0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

1 Aufrufe16 Seitenhhh

Dec 20, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

hhh

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

1 Aufrufe

hhh

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Formatting Numbers
- Grating Design Data
- MC200 SAUR DANFOSS
- Lintel Allowable Design Loads
- Simulation Study on a Mixed Beams Structure
- Beam Deflection by Integration
- NIDA9 Tutorials
- Mc15 Kompend Ww e PDF(Guidelines for Startup)
- appendix_C.pdf
- composite beams
- DEFLECTION OF BEAM.pptx
- Check Shear 1ST ROOFG
- Effective Moment of Inertia for Computation of Instantaneous Deflections
- criteria-for-the-design-of-composite-slabs.pdf
- Beam+Deflection
- 276784096 Deflection of Beam
- P02
- Longterm deflection.pdf
- finite element method
- 10 Computer Full Revision

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

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

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

Information Services Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

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

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.

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

*"

I

.. - - - - -------=-~

1

2440

---- ~~

1220*

*CRITICAL DIMENSIONS

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)

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

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

(for various extremes of pavement and subgrade modulus)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

for rebound bowl

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.

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.

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

as a pavement analysis tool, including its Keyword Description

ability to handle:-

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.

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 .

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

Check input

~or

\----oj initialise

consistancy

Yes

No

Iterative Procedure

(call CIRCLY and correction r outines . )

and percentage errors

Store this

as the best

Increrent No solut ion.

Iteration ~--r----------------<:

nurrber

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.

OJtput final and best fit

the new rrxxIulus values

rrxxIulus wi th the

(call CIRCLY and the

terminating condition .

Store as the

best solution

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

OPERATION OF BOWL CORRECTION SUBROUTINE

HODULUS

lln . 0 . 350 1 ~O . 00 CROSS-AfHSOTROFIC

10 . 0 . 350 SEHI-INrINITE CROSS-ANISOTROPIC

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

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

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

Let this number be N.

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:

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

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.

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

fran rrodul i

rroduli TI1EORErICAL BCML TAKING TIlE

INFUJENCE OF TIlE BEAM' S LEGS

INl'O ACCOUNT

correct ed bowl

with corrected bowl

cur rent modul i to circdef ,

otherwise t est a di f fere nt set

of moduli

OK

End of Program

Bound

Pavements

508100 MPa 508100 MPa

Unbound

Pavements

50MPa 50MPa

/THICK/ /THINJ

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

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

(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

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

Predicted SUbQrode Modulus 75- 80 MPo

~~~

0'1 0 ,'

( mm)

0 ,2 ~~ 0 ,2

0 '9

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 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/

~

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

Fig. 13 - Actual deflection bowl shape vs predicted Benkelman beam bowl shape 'O...." ~ ~ ~ Beom Bowl Sh ope

(for various test procedures)

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.

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

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

insitu deflection gauge results

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 .

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.

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.

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.

- Formatting NumbersHochgeladen vonNoldy Sinsu
- Grating Design DataHochgeladen vonericastorgaluco
- MC200 SAUR DANFOSSHochgeladen vontravieso112
- Lintel Allowable Design LoadsHochgeladen vonmcsomashekara
- Simulation Study on a Mixed Beams StructureHochgeladen vonIOSRjournal
- Beam Deflection by IntegrationHochgeladen vonnamasral
- NIDA9 TutorialsHochgeladen vonCon Can
- Mc15 Kompend Ww e PDF(Guidelines for Startup)Hochgeladen vonchochoroy
- appendix_C.pdfHochgeladen vonSalvatory Chamorro
- composite beamsHochgeladen vondudynayn
- DEFLECTION OF BEAM.pptxHochgeladen vonAh Shen
- Check Shear 1ST ROOFGHochgeladen von3ces
- Effective Moment of Inertia for Computation of Instantaneous DeflectionsHochgeladen vonHafeel Ahamed Ashraf Ali
- criteria-for-the-design-of-composite-slabs.pdfHochgeladen vonakhileshgoje
- Beam+DeflectionHochgeladen vonsayqa
- 276784096 Deflection of BeamHochgeladen vonLorraine
- P02Hochgeladen vonmojtaba_n87
- Longterm deflection.pdfHochgeladen vonHà Mập
- finite element methodHochgeladen vonAmit Thoriya
- 10 Computer Full RevisionHochgeladen vonPrajitha Praji
- Beam_Deflection_Formulae.pdfHochgeladen vonscshekar
- 03_MODULARIZATION.docHochgeladen vonsumnataraj
- Tutorial PhpHochgeladen vonNitesh Kirnake
- i Jcs It 2016070619Hochgeladen vonSiva Kumar
- Lab-report Mechanics of Material III (3)Hochgeladen vonMuhammadKhizarSiddique
- Ngon Ngu Lap Trinh RBCNHochgeladen vontuanchinh
- Offline DocumentationHochgeladen vonCarlos
- Function in cHochgeladen vonGoldy Batra
- Plc Stfunc 600Hochgeladen vonEbenhezer Pandia
- Ada 532371Hochgeladen vonRidho Anggoro

- IRC-SP-11-Handbook of Quality Control for Construction of Roads and Runways (Second Revision)Hochgeladen vonLuis Ito
- Book1Hochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- Const EquipHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- D2172.7764-1.pdfHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- Morth Specification vol.1Hochgeladen vonSoumen Gayen
- is.1786.2008Hochgeladen vonAblish Jorwal
- IS 383 - 2016Hochgeladen vonL V Laxmipathi Rao
- Bailey_Method_Achieving_Volumetrics_HMA_Compactability_Paper-1.pdfHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- Referred DNS ServerHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- july -augHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- cc cc.xlsxHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- acHochgeladen vondivyadeenu9390
- bc ccHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- tafu2006.pdfHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- Waste materials to be used to be assessed for.docxHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- Is-15462-2004-Modified-Rubber-BItumen.pdfHochgeladen vonrajeshji_000
- IRC SP 98 2013 Waste Plastic Dry Process.pdfHochgeladen vonRaja Kumar
- asphalt binder from waste wood.pdfHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- d 0162131Hochgeladen vonInternational Journal of Engineering Inventions (IJEI)
- IJEIT1412201306_12Hochgeladen vonpenta63
- Irc 81 1997 Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible Pavements Using Benklemen Beam Diflection MethodHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- is.460.2.1985 sieve des.pdfHochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- amend 3Hochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- amen 1Hochgeladen vonDivya Deenu
- Dbm April17Hochgeladen vonDivya Deenu

- EBI_R500_1-20Hochgeladen vonTotto Alves
- 04 Oracle BI Publisher ArchitectureHochgeladen vonPerformance Tuning
- FlorizelHochgeladen vonarienta
- IBM System x3200 M3 (Withdrawn) _ Lenovo PressHochgeladen vonluisangelmausito
- lab3.3Hochgeladen vonruksandrad
- Getting Started With DB2 Express v9.7Hochgeladen vonxuan184
- Mobile and Wireless CommunicationsHochgeladen vonEduardo Calva
- ADD Deck - PH Sub.pdfHochgeladen vonAlejandro Lastimosa
- OCRHindi_using_VietOCR_and_Tesseract.pdfHochgeladen vonindira creations
- Final - Log Processing and Analysis with ELK Stack.pdfHochgeladen vonRahul Nair
- Delphi Win32 Shell APIHochgeladen vonAmineAmiine
- 3654894165128161HyperMesh 14 Core TutorialsHochgeladen vondambo
- temp2.pdfHochgeladen vonPrince
- Rootkit DetectionHochgeladen vonColin Rebello
- Manual Norac UC4 2008 446BC+MAN6-1b FullHGHochgeladen vonaritmetics
- CISCO IOS Upgrade Management - Best Practices - FinalHochgeladen vonJosel Arevalo
- User Manual IES-3073GCHochgeladen vonoring2012
- Syllabus b.sc MathsHochgeladen vonAaditya Kiran
- Computational Intelligence Methods for Super-Resolution in Image Processing ApplicationsHochgeladen vonVania V. Estrela
- User Manual « DocearHochgeladen vonandres
- SAG ARIS 9.5 Features Overview Nov13 WebHochgeladen vonservermachine
- Data DictionaryHochgeladen vontututi22
- Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average - Wikipedia the FreeHochgeladen vonAyush choudhary
- expert-lesson 7-stepbystepHochgeladen vonapi-262218593
- RMM-0053 - Restaurant Chef, Nikkei CuisineHochgeladen vonJob Maldives
- BMP File Format - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaHochgeladen vonteehee
- Synology VPN Center EnuHochgeladen vonEvilGus67
- Mysql Stored ProceduresHochgeladen vonnivasonweb
- Unit C Concepts Review(1)Hochgeladen vonJerred
- mac 700 profileHochgeladen vonuruechea

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.