Uncertainty Associated with Pre-Defined Correlative Expressions of Various In-Situ Test Outputs

The paper deals with the following full-scale and small-scale strength and stiffness measuring devices: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Vane-Shear Strength (VSS), Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD), and the Light Drop Weight (LDW) tests. Various established correlative expressions between CBR and each of the following testing outputs are given in the technical literature: (a) DCP index, (b) VSS, (c) MR (backcalculated Resilient Modulus from FWD testing or Resilient Modulus from direct laboratory testing), (d) MFWD (Resilient Surface Modulus, also known as Stiffness, from FWD testing), and (e) MLDW (Resilient Surface Modulus, also known as Stiffness, from LDW testing). The paper presents a comparison of local correlative expressions with some of those described. It indicates that the variation in the correlative expression output results for each type of test makes their use entirely uncertain, at least for the studies carried out in Israel. Although some good correlations have been obtained in various cases, the results have been found to be material dependent, and so the equations should be used with care and only with a full understanding of the material properties of the soils on which the correlative expressions were developed and of the soil being tested.

[1]  J Myre,et al.  THE USE OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) FOR ROAD STRENGTHENING DESIGN IN NORWAY , 1994 .

[2]  David Jones,et al.  Relationship between DCP, Stiffness, Shear Strength, and R-value , 2005 .

[3]  W D Powell,et al.  THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF BITUMINOUS ROADS , 1984 .

[4]  J M Arze,et al.  ANALYSIS OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST DATA ON FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS ACQUIRED AT THE NATIONAL AIRPORT PAVEMENT TEST FACILITY. IN: ADVANCING AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS , 2001 .

[5]  Steve L. Webster,et al.  DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION OF DUAL MASS DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. FINAL REPORT , 1992 .

[6]  William N. Houston,et al.  Laboratory versus Nondestructive Testing for Pavement Design , 1992 .

[7]  Chong Ket Pen.  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE AVAILABLE METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR ESTIMATING THE ELASTIC MODULI OF ROAD PAVEMENTS . THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BEARING CAPACITY OF ROADS AND AIRFIELDS. PROCEEDINGS, NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, TRONDHEIM, NORWAY, JULY 3-5 1990. VOLUMES 1-2 , 1990 .

[8]  M. Livneh.  In-situ CBR testing by indirect methods , 1989 .

[9]  Jim W. Hall,et al.  Nondestructive Vibratory Testing of Airport Pavements. Volume 1. Experimental Test Results and Development of Evaluation Methodology and Procedure , 1975 .

[10]  T Hopkins.  MINIMUM BEARING STRENGTH OF SOIL SUBGRADES REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS , 1994 .

[11]  G. F. Hayhoe,et al.  Parametric Sensitivity Analysis for the FAA’s Airport Pavement Thickness Design Software LEDFAA-1.3 , 2005 .

[12]  M Livneh,et al.  Pavements on expansive clays , 1969 .

[13]  R B Smith,et al.  A FIELD STUDY OF IN SITU CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO AND DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTING FOR ROAD SUBGRADE INVESTIGATIONS , 1983 .

[14]  Moshe Livneh,et al.  The Israeli Experience with the Regular and Extended Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Pavement and Subsoil-Strength Evaluation , 2000 .

[15]  Richard N. Stubstad.  LTPP Data Analysis: Feasibility of Using FWD Deflection Data to Characterize Pavement Construction Quality , 2002 .

[16]  T R Burnham.  APPLICATION OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES , 1997 .

[17]  A Nataatmadja,et al.  TECHNICAL NOTE. CORRELATION BETWEEN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO AND DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER STRENGTH MEASUREMENT OF SOILS. , 1989 .

[18]  Ravindra Gudishala,et al.  Development of resilient modulus prediction models for base and subgrade pavement layers from in situ devices test results , 2004 .

[19]  Steve L. Webster,et al.  FORCE PROJECTION SITE EVALUATION USING THE ELECTRIC CONE PENETROMETER (ECP) AND THE DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) , 1994 .

[20]  K P George,et al.  In Situ and Laboratory Characterization of Nonlinear Pavement Layer Moduli , 1994 .

[21]  David E. Newcomb,et al.  A Comparison of Laboratory and Field Sdbgrade Moduli at the Minnesota Road Research Project , 1994 .

[22]  Jacob Uzan.  A PAVEMENT DESIGN AND REHABILITATION SYSTEM , 1996 .

[23]  K P George,et al.  PREDICTION OF RESILIENT MODULUS FROM SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES , 2004 .

[24]  Ashraf Rahim,et al.  Falling Weight Deflectometer for Estimating Subgrade Elastic Moduli , 2003 .

[25]  Ekrem Seyman.  Laboratory evaluation of in-situ tests as potential quality control/quality assurance tools , 2003 .

[26]  Imad L. Al-Qadi,et al.  EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT LAYER RESPONSE AT THE VIRGINIA SMART ROAD , 2000 .

[27]  Beena Sukumaran,et al.  SUITABILITY OF USING CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST TO PREDICT RESILIENT MODULUS , 2004 .

[28]  Richard N. Stubstad,et al.  Subgrade Characterization Employing the Falling Weight Deflectometer , 2004 .

[29]  Munir D. Nazzal.  Field evaluation of in-situ test technology for QC/QA during construction of pavement layers and embankments , 2007 .

[30]  Matthew W. Frost,et al.  A comparison of devices for measuring stiffness in situ. , 2000 .

[31]  Khaled Ksaibati,et al.  EFFECT OF SELECTING SUBGRADE RESILIENT MODULUS VALUES ON ASPHALT OVERLAY DESIGN THICKNESSES , 1995 .