50 Paper No.
99-1561
Structural Field Testing of Flexible
Pavement Layers with Seismic
Methods for Quality Control
S. NAZARIAN, D. YUAN, AND V. TANDON
Current mechanistic procedures for structural design of flexible pave-
ments consider the modulus and Poisson’s ratio of each layer. Unfortu-
nately, the construction specifications are not based on these engineering
properties. The acceptance criteria typically are based on adequate den-
sity of the placed and compacted materials. To successfully implement
any mechanistic pavement design procedure, and to move toward per-
formance-based specifications, it is essential to develop tools that can
measure the modulus and Poisson’s ratio of each layer. Presented is an
approach to such a program based on seismic testing. Field protocols and
test equipment, which in a rational manner combine the results from labo-
ratory and field tests with those used for quality control during construc-
tion, are discussed. A series of simplified laboratory tests that are com-
patible with the field tests also can be used; these methods are discussed.
Several case studies are included to present some results that can be
obtained with the methodology. Several issues that remain to be addressed
are included.
Aside from traffic and environmental loading, the primary parame-
ters that affect the performance of a flexible pavement section are
the modulus, thickness, and Poisson’s ratio of each layer. Current
mechanistic-empirical design procedures for structural design of
flexible pavements consider these parameters. Unfortunately, the
construction specifications are not based on these engineering prop-
erties. The acceptance criteria typically are based on adequate thick-
ness and adequate density of the placed and compacted materials.
To implement successfully any mechanistic pavement design pro-
cedure, and to move toward performance-based specifications, it is
essential to develop tools that can measure the modulus, thickness,
and Poisson’s ratio of each layer. Furthermore, the results should be
presented in such a manner that they can be shared readily by the
design engineer, laboratory personnel, and construction engineer.
The primary goal of this report is to provide a concept on using
seismic methods, which in a rational manner combine the results
from laboratory and field tests with those used for quality control
during construction. Simplified laboratory tests that are compatible
with the field tests are suggested. All these tests have several fea-
tures in common. They can be performed rapidly (in less than 5 min),
they are inexpensive, and their data reduction processes are simple
and rapid.
These types of tests are one of the major components needed to
develop a mechanistic pavement design and a performance-based
construction specification. A gradual transition from the existing
specifications to performance-based specifications may be neces-
sary. Performing the simplified laboratory and field tests on pave-
ment materials will allow us to develop a database that can be used
to smoothly unify the design procedures and construction quality
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso,
TX 79968.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1654
control. Field procedures for measuring the modulus and Poisson’s
ratio of each pavement layer shortly after placement are presented.
The devices and procedures introduced here have one thing in com-
mon: they measure seismic wave velocities. Seismic wave velocities
can be transformed easily to moduli by using fundamentally cor-
rect relationships. Modulus of each layer is one of the main para-
meters input to any mechanistic pavement design for flexible
pavements. A discussion on the nature of the moduli measured with
the seismic methods is included. A brief description of each method
is also included because some of them may be new to the pavement
industry.
Several case studies are included to show some results that can be
obtained with some of the devices. That section also contains the
issues that have yet to be resolved.
BACKGROUND
Fatigue and rutting are the two major factors that contribute to the
structural loss of life in a pavement. The number of repeated equiv-
alent single-axle loads (ESALs), which cause the fatigue cracking
damage to the pavement, is a function of the tensile strain at the bot-
tom of the asphaltic layer, et, and the modulus of the asphalt layer,
ER. One of the most common relationships for the remaining life of
a pavement due to fatigue cracking, NF, is (1)
e
Log N F = 15.947 − 3.291 log t−6  − 0.854 log R3 
E
(1)
10  10 
The number of ESALs that cause the rutting failure, NR, is a func-
tion of the compressive strain at the top of the subgrade, evs. For
computing the remaining life due to rutting, the equation developed
by Shook et al. (2) commonly is used. This relationship is
4.4843
10 − 6 
N R = 1.077 × 1018  (2)
 e vs 
The modulus and Poisson’s ratio can be determined with either
field testing or with laboratory testing. For a more sophisticated
analysis, the behavior of the material in terms of variation in stiffness
with the state of stress should be determined. This behavior is typi-
cally established by conducting laboratory tests such as the resilient
modulus tests. These tests are time consuming because only one or
two specimens can be tested for each project. Simplified laboratory
tests can be used in conjunction with the more sophisticated ones dur-
ing the design process. By combining the results from simplified and
more comprehensive tests, one can either ensure compatibility or
Nazarian et al. Paper No. 99-1561 51

develop correlations that can be used readily in the field. Simplified
laboratory tests will be discussed later.
For field testing, one should consider the differences and similar-
ities between “material characterization” and “design simulation.”
In material characterization one attempts, in a way that is the most
theoretically correct, to determine the engineering properties of a
material (such as modulus or strength). The material properties mea-
sured in this way are fundamental material properties that are not
related to a specific modeling scenario. To use these material prop-
erties in a certain design methodology, they should be combined
with an appropriate analytical or numerical model to obtain the design
output. In the design simulation, one tries to the best of one’s abil-
ity to experimentally simulate the design condition, and then back-
figure some effective material parameters that are relevant only to
that condition. The seismic methods can be considered as methods
that provide material characterization, whereas the deflection-
based methods are geared more toward the design simulation. Both
of these approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The design
mined with different methods are shown in Table 1. The existing
problems with each method are also included in the table. In the
MR test, secant moduli at different confining pressures and devia-
toric stresses are measured (see Figure 1). After a resilient modu-
lus test is performed on a specimen, a mathematical model is fitted
to the data. The recommended model at this time, based on a recent
NCHRP project (3), is in the form of
E = MR = k1 σ ck2 σ kd3 (3)
where σd and σc are the deviatoric stress and confining pressure,
respectively. Parameters k1 through k3 are coefficients statistically
determined from the results of the laboratory test.
The relation of the seismic moduli with the other two moduli is
also of concern. Nazarian et al. (4) present an extensive derivation
of these relationships. In general
 σ 
k2

simulation provides a reasonably simple design procedure. How- E = Eseismic  c  σ kd3 ( 4a )

 σ geo 
ever, using the properties back-figured from this procedure to design
a pavement with different layering may result in inappropriate results.
For measuring material properties during construction that can be For small strains, in which the material behaves in a linear-elastic
used in performance-based specification, methods based on mater- manner,
ial characterization are more desirable because they yield a funda- k2
 σ 
mental material property. Because a fundamental property is inde- E = Eseismic  c  ( 4 b)
pendent of boundary conditions, field and compatible laboratory  σ geo 
tests should yield similar results on an identical material. Therefore,
one should be able to ensure that the properties specified during and for large strains,
design are obtained during construction. k2
A question that often comes up is what type of modulus is mea-  σ 
E = Eseismic  c  α ( 4 c)
sured with a particular method. The definitions of moduli deter-  σ geo 

TABLE 1 Terms Used To Define Stiffness of Materials

52 Paper No. 99-1561
FIGURE 1 Schematic demonstration of moduli as function
of stress.
where
α = a number approximately 0.05 to 0.10,
σgeo = geostatic stress due to the weight of the overlying materials
and is equal to σv (1 + 2ko) /3,
ko = coefficient of earth pressure at rest, and
σv = vertical stress due to the weight of the soil or pavement
layers.
The conceptual way of representing the seismic moduli is simple
because the states of stress before and after the seismic loading are
very similar. Referring to Equation 4, this method yields a funda-
mental material property that can be used in quality control and can
be used in performance-based specification, provided values for k2
and k3 are known. Laboratory tests are necessary to determine the
values for k2 and k3.
OVERVIEW OF METHODS
On the basis of the background information provided, the goal is to
develop modulus-based tests that can be readily used in the field for
quality control of any layer in the flexible pavement system. In the
next section, the procedures necessary for this task are introduced.
As in any other quality management program, acceptance criteria
should be developed. The proposed acceptance criteria are based on
seismic testing of specimens prepared in the laboratory. The speci-
mens used for this purpose are similar to those used in determining
the job mix formula for asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) and for
moisture-density tests for base and subgrade. The laboratory test
setup and procedures are included herein.
Another aspect of the quality management is providing feedback
to the designer about the design moduli of different layers during
construction. The designer, in cooperation with the construction
engineer, ideally would use that information to adjust the thick-
nesses of different pavement layers to achieve the envisioned
remaining life. This task, which is being developed, is not discussed
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1654
here. The feasibility, benefits, and shortcomings of this matter can
be found in a recent report (5).
Seismic Field Tests
The Young’s and shear moduli of a certain layer are nondestruc-
tively measured by generating and detecting the arrivals of com-
pression, shear, or surface waves. The historical development and
the theoretical and experimental background behind these tests were
prepared by Baker et al. (6 ).
The setup is shown in Figure 2(a). Typically, a seismic source and
at least two receivers are needed. The surface of the medium is im-
pacted and the transmitted waves are monitored with the receivers.
The reduction of data can be performed in either the time domain or
the frequency domain. These processes are described in the following
sections.
Time-Domain Data Reduction
In the time-domain analysis, one relies on identifying the time at
which different types of energy arrive at each sensor. The velocity
of propagation, V, typically is determined by dividing the distance
between two receivers, ∆X, by the difference in the arrival time of a
specific wave, ∆t. In general, the relationship can be written in the
following form:
∆X
V= (5)
∆t
In the equation, V can be the propagation velocity of any of the three
waves [i.e., compression wave, VP; shear wave, VS; or surface
(Rayleigh) wave, VR]. If wave velocity is known, modulus can be
determined in several ways. Young’s modulus, E, can be determined
from shear modulus, G, through Poisson’s ratio (ν) by using
E = 2 (1 + ν) G (6)
Shear modulus can be determined from shear wave velocity, VS,
by using
γ
G = VS2 ( 7)
g
To obtain modulus from surface wave velocity, VR is first converted
to shear wave velocity by using
VS = VR (1.13 − 0.16 ν) (8)
The shear modulus then is determined by using Equation 7.
Typical records from two sensors are shown in Figure 2(b) for a
granular material and Figure 2(c) for an ACP. As an example, the
arrivals of compression, shear, and surface waves are marked on
Figure 2(c). The compression wave (or P-wave) energy is reason-
ably easy to identify because it is the earliest source of energy to
appear in the time record. Because only less than 10 percent of the
seismic energy propagates in this form, the peak compression wave
energy in the signal sometimes is only several times above the inher-
ent background noise. This limitation may make it difficult always
to estimate reliably the arrivals of these waves.
FIGURE 2 Seismic testing setup and typical time records.
54 Paper No. 99-1561
The shear wave (or S-wave) energy is about one-fourth of the
seismic energy and as such is better pronounced in the record. The
practical problem with identifying this type of wave is that it prop-
agates at a speed that is close to that of the surface waves. Thus, the
separation of the two energies, at least for short distances from the
source, may be difficult.
Surface (Rayleigh) waves contain about two-thirds of the seismic
energy. As marked in Figure 2, the most dominant arrivals are
related to the surface waves, and thus it should be easy to measure
them. If a layer does not have surface imperfections, and if the
impact is “sharp” enough to generate only waves that contain energy
for wavelengths shorter than the thickness of the top layer, this
method can be used readily to determine the modulus. However, it
may be difficult to observe these two restrictions. The frequency-
domain analysis, although more complex to implement, is by far
more robust than the time-domain analysis.
Frequency-Domain Data Reduction
Because most of the energy in a seismic wave train is carried by sur-
face waves, one can take advantage of the signal processing and
spectral analysis to develop a more robust methodology for deter-
FIGURE 3 Typical phase spectra and dispersion curves for granular materials and ACP.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1654
mining the modulus. The method is called spectral analysis of surface
waves (SASW) (7).
The goal with the SASW method is to generate and detect surface
waves over a wide range of wavelengths. The time records collected
with the setup described earlier are transformed to a so-called dis-
persion curve—a plot of velocity of propagation of surface waves
with wavelength. If the goal is only to determine the modulus of the
top layer, the method becomes straightforward.
Consider the time records shown in Figures 2(b) and 2(c). By per-
forming a fast Fourier transform on the two signals, and by dividing
the two transformed signals by one another, one obtains a phase
spectrum (i.e., variation in phase with frequency). Such phases are
shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b) for a granular material and ACP,
respectively. The phase shown in Figure 3(a) or 3(b) can be
“unwrapped” and fitted by a straight line. The slope of such a line,
m, is directly related to Young’s modulus, E, by using (6)
γ 360 ∆ X  2
E = 2 (1 + ν) (1.13 − 0.16 ν) ( 9)
g  m 
where ν is Poisson’s ratio and ∆X is the sensor spacing. As before,
and γ and g are the unit weight and the acceleration of gravity,
respectively. Alternatively, one can construct a dispersion curve, as
Nazarian et al. Paper No. 99-1561 55

shown in Figure 3(c) or 3(d), and determine the average modulus of

the top layer. In that case, the modulus is obtained from

γ
EUSW = 2 (1 + ν) [(1.13 − 0.16 ν)Vph ]
2
(10)
g

where Vph is the average phase velocity of the top layer. Baker et al.
(6) have developed a device that can perform this test in the field in
less than 1 min per point [see Figure 2(a)].
One of the tools that typically are used in pavement engineering
is the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). This test can quantify
the layers and qualify the type of material used. A three-dimensional
accelerometer package has been retrofitted in the cone of a DCP
to measure the modulus and Poisson’s ratio. The test proposed is
the so-called downhole seismic test (8). The receivers are placed
at the depth at which tests have to be performed. The pavement
surface then is impacted with a small hand-held hammer. The
records from the receivers are retrieved and saved for future analy-
sis. The reduction of data consists of determining the arrivals of
different waves very similar to those carried out for the time-
domain analysis described above. If the shear and compression
wave velocities are known, Poisson’s ratio, v, can be determined
readily by using:

0.5 α 2 − 1 FIGURE 4 Free-free resonant column test setup.

ν= (11)
α2 − 1

where α = VP /VS. (VS and VP are shear and compression wave veloci-
ties, respectively.) For the sake of brevity, this equipment is not dis-
cussed any further. For more information, refer to Nazarian et al. (5).
Seismic Laboratory Tests
One of the major goals of the project is to develop field tests that are
compatible with laboratory results. As indicated, the existing tests
used to determine the modulus of asphalt concrete (AC), base, and
subgrade in the laboratory are cumbersome and time consuming.
Simplified laboratory tests can be used in conjunction with the more
sophisticated ones during the design process. Two procedures are
proposed in this study.
A schematic of the test setup for the free-free resonant column
tests is shown in Figure 4. The specimen is either suspended by two
wires or placed on a material that is substantially less stiff than the
specimen (e.g., Styrofoam). A accelerometer is securely placed on
one end of the specimen, and the other end is impacted with a ham-
mer instrumented with a load cell. The signals from the accelero-
meter and load cell are used to determine the resonant frequency, f,
as shown in Figure 5. After the frequency; mass density, ρ; and length
of the specimen, L, are known, Young’s modulus can be found from

FIGURE 5 Typical amplitude spectrum.

56 Paper No. 99-1561
E = ρ ( 2 f L )2 (12)
Alternatively, the accelerometer can be placed in the radial direc-
tion, and the specimen can be impacted in the radial direction to
determine the shear modulus (see Equation 7). Again, the shear and
Young’s moduli can be combined to calculate Poisson’s ratio.
In general the method is quite repeatable and is nondestructive.
Therefore, the specimens to be tested in the resilient modulus device
can be used before they are placed in the loading frame. In less than
3 min, a specimen can be tested and the test result can be obtained.
An ultrasonic laboratory device that is particularly useful for test-
ing AC briquettes is shown in Figure 6. A transmitting transducer is
placed securely on the top face of the specimen. This transducer is
FIGURE 6 Ultrasonic testing device, for testing AC briquettes.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1654
connected to the built-in high-voltage electrical pulse generator of the
device. The electric pulse transformed to mechanical vibration is cou-
pled to the specimen. A receiving transducer is placed securely on the
bottom face of the specimen, opposite the transmitting transducer.
The receiving transducer, which senses the propagating waves, is con-
nected to an internal clock of the device. The clock automatically dis-
plays the travel time of the compression wave. By dividing the length
of the specimen by the travel time, the compression wave, Vp, of the
specimen is measured. The Young’s modulus, Ev, is then calculated
by using
(1 + ν)(1 − 2 ν)
Ev = ρ Vp2 (13)
(1 − ν)
Nazarian et al. Paper No. 99-1561 57

where ρ and ν are the bulk density and Poisson’s ratio of the speci-
men, respectively.

CASE STUDIES

In this section, several case studies are presented to demonstrate the

feasibility of results one should expect from this type of quality
assurance—quality control program.

Base and Subgrade

A series of tests was carried out at a site near Horizon, Texas, to

determine the variation in modulus of base and subgrade with the
seismic methods. Besides seismic tests, conventional nuclear den-
sity gauges were used. The typical cross section consisted of 75 mm
of ACP over granular base and subgrade. The granular base at the
site was about 200 mm thick.
As indicated, tests could be carried out and interpreted in the
time or the frequency domain. The variation in modulus with loca-
tion for the prepared subgrade is shown in Figure 7(a). Eleven
points, each about 2 m apart, were tested. The results from the time
domain and frequency domain analyses are fairly close and deviate
by a small amount. This occurs because the subgrade material was
well compacted and did not contain large gravel. If a material does
not contain fine cracks and surface imperfections the time-domain
and frequency-domain analyses normally yield similar results.
The average moduli from the two methods are about the same
and are about 630 MPa. However, the moduli at most points are
much less than the average value. The coefficient of variation is
about 70 percent, indicating large variability in the moduli. Such a
large variability in modulus can be attributed to either the lack of
precision of the methods or the actual material variability, or both.
A laboratory study was carried out to determine the repeatabil-
ity of the seismic method. Six boxes, 1 m × 0.6 m, were filled with
the base material used at the Horizon site. The density and the
moisture content were precisely controlled to be very close to the
optimum. A 200-mm layer of base was placed in each box, and
four tests were carried out on top of each material. The results from
these tests showed that seismic tests are rather precise and repeat-
able at a level of about better than 7 percent. Therefore, the varia-
tion in modulus should be related to the variation in material
properties.
From that study it was also found that the average seismic modu-
lus of the material prepared in the boxes was about 220 MPa. This
value was fairly close to the results from the free-free resonant
column tests of about 260 MPa determined on 100-mm-diameter,
200-mm-long specimens compacted to proctor maximum density but
substantially less than 630 MPa measured in the field. The Proctor
density method is the standard method for determining the optimum
compaction effort in most highway agencies. If the laboratory results
are considered as the baseline for quality control, to meet the maxi-
mum density it appears that either the contractor has to compact the
FIGURE 7 Variation in modulus and Poisson’s ratio
material with less effort (not necessarily a good solution) or a higher
along subgrade.
modulus should be assigned to the material. This indicates that if the
quality control based on modulus should be carried out, a better means
of preparing laboratory specimens should be developed. moduli coincide with higher Poisson’s ratio [compare Figures 7(a)
By measuring the shear and compression wave velocities, Poisson’s and 7(b)]. A careful inspection of the points tested indicated that the
ratio can be calculated (see Equation 11). The variation in Poisson’s higher Poisson’s ratios usually are related to wetter subgrades.
ratio with location, as shown in Figure 7(b), vary between 0.34 and In Figure 7(c) the variations in in-place dry density measured with
0.43. The average Poisson’s ratio is about 0.39. Typically, the lower a nuclear density gauge at six of the data points are related to seismic
58 Paper No. 99-1561
modulus. A significant drop in modulus is associated with a small
variation in dry density. This may partially explain the significant
differences between the laboratory models and the field.
Similar tests were performed on the base material about 1000 m
away from the subgrade site. Tests again were carried out at 2-m
intervals. The variation in modulus with test location is shown in
Figure 8(a). Unlike with the subgrade, some differences are evident
between the results from the time and frequency domain analyses.
These differences typically show up when the surface is coarse and
microcracks are present at a site. As indicated, the time domain
FIGURE 8 Variations in modulus and
Poisson’s ratio along a section of base.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1654
moduli basically are bulk moduli that are seriously affected by the
surface imperfections. Moduli obtained from the frequency domain
analysis are the average modulus over a range of thickness explic-
itly defined during the data reduction. Use of the frequency domain
analysis is recommended because although more complex to imple-
ment, it is by far more robust. The average modulus from the time
domain is less than the frequency domain. This usually happens
because the bulk wavelength of the signal may be longer than the
thickness of the base. Poisson’s ratio along the test section, as shown
in Figure 8(b), varies between 0.38 and 0.43. The reason for one
outlier is not known at this time.
A comparison of different moduli related to this base is shown in
Figure 8(c). The average seismic moduli is about 840 MPa with a
coefficient of variation of about 23 percent. The resilient modulus
of the base measured as about 470 MPa when the specimen was pre-
pared at the average moisture content and density of the field, which
is about 80 percent less than the seismic modulus. As presented in
Table 1, these levels of differences are anticipated. The average
modulus measured by using free-free resonant column test on labo-
ratory specimens prepared to the average density and moisture of the
base is about 745 MPa. However, when the specimens were pre-
pared to maximum density as per the Proctor method, the seismic
modulus was about 387 MPa. These experiments indicate that the
relationship between the field and the laboratory compaction should
be considered and addressed more carefully.
From this case study we learned that trends exist between field
moisture content, density, CBR, and seismic modulus. These rela-
tionships should be explored and described in more detail in the
future. We also learned that specimens prepared as per the Proctor
method may yield moduli that are less than those measured in the
field. However, if the laboratory specimens are prepared at the den-
sity and moisture level measured in the field, closer relationships
between laboratory and seismic moduli can be developed. A means
of balancing these two parameters should be considered.
AC Layer
A 45-m section of the access road of I-20 near Odessa was tested with
the seismic methods. The pavement section at this site consisted of
about 50 mm of AC over about 250 mm of base over subgrade. The
portable seismic pavement analyzer (6) was used in field tests.
As shown in Figure 9, the modulus of the AC layer adjusted to a
temperature of 25°C is relatively constant except for an area be-
FIGURE 9 Variation in modulus of AC layer measured
with portable seismic pavement analyzer.
Nazarian et al.
FIGURE 10 Variation in modulus with VTM for AC specimens.
tween 25 m and 35 m. This area coincides with the entrance to a
business entity where a new drainage pipe was installed. On the
average the modulus of the AC layer is about 13.8 GPa when all
points are included and 14.9 GPa when the results from the area
between 25 m and 35 m are ignored. Seven cores retrieved from this
site were tested in the laboratory using the ultrasonic device. The
average modulus from the laboratory tests is about 14.3 GPa. The
point-by-point comparison of moduli from the laboratory and the
field is provided in Figure 9. The results from the two tests are quite
close with an average difference of about 4 percent and a maximum
difference of about 12 percent.
In addition to the cores, loose AC material was saved for further
laboratory study. About a dozen briquettes were made by using a SHRP
gyratory compactor. The specimens were subjected to different num-
ber of gyrations so that specimens with different voids in total mix
(VTM) could be built. The variation in modulus with the VTM on
these specimens is shown in Figure 10. A linear relationship between
the modulus and the VTM can be observed. The least-squares best-
fit line to the data yield an R2 of about 0.88. Also shown in the fig-
ure are the results from the actual field measurement. The slopes
of the best-fit lines through the field data and the laboratory-
prepared briquettes are more or less similar. However, the two
curves are shifted. The shift perhaps can be attributed to the dif-
ferences in the compaction method. If this trend is observed at
other sites, one can use either a different method of compaction or
perhaps one or two field cores to calibrate the modulus values
while maintaining the slope.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The nature, role, and feasibility of measuring the properties of flex-
ible pavement material in the laboratory and in the field with differ-
ent types of nondestructive methods and devices are discussed and
summarized. In general, results from field tests should be combined
with those from laboratory tests for their use in quality control or
realistic design.
Seismic methods measure the engineering properties of pave-
ment materials. Seismic testing both in the laboratory and in the
field is rapid and quite repeatable. Seismic modulus is sensitive to
variations in moisture content and dry density of the base and
prepared subgrade.
Paper No. 99-1561 59
For AC layers, moduli measured in situ and in the laboratory with
different seismic testing devices are very close. They also are close
to those measured with deflection-based methods such as falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) tests.
For the base and subgrade, there is good agreement between the
seismic moduli measured in the field and that measured in the labo-
ratory as long as the laboratory specimens are prepared at the den-
sity and moisture content of the field materials. Moduli measured
with seismic methods are higher than those obtained from other test-
ing methods such as the resilient modulus and FWD tests. Large
variabilities in the base and subgrade moduli were observed and
found to be related to the test location in most cases.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Texas Department of Transporta-
tion. The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation
to Stephen Smith, Roger Cisneros, and Mark McDaniel for their
ever-present support and valuable advice. Thanks also to the lab-
oratory personnel of the El Paso district for their assistance and
support.
REFERENCES
1. Finn, F., S. Saraf, R. Kulkarini, K. Nair, W. Smith, and A. Abdullah. The
Use of Distress Prediction Subsystems for the Design of Pavement Struc-
tures. Proc., 4th International Conference on the Structural Design of
Asphalt Pavements, 1977, pp. 3–37.
2. Shook, J. F., F. N. Finn, M. W. Witczak, and C. L. Monismith. Thickness
Design of Asphalt Pavements—The Asphalt Institute Method. Proc., 5th
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements,
1982.
3. Barksdale, R. D., J. Alba, P. N. Khosla, R. Kim, P. C. Lambe, and M. S.
Rahman. Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible
Pavement Design. Interim Report Project 1-28. FHWA, U. S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1994.
4. Nazarian, S., D. Yuan, and V. Tandon. Specifications for Tools Used in
Structural Field Testing of Flexible Pavement Layers. Research Report
1735-1. Center for Highway Materials Research, The University of Texas
at El Paso, 1998.
5. Nazarian, S., I. Abdallah, D. Yuan, and L. Ke. Design Modulus Values
Using Seismic Data Collection. Technical Memorandum 1780. Center for
Highway Materials Research, The University of Texas at El Paso, 1998.
60 Paper No. 99-1561
6. Baker, M. R., K. Crain, and S. Nazarian. Determination of Pavement
Thickness with a New Ultrasonic Device. Research Report 1966-1. Cen-
ter for Highway Materials Research, The University of Texas at El Paso,
1995.
7. Nazarian, S., D. Yuan, and M. R. Baker. Rapid Determination of Pave-
ment Moduli with Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves Method. Research
Report 1243-1. The University of Texas at El Paso, 1995.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1654
8. Woods, R. D. Measurements of Dynamic Soil Properties. Proc., Geo-
technical. Engineering Division Specialty Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics. Pasadena, Calif., Vol. 1, ASCE, New
York, 1978, pp. 91–180.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Flexible Pavement
Construction and Rehabilitation.