Loadman and Benkelman Comp

Four States Pavement Management Project
THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT (ROADS WING) NEW DELHI, INDIA
and the State Governments of
BIHAR, MAHARASHTRA, RAJASTHAN, UTTAR PRADESH
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
COMPARISON OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN

BEAM DEFLECTION MEASUREMENTS
Christopher R. Bennett
N.D. Lea International Ltd.

Kampsax International A/S
Hoff & Overgaard A/S
in association with
Deighton Associates Ltd, Highway Products International Inc, CES (India) Pvt Ltd
3 February 1994
Project 7127
T.242.09
Comparison of Loadman and Benkelman Beam
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 THE LOADMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 STUDY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 DATA REDUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1 Benkelman Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Loadman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 OPERATION OF THE LOADMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2 The Effect of Sand on Loadman Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3 The Effect of Operators on Loadman Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4 The Effect of Temperature on Loadman Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5 Variability of Loadman Readings Around a Test Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6 COMPARISON OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM 11
DEFLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3 Loadman Versus Benkelman Longitudinal Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4 Characterising Section Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5 Individual Observation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7 USE OF LOADMAN FOR PMS PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2 Loadman Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3 Testing Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4 Data Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A GRAPHS OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

PROFILES BY SECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix B TRAINEE GUIDE FOR OPERATING THE LOADMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix C LOADMAN DATA RECORDING FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
i 18/02/94
COMPARISON OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM

DEFLECTION MEASUREMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
The 'Loadman' is a light weight, portable device for measuring the deflection of pavements. It is
relatively fast and simple to use and is ideal as a network screening device for identifying pavement
strength. It uses a falling weight to apply a load to the pavement and records the deflection under this
load. The principles of operation are very different to those of a 'Falling Weight Deflectometer' (FWD)
and the two devices should not be confused.
In India, the bearing capacity of pavements are generally measured using the Benkelman Beam. This
device simulates vehicle loads at a creep speed and gives the deflection under a standard load.
Since the Loadman is a new device, it is important to correlate its readings to those from the
Benkelman Beam. Accordingly, Task 1010 was initiated with the objective of conducting Loadman field
trials and correlations. This technical note reports on the results of an analysis into the suitability of
using the Loadman for measuring pavement deflection.
2. THE LOADMAN
The Loadman is a closed 1172 mm long aluminium tube of 132 mm diameter. Its components are
illustrated in Figure 2.1 (not to scale). The tube contains a freely moving weight with a rubber cushion
at its lower end. At the top end there is an accelerometer, electronic circuitry and 3 x 9 volt batteries to
power the unit. An aluminium plate is below the electronics which has a flexible rubber mounting bush
and a magnet. Table 2.1 gives the technical specifications of the Loadman.
The unit is operated by turning it upside down so that the falling weight slides to the upper end of the
tube and becomes attached to the magnet. The device is then placed on the point to be measured and
held perpendicular to the surface. A button is pushed and the weight falls. The accelerometer records
the deflection under the weight along with the length of loading impulse. The Loadman will give the
following output:
deflection in mm;
the modulus of elasticity (E or E-modulus);
the length of loading impulse;
the percentage of rebound deflection compared to the maximum deflection;
the effectiveness of compaction (the ratio of the E-modulus of the second to first tests).
1 18/02/94
Figure 2.1: Components of Loadman
Table 2.1
Loadman Technical Specifications
Total weight 16 kg
Height 1170 mm
Diameter 132 mm
Diameter of loading plate 132 - 300 mm
Weight of falling mass 4 - 10 kg
Falling height 800 mm
Dynamic load 23 kN
Surface pressure 990 - 1500 kPa
Operating voltage 27 v
Deflection range 0 - 10 mm
Length of loading impulse 10 - 30 ms
2 18/02/94
The E-modulus is based on the elastic deformation of a pavement under a circular load. It is calculated
as:
P R
E = 1.5 (2.1)
LDEF
where E is the modulus of elasticity

P is the unit load on the Loadman plate in N/mm2
R is the radius of the Loadman plate in mm
LDEF is the deflection measured by the Loadman in mm
Thus, the E-modulus has an inverse relationship to the Loadman deflection which can be expressed as:
E MODIFY
E= (2.2)
LDEF
where E-MODIFY is the modulus of elasticity factor
Using a dynamic load of 23 kN (Gros, 1993) the following values are obtained for the E-MODIFY factors
as a function of the different Loadman plate diameters:
132 mm 166
200 mm 110
300 mm 73
The Loadman is a new device and has not been widely reported on in the technical literature. Gros
(1993) discusses the results of a series of tests comparing the E-modulus from the Loadman with
values from a Phoenix FWD and a plate-loading test on bound (i.e. flexible pavements) and unbound
structures. No analysis was made of the deflection values.
When compared to the FWD the Loadman readings on bound layers had an average correlation of 0.27.
However, there were parallel trends in both curves along the test sections which suggests that the
Loadman was more sensitive to heterogeneous layers than the FWD. On unbound layers the Loadman
correlated well with the FWD. The Loadman correlated very well with the plate-test.
3. STUDY METHODOLOGY
In order to investigate the suitability of the Loadman for measuring pavement deflection, field tests with
the Loadman and the Benkelman Beam were conducted in Maharashta near Aurongabad. This area
was selected because previous Benkelman Beam results were available which could be used before the
testing to identify potential test sections.
On the basis of the available Benkelman Beam results, a total of 15 sections on three roads near
Aurongabad were identified for potential testing. These stretches were considered to be relatively
homogeneous with a wide range of deflections (0.4 mm to 2.6 mm). After discussions with local PWD
staff, SH-60 in the direction from Aurongabad to Ajanta Caves was selected for detailed study due to its
lower traffic volumes.
Detailed inspection of SH-60 showed that deflection values above 1.0 mm were unlikely to be found in
high numbers. This was attributed to the use of a high seasonal correction factor with the original
Benkelman Beam data. Two other roads, with weaker structure, were therefore also included in the
testing programme to get a broader range of deflections. A total of 5 sections were selected on
SH-60 and single sections on Jahwara and Walmi Walus roads. All sections were 100 m long, except
one on SH-60 which was 150 m long. Table 3.1 describes the pavement structure of the three test
roads.
3 18/02/94
Table 3.1
Test Section Pavement Structures
Pavement Characteristic SH-60 Jahwara Road Walmi Walus

Road
Surface Type AC AC AC
Surface Thickness (mm) 50 - 75 20 20
Base/Subbase Type WBM WBM WBM
Base/Subbase Thickness (mm) 400 100 40
NOTES: AC Hand-laid asphaltic concrete

WBM Waterbound Macadam
The first series of tests consisted of Benkelman Beam measurements. These were conducted in
October 1993. The testing points were identified and marked with paint along with the chainage. Tests
were carried out at the edge and at the centre of the road at 10 m intervals. Between two and three
measurements were made at each testing point with the initial, maximum and final deflections being
recorded for each test.
The average deflection for each test was calculated using the equation:
BBAVG 2 BBMAX BBINIT BBFINAL (3.1)

2
where BBAVG is the mean deflection for the test in .01 mm

BBMAXis the maximum deflection for the test in .01 mm
BBINIT is the initial deflection for the test in .01 mm
BBFINAL is the final deflection for the test in .01 mm
The Benkelman Beam deflection in mm was calculated as:
BBAVG
BBDEF 2 n 100 (3.2)
where BBDEF is the Benkelman Beam deflection in mm

n is the number of tests at each point
The Loadman tests were not conducted in October 1993 due to the Loadman electronics failing. The
replacement unit was obtained in early January 1994, and an initial set of Loadman tests were
conducted in mid-January 1994.
At each Benkelman Beam testing point, a series of Loadman tests were made. Where the pavement
surface was uneven, a thin layer of sand was applied to provide a more uniform loading surface. The
number of tests at each testing point varied since the tests were repeated until consistent readings were
obtained. This is a requirement of the Loadman and arises because of the dynamic loading effects
from the Loadman on the pavement.
The data from these preliminary Loadman tests were analysed and it was found that there was a good
correlation for the Loadman tests when they were conducted without sand. The tests with sand were
based on a smaller sample of sections and were found to be inconsistent relative to the tests without
sand. Accordingly, a second test programme was conducted which investigated the effects of sand on
the Loadman tests in greater detail.
4 18/02/94
The second Loadman test programme was conducted February 8-10 1994. At each test point the
Loadman tests were conducted with and without sand, except in a number of instances where the
pavement condition was not conducive to testing without sand. The sand used was filtered through a
1.0 mm sieve so as to ensure a good standard and uniform consistency.
Additional tests were conducted into:
the effects of operators on Loadman readings

the variability of the Loadman about a test point
the longitudinal variation in the Loadman between test points
the effects of temperature on Loadman readings
Before the Loadman tests commenced at each test section, a series of 'opening' readings were taken
on a solid surface adjacent to the road. At the completion of the section a second set of 'closing'
readings were taken to confirm that there were no systematic errors in the instrument. In all instances
there were no significant differences between the opening and closing readings.
Both the Loadman deflection (in mm) and the E-modulus values were recorded during the tests.
Although a direct relationship exists between these two values (see Section 2), recording both values
allowed for a check on the data.
The Loadman results are sensitive to the way in which the instrument is operated. Consequently, at
each test point a minimum of 4 Loadman tests were conducted. If a reading was more than + 10 per
cent from the mean of the other readings, an additional Loadman test was performed. Generally, the
data converged to an average deflection level and when it did not, a sufficient number of tests were
performed to ensure that a representative deflection was obtained.
4. DATA REDUCTION
4.1 Benkelman Beam
Data Consistency
The Benkelman Beam tests generally consisted of two readings at each test point. In some instances
during the tests problems arose and a third test was conducted Figure 4.1 illustrates the ranges of the
Benkelman data for each test point. The figure gives the low and high readings along with the mean
deflection for each test point.
5 18/02/94
2.50
Jahwara
SH-60/MSH-8 Walmi Walus
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141
Benkelman Beam Observation Number
Figure 4.1: Benkelman Beam Data Consistency
Figure 4.1 shows that there was some variability in the Benkelman Beam data results, with some test
points having consistent readings between tests while others had wide variations. However, no
corrections were made to the Benkelman Beam data to account for these variations except to remove
patently incorrect readings.
Temperature and Seasonal Correction
It is common practice to correct Benkelman Beam deflections for temperature and seasonal variation.
Indian Road Congress (1981) recommends a correction of 0.0065 mm for each change in temperature
from the standard temperature of 35 degrees. However, based on a multilayer elastic analysis it was
concluded that the error from the Benkelman Beam deflections was greater than the deflection variations
due to temperature. Consequently, no temperature corrections were made.
The tests were conducted in October so it was considered that no seasonal corrections were required.
4.2 Loadman
As described in Section 3, the nature of Loadman data collection is such that it is often necessary to
eliminate certain readings. The first readings are sometimes eliminated since the pavement is
compressed by the initial load application. Readings may be influenced by factors such as the
Loadman not being perpendicular to the pavement or being moved during the test. The use of sand
introduces another consideration since the Loadman must be properly bedded before the tests. Thus, it
was necessary to scrutinise the data to remove any such effects.
During the tests if a reading was outside of + 10 per cent of what was assessed to be the mean
deflection, an additional test was conducted at the same test point. The Loadman data were evaluated
and any readings outside of + 10 per cent of the mean deflection were removed. Of a total of 1539
deflection measurements 105 were deleted (6.8 per cent).
As a check on the Loadman data, a comparison was made of the recorded E-modulus values and the
deflections. From Equation 2.2 it can be seen that the product of the E-modulus and the deflection
6 18/02/94
should be 166. For each Loadman test the product was calculated and, where it was not 166, the raw
data was checked to determine the reason for the difference and the reading was corrected.
5. OPERATION OF THE LOADMAN
5.1 Introduction
In order to obtain accurate results from the Loadman, the correct measurement procedures must be
followed. A number of specific issues were investigated during the testing programme which may
affect the Loadman results:
the use of a sand pad when surfaces are uneven;

the effect of different operators on the Loadman results;
the effect of temperature on the Loadman results;
the variability of Loadman readings around a single test point.
This section presents the results of specific investigations into these issues.
5.2 The Effect of Sand on Loadman Readings
As described in Section 3, the Loadman tests were conducted with and without a thin layer of 1 mm
sieved sand at most of the test points. The objective of duplicating the tests was to investigate the
effect of sand on the Loadman readings.
When a load is applied to an uneven surface, the resulting stress distribution may be different to that
which would arise on a level surface through what is effectively point loading. However, by using a thin
sand layer to eliminate any 'high' points, one gets a plane surface which will ensure an efficient
transmittal of the load to the pavement structure.
This principle is illustrated in Figure 5.1 which is an extreme example of what could arise with uneven
surfaces.
The importance of avoiding 'high points' was observed during the Loadman tests. It was found that
whenever stones protruded through the surface the resulting deflections were lower than arose on a
plane surface.
There were 113 test points which had data recorded for the Loadman both with and without sand.
These data exhibited a linear relationship between the two sets of tests. The following are the
equations developed from the data with the 't' statistics (all significant at 95 per cent confidence) below
the equation coefficients in parentheses.
LWS = 0.0985 + 0.8694 LNS R2 = 0.89 S.E. = 0.05 (5.1)

(6.79) (29.82)
LNS = -0.1133 + 1.1502 LWS R2 = 0.89 S.E. = 0.05 (5.2)

(-2.67) (29.82)
where LWS is the Loadman deflection in mm with sand

LNS is the Loadman deflection in mm without sand
Equation 5.1 is plotted in Figure 5.2 along with the raw data.
7 18/02/94
Figure 5.1: Example of Surface Evenness Effects on Stress Distribution
1.20
LWS = 0.0985 + 0.8694 LNS

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Figure 5.2: Effect of Sand on Loadman Deflection Measurements
The data in Figure 5.2 suggests that at low deflections the addition of a sand pad results in an
overestimation of the actual deflection by approximately 0.10 mm. However, as the deflections
increase the difference caused by sand decreases and at 1.0 mm deflection is only 0.03 mm.
The existence of the strong relationships in Equations 5.1 and 5.2 shows that it is appropriate to use
sand with the Loadman to eliminate surface unevenness. From an operational perspective this is
desirable since it will minimise surface effects on the readings.
8 18/02/94
5.3 The Effect of Operators on Loadman Readings
The nature of the Loadman makes its output susceptible to the way in which it is operated. As part of
the testing programme, an analysis was made of the effect of operator on the Loadman readings.
Loadman readings were made at the same test points by two different operators. The tests were
conducted with and without sand on test points covering a wide range of deflections.
A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with the data. This showed that at 95 per
cent confidence there were no significant differences between the readings by the two operators. Thus,
when correct operating procedures are followed, it should be possible to use the Loadman with different
operators and have consistent results.
5.4 The Effect of Temperature on Loadman Readings
It was beyond the scope of the research to fully investigate the effects of temperature on the Loadman
readings. However, at one testing point readings were made at 16:30 on one day and at 09:30 the
following day. In spite of the differences between the afternoon and morning temperatures, no significant
differences were found in the Loadman readings.
5.5 Variability of Loadman Readings Around a Test Point
An investigation was made of the variability of the Loadman readings around a test point. At two test
points additional readings were made at 300 mm intervals longitudinally and transversely around the test
point which was at the centre of the pavement.
Table 5.1 presents the results of these additional tests. It can be observed that the Loadman readings
at the 300 mm offsets are not markedly different from those at the test point.
Table 5.1
Variability of Loadman Readings Around a Test Point
Road Location Loadman Deflection in mm by Offset

Test Point Longitudinal Transverse
-300 mm +300 mm -300 mm +300 mm
SH-60 236/90 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.65 0.66
Jahwara Rd. 0/90 0.66 0.67 0.65 0.62 0.64
5.6 Discussion
The evaluation of the effect of operation on the Loadman has shown the following:
the use of a thin sand pad (1 mm sand particle size) with the Loadman influences the deflections
but a strong linear relationship exists between the deflections with and without sand;
when operated correctly, there are no significant differences in the readings made by different
operators;
on the basis of a single test, temperature does not appear to significantly influence the Loadman
readings;
the Loadman readings did not exhibit major variations when readings were made at 300 mm
offsets around two test points.
9 18/02/94
6. COMPARISON OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTIONS
6.1 Introduction
The principal objective of the testing programme was to investigate the suitability of the Loadman for
measuring pavement deflections in India. Since the standard Indian practice is to use the Benkelman
Beam for deflection measurements, the analysis consisted of comparing the output from the two
devices. This section presents the results of this analysis.
6.2 Data
The data for the comparison were collected on 5 separate sections on SH-60 and two other roads,
Walmai Walus and Jahwara. Table 3.1 presented the characteristics of these road sections.
For the analysis it was decided to use the Loadman data recorded with sand. This was principally done
for two reasons:
some surfaces were so uneven that the without sand results were suspect;
at some test points it was impossible to test without sand thus there were only 113 without sand
tests as opposed to 133 with sand tests. It was considered desirable to maximise the amount of
data available for the analysis.
The linear relationship between the with sand and without sand deflections (Equations 5.1 and 5.2)
make it easy to convert the results from the analysis with sand to without sand.
Since readings were taken at the edge and the centre of the pavement, the first analysis considered
whether or not the data suggested any different relationships for the deflections between these two
locations. Figure 6.1 illustrates the data for all sections. This shows that there are no systematic
differences in the deflections by location. Thus, it is appropriate to combine the data for analytical
purposes.
2.50
Centre
2.00
Edge
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Figure 6.1: Centre and Edge Deflection Measurements
Walmai Walus road had a single lane pavement. In the discussion which follows the readings on the
left side are referred to as the edge readings; the right side the centre readings.
10 18/02/94
6.3 Loadman Versus Benkelman Longitudinal Variability
If a relationship exists between the Loadman and Benkelman beam deflections it would be anticipated
that the measurements from both instruments would exhibit similar variations along a section.
For each section, a series of graphs were prepared with the deflections from each device plotted for
each test point. These graphs are presented in Appendix A where, for clarity, they are plotted for the
edge and centre tests separately.
The results in Appendix A show that in some instances the Loadman replicated the Benkelman Beam
deflections to a very high degree while in others there was less agreement. Figure 6.2 shows how
closely the Loadman agreed with the Benkelman Beam for the edge deflections on Section 241.
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
BB - Edge
0.10
LN - Edge
0.00
300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
Figure 6.2: SH-60 Section 241 Edge Deflection Profiles
Table 6.1 presents the results of a correlation analysis between the two devices. The correlations
range from 0.09 to 0.82 with an average of 0.49. These are higher than those found by Gros (1993)
when comparing the Loadman E to the value from a FWD.
Table 6.1
Correlations Between Loadman and Benkelman Beam Deflections
Road Section Correlation Between Devices

Centre Edge
Jahwara Road 0.24 -0.17
SH-60 - Section 235 -0.24 0.77
SH-60 - Section 236 0.09 0.72
SH-60 - Section 241 0.79 0.89
SH-60 - Section 245 -0.23 0.14
SH-60 - Section 249 0.70 0.80
Walmi Walus Road 0.82 0.26
11 18/02/94
While some correlation results in Table 6.1 may appear to be low, it must be recognised that they are
based on a small number of observations with both devices. For example, the correlation for the edge
readings at SH-60 - Section 235 is -0.24, however, by examining the plot of this site (Figure A4) it can
be observed that most of the differences are due to a single reading at chainage 660. Overall, the
majority of the profiles from the test sections exhibit good agreement between the two devices.
6.4 Characterising Section Deflections
The individual profiles from each test point presented in Appendix A show generally consistent trends
with both devices. Since the Loadman is to be used as a screening tool for the PMS, one is
particularly interested in how the average properties of a road section measured with the Loadman
compare to those measured with the Benkelman Beam.
It must be recognised that the pavement sections analysed were generally not homogeneous in terms of
deflection. This was evidenced by the ranges of Benkelman Beam deflections in the graphs in
Appendix A. This is further illustrated in Table 6.2 which shows the range of deflections for each method
on each section.
Figures 6.3 to 6.5 illustrate the mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation (mean/standard
deviation) of the Loadman and Benkelman Beam deflections for each section.
Except for at Section 235, which had the lowest deflections of any site, the mean Loadman deflections
are lower than the mean Benkelman Beam deflections.
The data plotted in Figure 6.4 shows that the Loadman has lower variability than the Benkelman Beam
along a section. This could be a reflection that the Benkelman Beam has a greater range for
deflections since it is measuring the full pavement bearing capacity. Thus, it is useful to look at the
relative variability of the two devices. This is done through the coefficient of variation (Figure 6.5).
Table 6.2
Range of Deflections by Section
Road Section Range of Deflections in mm

Loadman Benkelman Beam
Jahwara Road 0.39 0.75
SH-60 - Section 235 0.08 0.25
SH-60 - Section 236 0.30 0.89
SH-60 - Section 241 0.38 0.38
SH-60 - Section 245 0.43 0.84
SH-60 - Section 249 0.70 2.04
Walmi Walus Road 0.33 1.12
12 18/02/94
1.40
1.20
B. Beam
1.00
Loadman
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Jalwara 235 236 241 245 249 Walmi

Walus
Figure 6.3: Mean Section Deflections
The coefficient of variation data in Figure 6.5 indicates that in all instances the Loadman deflections have
less variability along the section than the Benkelman Beam deflections.
0.60
0.50
B. Beam
0.40
Loadman
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Jalwara 235 236 241 245 249 Walmi

Walus
Figure 6.4: Standard Deviation of Section Deflections
13 18/02/94
70.00
60.00
B. Beam
50.00
Loadman
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Jalwara 235 236 241 245 249 Walmi

Walus
Figure 6.5: Coefficient of Variation of Section Deflections
Figure 6.6 compares the mean Loadman deflection with the mean Benkelman Beam deflection. The
data are plotted for the centre and edge tests separately. The following linear regression equation was
fitted to these data (R2 = 0.86; S.E. = 0.14) and it is also plotted in Figure 6.6. The 't' statistics are
given in parentheses below each coefficient and these were significant at 95 per cent confidence.
BBMEAN = -0.4268 + 2.2302 LWSMEAN (6.1)

(-3.06) (8.49)
where BBMEAN is the mean Benkelman Beam deflection on the section in mm

LWSMEAN is the mean Loadman deflection with sand on the section in
mm
14 18/02/94
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Centre
0.40
Edge
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Figure 6.6: Relationship Between Mean Section Deflections
The data in Figure 6.6 shows greater scatter above 0.50 mm Loadman deflection than below 0.50 mm.
To investigate whether or not different slopes applied between these two regions, separate regression
equations were developed. The resulting equations did not have statistically significant intercept
coefficients so no conclusions could be reached concerning the slopes in these two regions.
6.5 Individual Observation Analysis
In Section 6.4 it was shown that the mean Loadman deflection over the 100 m sections correlated well
with the mean Benkelman Beam deflection. A regression equation was developed relating the two
devices. The objective of the analysis conducted here was to compare the results of individual deflection
measurements between the two devices.
Before the analysis commenced, the data were edited to remove readings from test points which were
heavily cracked or ravelled. This was done because it was considered that these surface conditions
may bias the results. This reduced the number of observations from 133 to 99 and the data are plotted in
Figure 6.7 for each of the study sections.
The cracked data were not removed from the section analysis (Section 6.4) since the average properties
of the section were of interest as opposed to individual deflections.
15 18/02/94
1.80
Jahwara
1.60
235
1.40
1.20 236
1.00 241
0.80 245
0.60 249
0.40
Walmai Walus
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Figure 6.7: Deflection Data by Section
A series of analyses were undertaken to investigate the relationship between the Loadman and the
Benkelman Beam deflections. Table 6.3 presents the three best equations developed from the data.
All equations have relatively high coefficients of determination (around 0.63) and acceptable standard
errors (0.23-0.24 mm). These regression statistics are better than those in Paterson (1987) who had
an R2 = 0.56 and a standard error of 0.34 mm for the relationship between Benkelman Beam deflection
and pavement modified structural number (MSN).
Over the most of the range of Loadman deflections observed in this study (0.20 to 1.00 mm) the three
equations have similar predictions. The exponential formulation (Equation 6.3) is asymptotic to zero at
low Loadman deflections which is better than the other two equations. Both Equations 6.3 and 6.4 do
not extrapolate well above 1.00 mm deflection. Accordingly, it is recommended that the simple linear
equation (Equation 6.2) be used for predicting the Benkelman Beam deflection from Loadman
deflections.
Table 6.3
Results of Regression Analysis1,2
Equation Equation R2 S.E.

Number
6.2 BBDEF = max(0, -0.3381 + 2.0393 LWSDEF) 0.65 0.23
(-4.16) (13.29)
6.3 BBDEF = max(0, exp(0.7522 + 1.7953 ln (LWSDEF)) 0.63 0.24
(8.68) (16.57)
6.4 BBDEF = 0.1523 + 1.9383 LWSDEF2 0.62 0.24
(3.04) (12.44)
NOTES:1/ The values in parenthesise below each equation are the 't' statistics of each
coefficient. All were significant at 95 per cent confidence.
2/ BBDEF is the Benkelman Beam deflection in mm
LWSDEF is the Loadman deflection in mm with sand
R2 is the coefficient of determination
S.E. is the standard error of the estimate
16 18/02/94
Although the equations in Table 6.3 are statistically quite good, the raw data in Figure 6.7 suggests that
above 0.50 mm the is not a strong relationship between the Loadman and the Benkelman Beam. This
was also found in the section analysis presented earlier in Section 6.4.
In order to investigate this a series of regression equations were calculated encompassing increasing
ranges of Loadman deflections. As shown in Table 6.4, above 0.50 mm there is a sharp increase in the
standard errors, indicating a decrease in the accuracy of the predictions.
The decrease in the accuracy of the predictions above 0.50 mm Loadman deflection indicates that the
Loadman and Benkelman Beam are no longer reliably measuring the same characteristics.
The regression equations presented in Table 6.3 were based on the full range of Loadman deflections.
The following is the equation developed from the data with Loadman deflections < 0.50 mm (R2 = 0.63;
S.E. = 0.13):
BBDEF = -0.3582 + 2.0451 LWSDEF LWSDEF < 0.50 (6.5)

(-4.08) (8.91)
Table 6.4
Effect of Loadman Data Range on Regression Results
Range of Loadman R2 S.E.

Deflections in
Regression
(mm)
< 0.35 0.48 0.11
< 0.40 0.38 0.11
< 0.45 0.57 0.13
< 0.50 0.63 0.13
< 0.55 0.64 0.17
< 0.60 0.64 0.19
< 0.65 0.66 0.20
< 0.70 0.59 0.23
< 0.75 0.65 0.23
< 0.85 0.65 0.23
The coefficients of this equation are almost identical to the linear equation (Equation 6.2 in Table 6.3)
which was developed using data over the full range of deflections. The main difference is that there is a
much lower standard error when the data below 0.50 mm are used. Given the similarities between
these two equations, it is recommended that for simplicity the full range equation be used for converting
the Loadman deflections to Benkelman Beam deflections, i.e.:
BBDEF = -0.3381 + 2.0393 LWSDEF
6.6 Discussion
The comparison of the Loadman and Benkelman Beam data has showed that it is possible to use the
Loadman to measure the deflection on pavements in place of the Benkelman Beam.
17 18/02/94
When the data were averaged along the test sections the Loadman was strongly correlated with the
Benkelman Beam. This led to the following equation between the two devices:
BBMEAN = -0.4268 + 2.2302 LWSMEAN
When the individual Loadman observations were analysed the data suggested that below 0.50 mm
Loadman deflection there was a strong correlation between the two devices, above this deflection much
less correlation. The following equation was developed between these two devices in this area:
BBDEF = -0.3381 + 2.0393 LWSDEF
As illustrated in Figure 6.8, these two equations give almost identical predictions over the range of
Loadman deflections in the study. While this may be in part due their having been developed from the
same data by different methods, it could also suggest an underlying relationship between the two
devices.
1.80
1.60 Ind. - No Sand
1.40 Sec. - No Sand
1.20
Ind. - W. Sand
1.00
Sec. - W. Sand
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Figure 6.8: Predictions of Regression Equations
Substituting the relationship between deflections with and without sand results in the following equations
for predicting the Benkelman Beam deflection:
BBMEAN = -0.2431 + 1.9389 LNSMEAN
BBDEF = -0.1372 + 1.7730 LNSDEF
These equations are also plotted in Figure 6.8.
The equations from the individual deflection observations are labelled in this figure as "Ind." and the
mean section values as "Sec."
18 18/02/94
7. USE OF LOADMAN FOR PMS PROJECT
7.1 Introduction
The objective of using the Loadman in the PMS project is not as a design tool but rather for quickly
screening a large number of pavements for their pavement strength. The analysis has shown that the
Loadman is suitable for this purpose since it correlates well with the Benkelman Beam deflections. This
section describes how it is proposed to use the Loadman in the PMS project.
7.2 Loadman Operation
The testing programme with the Loadman showed that, when operated correctly, the device will give
consistent and accurate results. However, the device is relatively frail and must be treated with care.
Appendix B contains a description of how the Loadman should be operated based on the experience to
date.
During the PMS testing the measurements should be made with a sand pad. It was found that even on
smooth surfaces there was often problems ensuring that the Loadman was completely flat on the
surface. The use of a sand pad eliminates this problem and also allows tests to be taken on uneven
surfaces. The strong correlation between the with and without sand deflections makes it possible to
adjust the readings between these two measurement techniques. The sand should be filtered through a
1 mm sieve and it will be necessary for the operators to carry a sieve with them into the field.
7.3 Testing Programme
The Loadman tests should be taken approximately every 250 m per km. For this purpose, a strip map
will be generated from the dROAD data base to carry with the operators.
The readings should be taken at least 600 mm in from the edge of the pavement, preferably in the wheel
path if the traffic volume is sufficiently low. The data should be entered into the standard data recording
form (Appendix C) for future transcribing.
A minimum of 4 tests should be made at each site, with additional tests conducted if a reading is
outside of + 10 per cent of the assessed mean of the other readings.
7.4 Data Reduction
The Loadman data will be entered into Lotus 1-2-3 and the mean and standard deviation of deflection
calculated. The mean deflection will be converted to the Modified Structural Number (MSN) by first
converting it to a Benkelman Beam deflection and then substituting this value into the following equation
(Paterson, 1987):
MSN = 3.2 BBDEF-0.63 (7.1)
Figure 7.1 illustrates the predicted MSN as a function of the Loadman deflection with and without sand
using Equation 7.1. On the basis of the values illustrated in Figure 7.1, the general guidelines on
pavement strength in Table 7.1 can be assumed.
19 18/02/94
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Loadman Deflection (mm)
Figure 7.1: Loadman Deflection versus Modified Structural Number
Table 7.1
Guidelines on Pavement Strength
Pavement Strength Modified Structural Loadman Deflection in mm

Number With Sand Without Sand
Strong > 4.0 < 0.51 < 0.48
Medium 2.5 - 4.0 0.88 - 0.51 0.90 - 0.48
Weak < 2.5 > 0.88 > 0.90
8. CONCLUSIONS
This technical note has presented the results of an analysis into the suitability of using the Loadman to
investigate pavement deflection. The results of this study have shown the Loadman to be suitable for
measuring pavement deflection for the PMS project. The device is very useful as a network level
screening tool and its readings will enable for a rapid assessment of pavement strength.
The following are the main conclusions from the analysis:
when operated correctly, the Loadman provides reasonable and consistent deflection values;
the use of a thin sand pad (1 mm sand particle size) with the Loadman influences the deflections
but the following linear relationship exists between the deflections with (LWS) and without (LNS)
sand:
LWS = 0.0985 + 0.8694 LNS R2 = 0.89 S.E. = 0.05

LNS = -0.1133 + 1.1502 LWS R2 = 0.89 S.E. = 0.05
there were no significant differences in the readings made by different operators on the same test
points;
on the basis of a single test, temperature does not appear to significantly influence the Loadman
readings;
20 18/02/94
the Loadman readings did not exhibit major variations when readings were made at 300 mm
offsets around two test points;
the Loadman deflection profile along the test sections was generally strongly correlated with the
Benkelman Beam deflection profile;
the Loadman gave lower deflections than the Benkelman Beam and there was less variability in
the Loadman deflections than with the Benkelman Beam;
the following relationship was developed between the average Loadman deflection with sand
(LWSMEAN) along a section and the average Benkelman Beam deflection (BBMEAN):
BBMEAN = -0.4268 + 2.2302 LWSMEAN R2 = 0.86 S.E. = 0.14
the individual Loadman deflections with were strongly correlated with the individual Benkelman
Beam deflections and the following relationship was developed:
BBDEF = -0.3381 + 2.0393 LWSDEF R2 = 0.65 S.E. = 0.23
substituting the relationship between Loadman tests with sand and without sand resulted in the
following equations between the Loadman and Benkelman Beam when tests are conducted
without sand:
BBMEAN = -0.2431 + 1.9389 LNSMEAN

BBDEF = -0.1372 + 1.7730 LNSDEF
field tests be conducted using the filtered sand pad since the sand minimises surface
unevenness;
using an equation from Paterson (1987) it is possible to estimate the modified structural number
from the Loadman readings.
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of the Maharashtra Public Works Department in undertaking the field testing is gratefully
acknowledged.
10. REFERENCES
Gros, C. (1993). Use of a Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer - Loadman. Road and
Transport Laboratory Report, University of Oulu, Finland.
Indian Roads Congress (1981). Tentative Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible Road
Pavements Using Benkelman Beam Deflection Technique. Indian Roads Congress,
New Delhi.
Paterson, W.D.O. (1987). Road Deterioration and Maintenance Effects: Models for Planning
and Management. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C.
21 18/02/94
APPENDIX A
GRAPHS OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM

PROFILES BY SECTION
22 18/02/94
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
BB - Edge
0.20 LN - Edge
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure A1: Edge Deflection Profiles - Jahwara Road
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
BB - Centre
0.20
LN - Centre
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure A2: Centre Deflection Profiles - Jahwara Road
23 18/02/94
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
BB - Edge
0.05
LN - Edge
0.00
650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 700
Figure A3: Edge Deflection Profiles - SH-60 Section 235
0.30
BB - Centre
0.25 LN - Centre
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 700
Figure A4: Centre Deflection Profiles - SH-60 Section 235
24 18/02/94
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
BB - Edge
0.20
LN - Edge
0.00
800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
BB - Centre
0.20
LN - Centre
0.00
800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900
25 18/02/94
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
BB - Edge
0.10
LN - Edge
0.00
300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20 BB - Centre
0.10 LN - Centre
0.00
300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
26 18/02/94
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
BB - Edge
0.20
LN - Edge
0.00
700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
BB - Centre
0.10 LN - Centre
0.00
700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770
27 18/02/94
2.50
BB - Edge
2.00
LN - Edge
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
110 130 150 170 190 210 230
1.40
1.20 BB - Centre
LN - Centre
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
28 18/02/94
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40 BB - L. Edge
0.20 LN - R. Edge
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure A13: Left Edge Deflection Profiles - Walmai Walus Road
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
BB - R. Edge
0.20
LN - R. Edge
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure A14: Right Edge Deflection Profiles - Walmai Walus Road
29 18/02/94
APPENDIX B
TRAINEE GUIDE FOR OPERATING THE LOADMAN
30 18/02/94
LOADMAN TRAINEE GUIDE
1. INTRODUCTION
The Loadman is a field instrument used for measuring pavement strength. It consists of a falling 10 kg
weight and electronic circuitry to measure the pavement deflection.
This circuitry can be damaged if proper care and attention to operating procedures are not observed. It
is therefore necessary to be adequately trained in both the operation and handling of the instrument.
2. TRAINING OBJECTIVES
The Loadman team consists of two operators, one driver and one flag man.
A Loadman operator is considered to be fully trained after successfully completing a half-day training
course after which he must show competence in both the use and handling of the instrument.
During this training period the operator will be shown:
1. Survey preparation requirements.

2. Handling procedures including arming and triggering the Loadman.
3. Loadman operation procedures.
4. Site selection procedures.
5. Recording of Loadman results.
This guide covers all these five areas.
3. SURVEY PREPARATION
3.1 Prerequisites
Read the Loadman manual.
Assemble the two operators, the driver and the flag man.
3.2 Survey Equipment
Before commencing a survey the following equipment is required:
a sufficient supply of Loadman data entry forms for the planned survey;
a ring binder or file folder for storing completed forms;
a 1 mm sieve for grading sand;
3 spare 9 v batteries for every 100 km to be surveyed.
3.3 Testing Equipment
The Loadman must be checked to be operative.
A series of 'opening' readings should be taken at a permanent site, preferably a concrete pad. After the
field testing, this site should be retested with the Loadman to form a series of 'closing' readings. If there
are no systematic errors in the Loadman these two sets of readings will be the same.
The vehicle odometer must be calibrated and working to ensure that the chainages are accurately
recorded. This is done by accurately measuring a section 250 m long using a tape measure. The
31 18/02/94
vehicle should be driven over this section and the odometer distance recorded. This distance will then
be used to determine the chainage between kilometre posts.
3.4 Sieving Sand
The Loadman tests are done using a thin layer of sand which has been passed through a 1 mm sieve.
The Loadman crew will carry a sieve so that they can obtain sand during the survey.
The sand must be obtained from local PWD offices and must be of a high standard, excluding organic
particles. The sand must be filtered through the 1 mm sieve before testing.
The sand should NOT be collected and reused after a Loadman test since this can introduce
contaminants which may affect the results.
4. HANDLING PROCEDURES
4.1 Moving the Instrument
At all times the instrument must be moved in its aluminium box. The cap should cover the electronics
before the Loadman is inserted in the box. The weight must not be attached to the magnet. This can
best be accomplished by storing the Loadman box on a slight angle to the floor of the vehicle with the
electronics end up.
When removing the Loadman from its box the weight may have accidentally become attached to the
magnet. DO NOT rotate the instrument since this may shear off the rubber bush at the top of the
Loadman. Place the instrument vertically on the pavement, release the weight and then move the
instrument.
At all times carry the instrument by both handles with the weight RELEASED. DO NOT carry the
instrument over a shoulder since this can cause the weight to slide uncontrolled into the electronic
circuit.
4.2 Loading the Instrument
The Loadman is loaded by allowing the weight to slide to the end of the instrument with the electronics
where it is held in place by a magnet.
The weight must be slid to the top in a controlled manner. If this is not done, the weight can damage
the electronics rendering the Loadman inoperable. The weight is slid by holding the Loadman
horizontal and slightly tilting the end with the weight upwards. The weight should slowly slide to the
end with the electronics. Once there, it should be held in place by the magnet.
5. LOADMAN OPERATION
5.1 Arrival At Site
Position the vehicle and the flag man to provide the maximum protection to the operators.
5.2 Loadman Preparation
unpack the Loadman from its box;

turn on the instrument by pressing the WHITE button;
allow 30 seconds for the instrument to obtain operational mode;
check that the calibration constant 166 is correct;
32 18/02/94
ensure that the site, location, date, operator, etc. are recorded on the data sheet.
5.3 Loadman Buttons
The following are the functions of the Loadman buttons:
WHITE Turn Loadman on and off

RED Drop the weight and measure the deflection
GREENResets the Loadman after each site
YELLOW Enters Loadman constants
5.4 Loadman Test
move the Loadman to the test site (see 6. for description on selecting test sites);
place a thin layer of the 1 mm sieved sand on the test site (about a handful);
GENTLY place the Loadman on top of the sand layer and ensure that it is vertical;
rotate the Loadman side to side until all the excess sand is displaced from the test site and the
Loadman is sitting firmly on the sand;
FIRMLY hold the instrument and release the weight;
record both the E value and the deflection.
The Loadman test should be repeated until at least 4 readings are obtained within 10% of each other. If
the operator believes that they may have moved the instrument during a reading, discard the reading and
repeat.
If the Loadman weight releases as the instrument is placed on the test site this is because the
instrument is being placed on the sand too harshly.
6. SITE SELECTION
Sites are to be tested at approximately 250 m intervals along the entire network of roads covered by the
ARAN data collection team. Successive tests will be made on alternative sides of the road.
The location of each site is determined by measuring the required distance from a known reference
point, usually a kilometre stone, with the vehicle odometer.
While driving between test points observe the road condition so that the site selected is representative of
the entire road section.
Locate a suitable test point 600 mm from the edge of pavement. If the following are present the point is
NOT suitable:
cracking;
potholes nearby;
severe rutting;
an extremely uneven surface;
if the pavement has been widened which means that the tests are on what may be thin shoulders
as opposed to the travelled lane;
33 18/02/94
7. RECORDING OF LOADMAN RESULTS
7.1 Introduction
The Loadman survey data form consists of two boxes. The top box consists of data describing the site
location, date and team members. The second box is for recording the Loadman results. This section
focuses on recording the Loadman results.
7.2 Chainage
The chainage is the physical location of the test site. It is recorded as an offset from a kilometre post.
For example:
10+000 kilometre post 10

10+250 250 m past kilometre post 10
11+000 kilometre post 11
If there was no kilometre post 11, the following data would be entered:

etc.
7.3 Location
The location of the test is dictated by the chainage and the side of the pavement tested.
The LEFT side is the side with increasing kilometre posts; the RIGHT side the side of the pavement
where it has decreasing kilometre posts. This principle is illustrated in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: Principle of Test Site Location
7.4 Comments
Enter any comments pertaining to the survey in the box. These may be details such as the instrument
moved, a thick layer of sand was necessary, etc.
34 18/02/94
APPENDIX C
LOADMAN DATA RECORDING FORM
35 18/02/94
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT
LOADMAN SURVEY FORM

Page _____ / _____
STATE Road No:

Date (dd/mm/yy) __ / __ / __ Recorded By:
Chainage Test E Value Deflection Chainage Test E Value Deflection

(km) Number (mm) (km) Number (mm)
1 1
2 2
Location 3 Location 3
(Left/Right) 4 (Left/Right) 4
5 5
Comments 6 Comments 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
Mean Mean
1 1
2 2
5 5
7 7
8 8
9 9
Mean Mean
1 1
2 2
5 5
7 7
8 8
9 9
Mean Mean

Loadman and Benkelman Comp

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Loadman and Benkelman Comp

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Four States Pavement Management Project

THE MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT (ROADS WING) NEW DELHI, INDIA

and the State Governments of

BIHAR, MAHARASHTRA, RAJASTHAN, UTTAR PRADESH

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

COMPARISON OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN

N.D. Lea International Ltd.

Appendix A GRAPHS OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

COMPARISON OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM

Figure 2.1: Components of Loadman

where E is the modulus of elasticity

where E-MODIFY is the modulus of elasticity factor

Pavement Characteristic SH-60 Jahwara Road Walmi Walus

NOTES: AC Hand-laid asphaltic concrete

BBAVG 2 BBMAX BBINIT BBFINAL (3.1)

where BBAVG is the mean deflection for the test in .01 mm

The Benkelman Beam deflection in mm was calculated as:

where BBDEF is the Benkelman Beam deflection in mm

Additional tests were conducted into:

the effects of operators on Loadman readings

4.1 Benkelman Beam

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141

Benkelman Beam Observation Number

Figure 4.1: Benkelman Beam Data Consistency

Temperature and Seasonal Correction

5. OPERATION OF THE LOADMAN

the use of a sand pad when surfaces are uneven;

5.2 The Effect of Sand on Loadman Readings

LWS = 0.0985 + 0.8694 LNS R2 = 0.89 S.E. = 0.05 (5.1)

LNS = -0.1133 + 1.1502 LWS R2 = 0.89 S.E. = 0.05 (5.2)

where LWS is the Loadman deflection in mm with sand

Figure 5.1: Example of Surface Evenness Effects on Stress Distribution

LWS = 0.0985 + 0.8694 LNS

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Figure 5.2: Effect of Sand on Loadman Deflection Measurements

5.3 The Effect of Operators on Loadman Readings

5.4 The Effect of Temperature on Loadman Readings

5.5 Variability of Loadman Readings Around a Test Point

Road Location Loadman Deflection in mm by Offset

6. COMPARISON OF LOADMAN AND BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTIONS

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Figure 6.1: Centre and Edge Deflection Measurements

6.3 Loadman Versus Benkelman Longitudinal Variability

Figure 6.2: SH-60 Section 241 Edge Deflection Profiles

Road Section Correlation Between Devices

6.4 Characterising Section Deflections

Road Section Range of Deflections in mm

Jalwara 235 236 241 245 249 Walmi

Figure 6.3: Mean Section Deflections

Jalwara 235 236 241 245 249 Walmi

Figure 6.4: Standard Deviation of Section Deflections

Jalwara 235 236 241 245 249 Walmi

Figure 6.5: Coefficient of Variation of Section Deflections

BBMEAN = -0.4268 + 2.2302 LWSMEAN (6.1)

where BBMEAN is the mean Benkelman Beam deflection on the section in mm

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Figure 6.6: Relationship Between Mean Section Deflections

6.5 Individual Observation Analysis

Figure 6.7: Deflection Data by Section

Equation Equation R2 S.E.

BBDEF = -0.3582 + 2.0451 LWSDEF LWSDEF < 0.50 (6.5)

Range of Loadman R2 S.E.

BBDEF = -0.3381 + 2.0393 LWSDEF