20242
0.04331
21.3961

0.20457
0.03999
19.5483
0.17479
0.04092
23.4109
0.15283
0.03185
20.8401

0.16262
0.03286
20.2066
0.13787
0.03197
23.1885
0.12204
0.02475
20.2802

153

Table B-7 Measured Deflections for Km 15.000 to 15.270 of NH-60 during 2000-01

Location

Season

15.000 L

15.030R

15.060L

15.090R

15.120L

15.150R

15.180L

15.210R

15.240L

10

15.270R

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Statistical Parameters

Sl
No

(Km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of 0, 300, 600,

900, 1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

1.31185
1.07349
0.74382
1.25274
1.09086
0.89972
1.31207
1.21819
1.06839
1.21725
1.11005
1.05939
1.30830
1.14317
1.01703
1.50165
1.47177
1.11778
1.58156
1.54450
1.10649
1.47242
1.38653
1.15668
1.56123
1.35405
1.15694
1.79518
1.70328
1.36261
1.43143
0.18252
12.7508
1.30959
0.21701
16.5708
1.06888
0.16418
15.3600

0.78173
0.53362
0.38435
0.72253
0.61082
0.49645
0.71973
0.67847
0.60162
0.64156
0.68656
0.58530
0.72295
0.65328
0.57121
0.79547
0.80112
0.58955
0.85926
0.87423
0.60885
0.80221
0.75361
0.60870
0.82859
0.73791
0.59699
0.97472
0.95802
0.71662
0.78488
0.09214
11.7393
0.72876
0.12546
17.2155
0.57596
0.08587
14.9090

0.50165
0.29735
0.24948
0.44414
0.38657
0.31612
0.43065
0.40179
0.35625
0.36371
0.43864
0.34842
0.42952
0.39019
0.34421
0.47223
0.48237
0.35085
0.49873
0.49776
0.38665
0.49414
0.43938
0.38173
0.51255
0.43974
0.38082
0.59707
0.57769
0.40771
0.47444
0.06265
13.2050
0.43515
0.07528
17.2997
0.35222
0.04461
12.6650

0.36027
0.19530
0.17687
0.30040
0.26174
0.21525
0.29027
0.26929
0.24873
0.24856
0.31155
0.23268
0.28384
0.26386
0.23596
0.31854
0.31437
0.23268
0.33526
0.34286
0.25525
0.32879
0.29298
0.14966
0.34864
0.29766
0.25659
0.39864
0.39769
0.27744
0.32132
0.4295
13.3667
0.29473
0.05393
18.2981
0.22811
0.03867
16.9523

0.27110
0.15190
0.13118
0.22195
0.19536
0.16177
0.21246
0.20367
0.18666
0.18569
0.22943
0.17227
0.21653
0.20107
0.17144
0.23129
0.23483
0.18058
0.24394
0.25201
0.19413
0.24425
0.22032
0.19038
0.25855
0.22544
0.1922
0.29671
0.28882
0.21541
0.23825
0.03196
13.4144
0.22029
0.03647
16.5554
0.17960
0.02261
12.5890

0.21049
0.12090
0.10320
0.17523
0.15436
0.12683
0.17019
0.15813
0.14989
0.14371
0.17922
0.14166
0.16895
0.15504
0.14134
0.18028
0.18913
0.13489
0.19178
0.20287
0.15120
0.19233
0.17603
0.15196
0.20550
0.18011
0.15320
0.23071
0.22392
0.17026
0.18692
0.02477
13.2576
0.17397
0.02875
16.5258
0.14244
0.01812
12.7211

M-1: Monsoon 2001-01; W-1: Winter 2000-01; S-1: Summer 2001-01; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

154

Table B-8 Measured Deflections for Km 123.795 to 124.000 of NH-6 during 2000-

123.795R

123.800L

123.845R

123.850L

123.895R

123.900L

123.945R

123.950L

123.995R

10

124.000L

Statistical Parameters

Season

Sl
No

Location

01[Kumar, 2001]

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600,

900, 1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

1.01102
0.90398
0.81313
1.00285
0.69082
0.61371
1.10312
0.75691
0.64358
0.79781
0.98027
0.91064
0.90872
0.92847
0.86147
0.98313
0.53731
0.51442
0.89246
0.71145
0.50858
0.82628
0.80582
0.68280
0.86806
0.73517
0.65085
0.72646
0.65160
0.58133
0.91200
0.11391
12.4910
0.75454
0.13221
17.5219
0.66135
0.13501
20.4143

0.61218
0.56037
0.45201
0.61508
0.43864
0.34245
0.67050
0.48184
0.35774
0.49961
0.55801
0.51047
0.53334
0.60633
0.47220
0.58184
0.30581
0.26937
0.52236
0.45975
0.27470
0.50134
0.48773
0.33947
0.47524
0.43835
0.34829
0.39418
0.39445
0.31660
0.54057
0.08067
14.9231
0.45729
0.08623
18.8567
0.35789
08023
22.4175

0.43624
0.39075
0.30617
0.50442
0.31653
0.22641
0.45695
0.34177
0.23432
0.35557
0.36561
0.34616
0.38183
0.43914
0.32930
0.41250
0.22099
0.17933
0.36169
0.33634
0.19541
0.34339
0.31318
0.21786
0.31875
0.28919
0.24558
0.28132
0.27851
0.22725
0.38327
0.06924
18.0655
0.31721
0.05959
18.7856
0.24582
0.05432
22.0974

0.31707
0.28853
0.21837
0.37591
0.24710
0.15753
0.32597
0.25941
0.17118
0.25857
0.27707
0.25729
0.29104
0.31497
0.24145
0.32499
0.16541
0.13899
0.28445
0.24538
0.15462
0.24886
0.22609
0.16895
0.23438
0.21580
0.19151
0.20998
0.21986
0.18014
0.28712
0.05029
17.5153
0.23512
0.04202
17.8717
0.18697
0.03710
19.8427

0.25739
0.22739
0.16862
0.30390
0.19661
0.12955
0.25788
0.21079
0.13378
0.20235
0.20785
0.18965
0.22249
0.24375
0.17951
0.25693
0.13028
0.11031
0.22147
0.19821
0.12066
0.19709
0.16732
0.13033
0.18287
0.16638
0.14898
0.16815
0.17805
0.14182
0.22705
0.04170
18.3659
0.18792
0.03097
16.4804
0.14539
0.02634
18.1167

0.21362
0.18002
0.12953
0.25320
0.16516
0.10451
0.21344
0.18053
0.10549
0.18327
0.17161
0.13929
0.19079
0.19664
0.12930
0.20651
0.11122
0.09353
0.17669
0.17112
0.10002
0.16305
0.12965
0.10185
0.25320
0.13406
0.12077
0.21362
0.13856
0.12158
0.19086
0.03621
18.9720
0.14990
0.02791
18.6190
0.11700
0.01766
15.0940

M-1: Monsoon 2001-01; W-1: Winter 2000-01; S-1: Summer 2001-01; SD: Standard Deviation; COV:
Coefficient of Variation (%)

155

Table B-9 Measured Deflections for Km 125.000 to 125.240 of NH-6 during

Summer Season of 2001-02
Sl
No

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Statisti
cal
Param
eters

125.750L
125.810L
125.870L
125.930L
126.000L
125.780R
125.840R
125.900R
125.960R
126.030R
Mean
SD
COV

156

(Km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200,1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

0.50109
0.52145
0.60354
0.55896
0.61027
0.54977
0.59845
0.63806
0.61334
0.60228
0.57972
0.04447
7.6709

0.30676
0.32678
0.33058
0.31277
0.34154
0.32478
0.32985
0.34885
0.33769
0.33106
0.32907
0.01254
3.8107

0.21804
0.22056
0.24254
0.23097
0.25117
0.22408
0.24051
0.27034
0.26867
0.26789
0.24348
0.02035
8.3579

0.17324
0.18299
0.19002
0.18823
0.19067
0.18097
0.18997
0.19096
0.18971
0.19342
0.18702
0.00614
3.2830

0.14187
0.15034
0.15232
0.15006
0.16166
0.15425
0.14872
0.14889
0.15112
0.15003
0.15093
0.00496
3.2862

0.11864
0.12132
0.12354
0.12789
0.13001
0.12056
0.12183
0.12056
0.12234
0.12928
0.12360
0.00410
3.2443

0.09915
0.10564
0.10086
0.09265
0.10322
0.09962
0.10071
0.10267
0.09452
0.09122
0.09903
0.00475
4.7965

134.000L

134.030R

134.060L

134.090R

134.120L

134.150R

134.180L

134.210R

134.240L

10

134.270R

Statistical Parameters

Season

Sl
N0

Location
(Km)

Table B-10 Measured Deflections for Km 134.000 to 134.270 of NH-6 during

2001-02

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200,1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading
plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

0.90012
0.68564
0.66271
0.79892
0.67178
0.67003
0.97553
0.70664
0.66488
1.06752
0.83355
0.76076
0.89752
0.78176
0.73115
0.91675
0.80157
0.73467
0.87761
0.66076
0.62117
0.80144
0.71045
0.67934
0.92887
0.67894
0.63558
0.94537
0.70345
0.67632
0.91097
0.07901
8.6731
0.72345
0.06008
8.3046
0.68366
0.04481
6.5544

0.45168
0.36432
0.33448
0.41567
0.35125
0.33143
0.47436
0.37323
0.35002
0.56906
0.42598
0.38423
0.43923
0.38944
0.35993
0.44782
0.40465
0.34802
0.43702
0.35576
0.33426
0.41026
0.35502
0.32996
0.45045
0.35934
0.33478
0.46713
0.36566
0.34036
0.45627
0.04437
9.7245
0.37447
0.02465
6.5826
0.34475
0.0168
4.8905

0.30345
0.25145
0.23525
0.27994
0.24421
0.22717
0.34054
0.26324
0.24563
0.42118
0.32243
0.30166
0.28867
0.27023
0.25045
0.29141
0.31767
0.23548
0.31023
0.24992
0.28056
0.27954
0.25114
0.24056
0.29469
0.24997
0.23289
0.31684
0.25143
0.23032
0.31265
0.04240
13.5614
0.26717
0.02887
10.8058
0.24800
0.02427
9.7862

0.23176
0.19656
0.18034
0.21592
0.19003
0.17904
0.25875
0.21031
0.20256
0.32967
0.25001
0.23288
0.22047
0.21343
0.20845
0.22540
0.24472
0.20552
0.24567
0.19543
0.18773
0.22142
0.19453
0.17866
0.23034
0.19571
0.18507
0.24785
0.20232
0.18556
0.24273
0.03349
13.7972
0.20930
0.02136
10.2054
0.19458
0.01751
8.9988

0.18436
0.15844
0.14398
0.17192
0.15276
0.14056
0.19636
0.16795
0.15446
0.28521
0.18242
0.16754
0.17234
0.17795
0.16331
0.17445
0.17975
0.15997
0.17337
0.15775
0.14962
0.17234
0.15672
0.13521
0.18116
0.15842
0.14271
0.19017
0.16334
0.14869
19117
0.03445
18.115
0.16555
0.01082
6.6657
0.15061
0.01054
6.9982

0.15045
0.13102
0.11045
0.14132
0.12543
0.10345
0.13002
0.13556
0.12326
0.17609
0.14553
0.12496
0.14097
0.13214
0.12037
0.15673
0.14011
0.12034
0.14084
0.12956
0.11440
0.14097
0.12774
0.11019
0.15998
0.13012
0.12441
0.16143
0.13955
0.11577
0.14988
0.01365
9.1072
0.13368
0.00634
4.7426
0.11676
0.00715
6.1236

0.12157
0.10865
0.07954
0.11740
0.10355
0.07634
0.12065
0.09970
0.07832
0.12325
0.12143
0.08981
0.11766
0.11132
0.08843
0.12084
0.11884
0.07452
0.11764
0.10828
0.08704
0.11766
0.10609
0.07295
0.12451
0.10813
0.08045
0.12993
0.09052
0.08663
0.12111
0.00400
3.3027
0.10765
0.00886
8.2303
0.08140
0.00612
7.5184

M-2: Monsoon 2001-02; W-2: Winter 2001-02; S-2: Summer 2001-02; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of Variation (%)

157

Table B-11 Measured Deflections for Km 134.800 to 134.860 of NH-6 during

Location
(Km)

134.800L

134.805R

134.800L

134.835R

134.860L

Season

Sl
No

Statistical Parameters

2000- 01

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading
plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
0.96869
0.7734
0.62221
1.04192
0.7437
0.71576
0.7132
0.64435
0.60213
1.01501
0.75191
0.64258
0.99759
0.85815
0.80104
0.94728
0.13354
14.0972
0.75430
0.07641
10.1299
0.67674
0.08167
12.0681

0.52156
0.37116
0.28038
0.46069
0.40464
0.31975
0.39787
0.33917
0.30069
0.56488
0.38725
0.29725
0.51014
0.45751
0.38145
0.49103
0.06393
13.0195
0.39195
0.04387
11.1927
0.31590
0.03922
12.4153

0.34656
0.26993
0.18547
0.28174
0.26338
0.20487
0.25247
0.23997
0.19142
0.37232
0.27280
0.2028
0.33547
0.29195
0.23529
0.31881
0.04919
15.4826
0.2676
0.0187
6.98
0.20397
0.01925
9.4376

0.25111
0.21024
0.14341
0.21622
0.18662
0.15825
0.19446
0.17688
0.15079
0.28807
0.22086
0.15086
0.23097
0.20841
0.16472
0.23617
0.03564
15.0908
0.20060
0.01818
9.0628
0.15361
0.00813
5.2926

0.19316
0.16782
0.11558
0.16082
0.14001
0.12507
0.15942
0.1406
0.11441
0.22081
0.17208
0.12208
0.17886
0.16857
0.13102
0.18261
0.02548
13.9532
0.15782
0.01617
10.1824
0.12163
0.00687
5.6482

0.15177
0.14177
0.09441
0.12993
0.1143
0.09628
0.1254
0.11554
0.0908
0.17255
0.13987
0.09687
0.15012
0.12871
0.10124
0.14595
0.01896
12.9907
0.12804
0.01298
10.1374
0.09592
0.00380
3.9616

M-1: Monsoon 2001-01; W-1: Winter 2000-01; S-1: Summer 2001-01; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

158

Sl
N0

Location
(Km)

150.000L

150.005R

150.060L

150.065R

150.120L

150.125R

150.180L

150.185R

150.240L

10

150.245R

Statistical Parameters

M2

W2

S2

Season

Table B-12 Measured Deflections for Km 150.000 to 150.245 of NH-6 during

2001-02

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900,

100, 1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.77014
0.57701
0.52711
0.73951
0.59062
0.58742
0.79569
0.65367
0.70885
0.71904
0.72386
0.57937
0.86071
0.65528
0.68253
0.82050
0.51829
0.58993
0.81619
0.58210
0.68093
0.72247
0.60122
0.60124
0.76880
0.55342
0.49921
0.92913
0.6112
0.58943
0.79422
0.06567
8.26848
0.60667
0.05845
9.63456
0.60460
0.06771
11.1991

0.37118
0.29122
0.25332
0.44153
0.29949
0.28182
0.42981
0.34372
0.30182
0.38670
0.36784
0.33744
0.46279
0.37690
0.31658
0.39677
0.31934
0.32792
0.46128
0.33028
0.32111
0.34110
0.29044
0.27087
0.38602
0.26281
0.23594
0.48482
0.32848
0.21396
0.41620
0.04662
11.2013
0.32145
0.03598
11.1930
0.28608
0.04194
14.6602

0.32722
0.20135
0.20676
0.2809
0.23993
0.22442
0.30909
0.26543
0.25931
0.24567
0.22609
0.26011
0.28659
0.25944
0.26238
0.31335
0.23401
0.27444
0.29762
0.25762
0.28703
0.30691
0.23186
0.22044
0.25124
0.21024
0.20841
0.27501
0.27962
0.24981
0.28936
0.02671
9.23071
0.24056
0.02489
10.34669
0.24531
0.02832
11.5445

0.24618
0.17342
0.16034
0.24143
0.20781
0.18667
0.24567
0.21093
0.19673
0.22829
0.21093
0.21740
0.23992
0.20426
0.18752
0.25501
0.19012
0.19961
0.24235
0.20894
0.24619
0.25716
0.19395
0.16942
0.21994
0.18452
0.15572
0.23113
0.21937
0.19759
0.24071
0.01160
4.80190
0.20043
0.01434
7.15461
0.19172
0.02702
14.0934

0.20135
0.11623
0.14328
0.21821
0.1545
0.15011
0.19721
0.17023
0.17944
0.20736
0.18123
0.19332
0.19107
0.16492
0.14095
0.20762
0.14672
0.15911
0.21699
0.16822
0.19354
0.20219
0.14894
0.14423
0.18908
0.15623
0.11238
0.19772
0.15347
0.15450
0.20288
0.00982
4.84029
0.15607
0.01762
11.2898
0.15709
0.02542
16.1818

0.14852
0.10758
0.11401
0.18264
0.13460
0.10388
0.15106
0.17023
0.09811
0.15109
0.13965
0.12605
0.16411
0.12656
0.10182
0.17504
0.12373
0.12842
0.16883
0.11847
0.11420
0.15164
0.11002
0.09804
0.15461
0.12662
0.09111
0.15439
0.12301
0.10881
0.16019
0.01181
7.37249
0.12805
0.01777
13.8773
0.10845
0.01226
11.3047

0.12111
0.0753
0.07055
0.14347
0.16211
0.06783
0.13042
0.12236
0.08705
0.13947
0.10234
0.10998
0.14023
0.09478
0.09211
0.13670
0.10373
0.08337
0.11744
0.07996
0.06732
0.12376
0.0992
0.08841
0.13832
0.10521
0.05519
0.11549
0.08925
0.07583
0.13064
0.01039
7.95315
0.10342
0.02459
23.7768
0.07976
0.01566
19.6339

M-2: Monsoon 2001-02; W-2: Winter 2001-02; S-2: Summer 2001-02; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

159

Table B-13 Measured Deflections for Km 150.000 to 150.245 of NH-6 during

Sl
N0

Location

150.000L

150.005R

150.060L

150.065R

150.120L

150.125R

(Km)

150.180L

150.185R

150.240L

10

150.245R

Statistical Parameters

M-1

160

W-1

S-1

Season

2000-01

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1

0.70285
0.56386
0.42285
0.94879
0.57658
0.46032
0.94057
0.67089
0.58389
0.95125
0.65121
0.60727
0.96468
0.68874
0.50912
0.95104

0.38424
0.27684
0.18784
0.57293
0.30403
0.22744
0.57366
0.34579
0.31175
0.58864
0.35722
0.31302
0.56433
0.37900
0.25596
0.58336

0.26922
0.19163
0.12163
0.39068
0.21493
0.16065
0.39613
0.22439
0.22439
0.40997
0.26274
0.21557
0.37030
0.26797
0.18259
0.38916

0.20119
0.14929
0.09292
0.29281
0.16875
0.12276
0.29783
0.19166
0.16996
0.29713
0.21097
0.16619
0.27541
0.20984
0.14083
0.29843

0.16158
0.11841
0.07801
0.22676
0.14012
0.10208
0.22858
0.14995
0.12865
0.23148
0.16931
0.13011
0.21895
0.17013
0.12038
0.2373

0.13159
0.09327
0.06309
0.17983
0.11521
0.08246
0.18271
0.11997
0.10986
0.18407
0.1396
0.10972
0.18194
0.13296
0.10074
0.01896

W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

0.48118
0.41617
0.63548
0.52108
0.51096
0.70174
0.58285
0.45329
0.9210
0.66259
0.50375
0.85081
0.64253
0.57481
0.85682
0.12728
14.854
0.60415
0.06958
11.517
0.50424
0.06742
13.0370

0.2601
0.21891
0.35553
0.26075
0.24547
0.38629
0.31048
0.23111
0.55592
0.35702
0.25271
0.52534
0.37418
0.31345
0.50902
0.09419
18.504
0.32254
0.04604
14.274
0.25577
0.04376
17.1090

0.18727
0.15636
0.25238
0.20376
0.16367
0.28274
0.21187
0.16146
0.37987
0.24778
0.17873
0.3438
0.25325
0.2178
0.34843
0.05851
16.792
0.22656
0.02949
13.016
0.17829
0.03265
18.3120

0.15161
0.12296
0.21343
0.15028
0.13044
0.20887
0.17015
0.12595
0.28186
0.18761
0.14534
0.27093
0.19856
0.16933
0.26379
0.03986
15.110
0.17887
0.02411
13.479
0.13867
0.02483
17.9050

0.12747
0.10082
0.16817
0.12368
0.10170
0.17841
0.14097
0.09919
0.21917
0.15030
0.12262
0.20089
0.15808
0.14089
0.20713
0.02807
13.551
0.14484
0.01812
12.510
0.11244
0.01906
16.951

0.1049
0.08072
0.13987
0.10448
0.08035
0.15067
0.11215
0.08509
0.17662
0.12255
0.10183
0.1673
0.13297
0.1173
0.15136
0.05027
33.212
0.11781
0.01471
12.486
0.09312
0.01723
18.5030

Measured Deflections for Km 151.000 to 151.245 of NH-6 during

2001-02

Sl
N0
Location

Season

Table B-14

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200,1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading
plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7

(Km)

151.000L

151.005R

151.060L

151.065R

151.120L

151.125R

151.180L

151.185R

151.240L

10

151.245R

Statistical Parameters

M2

W2

S2

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

0.68273 0.32074 0.26280 0.22691 0.18710 0.15892 0.12422

0.59139
0.50193
0.72987
0.64882
0.48143
0.68971
0.64684
0.54217
0.66174
0.6948
0.57504
0.70442
0.53890
0.49201
0.75827
0.72593
0.66794
0.79367
0.75671
0.67182
0.68438
0.67142
0.77236
0.66963
0.66876
0.61783
0.71489
0.57854
0.54015
0.70893
0.04155
5.8609
0.65221
0.06734
10.3248
0.58627
0.09475
16.1614

0.30313
0.27432
0.35207
0.34730
0.29118
0.34754
0.33011
0.29262
0.31979
0.34422
0.26611
0.39871
0.28858
0.26933
0.41214
0.40428
0.32089
0.43975
0.40644
0.30293
0.40336
0.36438
0.33678
0.33396
0.33677
34103
0.37074
0.26791
0.26163
0.36988
0.04170
11.2739
0.33931
0.04536
13.3683
0.29568
0.02915
9.8586

0.24796
0.17520
0.30029
0.28429
0.20605
0.26117
0.26995
0.22893
0.26186
0.25289
0.20278
0.27766
0.21491
0.21044
0.29643
0.29337
0.23781
0.29645
0.28540
0.23985
0.31051
0.26488
0.24632
0.19450
0.24578
0.28508
0.29553
0.22895
0.22763
0.27572
0.03372
12.2297
0.25884
0.02550
9.8516
0.22601
0.02983
13.1985

0.19448
0.13619
0.26894
0.20052
0.13416
0.20751
0.19622
0.16720
0.22596
0.19321
0.15829
0.21552
0.16847
0.16753
0.23282
0.21218
0.17023
0.23415
0.20449
0.17097
0.25401
0.17947
0.18709
0.15817
0.17540
0.20511
0.20019
0.18663
0.14729
0.22242
0.03043
13.6813
0.19111
0.01362
7.12678
0.16441
0.02188
13.3081

0.13502
0.10119
0.20107
0.15886
0.11892
0.18449
0.13688
0.13991
0.17908
0.15833
0.10766
0.18590
0.13198
0.13207
0.17077
0.16934
0.14397
0.20432
0.17221
0.14339
0.18442
0.16551
0.14399
0.13196
0.14399
0.13923
0.16773
0.16102
0.0903
0.17968
0.02029
11.2922
0.15331
0.01500
9.7840
0.12606
0.02009
15.9368

0.09485
0.09155
0.18756
0.11403
0.10919
0.15465
0.09045
0.11012
0.14997
0.12430
0.00829
0.15165
0.09683
0.10995
0.15953
0.13035
0.12496
0.17458
0.14726
0.11852
0.16186
0.14919
0.10984
0.10114
0.10674
0.09034
0.14190
0.13754
0.07721
0.15418
0.02268
14.7100
0.11915
0.02180
18.2962
0.09500
0.03365
35.4210

0.07213
0.05427
0.19088
0.08874
0.07832
0.11115
0.06321
0.08428
0.09584
0.09329
0.05538
0.13431
0.05921
0.08758
0.13592
0.11496
0.09932
0.13110
0.12143
0.08945
0.14490
0.10539
0.07736
0.07521
0.07688
0.07329
0.12997
0.09522
0.05642
0.12735
0.03068
24.0910
0.08905
0.02188
24.5704
0.07557
0.01571
20.7886

M-2: Monsoon 2001-02; W-2: Winter 2001-02; S-2: Summer 2001-02; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

161

Table B-15

Measured Deflections for Km 151.000 to 151.245 of NH-6 during

Sl
N0
Location
1

(Km)
151.000L

151.005R

151.060L

151.065R

151.120L

151.125R

151.180L

151.185R

151.240L

10

151.245R

Statistical Parameters

M-1

W-1

S-1

season

2000-01

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1

0.80911
0.58486
0.44071
0.9523
0.61252
0.50018
0.72493
0.52628
0.50124
0.77432
0.70183
0.53123
0.94557
0.68767
0.5317
0.97852

0.45276
0.29107
0.22383
0.56976
0.35516
0.26243
0.38828
0.25876
0.24506
0.43967
0.40163
0.25704
0.55572
0.40122
0.27079
0.55826

0.32014
0.20247
0.15561
0.39177
0.25118
0.18149
0.2760
0.18748
0.17822
0.31848
0.28989
0.1793
0.37454
0.27559
0.18876
0.39138

0.23225
0.15397
0.1148
0.2782
0.18983
0.13813
0.21883
0.14735
0.14049
0.24479
0.22876
0.14066
0.28183
0.22078
0.14632
0.28483

0.18549
0.12454
0.0935
0.22447
0.15129
0.1124
0.17526
0.12113
0.11324
0.18972
0.17919
0.11748
0.21694
0.16876
0.1203
0.22424

0.14876
0.10149
0.07631
0.18089
0.12283
0.09039
0.14772
0.10023
0.09135
0.15389
0.14936
0.09517
0.17147
0.13965
0.09557
0.18611

W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

0.77098
0.64579
0.78347
0.72891
0.54651
0.90574
0.81529
0.52293
0.69166
0.51896
0.41544
0.51492
0.45222
0.45211
0.80805
0.14393
17.8120
0.63995
0.11950
18.6733
0.50878
0.06508
12.7913

0.41367
0.32223
0.4507
0.41001
0.28248
0.53095
0.47113
0.27438
0.40188
0.2858
0.21163
0.28233
0.2513
0.24032
0.46303
0.09216
19.9036
0.35398
0.07684
21.7074
0.25902
0.03156
12.1843

0.29583
0.21977
0.32798
0.30124
0.2019
0.36501
0.31911
0.20114
0.28836
0.20847
0.14881
0.21252
0.16721
0.16721
0.32662
0.05712
17.4882
0.24985
0.05426
21.7161
0.18222
0.02179
11.9580

0.22913
0.16876
0.25233
0.23448
0.15184
0.28107
0.2542
0.15924
0.23993
0.17078
0.11676
0.16841
0.13836
0.12989
0.24825
0.03657
14.7311
0.19676
0.04187
21.2797
0.14069
0.01717
12.2041

0.18248
0.13964
0.19898
0.18676
0.12317
0.21385
0.20226
0.1301
0.18794
0.13857
0.09059
0.13593
0.1142
0.10231
0.19528
0.02713
13.8928
0.15692
0.03120
19.8827
0.11427
0.01549
13.5556

0.15275
0.11104
0.16262
0.15465
0.10053
0.1735
0.17303
0.10654
0.15685
0.11388
0.07332
0.11472
0.09919
0.08481
0.15965
0.02058
12.8906
0.13071
0.02667
20.4039
0.09250
0.01210
13.0810

M-1: Monsoon 2001-01; W-1: Winter 2000-01; S-1: Summer 2001-01; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

162

Table B-16 Measured Deflections for Km 152.000 to 152.245 of NH-6 during

Sl
N0
Location

(Km)
152.000L

152.005R

152.060L

152.065R

152.120L

152.125R

152.180L

152.185R

152.240L

10

152.245R

Statistical Parameters

M2

W2

S2

Season

2001-02

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200,1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading
plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.73726
0.59872
0.45039
0.78524
0.75983
0.48670
0.84328
0.70846
0.67669
0.78208
0.65186
0.66447
0.66267
0.53092
0.50562
0.78067
0.81379
0.65843
0.72547
0.71473
0.67208
0.65421
0.56378
0.50896
0.78675
0.76494
0.53443
0.73094
0.68943
0.53823
0.74886
0.05886
7.8599
0.67965
0.09233
13.5849
0.66161
0.11948
18.0589

0.41131
0.31953
0.22481
0.44528
0.41924
0.25329
0.50276
0.39478
0.36732
0.45728
0.35269
0.34507
0.35682
0.28682
0.25772
0.41273
0.38262
0.3372
0.42981
0.38845
0.34661
0.36063
0.29860
0.27684
0.43643
0.45398
0.28106
0.41769
0.36701
0.28856
0.42307
0.04320
10.2110
0.36637
0.05305
14.4798
0.36217
0.07625
21.0536

0.19224
0.25879
0.16201
0.31769
0.30091
0.19762
0.35573
0.29670
0.26749
0.32818
0.29784
0.27518
0.24875
0.21558
0.19396
0.28234
0.25501
0.24906
0.30789
0.29499
0.27708
0.25997
0.24821
0.20775
0.32087
0.29882
0.21679
0.29972
0.27541
0.20065
0.29134
0.04727
16.2250
0.27423
0.02894
10.5531
0.23074
0.05214
22.5968

163

0.13647
0.19367
0.12945
0.24762
0.24434
0.14569
0.27820
0.21972
0.20448
0.26922
0.23003
0.22847
0.19053
0.18730
0.14403
0.24112
0.21539
0.18552
0.25954
0.22734
0.20609
0.20764
0.20115
0.15584
0.24987
0.25403
0.15491
0.23906
0.17033
0.16522
0.23193
0.04271
18.4150
0.21433
0.02623
12.2381
0.20749
0.04588
22.1119

0.19322
0.13579
0.10565
0.20549
0.19539
0.11833
0.22581
0.17702
0.14336
0.22954
0.18447
0.15479
0.16044
0.15503
0.10379
0.18034
0.17896
0.13093
0.19683
0.18043
0.16750
0.16604
0.16489
0.10933
0.21478
0.19711
0.11578
0.19946
0.15365
0.12978
0.19720
0.02326
11.7951
0.17227
0.01962
11.3890
0.16503
0.03726
22.5777

0.16053
0.10570
0.08752
0.17139
0.14641
0.09941
0.18163
0.13978
0.11207
0.18537
0.10944
0.10502
0.13386
0.11437
0.08534
0.16302
0.14763
0.10432
0.17171
0.14311
0.09439
0.14114
0.12904
0.08641
0.17285
0.13307
0.09528
0.16770
0.12118
0.10485
0.16492
0.01636
9.9199
0.12897
0.01557
12.0725
0.13881
0.03277
23.6078

0.13451
0.07322
0.07366
0.14183
0.09256
0.06728
0.15307
0.10064
0.08362
0.15640
0.09928
0.07546
0.10865
0.08911
0.04371
0.13712
0.10117
0.08364
0.14366
0.11892
0.07509
0.11935
0.08217
0.06418
0.17285
0.10428
0.05337
0.13996
0.09364
0.05437
0.14074
0.01819
12.9245
0.09550
0.01259
13.1832
0.11624
0.03588
30.8671

Table B-17 Measured Deflections for Km 152.000 to 152.245 of NH-6 during

Sl
N0
Location

(Km)
152.000L

152.005R

152.060L

152.065R

152.120L

152.125R

152.180L

152.185R

152.240L

10

152.245R

Statistical Parameters

M-1

W-1

S-1

Season

2000-01

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1

0.91679
0.57352
0.4394
0.9589
0.72035
0.45406
1.01092
0.84577
0.65852
0.74658
0.62508
0.54041
0.70131
0.4756
0.46003
1.10219

0.47478
0.3173
0.22546
0.5251
0.41778
0.21956
0.55323
0.48227
0.39462
0.3621
0.31452
0.25843
0.32132
0.25128
0.24454
0.59215

0.32787
0.24042
0.14911
0.36275
0.29193
0.15024
0.36544
0.34027
0.26263
0.24959
0.19514
0.16882
0.21327
0.17617
0.16099
0.40978

0.25824
0.19487
0.1194
0.27523
0.22396
0.10984
0.26971
0.27283
0.19345
0.18762
0.13963
0.13378
0.13925
0.14183
0.12057
0.32474

0.19985
0.16112
0.08935
0.22456
0.16885
0.09216
0.22362
0.22143
0.16121
0.14996
0.10907
0.10797
0.13563
0.11313
0.10073
0.25732

0.17133
0.1333
0.07318
0.18525
0.14083
0.07191
0.18116
0.17114
0.12841
0.12684
0.08618
0.08735
0.12241
0.09542
0.08217
0.20386

W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

0.91553
0.78332
1.01925
0.67429
0.65658
0.95365
0.49553
0.48723
1.09702
0.77066
0.63943
0.84686
0.65016
0.47129
0.93535
0.13589
14.5282
0.67465
0.14283
21.1709
0.55903
0.11762
21.0400

0.50486
0.43052
0.53161
0.37929
0.3578
0.51783
0.30149
0.28098
0.60307
0.43096
0.36354
0.44254
0.37192
0.2402
0.49237
0.09321
18.9308
0.37717
0.08233
21.8283
0.30156
0.07754
25.7129

0.32187
0.27391
0.37296
0.26619
0.24659
0.33429
0.21773
0.19158
0.39856
0.28845
0.24365
0.30642
0.25788
0.16162
0.33409
0.06302
18.8631
0.25960
0.05328
20.5238
0.20091
0.05006
24.9166

0.22816
0.19101
0.2843
0.20198
0.18762
0.24986
0.17732
0.14651
0.30866
0.20789
0.18296
0.23762
0.20787
0.1224
0.25352
0.05526
21.7970
0.19963
0.03995
20.0120
0.15075
0.03419
22.6799

0.1717
0.15472
0.22942
0.1722
0.14996
0.21169
0.14666
0.11777
0.23922
0.17097
0.15623
0.18676
0.17251
0.1014
0.20580
0.03869
18.7998
0.16076
0.03228
20.0796
0.12315
0.02905
23.5891

0.14403
0.12029
0.17862
0.14191
0.12584
0.17099
0.11477
0.09352
0.20691
0.14386
0.12563
0.15314
0.13505
0.08107
0.17005
0.02859
16.8127
0.13065
0.02521
19.2958
0.09894
0.02338
23.6304

M-1: Monsoon 2001-01; W-1: Winter 2000-01; S-1: Summer 2001-01; SD: Standard Deviation; COV: Coefficient of
Variation (%)

164

Season

Sl
N0

Location
(Km)

Table B-18 Measured Deflections for Km 153.000 to 153.245 of NH-6 during

2001-02

153.000L

M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
M-2
W-2
S-2
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

1
153.005R
2
153.060L
3
153.065R
4
153.120L
5
153.125R
6
153.180L
7
153.185R
8
153.240L
9
153.245R
10

Statistical Parameters

M-1

W-1

S-1

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900,

1200, 1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

0.79625
0.67071
0.51467
0.74855
0.65589
0.52437
0.72552
0.60848
0.49736
0.77127
0.64387
0.62443
0.80856
0.71845
0.70349

0.43376
0.36932
0.28089
0.42093
0.35987
0.28498
0.41034
0.32986
0.30023
0.44432
0.33098
0.32784
0.42859
0.36682
0.35737

0.29432
0.25058
0.19209
0.26438
0.25946
0.18438
0.26792
0.25946
0.2115
0.27669
0.26771
0.25950
0.28566
0.28045
0.27093

0.23172
0.19344
0.14893
0.21582
0.18066
0.14793
0.23005
0.18066
0.16349
0.22403
0.20489
0.18410
0.21184
0.21384
0.19901

0.18745
0.15504
0.11920
0.19532
0.12948
0.11792
0.17658
0.12948
0.12779
0.18906
0.13045
0.13847
0.16723
0.14728
0.13884

0.15012
0.12846
0.09876
0.16112
0.09781
0.09834
0.16023
0.09781
0.09876
0.15834
0.08874
0.10189
0.13279
0.10945
0.10859

0.12743
0.10509
0.07945
0.13021
0.07833
0.08023
0.13481
0.07833
0.07233
0.12673
0.06474
0.08639
0.11143
0.08012
0.08491

0.84575
0.67484
0.63287
0.73031
0.61085
0.60674
0.81154
0.60456
0.54521
0.74806
0.67587
0.66462
0.75509
0.64284
0.59657
0.77409
0.03971
5.1298
0.65064
0.03627
5.5745
0.59103
0.06800
11.5053

0.48258
0.37067
0.34402
0.41957
0.32948
0.31876
0.46399
0.31738
0.31286
0.42866
0.38089
0.34205
0.43066
0.36605
0.33734
0.43634
0.02191
5.0213
0.35213
0.02261
6.4209
0.32063
0.02586
8.0653

0.32893
0.25883
0.24624
0.30044
0.26003
0.24880
0.30583
0.24900
0.22603
0.27001
0.29116
0.24624
0.28132
0.28945
0.24350
0.28755
0.02013
7.0005
0.26661
0.01524
5.7162
0.23292
0.02867
13.3089

0.2601
0.21005
0.20759
0.23391
0.18434
0.17497
0.24482
0.17736
0.16834
0.23943
0.29592
0.18893
0.24021
0.21356
0.18276
0.23319
0.01415
6.0680
0.20547
0.03488
16.9757
0.17661
0.01783
10.0956

0.21582
0.15673
0.14472
0.18849
0.14058
0.12845
0.19304
0.12721
0.11957
0.19005
0.16274
0.14605
0.19947
0.15538
0.14278
0.19025
0.01292
6.7910
0.14344
0.01363
9.5022
0.13238
0.01110
8.3849

0.17320
0.12532
0.11324
0.15532
0.10764
0.09213
0.16615
0.09328
0.08962
0.15184
0.13481
0.11068
0.16044
0.12201
0.11124
0.15696
0.01080
6.8807
0.11053
0.01622
14.6747
0.10233
0.00826
8.0719

0.14462
0.05467
0.07343
0.13010
0.08761
0.07489
0.13475
0.07111
0.08962
0.12930
0.10474
0.09343
0.13049
0.10442
0.09532
0.12999
0.00832
6.4004
0.08292
0.01754
21.1529
0.08300
0.00824
9.9277

165

Sl
N0
Location

(Km)
153.000L

153.005R

153.060L

153.065R

153.120L

153.125R

153.180L

153.185R

153.240L

10

153.245R

Statistical Parameters

M-1

166

W-1

S-1

Season

Table B-19 Measured Deflections for Km 153.000 to 153.245 of NH-6 during

2000-01

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) of

0,300,600,900,1200 and 1500 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6

M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1

0.73728
0.61689
0.44189
0.6209
0.55253
0.41356
1.08302
0.84891
0.64024
1.26148
0.81972
0.67159
0.84041
0.71988
0.54284

0.42105
0.34123
0.21928
0.37181
0.2955
0.19844
0.61948
0.44023
0.30242
0.71196
0.45225
0.32873
0.51228
0.38778
0.25813

0.2834
0.22768
0.14815
0.27392
0.21785
0.12913
0.39297
0.28189
0.20721
0.45585
0.29231
0.21984
0.33784
0.26002
0.16895

0.21976
0.16893
0.11597
0.2032
0.16805
0.10082
0.18298
0.19758
0.15324
0.32344
0.20105
0.16734
0.25608
0.20041
0.13355

0.17968
0.13263
0.09007
0.16168
0.13938
0.07821
0.21059
0.14917
0.12334
0.2482
0.15448
0.12911
0.19763
0.15046
0.10092

0.15124
0.1068
0.07038
0.14018
0.11487
0.06227
0.17172
0.12087
0.09934
0.20115
0.12156
0.10341
0.16549
0.12051
0.08172

1.00172

0.57226

0.40461

0.31389

0.25031

0.2014

W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
M-1
W-1
S-1
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV
Mean
SD
COV

0.7613
0.51299
1.03275
0.94888
0.63914
0.93035
0.72103
0.52144
0.98290
0.79734
0.56552
1.01184
0.86655
0.61510
0.95026
0.18108
19.0558
0.76530
0.11845
15.4775
0.55643
0.08659
15.5617

0.40704
0.25486
0.60712
0.53598
0.31389
0.52842
0.37131
0.28236
0.54233
0.45911
0.29538
0.53858
0.48128
0.29389
0.54253
0.09702
17.8828
0.41717
0.07101
17.0218
0.27474
0.04168
15.1707

0.26112
0.16614
0.42789
0.32644
0.20981
0.37316
0.2522
0.19407
0.3787
0.29435
0.19268
0.36868
0.31649
0.19928
0.36970
0.05802
15.6938
0.27303
0.03573
13.0864
0.18353
0.02932
15.975

0.19217
0.13034
0.3195
0.23922
0.15205
0.28201
0.19638
0.14923
0.28686
0.21914
0.15091
0.27635
0.23915
0.15453
0.26641
0.04980
18.6929
0.20221
0.02462
12.1754
0.14080
0.02034
14.4460

0.1478
0.09759
0.26018
0.17067
0.12026
0.23422
0.1556
0.12058
0.23103
0.16552
0.11216
0.21702
0.18736
0.12551
0.21905
0.03209
14.6496
0.15531
0.01583
10.1925
0.10978
0.01716
15.6312

0.12016
0.08178
0.20203
0.13905
0.09687
0.1912
0.12864
0.10061
0.18129
0.13892
0.09521
0.18031
0.15541
0.10123
0.17860
0.02158
12.0828
0.12668
0.01417
11.1856
0.08928
0.01440
16.1290

Table B-20 Measured Deflections for Km 188.000 to 188.270 of NH-6 during

2001- 02 (Winter)

Sl
No

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

188.000L
188.030L
188.060L
188.090L
188.120L
188.150L
188.180L
188.210L
188.240L
188.270L
Mean
SD
COV (%)

(Km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.72110
0.70987
0.67756
0.68498
0.75665
0.73686
0.71732
0.78356
0.81987
0.78573
0.73935
0.04638
6.2730

0.38108
0.38067
0.37876
0.38676
0.43870
0.41852
0.57673
0.45004
0.46007
0.45062
0.43220
0.06032
13.956

0.25929
0.25935
0.26013
0.26074
0.27885
0.28407
0.27056
0.31258
0.32935
0.31051
0.28254
0.02602
9.2093

0.19212
0.19223
0.19415
0.19234
0.21034
0.21008
0.19554
0.21438
0.22422
0.23275
0.20582
0.01480
7.19074

0.14754
0.15002
0.15167
0.14003
0.17127
0.16273
0.14867
0.17875
0.18002
0.19011
0.16208
0.01700
10.4886

0.11942
0.12067
0.11964
0.12067
0.14165
0.12967
0.11903
014856
0.15667
0.15392
0.13299
0.01559
11.7226

0.10105
0.10185
0.09828
0.10178
0.12018
0.09632
0.09786
0.12773
0.12185
0.12104
0.10879
0.01226
11.2694

Table B-21 Measured Deflections for Km 206.500 to 206.710 of NH-6 during

2001-02 (Winter)

Sl
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Location
(Km)
206.500R
206.530R
206.560R
206.590R
206.620R
206.650R
206.680R
206.710R
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.68912
0.65437
0.70022
0.72033
0.73243
0.72256
0.70983
0.74058
0.70868
0.02756
3.8889

0.38546
0.36486
0.37943
0.38064
0.39805
0.37198
0.37012
0.39678
0.38092
0.01209
3.17389

0.26243
0.24593
0.25132
0.25231
0.26674
0.24971
0.24883
0.27034
0.25595
0.00918
3.5866

0.19946
0.18579
0.18820
0.18805
0.19879
0.18623
0.18604
0.20756
0.19252
0.00827
4.2956

0.15571
0.14654
0.14585
0.13907
0.15453
0.15003
0.14515
0.16046
0.14967
0.00691
4.6168

0.12618
0.11752
0.11765
0.11750
0.12367
0.11587
0.11629
0.12907
0.12047
0.00508
4.2168

0.10408
0.09767
0.09556
0.10066
0.09968
0.09633
0.10404
0.10569
0.10046
0.00383
3.8124

Table B-22 Measured Deflections for Km 270.000 to 270.270 of NH-5 during

2001-02 (Winter)

Sl no

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

270.000R
270.030L
270.060R
270.090L
270.120R
270.150L
270.180R
270.210L
270.240R
270.270L
Mean
SD
COV (%)

(Km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
0.71256
0.73633
0.62641
0.74715
0.67064
0.69240
0.76405
0.70543
0.80366
0.65566
0.71143
0.05331
7.4933

D2
0.34995
0.35674
0.31275
0.34942
0.33162
0.34443
0.38067
0.34722
0.44343
0.32317
0.35394
0.03658
10.3350

D3
0.25437
0.25261
0.21864
0.26384
0.24647
0.26432
0.27164
0.25428
0.27466
0.24870
0.25495
0.01588
6.2286

167

D4
0.20586
0.19446
0.17007
0.20442
0.19263
0.20941
0.21044
0.20463
0.21077
0.19081
0.19935
0.01269
6.3656

D5
0.17023
0.15168
0.13712
0.16493
0.15631
0.17032
0.17415
0.10189
0.16605
0.16017
0.15529
0.02169
13.9674

D6
0.13692
0.12462
0.11246
0.13536
0.13021
0.14118
0.13446
0.13042
0.12991
0.13479
0.13103
0.00796
6.07490

D7
0.11655
0.10547
0.09416
0.11326
0.10797
0.11781
0.10743
0.10664
0.10845
0.11066
0.10884
0.00664
6.10060

Table B-23 Measured Deflections for Km 319.600 to 319.870 of NH-33 during

2001-02 (Winter)

Sl
No

Location

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

319.600L
319.630R
319.660L
319.690R
319.720L
319.750R
319.780L
319.810R
319.840L
319.870R
Mean
SD
COV (%)

0.82248
0.85937
0.84972
0.82368
0.93786
0.79201
0.83665
0.90438
0.87745
0.80143
0.85050
0.04578
5.3827

(Km)

0.43101
0.46179
0.44016
0.42279
0.49020
0.44477
0.44576
0.47065
0.45667
0.42064
0.44844
0.02188
4.8791

0.28856
0.30648
0.29137
0.28064
0.32842
0.30388
0.29354
0.30429
0.30934
0.28221
0.29887
0.01451
4.8549

0.21318
0.22517
0.21198
0.20479
0.24046
0.22556
0.21418
0.22071
0.22707
0.20750
0.21906
0.01080
4.9301

0.16356
0.17229
0.16081
0.15565
0.18300
0.17330
0.16321
0.17388
0.17282
0.15845
0.16770
0.00861
5.1341

0.13012
0.13685
0.12713
0.12318
0.14479
0.13785
0.12936
0.14175
0.13605
0.12563
0.13327
0.00722
5.4175

0.10692
0.11243
0.10425
0.10103
0.11874
0.11310
0.10627
0.11887
0.11190
0.10309
0.10966
0.00630
5.7450

Table B -24 Measured Deflection for Km 131.020 to 131.200 of NH-6

(Before Recycling)

Sl Location
(Km)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

168

131.020
131.040
131.060
131.080
131.105
131.120
131.140
131.160
131.180
131.200
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.79884
0.76044
0.72379
0.79843
0.72924
0.76104
0.72821
0.85917
0.78609
0.73742
0.76827
0.04294
5.5891

0.41443
0.38675
0.39835
0.40657
0.37856
0.40657
0.38281
0.43543
0.41653
0.39616
0.40222
0.01739
4.2335

0.29413
0.27213
0.27914
0.28610
0.27118
0.28296
0.20913
0.31802
0.29811
0.27652
0.27874
0.02824
10.1313

0.22301
0.20504
0.21258
0.21543
0.20623
0.21335
0.20322
0.24191
0.22692
0.20908
0.21568
0.01195
5.5406

0.17324
0.15862
0.16615
0.16079
0.16144
0.16577
0.15785
0.18785
0.17661
0.16285
0.16712
0.00948
5.6725

0.13906
0.12706
0.13489
0.13360
0.12978
0.13432
0.12725
0.14953
0.14180
0.13213
0.13494
0.00695
5.1504

0.11413
0.10422
0.11077
0.10921
0.10076
0.11001
0.10386
0.12352
0.11656
0.10843
0.11015
0.00669
6.0735

Table B-25 Measured Deflection for Km 131.020 to 131.200 of NH-6

(7 days after Recycling)

Sl
no

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

131.020
131.040
131.060
131.080
131.105
131.120
131.140
131.160
131.180
131.200
Mean
SD
COV (%)

(Km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500
and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.74371
0.75182
0.71015
0.71297
0.72008
0.72104
0.72144
0.72291
0.80523
0.75610
0.73655
0.02899
3.9359

0.39403
0.39386
0.40036
0.38484
0.39572
0.39136
0.39206
0.39632
0.42031
0.39351
0.39624
0.00934
2.3571

0.27473
0.27165
0.27815
0.27001
0.26885
0.27226
0.27335
0.28081
0.30018
0.26692
0.27569
0.00956
3.4676

0.20675
0.20344
0.21110
0.20487
0.20164
0.20567
0.20598
0.21325
0.22753
0.19931
0.20795
0.00800
3.8470

0.16032
0.15741
0.10596
0.16097
0.15746
0.16084
0.15998
0.16640
0.17658
0.15423
0.15602
0.01864
11.9471

0.12987
0.12731
0.13342
0.12914
0.12611
0.12892
0.13071
0.13479
0.14165
0.12471
0.13066
0.00493
3.7731

0.10540
0.10342
0.11044
0.10684
0.10437
0.10654
0.10672
0.11062
0.11832
0.10244
0.10751
0.00464
4.3158

Table B -26 Measured Deflection for Km 131.020 to 131.200 of NH-6

(28 days after Recycling)

Sl
no

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

131.020
131.040
131.060
131.080
131.105
131.120
131.140
131.160
131.180
131.200
Mean
SD
COV (%)

(Km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
1500 and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.72026
0.71115
0.69809
0.71809
0.75290
0.74043
0.71982
0.73124
0.72390
0.70986
0.72257
0.01578
2.1838

0.40095
0.39993
0.41239
0.41390
0.41078
0.40043
0.39058
0.40067
0.38947
0.38658
0.40057
0.00969
2.4190

0.28476
0.27034
0.28097
0.28119
0.28041
0.27452
0.26927
0.27588
0.20958
0.27331
0.27002
0.02183
8.0845

169

0.21907
0.21389
0.20860
0.20833
0.21118
0.20598
0.20248
0.20846
0.20275
0.20819
0.20889
0.00497
2.3792

0.17217
0.16719
0.17080
0.16978
0.18056
0.16062
0.15800
0.16320
0.15819
0.16377
0.1664
0.0071
4.2645

0.13783
0.14002
0.12986
0.14190
0.14183
0.12843
0.12646
0.13092
0.12646
0.13143
0.1335
0.0062
4.6738

0.11629
0.10989
0.11785
0.11591
0.12093
0.10611
0.10452
0.10832
0.10408
0.10883
0.111
0.006
5.392

Table B-27 Measured Deflections for Km 131.200 to 131.800 (WMM)

Sl Location Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
(Km)
no
1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

131.200
131.260
131.320
131.380
131.440
131.500
131.560
131.620
131.680
131.740
131.800
Mean
SD
COV (%)

0.57854
0.56642
0.60545
0.58624
0.57948
0.56834
0.55055
0.57859
0.58013
0.60176
0.56778
0.57848
0.01574
2.7209

0.29002
0.29657
0.32997
0.30894
0.30845
0.27991
0.25967
0.31023
0.30045
0.31112
0.30256
0.29981
0.01851
6.1739

0.21405
0.23112
0.20321
0.23859
0.22231
0.21449
0.20845
0.22347
0.21407
0.21324
0.22075
0.21852
0.01012
4.6311

0.16517
0.19885
0.16854
0.18994
0.18025
0.18012
0.16341
0.18462
0.17944
0.17055
0.17421
0.17774
0.01081
6.0819

0.13618
0.13002
0.14004
0.15023
0.14997
0.14023
0.13995
0.15005
0.15246
0.14033
0.1173
0.14061
0.01042
7.4105

0.11559
0.11762
0.11856
0.11034
0.11845
0.11012
0.11125
0.11946
0.11067
0.12085
0.13067
0.11669
0.00615
5.2703

0.09703
0.09932
0.09126
0.08803
0.10176
0.09654
0.09594
0.09740
0.09805
0.09736
0.08832
0.09555
0.00443
4.6363

Table B-28 Measured Deflections for Km 131.200 to 131.680 of NH-6 (DBM-1)

S Location
(Km)
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

170

131.200
131.260
131.320
131.380
131.440
131.500
131.560
131.620
131.680
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) ) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
0
300
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.53453
0.52908
0.53453
0.52826
0.54015
0.53120
0.55781
0.52985
0.52681
0.53469
0.00958
1.7916

0.29452
0.29556
0.29453
0.29232
0.29078
0.31056
0.29993
0.30773
0.29493
0.29787
0.00689
2.3130

0.20023
0.21284
0.20106
0.21145
0.20287
0.20114
0.22314
0.21697
0.22064
0.21004
0.00901
4.2896

0.17885
0.18050
0.17832
0.17572
0.17970
0.17791
0.18841
0.18425
0.18198
0.18063
0.00381
2.1092

0.14716
0.14612
0.14105
0.14502
0.15108
0.14998
0.13995
0.15107
0.13408
0.14506
0.00575
3.9638

0.11354
0.11887
0.11447
0.11447
0.12558
0.11902
0.11376
0.12005
0.11664
0.11738
0.00395
3.3651

0.09543
0.09884
0.09682
0.09682
0.09394
0.10123
0.10189
0.09539
0.09640
0.09742
0.00270
2.7715

Table B-29 Measured Deflections for Km 131.200-131.800 (DBM-II)

Sl
no

Location

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

131.200
131.260
131.320
131.380
131.440
131.500
131.560
131.620
131.680
131.740
131.800
Mean
SD
COV (%)

0.43274
0.43011
0.44368
0.44740
0.44317
0.44003
0.44022
0.43118
0.45066
0.44005
0.43968
0.43990
0.00648
1.47306

(Km)

0.27936
0.28414
0.29466
0.30106
0.30208
0.28844
0.29948
0.29201
0.29841
0.29484
0.29166
0.29329
0.00716
2.4412

0.23518
0.23879
0.24011
0.24186
0.23408
0.21845
0.22475
0.22199
0.23023
0.21773
0.24011
0.23121
0.00909
3.9314

0.17056
0.17380
0.17357
0.18448
0.16974
0.17311
0.11321
0.17855
0.17948
0.17956
0.17357
0.16997
0.01934
11.3784

0.14321
0.14529
0.15231
0.14799
0.14097
0.14729
0.15042
0.15618
0.15618
0.15014
0.15231
0.14930
0.439
3.3020

0.12374
0.12758
0.13109
0.12823
0.12630
0.12518
0.12802
0.12004
0.12004
0.12729
0.13109
0.12624
0.00376
2.9784

0.09024
0.08993
0.09177
0.09856
0.09611
0.09289
0.09109
0.08965
0.09720
0.09057
0.09177
0.09271
0.00313
3.3761

Table B-30 Measured Deflections for Km 125.000-125.540 (DBM-I)

Sl
no

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

125.000L
125.030R
125.060L
125.090R
125.120L
125.150R
125.180L
125.210R
125.240L
125.270R
Mean
SD
COV (%)

(Km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.62453
0.62108
0.59021
0.59453
0.60126
0.60101
0.61052
0.58769
0.62387
0.63023
0.60849
0.01563
2.5686

0.32452
0.33056
0.31045
0.31453
0.31232
0.31204
0.32018
0.30876
0.31986
0.33023
0.31834
0.00802
2.5193

0.22023
0.22884
0.21905
0.22106
0.21845
0.22043
0.23001
0.21932
0.23785
0.22908
0.22443
0.00657
2.9274

171

0.17885
0.18050
0.17634
0.17832
0.17572
0.17704
0.17954
0.17704
0.18012
0.17992
0.17834
0.00171
0.9588

0.19716
0.15112
0.15002
0.14808
0.14502
0.14771
0.14898
0.14775
0.15028
0.14863
0.15348
0.01544
0.15505

0.12354
0.12887
0.12254
0.12447
0.12190
0.12204
0.13004
0.12361
0.13657
0.14011
0.12737
0.00646
0.013437

0.10543
0.10884
0.10508
0.10682
0.10507
0.10298
0.10576
0.10596
0.09780
0.10026
0.10433
0.00343
0.09934

Table B-31 Measured Deflections for Km 125.000-125.540 (DBM-II)

Sl
no

Location
(Km)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

125.000L
125.030R
125.060L
125.090R
125.120L
125.150R
125.180L
125.210R
125.240L
125.270R
Mean
SD
COV

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.48073 0.29409 0.21642
0.16344
0.13390 0.10687 0.08001
0.47783 0.31653 0.23076
0.18564
0.15564 0.13023 0.10574
0.48122 0.34033 0.24178
0.20056
0.16997 0.13875 0.10453
0.50043 0.32137 0.23265
0.19749
0.15045 0.12945 0.09344
0.47699 0.32381 0.24039
0.18980
0.15857 0.13745 0.10884
0.48454 0.31896 0.23044
0.19377
0.15232 0.14087 0.10056
0.47295 0.31456 0.22858
0.19055
0.14852 0.13047 0.09662
0.46043 0.30137 0.22265
0.18749
0.15045 0.12945 0.09344
0.47995 0.36478 0.25076
0.19002
0.16946 0.15223 0.10832
0.48675 0.32662 0.24467
0.18699
0.16123 0.14789 0.10193
0.48018 0.32224 0.23391
0.18858
0.15505 0.13437 0.09934
0.01017 0.01969 0.08048
0.01001
0.01065 0.01252 0.00880
2.11790 6.11030 4.48030
5.30800
6.86870 9.31750 8.85840

Table B-32 Measured Deflections across the Pavement Width on DBM-I for Km
131.860 of NH-6
Sl
Location Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500
(Km)
and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
No
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
1
2
3
4
5
6

131.860
131.860
131.860
131.860
131.860
Mean
SD
COV (%)

0.54231
0.53981
0.53450
0.52067
0.52820
0.53310
0.00881
1.6525

0.29056
0.29993
0.29294
0.28407
0.29256
0.29201
0.00568
1.9451

0.20003
0.22314
0.20566
0.20792
0.21114
0.20958
0.00860
4.1034

0.17995
0.18841
0.18265
0.17507
0.17750
0.18072
0.00514
2.8442

0.14490
0.13995
0.14234
0.13759
0.14599
0.14215
0.00346
2.4340

0.10784
0.11376
0.11024
0.10423
0.11902
0.11102
0.00566
5.0982

0.08847
0.10184
0.09974
0.09446
0.10123
0.09715
0.00566
5.8260

Table B-33 Measured Deflections across the Pavement Width on DBM-II for Km
131.910 of NH-6

Sl

No
1
2
3
4
5

172

Location
131.910
131.910
131.910
131.910
131.910
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500
and 1800 from the centre of the loading plate
0

300

600

900

1200

1500

0.42834
0.42680
0.42034
0.42059
0.42452
0.42412
0.00360
0.8488

0.27677
0.27824
0.26977
0.28064
0.28011
0.27711
0.00438
1.5805

0.22812
0.23414
0.23412
0.23105
0.23745
0.23298
0.00353
1.5151

0.17761
0.17176
0.16971
0.17693
0.17601
0.17440
0.00347
1.9896

0.13822
0.14283
0.13822
0.15038
0.14458
0.14285
0.00506
3.5421

0.12023
0.12207
0.12023
0.11855
0.12618
0.12145
0.00292
2.4042

1800

0.09712
0.09126
0.09712
0.09202
0.09002
0.09351
0.00337
3.6038

Table B-34 Measured Deflections for Km 112.000- 112.540 [TEMP 40o C]

Sl no

Location
(Km)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

112.000
112.060
112.120
112.180
112.240
112.300
112.360
112.420
112.480
112.540
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.44956
0.43878
0.43792
0.43786
0.42467
0.43652
0.41650
0.42863
0.42531
0.42965
0.43254
0.00941
2.1755

0.26305
0.26376
0.25891
0.25945
0.25256
0.26773
0.25846
0.26187
0.25122
0.26274
0.25998
0.00506
1.9463

0.18706
0.18781
0.18857
0.19023
0.18318
0.19306
0.18655
0.18992
0.18658
0.18944
0.18824
0.00267
1.4184

0.15308
0.15147
0.15381
0.15404
0.14944
0.15639
0.15147
0.15377
0.15219
0.15417
0.15298
0.00192
1.2550

0.12809
0.12576
0.13012
0.12918
0.12541
0.13113
0.12626
0.12901
0.13018
0.12911
0.12842
0.00199
1.5496

0.10941
0.10700
0.11140
0.11142
0.10812
0.11185
0.09337
0.11032
0.10922
0.11056
0.10827
0.00546
5.0429

0.09464
0.09245
0.09537
0.09401
0.08979
0.09736
0.10883
0.09593
0.08944
0.09596
0.09538
0.00541
5.6720

Table B-35 Measured Deflections for Km 112.000- 112.540 [Temp-35OC]

Sl
no

Location
(Km)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

112.000
112.060
112.120
112.180
112.240
112.300
112.360
112.420
112.480
112.540
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.42478
0.40254
0.42154
0.43198
0.40022
0.41053
0.42958
0.40923
0.43219
0.44018
0.42028
0.01381
3.2859

0.27365
0.26023
0.26113
0.27307
0.26144
0.25565
0.27872
0.26313
0.27407
0.28785
0.26889
0.01012
3.76362

0.19062
0.18634
0.18555
0.18068
0.18576
0.18796
0.18548
0.18804
0.18068
0.19017
0.18613
0.00340
4.4807

173

0.15153
0.14933
0.14873
0.14572
0.15350
0.14558
0.14889
0.15053
0.14752
0.15011
0.14914
0.00247
1.6561

0.12809
0.12536
0.12350
0.12148
0.12732
0.12228
0.12384
0.12572
0.12148
0.12517
0.12442
0.00231
1.8566

0.10990
0.10442
0.10439
0.10361
0.10783
0.10407
0.10447
0.10663
0.10361
0.11012
0.10591
0.00255
2.4077

0.08979
0.09033
0.08973
0.08795
0.09301
0.08966
0.09341
0.09178
0.08755
0.09067
0.09039
0.00192
1.3275

Table B-36 Measured Deflections for Km 112.000- 112.480 [Temp-30oC]

Sl
No

Location
(km)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

112.000
112.060
112.120
112.180
112.240
112.300
112.360
112.420
112.480
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.39436
0.26558 0.19702
0.15950
0.13464 0.11556 0.10053
0.40487
0.27202 0.20031
0.16245
0.13708 0.11762 0.10124
0.40056
0.26884 0.19625
0.15847
0.13336 0.11382 0.09876
0.38726
0.26203 0.19327
0.15658
0.13226 0.11351 0.09608
0.40876
0.26747 0.20118
0.15632
0.13198 0.11056 0.10073
0.38007
0.25966 0.21002
0.16145
0.13784 0.11440 0.09798
0.41055
0.27073 0.21996
0.16296
0.13004 0.12089 0.10185
0.39659
0.28312 0.19912
0.16164
0.13665 0.11713 0.09842
0.40119
0.28896 0.20218
0.16668
0.13709 0.11900 0.10368
0.39825
0.27093 0.20215
0.16067
0.13455 0.11583 0.09942
0.00943
0.00953 0.00816
0.00332
0.00278 0.00316 0.00231
2.4934
3.5175
4.0366
2.0663
0.0661
2.7281 2.3234

Table B-37 Measured Deflections for Km 126.000-126.660 [Temp 40oC]

Sl
no

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

126.000
126.060
126.120
126.180
126.240
126.300
126.360
126.420
126.480
126.540
126.600
126.660
Mean
SD
COV (%)

(km)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.47562
0.51803
0.50646
0.48463
0.47538
0.47526
0.46413
0.48045
0.47011
0.48357
0.50167
0.51198
0.48727
0.01771
3.6345

0.29036
0.31573
0.31443
0.30142
0.29442
0.29344
0.29107
0.30166
0.29027
0.29260
0.30253
0.31017
0.29984
0.00937
1.79095

0.20741
0.21286
0.23077
0.21082
0.20535
0.20899
0.20707
0.20723
0.19867
0.20865
0.20816
0.20808
0.20957
0.00757
3.5835

0.15674
0.17212
0.13026
0.17026
0.17380
0.17297
0.16634
0.16540
0.16724
0.16884
0.17016
0.16872
0.16524
0.07789
7.1955

0.14013
0.14427
0.15118
0.14427
0.14604
0.14515
0.13667
0.13796
0.13970
0.14035
0.14068
0.13902
0.14212
0.00413
2.9265

0.12011
0.12376
0.13276
0.11989
0.12556
0.12664
0.11730
0.11719
0.11882
0.12032
0.12011
0.12758
0.12250
0.00478
3.9020

0.10296
0.10022
0.10465
0.09833
0.10097
0.11078
0.10109
0.09809
0.10354
0.10057
0.10422
0.09682
0.01085
0.00375
3.6818

Table B-38 Measured Deflections for Km 126.000- 126.540 [Temp-35OC]

Sl
Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500
no
and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD
COV(%)

174

0.41708
0.40671
0.41701
0.42107
0.42006
0.40702
0.42178
0.43102
0.43011
0.42817
0.42000
0.00855
2.0357

0.26167
0.25687
0.26102
0.27022
0.26387
0.25567
0.26332
0.26342
0.28056
0.26885
0.26455
0.00722
2.7291

0.19015
0.18553
0.18856
0.18971
0.19005
0.17967
0.18781
0.19023
0.19462
0.19287
0.18892
0.00410
2.1702

0.15428
0.14980
0.15299
0.16004
0.15569
0.15002
0.15029
0.15200
0.15680
0.14990
0.15318
0.00349
2.2783

0.13006
0.12487
0.12831
0.12879
0.13108
0.12570
0.12558
0.12382
0.12023
0.12904
0.12675
0.00331
2.6114

0.11003
0.10700
0.11042
0.11640
0.11385
0.10719
0.10881
0.10551
0.10997
0.11052
0.10997
0.00324
2.9462

0.09526
0.08971
0.09526
0.08733
0.09125
0.09227
0.08861
0.09051
0.08530
0.09518
0.09107
0.00348
3.8212

Table B-39 Surface Deflections for Km 126.000-126.540 [Temp-30o C]

Sl
No

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

126.000
126.060
126.120
126.180
126.240
126.300
126.360
126.420
126.480
126.540
Mean
SD
COV (%)

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.39357
0.39568
0.40176
0.38996
0.41576
0.40023
0.39600
0.41068
0.41086
0.41645
0.40310
0.00963
2.3889

0.26011
0.25979
0.26446
0.26243
0.27354
0.26377
0.25944
0.27044
0.27038
0.27599
0.26004
0.00607
2.2816

0.18625
0.18691
0.19038
0.18913
0.19436
0.19140
0.18417
0.19184
0.19174
0.19564
0.19018
0.00361
1.7877

0.14924
0.15066
0.15372
0.15275
0.15502
0.15504
0.14748
0.15274
0.15273
0.15538
0.15248
0.00262
1.71825

0.12406
0.12546
0.13008
0.12746
0.12826
0.13006
0.12231
0.12644
0.12644
0.12839
0.01209
0.00250
1.4600

0.10663
0.10663
0.10914
0.10734
0.10785
0.11063
0.10324
0.10628
0.10625
0.10784
0.10718
0.00196
1.8286

0.09059
0.09185
0.09459
0.09327
0.09327
0.09528
0.08929
0.09194
0.09177
0.08967
0.09215
0.00198
2.1486

Table B-40 Measured Deflections for Km 130.100- 130.640 [Temp-40O C]

Sl
No

Location Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900, 1200,
1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

130.100
130.160
130.220
130.280
130.340
130.400
130.460
130.520
130.580
130.640
Mean
SD
COV (%)

0.41202
0.41301
0.40529
0.42041
0.42417
0.40687
0.41684
0.41258
0.41944
0.41358
0.41442
0.00591
1.3295

0.24106
0.23844
0.23412
0.23944
0.23902
0.23558
0.23612
0.24255
0.24152
0.24188
0.23897
0.00290
1.21135

0.16576
0.16476
0.16128
0.16511
0.16315
0.16275
0.16203
0.16723
0.16492
0.16621
0.16432
0.00193
1.1745

0.13079
0.13055
0.12754
0.13082
0.12855
0.12884
0.12805
0.13221
0.12987
0.13102
0.12982
0.00151
1.1631

0.10768
0.10756
0.10503
0.10743
0.10543
0.10622
0.10534
0.10885
0.10665
0.10767
0.10679
0.00126
1.1798

0.09067
0.09747
0.08854
0.09181
0.08971
0.08955
0.08945
0.09177
0.08968
0.09066
0.09043
0.00252
2.7713

0.07852
0.07782
0.07567
0.07784
0.07583
0.07674
0.07600
0.07944
0.07676
0.07844
0.07771
0.00129
1.6600

Table B-41 Measured Deflection for Km 130.100-130.640 [Temp 31o C]

Sl No Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD

130.100
130.160
130.220
130.280
130.340
130.400
130.460
130.520
130.580
130.640

Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
0.37475
0.37417
0.38144
0.38471
0.36767
0.37825
0.37442
0.37411
0.37684
0.38216
0.37685
0.00497

0.24211
0.23968
0.24487
0.24489
0.23576
0.24278
0.24035
0.24201
0.24081
0.24287
0.24161
0.00265

0.16746
0.16617
0.16779
0.16871
0.16244
0.16686
0.16653
0.16745
0.16604
0.16745
0.16649
0.00169

175

0.13110
0.13076
0.13055
0.13155
0.12786
0.13021
0.13079
0.13145
0.12978
0.13126
0.13053
0.00109

0.10728
0.10712
0.10636
0.10763
0.10432
0.10617
0.10726
0.10564
0.10598
0.10736
0.10651
0.00103

0.09032
0.08939
0.08840
0.08944
0.08814
0.08836
0.09031
0.09602
0.08828
0.08947
0.08981
0.00233

0.07698
0.07705
0.07642
0.07768
0.07515
0.07603
0.07703
0.07698
0.07617
0.07706
0.07666
0.00072

Table B-42 Measured Deflection values for Km 130.100-130.640 [Temp 25o C]

Sl
No

Location Surface deflections (mm) at a radial distance (mm) from 0, 300, 600, 900,
1200, 1500 and 1800 the centre of the loading plate
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

130.100
130.160
130.220
130.280
130.340
130.400
130.460
130.520
130.580
130.640
Mean
SD
COV (%)

0.35817 0.24219
0.35659 0.24121
0.36021 0.243981
0.35657 0.24215
0.35789 0.24428
0.36001 0.24134
0.35102 0.24565
0.36004 0.25014
0.36186 0.24730
0.35998 0.24691
0.35823 0.24452
0.00306 0.00296
0.8541
1.2105

0.17155
0.17032
0.17390
0.17199
0.17298
0.17520
0.17150
0.17672
0.17395
0.17909
0.17372
0.00268
1.5427

0.13490
0.13347
0.13623
0.14452
0.13455
0.13531
0.13357
0.13812
0.14001
0.14165
0.13723
0.00374
2.7253

0.11221
0.10993
0.11163
0.11092
0.11502
0.10798
0.11044
0.11201
0.11554
0.11082
0.11165
0.00226
2.0241

0.09447
0.09312
0.09545
0.09559
0.09544
0.09212
0.09339
0.09585
0.09559
0.09327
0.09443
0.00134
1.4190

0.08094
0.08055
0.08163
0.08017
0.08153
0.07839
0.08112
0.08326
0.07986
0.08126
0.08087
0.00128
1.5827

Table B- 43 Load and corresponding Surface Deflections Measured on Km

109.100 of NH-6
Sl

Load

No

KN

300

600

28.9

0.37025

0.21657

0.15402

0.11658

0.10201

0.09243

0.06323

29.5

0.38967

0.23502

0.15867

0.12996

0.10545

0.09627

0.06402

31.1

0.38002

0.23518

0.17414

0.12893

0.10676

0.09829

0.06499

39.0

0.48463

0.28875

0.19878

0.17026

0.14927

0.11989

0.09568

40.9

0.48537

0.29260

0.20865

0.16884

0.14035

0.12032

0.09856

41.5

0.49783

0.29442

0.20535

0.17380

0.14604

0.12556

0.09873

50.6

0.59961

0.35827

0.25179

0.21125

0.17988

0.14274

0.12302

51.4

0.61189

0.36706

0.26017

0.21908

0.18012

0.14567

0.12306

51.8

0.63025

0.37001

0.26908

0.22068

0.18121

0.14901

0.12399

176

Measured Surface Deflection (mm) at a radial distances of

900

1200

1500

1800

177

178