Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

A PROCEDURE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

E. BARAN, B.Tech.(Civil), Grad.Dip.App.Hydrogeol., Grad .I.E.Aust.,


Engineer, (Pavement Testing Services), Pavements Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

D.J. ANGELL, B.E. , M.Eng.Sc., M.I.E.Aust.,


Engineer, (Pavement Design), Pavements Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

S.W. EARL, B.Sc. , Computer Systems Officer,


Information Services Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

S.W. WALSH, B.Sc., Computer Systems Officer,


Information Services Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

ABSTRACT

In the past back analysis of deflection bowl results, to obtain estimates of pavement and subgrade strength parameters, has
involved use of trial and error curve fitting techniques comparing measured rebound bowl shapes with predicted bowl shapes
from elastic analysis programs. The US Corps of Engineers developed an iterative program utilising CHEVRON to simplify
this procedure. However, difficulties have been experienced in obtaining realistic estimates of pavement and subgrade
stiffness particularly when analysing bowls from stiff (eg cement treated) pavements. The cause of this has been that the
measured bowl is not a true indication of the actual deflection bowl because of the influence of the bowl on the legs of the
Benkelman beam. Attempts to correct the measured bowl for the influence of the actual bowl on the beam's legs have not
been totally successful because a knowledge of existing pavement strength properties is required to make an accurate
correction and it is these strength properties that are sought from the back analysis. This paper presents a procedure fo r back
analysis of deflection bowls to obtain estimates of pavement and subgrade moduli, which utilises the US Corps of Engineers
iterative approach but calling in CIRCLY rather than CHEVRON and using the geometry of a Benkelman beam to correct the
computer predicted deflection bowl to what would have been measured by a Benkelman beam. Although this procedure

INTRODUCTION bowl near the position of maximum deflection


reflects the stiffness of the pavement base
1. The Benkelman beam, since its development with weak bases having steep slopes while stiff
in 1953 at the WASHO (1955) Road Test, has bases have flat slopes. From the deflection
become a standard tool, used by road recorded at approximately 1 m away from the
authorities worldwide, for the non destructive maximum, an indication of subgrade strength
testing of pavements. Although many variations could be obtained. Higher deflections in this
of the Benkelman beam test procedure exist, region indicate weaker subgrade.
most procedures generally aim at recording the
deflection response during the unloading or 3. With the development of computer programs
rebound of the pavement as the standard test that could represent pavement structures as
wheel load moves away from the tip of the beam. layered elastic models, deflection bowls could
This rebound deflection level gives an be analysed to quantify the varying pavement
indication of the structural condition of an and subgrade strength properties that the
existing pavement and is the major input into different bowl shapes indicated. This back
overlay design procedures (Asphalt Institute analysis of deflection bowl shapes was first
1983; NAASRA 1987). done by Main Roads (Queensland) (MR(Q in 1979
using a multi-layer linear elastic computer
2. Researchers found that the deflection bowl program developed by the Chevron Resea rch
shape, which is an influence line of the change Company (Chevron 1963) called CHEVRON.
in deflection with distance as the load moves
during the test, would yield additional 4. This procedure was essentially a trial and
information on pavement condition than would error curve fitting exercise. Various
just def l ection alone. The steepness of the combinations of pavement and subgrade moduli

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors wish to thank Mr E.I'. Finger, Commissioner of Main Roads, Queensland, for
permission to present this paper. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Main Roads
Queensland.

PROC EED INGS 14th ARR B CONFEREN C E, PART 6 20 1


BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

were input into the program until the predicted named CIRCDEF, based on CHEVDEF's iterative
deflection response of the pavement model procedures but calling in CIRCLY rather than
matched, as near as practical, the measured CHEVRON, was developed.
response. This was a time consuming operation
and only considered practical when carried out
by experienced operators or where unlimited 8. Even with these developments, problems
access to computer time was available . In the still existed with the deflection bowl back
latter situation a large number of test runs analysi s procedure. Past MR (Q) experience,
covering a range of pavement and subgrade particularly in the analysis of bowls from
moduli increments are run and the output bound pavements, was that although the
scanned to select the best fit solution. procedure gave realistic estimates of base
modulus, the predicted subgrade modulus was
unreasonably high. These subgrade modulus
5. In the late seventies, the US Corps of predictions were up to two times the estimate
Engineers had' developed an iterative back obtained from insitu measurements.
analysis program, which could handle up to five
layers using a multi-layer Chevron elastic
analysis program, that greatly reduced the work
involved in deflection bowl modelling. A 9. It was found fr om analysis of deflection
listing of this program, still in a bowls from bound pavements that the influence
developmental stage was obtained by the of the bowl on the feet of the Benkelman beam,
Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) in late during the test, was significant. On heavily
1979 from Mr W. Barker of the US Corps of bound cement treated pavements this effect
Engineers (Gray 1979; Bush 1980). This contributed to an almost 50% reduc-tion in the
program was made operational by MR(Q) staff, measured Benkelman Beam deflection response and
modified slightly and metricated by ARRB staff was the cause of the high subgrade strength
and the current version , titled CHEVDEF has estimates obtained from back analysis of these
been in use by MR(Q) since 1983. bowls. On thin granular pavements this effect
was greatly reduced .
6. The main drawback of CHEVDEF was that by
using CHEVRON, which assumes that pavement
layers are isotropic, it could not accurately 10. A procedure was developed to correct for
predict the anisotropic behaviour of granular the influence of the' deflection bowl on the
and cohesive materials. It was therefore beam's legs and incorporated into the CIRCDEF
decided to modify CHEVDEF to call in an program. This overall bowl analysis procedure
alternative program to CHEVRON that could aims at making the estimate of pavement and
handle anisotropic behaviour . subgrade strength from back analysis of
deflection bowls as simple and as accurate as
7. The C.S.I.R.O's CIRCLY program (Wardle possible. This paper presents this developed
1977) was selected for this purpose. A copy procedure, outlines the advantages in using
was obtained in early 1987, the input and this approach, and suggests the direction for
output format simplified and a new program further development and verification.

4200

FI XED LEGS
CARRYING HANDLE
BALL BEARING FULCRUM
TIP
FOLDING PROBE

BALL BEARING RACE 250 BODY REAR LEG

*"
I
.. - - - - -------=-~
1
2440
---- ~~
1220*

(ALUMINIUM CONSTRUCTION) DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES


*CRITICAL DIMENSIONS

Fig. 1 - Benkleman beam

202 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

DESCRIPTION OF BENKELMAN BEAM BOWLS 12. Generally test procedures involve placing
the beam tip some distance between the dual
11. The Benkelman beam consists basically of a tyres of a single axle loaded to 8.2 tonnes an&
3.66m long beam pivoted at a point 2.44 m from recording the deflection response as the test
the tip. (Refer Fig 1.) The pivot is held in axle is driven away from the tip. By fitting a
place by an external frame supported by a pair contact displacement transducer to the beam in
of fixed legs, near the pivot point and an the vicinity of the dial gauge and using a
adjustable leg at the end furtherest from the rotopulse, driven by the test vehicle's wheel to
tip. A dial gauge is mounted on the external provide a distance measure, the full deflection
frame and makes contact with the beam at a response can be measured as a function of
point 1.22 m from the pivot point. A distance from the test load. Figure 2 shows
deflection applied to the tip results in, the deflection bowl test setup and presents
because of the 2:1 lever arm ratio, half that typical bowl shapes obtained from the
deflection being recorded on the dial gauge. deflection test procedure, a modified WASHO
Figure 1 presents the Road Construction (1955) procedure, used by MR(Q) (1978).
Authority (RCA) (formerly Country Road Board)
Design (CRB 1967/69) Benkelman beam which is 13. Although a loading phase is involved, the
used by MR(Q). I t should be noted that, MR(Q) procedure is aimed at measuring the
irrespective of design, all Benkelman beams unloading or rebound of the pavement as the
have the same critical dimensions. test load moves away from the tip. Other

Residual
Deflection

Loading Bowl
Unloading Bowl (Rebound Bowll
Lead (mm)

.Travel (mml __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _--..,

Fig. 2 - Deflection bowl setup and typical output

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 203


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Distance (m) Distance (m)


o 2:3 4 o 2 :3 4
o r-----~----~~----~----~. Or------'-----~~----~------J

OI + - --
. __ - - r - .
-=...-'-'----c::;;=-""""= - - - - - - -
----------
O I+-----:,,-'----~......,=-------

0 2b-:....~---,,---- 0 2t---r-~----
LEGEND LEGEND
- 250/50 ---250/50
- . - 400/100 - . -400/ 100
- - 5000/50 ---5000/50
- - - - - 5<X)()/ 1OO - - - - - 5000/100
'lit 250/50-2S0MPoiso MPo Deflection
-Povement / &bQrade Modul i. (rTYTl)O.:>+II-+_ _
TYPICAL CHEVRON GENERATED BONLS TYPICAL CHEVROO GENERATED BOWLS
06f--f--- PAVEMNT DEPTH =280 mm 06 PAVEMENT DEPTH = lBO mm

/:HIN!
0 8

O 09
BASE

11

Fig. 3 - Typical rebound deflection bowls


(for various extremes of pavement and subgrade modulus)

procedures such as having the test load


approach the tip of the beam, thereby producing
a loading rather than a rebound deflection bowl (0)
are not generally used in Australia although
the Lacriox Deflectograph does operate on this
principle.
(b)
14. It is Main Roads practice to define a bowl
by the deflection level at the point of maximum {Dial Gouge
deflection, designated DO' and at some LOA~II . ~FUlcrum
- _

~~~_T_I:f~'--
__yT't-~Z~\.---
distances from the maximum on the unloading
side of the bowl. These distances are 150 mm,
300 mm, 450 mm, 600 mm, 900 mm and 1200 mm.
All bowl deflections are measured from a zero Rear
Front Leg
datum defined as the tail end of the bowl as Legs
indicated in Figure 2. These seven deflections

::""1
[ ----~
have been found to be sufficient for defining
the bowl shape for analysis by the CHEVRON or (d)
CIRCLY program. The use of deflections at ' L nun n
additional distances increases computation time
with negligible improvement in accuracy.
x l x'{ ___ _
15. Typical computer generated rebound
deflection bowls for bound pavements and
unbound granular pavements are presented in
Figure 3. It can be seen from these bowls that
(e) ~ef:c~l:n-L- --= - -1 1
the steepness of the bowl in the vicinity of Reference 1: Tz
line A~orent y
the maximum deflection reflects the base Deflection
modulus while the deflection at approximately Reference
1 m from the maximum deflection refects the Line after
subgrade strength. Most importantly, it can be Legs Move
seen that significant deflections are still
predicted at distances of 2-4 metres from the Diagrams (a) - (c) show the movement of the
Benkelman beam during a typical reb ound test on
test load and it these deflections that a Bound pavement. x.y and z denote the
influence the legs of the Benkelman beam and displacement of the tip. front legs and rear
affect the measured deflection result . leg respectively.

In Diagram (d) a displacement of "x " mm at the


16. The reason for MR(Q) adopting the modified tip is recorded as an u x /2 " mm displacement at
WASHO (1955) method was the concept that by the dial guage . Ho wever , if the legs are moved
placing the tip of the beam as far forward of as indicate d in Diagram (e) then the measured
deflection is redu ced consid erably . Fo r the
the test load as the fixed legs were back from exa mple shown, the apparent deflection .. xl .. is
the load at the start of test, the influence of a pprox im ate l y 40 % of t he actual deflection x .
the bowl on the beams legs was minimal .
However, this is not the c ase as the stylised
beam sketches in Figure 4 indi cate . Even a Fig. 4 - Effect of beam leg movement on deflection
rebound (CGRA 1959) test with the test load measurement

204 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6


BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

moving an infinite distance away from the tip 19. Typical data from one of these gauges,
will not result in the actual deflection being installed in a pavement with a granular base
recorded by the beam. and a weak cement treated subbase, are
presented in Figure 6. At the time of testing,
17. In the past the effect of the bowl on the March 1986, the concept of deflections
occurring at distances greater than 3-4 metres
beam legs had been discounted because it was
from the load was not appreciated and the tests
considered that the deflections at these
were terminated at approximately 5 metres from
distances from the load were very small, if
the gauge. Figure 6, which presents the
they existed at all, but it was conceeded that
results of 10 repeat runs over a single gauge,
they may be significant for pavements with very
shaw that the majority of results indicate that
stiff bases. The former conception has to be
the deflection had not stabilised even when the
discarded. The computer analysis programs used
load was 5 m from the gauge.
to analyse pavement structures predict
significant deflections in the region as Figure
20. If the rate of change of deflection
] shows. Also obvious frpm these computer
between 2.5 and 5 m is extropolated out to say
generated bowls is that the deflection in the 10 m and at this point the deflection assumed
region > 2.0 m is a function of the subgrade to be zero (note CHEVRON still predicts a
strength and independent of pavement strength deflection of 0.01 mm at this point for the
or thickness. appropriate site subgrade conditions), then
the deflection at 2 metres from the load,
18. To see if deflections occur at distances measured from this zero datum, would be
of 3-5 m from the load point as predicted, data approximately 0.06 mm. This deflection, which
obtained by MR(Q) from monitoring of full depth is dependent on subgrade strength alone, lies
deflection gauges on ARRB experimental sites between 0.05 m and 0.11 mm, predicted by
near Brisbane (Sharp, Baran and Potter 1987) CHEVRON for subgrade strengths of 100 MPa and
were examined. These gauges, an example of 50 MPa respectively, (refer Figure 3) ' and would
which is given in Figure 5, were installed by infer a subgrade strength at time of test of
ARRB pr'i marily for measurement of deflection CBR 1-10 which is considered appropriate for
under moving loads during the 1984 ARRB Axle the insitu site conditions at the time.
Load Study (Sharp, Sweatman and Potter 1986).
The gauges being installed in the pavement, 21. Accepting that deflections occur at
record the actual deflection (with respect to distances of 3-5 metres from the load and are
an anchor fixed 2-3 metres below the surface)
of the magnitude predicted by elastic analysis
free of the influences that effect a Benkelman
programs and supported by results of insitu
beam, ' that occurs as a loaded wheel passes over
deflection gauges, then it would be logical to
them.
reasOh that the effect on a measured deflection
bowl, of the movement of legs of a Benkelman
beam during a test, would be greatest in very
low maximum deflection situations (Le. where
the movement of the legs is a significant
proportion of the maximum movement of the beam
tip) and least in high deflection &ituations
(where the magnitude of the deflection at the
DCDT core tip would swamp any relatively minor movements
DCDT at the legs.
Body
22. From observing the Benkelman beam
deflections being recorded on newly
constructed, full depth cement treated base
(design base modulus of 5000 MPa) it was
apparent that the measured deflection response
of these stiff pavements was much lower than
that predicted by elastic analysis programs.
Even failed cement treated base pavements had
no trouble meeting the NAASRA (1987) tolerable
deflection criteria. This, together with past
...'"
Q)
experience of back analysis of cement treated
~ base deflection bowls, which generally gave
E realistic values for base modulus and at least
r<>
I twice the expected subgrade strength, confirmed
N that, at least on stiff pavements, the Benkelman
beams were only measuring part of the actual
defle c tion that wa s oCf urring.

23. With back analysis of deflection bowls


from granular pavements using CHEVDEF, although
realisti c estimates of base and subgrade moduli
Anchor were generally obtained, the fit between the
measured and the computed bowls was usually
poor, espe c ially in the 900 mm - 1200 mm
region. This poor fit was attributed both to
the anisotr opi c behaviour of the granular
pavem ent material and to a le s ser part the
Fig, 5 - Insitu full depth deflection gauge influenc e of the bowl on the legs of the beam.

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 205


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Distance of Travel from


Maximum Def lection in metres
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
o
01
0 2
0 3
0-4
Deflection
(mm) 05 LEGEND
06 43-Run Number

0 7
0 8
0 9
10

Fig. 6 - Typical full depth deflection gauge output


for rebound bowl

Distance (metres) ADOPTION OF CIRCLY INSTEAD OF CHEVRON


00 0 2 OA 06 0-8 10 1-2 14 16 IS 20

02
25. Until r ecent years , most pavement analysi s
OA procedures have adopted an is otropic
Deflection
(mm) 0 6 -f?O 4OOMPo\'tT!2aomm~ 250MPo cha ra c terisati on of all pavement and subg rade
materials. In procedures used to back analyse
;r9
.,oJ 100 MPo 50 MPo deflection bowls, the same assumpti ons of
:t /STRONGJ /WEAK/ isotropy have normally been made.

/ THICK BASEl 26. Analysis of an increas ing amount of


research test da ta (NAASRA 1987; Anderson 19 83;
O+-~--~~~--~~--~~~~
Youdale 1984) is suggesting t hat unbound
granular pavi ng materials and s ubgrade
0 2 materials are better characterised using
anisotropic as sump tions about their behaviour .
OA
400MPO ::>:~ 180mm---250MPo 27. Although acceptance of anisotropy for
~ ~ these materials is not unive rsal and the reason
100 MPo 50 MPo for this apparent behaviour is not fully
/STROVGJ [WEAK} understood, it is now increas~ngly being
10 adopted by pavement designers for analysis.
Specifically, cross-ani sot ropy is commonly
/THINBASEJ assumed , with both horizonta l moduli being
about half of the vertical modulus (NAASRA
IA Legend
1987) .
ISO - Isotropic
ANISO - Anisotropic
250 MPo/50 MPo-Povement/Subgrode Modul i 28. Whether these unbound materials are in
fact anisotropic to this degree or if their
stress dependency contributes to this appar ent
Fig. 7 - Granular pavement bowls behaviour is not clear but physically it may be
attributable to the fact that the materials ar e
normally laid in layers and compacted
ver t ic a lly.

24. It was there f ore apparent, that the 29. The CHEVRON computer program previously
procedures adopted in the past by Main Roads used by MR(Q) for pavement analysis and back
for the analysis of deflection bowls, needed to analysis of deflection bowls uses only
be improved to adequately handle the pavement isotropic characterisati on of a ll materials.
and materials being tested. The steps adopted The CIRCLY program has now been adopted both
were to develop an i terative back analysis for pavement design and for back ana lysis, and
proce du re based on the CIRCLY elastic analysis t his program is able to use either isotropic or
prog ram and to include in that procedure a cross anisotropic characterisat ion of
method of allowing for the influence of the materials. This capability is a major re as on
bowl on the legs of the beam. for the adoption of the CIRCLY program.

206 PR OCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6


BARAN, ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

30. CIRCLY has other advantages over CHEVRON


as a pavement analysis tool, including its Keyword Description
ability to handle:-

a greater range of load types including ND Number of deflection points to be


vertical and hor izontal loads and moments input. 2~ND90
about three axes . NS Number of layers in the pavement
multiple loads and system. l~NS..1.8
a range of load distributions over the NL Number of variable layers. l~L..1.4
contact areas. (Number of layers for which a
modulus value is to be calculated).
31 . Although the above are significant ILV A list of the layer numbers of the
advantages for pavement analysis, these full variable layers
capabilities of CIRCLY are not normally used RR List of the distances from the dual
for back analysis of deflection bowls. The load centre to the measurement
loading used for the back analysis is shown in positions.
Figure 8. RRD List of the deflections observed
at the points specified.
E List of the start moduli for each
107-6 mm layer. These values are used as the
Uniform Vertical Load moduli for each layer in the initial
distribution over circular iteration by CIRCDEF and for subsequent
iterations if the layer is not variable.
contact areas with a V List of the value of Poissons ratio for
Tyre Pressure of each layer.
330mm 550 kPa . HH List of the thicknesses of each layer.
(0 may be specified for the last layer
to indicate semi-infinite).
Fig. 8 - Representation of dual tyre loading for back analysis LT List of flags indicating each layer's
type:
T for treated, G for granular,
& S for subgrade.
32. In the MR(Q) procedure for back analysis, EMIN List of the minimum modulus value for
all asphalt and cemented layers ("Treated" each layer.
layers) are assumed to be isotropic while EMAX List of the maximum modulus value for
unbound granular and subgrade materials are each layer.
assumed to be cross anisotropic with vertical LS Distance between each of the two
moduli twice the horizontal moduli. circular loads or wheels.
WGT The load at each location (wheel).
KPA Pressure applied at the load locations.
Tyre pressure is used here for
OPERATION OF CIRCDEF calculation of the load radius.
TOL Tolerance of the fit. (Maximum absolute
sum of the percentage error in an
acceptable solution).
33. CIRCDEF, the CIRCLY based iterative back MAXIT Maximum number of iterations to be
analysis program reads its required input from performed.
a data file set up prior to execution. The CORECT* A flag indicating whether correction of
user is able, for the initial run, to set the predicted bowl is required.
parameters by specifying a keyword followed by START** The distance in front of the load where
its appropriate value. In subsequent runs only the first measurement will be taken
changes to the parameters, need be specified. (in mm).
Parameters which may be set are presented in TRAVEL**The travelling distance of the load in
Tablel. Dml.
SEND This keyword is used to separate data
34. The program also provides, where sets if required.
applicable, defaults for many of these
parameters. The defaults are consistent with
the standard MR(Q) Benkelman beam test
* this calls in the deflection bowl
procedure and deflection bowl presentation
correction sub-routine
formats. Hence only a few of the parameters in
** only required with CORECT
Table 1 need to be included in the data set.

35. A flow chart of the CIRCDEF iterative TABLE 1


procedure is presented in Figure 9 . A typical CIRCDEF Input Parameters
output from a CIRCDEF run which includes the
correction subroutine is given in Figure 10 .
The correct subroutine, is discussed in detail
in the following section. In brief , the CIRCLY followed by the defle ct ions predicted by CIRCLY
predicted bowl is corrected by the subroutine with the initial modulus values. Differences
to simulate a Benkelman beam bowl. and percentage errors between the "measured"
and "p redicted " are determined when the
36. The first few lines of output echo the correction routine is not used and between
input parameters. Details of the loads, layer "measured" and "corrected' when using the
system and deflection to be analysed are correction routine .

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 207


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH -- BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Check input
~or
\----oj initialise
consistancy

Yes

Flow Chart of CIRCDEF


No
Iterative Procedure

Calculate initial deflections


(call CIRCLY and correction r outines . )

OJput predic ted, neasured deflections


and percentage errors

Store this
as the best
Increrent No solut ion.
Iteration ~--r----------------<:
nurrber

Calcul?te a new set


of rrxxIulus va lues
for the variable
layers .
(Hethod obtained Yes
fran CHEVDEF
program. )

(A,tput these
rrxxIuli as the
predicted Yes
values for the
next interation.

Predict deflections for


OJtput final and best fit
the new rrxxIulus values
rrxxIulus wi th the
(call CIRCLY and the
terminating condition .

Store as the
best solution

Fig. 9 - Flow chart of CIRCDEF iterative procedure

208 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6


BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

TYP I CAL CIReDEr RU N ( TlIIH GRA NULAR PAVEHEtlTJ 37. From these values CIRCDEF calculates a new
NUMBER OF VARIABLE LAYERS set of modulus values for the variable layers
HUHBER Of LAYERS rtf SYSTEM
and outputs these along with a table of the
HUHB!;R Of TARG ET DEFLECTIONS
deflections predicted and their corresponding
corrected values by CIRCLY for the new
TRA Y[I..LIHG DISTANCE or LOAD IN HH :: 6000 . 0
values. This output is produced for each
DISTANCE IN YROHT Of THE WAD Of fiR S T HEASUREl-IEHT (HH, lJflO
iteration performed until either (i) a suitable
ll[fLECTIOH READIHGG IN liM ,
POf.JTI ONNO : 1 2 3 .. ~ 6 7 solution is found, (ii) the maximum number of
0 . 9R4(1 0 n . son l) O . ~!>9 "n O . J~"{l(l 0 . 2470 0 0 . 14800 0.10100
DErLECT IOI"S:
WEIGHTING rACTOR: 1 . 005 1 . 181 1.189 2 . 625 4 . 0"" 6 . 157 9 . 90J iterations is reached or (iii) CIRCDEF detects
an inconsistency in the system. When one of
DETAILS OF VARIABLE LAYERS
these conditions applies, final as well as the
LAYER NO f. YSTEli VALUE 0F 11AKIHIIH VALUE OF' HI1IIIiUl1
best fit moduli are output along with the
LAYER NO VERTICAL HODIILUS VERTICAL HODULUS terminating condition.
20(10 . 0 10 . 0
2000 . 0 10 . 0

DETAILS 0' LAYERED SYSTEH

LAYER NO VERTICAL POISSONS RATIO THICKNESS LAYER TYP!:


OPERATION OF BOWL CORRECTION SUBROUTINE
HODULUS
lln . 0 . 350 1 ~O . 00 CROSS-AfHSOTROFIC
10 . 0 . 350 SEHI-INrINITE CROSS-ANISOTROPIC

DETAILS OF LOADS 38. The standard Benkelman beam geometry and


LOAD TYPE RADIUS REfEREUCE AVEnAGE LOAO/11Ot1ENT
dimensions are presented in Figure 1. The beam
STRESS GTRESS PER LOCATION acts as a lever with a single fulcrum two-
thirds the distance along the lever producing a
(1) VERTICAL FORCE 101.5867 o . f:t!'OOE+OO 0.5500E"00 0 . 2000';'+05 reading a the gauge equal to half the actual
deflection at the tip. There are three points
LOAD LOCATIONS
along the beam that come into contact with the
LOAD
NO. pavement surface, the tip and the two sets of
o (l(lOOE"OO O . nooor.t {'I{'I legs which support the body of the beam.
U.3300[+03 O. OUOOE~uU

POSITION PREOICTED CORRECTED HEASUREn DlffEREUCE , DIFf.


I 1 . 0663~B 0 . 964140 0.994000 0 . 029 2 60 2.9 39. As discussed earlier, the influence of the
0 . 709004 0 . 841000 0 . 131996 16 . J
2
3
0 . 621050
0 . 540395 0 . 423103 0 . 559000 0 . 135 2 97 24 . 2 deflection bowl at the start of test extends
0 . 383608
0 . 293695
0,2535480.354000
0.183512 0 . 241000
0.100452
0 . 063428
28. ~
25 . 1
past both beam legs. The movements of these
0 . 199286 0 . 113472 0.148000 0 . 034528
0 . 022699
23 . 3
22 . 1
legs during the test results in an
0 . 150651 0 . 018101 0 . 101000
ABSOLUTE SUH : 0.523858 143.496323 underestimation, by the standard Benkelman beam
. . . . . . . . . . . . . "' ...... t:f t1 t . . . . . . . . , t.
ARITIIHET I C SUH :
t .... t . . . . . . t, ....................
143 . "96323
f"4" I .... .
$ 1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
test procedure, of the actual deflection that
occurs.
PREDJCT!D HOOULI AT ITERATION J.
135 . 01 84 . 32

POSITION pnEOtCTEO CORRECTED HEA SlIRr.(l DIFrEREN CE , OJFf . 40. Correction of the measured deflection for
1.126057 0 . 993 9 81 O . ~ 9 4(lno 0 . 000 0 19 0 .0
I
2 0 . 814909 0.160476 0.1'41000 0 . O86~24 10 . 2 the influence on the legs requires the
O. 098861 17 . 1
3
~
O. 5B~902
0 . 06694
0 . 4601:19
0 . 2 '16412
0 . 5 5 9000
O , 3~4000 0.011fl. 2 8 21.9
knowledge of the pavement and subgrade moduli
5 0 . 318588 0 . 190881 0 . 2.0000
O. 14fHlOO
0 . 048119
0 . 025441
19.5
11 , 2
so that the deflections at the legs, can be
6 0 . 21581B 0 . 122559
1 0 . 163301 0 . 0 (1 4-\14 0 . 101000 O. a 16586 16 . .. calculated. However it is these pavement and
AEtSOLUTE Slit! : 0 . 353018 102 . 89 5 884
subgrade moduli that are being estimated by the
....................................." ..................................
ARITHMETIC SlIH :
AVERAGE : 0 . 050"
.. ,., ........................ i- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102 . 895884
14.6994

t" ............ .
bowl back analysis procedures and hence any
corrections to the measured bowl would be based
PREDICTED HODULI AT ITERAT.ION
311 , 49 fll.29
2, on assumed moduli of the layers. This type of
iterative procedure would be cumbersome and
POSITIOH PREOICTEO CORRECTED HEASURED 01 Ff[RENCE , our , time consuming.
1 1.151321 0 . 989401 0 , 994000 0 . 004593 0.5
2 O. 919~83 0 . 841621 O. f!41000 -0 . 0006 2 1 -l'. 1
3 0 . 1169!.o2 0 . 563241 O . !>59000 -0 . 004241 -0 8
4 0 . ~2"5(' 5 0 . 36159 0 O . .354000 -0 , 001590 -2.1
& O . 39f1S86 0 . 25212 3 0.241000 -0 . 00 (. 123 -2.3
-0 . !J
41. The MR(Q) approach was to use the much
6 0.26421& 0 . 148706 0 . 146000 -0 . 000106
1 0 . 198699 0 . 101 2 16 0 , 101000 -0 . 00021 B -0 . 3 simpler technique of correcting the CIRCLY
AB!:i()LUTE SUM: 0 . 023152 S . 501361
ARITlItiETlC SlI~l : -5 [83159 "predicted" bowl to what would have been
0 . 0034 0 9296
....... t .............................. t .... ~t ......
AVERAGE:
t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
measured by a Benkelman beam under the
............... *....... ....................................................... .
~ corresponding pavement and subgrade strength
PREDICTED HODULI AT ITERATIOn 3. conditions and for the deflection test
348 . 3& 52 . 01
procedure used in the field. In this situation
POSITION PREDICTEO CORRECTED HEASURED DIFFERENCE S DIff . the moduli of the pavement and subgrade, used
-0 . 000071
1
2
1. 1 !.o411Q
o 91640 2
0 . 994 0 11
O . 8 '6 2~ 6
0 . 9940 0 0
0 . 841000 0.000114
0.0
0.1
for the initial computation are the input start
3
4
0 . 1 J IJ2C
0 . 5 11023
0 .5~ 1393
0 . 355018
' 0 . 559000
0 . 3 5 4000
0 . 001601
- 0. 001018
0.3
-0 . 3
values and for subsequent iterations are the
5 0,3 92 1 80 0 . 2 4 82 4 0 0 . 241000 -0 .00 1 2 40 -0 . 5 CIRCLY predicted values. The "corrected"
6 o 26068 5 0 . 1461 50 0 . 14 8000 0 . 0 0 1250 0. 8
1 0 . 196453 0.100112 0 . tOl000 0 , 00 06 2 8 0.8 CIRCLY bowl is then compared with the
ABSOLUTE SUH: 0 , 006853 2 . 851298
ARl THHET I C SUI1 : 1 . 2 2903& "measured" bowl and the iterative procedure
AVERAGE : 0 . 0010 0 , 4082
continues. A flow chart of this procedure is
THE FINAL VERTICAL HODULUS VALUES ARE given in Figure 11 . A detailed description of
LAYER HO FINAL BEST FIT the procedure is given in Table 2.
MODULI (ITERATIOt~ 3)

348 , 35 348 . 3 5
52 . 01 52 . 01
42. To display the benefits of the new bowl
DEFLECTI ONS ARE IN TOLERAU CE
analysis procedure and to determine the factors
.. u" EN D Of PROGRAM . . . u
that effect the relationship of the measured
bowl to the actual bowl shape, an analysis was
Fig. 10 - Typical CIRCDEF output undertaken of typical pavement models and

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 209


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

INPUT: A number of deflection measurements representing half a bowl (PRED) .


Let this number be N.

OUTPUT: N deflection measurements representing half the corrected bowl. Note :


N may take any values 1 to 10, inclusive, although MR(Q) use 7.

METHOD: (1) Expand the N deflection points to a number spanning the entire
bowl at 50 mm intervals by interpolating curves and straight lines
between adjacent deflection points. Selection of curves or
straight lines is dependent on inbuilt program test conditions,
however, curves are generally used between 0-600 mm and beyond
90 0 mm, while str a ight lines are used between 60 0- 9 00 mm. A
Bezier routine is used to calculate the curves while straight line
interpolating calculates the lines. Duplicate thi s half bowl to
create a representation of a fu l l bowl.
(2) Using this set of deflections, simulate a Benkleman beam test by
using the geometry of the beam and ba s ic lever principles to
derive a set of corrected deflections as a function of the
deflec t ions at the fulcrum and at the gauge. In order to simulate
t his test:
(a) deflections at the fulcrum must be derived as a function of
the deflections at the legs of the beam.

DO = [(D 2 - D3 ) x ~~~~J + D3
(b) deflections at the gauge are derived as a function of the
deflections at the legs of the beam. ~hese derivations are
done by extrapolating and interpolating, respectively .

Dl = ~D2 - D3 ) x l:~~J + D3
Once the delections at the fulcrum and gauge have been
established, these measurements along with the deflections at the
beam tip are used as input to the simulated Benkelman beam test to
produce a reading at the gauge at every 50 mm. The formula to
calcul a te this corrected bowl is defined:

Dc = [Pf ; Do] + (Dl - DO)

where Df is the deflection at the beam tip


where Dc is the resulting corrected deflection
where DO is the deflection at the fulcrum
where Dl is the deflection at the gauge
where D2 is the deflection of the front leg
where D3 is the deflection at the rear leg
1 7 00 mm is the distance from fulcrum to rear leg
1450 mm is the distance between front and rear legs
480 mm is the distance from guage to rear leg

(3) From this array of corrected deflections, interpolate a set of N


deflections at the same displacements along the beam as the
original predicted set (PRED) by
(a) Finding the maximum deflection and making it the deflection
at displacement 0 mm . Read off N-l other deflections at
those positions equal to array PRED.
(b) Calculate average of last ten deflections and make the zero
deflection line. Normalize N corrected deflections to this
line.
(4) Substitute this corrected bowl for the predicted bowl input , and
return control back to circdef.

TABLE 2 Description of Correction Procedure

210 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB C ONFERENCE, PART 6


BARAN, ANGELL, EARL , WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

circly creates theoretical bowl


fran rrodul i

theor etical bowl

cal culate new CORRECTION ROUTINE CORRECTS


rroduli TI1EORErICAL BCML TAKING TIlE
INFUJENCE OF TIlE BEAM' S LEGS
INl'O ACCOUNT

correct ed bowl

circdef compares measured bowl


with corrected bowl

if compar ison is favourab l e return


cur rent modul i to circdef ,
otherwise t est a di f fere nt set
of moduli

OK

End of Program

Fig. 11 - Flowchart of correction routine's role in CIRCDEF

Bound
Pavements

Subgrade Strengths Subgrode Strengths


508100 MPa 508100 MPa

Unbound
Pavements

50MPa 50MPa

/THICK/ /THINJ

Fig. 12 - Pavement models used in analysis

PROCEEDINGS 14t h ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 211


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

DIS TANCE Imm) DISTANCElmm l DIS TANCE ( mm)


oG 100 300 450 600 900 12CO 00 150 300 450 60D 900 1200 o0 150 300 450 600 900 I 00

~p7~ ~z:;...

h~@}
0'1 0 '1 01

DEF L ECT ION


(rrvn)
0,2 0 ,2 0' 2

~I
~
5000 MPo ,P':'C 280 mm 5000 MPo~iIJ80mm
!.:.CU 100MPo
ICOMPo
0 '3 0 '3 0
PredicTed Base Modulus 3900 - 5350 MPo Predicted Bose ModukJs 3000 -4000 r.tPo
Predicted $ubQrode Modulus 18 0-230 MPa Pred icf ed Suborode Modulus [5 0 - 180 ~

0 ,4 0 '4

/GRANULARJ
/ STRONG SUBGRADE' 0 ,5

250 MPo { {::::} 280 mm

00 150 300 4 600 900 1200 00 150 300 450 600 900 12 0 5OMPo

Predicted Base MOdu lus 150 - 200 MPo


Predicted SUbQrode Modulus 75- 80 MPo

~~~
0'1 0 ,'

DEFL ECTION / WEAK SUBGRADE}


( mm)
0 ,2 ~~ 0 ,2
0 '9

o0 150 300 450 60D 900 1200

0' 3

;at. . 0 ,1
5000 WFb ~ 1280 MPo
5OMPo 5OOOMPo: 2 i } 80 mm
0,4
Predicted Bose Modulus 4250 - 7000 MPo 5OMPo
Predicted SubgrOde Modulus 75-165 MPo 0 '2
PredicTed Bose Modulus 4OCX)-48(X)MAJ
PredicTed Subgrode Modulus 75-115 MPa

0 '3

/WEAK SUBGRADE/
0 -4

o 100 300 450 600 900 1200


o 0 ,5 /GRANUL ARJ
<;;>:5:;:1 ~
,0>..-0-
0 ,1
/<7 0' 1
// 0 '6

02 ~ 0
/,7
!GRANULARJ 0 ,7

DEFLECTION
l <rm)
0' 3 I~ 4 00 MPo Btl
100MPo
280mm
0 ,3
;: !GRANULAR/

MPo ~I 180mm Ll80 mm


~
2 5 0 MPc :::::::::::'
""'"'"'"'
100MPo 50MPo
PredicTed Bose Modulus 250 - 270 MPa Predicted Bose Modulus 175-250 MPo
Predic Ted Su bgrode Modulus 135- 150 MPo Predicted Bose Modulus 100 -110 MPo
Pred icted SubgrOde Modulus 14 0 -160 MPa
Predicted SUbQrooe tvlodulus 70-75 MPo

0 '5

/ WEAK SUBGRADEJ
1,1
/STRONG SUBGRADE)

_ _ _ _ _ Ac t ua l Deflection
Bowl Shope

"'" ' " " " ,,",,,Predicted Benkelmon


Fig. 13 - Actual deflection bowl shape vs predicted Benkelman beam bowl shape 'O...." ~ ~ ~ Beom Bowl Sh ope
(for various test procedures)

212 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CON FERENCE , PA RT 6


BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

deflection test procedures. To simplify the pro c edure (1350/4000) and the RCA rebound
analysis procedure only full depth single layer procedure (300/3300) gave similar results and
pavements were considered. Two pavement types, defined the upper limit of the shaded band.
a full depth cement treated base and a granular The standard MR(Q} procedure (1350/6000) the
pavement, were selected together with two long lead test (1650/6000) and the long rebound
subgrade strengths . This gave four variations test (100/6000) produced s i milar results and
of the basic 2 layer pavement and subgrade generally defined the bottom of the shaded
model. To assess the effect of varying band.
pavement depth, two pavement thickness , 280 mm
and 180 mm, were analysed giving a total of 8
different pavement and subgrade models as
indicated in Figure 12. 48. From examination of these it can be seen
that :
43. Five deflection test procedures were also
incorporated giving a total of 40 variations of (a) Bowls measured on stiff pavements have
pavement models and test procedures. The first the same shape as the actual bowl but
three test procedures are described below: the magnitude of the deflections are
markedly lower.
Lead = 1350 mm/travel - 6000 mm. The
standard MR(Q} test procedure. (b) On granular pavements the measured
Lead = 1350 mm/Travel = 4000 mm . This bowl, although closer in magnitude to
shortened version of the standard MR(Q} the maximum reading varies in shape
procedure was adopted to assess effect from the actual bowl.
of varing travel distance with a fixed
lead. (c) For stiff (bound) pavements on strong
Lead = 1650 mm/Travel = 6000 mm. This subgrades there is little difference
situation represents the maximum between the various test methods.
possible distance that the tip can be Analysis of bowls in this situation
placed in front of the load at start of would generally indicate the correct
test. base stiffness but overestimate the
subgrade strength by 100%. This is
44. The above three test methods are because a Benkelman beam would only
modifications of the basic WASHO (1955) test measure 40-50% of the actual deflection
procedure. The following two methods used in that was occurring.
the analysis can be classified as Rebound (CGRA
1959) procedures. (d) With stiff (bound) pavements on weak
subgrades, the difference between the
Lead 300 mm/Travel 3300 mm. Current test procedures becomes significant.
RCA (1987) procedure. Methods with short deflection bowl
Lead 100 mm/Travel 6000 mm. A typical "tails" produce the lowest deflection
rebound test with the same travel as readings. A "tail" length of 4000-5000
the MR(Q} procedure. mm appears to be optimum and no benefit
is to be gained from procedures with
45 . The eight pavement models were analysed longer "tails' (e .g. long rebound test
with CIRCLY to determine the deflected shape Lead-IOO mm/Travel=6000 mm).
that would be expected under a standard axle
load . The deflection bowl correction
subroutine was then used, together with the (e) Back analysis of bowls from stiff
CIRCLY determined deflected shapes, to predict pavements on weak subgrades generally
the shape of the Benkelman beam bowls that indicate correct base modulus but
would have been measured by the various overestimate subgrade strength by 50%
deflection bowl test procedures. The computed for procedures with long "tails to
Benkelman bowl shapes were then back analysed 200% for procedures with short "tails".
using the old procedures to display the results
that would have been obtained using analysis (f) On granular pavements only minor
procedures that did not include the deflection differences between the test methods
bowl correction subroutine. exist. However, the difference in bowl
shape and the lower measured
deflections results in an
46. These results are presented graphically in underestimation of base modulus by 30-
Figure 13. The shaded band represents the 35% and an overestimate of subgrade
range of Benkelman beam results that would have strength by only 50%.
been obtained, for the various test procedures,
from the 8 pavement types analysed. The (g) For thick stiff (bound) pavements the
differen~e between these and the actual bowl subgrade overestimates average (for the
shape used to generate them represents the various test procedures) 100% and 140%
effect of influence of the bowl on the legs of for strong and weak subgrades
the beam and the resulting measured deflection. respectively with the estimate of base
modulus being generally correct.
47 . For all pavement types, the procedures
that resulted in the shortest deflection bowl (h) For thin stiff (bound) pavements the
"tail" .( i.e. trave l minus lead) resulted in the subgrade overestimate reduces to 65%
lowest measure of Benkelman beam deflection and 95% for strong and weak subgrades
although this differenc e is not always respectively but at the expense of a
significant . Generally the shortened MR(Q} slight underestimation of base modulus.

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 213


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Distance (mm) Distance (mm )


o0 300 600 9CX) 1200 300 600 9CX) 1200

10

20

30 LEGEND
Deflection -Full Depth Deflection30
(nrnx 10 ) Deflection Gouge (mmxlO) 08 8 Actual Deflection Bowts
40 Results 4 Measured Oller East Go.Jge
-- - - Corrected 0 .8 tlctua I Deflect ion Bowls
50 Benkleman Beam Measured over West Gouge
Deflection Bowl
+ Actual Deflection Bowl
60 Measured at Intermediate
60 Position
Corrected Deflection
70 70 D Gouge Results
a
Rooge -East West
Gouges

Fig. 14 - Comparison of measured deflection bowls with corrected


insitu deflection gauge results

(i) Reduction in granular base thickness CONCLUSIONS


does not effect subgrade strength
estimates however underestima t es of 52. The Benkleman beam has, since its
base stiffness is further reduced to development in 1953 , become the standard tool
about 50% of the actual stiffness. used by many road authorities for the non-
destructive testi ng of pavements to obtain an
49. These results highlight the need to employ indication of their structural cond iti on and
corre ction routines in the back analysis hence determine sui table rehabilitation
pr ocedures if calculations of pavement and measures.
subgrade moduli are required. It is essential
i n the ana ly sis of cement treated pavements and 53. Wi th the development of elastic analysis
thin granular pavements on we ak subgrades. computer programs , the i nterpretati on of the
Li ghtly trafficked r ural pavem ents and urban full defle c tion bowl bec ame pos sib le. Since
residential s treets would fit into this latter this back analysis pr ocedur e has been in use,
pavement cat egory. it has been obse rved that the procedure
a ppeared to give err oneous re sult s when
anal ysing bowls from s tiff (cement treated
VERIFICATION OF THE BOWL CORRECTION SUBROUTINE ba se ) pavem ents .

50 . Verification of the bowl cor rection 54. A computer analysis of predicted bowl
procedure requires the mea s ur ement of actual shapes and some limit ed verification from fu ll
depth deflection guag es, indi cat ed that
pavement deflections with insitu d ef lection
s i gnifi cant def lections were occuring at
gauges and comparing this response with the
di stanc e s of 3.5 metres from the load and that
results obtained from a Benkelman beam test
de fl ections would r esult in the Benkl eman beam
obtained at the same location and time.
under estimating the a c tual deflection that
Limi ted data of this type was available from
occurred.
the instrument ed ARRB ( Shar p et al 1986 and
1987) sites. Thes e full depth defl ect ion gauge 55. The percentage underestimation of
r esults were corrected with the cor rection deflections was greatest where maximum
subroutine and the resulting predicted deflection level s were low (i.e. on stiff
Benkelman bowl shape compar ed with the ac tual pavements) . It was found also that the
measured shapes as indicated in Figure 14. deflections in the region that affected the
The pavement used in this example has a 75 mm l egs of the Benkleman beam were d ependant on
Asphalt Surfacing , 150 mm Crushed Rock Base and subgrade st rength al one and independant on
200 mm weak cement treated subbase . pavement thickness and type.

51 . The predicted corrected Benkelman beam 56 . This investigation highlighted the need to
bowl was simi lar to some the measured bowls . employ correction routines in the back analy sis
The variation in measured Benkelman beam bowl procedures if c alculati on of pave ment and
shape at a given loc a tion with repeat testing subgrade modulii is r equired. It was also
is highlighted in Figure 14. At the time of realised that the current procedures based on
wri t ing of this paper ARRB and MR(Q) had just elastic analysis programs that assumed
completed a more de tailed asse ssment of the isotropic behaviour of pavement and subgrade
deflection gauge instrumented sites and thi s materials we re not the most sui table for
data is cur rent l y being analysed to provide modelling t he performance of granular and
verification for the developed correction cohesive ma t erials which exhibit anisotropic
procedures. behaviour .

214 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFEREN CE, PART 6


BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

57. An interative procedure was developed by CGRA (1959) The CGRA Benkelman Beam Procedure .
the authors to: Canadian Good Roads Assoc.ia~ion, J'echn1'cal
Publica~ion No 12.
allow for anisot ropic behaviour of some
pavement materials by utilising CSIRO's CHEVRON (1963) Analysis of Stresses and
CIRCLY program. Displacements in an n-Layered Elastic System
incorporate a routine into the under a Load Uniformly Distributed on a
pro c edure to correc t for the influence Circular Area. Chevron Research Company,
of the bowl on the Benkleman beam legs . Sep~ember 1963.

58. Thi s overall bowl analysis procedure, CRB (1967/69) Benkelman Beam Design Plans.
still structured on the iterative procedures Coun~ry Road Board, }.(a~erials and Research
developed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, is Division.
aimed at making the estimate of pavement and
subgrade moduli as simple and as a ccurate as GRAY, W.J. (1979) W. Barker (U S Corps of
possible. The use of this new MR(Q) procedure Engineers) to W.J. Gray (Research Scientist,
is considered necessary at least for the ARRB) . Personal communic8~1on.
analysis of bowls from cement treated pavements
and thin granular pavements on weak subgrades. MR(Q) (1978) Benkelman Beam Deflections Test
Method No Q701-1978.
59. With the current trend towards the use of
automated deflection measurement devices such NAASRA (1987) Pavement Design - A Guide to the
as the Lacriox Deflectograph and the Department Structural Design of Road Pavements.
of Main Roads, NSW Deflectolab, both of which
measure very short deflection bowls, bowl RCA (1987) Deflection Testing by Benkelman
correction of these devices is essential if any Beam. RCA J'es~ }.(e~hod 420.01, J'echnical
valid interpretation of the bowl shapes is Bulle~1'n No 33.
intended .
SHARP , K.G., BARAN, E AND POTTER, D.W. (1987)
60. I t is hoped that the findings of this Field Trials of Pavement Structures :
investigation into the factors influencing Construction Report - Queensland. AIR 357-5
deflection bowls and procedure developed for July 1987.
the back analysis should be of interest to all
engineers and researchers in the pavement SHARP, K.G., SWEATMAN, P.F. AND POTTER, D.W.
evaluation field. The modification of these (1986) Comparative Effects of Dual and Wide
procedures to suit Deflectograph and Single Tyres on Pavement Response. Proc 13
Deflectolab deflection bowls would be a simple ARRB Conf. (13:4) Adelaide.
exercise and will be developed in due course.

WARDLE (1977) Program Circly - A Computer


REFERENCES Program for the Analysis of Multiple Complex
Circular Loads on Layered Anisotropic Media.
ANDERSON, D.T. (1983) Anisotropy in Pavement Division of App11'ed Geomechanics, CSIRO.
Layers. RCA In~ernal Repor~, Oc~ober .
WASHO (1955) The WASHO Road Test (Method of
ASPHALT INSTITUTE (1983) Asphalt Overlays for Test for the Determination of the Load
Highway and Street Rehabilitation. (}'(S-17) Deflection Characteristics of Flexible
June 1983. Pavements Employing the Benkelman Beam)
H1'ghway Research Board, Special Repor~ No 22.
BUSH, A.J. (1980) Non Destructive Testing for
Light Aircraft Pavements - Phase 2 -
Development of the Non Destructive Evaluation YOUDALE, G. (1984) Anisotropy of Granular
Procedure. Repor~ N. FAA-R~90-9-II prepared Pavement Materials. D}'(R In~ernal Repor~,
for US FAA November 1980. April.

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 215


BARAN , ANGELL, EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Ed Baran is the Engineer (Pavement Testing Services) with the Pavements Branch of the
Queensland Main Roads Department MR (Q). He joined MR (Q) in 1965 as a cadet draftsman
working in the road design and transportation studies areas. Tn 1974, he graduated in Civil
Engineering from the Queensland 1nstitute of Technology and was appointed to the Materials
Branch of MR (Q) working in the pavements investigation area. Currently, he is involved in the
planning, execution and reporting offield testing associated with pavement investigations and with
E.Baran the development of equipment and procedures associated with field testing of pavements.

David J . Angell is the Pavement Design Engineer with Main Roads, Queensland. After graduation
from the University of Queensland with a Bachelor of Engineering in 1972, he joined Main Roads
and worked on design of roads and construction of roads and bridges in several parts of
Queensland until 1982. During this period he completed a Master of Engineering Science degree at
the University of New South Wales in 1974. From 1982 he headed the South Western
Queensland Materials Unit until appointment to his present position in Pavements Branch in 1986.
He has been working on development of pavement design methods, production of the Main Roads
Pavement Design Manual, characterisation of paving materials and research into the behaviour of
D.J. Angell materials and pavements.

Steven W. Earl graduated in Science from the University of Queensland in 1986 majoring in
Computer Science. He started work in 1987 with the Main Roads Department of Queensland as a
Computer Systems Officer. Since then he has been involved in writing computer programsfor
applications of pavement testing, centred on the stress and strain analysis of multilayered
pavements, and pavement design, based on MR (Q) design standard. His other areas of
S.w. Earl programming include work with the analysis of the state's traffic accident statistics.

Sean W. Walsh is a Computer Systems Officer with the Main Roads Department, Queensland. He
joined Main Roads in January 1987 having completed a Bachelor of Science at the University of
Queensland in 1986. Since joining Main Roads, he has worked in Information Services Branch
developing computer systems for pavement analysis, data archival and communication with traffic
S.w. Walsh counting devices.

216 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6