1 / 19

EVALUATION OF FWD DATA FOR DETERMINATION OF LAYER MODULI OF PAVEMENTS

EVALUATION OF FWD DATA FOR DETERMINATION OF LAYER MODULI OF PAVEMENTS. Dr. Yusuf Mehta, P.E. Rowan University Dr. Reynaldo Roque, P.E. University of Florida Presented at the 2 nd European Pavement User Group June 22 nd , 2002 Cascais, Portugal. Acknowledgements.

gyala
Download Presentation

EVALUATION OF FWD DATA FOR DETERMINATION OF LAYER MODULI OF PAVEMENTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EVALUATION OF FWD DATA FOR DETERMINATION OF LAYER MODULI OF PAVEMENTS Dr. Yusuf Mehta, P.E. Rowan University Dr. Reynaldo Roque, P.E. University of Florida Presented at the 2nd European Pavement User Group June 22nd, 2002 Cascais, Portugal

  2. Acknowledgements • Florida Department of Transportation • Federal Highway Administration

  3. Presentation Outline • Problem Statement • Objectives • Scope • Background • Backcalculation • Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing • Results and Analysis • Summary • Conclusions

  4. Problem Statement • Backcalculation of layer moduli does not provide a unique solution • 95 % of the deflection measured at the surface attributed to subgrade • Computer programs may match deflection basins but may not “necessarily” give reasonable values • Depends heavily on the seed value

  5. Problem Statement • Program cannot think for the user! • Factors affecting surface deflection influenced by • damaged layers, thickness variation and temperature • A detailed analysis of FWD data necessary to prevent misleading interpretation of data

  6. Objectives • To present case histories • illustrate problems that can be encountered • interpretation methods that can be used to properly evaluate FWD data • Proper interpretation of FWD data • complete evaluation of all available data is necessary for pavement sections that have experienced multiple milling operations and overlays • Utility of multiple FWD measurements along the length of the highway • identify patterns that are crucial to the proper interpretation of the data

  7. Project no Project ID (UF) Route County Contractor 2134391 1 I-10 Madison Couch 2139971 2 I-75 Hamilton Anderson 2139961 3 I-75 Hamilton White 2133001 4 I-10 Duval Atlantic 2423161 5 I-95 Brevard MacAsphalt 2387491 6 US 301 Marion DAB 2325941 7 Turnpike Palm Beach Ranger Overview of Projects Projects cover a broad range of contractors and materials

  8. Backcalculation • “Inverse” problem of determining material properties of layers • No direct closed form solutions available • Heavily depends on “seed” value • Combination of moduli value may produce similar deflection basins • In this case elastic layered analysis was used (BISDEF) • The incremental advantage of using other may be compromised by inherent assumptions in the backcalculation process

  9. Load 40 kN D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 20.3 cm 10.16 cm 30.5cm 30.5cm 30.5cm 30.5cm FWD Testing

  10. FWD Analysis • Various algorithms • Absolute difference, % difference or sum of absolute difference • Matching the curvature is better than minimum error method • Representative of stiffness of pavement system

  11. FWD Data – Project 1 (I-10WB) AC Modulus: 1100 ksi Tested on Dec 2000

  12. FWD Data – Project 2 (I-75SB) AC Modulus: 1600 ksi Tested in Jan 2000 Core thickness varied from 6 to 12 in

  13. FWD Data – Project 5 (I-95NB) Tested in Nov 1999 Asphalt concrete modulus=1100 ksi Stabilized subgrade= 200 ksi

  14. The AC modulus correlated well with cracks at the bottom of the cores. Tested in Aug 1999. The modulus of surface course: 350 ksi FWD Data – Project 6 (US301SB)

  15. Findings from FWD data • Generally, very stiff pavements with good base and subgrade (some variability noted) • It appears reasonable to attribute observed rutting to permanent deformation within the surface layer (i.e., good experiment). • FWD was useful in identifying the damaged structural layer within the surface layer in project 6 (It may influence future cracking performance).

  16. Conclusions and Recommendations • Although algorithms have improved for interpretation of deflection basin, • FWD interpretations have become increasingly challenging • More and more of the roads experience multiple milling operations, overlays, and complex performance histories • interpretation of FWD data should include complete evaluation of all available data • The default values obtained from any program may give a good fit between the measured and computed deflections, but the modulus values obtained from the analysis may be of little value.

  17. Conclusions and Recommendations • there is no unique solution for FWD backcalculation analysis, • it is very difficult to ascertain a modulus value based on the backcalculation at a single location. • analyzing the variation of moduli of all the layers along the length of a section are critical in identifying inconsistencies and assuring reasonableness and accuracy of the interpretation • understanding the inconsistencies in modulus values along the length of a section is essential in deciding which layer moduli should be fixed or varied along the section

  18. Conclusions and Recommendations • Independent verification parameters • air or pavement temperature during FWD testing • actual asphalt concrete thickness from cores or ground penetrating radar • change(s) in mixture design • variations in water-table, or anomalies from the construction plan (culverts, etc) • the data could also include specific distress like core information and various forms of distress, and rating prior to rehabilitating underlying section

  19. Thank you!

More Related