Page 1
Studying the Homogeneity of Bearing Capacity
on Road Pavements in the Gaza Strip Using
Benkelman Beam Device
دراست تجانس قذرة تحول رصفاث الطرق في قطاع غسة
باستخذام جهاز بنكلواى بين
By
Ahmed Salah Sarhan
Supervised by
Prof. Shafik Jendia
Professor of Highway Engineering and Infrastructure
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of Master
in Civil Engineering-Infrastructure
Engineering.
February/2019
سةـــــغب تــالهيــــــت اإلســـــــــاهعـالج
اـالبحث العلوي والذراساث العلي عوادة
تــــــــــــــــــــت الهنذســــــــــــــكـليـــ
هاجستير هنذســــــــت البنى التحتيـــــت
The Islamic University of Gaza
Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies
Faculty of Engineering
Master of Infrastructure Engineering
Page 2
i
إقــــــــــــــرار
أنا الوىقع أدناه هقذم الرسالت التي تحول العنىاى:
Studying the Homogeneity of Bearing Capacity on Road
Pavements in the Gaza Strip Using Benkelman Beam
Device
دراسة تجانس قدرة تحمل رصفات الطرق في قطاع غزة باستخدام جهاز بنكلمان بيم
إليو حيثما ورد، أقر بأن ما اشتممت عميو ىذه الرسالة إنما ىو نتاج جيدي الخاص، باستثناء ما تمت اإلشارة وأن ىذه الرسالة ككل أو أي جزء منيا لم يقدم من قبل االخرين لنيل درجة أو لقب عممي أو بحثي لدى أي
مؤسسة تعميمية أو بحثية أخرى.
Declaration
I understand the nature of plagiarism, and I am aware of the University’s policy on
this.
The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher's own
work, and has not been submitted by others elsewhere for any other degree or
qualification.
:Student's name أحمد صالح سرحان اسم الطالب:
:Signature التوقيع:
:Date التاريخ:
Page 5
iii
Abstract
A road network is considered a critical national infrastructure, which is always under
high attention for its importance. Analyzing the homogeneity of bearing capacity on road
pavements is important as it gives information about the presence of problems or
deformity in pavements structure. This information is important as engineers may use it
to evaluate the structural condition of pavements and to determine if any maintenance
needed.
This study aims to examine the reliability of Benkelman beam device in the measurement
of pavement deflection and to examine the homogeneity of bearing capacity of road
pavements under the conditions of the Gaza Strip.
By using Benkelman beam device, deflections were measured for three sections different
in their chronological age. These sections were selected from AL- Rasheed road in the
Gaza city after dividing every section to 20 test points. Three measurements recorded for
each tested point, and calculations were done using the suitable equations were to
standardize temperature and load. Appropriate statistical analysis methods were run to
achieve the study objectives using Statistical Package for Social Sciences program
(SPSS), version 22.
Deflection values were fluctuated around its mean, and the range between minimum and
maximum values were very small suggesting the similarity of their bearing capacities for
every section of the three tested sections. According to the statistical analysis tests, the
deflection values for each section are a normal distributed data. In addition, Benkelman
beam device is almost constant in its measurement for each tested point meaning that it is
reliable in the measurement. The study indicates the homogeneity of deflection values for
the three selected sections, which mean that the structural conditions of the pavements are
good.
The study recommends periodic pavements monitoring and maintenance in order to keep
the pavements structurally good and to decrease the cost of future rehabilitation.
Page 6
iv
ملخص الدراسة
لذلك يعتبر ،تحظى دوًما بإىتمام كبير ألىميتيا حيثوطنية بالغة األىمية تحتيةتعتبر شبكة الطرق بمثابة بنية
يعطي معمومات عن إمكانية وجود مشاكل وتشوىات في قدرة تحمل رصفات الطرق ميم حيثتحميل تجانس
تحديد مدى حاجتيا وىذه المعمومات ميمة حيث يستخدميا الميندسين لتقييم حالة الرصفة اإلنشائية و ت،الرصفا
لمصيانة المناسبة.
و تحميل تجانس قدرة ىدفت الدراسة إلى اختبار مصداقية جياز بنكممان بيم في قياس قيم اليبوط المرن لمرصفات
.في ظروف قطاع غزة تحمل رصفات الطرق
من متم اختيارىمختمفة العمر الزمني، حيث لثالث مقاطع تم قياس قيم اليبوط المرن ،م جياز بنكممان بيمباستخدا
تم قياس قيم اليبوط المرن ثالث ، حيثنقطة قياس 02شارع الرشيد في مدينة غزة وذلك بعد تقسيم كل مقطع الى
لمحصول عمى قيم اليبوط المرن عادالت المناسبة وتم إجراء العمميات الحسابية باستخدام الم قياس مرات لكل نقطة
وقد تم استخدام طرق إحصائية مناسبة لتحقيق أىداف الدراسة النيائية بعد تعديميم من حيث درجة الحرارة و األحمال،
. 00صدار اإل (SPSSباستخدام برنامج الحزم اإلحصائية )
و الفرق بين أكبر قيمة وأصغر قيمة ىو فرق حول متوسطيا الحسابي )متأرجحة( ظيرت قيم اليبوط المرن متذبذبة
عمى التحميل اً بناءو مما يعني أن قيم اليبوط المرن متقاربة عمى طول الرصفة لكل مقطع من المقاطع الثالثة.صغير
قياساتو لكل كما أن جياز بنكممان بيم ثابت في ،اإلحصائي اتبعت قيم اليبوط المرن لكل مقطع التوزبع الطبيعي
الدراسة إلى تجانس قيم اليبوط المرن عمى و أشارت ،النقط تقريبًا وىو ما يعني أن مصداقية الجياز عالية في القياس
طول المقاطع الثالثة التي تم اختيارىا وىذا يعني أن الحالة اإلنشائية لألرصفة جيدة .
ستمرار فعالية الرصفة اإلنشائية والتقميل من تكاليف الدراسة بضرورة وجود صيانة دورية لمرصفات لضمان ا أوصت
ة .إعادة البناء المستقبمي
Page 7
v
Dedication
To the greatest man I have in my life, the sun of my life... my lovely father
"Teacher: Salah Sarhan".
To the biggest heart with the most loving care, who sacrificed a lot for me
to become what I am now, my mother "Teacher: Naheda Sarhan".
To my wife who supported me through each step of the way and for being
for me the greatest source of inspiration... my beloved wife “Engineer: Rola
Jaber”
To the light of my eyes... my kid "Naheda"
For my all brothers and sisters and especialy for" Abd Al- Rahman, Mustafa,
Sameer, Doha, Kawther, Mariam, and Aya"
For those who have great support in my life, my aunt "Om Samer" and her
husband "Abo Samer".
For all Sarhan family members inside and outside Palestine
To all those who encouraged, supported, and helped me all the way
I dedicate this research …
Page 8
vi
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those who helped me to accomplish
my master thesis. I would like to express my whole hearted thanks to "Prof. Shafik
Jendia" for his excellent guidance, patience, and providing me a fatherly and friendly
atmosphere in order to complete my thesis work. Also, appreciation and deep thank is
presented to Mrs. Samira Abo Al- Shiekh for the statistical analysis work in the thesis
and for her great support and guidance.
I would like also to thank Dr. Khalid Alhalaq for his guidance and support.
Deep appreciation is also presented to Mr. Tahseen Shehada in the Islamic University and
to my brothers "Mustafa and Sameer" who assisted me during the data collection period.
Page 9
vii
Table of Contents Declaration……………………………………………………………………………… i Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………iii
Abstract in Arabic……………………………………………………………………...iv
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………. v
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables.................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xii
List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………..xii
Chapter1 : Introduction………………………………………………………………. 2
Background................. .......................................................................................... 2 1.1
Problem statement……….. ................................................................................... 3 1.2
Research aim and objectives………. .................................................................... 3 1.3
1.3.1 Aim……………………………………………………………………………3
1.3.2 Objectives……………………………………………………………………..3
Research importance.......... ................................................................................... 3 1.4
Operational definitions .......................................................................................... 4 1.5
1.5.1 Deflection……………..……………………………………………………... 4
1.5.2 Road pavement………………………………………………………………. 4
1.5.3 Chainage………………………………………………………………………4
1.5.4 Homogeneity of bearing capacity……………….……………………………4
Research scope …………………………………………………………………..4 1.6
Research methodology .......................................................................................... 5 1.7
Research structure ………………………………………………………………. 5 1.8
Chapter2 : Literature Review........................................................................................ 8
Background................ ........................................................................................... 8 2.1
Pavement distress………… .................................................................................. 8 2.2
Evaluation of quality of roads (road quality)......... ............................................. 10 2.3
2.3.1 Destructive testing …………………………………………………………. 10
2.3.2 Non-destructive testing (NDT) ……………………………………………..10 Deflection based techniques......... ....................................................................... 10 2.4
2.4.1 Static loading……………………………………………………………….. 11
2.4.2 Steady-State loading……………………………………………………….. 11
2.4.3 Impulse loading …………………………………………………………..…11
The Benkelman beam device………. ................................................................. 11 2.5
Methods of deflection measurement by Benkelman beam test..... ...................... 13 2.6
Calibration of the Benkelman beam device......... ............................................... 14 2.7
Falling weight deflectometer device........ ........................................................... 15 2.8
Properties of the BBD and FWD instruments....... .............................................. 16 2.9
Factors affecting the deflection measurement......... ........................................... 17 2.10
2.10.1 Pavement structure ……………………………………………………. 17
Page 10
viii
2.10.2 Effect of the load …………………………………………………….....17
2.10.3 Effect of temperature…………………………………………………. . 18 2.10.4 Testing season………………………………………………………… 20
Management of pavements..................... ............................................................ 20 2.11
Previous related studies………… ....................................................................... 21 2.12
2.12.1 Global studies …………………………………………………………. 21
2.12.2 Local studies …………………………………………………………...23
2.12.3 Summary and conclusion……………………………………………… 23
Chapter3 : Fieldwork 26
Introduction..................... .................................................................................... 26 3.1
Truck load.................... ....................................................................................... 26 3.2
Test site........................... .................................................................................... 27 3.3
Region, branch, section concepts.......... .............................................................. 27 3.4
3.4.1 Region ……………………………………………………...……………… 27
3.4.2 Branch……………………………………………………………………... 27
3.4.3 Section……………………………………………………………………... 28
Lane location………………………………………………………………… 30 3.5
Interval of measurement .......... ........................................................................... 30 3.6
Distance from lane edge.......... ............................................................................ 31 3.7
Miscellaneous equipments........ .......................................................................... 31 3.8
Procedures, calculations and analysis of BBT…….. .......................................... 33 3.9
3.9.1 Procedures of BBT ………………………………………………………… 33
3.9.2 Calculations ………………………………………………………………... 34
3.9.3 Analysis……………………………………………………………………. 35
Chapter4 : Results and Discussion………………………………………………… 39
Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 39 4.1
Description and primary measurement of deflection values of section1..... ....... 39 4.2
4.2.1 Descriptive analysis of deflection values of section1 …………………...… 39
4.2.2 Distribution of deflection values for the tested points of section 1 ………...42
Test of normality of deflection values- section 1........... ..................................... 42 4.3
Repeatability of BBD in measurement of deflection values in section 1......... .. 43 4.4
Homogeneity of deflection values in section 1 of AL-Rasheed road......... ........ 44 4.5
Description and primary measurement of deflection values of section 2……. .. 44 4.6
4.6.1 Descriptive analysis of deflection values of section 2 ……………………...44
2.6.4 Distribution of deflection values for the tested points of section 2 ………... 47
Test of normality of deflection values- section 2........ ........................................ 47 4.7
Repeatability of BBD in measurement of deflection values in section 2.......... . 48 4.8
Homogeneity of deflection values in section 2 of AL-Rasheed road.......... ....... 48 4.9
Description and primary measurement of deflection values of section3…… .... 49 4.10
4.10.1 Descriptive analysis of deflection values of section3 ………………… 49
2.01.4 Distribution of deflection values for the tested points of section 3 …... 51
Page 11
ix
Test of normality of deflection values- section 3........... ..................................... 52 4.11
Repeatability of BBD in measurement of deflection values in section 3....... .... 52 4.12
Homogeneity of deflection values in section 3 of AL-Rasheed road…….. ....... 53 4.13
Chapter5 : Conclusion and Recommendations......................................................... 55
Conclusion....................... ................................................................................... 55 5.0
Recommendations………… ............................................................................... 55 5.2
References…………………………………………………………………………..…57
Appendices…..................................................................................................................61
Appendices A…...............................................................................................................62
Appendices B……………………………………………………………………...….…66
Appendices C…................................................................................................................88
Appendices D……………………………………………………………………………94
Page 12
x
List of Tables
Table (2.1): Comparison between BBD and FWD properties . ........................................ 16
Table (4.1): Deflection values- 3 deflection values of section 1 ...................................... 40
Table (4.2): Test of normality of deflection values, section 1 .......................................... 42
Table (4.3): Repeatability of BBD during measurements of section 1 ............................. 43
Table (4.4): Test of homogeneity of section 1 .................................................................. 44
Table (4.5): Deflection values- 3 deflection values of section 2 ....................................... 45
Table (4.6): Test of normality of deflection values, section 2 .......................................... 47
Table (4.7): Repeatability of BBD during measurements of section 2 ............................. 48
Table (4.8): Test of homogeneity of section2 ................................................................... 48
Table (4.9): Deflection values of section 3 of the examined road .................................... 50
Table (4.10): Test of normality of deflection values, section 3 ....................................... 52
Table (4.11): Repeatability of BBD during measurements of section 3 ........................... 53
Table (4.12): Test of homogeneity of section3 ................................................................. 53
Page 13
xi
List of Figures
Figure (2.1): Pavements cracks ........................................................................................... 9
Figure (2.2): Pavements ruttings ......................................................................................... 9
Figure (2.3): Benkelman Beam with 2:1 length ratio of the probe arm ............................ 12
Figure (2.4): Benkelman Beam with 4:1 length ratio of the probe arm ............................ 13
Figure (2.5): Benkelman Beam Calibration Device ......................................................... 15
Figure (2.6): Falling weight deflectometer ....................................................................... 16
Figure (3.1): Range of dimensions for the contact area of the deflection truck tires ....... 27
Figure (3.2): Aerial photograph of AL- Rasheed road .................................................... 28
Figure (3.3): Aerial photograph of the sellected sections ................................................. 28
Figure (3.4): Aerial photograph- Section 1 ....................................................................... 29
Figure (3.5): Aerial photograph- Section 2 ....................................................................... 29
Figure (3.6): Aerial photograph- Section 3 ....................................................................... 30
Figure (4.1): Deflection values of tested points in AL- Rasheed road (section 1) ........... 41
Figure (4.2):Comparison between deflection values of section 1 and the average
deflection value .................................................................................................................. 41
Figure (4.3): Q- Q plot of deflection values, section 1 ..................................................... 43
Figure (4.4): deflection values of tested points of AL- Rasheed road (section 2) ............ 46
Figure (4.5): Comparison between deflection values of section 2 and the average
deflection value .................................................................................................................. 46
Figure (4.6): Q- Q plot of deflection values, section 2 ..................................................... 47
Figure (4.7): deflection values of tested points of AL- Rasheed road (section 3) ............ 51
Figure (4.8): Comparison between deflection values of section3 and the average
deflection value .................................................................................................................. 51
Figure (4.9): Q- Q plot of deflection values, section 3 ..................................................... 52
Page 14
xii
List of Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
BBD Benkelman Beam Device
BBT Benkelman Beam Test o C Degree Celsius
Cm Centimeter
CRRI Central Road Research Institute
D Average deflection of the section
D1 Deflection 1
D2 Deflection 2
D3 Deflection 3
F1- F7 Temperature adjustment factors
ƒ load Load adjustment factor for the Benkelman Beam deflection
value beneath the right dual tires to the standard load (40KN)
ft Feet
Ƒ Temp Temperature adjustment factor for the Benkelman beam
deflection value to a standard temperature
FWD Falling Wight Deflectometer
GPR Ground Penetrating Radar
H Hour
IUG Islamic University of Gaza
Kg Kilogram
Km Kilometer
KN Kilo Newton
Kpa Kilo Pascal
L1, L2 Axle loads
M Meter
Mm Millimeter
N Number of deflection values
MPA Mega Pascal
NASEM National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NDT Non-destructive testing
PCC Portland cement concrete
Q-Q plot Standard Quantile- Quantile plot
R Rebound deflection
R1 Is the initial dial measurement
R2 Is the final dial measurement
SD Standard deviation
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
T Temperature of the surface road pavement
Page 15
xiii
USA United State of America
X Mean of the individual deflections
X1 The length of the front part of the beam arm from pivot to
probe point
X2 The length of the back beam of the arm from the pivot to the
dial gauge
% Percent
Page 16
0
Chapter 1
Introduction
Page 17
4
Chapter1 : Introduction
Background 1.1
The interest in infrastructure projects, particularly roads' projects in the Gaza Strip,
had been increased in the past few years. Considering safety and cost effectiveness as
the primary goals, road management programs include activities such as planning,
maintenance and operation of road assets (Weligamage, 2002; Nayak, Rawat, and
Weligamage, 2012).
The road pavement includes sub-base coarse, base coarse, and asphalt layer. It refers
to the part of the road directly above the surface (Nayak et al., 2012). For effective
road asset maintenance, it is necessary to have adequate knowledge of the current
situation of road pavements (Piyatrapoomi, Kumar, Robertson, and Weligamage,
2001). Every action in road maintenance aims to keep the pavement condition in its
highest function with continued road access and lowest traffic inconvenience as well
as reasonable cost (Abdulkareem, 2003). Operational measurement of pavement
conditions is needed to guide road agencies to set their priorities in the road
maintenance programmes (Jenelius, Petersen, and Mattsson, 2006). Pavement
deflection testing is a quick and easy way to assess the structural condition of an in-
service pavement in a nondestructive manner. Over the years, a variety of deflection
testing equipment had been used for this purpose. These devices are basically operate
in the same manner by applying a load to the pavement. Generally, there are three
primary methods for conducting deflection testing: Static loading, steady-state
loading, and impulse loading. In order to evaluate the bearing capacity of the
pavements, there are several ways different in how they work. Some are dynamic
such as falling weight deflectometer (FWD), and others are static such as Benkelman
Beam Device (BBD), which is the device used in this research to study the
homogeneity of bearing capacity on road pavements. This device was previously
used to evaluate the structural condition of the pavements (Jendia, 2007).
The Islamic University of Gaza (IUG) has had this device since 2004. This device
was used in this study in order to measure deflection of pavements and to study the
homogeneity of the bearing capacity of pavements; therefore, engineers could use the
Page 18
3
results of this study to identify if maintenance is needed for the roads and the type of
the suitable maintenance also.
Problem statement 1.2
A road network is considered as a critical national infrastructure which is always
under high attention for its significance. Since pavement's life is dependent on the
response of the pavement under traffic, long lives will be expected to be obtained in
structures with minimal responses and small deflections. Thus, many characteristics
of a flexible pavement can be determined by measuring its deflection in response to
load. Also, analyzing the pavements homogeneity gives information about the
probability of pavements deformity. Thus, engineers would gain the required data
about structural condition of pavements in order to enable them to establish the
suitable maintenance program.
Research aim and objectives 1.3
1.3.1 Aim
To study the homogeneity of bearing capacity on road pavements in the Gaza Strip
using Benkelman Beam device and to examine the repeatability of its measurement
of pavements deflection values.
1.3.2 Objectives
To examine the capability of BBD to constantly read the deflections of pavement
using three measurements
To measure the deflection values of three sections of AL- Rasheed road using
BBD
To analyze the homogeneity of bearing capacity on road pavements using the
BBD
Research importance 1.4
Deflection measurement is an important pavement evaluation method because the
magnitude and shape of pavement deflection is a function of traffic, pavement
structural section, temperature affecting the pavement structure. In the Gaza Strip, a
Page 19
2
study conducted during the year 2006 aimed to develop guidelines about the use of
BBD device in the measurement of bearing capacity of pavement. This study
recommended the use of this device taking into consideration some guidelines related
to the use of rebound deflection test, standard load, standard temperature 20oC , and
the use of temperature factor F1(Jendia,2007). Since that time, there is lack of studies
about the use of this device in the evaluation of structural condition of pavements.
The implementation of the procedure developed in this study will provide necessary
information for engineers to better evaluate the structural condition of pavement
structures. This information will allow those concerned to optimize the rehabilitation
of the roads.
Operational definitions 1.5
1.5.1 Deflection
It is defined an overall system response of the surface, base, and sub-base layers, as
well as the subgrade itself. Thus, it is used by agencies for the evaluation of material
properties and structural capacity of pavements (Pierce et al., 2017).
1.5.2 Road pavement
Road pavement includes sub-base coarse, base coarse and asphalt layer, and refers to
the part of the road directly above the surface (Nayak et al., 2012).
1.5.3 Chainage
Chainage refers to the distance on road where trials were run (test points).
1.5.4 Homogeneity of bearing capacity
This item refers to differences between deflection values of one section are very
small and to be statistically not significant when a suitable statistical method used.
Research scope 1.6
This research focuses mainly on analyzing the homogeneity of bearing capacities of
road pavements in three sections selected from Al- Rasheed road using the BBD. The
factors investigated are as mentioned in the research objectives. No other factors
were included in the research.
Page 20
5
Research methodology 1.7
In order to achieve the objectives of this research, the following steps were
implemented
1. Preparing a literature review about Benkelman beam technology and
related topics.
2. Selecting three pavement sections from AL- Rasheed road different in its
age.
3. Preparing and calibration of BBD which used for the required
measurements, and prepare a suitable truck.
4. Measurement of deflection values after dividing every section to 20 test
points and deflection values were recorded three times for each tested
point.
5. Calculations were done using suitable equations. Also, the temperature
coefficient and load coefficient were used to modify all the deflection
values according to its equation.
6. Analyzing the data using suitable statistical analysis methods and focusing
on testing the BBD reliability and homogeneity of pavements bearing
capacity.
7. Preparing study conclusions and recommendations.
Research structure 1.8
This research was divided into five main chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter one describe the background of the study, research problem, research aim
and objectives, research importance, operational definitions, research scope, main
points about the fieldwork, and the research structure.
Chapter 2: Literature review
The chapter includes deep investigation about the research concepts and the its
related issues. The chapter contains information about BBD and other devices of
measurements of bearing capacities. Also, it contains global and local related studies.
Page 21
6
Chapter 3: Fieldwork
Chapter 3 clarifies data collection method and measurement tool, it explains the
selected sections and definitions of each, steps of fieldwork to measure deflection
values of the pavements using BBD. Also, it includes the equations used to calculate
the difference between the initial dial measurement and the final dial measurement
and equation for the standard load and temperature. The, methods of data analysis
was used.
Chapter 4: Results and discussion
This chapter includes the main findings of the study. For each section, descriptive
analysis of deflection values, test of normality of deflection values, then test of
reliability, and finally, test of homogeneity of deflection values was also used.
Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations
This chapter includes conclusion about the study findings and the recommendations
of the study.
Page 22
7
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Page 23
8
Chapter2 : Literature Review
Background 2.1
Transport including roads, water, railways, airlines and pipelines is the means by
which people and commodities moving from one place to another by a number of
physical modes .So transport in one form or another is a basic and essential part of
life throughout the world. Road infrastructure development affects the economic
growth and the competitiveness of the country economics (Weiss and Figura, 2003;
Ivanova and Masarova, 2013). Pavement deterioration occurs because of poor
drainage, the use of low quality materials in construction, traffic overloading, and
expansive subgrade soils (Zumrawi, 2015). Furthermore, increase in moisture
content decreases the strength of the pavement (Abhijit and Jalindar, 2011). In
addition, pavements have a tendency to crack at some point of their life under traffic,
environment and climate conditions (Wee and Teo, 2009). The most cost-efficient
way to correct any street surface problem is to address issues when they first appear.
That is why funds are targeted at streets rated in fair-to-good condition. Evaluation of
in service pavements is very vital for keeping them in good serviceable condition.
Structural and functional evaluation are both necessary in order to get a complete
idea of the existing condition of any pavement (Subramanyam, Aravind, and
Prasanna Kumar, 2017).
Pavement distress 2.2
There are multiple pavements distress that occurs in the road, the most common are
Smoothness: Is the pavement condition indicator that best reflects the public’s
perception of the overall condition of a pavement section. It is considered the most
important indicator of peoples satisfaction as it affects ride quality, operation cost in
terms of fuel consumption, tire wear, vehicle durability and vehicle dynamics
(Chatti and Zaabar, 2012; Van Dam et al., 2015; Kurt and Prashant, 2016).
Cracking: One of the major distresses that directly affect the serviceability and
quality of flexible pavement structures is cracking. Cracking appears at the pavement
surface as longitudinal cracks, transverse cracks, and a combination of both that
extend over the width of the pavement and creates hazardous conditions for the road
Page 24
9
users. Water infiltration through the cracks may subsequently cause weakening and
deterioration of the base, or subgrade, or both of them (Elseifi et al., 2011).
Figure (2.1): Pavements cracks (Elseifi et al., 2011)
Rutting: Rutting is a distortion in flexible pavements. It is associated with
insufficient subgrade strength or poorly constructed asphalt mixtures (Kim,
Mohammad, Elseifi, and Challa, 2013). A small amount of rutting is usually
occurred due to the densification of asphalt layers under traffic after construction.
However, large rutting is a risk to the driving public and is due to unstable asphalt
mixture, See Figure (2.2)
Figure (2.2): Pavements ruttings (Verhaeghe, Myburgh, and Denneman, 2007)
Page 25
01
Evaluation of quality of roads (road quality) 2.3
2.3.1 Destructive testing
Destructive test is carried out for the specimen's failure in order to understand a
specimen's performance or material behavior under different loads. Some types of
destructive testing are stress tests, crash test, hardness test, and metallographic test by
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP, 2004). Destructive
testing has the advantage of observation subsurface conditions of pavements layers
and bonding between them. However, destructive testing has the disadvantages of
costing time, money and has severe limitations (Shahin, 1994).
2.3.2 Non-destructive testing (NDT)
NDT is the test used to examine the pavement structure and material properties
without inducing any damage to it using several techniques. These techniques
include Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to determine in-situ layer, profile testing to
determine pavement surface smoothness, friction testing to determine pavement
surface resistance and deflection testing (NCHRP, 2004). Pavement evaluation tools
based on NDT are: BBD, automated Benkelman Beam, La Croix deflectograph,
falling weight deflectograph, Dynaflect, the Road rater system and the dynamic
deflection device National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(NASEM, 2005). NDT has the advantages of accidents reduction caused by lane
closure, less costs, improve test reliability, provide vital information for choosing
between rehabilitation options, and provide data for overlay design (NCHRP, 2004).
Deflection based techniques 2.4
Deflection based techniques are being widely used in the evaluation of the structural
integrity and for estimating the elasticity of pavement systems. It is characterized by
its speed and ease of operation. Deflections can be induced in a non-destructive way
and measured using various commercially available devices. These devices are
designed based on a variety of loading modes and measuring sensors (Holzschuher
and Lee, 2011). Deflection Parameters are used in order to determine the required
strengthening of a pavement to meet specified design criteria. Also, it monitors
changes in the structural performance of a pavement that result from environmental
Page 26
00
variations or specific maintenance activities. In addition, they used to determine the
load carrying capacity of the road. Furthermore, it monitors long-term pavement
performance as one of the inputs describing the pavement conditions.
There are three primary methods for conducting deflection testing: static loading,
steady-state loading, and impulse loading (Pierce et al., 2017)
2.4.1 Static loading
The main device used in the static loading method is the BBD. This device will be
discussed in details later on in the thesis.
2.4.2 Steady-State loading
In steady-state loading, a dynamic force generator generating a non-changing
vibration is applied to the pavement surface. Then, deflections are measured using
velocity transducers. Devices that incorporate steady-state loading can measure
deflection basin. Because of its lighter loading, steady-state deflection devices are
suitable for thinner pavements (Pierce et al., 2017).
2.4.3 Impulse loading
Falling Wight Deflectometer (FWD) is capable of measuring a deflection basin and
more closely simulate truck traffic loading. In this method, impulse loading is
conducted by dropping weights at various drop heights to apply an impulse load
(Pierce et al., 2017).
The Benkelman beam device 2.5
The BBD measures the deflections under standard wheel load conditions. The beam
is a handy instrument which is most widely used for measuring deflection of
pavements (Central Road Research Institute CRRI, 1995; Congress, 1981; Yousuf
and Khan, 2015).
The device consists of a reference frame supported by three legs that can move
vertically, making the device in the horizontal direction. It also consists of an arm
connected to the frame with a joint that works as a pivot, which is placed in a
position to allow the front part of the arm, the measurement probe, to move down. As
Page 27
04
for the back part of the arm, it touches the dial gauge, allowing to measure
deflection. The probe rests on the pavement at the point where deflections are
measured. The length of the front part of the beam arm and the length of the back
part of the beam arm are equal in proportion to the pivot (X1: X2), considering that
the two parts are of different lengths according to the qualifications of the device. For
device used in this study, the rate between the lengths of the front part to the back
part of the arm is 1:4. Therefore, it is important when measuring to multiply the
deflection by 4 (Jendia, 2007).
There are several types of the Benkelman beam according to its dimensions, but the
widely used types are:
Benkelman Beam with 2:1 length ratio of the probe arm, the probe arm
extends forward from the pivot 244 cm (8 ft) to the probe point.
The probe arm also extends 122 cm (4 ft) behind the pivot as shown in Figure
(2.3).
Figure (2.3): Benkelman Beam with 2:1 length ratio of the probe arm (Bay,
Stokoe, and Kenneth., 1998)
Page 28
03
Benkelman beam with 4:1 length ratio of the probe arm, the probe arm extend
forward from the pivot 244 cm (96 inch) to the probe point. The probe arm
also extends 61 cm (24 inch) behind the pivot, as shown in Figure (2.4).
The IUG has a BBD with 4:1 length ratio of the probe arm which was used in the
current study.
Figure (2.4): Benkelman Beam with 4:1 length ratio of the probe arm (Pierce et
al., 2017)
Methods of deflection measurement by Benkelman beam test 2.6
Generally, there are two ways to measure deflections using Benkelman beam test
(BBT). First is the Rebound Deflection Test. This method was used in the current
study, as it is the easiest method. The test point was identified on the pavement, (0.8)
meters away from the lane edge. A truck was brought to the pavement, where the test
point is between its back right dual wheels. The probe point of beam was inserted
between the dual wheels until it touches the test point. Then the initial measurement
(R1) was recorded. The truck then moved from the test point until it gets as far as (5)
meters, and the second measurement (R2) was recorded. The rebound deflection
value is the difference between the two measurements multiplied by factor 4 (Jendia,
2007).
Rebound deflection R = 4*(R1-R2)
Page 29
02
The second way is the Transient Deflection Test. The test point is identified on the
pavement, (0.8) meters far from the lane edge. A truck will be brought to the
pavement so that the test point is ahead of its back right dual wheels, (x) meters far
from the wheels, taking into consideration the specifications that the distance could
be 1.37 meters, 1.3 meters, or 0.6 meters. Then the measurement arm of BBD will be
inserted between the dual wheels until its head touches the test point. The truck
moves forward passing the test point until it gets as far as (8) meters from away.
When the wheel passes on the test point, the highest deflection measurement (R1)
will be recorded, and the second measurement (R2) will be recorded after the truck
gets (8) meters far. The deflection value is the difference between the two
measurements multiplied by factor 4 (Jendia, 2007)
R = 4*(R1-R2)
Calibration of the Benkelman beam device 2.7
The precise procedures used by various road authorities vary in its details. This
should be taken into considerations before using the acquired data in overlay design
or in pavement assessment. Differences between test procedures can be divided into
two main groups. Firstly, standardization involving differences in the sequence of
loading (rebound or transient), and the wheel loads applied, Figure (2.5). Secondly,
calibration including correction of the measured values for effects such as variations
in pavement temperature, seasonal moisture changes, movement of the beam feet
(Younger and widayat, 1992).
Calibration process can be completed by placing the beam and levelled on a hard
level ground. A number of metallic blocks of different thickness with perfectly plane
faces are placed under the probe and the dial gauge measurement is recorded each
time. If the beam is in order, the dial gauge on the beam should read one half the
thickness of the metallic block on which the probe was placed. If the dial gauge is
functioning correctly, the beam pivot should be checked for free and smooth
operation. Furthermore, the striking plate under the dial gauge spindle should be
checked to confirm that it is tightly secured and has not become grooved by the dial
gauge stylus (Yousuf and Khan, 2015).
Page 30
05
Figure (2.5): Benkelman Beam Calibration Device
(http://www.impact-test.co.uk/docs/BM561_HB.pdf)
Falling weight deflectometer device 2.8
Figure (2.6) illustrates FWD device which is designed to impart a load pulse to the
pavement surface which simulates the load produced by a rolling vehicle wheel. The
load is produced by dropping a large mass, and transmitted to the pavement through
a circular load plate, typically 300 mm in diameter. At the test site, the load cell and
sensors are lowered to the pavement. Then, an applied stress of 700 kPa
corresponding to a load of 50 KN is used. This process is repeated three times, the
test loads must not vary more than ± 4% of the target load level. Also, the recorded
deflection values must not vary by more than 5% or 5 micron (whichever is greater)
for any one sensor. The peak load and geophone sensor readings resulting from the
third (final) drop are used as the test result (Anthony, 2015).
Page 31
06
Figure (2.6): Falling weight deflectometer (Anthony, 2015)
Properties of the BBD and FWD instruments 2.9
A comparison between properties of BBD using a static load and FWD device using
a dynamic load is illustrated in the table below, Table (2.1).
Table(2.1): Comparison between BBD and FWD properties (Marko, Primusz,
and Peterfalvi, 2012).
Properties BBD FWD
Instrument Benkelman beam Device Falling weight
deflectometer
Staff needed 4 persons 2 persons
Load Static Dynamic
Simulated vehicle speed 0 km/h 60-80 km/h
Typical measurement
frequency
25 m, both wheel paths
simultaneously
25 m, both wheel paths
simultaneously
Efficiency 15 km/day 15 km/day
Measured parameter Maximal vertical deflection
(1 point)
Deflection basin (6 to 12
points)
Data collection Manual Automated
Repeatability Convenient Excellent
Instrument costs Low cost High cost
Page 32
07
Factors affecting the deflection measurement 2.10
A number of factors affect the magnitude of measured pavement deflections, which
can make the interpretation of deflection results difficult. To the extent possible,
direct consideration of these factors should be an essential part of the deflection
testing process in order to make the deflection data meaningful and representative to
the actual conditions. The major factors that affect pavement deflections include
pavement structure (type and thickness), pavement loading (load magnitude and type
of loading), and climate (temperature and seasonal effects).
2.10.1 Pavement structure
The deflection of a pavement represents an overall system response of the surface,
base, and sub-base layers, as well as the subgrade itself. Thus, the parameters of the
surface layer and of the supporting layers (thickness and stiffness) all affect the
magnitude of the measured deflections. Generally, weaker systems deflect more than
stronger systems under the same load with the exact shape of the deflection basin
related to the stiffness of the individual paving layers (Hoerner, Smith, Yu, Peshkin,
and Wade, 2001). Other pavement-related factors affecting deflections include,
testing near joints, edges, or cracks. In areas containing structural distress produces
higher deflections than testing at interior portions of the pavement. Random
variations in pavement layer thickness can create variability in deflection, and
variations in subgrade parameters and the presence of underlying rigid layers may
provide significant variability in deflections (Pierce et al., 2017).
2.10.2 Effect of the load
The Asphalt institute procedures for BBT that the standard rear axle load of the load
truck should be equal to 8.2 ton (80KN). Since the pavement's deflection is measured
under the right dual tires, then the load should equal 4.1 ton (40KN).
In most cases, the standard weight of the load truck is not adjusted to the standard
load. Hence, it should be noted that there is a straight-line relationship between the
load (KN) and the deflection (mm).
Thus, a proportional relationship
L1/D1=L2/D2
Page 33
08
Where:
L1, L2 = axle loads (KN)
D1, D2 = Benkelman beam deflection (mm)
This allows computation of an expected deflection for any load once a deflection for
a specific load has been established. Therefore, load adjustment factor for the weight
of the right dual tires can be derived from the following equation mentioned in a
lecture for Prof. Jendia S. during the year 2015.
ƒ load =(40 KN) / ( X)
Where:
ƒ load= Load adjustment factor for the Benkelman beam deflection value beneath the
right dual tires to the standard load (40 KN).
X= weight of the right dual tires of the load truck (KN).
2.10.3 Effect of temperature
The asphalt pavement’s bearing capacity is affected by temperature. Therefore, the
temperature of the pavements changes throughout the day and over days, months,
and seasons. This has an effect on the measurement results. When measuring the
deflection of a point on an asphalt pavement at different hours of the same day, we
find that the results change because of the change in the temperature. Therefore, the
temperature of the pavement should be recorded. This is done by making a small 4-
cm deep hole with a diameter of (6-8) mm in the asphalt layer and filling it with
glycerol or water. Then the temperature of the pavement is measured by inserting a
thermometer in the hole until it gets to the bottom, and this is done almost every
hour. In order to have a precise comparison between the measurement results that
show the bearing capacity of pavements, the effect of the temperature on the results
should be studied. This is done by finding out the proportion of the pavement
temperature to the standard temperature. Thus modifying the deflection values to the
standard temperature. The standard temperature differs in every continent and
country due to the climate. Modifying the measurement results is done using
Page 34
09
mathematical equations or curves that clarify the relation between deflection and
pavement temperature, sometimes between these two variables and the thickness of
the asphalt layer (Jendia, 2007)
The standard temperature is (20ºC), and the deflection values of the pavements in the
Gaza Strip are proportioned to it, since the area is of a mild climate. There are many
different factors to modify the results. Some of them are mentioned in the references
as equations or curves, and they can be summarized in three types. The first one
describes the relation between the factor itself and the pavement temperature
directly, as it is the case with factors (F1, F2, F3). The second type describes the
relation between the factor itself, the pavement temperature and the deflection that
needs to be modified, as it is the case with factor (F4). The third type describes the
relation between the factor itself, the pavement temperature and the thickness of
asphalt layer, as it is the case with factors (F5, F6, F7) (Jendia, 2007).
The first type of the modifying factors, which are represented by factors (F1, F2, F3),
depend only on knowing the pavement temperature. Since the relation between the
factor itself and the temperature is a linear relation, using this type of factors require
the same precision in measuring temperature (Jendia, 2007).
The second type of the modifying factors, which is represented by factor (F4),
depends on the pavement temperature and the deflection values. The deflection
values is considered one of the variables here in the equation, meaning that if there is
an error in the deflection value while measuring, the error increases when modifying
(Jendia, 2007).
The third type of the modifying factors, which are represented by factors (F5, F6,
F7), considers the temperature and thickness of the pavement as variables in the
equation or the curve. Therefore, any modification depends on knowing the thickness
of the asphalt layer, which means that any error in knowing the thickness of the
asphalt layer will be reflected on the modified value. Devices are needed to know the
thickness of the layer because it is not homogeneous on the length of the pavement.
According to the above, the first type of factors is the most appropriate to modify the
deflection to the standard temperature in our city. In this study, factor (F1) was used
to modify the deflection of the pavements (Jendia, 2007)
Page 35
41
F1= 1.377- 0.01885*T
Where:
F1= Temperature adjustment factor for the Benkelman beam deflection value to a
standard temperature of 20º C.
T= Temperature of the surface road pavement
2.10.4 Testing season
Seasonal variations in temperature and moisture conditions also affect pavement
deflection response. Generally, deflections are greatest in the spring because of
saturated conditions and reduced pavement support. On the other hand, deflections
are lowest in the winter when the underlying layers and subgrade are frozen. Portland
cement concrete (PCC) pavements are less affected by seasonal variations in support
conditions (Pierce et al., 2017).
Management of pavements 2.11
The major benefits of pavement management system includes knowledge of the
current state of road surfaces by creating data analytical base with information such
as road conditions, the traffic volumes, manufacturing data, and records of
maintenance and rehabilitation interventions.
Pavement Management is a process that helps in making decisions concerning the
maintenance of the road network in adequate level of service, functionality and
security with the least cost to the technical services and for users. The problem of
pavement management lies in the large number and variety of parameters and the
difficulty of establishing correlations between them (Witczak, Pellinen, and El-
Basyouny, 2002).
A Pavement management system handles the procedures for finding a solution that
will satisfy the user requirements, but is not able to take final decisions. However, it
can provide the basis for understanding the potential consequences of alternative
decisions (Karlaftis and Golias, 2002).
Page 36
40
Previous related studies 2.12
2.12.1 Global studies
In the University of Minnesota in the United State of America (USA), Kruse and
Skok conducted a study entitled "The Flexible Pavement Evaluation by Benkelman
Beam Device”. In which, researchers confirmed that BBD could be used as a very
effective tool in order to get helpful information for engineers to make decisions
regarding choosing the suitable maintenance for pavements and to expect the age of
the pavements. They recommended that highway engineers strongly consider using a
program of deflection measurement as an objective basis for evaluating the strength
of their flexible pavements (Kruse and Skok, 1968)
In the University of Kentucky in the USA, Sharpe and Southgate conducted a study,
entitled “Road Rater and Benkelman Beam Pavement Deflections”. This study
revealed that BBD was one of the common devices to evaluate the surface deflection
of a highway pavement because it is easy to use and it depends on evaluating surface
deflection under an applied load. Thus, it allows evaluating the structural condition
of pavements by comparing the values with the standard allowable deflection
(Sharpe and Southgate, 1979).
In India, researchers studied the comparison between the evaluated deflection values
using BBD and another device called lightweight. This study also compared
Benkelman Beam delfectometer and lightweight deflectometer in low volume roads.
The study mentioned that Benkelman Beam method is a simple method and depends
on measuring the static deflection in evaluating the structural condition of
pavements. This study referred that lightweight deflectometer gives more accurate
values when comparing low volume roads (Guzzarlapudi, Adigopula, and Kumar,
2016).
Subramanyam et al. (2017) conducted a manual distress survey in India to identify
the presence of various distresses in the pavement surface. The percentage area of
each distress present in each of the examined sample unit was calculated. The
characteristic deflection of the pavement is determined by using BBD testing
technique and overlay thickness required for the pavement to withstand present as
Page 37
44
well as future traffic loading is calculated. The study found that all the pavement
sections are in fair condition and concluded in the presence of a high deflection
values along with heavy traffic necessitates overlay design.
In the University of Kashmir, India, Yousef and Khan (2015) used Benkelman Beam
Device in their research to measure the rebound deflection of pavements under static
load. The researchers confirmed that out of all the deflection measuring methods, the
BBD technique is the most simple and reliable.
In Colombia, a study aimed to compare between deflections under dynamic load and
static load using BBD. The researchers noticed that the deflection under static load is
higher than the deflection generated by dynamic loads due to the longer duration of
load application. The study also mentioned that different associations like the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
does not recommend the use of deflections under static load. However, in several
countries, like Colombia which presents damage in many parts of the road network,
these devices, especially BBD, are still used for designing pavements’ structures
along with structural evaluation (LE, 2013).
A study conducted to examine the causes of damaged road pavements and measure
the deflection using BBD in India. The study found that the major parts of the road
were damaged by more than one type of distresses. Approximatley, 50% of
pavements are in a bad condition. Deflection measurement using BBD was done and
the study found high deflection values of the road pavements( Aziz, MohdHanif,
Mohd Miya, and Kazi, 2018).
A study examined the performance of flexible pavements in terms of its functional
behavior. Roughness of the pavement was used to represent the overall pavement's
surface condition. The pavement was evaluated both functionally and structurally.
The rebound deflection of the pavement is measured with BBD Technique. The
study concluded that the heavy traffic present in all the road sections leads to their
premature failure. The pavement was found to be structurally inadequate in all the
sections. Hence, an overlay is necessary in all the sections (Rokade, Agarwal, and
Shrivastava, 2010).
Page 38
43
A study conducted in India aimed to compare two ways measuring the bearing
capacity of road pavement. One way was static using the BBD and the other was a
dynamic using FWD. The study concluded in that both test were perform
simultaneously on marking points and no preference for one method over the another
(Goyal, Karli, and Solanki, 2017).
2.12.2 Local studies
Jendia (2007) conducted a study to be the first in the Gaza strip showing how to use
the BBD for the evaluation of pavements according to the technical, economical and
environmental conditions that are prevalent in the region. In that study, the
researcher clarified through a theoretical study the basic expressions regarding
pavement structural evaluation and factors influencing the measuring procedure.
Then, he determined guidelines for using the BBD according to the local conditions
with regard to measurement, loads, and temperature adjustment factor. Furthermore,
field tests were conducted on approximately 200 points on pavements of the Gaza
Strip road network in order to prove the efficiency of these guidelines. The research
concluded in the standard load should be 4 ton according to AASHTO, to adopt the
second way for measurement (rebound deflection test) and to prefer it over the first
(transient deflection test), to adopt the 20oC as a standard temperature and the use of
the temperature coefficient F1 to modify all the deflection values according to its
equation.
2.12.3 Summary and conclusion
The majority of the reviewed studies do not study the homogeneity of bearing
capacity on road pavements in the Gaza Strip using BBD which may suggest areas
that require further investigation using other means, including destructive sampling
and testing. In that, all previous studies measure the deflection values of the roads
without comparing the points with each other to know if it is homogeneous. Hence, it
is imperative to carry out this research in order to fill the gap in this research domain,
and provide a guideline for engineers to examine homogeneity of bearing capacity to
provide a general indication of the structural capacity of the pavement structure and
the quality of pavement's implementation.
Page 39
42
The result of this study is assumed to fill the gap about studying the homogeneity
which will be an easy way to provide the required information about the general
condition of the pavement and to help minimizing the cost of asphalt rehabilitation.
Page 40
45
Chapter 3
Fieldwork
Page 41
46
Chapter3 : Fieldwork
Introduction 3.1
This chapter represents the fieldwork in details. Specifications of load truck, test site,
miscellaneous equipment, and procedures of Benkelman Beam Test are
demonstrated. Also, calculations, equations used, and the way of analyzing the data
and all other related information were represented in this chapter.
Truck load 3.2
A truck with two axes is used in measurement of bearing capacity, where the back
axis wheels are of dual tires. The load used is the right wheel of the back axis, and it
should follow some specifications in terms of weight, internal air pressure, size and
distance between the tires. There are differences, although sometimes simple,
between the specifications or the global guidelines for usage. For instance, the
guidelines for measuring deflection using BBD issued by the German Ministry of
Transportation stated that the standard wheel weight equals 5 tons. The internal air
pressure should be proportional to the weight and load of the wheel and should not
be less than 0.45 MPA. The standards of the tires size and the distance between them
are not referred here. According to the methods of testing for determining the
requirements of maintenance of pavements using deflection measurement issued by
the transportation department in California, the standard weight for the wheel used in
the measurement equals 4 tons. There are other specifications recommended that the
weight of the back axis be 6.35 tons, and the standard weight of the wheel to be
3.175 tons. In order to get any of these weights, the truck should be loaded with sand,
rocks or iron. It is important to focus on the weight of the truck wheels, because it is
often hard to get the exact standard weight as previously mentioned. For instance, if
the standard weight is 4 tons, when loading the truck, the weight of the wheel may be
slightly more or less than 4 tons; therefore, the results should be modified according
to the standard weight equations which are illustrated in part 2.10.2 (Jendia, 2007).
If tires other those recommended are used, then the tire pressures may have to be
adjusted to attain contact areas as indicated in Figure (3.1).
Page 42
47
Figure (3.1): Range of dimensions for the contact area of the deflection truck
tires (Smith and Jone, 1980)
Test site 3.3
Determination of the test site is an essential step to the Benkelman beam test. Several
issues may be defined like region, branch, section, lane location interval of
measurement and distance from pavement edge.
Region, branch, section concepts 3.4
3.4.1 Region
Region is a state, city or any certain land that has definite borders. In this study, the
selected region is Gaza city.
3.4.2 Branch
Branch was defined as any street or road in the region. Fieldwork depends mostly on
the choice of a suitable section. In the current study, the selected branch is Al-
Rasheed road. This road is considered the most importance road not only in Gaza
city but also in the Gaza Strip. Figure (3.2) illustrates an aerial photograph for this
road.
Page 43
48
Figure (3.2): Aerial photograph of AL- Rasheed road
Three sections of Al-Rasheed road, different in their chronological age, were
selected. Figure (3.3) illustrates an aerial photograph for the three sections together.
Figure (3.3): Aerial photograph of the sellected sections
3.4.3 Section
Section is known as a homogenous and rectangular part of the branch that consists of
test points that represent it. In this study, three sections different in their
chronological age were selected of AL- Rasheed road and every section was divided
into 20 test points to execute the required deflection measurements.
3.4.3.1 Section 1
Section 1 is a part of AL-Rasheed road extending from Sama cafe to 380 m to the
south. The width of pavement is approximatley10 m for each direction. The road
pavement is consisting of wearing course 5 cm, binder course 7 cm (asphalt layer
12cm) and base course layer thickness 35 cm, see Appendix A1. Its age is
approximately 4 years. Figure (3.4) clarifies an aerial photograph for this section
Page 44
49
Figure (3.4): Aerial photograph- Section 1
3.4.3.2 Section 2
Section 2 is a part of AL-Rasheed road extending from Arafat and Sawafery cafe to
380 m to the north. The total width of pavement is approximately 10 m for each
direction. The road pavement is consisting of wearing course 4 cm, binder course 6
cm (asphalt layer 10 cm) and crushed stone layer thickness 30 cm see Appendix A2.
Its age is about 8 years. Figure (3.5) clarifies an aerial photograph for this section.
Figure (3.5): Aerial photograph- Section 2
Page 45
31
3.4.3.3 Section 3
Section 3 is a part of AL-Rasheed road extending from Bader district to the north 380
m). The total width of pavement is approximately 10 m for each direction. The road
pavement is consisting of wearing course 5 cm, binder course 7 cm (asphalt layer 12
cm) and base coarse layer thickness 25 cm see Appendix A3. Its age is about 1 year.
Figure (3.6) clarifies an aerial photograph for this section
Figure (3.6): Aerial photograph- Section 3
Lane location 3.5
In this study, the tested lane is the right lane. Right lane is often the slowest lane that
bears the heaviest traffic volume. Therefore, the right lane in each direction
represents the overall road. If the right lane has a good bearing capacity, it is
expected that the overall road has a good bearing capacity also (Qeshta et al., 2006).
Interval of measurement 3.6
The spacing of points' measurement depends mainly on the purpose of the survey.
Spacing of the test sites should be such that at least 10 measurements taken in each
length over which the pavement and surrounding conditions appear uniform (Qeshta
et al., 2006).
The spacing of the test site is dependent on the length and uniformity of the section
and Table (3.1) used as a guide.
Page 46
30
Table 3.2): Recommended spacing of points measurement according to section
length (Qeshta et al., 2006)
Section Length (km) Spacing of point's measurement (m)
For all construction control testing 10
<1 25
1-2 50
2-5 100
>5 200
In the current study, 20 test points were selected for measurements. The length
between every two test points was 20 meters. Depending on the section length, less
spacing of point's measurement leads to more accuracy of the Benkelman beam test.
Distance from lane edge 3.7
The test point was pre-selected and marked. For highway pavements, test points
should be located at the distances from the edge of the lane given (Carneiro, 1966;
Kruse and Skok, 1968). This illustrated in Table (3.3).
Table 3.3): The Distance of the test point from the lane edge (Carneiro, 1966;
Kruse and Skok, 1968).
Lane width (ft.) Distance from lane edge (ft.)
9 or less 1.5
10 2
11 2.5
12 or more 3
Miscellaneous equipments 3.8
Other equipment necessary for conducting Benkelman beam tests are as follows:
A scale to check the load on the rear axle is needed. Any scale known to be
accurate in weighting the rear axle separately. The truck load and weighing
process is illustrated in appendices C1- C5.
Page 47
34
It is also desirable to weight one side of the rear axle at a time to see that the load
is centered. If the load is not centered, the weight of the right dual tires will not
equal the weight of the left dual tires and the sum of the weight of right and left
dual tires will not equal the weight of the total rear axle. To get actual weight of
each side of the rear axle, the measured weight of each side of the rear side of the
rear axle should be modified by proportional relationship.
For example, if the weight of the right dual tires equals 4160 kg, the weight of the
left dual tires equals 4440 kg and the weight of total rear axle equals 9480 kg,
then the weight of the right dual tires is determined in the following:
The real weight of the right dual tires=
The real weight of the right dual tires=
A tire pressure gage
A thermometer
A drill
A mandrel suitable for making a 4cm deep hole in the pavement for inserting the
thermometer, the diameter of the hole should be (6-8) mm
A can containing either glycerol or oil for filling the thermometer hole
Extra 6 volt lantern battery and buzzer
Signs, flags for traffic control
Tape
Spray for making the test points.
Page 48
33
Procedures, calculations and analysis of BBT 3.9
3.9.1 Procedures of BBT
Asphalt Institute procedure was adopted to measure the rebound deflection of
pavement by Benkelman beam test. Asphalt Institute procedures were used because
of the following reasons (Jendia, 2007)
It can be conducted easily
It is safer for the BBD, since the probe arm is inserted on the test point exactly
between the dual tires of the load truck
Temperature adjustment factor is available for correcting the rebound deflection
of the pavement
Steps of fieldwork to measure deflection values of the pavements using BBD:
1. The research team conducted a field visit with the research supervisor Prof. S.
Jendia on 5/ July/ 2018 at 11:00 am. In this visit, the three sections were
determined to conduct the required measurements.
2. Three sections of AL- Rasheed road were selected for the measurements, and all
the data were registered using primary excel sheets (Appendices B1- B6 for
section 1, B8- B13 for section 2, and B15- B20 for section3)
3. Then preparation of equipment and accessories needed for measurements, and it
was carried to the field to start working on Thursday, 12/July/2018 at 9:40 am to
7:30 pm
4. The tire pressure was checked before the first test and weighing it with the
suitable load.
5. The truck was positioned over the test point.
6. The tip of beam was placed between the dual tires even with the centerline of the
rear axle prior to movement of the load truck.
7. The locking device was released and the rear of the beam adjusted so that the
plunger is in contact with the dial gauge.
8. The vibrator was operated and the dial gauge was set to read the initial
measurement, R1.
Page 49
32
9. The truck was moved forward at creep speed at a position at least 5 meters beyond
the test point or such a place that has a contract dial gauge reading.
10. The final measurement, R2, is that figure indicated by the dial gauge where the
truck has stopped. This figure was recorded.
11. The rebound deflection value was calculated using the formula 4*(R1-R2), where
R1 is the initial dial measurement and R2 is the final dial measurement.
12. Temperature measurement were made when the top layer of the pavement
consists of 4 cm or more of bitumen bound material. The following procedures were
followed:
A hole was made with the mandrel to a depth of 4 cm or to such a depth, that it
does not break through the bitumen bound material.
The hole was filled with glycerol or oil and thermometer inserted
The temperature was recorded at least in an hourly basis
13. Required calculations were done using the suitable temperature and load factors
and the data were registered (Appendices B7, B14, B21).
14. Data were extracted and Statistical Package for Social Sciences program (SPSS)
was used in order to analyze the data using suitable statistical analysis methods
15. After discussion of results, conclusion and recommendations were set.
3.9.2 Calculations
The rebound deflection was calculated as the difference between the initial dial
measurement, R1, and the final dial measurement, R2. Then, multiplication of the
product by the leverage ratio which equal 4. Then, every deflection value was
corrected to the standard load and temperature using the equation
D = 4(R1-R2) × ƒTemp × ƒload
Where:
D is the deflection value
ƒTemp is the temperature adjustment factor for the Benkelman beam deflection value
to a standard temperature of 20 ºC.
Page 50
35
ƒload is the load adjustment factor for the right dual tires to the standard load 40KN.
The average deflection value and the standard deviation of the deflection values
are determined as follow:
X =
Where:
X is the mean of the individual deflection values
n is the number of deflection values,
SD= √
Where:
SD is the standard deviation of deflection values
3.9.3 Analysis
In the current study, data analysis was initially performed using the raw data to
measure deflection values of the pavements. Then, calculations were performed to
adjust the deflection values using temperature and load factors to the standard
temperature 20 ºC and standard load. In addition, excel sheet was used to draw charts
about the deflection values of the three sections to compare the deflections together
for each section and to compare the deflection values with the average for each
section. Furthermore, SPSS program was used in order to examine the reliability of
BBD in the measurement of deflection values and to test homogeneity of deflection
values in every section of Al- Rasheed road using the suitable statistical analysis
methods.
3.9.3.1 Shapiro Wilk test
In this method, the mean of the three measurements of deflection were compared
together, p- value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, to reject null
hypothesis (which means there is a significant difference between the measurements
and the data is not normally distributed). In the other hand, p- value ≥ 0.05 was
Page 51
36
considered statistically not significant, to accept null hypothesis (which means there
is no significant difference between the measurements and the data are normally
distributed). These values were reported in a previous study (Sawyer, 2009). In this
method, the null hypothesis will be accepted at level of significance 0.05 or more
which means that the data is normally distributed around the mean (Ghasemi and
Zahediasl, 2012).
When the p- value of Shapiro test is not statistically significant (p- vale ≥ 0.05), this
means that the data are normally distributed data and the parametric analysis test
(ANOVA and levene test) can be used.
Q-Q plot
Standard Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q plot) is an essential tool for evaluating a specific
distributional assumption. A Q-Q plot is constructed from a sample by plotting the
theoretical quantiles against the sample quantiles. If the empirical distribution is
consistent with the theoretical distribution, then the points in the Q-Q plot fall on the
line of identity. Based on a visual inspection in a Q-Q plot, a sample is therefore
considered to be consistent with a normal distribution if the empirical and theoretical
quantiles fall close to the line representing the theoretical distribution (Loy, Follett,
and Hofmann, 2016).
3.9.3.2 One Way- Analysis of Variance Test (ANOVA)
Test of reliability of BBD measurement
ANOVA test is a statistical method used to compare the results of a continuous
variable in three groups. This test examines if differences between three groups
(three time readings of deflection values) are exist. F value in the one- way ANOVA
test is considered where that the larger an F-value, the more significant effect, and
the smaller an F value, the less significant effect (Winter, 2015). P- value is
statistically not significant at more than or equal 0.05, the value above it there is no
statistically significant difference between the deflection values and the BBD will be
reliable in its measurement.
Page 52
37
3.9.3.3 Test of homogeneity of bearing capacity
Levene's test
Levene's test of homogeneity of variance is the most common test used to test the
assumption that each group of one or more categorical variables has the same
variance on an interval dependent. If the p- value is 0.05 or more, then the researcher
accepts the null hypothesis, so the values group has equal variance (Garson, 2012).
Page 53
38
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
Page 54
39
Chapter4 : Results and Discussion
Introduction 4.1
This chapter illustrates the main findings of the study and discusses them. First,
descriptive analyses of deflection values of the three sections were demonstrated.
Then deflection values were examined for their normally distribution. Then, the
chapter demonstrates the reliability analysis of the used BBD in its readings of
deflection measurement. Furthermore, analytical statistics for the homogeneity of
bearing capacity on road pavements of the examined road (Al-Rasheed road) was run
using a suitable statistical analysis method.
First: Section 1
Description and primary measurement of deflection values of section1 4.2
Section 1 is a part of AL-Rasheed road extending from Sama cafe to 380 m to the
south. The total width is approximately 10 m for each direction, 20 test points were
measured for its deflection values three times for every point using the BBD and the
primary measurements were registered and the required calculations were run. The
rebound deflection value was calculated as the difference between the initial dial
measurement R1, and the final dial measurement R2, then multiply the product by 4
as shown in the appendices (B1- B3). Deflection values were corrected to the
standard temperature and load using the suitable equations. The calculated data were
illustrated in appendices B4- B6 and the deflection values of section 1 is illustrated in
appendix B7.
4.2.1 Descriptive analysis of deflection values of section1
Table (4.1) shows the three different measurement of deflection values of the tested
points in the section 1 of the road. Small standard deviations were observed between
different measurements indicating that the used instrument is approximately constant
in its measurement.
Page 55
21
Table 4.1): Deflection values- 3 deflection values of section 1
Chainage
(m)
Deflection values of section 1 Mean
deflections
(mm) Deflection 1
(mm)
Deflection2
(mm)
Deflection 3
(mm)
0 0.41 0.367 0.496 0.424
20 0.539 0.539 0.475 0.518
40 0.496 0.518 0.475 0.496
60 0.518 0.561 0.539 0.539
80 0.475 0.432 0.453 0.453
100 0.561 0.518 0.539 0.539
120 0.518 0.518 0.496 0.511
140 0.417 0.436 0.456 0.436
160 0.436 0.436 0.417 0.43
180 0.456 0.436 0.417 0.436
200 0.436 0.397 0.456 0.43
220 0.456 0.476 0.436 0.456
240 0.456 0.456 0.436 0.449
260 0.496 0.476 0.456 0.476
280 0.496 0.456 0.496 0.483
300 0.456 0.476 0.476 0.469
320 0.436 0.476 0.456 0.456
340 0.496 0.417 0.436 0.45
360 0.38 0.351 0.336 0.356
380 0.336 0.322 0.351 0.336
The largest deflection value is 0.539 was observed at the distant 60 m and 100 m.
The smallest deflection value is 0.336 was observed at the distant 380 m. The range
Page 56
20
between the maximum and minimum deflection values (0.203) could express that the
deflection values between the examined test points are similar to some extent. The
three deflection values of this section are illustrated in the Figure (4.1)
Figure (4.1): Deflection values of tested points in AL- Rasheed road (section 1)
Deflection values of the section 1 were compared with the average deflection value.
Figure (4.2) illustrates the deflection values of this section which are fluctuated
around the average value. This could give an impression about the similar bearing
capacity of the pavements as the deflection values are close together. In addition, the
figure gives information about the highest deflection value, which is at the test points
60 m and 120 m, and the lowest deflection value at the test point 380 m.
Figure (4.2):Comparison between deflection values of section 1 and the average
deflection value
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Chainage (m)
Deflection 1
Deflection 2
Deflection 3
0.539
0.336 0.457
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Chainage (m)
mean Deflection (D)
(D) Average
Page 57
24
Many factors may play a role in the difference between the deflection values such as
the pavements thickness and structural properties. However, deflection values were
examined for the normality distribution around the mean using Shapiro test and Q- Q
plot.
4.2.2 Distribution of deflection values for the tested points of section 1
Test results in the table below and by Shapiro-Wilk test show that the data follow the
normal distribution since its significant level is above the 5% significant level Table
(4.2). According to this result parametric tests were used for testing the deflection
values
Test of normality of deflection values- section 1 4.3
Table (4.2): Test of normality of deflection values, section 1
Deflection 1 Values Shapiro- Wilk test
Statistics P- value
Mean 0.457
0.938 0.215
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean Lower bound 0.433
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean Upper bound 0.481
Median 0.455
Std. Deviation 0.052
Page 58
23
Figure (4.3): Q-Q plot of deflection values, section 1
Also, Q- Q plot represents the normally distributed of deflection values of section 1
Repeatability of BBD in measurement of deflection values in section 1 4.4
In order to ensure the repeatability of measurement of the BBD, three deflection
measurements were calculated for each test point of the section and the
measurements were examined if they are constant using one- way ANOVA test and
the results were demonstrated in Table (4.2).
Table (4.3): Repeatability of BBD during measurement of section 1
Section 1
Deflection N Mean SD F P-value
Deflection 1 20 0.464 0.054
0.193 0.825 Deflection 2 20 0.453 0.063
Deflection 3 20 0.455 0.051
Table (4.3) shows that there is no statistically significant differences between
deflection values of the pavements of section 1 (p- value = 0.825). This means that
the used BBD was constant in its measurement for the section 1
Page 59
22
Homogeneity of deflection values in section 1 of AL-Rasheed road 4.5
Table (4.4): Test of homogeneity of section 1
Field
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene's
Statistic
P-value
(Sig.)
Section # 1 1.767 0.064
According to the results of the test as shown in Table (4.4), the P-value for the test of
homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test) is greater than 0.05. Thus, the variance of the
group of deflections is not significantly different which means that the deflection
values in section 1 are homogenous.
Second: Section 2
Description and primary measurement of deflection values of section 2 4.6
Section 2 is a part of AL-Rasheed road that extends from Arafat and Sawafery cafe
to 380 m to the north. The total width is approximately 10 m for each direction. This
section was divided into 20 test points with a distant 20 m between every two points
and every point was measured using the BBD three times and the primary readings
were registered as shown in the appendices B8- B10. The rebound deflection was
calculated, deflection values were corrected to standard temperature and load, the
data were demonstrated in appendices B11- B13, then deflection values after the
required calculations for section2 are illustrated in the appendix B14.
4.6.1 Descriptive analysis of deflection values of section 2
Table (4.5) shows the three deflection values of tested points in the section 2 of the
road. Small standard deviations were seen between them expressing that the used
instrument is approximately constant in its measurement.
Page 60
25
Table (4.5): Deflection values- 3 deflection values of section 2
Chainage (m)
Deflection values of Section 2 Mean
deflections
mm)) Deflection 1
mm))
mm
Deflection 2
mm))
mm
Deflection 3
mm))
mm 0 0.278 0.292 0.307 0.292
20 0.307 0.336 0.292 0.312
40 0.278 0.292 0.292 0.287
60 0.205 0.205 0.234 0.215
80 0.307 0.292 0.292 0.297
100 0.248 0.248 0.263 0.253
120 0.263 0.278 0.292 0.278
140 0.351 0.38 0.365 0.365
160 0.292 0.332 0.322 0.315
180 0.237 0.223 0.209 0.223
200 0.195 0.195 0.223 0.204
220 0.209 0.223 0.237 0.223
240 0.181 0.195 0.195 0.19
260 0.209 0.195 0.223 0.209
280 0.223 0.237 0.251 0.237
300 0.209 0.223 0.237 0.223
320 0.223 0.209 0.209 0.214
340 0.181 0.195 0.195 0.19
360 0.278 0.278 0.264 0.273
380 0.181 0.209 0.223 0.204
The largest deflection value is 0.365 was seen at the distant 140 m and the smallest
deflection value is 0.191 was seen at the two distances 240 m and 340 m. The range
between the maximum and minimum deflection values (0.174) could express that the
deflection values between the examined test points are similar to some extent. The
three deflection values of this section is illustrated in the Figure (4.4).
Page 61
26
Figure (4.4): deflection values of tested points of AL- Rasheed road (section 2)
Deflection values of section 2 were compared with the average deflection value.
Figure (4.5) illustrates that the deflection values of this section are fluctuated around
the average value. This could give an impression about the similar bearing capacities
of the pavements. Also, the figure gives information about the highest deflection area
which is at the distance 140 m and the lowest deflection area at the two distances
240m and 340m.
Figure (4.5): Comparison between deflection values of section 2 and the average
deflection value
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
De
fle
ctio
n (
mm
)
Chainage (m)
Deflection 1
Deflection 2
Deflection 3
0.365
0.191
0.25
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Chainage (m)
mean Deflection (D)
(D) Average
Page 62
27
4.6.2 Distribution of deflection values for the tested points of section 2
Test results in the table below and by Shapiro-Wilk test show that the data follow the
normal distribution since its significant level is above the 5% significant level.
According to this result, the parametric tests were used for testing the deflection
values, Table (4.6).
Test of normality of deflection values- section 2 4.7
Table (4.6): Test of normality of deflection values, section 2
Deflection Values Shapiro- Wilk test
Statistics P- value
Mean 0.250
0.917 .085
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean Lower bound 0.227
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean Upper bound 0.273
Median 0.230
Std. Deviation 0.049
Figure (4.6): Q-Q plot of deflection values, section 2
By normal Q-Q plot, all points are located near the straight line and the data are
normal, so parametric tests can be used, Figure (4.6).
Page 63
28
Repeatability of BBD in measurement of deflection values in section 2 4.8
In order to ensure the repeatability of measurement of the BBD, three deflection
measurements were calculated for each test point of the section and the
measurements were examined if they are constant using one- way ANOVA test. The
results were demonstrated in Table (4.7).
Table (4.7): Repeatability of BBD during measurement of section 2
Section 2
N Mean SD F P-value
Deflection 1 20 .243 .049
0.375 0.689 Deflection 2 20
.252 .055
Deflection 3 20 .256 .046
The table shows that there is no statistically significant difference between deflection
values of the pavements of section 2 (p- values = 0.689). This means that the used
BBD was constant in its measurement of deflection values for the section 2
Homogeneity of deflection values in section 2 of AL-Rasheed road 4.9
Table (4.8): Test of homogeneity of section2
Field
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene's
Statistic
P-value
(Sig.)
Section # 2 0.722 0.775
According to the results of the test as shown in Table (4.8), the P-value for the test of
homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test) is greater than 0.05. Thus, the variances of
the groups are not significantly different which means that the deflection values in
section 2 are homogenous.
Page 64
29
Third: Section 3
Description and primary measurement of deflection values of section3 4.10
Section 3 is a part of AL-Rasheed road extending from Bader district to the north
380m. This section was divided into 20 test points with a distant 20 m between every
two-tested points and every point was measured using the BBD three times and the
primary measurements were registered as shown in the appendices B15-B17. The
rebound deflection was calculated, deflection values were corrected to standard
temperature and load, the data were demonstrated in appendices B18-B20, and the
deflection values after the required calculations were clarified in the appendix B21.
4.10.1 Descriptive analysis of deflection values of section3
Table (4.9) shows the three different deflection values of the tested points in the
section 3 of the road. Small standard deviations were seen between different
deflection values expressing that the used instrument is approximately constant in its
readings
Page 65
51
Table (4.9): Deflection values of section 3 of the examined road
Chainage
(m)
Deflection values of section 3 Mean of
deflections
(mm)
Deflection1
(mm)
Deflection2
(mm)
Deflection 3
(mm)
0 0.251 0.263 0.238 0.251
20 0.351 0.338 0.326 0.338
40 0.226 0.238 0.251 0.238
60 0.213 0.2 0.238 0.217
80 0.238 0.251 0.226 0.238
100 0.238 0.263 0.251 0.251
120 0.251 0.251 0.276 0.259
140 0.2 0.188 0.188 0.192
160 0.188 0.213 0.2 0.2
180 0.219 0.232 0.206 0.219
200 0.193 0.18 0.18 0.184
220 0.193 0.219 0.193 0.202
240 0.245 0.232 0.232 0.236
260 0.245 0.27 0.245 0.253
280 0.167 0.18 0.193 0.18
300 0.18 0.167 0.206 0.184
320 0.258 0.245 0.27 0.258
340 0.206 0.219 0.193 0.206
360 0.27 0.283 0.245 0.266
380 0.258 0.27 0.245 0.258
The largest deflection value is 0.338 was seen at the distant 20 m and the smallest
deflection value is 0.18 was seen 280 m. The range between the maximum and
minimum deflection values (0.158) could express that the deflection values between
the examined test points are similar to some extent. The three deflection values of
this section is illustrated in the Figure (4.7)
Page 66
50
Figure (4.7): Deflection values of tested points of AL- Rasheed road (section 3)
Deflection values of section 3 were compared with the average deflection value.
Figure (4.8) illustrates that the deflection values of this section are fluctuated around
the average value. This could give an impression about the similar bearing capacity
of the pavements. Also, the figure give information about the highest deflection area
which is at the point 20 and the lowest deflection area at the test point 280 m.
Figure (4.8): Comparison between deflection values of section3 and the average
deflection value
4.10.2 Distribution of deflection values for the tested points of section 3
Test results in Table (4.10) and by Shapiro-Wilk show that data follow the normal
distribution since its significant level is above the 5% significant level. According to
this result, the parametric tests were used for testing the deflection values. By normal
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Chainage (m)
Deflection 1
Deflection 2
Deflection 3
0.338
0.18
0.235
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Chainage (m)
mean Deflections (D)
(D) Average
Page 67
54
Q-Q plot, all points are located near the straight line and the data are normal, so
parametric tests can be used.
Test of normality of deflection values- section 3 4.11
Table (4.10): Test of normality of deflection values, section 3
Deflection Values Shapiro- Wilk test
Statistics P- value
Mean 0.232
0.923
0.111
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean Lower bound 0.219
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean Upper bound 0.244
Median 0.231
Std. Deviation 0.026
Figure (4.9): Q-Q plot of deflection values, section 3
Also, Q-Q plot represents the normally distributed of deflection values of section 3
Repeatability of BBD in measurement of deflection values in section 3 4.12
In order to ensure the repeatability of measurement of the BBD, three deflection
values were calculated for each test point of the section and the values were
Page 68
53
examined if they are constant using one- way ANOVA test and the results were
demonstrated in Table (4.11).
Table (4.11): Repeatability of BBD during measurement of section 3
Section 3
Deflection N Mean SD F P-value
Deflection 1 20 .230 .041
0.120 0.887 Deflection 2 20 .235 .041
Deflection 3 20 .230 .036
The table shows that there is no statistically significant differences between
deflection values of the pavements of section 3 (p- values = 0.887). This means that
the used BBD was constant in its measurement for the section 3
Homogeneity of deflection values in section 3 of AL-Rasheed road 4.13
Table (4.12): Test of homogeneity of section3
Field
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene's
Statistic
P-value
(Sig.)
Section #3 0.460 0.964
According to the results of the test as shown in Table (4.12), the P-value for the test of
homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test) is greater than 0.05. Thus, the variance of the
deflection group is not significantly different which means that the deflection values in
section 3 are homogenous.
The results of this study show that the three selected sections of Al- Rasheed road are
homogeneous in their bearing capacities. This result suggests that the three examined
sections are structurally well and executed in a good ma
Page 69
52
Chapter 5
Conclusion and
Recommendations
Page 70
55
Chapter5 : Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion 5.1
Based on fieldwork results analysis for studying the homogeneity of bearing capacity
of road pavements of three selected sections of AL- Rasheed road in the Gaza city,
the following conclusions can be drawn
1. It is possible to use the BBD to measure the bearing capacity of the road
pavements at the time of high temperatures.
2. Benkelman Beam device gave similar results for multiple sections with
similar conditions.
3. The study resulted in a fluctuated deflection values around the mean for the
three examined sections meaning that the pavements are approximately
similar in their bearing capacities.
4. Deflection values of the three sections were examined for normality, and the
test revealed the normally distributed data
5. The study revealed that BBD is almost constant in its readings for each point
which means that it is reliable and can be used in future measurements.
6. All the three sections are homogeneous in their bearing capacities. A result
suggesting that the three sections are structurally good and still functioning
well
Recommendations 5.2
1. There is a need for periodic pavements monitoring and maintenance in order
to keep the pavements structurally good and to decrease the cost of future
rehabilitation.
2. Use homogeneity test for bearing capacity of pavements as it is an effective
method to assess the structural conditions of the pavements.
3. Using BBD to measure the bearing capacities of road pavements with
different types rather than asphalt
4. It will be useful to conduct another study to measure the bearing capacity of
the same sections in winter season in order to know the effect of the rainfall.
Page 72
57
References
Abdulkareem, Y. (2003). Road maintenance strategy, so far, how far?. In Nigerian
Society of Engineers Workshop on Sustainable Maintenance, Strategy of
Engineering Infrastructures.
Abhijit, P. and Jalindar, P. (2011). Effects of bad drainage on roads. Civil and
Environmental Research, 1(1), 1-8.
Anthony, B. (2015). Deflection testing of earthwork and pavement layers. Technical
Guide L-G-005
Aziz, D. MohdHanif, P. Mohd Miya, Q. and Kazi, T. (2018). Pavement evaluation and
design of overlay, Bachelor degree In civil engineering thesis, Anjuman- I- Islam's
TechnicalCampus, India.
Bay, J. Stokoe, I. and Kenneth, H. (1998). Development of a rolling dynamic
deflectometer for continuous deflection testing of pavements (No. FHWA/TX-
99/1422-3F). University of Texas at Austin. Center for Transportation Research
Carneiro, F. (1966). Benkelman Beam, Auxiliary Instrument of the Maintenance
Engineer. Transportation Research Record, 129, 28-59.
Central Road Research Institute (CRRI). (1995). Development of methods such as
Benkelman beam deflection method for evaluation of structural capacity of existing
flexible pavements and also for estimation and design of overlays for strengthening
of any weak pavement
Chatti, K. and Zaabar, I. (2012). Estimating the effects of pavement condition on vehicle
operating costs (Vol. 720). Transportation Research Board.
Congress, I. (1981). Tentative guidelines for strengthening of flexible road pavements
using Benkelman beam deflection technique. IRC: 81-1981.
Elseifi, M. Abdel-Khalek, A. Gaspard, K. Zhang, Z. and Ismail, S. (2011). Evaluation
of continuous deflection testing using the rolling wheel deflectometer in Louisiana.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 138(4), 414-422
Garson, G. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates
Publishing
Ghasemi, A. and Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide
for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10
(2), 486.
Goyal, M. Karli, S. and Solanki, V. (2017). Comparative studies between Benkelman
Beam Deflections (BBD) and Falling Weight Deflect meter (FWD) Test for flexible
road pavement. International Journal of Science Technology and Engineering,
3(10), 63- 69
Page 73
58
Guzzarlapudi, S. Adigopula, V. and Kumar, R. (2016). Comparative studies of
lightweight deflectometer and Benkelman beam deflectometer in low volume roads.
Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 3(5), 438-447.
Hoerner, T. Smith, K. Yu, H. Peshkin, D. and Wade, M. (2001). PCC pavement
evaluation and rehabilitation, reference manual. NHI Course, Arlington, VA:
National Highway Institute.
Holzschuher, C. and Lee, H. (2011). 2010 Resilient modulus of roadbed soils facts and
figures.
Ivanova, E. and Masarova, J. (2013). Importance of road infrastructure in the economic
development and competitiveness. Economics and Management, 18(2), 263-274.
Jendia, S. (2007). The Use of Benkelman Beam for Structural Evaluation of Pavement
in the Gaza Strip. The Second International Conference on Construction and
Development 18- 19 June, Islamic University of Gaza Palestine, 2007.
Jenelius, E. Petersen, T. and Mattsson, L. (2006). Importance and exposure in road
network vulnerability analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 40(7), 537-560.
Karlaftis, M. and Golias, I. (2002). Effects of road geometry and traffic volumes on
rural roadway accident rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34(3), 357-365.
Kim, M. Mohammad, M. Elseifi, and Challa, H. (2013) Permanent Deformation of
Flexible Pavements: Laboratory and Field Performance Comparisons. Paper
presented at the Annual Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
Washington, D.C.
Kruse, C. and Skok, E. (1968). Flexible Pavement Evaluation with the Benkelman
Beam. Minnesota Department of Highways, Investigation, 603.
Kurt, S. and Prashant, R. (2016) Measuring and specifying pavement smoothness. Tech
brief FHWA-HIF-16-032
LE, B. (2013). Correlation between deflections measurements on flexible pavements
obtained under static and dynamic load techniques. In The 18th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, 2013.
Loy, A. Follett, L. and Hofmann, H. (2016). Variations of Q–Q Plots: The Power of Our
Eyes!. The American Statistician, 70(2), 202-214.
Marko, G., Primusz, P. and Peterfalvi, J. (2012). Measuring Bearing Capacity of Forest
Roads with the Advanced Benkelman Beam Apparatus. Bulletin of Forestry
Science, 2(1), 107-121.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2005). Access
on 3.9.2018 retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/747403
Page 74
59
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (2004). Guide for
mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program 1-37.
Nayak, R. Rawat, R. and Weligamage, J. (2012). A data analytics application assessing
pavement deflection factors for a road network. In Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications
and Services (pp. 247-255). ACM.
Pierce, L. Bruinsma, J. Smith, K. Wade, M. Chatti, K. and Vandenbossche, J. (2017).
Using Falling Weight Deflectometer Data with Mechanistic-Empirical Design and
Analysis, Volume III: Guidelines for Deflection Testing, Analysis, and
Interpretation (No. FHWA-HRT-16-011).
Piyatrapoomi, N. Kumar, A. Robertson, N. and Weligamage, J. (2001). Assessment of
calibration factors for road deterioration models (No. 2001-010). CRC CI Report.
Qeshta, B. Qaddom, F. Mady, M. Abu- Habib, R. Shamaly, S.and Jendia, S. (2006).
Evaluation of flexible pavement by Benkelman Beam Device Test. Bechelor degree
thesis Islamic University, Gaza
Rokade, S. Agarwal, P. and Shrivastava, R. (2010). Study on performance of flexible
highway pavements. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology,
1(3), 312-338.
Sawyer, S. (2009). Analysis of variance: the fundamental concepts. Journal of Manual
and Manipulative Therapy, 17(2), 27E-38E.
Seyfi, M. Rawat, R. Weligamage, J. and Nayak, R. (2013). A data analytics case study
assessing factors affecting pavement deflection values. International Journal of
Business Intelligence and Data Mining, 8(3), 199-226.
Shahin, M. (1994). Pavement management for airports, roads, and parking lots.
Sharpe, G. and Southgate, H. (1979). Road Rater and Benkelman Beam Pavement
Deflections. Interim Report; KY!ll'R-70-49 and KY!ll'R-75-77; lll'R-PL-1(14), Part
II
Smith, H. and Jones, C. (1980). Measurement of pavement deflections in tropical and
sub-tropical climates (No. LR935 Monograph).
Subramanyam, B. Aravind, S. Prasanna Kumar, R. (2017). Functional and structural
evaluation of a road pavement. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology 8(8), 1299–1305
Van Dam, T. Harvey, J. Muench, S. Smith, K. Snyder, M. Al-Qadi, I. Kendall, A. and et
al., (2015). Towards sustainable pavement systems: a reference document. US
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Verhaeghe, B. Myburgh, P.and Denneman, E. (2007). Asphalt rutting and its
prevention. 9th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa
Page 75
61
Wee, S. and Teo, H. (2009). Potential modeling of pavement deterioration rate due to
cracking. Journal of Civil Engineering, Science and Technology, 1(1), 1-6
Weiss, M. and Figura, R. (2003). Provisional typology of highway economic
development projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, (1839), 115-119.
Weligamage, J. (2002) Asset Maintenance Guidelines, Road Asset Management
Branch, Technical Report in Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads,
Queensland, Australia.
Witczak, M. Pellinen, T. and El-Basyouny, M. (2002). Pursuit of the simple
performance test for asphalt concrete fracture/cracking. Journal of the Association
of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 71.
Winter, B. (2015). The F distribution and the basic principle behind ANOVAs. Access
on 10.10.2018 Retrieved from http://menzerath.phonetik.uni-
frankfurt.de/teaching/R/bw_anova_general_HR.pdf
Younger, J. and widayat, D. (1992). Calibration and standardisation of Benkelman
Beam deflection measurements: some results from studies in Indonesia. In seventh
conference of the road engineering association of asia and australasia,
proceedings, 22 june-26 june 1992, singapore; volume 2.
Yousuf, N. and Khan, M. (2015). Strengthening of flexible pavement through
Benkelman beam deflection (BBD) technique. International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology.3(10)
Zumrawi, M. (2015). Investigating causes of pavement deterioration in Khartoum state,
Sudan. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International
Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural
Engineering, 9(11), 1450-1455.
Page 77
64
Appendices A
Section charts
Page 78
63
Appendix (A1): AL- Rasheed road, Section 1
Page 79
62
Appendix (A2): AL- Rasheed road, Section 2
Page 80
65
Appendix (A3): AL- Rasheed road, Section3
Page 81
66
Appendices B
Deflection data
Page 82
67
Appendix (B1): Measurement 1, Section1
Section 1: Al-Rasheed Road From Sama café to 380 m to the south
Day Thursday Direction From North to south
Date 12/07/2018 Time 9:40:00( AM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 1
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 39.9 8.55 8.36 0.76
2 20 39.9 6.03 5.78 1
3 40 39.9 6.65 6.42 0.92
4 60 39.9 6.84 6.6 0.96
5 80 39.9 5.94 5.72 0.88
6 100 39.9 4.28 4.02 1.04
7 120 39.9 5.88 5.64 0.96
8 140 43 8.3 8.09 0.84
9 160 43 8.82 8.6 0.88
10 180 43 4.45 4.22 0.92
11 200 43 7.53 7.31 0.88
12 220 43 3.64 3.41 0.92
13 240 43 7.13 6.9 0.92
14 260 43 7.74 7.49 1
15 280 43 3.16 2.91 1
16 300 43 6.09 5.86 0.92
17 320 43 4.43 4.21 0.88
18 340 43 5.42 5.17 1
19 360 50.8 4.4 4.14 1.04
20 380 50.8 6.75 6.52 0.92
Page 83
68
Appendix (B2): Measurement 2, Section1
Section 1: Al-Rasheed Road- From Sama café to 380 m to the south
Day Thursday Direction From North to south
Date 12/07/2018 Time 9:40:00( AM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 2
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 39.9 7.63 7.46 0.68
2 20 39.9 6.06 5.81 1
3 40 39.9 6.38 6.14 0.96
4 60 39.9 5.11 4.85 1.04
5 80 39.9 5.88 5.68 0.8
6 100 39.9 8.48 8.24 0.96
7 120 39.9 4.46 4.22 0.96
8 140 43 7.61 7.39 0.88
9 160 43 5.66 5.44 0.88
10 180 43 5.56 5.34 0.88
11 200 43 6.96 6.76 0.8
12 220 43 4.7 4.46 0.96
13 240 43 7.07 6.84 0.92
14 260 43 7.64 7.4 0.96
15 280 43 4.01 3.78 0.92
16 300 43 5.92 5.68 0.96
17 320 43 4.91 4.67 0.96
18 340 43 5.92 5.71 0.84
19 360 50.8 4.65 4.41 0.96
20 380 50.8 6.5 6.28 0.88
Page 84
69
Appendix (B3): Measurement 3, Section1
Section 1: Al-Rasheed Road - From Sama café to 380 m to the south
Day Thursday Direction From North to south
Date 12/07/2018 Time 9:40:00( AM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 3
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 39.9 6.29 6.06 0.92
2 20 39.9 5.38 5.16 0.88
3 40 39.9 5.03 4.81 0.88
4 60 39.9 6.2 5.95 1
5 80 39.9 6.31 6.1 0.84
6 100 39.9 7 6.75 1
7 120 39.9 6.68 6.45 0.92
8 140 43 8 7.77 0.92
9 160 43 5.75 5.54 0.84
10 180 43 5.66 5.45 0.84
11 200 43 6.81 6.58 0.92
12 220 43 4.5 4.28 0.88
13 240 43 7.18 6.96 0.88
14 260 43 7.55 7.32 0.92
15 280 43 3.6 3.35 1
16 300 43 6.03 5.79 0.96
17 320 43 4.32 4.09 0.92
18 340 43 5.18 4.96 0.88
19 360 50.8 4.31 4.08 0.92
20 380 50.8 6.81 6.57 0.96
Page 85
71
Appendix (B4): Calculation of deflection 1, Section 1 (after modifications)
Calculations Section 1
Truck Load
(kg)
Back axis wheels weight (kg)
Total 9480
Corrected
Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard
Load (kg) 4000
Left 4440
Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO
.
Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R=4*(R1-R2)
ƒ
Temp.
ƒ
load
Deflection
1(mm)
1 0 39.9 0.76 0.62 0.87 0.41
2 20 39.9 1 0.62 0.87 0.539
3 40 39.9 0.92 0.62 0.87 0.496
4 60 39.9 0.96 0.62 0.87 0.518
5 80 39.9 0.88 0.62 0.87 0.475
6 100 39.9 1.04 0.62 0.87 0.561
7 120 39.9 0.96 0.62 0.87 0.518
8 140 43 0.84 0.57 0.87 0.417
9 160 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
10 180 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
11 200 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
12 220 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
13 240 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
14 260 43 1 0.57 0.87 0.496
15 280 43 1 0.57 0.87 0.496
16 300 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
17 320 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
18 340 43 1 0.57 0.87 0.496
19 360 50.8 1.04 0.42 0.87 0.38
20 380 50.8 0.92 0.42 0.87 0.336
mean 0.464
SD 0.05441
Page 86
70
Appendix (B5): Calculation of deflection 2 - section 1 (after modifications)
Calculations Section 1
Truck Load (kg)
Back axis wheels weight (kg)
Total 9480
Corrected
Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load
(kg) 4000
Left 4440
Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R=4*(R1-R2)
ƒ
Temp.
ƒ
load
Deflection
2 (mm)
1 0 39.9 0.68 0.62 0.87 0.367
2 20 39.9 1 0.62 0.87 0.539
3 40 39.9 0.96 0.62 0.87 0.518
4 60 39.9 1.04 0.62 0.87 0.561
5 80 39.9 0.8 0.62 0.87 0.432
6 100 39.9 0.96 0.62 0.87 0.518
7 120 39.9 0.96 0.62 0.87 0.518
8 140 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
9 160 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
10 180 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
11 200 43 0.8 0.57 0.87 0.397
12 220 43 0.96 0.57 0.87 0.476
13 240 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
14 260 43 0.96 0.57 0.87 0.476
15 280 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
16 300 43 0.96 0.57 0.87 0.476
17 320 43 0.96 0.57 0.87 0.476
18 340 43 0.84 0.57 0.87 0.417
19 360 50.8 0.96 0.42 0.87 0.351
20 380 50.8 0.88 0.42 0.87 0.322
mean 0.453
SD 0.06265
Page 87
74
Appendix (B6): Calculation of deflection 3 - section 1 (after modifications)
Calculations Section 1
Truck Load
(kg)
Back axis wheels weight
(kg)
Total
9480 Corrected Load
(kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load
(kg) 4000
Left 4440
Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R=4*(R1-R2)
ƒ
Temp.
ƒ
load
Deflection
3 (mm)
1 0 39.9 0.92 0.62 0.87 0.496
2 20 39.9 0.88 0.62 0.87 0.475
3 40 39.9 0.88 0.62 0.87 0.475
4 60 39.9 1 0.62 0.87 0.539
5 80 39.9 0.84 0.62 0.87 0.453
6 100 39.9 1 0.62 0.87 0.539
7 120 39.9 0.92 0.62 0.87 0.496
8 140 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
9 160 43 0.84 0.57 0.87 0.417
10 180 43 0.84 0.57 0.87 0.417
11 200 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
12 220 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
13 240 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
14 260 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
15 280 43 1 0.57 0.87 0.496
16 300 43 0.96 0.57 0.87 0.476
17 320 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
18 340 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
19 360 50.8 0.92 0.42 0.87 0.336
20 380 50.8 0.96 0.42 0.87 0.351
mean 0.455
SD 0.05097
Page 88
73
Appendix (B7): Deflection values, Section 1
Deflection values- Section 1
Truck Load
(kg)
Back axis wheels
weight (kg)
Total
9480 Corrected Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load (kg) 4000
Left 4440
Standard
Temperature 20 C
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
C R
ƒ
Temp.
ƒ
load
D average
(mm)
1 0 39.9 0.79 0.62 0.87 0.426
2 20 39.9 0.96 0.62 0.87 0.518
3 40 39.9 0.92 0.62 0.87 0.496
4 60 39.9 1 0.62 0.87 0.539
5 80 39.9 0.84 0.62 0.87 0.453
6 100 39.9 1 0.62 0.87 0.539
7 120 39.9 0.95 0.62 0.87 0.512
8 140 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
9 160 43 0.87 0.57 0.87 0.431
10 180 43 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.436
11 200 43 0.87 0.57 0.87 0.431
12 220 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
13 240 43 0.91 0.57 0.87 0.451
14 260 43 0.96 0.57 0.87 0.476
15 280 43 0.97 0.57 0.87 0.481
16 300 43 0.95 0.57 0.87 0.471
17 320 43 0.92 0.57 0.87 0.456
18 340 43 0.91 0.57 0.87 0.451
19 360 50.8 0.97 0.42 0.87 0.354
20 380 50.8 0.92 0.42 0.87 0.336
Mean 0.457
SD 0.052
Page 89
72
Appendix (B8): Section2, Measurement 1
Section 2: Al-Rasheed Road - From Arafat and Sawafery café to 380 m to the
north
Day Thursday Direction From south to North
Date 12/07/2018 Time 12:30:00( PM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
measurement1
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 50.8 5.45 5.26 0.76
2 20 50.8 4.7 4.49 0.84
3 40 50.8 6.86 6.67 0.76
4 60 50.8 5.61 5.47 0.56
5 80 50.8 6.5 6.29 0.84
6 100 50.8 7.76 7.59 0.68
7 120 50.8 8.6 8.42 0.72
8 140 50.8 8.48 8.24 0.96
9 160 50.8 7.6 7.4 0.8
10 180 51.9 7.13 6.96 0.68
11 200 51.9 4.22 4.08 0.56
12 220 51.9 5.08 4.93 0.6
13 240 51.9 5.97 5.84 0.52
14 260 51.9 4.88 4.73 0.6
15 280 51.9 5.47 5.31 0.64
16 300 51.9 6.66 6.51 0.6
17 320 51.9 8.44 8.28 0.64
18 340 51.9 7.04 6.91 0.52
19 360 51.9 6.61 6.41 0.8
20 380 51.8 5.63 5.5 0.52
Page 90
75
Appendix (B9): Section2, Measurement 2
Section 2: Al-Rasheed Road- From Arafat and Sawafery café to 380 m to the
north
Day Thursday Direction From south to North
Date 12/07/2018 Time 12:30:00( PM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 2
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 50.8 5.65 5.45 0.8
2 20 50.8 4.55 4.32 0.92
3 40 50.8 6.66 6.46 0.8
4 60 50.8 5.52 5.38 0.56
5 80 50.8 6.42 6.22 0.8
6 100 50.8 7.61 7.44 0.68
7 120 50.8 8.59 8.4 0.76
8 140 50.8 8.37 8.11 1.04
9 160 50.8 7.23 7.01 0.88
10 180 51.9 7.52 7.36 0.64
11 200 51.9 4.78 4.64 0.56
12 220 51.9 4.94 4.78 0.64
13 240 51.9 5.55 5.41 0.56
14 260 51.9 4.9 4.76 0.56
15 280 51.9 5.01 4.84 0.68
16 300 51.9 6.32 6.16 0.64
17 320 51.9 8.44 8.29 0.6
18 340 51.9 6.95 6.81 0.56
19 360 51.9 6.55 6.35 0.8
20 380 51.8 6.03 5.88 0.6
Page 91
76
Appendix (B10): Section2, Measurement 3
Section 2: Al-Rasheed Road- From Arafat and Sawafery café to 380 m to the
north
Day Thursday Direction From south to North
Date 12/07/2018 Time 12:30:00( PM)
NO. Chainage (m) Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 3
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 50.8 5.41 5.2 0.84
2 20 50.8 4.91 4.71 0.8
3 40 50.8 6.71 6.51 0.8
4 60 50.8 5.92 5.76 0.64
5 80 50.8 6.71 6.51 0.8
6 100 50.8 7.57 7.39 0.72
7 120 50.8 8.34 8.14 0.8
8 140 50.8 8.61 8.36 1
9 160 50.8 6.98 6.76 0.88
10 180 51.9 6.93 6.78 0.6
11 200 51.9 5.03 4.87 0.64
12 220 51.9 5.21 5.04 0.68
13 240 51.9 5.33 5.19 0.56
14 260 51.9 5.01 4.85 0.64
15 280 51.9 4.22 4.04 0.72
16 300 51.9 6.03 5.86 0.68
17 320 51.9 8.31 8.16 0.6
18 340 51.9 7.14 7 0.56
19 360 51.9 6.09 5.9 0.76
20 380 51.8 5.77 5.61 0.64
Page 92
77
Appendix (B11): Calculation of deflection 1, section 2 (after modifications)
Calculations Section 2
Truck Load
(kg)
Back axis wheels weight
(kg)
Total
9480 Corrected
Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard
Load (kg) 4000
Left 4440
Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R= 4*( R1-R2) ƒ Temp.
ƒ
load
Deflection
1(mm)
1 0 50.8 0.76 0.42 0.87 0.278
2 20 50.8 0.84 0.42 0.87 0.307
3 40 50.8 0.76 0.42 0.87 0.278
4 60 50.8 0.56 0.42 0.87 0.205
5 80 50.8 0.84 0.42 0.87 0.307
6 100 50.8 0.68 0.42 0.87 0.248
7 120 50.8 0.72 0.42 0.87 0.263
8 140 50.8 0.96 0.42 0.87 0.351
9 160 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
10 180 51.9 0.68 0.4 0.87 0.237
11 200 51.9 0.56 0.4 0.87 0.195
12 220 51.9 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
13 240 51.9 0.52 0.4 0.87 0.181
14 260 51.9 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
15 280 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
16 300 51.9 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
17 320 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
18 340 51.9 0.52 0.4 0.87 0.181
19 360 51.9 0.8 0.4 0.87 0.278
20 380 51.8 0.52 0.4 0.87 0.181
Mean 0.243
SD 0.04917
Page 93
78
Appendix (B12): Calculation of deflection 2, Section 2 (after modifications)
Calculations Section 2
Tuck Load
(kg)
Back axis wheels weight (kg)
Total 9480
Corrected Load
(kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load
(kg) 4000
Left 4440
Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R= 4*( R1-R2)
ƒ
Temp.
ƒ
load
Deflection
2(mm)
1 0 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
2 20 50.8 0.92 0.42 0.87 0.336
3 40 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
4 60 50.8 0.56 0.42 0.87 0.205
5 80 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
6 100 50.8 0.68 0.42 0.87 0.248
7 120 50.8 0.76 0.42 0.87 0.278
8 140 50.8 1.04 0.42 0.87 0.38
9 160 50.8 0.88 0.42 0.87 0.322
10 180 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
11 200 51.9 0.56 0.4 0.87 0.195
12 220 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
13 240 51.9 0.56 0.4 0.87 0.195
14 260 51.9 0.56 0.4 0.87 0.195
15 280 51.9 0.68 0.4 0.87 0.237
16 300 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
17 320 51.9 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
18 340 51.9 0.56 0.4 0.87 0.195
19 360 51.9 0.8 0.4 0.87 0.278
20 380 51.8 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
Mean 0.251
SD 0.05436
Page 94
79
Appendix (B13): Calculation of deflection 3, Section 2 (after modifications)
Calculations Section 2 (measurements 3)
Truck Load (kg)
Total 9480 Corrected Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load (kg) 4000
Left 4440
Standard Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m) Temp. ᵒC R= 4*( R1-R2) ƒ Temp. ƒ load
Deflection
3(mm)
1 0 50.8 0.84 0.42 0.87 0.307
2 20 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
3 40 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
4 60 50.8 0.64 0.42 0.87 0.234
5 80 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
6 100 50.8 0.72 0.42 0.87 0.263
7 120 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
8 140 50.8 1 0.42 0.87 0.365
9 160 50.8 0.88 0.42 0.87 0.322
10 180 51.9 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
11 200 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
12 220 51.9 0.68 0.4 0.87 0.237
13 240 51.9 0.56 0.4 0.87 0.195
14 260 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
15 280 51.9 0.72 0.4 0.87 0.251
16 300 51.9 0.68 0.4 0.87 0.237
17 320 51.9 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
18 340 51.9 0.56 0.4 0.87 0.195
19 360 51.9 0.76 0.4 0.87 0.264
20 380 51.8 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
mean 0.256
SD 0.04616
Page 95
81
Appendix (B14): Deflection values, Section 2
Calculations of Section 2
Truck Load (kg)
Total 9480 Corrected
Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard
Load (kg) 4000
Left 4440 Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R avg.(mm) ƒ Temp. ƒ load
D average
(mm)
1 0 50.8 0.8 0.42 0.87 0.292
2 20 50.8 0.85 0.42 0.87 0.311
3 40 50.8 0.79 0.42 0.87 0.289
4 60 50.8 0.59 0.42 0.87 0.216
5 80 50.8 0.81 0.42 0.87 0.296
6 100 50.8 0.69 0.42 0.87 0.252
7 120 50.8 0.76 0.42 0.87 0.278
8 140 50.8 1 0.42 0.87 0.365
9 160 50.8 0.85 0.42 0.87 0.311
10 180 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
11 200 51.9 0.59 0.4 0.87 0.205
12 220 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
13 240 51.9 0.55 0.4 0.87 0.191
14 260 51.9 0.6 0.4 0.87 0.209
15 280 51.9 0.68 0.4 0.87 0.237
16 300 51.9 0.64 0.4 0.87 0.223
17 320 51.9 0.61 0.4 0.87 0.212
18 340 51.9 0.55 0.4 0.87 0.191
19 360 51.9 0.79 0.4 0.87 0.275
20 380 51.8 0.59 0.4 0.87 0.205
Mean 0.25
SD 0.0487
Page 96
80
Appendix (B15): Section3, Measurement 1
Section 3: Al-Rasheed Road- From Bader district to the north 380m
Day Thursday Direction From South to North
Date 12/07/2018 Time 3:35:00( PM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 1
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 53.7 2.36 2.16 0.8
2 20 53.7 7.88 7.6 1.12
3 40 53.7 7.54 7.36 0.72
4 60 53.7 6.45 6.28 0.68
5 80 53.7 8.5 8.31 0.76
6 100 53.7 6.83 6.64 0.76
7 120 53.7 6.4 6.2 0.8
8 140 53.7 7.5 7.34 0.64
9 160 53.7 7.41 7.26 0.6
10 180 53.5 5.77 5.6 0.68
11 200 53.5 6.29 6.14 0.6
12 220 53.5 4.13 3.98 0.6
13 240 53.5 5.12 4.93 0.76
14 260 53.5 4.3 4.11 0.76
15 280 53.5 5.82 5.69 0.52
16 300 53.5 6.27 6.13 0.56
17 320 53.5 7.36 7.16 0.8
18 340 53.5 5.38 5.22 0.64
19 360 53.4 8.95 8.74 0.84
20 380 53.4 4.34 4.14 0.8
Page 97
84
Appendix (B16): Section3, Measurement 2
Section 3: Al-Rasheed Road- From Bader district to the north 380m
Day Thursday Direction From South to North
Date 12/07/2018 Time 3:35:00( PM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 2
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 53.7 2.66 2.45 0.84
2 20 53.7 7.55 7.28 1.08
3 40 53.7 7.31 7.12 0.76
4 60 53.7 6.79 6.63 0.64
5 80 53.7 8.32 8.12 0.8
6 100 53.7 6.99 6.78 0.84
7 120 53.7 6.66 6.46 0.8
8 140 53.7 7.96 7.81 0.6
9 160 53.7 7.55 7.38 0.68
10 180 53.5 5.09 4.91 0.72
11 200 53.5 6.91 6.77 0.56
12 220 53.5 4.76 4.59 0.68
13 240 53.5 5.55 5.37 0.72
14 260 53.5 4.88 4.67 0.84
15 280 53.5 5.62 5.48 0.56
16 300 53.5 5.89 5.76 0.52
17 320 53.5 7.65 7.46 0.76
18 340 53.5 5.88 5.71 0.68
19 360 53.4 9.02 8.8 0.88
20 380 53.4 5.07 4.86 0.84
Page 98
83
Appendix (B17): Section3, Measurement 3
Section 3: Al-Rasheed Road- From Bader district to the north 380m
Day Thursday Direction From South to North
Date 12/07/2018 Time 3:35:00( PM)
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC
Measurement 3
R1(mm) R2(mm) R= 4*(R1-R2)
1 0 53.7 2.89 2.7 0.76
2 20 53.7 7.44 7.18 1.04
3 40 53.7 7.06 6.86 0.8
4 60 53.7 6.98 6.79 0.76
5 80 53.7 8.09 7.91 0.72
6 100 53.7 6.45 6.25 0.8
7 120 53.7 6.26 6.04 0.88
8 140 53.7 7.52 7.37 0.6
9 160 53.7 7.91 7.75 0.64
10 180 53.5 5.33 5.17 0.64
11 200 53.5 6.34 6.2 0.56
12 220 53.5 4.21 4.06 0.6
13 240 53.5 5.35 5.17 0.72
14 260 53.5 4.81 4.62 0.76
15 280 53.5 4.26 4.11 0.6
16 300 53.5 6.03 5.87 0.64
17 320 53.5 7.23 7.02 0.84
18 340 53.5 6.03 5.88 0.6
19 360 53.4 8.92 8.73 0.76
20 380 53.4 4.89 4.7 0.76
Page 99
82
Appendix (B18): Calculation of deflection 1, Ssection 3 (after modifications)
Calculations Section 3 (measurement 1)
Truck Load (kg)
Total 9480 Corrected Load
(kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load
(kg) 4000
Left 4440 Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R= 4*(R1-R2)
ƒ
Temp.
ƒ
load
Deflection
1(mm)
1 0 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
2 20 53.7 1.12 0.36 0.87 0.351
3 40 53.7 0.72 0.36 0.87 0.226
4 60 53.7 0.68 0.36 0.87 0.213
5 80 53.7 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.238
6 100 53.7 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.238
7 120 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
8 140 53.7 0.64 0.36 0.87 0.2
9 160 53.7 0.6 0.36 0.87 0.188
10 180 53.5 0.68 0.37 0.87 0.219
11 200 53.5 0.6 0.37 0.87 0.193
12 220 53.5 0.6 0.37 0.87 0.193
13 240 53.5 0.76 0.37 0.87 0.245
14 260 53.5 0.76 0.37 0.87 0.245
15 280 53.5 0.52 0.37 0.87 0.167
16 300 53.5 0.56 0.37 0.87 0.18
17 320 53.5 0.8 0.37 0.87 0.258
18 340 53.5 0.64 0.37 0.87 0.206
19 360 53.4 0.84 0.37 0.87 0.27
20 380 53.4 0.8 0.37 0.87 0.258
mean 0.23
SD 0.04113
Page 100
85
Appendix (B19): Calculation of deflection measurement 2, Section 3 (after
modifications)
Calculations Section 3 (measurement 2)
Truck Load (kg)
Total 9480 Corrected Load
(kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load
(kg) 4000
Left 4440 Standard
Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO
.
Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R= 4*(R1-R2) ƒ Temp. ƒ load
Deflection
2(mm)
1 0 53.7 0.84 0.36 0.87 0.263
2 20 53.7 1.08 0.36 0.87 0.338
3 40 53.7 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.238
4 60 53.7 0.64 0.36 0.87 0.2
5 80 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
6 100 53.7 0.84 0.36 0.87 0.263
7 120 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
8 140 53.7 0.6 0.36 0.87 0.188
9 160 53.7 0.68 0.36 0.87 0.213
10 180 53.5 0.72 0.37 0.87 0.232
11 200 53.5 0.56 0.37 0.87 0.18
12 220 53.5 0.68 0.37 0.87 0.219
13 240 53.5 0.72 0.37 0.87 0.232
14 260 53.5 0.84 0.37 0.87 0.27
15 280 53.5 0.56 0.37 0.87 0.18
16 300 53.5 0.52 0.37 0.87 0.167
17 320 53.5 0.76 0.37 0.87 0.245
18 340 53.5 0.68 0.37 0.87 0.219
19 360 53.4 0.88 0.37 0.87 0.283
20 380 53.4 0.84 0.37 0.87 0.27
Mean 0.235
SD 0.04147
Page 101
86
Appendix (B20): Calculation of deflection measurement 3, Section 3 (after
modifications)
Calculations Section 3 (measurement 3)
Truck Load (kg)
Total 9480 Corrected Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load (kg) 4000
Left 4440 Standard Temperature 20 ᵒC
NO. Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R= 4*(R1-R2) ƒ Temp. ƒ load
Deflection
3(mm)
1 0 53.7 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.238
2 20 53.7 1.04 0.36 0.87 0.326
3 40 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
4 60 53.7 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.238
5 80 53.7 0.72 0.36 0.87 0.226
6 100 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
7 120 53.7 0.88 0.36 0.87 0.276
8 140 53.7 0.6 0.36 0.87 0.188
9 160 53.7 0.64 0.36 0.87 0.2
10 180 53.5 0.64 0.37 0.87 0.206
11 200 53.5 0.56 0.37 0.87 0.18
12 220 53.5 0.6 0.37 0.87 0.193
13 240 53.5 0.72 0.37 0.87 0.232
14 260 53.5 0.76 0.37 0.87 0.245
15 280 53.5 0.6 0.37 0.87 0.193
16 300 53.5 0.64 0.37 0.87 0.206
17 320 53.5 0.84 0.37 0.87 0.27
18 340 53.5 0.6 0.37 0.87 0.193
19 360 53.4 0.76 0.37 0.87 0.245
20 380 53.4 0.76 0.37 0.87 0.245
mean 0.23
SD 0.03632
Page 102
87
Appendix (B21): Deflection values, Section 3
Calculations of Section 3
Truck Load (kg)
Total 9480 Corrected Load (kg) 4586
Right 4160 Standard Load (kg) 4000
Left 4440 Standard Temperature 20 CO
NO
.
Chainage
(m)
Temp.
ᵒC R average (mm) ƒ Temp. ƒ load
D average
(mm)
1 0 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
2 20 53.7 1.04 0.36 0.87 0.326
3 40 53.7 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.238
4 60 53.7 0.69 0.36 0.87 0.216
5 80 53.7 0.76 0.36 0.87 0.238
6 100 53.7 0.8 0.36 0.87 0.251
7 120 53.7 0.83 0.36 0.87 0.26
8 140 53.7 0.61 0.36 0.87 0.191
9 160 53.7 0.64 0.36 0.87 0.2
10 180 53.5 0.68 0.37 0.87 0.219
11 200 53.5 0.57 0.37 0.87 0.183
12 220 53.5 0.63 0.37 0.87 0.203
13 240 53.5 0.73 0.37 0.87 0.235
14 260 53.5 0.79 0.37 0.87 0.254
15 280 53.5 0.56 0.37 0.87 0.18
16 300 53.5 0.57 0.37 0.87 0.183
17 320 53.5 0.8 0.37 0.87 0.258
18 340 53.5 0.64 0.37 0.87 0.206
19 360 53.4 0.83 0.37 0.87 0.267
20 380 53.4 0.8 0.37 0.87 0.258
mean 0.231
SD 0.03671
Page 103
88
Appendices C
Weighing process
Page 104
89
Appendix (C1): Total Truck load
Page 105
91
Appendix (C2): The weight of the front axle of the vehicle
Page 106
90
Appendix (C3): The weight of the back axle of the vehicle
Page 107
94
Appendix (C4): The weight of the back axle wheel- Right
Page 108
93
Appendix (C5): The weight of the back axle wheel- Left
Page 109
92
Appendices D
Study photos
Page 110
95
Photo (D1): The forklift is loading the truck
Photo (D2): The truck back axle is weighting by the balance
Page 111
96
Photo (D3): Preparing Benkelman Beam for measurement
Photo (D4): Calibration the Benkelman Beam device before making the test
Page 112
97
Photo (D5): Cleaning the proposed point before starting the test
Photo ( D6): Starting the test and recording its data at the position which subjected
to the maximum deflection under the back right truck wheel
Page 113
98
Photo (D7): Recording data at the same position after moving the truck 5 m away
from the point
Photo (D8): Recording temperature of the proposed road
Page 114
99
Photo (D9): Prof. Shafik Jendia is supervising our team work
Page 115
011
Photo (D10): Finishing the Benkelman test work
