Abstract
Roads are extremely important to a country's socioeconomic growth. Pavement performance depends on its ability to carry commercial traffic over its design life. During the construction and before opening pavement layers to traffic, they must pass Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) processes. Engineers use unit weight-based QC/QA methods like core cutter, sand replacement, etc. Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) and Geogauge are replacing them. These devices are light, portable, and provide data quickly. These technologies provide the elastic/deformation modulus of compacted pavement layers to replace the unit weight-based method. The paper describes the work that has been accomplished so far and the latest developments on Geogauge and LWD. This paper aims to provide insights on these technologies' definitions, testing methods, significance, limitations, working principle, modulus improvement for stabilized materials, repeatability, and use in QC/QA of pavement layers constructed using various geomaterials, including correlations between modulus and other physical parameters, and control charts for QA/QC. It also includes modulus ranges for conventional road materials. This paper especially discusses the ability of these devices to measure the improvement in stiffness/modulus due to soil reinforcement or stabilization. The process of QC/QA involves exploring the range of target deformation modulus values for both devices related to conventional relative compaction for a specific geomaterial of the site for QC/QA purposes; researchers advise building a test pad before actually starting to build roads. Many studies are based on Target values (TVs) which do not provide UCL (upper control limit) which could lead to over-compaction. This review discusses control charts that provide both LCL (lower control limit) and UCL. This work has been performed as the presently used unit weight method is time-consuming, laborious, and destructive; thus, there is a need to shift from a unit weight-based method to a modulus-based method which is time efficient, non-laborious, and non-destructive for the QC/QA process. This paper provides a comprehensive review of two modulus-based devices, namely, LWD and Geogauge. It can be stated that these tools efficiently assess the pavement layers' quality during construction and allow for prompt mitigation. These devices also have the ability to record and determine the increase in stiffness/modulus over time due to the curing of non-conventional materials. This is one way to complete road projects on time and benefit society.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The road system of a country determines how well it can do economically, industrially, socially, and culturally. Modern highways require vehicles to operate safely and efficiently at high design speeds. Pavements must be built with QC and QA in mind if they are to last for a long time, need little maintenance, and cost as little as possible.
The compaction of pavement layers is an important factor in the construction of roads or highways. Getting proper compaction is essential for a highway's durability and stability. So, to improve the engineering characteristics of highways, it is important to control compaction while they are being built. The goal of compacting the road layers is to also improve their mechanical properties in addition to their dry unit weight [1]. At the moment, the quality of highway construction is judged by comparing the maximum dry unit weight found during standard or modified Proctor testing in the laboratory with the field unit weight measurements. A field dry unit weight can be measured destructively using the core cutter, rubber balloon, or sand cone methods, or non-destructively using a nuclear density gauge (NDG). The sand cone test is often used to measure the in situ density of compacted layers to figure out how well a pavement is compacted. Tests such as these are time-consuming, tedious, and sometimes not viable to perform to specifications, as well as posing a health risk because nuclear density gauges are hazardous [2]. According to experts, the present unit weight-based quality control methods are labour-intensive, slow, dangerous, uncertainly accurate, and unsuitable for situations where site materials vary along tested sections [3, 4]. According to Lenke et al. [5], these quality control methods are commonly adopted because of their simplicity and relatively low cost. As Pinard [6] pointed out, the unit weight criteria used do not reflect the engineering characteristics of soils under highway conditions. Similarly, Fleming [7] came to the same conclusion. Also, the stiffness modulus of the base and subbase layers is thought to be an indicator of how well they support the concrete or asphalt layers on top [8].
In the mechanistic-empirical design of asphalt pavements, the resilient modulus is used to express the strength of the layers. It is critical to execute enough compaction during construction to ensure that the compacted layer modulus meets the design resilient modulus. This will aid in the prevention of early-life pavement problems such as rutting, fatigue, and potholes. The dry density and moisture content of the subgrade are often the only things checked during traditional QC procedures during subgrade construction. Although the resilient modulus depends on moisture content and dry density, it also depends on the kind of material, the kind and quantity of additives (stabilizers), and the material's stress condition. As a result, dry density and moisture content are insufficient to determine the resilient modulus of the pavement layers during construction, and they are also insufficient indicators of compaction level.
The QC/QA processes employed during construction should thus strongly match the performance parameters employed during design. Materials' elastic modulus, also known as stiffness modulus or deformation modulus, is a critical performance criterion for built-up highway layers. It has been stated that a variety of non-destructive test tools, like the Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) and Geogauge, can evaluate the in situ elastic stiffness modulus of highway materials. In addition to being simple to use, portable, and well-designed, these tools also quickly determine the modulus of pavement layers [9]. Several studies on these modulus-based technologies have focused on the QA/QC of non-reinforced pavement layers. Few studies have been done using these devices on pavement layers that have been reinforced or stabilized, though.
It is generally believed that LWD and Geogauge are fancy devices. These devices, however, are commonly used in research and practice for estimating the stiffness or modulus of pavement layers and for quality control during pavement layer construction. As these devices are better than destructive testing in many ways, users can quickly judge quality, make changes during construction without delay, and finish the project on time. This paper’s novelty is its addition to previous work by the accumulation and demonstration of each and every result, as well as the latest work in this area that could be relevant to modulus-based QC/QA of pavement layers using LWD and Geogauge devices. There is also a discussion of the little research that has been done on the performance of these NDT devices on treated or stabilized pavement layers. Although many researchers have established QC/QA target values, control charts are rarely used. According to the literature, more research is required to develop specifications for QC/QA assessment using LWD and Geogauge. There is also a lack of a proper and up-to-date review of the developments in the use of Geogauge. So, the goal of this study is to give a full review of the work that has been done on non-destructive testing for measuring deflection, stiffness using LWD, and elastic modulus using Geogauge. Work has been done on various pavement layers, a wide variety of data, and how to interpret it for quality control and quality assurance. The objective of this comprehensive review is to find potential areas where little work has been done or is untouched yet.
Modulus and stiffness
Modulus and stiffness are two separate mechanical characteristics. A material with no physical boundaries has a property called modulus. The modulus of a material that is 0.1 m thick, and one metre thick is equal. Fundamental to the engineering properties of all materials is the Young's modulus, a measurement of the stress to strain ratio. It is sometimes referred to as the elastic modulus, modulus of elasticity, coefficient of elasticity, or deformation modulus. Stiffness is a property of a structure that measures its resistance to deflection. The physical dimensions of a material, its modulus, and boundary circumstances, such as how it is supported, held or confined, can all have an impact on stiffness. If a structure's thickness changes, its stiffness will change as well. In order to minimize the deflection of each component and prevent permanent damage, stiffness is the parameter of choice [10].
The elastic modulus and stiffness of prepared soil and aggregate can be measured in-place using the hand-portable Humboldt GeoGauge® [11]. After the construction of the test specimen, the LWD is used to calculate the stiffness of the pavement layers in terms of their elastic modulus [12]. The purpose of Dynatest LWD is to measure "surface modulus" (also known as stiffness), which is the underlying structure's response to a transient deflection caused by dynamic stress delivered through a circular bearing plate [13]. Researchers have used the elastic modulus as a parameter for the QC or QA. Table 1 provides the nomenclature used by various researchers for elastic modulus.
Testing methods for QC/QA
Road structures should meet certain requirements to build safe, serviceable, durable, and economically feasible highways/roads. Structures must possess specific characteristics to meet these requirements. The description of design requirements, operational guidelines, technical specifications, testing and acceptance criteria, and workmanship in codes of practise and contract documents serve as vehicles for achieving this. Ultimately, the quality of highways/roads is determined by the successful and reliable application of these strategies. Everyone working on a highway or road has a fundamental desire to deliver high-quality work. The idea of "quality" has been described as the sum of all the attributes and qualities that contribute to a service or product's capacity to meet explicit or implicit demands [IRC 57] [26]. Table 2 summarises the comparison of QC and QA as defined by AASHTO [27, 28].
There are destructive and non-destructive methods of testing for QC/QA, shown in Fig. 1. Table 3 summarises their merits and demerits.
Significance of modulus/stiffness-based NDT
In addition to being simple and portable, modulus-based compaction testing devices have numerous economic and time-saving advantages. As a result of its non-labour-intensive and non-destructive nature, the process of quality assessment is highly cost-efficient. The capacity to gather a lot of data quickly also benefits from the reduction in time [29]. In situ testing of compacted soil using these devices is quick and easy [30].
Maintaining uniformity in the paving application is critical since how well a pavement works over time and how much maintenance it requires are directly related to how stiff each layer is. Non-uniform structural stiffness is a sign of these issues, since non-uniform compaction during construction can lead to premature breakdowns. Earthworks can be easily identified as non-uniform, while voids and discontinuities can be revealed.
The stiffness/modulus-based devices have an advantage over other in situ testing devices [31]. Because of its non-destructive nature, it's sometimes necessary to take multiple measurements at the same spot over time. This is done to make sure that the laying process goes well, and if it does not, the right steps can be taken.
Limitations modulus/stiffness-based NDT
The effect radius of the Geogauge spans a ranges from 220 to 310 mm, according to earlier research based on both experimental tests and finite element analysis. The manufacturer of Geogauge, Humboldt, advises using it up to 70 MN/m for layer stiffness measurements and up to 610 MPa for in situ modulus measurements [29]. The study by Chen et al. [32] says that the Geogauge should only be used up to 23 MN/m because measurements of stiffness above this value may be less accurate. Also, the results can be inaccurate if proper seating of the equipment on the surface is not ensured. Geogauge applies a very small load that does not mimic the actual traffic load.
In contrast, LWD only provides the combined stiffness of all the layers up to an influence depth of 0.9 to 1.1 times the diameter of the plate, while a few researchers have found that, depending on the type of LWD device, the force applied, stiffness of the material, and the load plate radius, the influence depth can also be 1–1.5 times to as high as 2 times the plate diameter [21, 22, 33,34,35,36]. The LWD has a shorter depth of influence compared to the falling weight deflectometer (FWD), due to its decreased maximum applied force and load pulse time. It is thus suited for the structural evaluation of single-layer during construction [37].
Description of the stiffness/modulus-based technologies
Light weight deflectometer (LWD)
LWD is sometimes called PFWD (Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer) [38, 39]. LWD is a movable falling weight deflectometer that allows for fast readings without disturbing the earth. Table 4 lists the LWD variations: Zorn, Prima, Dynatest, TFT, etc. Each kind has many similarities in its operating principle, but differences in mode of operation and design lead to varying results [4, 14, 34, 40]. With a falling weight of 10 kg, the Dynatest 3031 LWD weighs 22 kg (Table 5). Figure 2 shows the LWD's transportation-lock pin and guiding rod with stabilizer for safe operation. It has a load range greater than 15 kN [41].
Principle
The LWD load range is over 15 kN. The loading plate has 300, 150, and 100 mm diameters. It measures force as well as deflection. The deflection produced by lowering a 10 kg load under gravity is measured by a centre geophone sensor. The falling load hits a rubber pad, producing a 15–30 ms load pulse. The Boussinesq static analysis uses observed ground deflection and applied mass to calculate stiffness. 3031 LWD's load cell measures 0–25 kN. The geophone at the loading plate's centre has a 1 m resolution and a 0–2200 m range [39]. A basic deflection bowl can be produced by models with three geophones. LWD test findings are based on a homogeneous, linear elastic, isotropic half-space under a circular load [42]. Using the Boussinesq solution and the measured centre deflection, Eq. 1 calculates the dynamic deformation modulus [31].
where ELWD is the LWD dynamic modulus, K is the plate rigidity factor (2 and π/2 for flexible and rigid plates, respectively), δc is the centre deflection, R is the radius of the plate, \(\sigma\) is the applied Stress, and µ is the poisson’s ratio of soil.
Factors influencing the LWD dynamic elastic modulus
Plate rigidity factor
This depends on the material and plate rigidity. Flexible plates demonstrate approximately uniform contact pressure in clayey, silty, and sandy soils. Contact pressure is not uniform for a rigid plate. For sandy soils, it varies from minimum at the edges to maximum at the centre, whereas for clayey soils, it varies from maximum at the edges to minimum at the centre. Figure 3 exhibits plate rigidity and contact pressure.
Applied stress
It was found that the applied stress, which depends on the size of the plate, has a considerable effect on the LWD modulus value [45]. It has been determined that the contact pressure for the loading plate with a 100 mm diameter is approximately 8–9 times higher than that for the plate with a 300 mm diameter [15]. The apparatus is made to create a peak contact stress of between 100 and 200 kPa, depending on the size of the loading plate and the force of the impact. This is similar to the stress pulse that is created on a base or subgrade layer when traffic load is applied to a finished pavement [4, 35, 40]. The correlation between applied vertical tension and modulus is significant [16, 46]. Table 6 provides the preferred range of average contact stress levels for testing from Dynatest [44].
Loading plate diameter
An important factor in determining the modulus of layers is the diameter of the loading plate. Loading plate diameters used can be 100 mm, 200 mm, or 300 mm. In comparison with the 300 mm loading plate, the 100 mm loading plate had moduli that were almost 1.5 times greater. Depending on the observed modulus, the LWD's manufacturers also recommend alternative plate sizes for various pavement structures. Therefore, a plate size of 300 mm is advised when the modulus is less than 125 MPa. When the modulus is between 125 and 170 MPa, 200 mm plates are suggested, and 100 mm when over 170 MPa [15].
Poisson’s ratio
Poisson's ratio is an indication of soil deformability that characterizes the ratio of lateral and longitudinal deformations of the soil, which determines the elastic modulus. The soil's Poisson's ratio must be calculated via triaxial compression or lateral pressure measurement. Its value is needed to measure the material's elastic modulus [29]. After experiments, Poisson's ratio values for different materials are listed in Table 7.
Working of LWD
A 10-kg impulsive load slides down a guide tube to a rubber pad damper element after being released. The apparatus has gripping magnets that keep the weight from dropping while maintaining the appropriate height. The loading device is mounted on a cantering ball in the centre of the load plate so that it can only transmit a vertical load to the plate. There is a sensor attached to the middle of the plate that is used to measure how much deformation has been caused by the plate. An accelerometer is used as the sensor. A stiffness modulus is estimated instantly by the connected software and displayed on the tablet screen after every drop. The display also shows the deflection, the impulse duration, and the rebound deflection. All additional parameters, in particular the contact pressure between the plate and the ground, are assumed to be stable for the estimation of the stiffness modulus. According to the manufacturers' guidelines, LWD tests were conducted using three seating drops and three test drops (Zorn 2003; Dynatest 2004). The LWD modulus is provided for a specific testing point as the average of the last three drops, and it is shown on the PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) device. Figure 4 presents the working procedure of LWD. On open-graded aggregate surfaces, however, it was discovered that nine drops were adequate to assure plate seating [47].
The data collected is downloaded to a PC and then, analysed using the LWDmod program, which uses a back-calculation algorithm and requires values such as seed moduli, the thickness of multiple pavement layers, Poisson’s ratio, tyre pressure, and load applied to carry out multiple iterations to finally give the composite and individual layer moduli. Back-calculation is the process of transforming pavement deflections into deformation moduli of the underlying pavement layer. The back-calculation analysis was continued until a root mean square error of less than or equal to 2% was obtained. Different layers are given different moduli values, and estimated deflections from the forward calculation model and measured deflections are compared. The computer program will assume a fresh set of moduli and recalculate the deflections if the differences are too great. Iterative back-calculation is the term used to describe this process. This iterative back-calculation will continue until there is good agreement between the measured and estimated deflections [48]. The LWDmod program also eliminates abnormal observations obtained during the iterative back-calculation to finally give the actual modulus values. Seed moduli values are the approximate standard modulus values of the pavement layers on which the iteration process of the LWDmod program will be based. The back-calculation algorithm shown in Fig. 5 serves as the foundation for the LWDmod software [49].
Geogauge
Geogauge equipment was initially developed by the defence industry to detect land mines. Its ring-shaped foot rests on the soil's surface, and it measures about 10 kg (22 lbs), 28 cm (11 inches) in diameter, and 254 mm (10 inches) tall [3]. With an outer diameter of 4.50 inches (11.4 cm), an inner diameter of 3.50 inches (8.9 cm), and a thickness of 0.50 inches (1.3 cm), it has an annular ring that makes contact with the soil surface [5], as shown in Fig. 6 and Table 8. One test per 1.5 min measures the in situ stiffness of compacted soil [33]. The tool is used for QC and QA to measure how uniform unbound pavement layers are by looking at how stiffness changes across the structure. A Geogauge is used to detect irregularities during construction similar to LWD. Table 9 shows the comparison between LWD and Geogauge.
Principle of geogauge
The Geogauge's basic working principle is to produce a minuscule dynamic force between 100 and 196 Hz. The force produced by the Geogauge was estimated to be 9 N during a laboratory experiment [54]. Geogauge works by causing a minuscule displacement in the soil, less than 0.0005 inches (1.27 × 10–6 m), at 25 steady-state frequencies ranging from 100 to 196 Hz. The stiffness is calculated at each and every frequency, and the mean is displayed. It takes around 1.5 min to complete the process. The Geogauge derives its power from a set of 6 D-cell batteries and is designed not to affect its estimation due to the deflection caused by the equipment operating nearby, as the frequency produced by traffic is about 30 Hz, below the Geogauge’s working frequency (Humboldt Mfg Co. 1999, Geogauge guide). The differential displacement across the flexible plate measured by two velocity sensors is used to calculate the force transferred to the ground, which is applied by the shaker (Fig. 7). This can be expressed as shown in Eq. 2.
Fdr denotes the force applied by the shaker, Kflex denotes the stiffness of the flexible plate, X1 denotes the displacement at the rigid plate, and X2 denotes the displacement at the flexible plate. Thus, soil stiffness can be calculated using Eq. 3
where n denotes the number of test frequencies.
Geogauge soil stiffness and modulus calculation
The soil stiffness determined using the Geogauge could be utilised to compute the soil stiffness moduli. The static stiffness, K, of a rigid annular ring on an elastic, linear, isotropic, and homogeneous half-space has the subsequent useful form in Eq. 4 [55].
where E denotes the elastic modulus, µ denotes the Poisson’s ratio of the elastic medium, R denotes the outside radius of the annular ring, and ω(n) denotes a function of the ratio of the inside radius and the outside radius of the annular ring. For the ring geometry of the Geogauge, the factor ω(n) is equal to 0.565, thus,
Based on Eq. 5, the Geogauge elastic stiffness modulus, or Young’s modulus, can be obtained by utilising Eq. 6, projected by CA Consulting Engineers, as follows:
where EG is the elastic modulus in MPa, HSG is the Geogauge stiffness reading in MN/m, and R is the radius of the Geogauge foot (5.715 cm).
Working
After preparing a levelled surface as mentioned in the Geogauge manual, and then, after the measure button is pressed, it takes around 1–1.5 min to provide the stiffness and modulus values. Then, the average of the three readings is taken as the modulus value of a site location [11]. A detailed description is shown in Fig. 8.
Observation from the literature
Numerous authors have expressed their views on these technologies. Both LWD and Geogauge have been successful in sensing abnormalities in construction conditions, such as decreasing or increasing trends in moduli. It has been observed that Geogauge moduli are consistently higher and rise with LWD moduli. This is due to Geogauge employing low strain in modulus calculations. The ability to detect abnormalities in construction circumstances, such as an upward or downward trend in moduli, was successful for both LWD and Geogauge [57].
In order to determine dynamic deformation moduli (Evd) that are near to resilient modulus (MR), it has been discovered that the necessary number of LWD cycles (repetition) relies on a variety of influencing parameters, including lateral confinement, moisture contents, and the levels of maximum vertical axial stress during testing. It was stated that the cyclic LWD test may be utilised to accurately and reliably anticipate the resilient behaviour of the explored soil in a simple and rapid manner [58]. Additionally, a new testing method has been devised to acquire direct measurements of a compacted geomaterial's resilient modulus (MR) using a straightforward technique. This method was created for both laboratory and in situ testing [17, 58].
The LWD differs from the other equipment in that it estimates structural mechanical response over a larger footprint as opposed to the DCP, which measures the shear strength of soil at a discrete point. It is for this reason that the LWD is attractive for modelling the interaction between vehicles and soils [59].
Regardless of the soil type, it was shown that the modulus falls when measured towards the wet side of the OMC. Particularly vulnerable to the impact of soil moisture were the LWD and Geogauge [60], and when moisture content effects were taken into account, the performance of these instruments improved even more [61, 62]. A field investigation by Afsharikia and Schwartz (2019) revealed a large modulus gain as a result of drying, especially within the first several hours. Due to evaporation, the soil modulus dramatically rose over the first few days (between 3 and 4 days) before stabilising [63]. The findings of a study demonstrated that density had little impact on soil stiffness, but moisture content significantly affected the data from the equipment, particularly the LWD [64].
Based on the tests done for the study, the coefficient of variation of the deformation modulus of the surface and base layers is between 4 and 12%. This means that the LWD test results on the prepared surface and base layers can be thought of as uniform [25].
The stress distribution, due to the applied load of a Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) on a typical subgrade soil mass, showed that the vertical stresses decreased more quickly in the higher (about 400 mm) part of the soil mass along the centerline. There is a point of inflexion (a point in which the concavity of the function changes) for the change in stress at a depth of around 400 mm. The rates of stress deterioration were found to be much lower after the inflexion point. Within a relatively short area of the subgrade material, the horizontal confining strains significantly dropped along the centre line under the imposed load. The findings showed that the top 300 mm saw the majority of the confining stress degradation. Beyond the point of inflexion, over 95% of the confining stresses decreased, and it was noticed that the levels of stress slightly increased at the container's bottom [65].
The stiffness/modulus determined by LWD remained virtually constant irrespective of the influence of temperature on the buffer. The only change that was immediately noticeable was an increase in the load pulse's duration from 18 to 20 ms as a result of the buffer's rising temperature [66]. Table 10 presents the findings of various authors.
LWD was used to assess the elastic modulus of the pavement surface above an underlying cavity before and after the rehabilitation process and compare it with the elastic modulus of the normal surface near the repair work. The findings showed that, while rehabilitation improved the pavement layer's elastic modulus, it was not entirely recoverable due to the properties of the repair material [81].
An investigation of modified subgrade clay soil mix with steel slag and lime was carried out using a static and dynamic test approach in a laboratory. The static approach involved the laboratory CBR test and the dynamic approach involved LWD testing on top of a CBR mould filled with compacted modified soil. Finally, a 20% increase in modulus was found in 6% lime + 30% Steel slag as compared to 6% lime + 20% Steel slag [82].
In a different study, a modified laboratory LWD called the Laboratory Deflection Measuring Device (AUDL) was developed as a reliable and accurate non-destructive testing tool to measure the modulus of elasticity of various asphalt materials that are asphalt concrete (AC) Base type and AC BC (binder course) type. This modulus was compared to the modulus of elasticity measured on extracted cores using the UMMATA (Universal Material Testing Apparatus) method. The AUDL approach typically yields a lower modulus of elasticity than the UMMATA method. When comparing AUDL with UMMATA, the average modulus value of AC Base material is 7.52 percent lower for AUDL. The average AC BC material modulus value is also 30.93% lower for AUDL. From here, it can be seen that the AUDL and UMMATA approaches have the same pattern [66].
The modulus obtained directly from these tests represented the composite modulus of the layers in cases where the influence depth of the LWD exceeded the thickness of the tested pavement layer, reaching the underlying layers and subgrade. To resolve this issue, the modulus of the tested layer has to be back-calculated using a multilayered system solution [83].
Senseney and Mooney (2010) used the LWD with radial sensors on one and two-layered systems test beds to allay concerns about the LWD's capacity to accurately characterise multilayered soil systems. In the case of stiff-over-soft systems, it was successful in precisely estimating the layered moduli. Through the use of triaxial testing under a similar stress state, a close correlation between ELWD and the elastic modulus values was demonstrated. However, compared to 1.0 to 1.50 for typical LWDs, the measured depth of influence was found to be 1.80 times the diameter of the loading plate. The authors attributed this variation to the availability of radial sensors, which allowed for the measurement of strains affecting deeper materials [35].
A study was conducted to propose a technique for estimating the stiffness of the soil constructed into a road embankment using displacements observed during the LWD test. It was determined that the soil site's dynamic elastic modulus was sensitive to loading and unloading [74]. Another study compared the performance of the Benkelman Beam Deflectometer (BBD) with the Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) on low-volume roads in order to correlate subgrade moduli using static and dynamic deflection techniques. It was discovered that LWD offers accurate subgrade moduli values and can be utilised as a tool for an immediate evaluation of subgrade strength [84]. The LWD modulus is more sensitive to the structural state of the subgrade surface of the pavement, which leads to a wider range of values because clay shrinks and causes surface cracks [75].
LWD has been implemented as the only compaction QA instrument for unbound materials by the Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) in the US. NDOT also recently developed group indices that can be used to determine the target deflection value depending on the type of soil. The LWD's effectiveness and outcomes have received high marks from NDOT [85].
According to laboratory studies, suction and excessive pore water pressure, respectively, may cause high ELWD to occur at very low and very high saturation levels. A study recommends against using the LWD for building quality control until more study has been done to determine the causes of excessive spatial variability and the impact of moisture content [64]. Other shortcomings include high variability of modulus values from different LWD devices, low repeatability for soft soils, and uneven surfaces.
Test performed on different materials
A road's stiffness will vary depending on the materials used in its construction. These technologies have been applied to many pavement layers, including the subgrade, subbase, base, and surface layer, which are all present in a given area. These include testing on degraded granitic soil subgrade to examine the distribution of stress during LWD tests [65]. For granular roads, the effectiveness of various surface aggregate materials from various quarries, such as Lime Creek Formation Class A, Bethany Falls Limestone Class A, and Oneota Formation Dolomite Class A, has also been compared [92]. The efficiency of field modulus measuring techniques for identifying gravel, limestone, and dolomite quality aggregate material used in construction over weak subgrade was investigated [57]. LWD was used to evaluate the mechanical characteristics of the active layer (thawing soil) in a permafrost scenario [86]. LWD has been used to evaluate the stiffness of compacted subgrade geomaterials such as well-graded silty sand (SW-SM) and well-graded gravel (GW) [79]. Clay-based soft subsurface has been subjected to Geogauge testing for the purposes of evaluating the earthwork [88] and the limestone base course modulus [72]. The resilient modulus of a sandy subgrade has been determined using the cyclic light weight deflectometer test [58]. The deflection and stress behaviour of an interlocking concrete block pavement was also studied using LWD and Geogauge [95]. For poorly graded calcareous and siliceous sands, a light weight deflectometer has been employed to evaluate the degree of compaction on the spot [53]. In a research study, two laboratory asphalt slab specimens and an as-built pavement were subjected to light weight deflectometer (LWD) testing. The experimental findings were compared with the prediction master curve modulus [96]. For performance-based pavement foundation design, LWD evaluated coarse granular materials such as crushed concrete, mudstone, sand, and granodiorite [97]. For the purpose of preventing compaction, tests on sandy loam were conducted to determine the relationship between soil stiffness, dry density, and saturation level [98]. With the use of continuous compaction control and site-specific in situ experiments, LWD and Geogauge were utilised to evaluate poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) and silty sand (SM) soil compaction [61]. Tables 11 and 12 list several materials and the range of their moduli.
However, these deformation modulus values for different materials cannot be generalised as they may vary depending upon various other factors like moisture content, type of equipment, and thickness of the underlying structure. Hence, before every construction activity, a test pad of the required road standard has to be built to determine the optimum modulus range. According to the survey, the majority of LWDs operate similarly and use the same testing procedures. However, because of the various applied stresses and deflection measurement procedures, there are variations in the calculated ELWD values [34, 69]. The LWDs that measure the deflection of the loading plate using accelerometers, like the Zorn LWD, reported greater deflections than the LWDs that measure ground surface deflections (e.g. the Dynatest LWD). As a result, when a 300 mm plate diameter was employed, the moduli calculated by Dynatest and Keros LWD were, on average, 1.7 and 1.75 to 2.16 times bigger than the moduli estimated by Zorn LWD, respectively [99]. Thus, the modulus has to be determined for the pavement layers' geomaterial in every particular construction work. These values could provide an approximate idea of the range of moduli for carrying out QC/QA work, but they are not absolute. Further research is required to develop better specifications for different types of materials.
Test performed on reinforced soil
There are several studies on these modulus-based technologies for QA/QC of non-reinforced pavement layers. There have been few studies on stabilized, modified, or reinforced pavement layers [102]. LWD has been used to assess the strength and durability of a lignosulfonate-treated ML soil subgrade in situ [103], as well as the effect of active fillers such as cement and lime on the in situ performances of foam bitumen stabilised mixes [104]. Geogauge has been used to assess the coir geotextile-reinforced silty sand subgrade for low-volume pavements [101, 105], as well as the field and laboratory performance of cold-region sand stabilised with Geo fibre and synthetic fluid [106]. LWD was used to assess the mechanical performance of cement–bitumen-treated materials in laboratory and in situ tests [23]. LWD was used to investigate further stabilising strategies, such as the use of organosilane and lignosulfonate for crushed rocks like green schist and gabbro for unbound road layers [107]. The performance of polyester geogrid-reinforced unbound layers [19] and flexible pavement systems comprising geocomposite (non-woven polypropylene fibres) [108] drainage layers employing Light Weight Deflectometer has been studied in the laboratory.
These devices have been able to record and determine the increase in stiffness/modulus over time due to the curing of non-conventional materials. This increase in modulus could be due to physical reinforcement like geosynthetics and geogrid, or it could be due to the formation of precipitate in the voids, resulting in increased density during chemical stabilization. To determine the effectiveness of employing the LWD to analyse the stiffness qualities of these materials, Abu-Farsakh et al. conducted extensive laboratory and field testing using the LWD on various types of geomaterials. They looked at how ELWD for soils with 2% and 4% cement concentrations changed over time after compaction. Due to significant standard deviations, the trend for change in ELWD over time, however, was not obvious [83]. Further research is required to develop better specifications for the use of these devices on stabilised materials. Figure 9 shows the modulus improvement of several modified compacted materials.
Repeatability of modulus/stiffness-based testing devices
The repeatability of the LWD measurement has a significant impact on its reliability. When one evaluator uses the same measuring tool repeatedly to test the same characteristic on the same spot, repeatability is defined by variations in measurement [110]. Figure 10 displays the findings of a study that assessed the repeatability of the data from two different compaction testing techniques. In the first method, initial tests were run on each device, and then, 5–10 more tests were run without removing the compaction test device. The second method entails removing the compaction test equipment, replacing it, and then starting a fresh test. This technique is essential since it measures the tested devices' precision. If a device cannot demonstrate a sufficient level of repeatability, it cannot be regarded as a viable choice [109]. Figure 10 shows that the ELWD (modulus) value is the basis for the precision uncertainty. Table 13 displays the uncertainty values of Fig. 10 to within two standard deviations. This shows that ELWD values of at least 30 MPa are needed for uncertainty in the precision of less than 2%.
In a different investigation, the coefficient of variation (COV) of the five measurements that were made at each test section was used to assess the repeatability of the LWD device. As the LWD deformation moduli increased, it was noticed that the COV values decreased. The difficulty of conducting LWD tests on weak subgrades was also discovered during field testing. The reason is that conducting the LWD test on a particularly weak subgrade typically results in permanent plastic deformation, which further compacts the soil. On the other hand, stiffer and well-compacted pavement layers improved LWD performance [20]. According to Fleming [8], comparable conclusions were reached. His research showed that field tests with LWD and FWD on soft subgrade materials were more different than those with stiffer subbase and base course materials. However, there was low repeatability for soft soils and uneven surfaces.
A big soil bin filled with sand and silt was used to test the Humboldt Geogauge's repeatability by doing so three times in a row at the same depth, then doing it again for a total of six measurements (8 ft. in depth and 15 ft. in diameter). The six readings were taken for four different soils at five to seven different depths. A standard deviation was calculated after averaging the first three readings. The second set of three readings was finished along with this. From the observations, it was determined that the Geogauge provided admirable repeatability with consecutive measurements [67]. However, the repeatability of measurements was difficult to achieve in some instances [111].
Statistical limits of modulus/stiffness
To conduct a proper QC/QA, the setting of statistical limits for either deflection or deformation modulus must be done in advance. Test pads are constructed to determine the maximum deflection or minimum deformation modulus corresponding to the required dry density or maximum dry density [22, 25, 112, 113]. A control chart is a vital method to carry out the acceptance or rejection of any parameter at a location. A typical control chart consists of an upper control limit (UCL), a mean, and a lower control limit (LCL). The parameters falling above UCL and below LCL are rejected, and those between them are accepted [28].
Also, standard target values (TV) are set corresponding to a test pad, which is the minimum value of modulus to be achieved. In a study to evaluate the performance of lime stabilised subgrade soil using LWD, the degree of compaction for LWD moduli less than 25 MPa is below 97%, a correlation that is not appropriate for subgrade stability as per the Indian National Rural Roads Development Agency (2007) [18]. So, a target value of 25 MPa was suitable. In a different study, an analysis of the data showed that there are target values for ELWD that could replace the present 95% density criterion. Consistent TVs resulted from test beds, and numerous sites, including Class-1 backfill soils. The TVs for ELWD that were observed were found to be 32.5 MPa. Within the range of the data, there was no difference between the TVs in the different Class-1 backfill soils. Figure 11 shows a target value in a graphical form for LWD meeting 95% compaction (with %C implying percent compaction) [109]. In another study, Farrag et al. (2005) gave Geogauge stiffness target values for sand and silty-clay as 33.88 MN/m and 50.8 MN/m, respectively, corresponding to 90% relative compaction [114]. Modulus-based quality assurance specifications were developed in a study that can be put into practise by state DOTs. They suggested using the LWD test to ascertain the field target modulus on the Proctor compaction mould [64].
There is also a concept based on maximum allowable deflection (MAD). The unique concept calls for a maximum allowable deflection value to be found by running a roller over a test section over and over again until the difference in deflection between two successive passes does not exceed 0.02 mm. Five roller passes are recognised as the minimum number of passes. The MAD for the specific material is the average of the 10 LWD tests, and this value is used as the target of the project [22, 112, 115]. Table 14 displays the MAD of various soil types.
Control charts for QA/QC
Shewhart control charts, or c-charts, are an additional alternative used in the quality control/assurance process [117]. In this c-chart of quality control/assurance, using the mean of a given procedure, the lower control limit (LCL) and the upper control limit (UCL) are identified using the standard deviation of a sample, as shown in Fig. 12. When the mentioned values begin to fall outside the control limits, the system is understood to be out of control, and action must be taken to bring the system back to a state of control. The universal model for a control chart involves the selection of upper and lower control limits. The upper control limit (UCL), centerline (CL), and lower control limit (LCL) are shown in Fig. 12 and Eqs. 7, 8, and 9, respectively.
where k represents the distance of the control limits from the centreline/mean, articulated in standard deviation units.
There are two common sets of limits. The inner limits are known as the warning limits and are typically set at 2σ, while the outer limits are known as the action limits and are typically set at 3σ. The system is deemed to be out of control when values begin to exceed the warning limits, although until results are outside the action limit, no action will be taken to bring the system back under control [116].
These control charts could show the limits of modulus values, resulting in acceptance/rejection of the quality based on whether the modulus value lies within or outside the limits.
Established applications and correlations
LWD and Geogauge are used to determine the various physical properties of different pavement layers. LWD has been used to study the behaviour of soil during vibratory compaction to aid in the development of continuous compaction control [121] as well as for the evaluation of the strength of chemically modified subgrades with time [103]. LWD and Geogauge have been used to differentiate between different quality aggregate materials used in unsurfaced pavement construction [57]. A study was conducted where, to assess the compaction quality, a test section was first constructed with proper guidelines, and maximum allowable deflection values or statistical limits were set to evaluate the compaction quality of the pavement layers of the project so as to accept or reject the construction quality if LWD deflection values were out of limits [22].
It has been studied how LWD correlates with tested soil properties like dry density, CBR, resilient modulus, etc. It has also been studied how ELWD correlates with various in situ test moduli, such as FWD, plate load test, and DCP. It has been determined that the LWD can be used to describe the stiffness of subgrade soils if the soil is in the elastic range. With the modulus increasing, the COV dropped [83]. It was found that ELWD is highly correlated with FWD back-calculated resilient modulus (MFWD), plate load test (PLT) stiffness moduli (EPLT), UCS, and CBR. However, the correlation between ELWD and dry density was not found to be significant.
Geogauge has been applied for the evaluation of coir geotextile-reinforced subgrade [101, 105] as well as for earthworks assessment [88]. LWD has also been used to establish the resilient modulus of fine-grained soil [94] and to assess the performance of stabilised mixtures [104]. These devices can be used on pavement structures containing geo-composite drainage layers [108], geogrid-reinforced layers [19], and concrete block pavement [95]. LWD has been used to determine the degree of compaction [53] as well as to assess the moisture effect on the moduli of pavement [120]. LWD provides a non-destructive method for the predictive master curve of asphalt pavements [96]. These technologies can be used to estimate CBR, and dry density [33, 67, 122]. A proposed LWD-based method was also found to be a good way to estimate the in situ shear strength characteristics of the compacted soil subgrade [123]. The correlation of Geogauge with tested soil properties like dry density, CBR, resilient modulus, etc., has been determined. It has also been studied how EG correlates with various in situ test moduli, such as FWD, plate load test, and DCP. It was found that EG is highly correlated with FWD back-calculated resilient modulus (MFWD), plate load test (PLT) stiffness moduli (EPLT), UCS, and CBR. The empirical or regression correlations developed between the LWD and Geogauge obtained modulus and other equipment and material properties are shown in Tables 15 and 16.
The correlations developed can be used by the practitioners for obtaining the relevant properties of the pavement layers, but these correlations are very specific to a particular geomaterial, type of equipment, and design standards and cannot be generalized. Therefore, further research is needed to develop correlations and specifications for different types of materials.
Critical review of these devices
The range of modulus presented in the paper is very specific to the type of geomaterial, which may vary from site to site, seasonal variations, equipment type, and thickness of the underlying layers according to design standards. So, it is difficult to specify standard deformation values. Hence, before every construction activity, a test pad of the required road standard has to be built to determine the optimum modulus range. There is very less work available on stabilized pavement layers to significantly evaluate and develop specifications for the response of these devices on modified materials. The other limitations include the shallow depth of influence of both of these devices. Also, the results can be inaccurate if proper seating of the equipment on the surface is not ensured. Geogauge applies a very small load that does not mimic the actual traffic load. According to laboratory studies, suction and excessive pore water pressure, respectively, may cause high ELWD to occur at very low and very high saturation levels. Researchers endorse using these devices for compaction quality control but highlight the impact of excessive spatial variability and moisture content on the modulus values obtained from the devices. Other shortcomings include high variability of modulus values from different LWD devices, low repeatability for soft soils, and uneven surfaces. Some studies have been done on the modulus determination of lateritic subgrade soil. However, there is hardly any study on the modulus behaviour of alluvial soils in India using these NDT devices.
Conclusion
The construction of modern highways requires great attention in terms of quality in order to ensure long-term performance. Non-destructive testing is more efficient than destructive testing since it allows for quick measurement and analysis of relative data for quality maintenance on a specific section of a highway. The paper presents a comprehensive review of non-destructive testing using LWD and Geogauge in relation to the construction QC and QA of pavement layers.
There is a proper distinction between stiffness and modulus because stiffness refers to the quality of a structure and modulus refers to the quality of a material.
It was found that the use of said devices is advantageous over NDG as well as destruction testing methods. It also produces results quickly, which can be noticed during measurement for immediate action on the material's quality.
The loading plate diameter, applied stress, plate rigidity factor, and Poisson's ratio are the variables affecting the deformation modulus. The required stress must be obtained by adjusting the plate diameter and drop height because they are fixed with respect to the various layers.
The range of the target modulus is to be determined after preparing a test pad on-site for fixing a base value that will be used as a reference for subsequent measurements and judgement.
There is a good correlation between the deformation modulus and standard tests, such as the UCS, CBR, and moisture content, using both devices, in an effort to cut the testing time by a large amount. However, the correlation between dry density and CBR is not so significant. These devices have also been able to record and determine the increase in stiffness/modulus over time due to the curing of non-conventional material.
They also revealed a high degree of spatial variability and a considerable impact of moisture content on the modulus values, which is one of the main problems with modulus-based devices. To get accurate and repeatable data for the development of LWD specifications, additional factors such as pavement layer qualities and LWD type should be taken into account. The repeatability and reproducibility of these modulus-based devices need to be improved through further study. More research should be carried out to determine the influence of moisture content on modulus values for different types of materials.
Modulus-based compaction QC/QA of unbound materials is gaining popularity in the USA; however, these devices are seldom ever used in India. These tools can be used effectively to judge the degree of compaction of the pavement layers. These tools enable the long-term performance of roads in developing nations like India.
Future studies
The majority of work done using these devices was done on locally available materials, and the performance was satisfactory. However, there is limited work on locally available soil or stabilised soil, that is, alluvial soil in Bihar, India. There is a lot of research on correlations between deformation modulus and tests like UCS, dry density, CBR, and moisture content for locally available (conventional) materials, but less for the region of Bihar, India. More studies can determine stiffness Target Values (TVs) for different material types and pavement layers. Very little research has been done to ascertain the shear strength parameters of subgrade soil using FWD and LWD, but not with Geogauge. In this area, research is possible. Modulus-based degree of compaction QC/QA method should be developed. With these technologies, more research can be done on subgrade soil that has been modified with stabilising agents other than those already used.
References
Holtz RD, Kovacs WD (1981) An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Briaud JL, Saez D (2015) Recent developments in soil compaction. In: Ground improvement case histories: compaction, grouting and geosynthetics. Elsevier Inc., pp 275–308
Fiedler S, Nelson C, Berkman EF, DiMillio A (1998) Soil Stiffness Gauge for Soil Compaction Control | FHWA. In: US Deparment of Transportation. https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/marchapril-1998/soil-stiffness-gauge-soil-compaction-control. Accessed 5 May 2022
Livneh M, Goldberg Y (2001) Quality assessment during road formation and foundation construction use of falling-weight deflectometer and light drop weight. Transp Res Rec
Lenke LR, Mckeen RG, Grush MP (2003) Laboratory evaluation of geogauge for compaction control. Transp Res Rec
Pinard MI (1998) Innovative compaction techniques for improving the bearing capacity of roads and airfields. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on bearing capacity of roads and airfields, Vol. 3, Trondheim, Norway
Fleming PR (1998) Recycled bituminous planning as unbound granular materials for road foundations in the UK. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on bearing capacity of roads and airfields, Vol. 3, Trondheim, Norway
Fleming PR (2001) Field measurement of stiffness modulus for pavement foundations. transportation research record 1755, Submitted to the 2001 annual meeting of the transportation research board for presentation and publication, pp 69–77
Asli C, Feng ZQ, Porcher G, Rincent JJ (2012) Back-calculation of elastic modulus of soil and subgrade from portable falling weight deflectometer measurements. Eng Struct 34:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.10.011
GeoGaugeTM (2000) GeoGaugeWhitePaper72600. Humboldt Mfg Co, Norridge, IL 60706, USA
Humboldt (2007) Humboldt GeoGauge Manual/User Guide®
Wright J, Kim SS, Kim B (2020) Stiffness and strength improvement of geosynthetic-reinforced pavement foundation using large-scale wheel test. Infrastructures (Basel) 5:. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures5040033
Dynatest 3032 Light Weight Deflectometer. https://dynatest.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/LWD-8-pages-brochure-A4.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2022
Stamp DH, Mooney MA (2013) Influence of lightweight deflectometer characteristics on deflection measurement. Geotechnical Testing Journal 36:. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20120034
Lin D-F, Liau C-C, Lin J-D (2006) Factors affecting portable falling weight deflectometer measurements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE1090-02412006132:6804
Kavussi A, Qorbaninik M, Hassani A (2019) The influence of moisture content and compaction level on LWD modulus of unbound granular base layers. Transp Geotech 20:100252
Ebrahimi A, Edil TB (2013) Light-weight deflectometer for mechanistic quality control of base course materials. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 166:441–450. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00011
Bisht S, Dhar S, Hussain M (2017) Performance evaluation of lime stabilized sub-grade soil using light weight deflectometer. In: Indian geotechnical conference 2017 GeoNEst 14–16 December 2017, IIT Guwahati, India. Guwahati
Sabouri M, Khabiri S, Asgharzadeh SM, Abdollahi SF (2021) Investigating the performance of geogrid reinforced unbound layer using light weight deflectometer (LWD). Int J Pave Res Technol 15:173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-021-00015-3
Nazzal MD, Abu-Farsakh MY, Alshibli K, Mohammad L (2007) Evaluating the light falling weight deflectometer device for in situ measurement of elastic modulus of pavement layers. Transp Res Rec. https://doi.org/10.3141/2016-02
Fleming PFMLJ (2007) A review of the lightweight deflectometer (LWD) for routine insitu assessment of pavement material stiffness. Transport Res Record: J Transport Res Board. https://doi.org/10.3141/2004-09
Volovski M, Labi S, Sommer K et al (2018) Developing statistical limits for using the light weight deflectometer in pavement construction quality assurance. Road Mater Pavem Design 19:783–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1274269
Meocci M, Grilli A, la Torre F, Bocci M (2017) Evaluation of mechanical performance of cement–bitumen-treated materials through laboratory and in-situ testing. Road Mater Pavement Design 18:376–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1213506
Duddu SR, Chennarapu H (2022) Quality control of compaction with lightweight deflectometer (LWD) device: a state-of-art. Int J Geo-Eng. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-021-00171-2
Umashankar B, Hariprasad C, Kumar GT (2016) Compaction Quality Control of Pavement Layers Using LWD. J Mater Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001379
IRC (2000) SP:57: Guidelines on quality systems for roads, The Indian roads Congress, New Delhi
AASHTO (1996) Implementation manual for quality assurance. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
Kandhal PS, Choudhary R, Kumar A (2018) Quality control and quality assurance in bituminous road construction in India. Indian highways
Ahsan AN (2014) Pavement performance monitoring using dynamic cone penetrometer and geogauge during construction. The University of Texas at Arlington
Farsakh M, Alshibli K, Nazzal M, Seyman E (2004) Evaluating the stiffness modulus of highway materials from the geogauge device. In Geo Jordan 2004: Advances in geotechnical engineering with emphasis on dams, highway materials, and soil improvement, p 287–298
Seyman E (2001) Laboratory evaluation of in-situ tests as potential quality control/quality assurance tools. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Chen D-H, Wu W, He R et al (2000) Evaluation of in-situ resilient modulus testing techniques. Texas DOTD Report, Austin, TX
Darwish Nazzal M (2003) Field evaluation of in-situ test technology for QC/QA during construction of pavement layers and embankments. Louisiana State University, Master of Science, Baton Rouge
Vennapusa PKR, White DJ, Siekmeier J, Embacher RA (2012) In situ mechanistic characterisations of granular pavement foundation layers. Int J Pavement Eng 13:52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2011.564281
Senseney CT, Mooney MA (2010) Characterization of two-layer soil system using a lightweight deflectometer with radial sensors. Transport Res Record: J Transport Res Board 2186:21–28. https://doi.org/10.3141/2186-03
Mooney MA, Miller PK (2009) Analysis of lightweight deflectometer test based on in situ stress and strain response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng © ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE1090-02412009135:2199
Horak E, Maina J, Guiamba D, Hartman A (2008) The 27th annual southern african transport conference, csir international convention centre, Pretoria, South Africa, 7 to 11 July 2008 : Theme: partnership for research and progress in transportation
ASTM E2583 (2015) Standard test method for measuring deflections with a light weight deflectometer (LWD) ASTM International https://doi.org/10.1520/E2583-07R15
George V, Rao NC, Shivashankar R (2009) PFWD, DCP and CBR correlations for evaluation of lateritic subgrades. Int J Pavement Eng 10:189–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298430802342765
Ryden N, Mooney MA (2009) Analysis of surface waves from the light weight deflectometer. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1134–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2009.01.002
Dynatest (2010) O. Manual, 3031 LWD, Light Weight Deflectometer, Version 1.0.3, 13
Fathi A, Cesar T, Mehran M, and Soheil N (2019) Models for estimation of lightweight deflectometer moduli for unbound materials. In: Geo-Congress 2019: Geotechnical Materials, Modeling, and Testing. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, p 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482124.006
Sehgal SB (2012) A text book of Soil Mechanics, 3rd edn. CBS Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, Delhi
Dynatest (2006) LWDMod Program guide for dynatest 3031 LWD Light weight deflectometer: owner’s manual version 1.0.0. Dynatest International, Søborg
Bilodeau JP, Doré G (2014) Stress distribution experienced under a portable light-weight deflectometer loading plate. Int J Pavement Eng 15:564–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2013.772612
Petersen DL, Siekmeier J, Nelson CR et al (1975) Intelligent soil compaction technology results and a roadmap toward widespread use. Transp Res Rec 1975(1):81–88
Mondal R, Rabbi MdF, Smith D, Mishra D (2022) Compaction studies on open-graded aggregates using portable impulse plate load test devices- Elsevier Enhanced Reader. Construction and Building Material
Kumar V, Deol S, Kumar R (2018) Structural evaluation of flexible pavement using non-destructive techniques in low volume road. Sustainable civil infrastructures. Springer, Berlin, pp 168–184
Chakroborty P, Das A (2017) Principles of transportation engineering, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, p. 468
Singh AP, Sharma A, Mishra R et al (2018) Pavement condition assessment using soft computing techniques. Int J Pavement Res Technol 11:564–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.12.006
Grasmick JG (2013) Using the light weight deflectometer with radial offset sensors on two-layer system for construction quality control/quality assurance of reclaimed and stabilized materials, (Thesis), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado
Siekmeier J, Pinta C, Merth S, et al (2009) Using the dynamic cone penetrometer and light weight deflectometer for construction quality assurance. Office of materials and road research minnesota department of transportation
Elhakim AF, Elbaz K, Amer MI (2014) The use of light weight deflectometer for in situ evaluation of sand degree of compaction. HBRC J 10:298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.12.003
Sawangsuriya A, Bosscher PJ, Edil TB (2002) Laboratory Evaluation of the Soil Stiffness Gauge. Transportation Research Board
Egorov KE (1965) Calculation of bed for foundation with ring footing. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference of soil mechanics and foundation engineering. pp 41–45
ASTM D6758 (2008) Standard test method for measuring stiffness and apparent modulus of soil and soil-aggregate in-place by electro-mechanical method. ASTM international, https://doi.org/10.1520/D6758-08
Mishra D, Tutumluer E, Asce M et al (2012) Laboratory and field measured moduli of unsurfaced pavements on weak subgrade. In: GeoCongress 2012: State of the art and practice in geotechnical engineering. p 1381–1390
Kuttah D (2021) Determining the resilient modulus of sandy subgrade using cyclic light weight deflectometer test. Transport Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100482
Wieder W, Shoop S, Barna L et al (2018) Comparison of soil strength measurements of agricultural soils in Nebraska. J Terramech 77:31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2018.02.003
Apeagyei A, Hossain S (2010) Stiffness-based evaluation of base and subgrade quality using three portable devices. In: 88th transportation research board annual meeting, vol 10. p 1721
Meehan CL, Cacciola DV, Tehrani FS, Baker WJ (2017) Assessing soil compaction using continuous compaction control and location-specific in situ tests. Autom Constr 73:31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.017
Anjan Kumar S, Aldouri R, Nazarian S, Si J (2016) Accelerated assessment of quality of compacted geomaterials with intelligent compaction technology. Constr Build Mater 113:824–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2016.03.117
Afsharikia Z, Schwartz CW (2019) Parametric study of soil drying in the field of compaction quality assurance using lightweight deflectometer. In Proc, transportation research board 98th annual meeting no 19–01578, Transportation research board, Washington DC
Schwartz CW, Z. Afsharikia, S. Khosravifar (2017) Standardizing lightweight deflectometer modulus measurements for compaction quality assurance. Final Rep No MD-17-SHA/UM/3–20 Baltimore, MD, Maryland DOT State Highway Administration
Leung GLM, Leng Z, Wong AWG (2016) Stress distribution under portable falling weight deflectometer tests. In: Fourth geo-China international conference, p 27
Caroles L (2022) Asphalt elasticity modulus comparison using modified laboratory LWD against UMMATA method. Civil Eng J (Iran) 8:1257–1267. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-06-012
Maher A, Thomas Bennert HM, Research N, Chmiel MA (2002) Evaluation of the humboldt stiffness gauge. New Jersey Department of Transportation
Ooi PSK, Pu J (2003) Use of stiffness for evaluating compactness of cohesive pavement geomaterials. Transp Res Rec 11–19
Vennapusa PKR, White DJ (2009) Comparison of light weight deflectometer measurements for pavement foundation materials. Geotech Test J 32:239–251
Tehrani FS, Asce SM, Meehan CL, Professor A (2010) The effect of water content on light weight deflectometer measurements. In: GeoFlorida 2010: advances in analysis, modeling & design (GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE
Meehan CL, Tehrani FS, Vahedifard F (2012) A comparison of density-based and modulus-based in situ test measurements for compaction control. Geotech Test J 35:387–399. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ103479
Quinta-Ferreira M, Fung E, Andrade PS, Branco FC (2012) In-place evaluation of a limestone base course modulus, using a van-integrated falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and the geogauge (SSG). Road Mater Pave Design 13:817–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2012.735794
White D, Becker P, Vennapusa P et al (2013) Assessing soil stiffness of stabilized pavement foundations. Transp Res Rec. https://doi.org/10.3141/2335-11
Gosk W (2016) Stiffness estimation of the soil built-in road embankment on the basis of light falling weight deflectometer test. In: Procedia engineering. Elsevier Ltd, pp 395–402
Marecos V, Solla M, Fontul S, Antunes V (2017) Assessing the pavement subgrade by combining different non-destructive methods. Constr Build Mater 135:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.003
Jitareekul P, Sawangsuriya A, Singhatiraj P (2017) Integration of pavement layer evaluation using LWD for road safety control. In: Procedia engineering. Elsevier Ltd, pp 111–117
Djaha SIK, Prayuda H (2019) Quality assessment of road pavement using lightweight deflectometer. In: Third international conference on sustainable innovation 2019–technology and engineering. Atlantis Press, pp 78–82.
Choi Y, Ahn D, Lee Y, Ahn J (2020) Compaction quality monitoring of open-graded aggregates by light weight deflectometer and soil stiffness gauge. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062521
Lee JS, Tutumluer E, Hong WT (2021) Stiffness evaluation of compacted geo-materials using crosshole-type dynamic cone penetrometer (CDP), rPLT, and LFWD. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124015
da Silva Martino Fonte F, Donato M, Gouveia BG et al (2022) Analysis of the influence of tropical soil classification methods on railway subgrades according to repeated load triaxial (RLT) and light weight deflectometer (LWD) tests. Case Stud Constr Mater 17:01301. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSCM.2022.E01301
Lee S, Park J-J, Cho BH (2022) Management of cavities under flexible pavement road network in metropolitan area-Detection, evaluation, and rehabilitation. Develop Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100091
Adigopula VK, Bogi Reddy C, Garg A et al (2022) Laboratory investigation of modified subgrade clay soil mix with steel slag and lime using static and dynamic test approach. Int J Geotech Eng 16:1211–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2022.2089443
Farsakh M, Alshibli K, Nazzal M, Seyman E (2004) Assessment of in-situ test technology for construction control of base courses and embankments. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=AxQCGEMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=AxQCGEMAAAAJ:LkGwnXOMwfcC. Accessed 28 Apr 2022
Guzzarlapudi SD, Adigopula VK, Kumar R (2016) Comparative studies of lightweight deflectometer and Benkelman beam deflectometer in low volume roads. J Traffic Transport Eng (English Edition) 3:438–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2016.09.005
Zhang X, Jenny Liu PE, Beshoy Riad PE, Liu C (2022) Implementing the LWD for MoDOT Construction Acceptance of Unbound Material Layers. Final Report cmr 22–011 (October 2020-June 2022) MoDOT project # TR202103 Missouri Department of Transportation (SPR-B)
Doré G (2009) Mechanical properties of the active layer for pavement design in permafrost conditions. In: Cold regions engineering 2009: Cold regions impacts on research, design, and construction, pp 397–406
Makwana PK, Kumar R (2014) Light weight deflectometer induced flexible pavement rehabilitation strategies. Lap Lambert Academic publishing, Saarbrücken
Vlcek J, Vondráčková T, Plachý J, et al (2016) Comparative analysis of dynamic methods for earthwork controlling. In: Procedia engineering. Elsevier Ltd, pp 483–488
Abu-Farsakh M, Hanandeh S, Mohammad L, Chen Q (2016) Performance of geosynthetic reinforced/stabilized paved roads built over soft soil under cyclic plate loads. Geotext Geomembr 44:845–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.009
McLain KW, Bumblauskas DP, White DJ, Gransberg DD (2018) Comparative analysis of repeatability and reproducibility of compaction testing. J Struct Integr Mainten 3:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2018.1461545
Dwivedi S, Suman SK (2019) Quality assessment of road shoulders using light weight deflectometer and geogauge. Int J Recent Technol Eng 8:3107–3114. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B2649.078219
Satvati S, Cetin B, Ashlock JC, Li C (2020) Investigation of the performance of different surface aggregate materials for granular roads. In Geo-Congress 2020: Geotechnical earthquake engineering and special topics. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp 498–507
Li Y, Zhang Y, Ceylan H, Kim S (2020) In situ evaluation of using lignosulfonate for subgrade stabilization. In Geo-Congress 2020: Foundations, soil improvement, and erosion. American Society of Civil engineers, Reston, VA, pp 592–600
Jibon M, Mishra D (2021) Light weight deflectometer testing in proctor molds to establish resilient modulus properties of fine-grained soils. J Mater Civil Eng 33:06020025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003582
Arjun Siva Rathan RT, Sunitha V, Anusudha V (2021) Parametric study to investigate the deflection and stress behaviour of interlocking concrete block pavement. Road Mater Pavement Design. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1963819
du Tertre A, Serhan Kırlangıç A, Cascante G, Tighe SL (2022) A non-destructive approach for the predictive master curve of ASPHALT pavements using ultrasonic and deflection methods. Int J Pavement Eng 23:1540–1551. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1810687
Lambert JP, Fleming PR, Frost MW (2008) The assessment of coarse granular materials for performance based pavement foundation design. Int J Pavement Eng 9:203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298430701409392
Tatsuoka F, Hashimoto T, Tateyama K (2021) Soil stiffness as a function of dry density and the degree of saturation for compaction control. Soils Found 61:989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2021.06.007
White DJ, Vennapusa PKR, Gieselman HH et al (2009) Alternatives to heavy test rolling for cohesive subgrade assessment. In Proc, 8th Int Conf on the bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields, bearing capacity of roads, Railways and Airfields, 45–55 Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press
Lee C, Kim KS, Woo W, Lee W (2014) Soil stiffness gauge (SSG) and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests for estimating engineering properties of weathered sandy soils in Korea. Eng Geol 169:91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.010
Anusudha V, Sunitha V, Mathew S (2020) Evaluation of coir geotextile reinforcement for low-volume roads. J Natur Fib. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2020.1818346
Sulewska MJ, Bartnik G (2017) Application of the light falling weight deflectometer (LFWD) to test aggregate layers on geosynthetic base. In: Procedia Engineering. Elsevier Ltd, pp 221–226
Li Y, Zhang Y, Ceylan H, Kim S (2020) In Situ Evaluation of Using Lignosulfonate for Subgrade Stabilization. ASCE
Betti G, Airey G, Jenkins K et al (2017) Active fillers’ effect on in situ performances of foam bitumen recycled mixtures. Road Mater Pave Design 18:281–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1213486
Visvanathan A, Velayudhan S, Mathew S (2020) Field evaluation of coir geotextile reinforced subgrade for low volume pavements. J Natural Fib 19:597–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2020.1758279
Hazirbaba K (2017) Field and laboratory performance of a cold-region sand stabilized with geofiber and synthetic fluid. Cold Reg Sci Technol 135:16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2016.12.009
Barbieri DM, Hoff I, Mørk MBE (2020) Organosilane and lignosulfonate as innovative stabilization techniques for crushed rocks used in road unbound layers. Transporta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100308
Bilodeau JP, Doré G, Savoie C (2015) Laboratory evaluation of flexible pavement structures containing geocomposite drainage layers using light weight deflectometer. Geotext Geomembr 43:162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.02.002
Mooney MA, Nocks CS, Selden KL, et al (2008) Improving quality assurance of MSE wall and bridge approach earthwork compaction, Report no. cdot-2008–11, Colorado department of transportation dtd applied research and innovation branch, Denver, co, 2008.
McLain KW, Gransberg DD (2019) Nuclear density gauge compaction testing alternatives: synthesis and critical analysis. J Struct Integr Maint 4:86–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2019.1603192
Rathje EM, Wright SG, Stokoe KH, et al (2006) Evaluation of non-nuclear methods for compaction control. FHWA/TX-06/0–4835–1. Austin: FHWA Texas Dept. of Transportation
Thummaluru VKR, Guzzarlapudi SD (2021) Stiffness-based statistical limits for evaluating low-volume road network using light-weight deflectometer. Transportation infrastructure geotechnology 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40515-021-00194-3/FIGURES/16
Iii WJB, Asce SM, Meehan CL, Asce F (2020) Continuous compaction control measurements for quality assurance in conjunction with light weight deflectometer Target Modulus Values. Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 317
Farrag K, Vetter D, Hill B, Esposito R (2005) Evaluation of Soil Compaction Measuring Devices. Des Plaines, IL: Gas Technology Institute. Illinois
Siddiki N, Walker R, Sommer K, et al (2015) Implementing dynamic cone penetrometer and lightweight deflectometer in Indiana. Indiana department of transportation
Gendy A el, Shalaby A (2008) Using quality control charts to segment road surface condition data. 7th International conference on managing pavement assets (2008)
Shewhart W (1931) Economic control of quality of manufactured product, New York, D. Van Nostrand company, Inc
Kamiura M, E. Sekine, N. Abe, T. Meruyama (2000) Stiffness evaluation of the subgrade and granular aggregate using the portable FWD. In: 5th international conference on unbound aggregate in roads. Nottingham
Rao N, George V, Shivashankar R (2008) PFWD, CBR and DCP Evaluation of Lateritic Subgrades of Dakshina Kannada, India. In: 12th International conference of international association for computer methods and advances in geotechnics (IACMAG), National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Mangalore, India, Goa, India, 4417–4423
Tamrakar P, Nazarian S (2021) Moisture effects on moduli of pavement bases. Int J Pavement Eng 22:1410–1422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2019.1696460
Miller PK, Rinehart RV, Mooney MA (2007) Measurement of static and dynamic soil stress and strain using in-ground instrumentation. In: Dynamic response and soil properties. pp 1-10
Alshibli KA, Abu-Farsakh M, Seyman E (2005) Laboratory evaluation of the geogauge and light falling weight deflectometer as construction control tools. J Mater Civ Eng 17:560–569. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0899-1561(2005)17:5(560)
Nabizadeh H, Siddharthan RV, Hajj EY et al (2019) Validation of the subgrade shear strength parameters estimation methodology using light weight deflectometer: Numerical simulation and measured testing data. Transport Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100259
Gudishala R (2004) Development of resilient modulus prediction models for base and subgrade pavement layers from in situ devices test results. Louisiana State University
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
Ethics approval was not required for this systematic review.
Informed consent
Informed consent was not required for this systematic review.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dwivedi, S., Suman, S.K. A comprehensive review on non-destructive testing using LWD and Geogauge for quick QC/QA of pavement layers. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 8, 101 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01061-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01061-5