A PROCEDURE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

E. BARAN, B.Tech.(Civil), Grad.Dip.App.Hydrogeol., Grad .I.E.Aust.,

Engineer, (Pavement Testing Services), Pavements Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

D.J. ANGELL, B.E. , M.Eng.Sc., M.I.E.Aust.,

Engineer, (Pavement Design), Pavements Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

S.W. EARL, B.Sc. , Computer Systems Officer,

Information Services Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

S.W. WALSH, B.Sc., Computer Systems Officer,

Information Services Branch, Main Roads Department, Queensland

ABSTRACT

In the past back analysis of deflection bowl results, to obtain estimates of pavement and subgrade strength parameters, has
involved use of trial and error curve fitting techniques comparing measured rebound bowl shapes with predicted bowl shapes
from elastic analysis programs. The US Corps of Engineers developed an iterative program utilising CHEVRON to simplify
this procedure. However, difficulties have been experienced in obtaining realistic estimates of pavement and subgrade
stiffness particularly when analysing bowls from stiff (eg cement treated) pavements. The cause of this has been that the
measured bowl is not a true indication of the actual deflection bowl because of the influence of the bowl on the legs of the
Benkelman beam. Attempts to correct the measured bowl for the influence of the actual bowl on the beam's legs have not
been totally successful because a knowledge of existing pavement strength properties is required to make an accurate
correction and it is these strength properties that are sought from the back analysis. This paper presents a procedure fo r back
analysis of deflection bowls to obtain estimates of pavement and subgrade moduli, which utilises the US Corps of Engineers
iterative approach but calling in CIRCLY rather than CHEVRON and using the geometry of a Benkelman beam to correct the
computer predicted deflection bowl to what would have been measured by a Benkelman beam. Although this procedure

INTRODUCTION bowl near the position of maximum deflection

1. The Benkelman beam, since its development
in 1953 at the WASHO (1955) Road Test, has
become a standard tool, used by road
authorities worldwide, for the non destructive
testing of pavements. Although many variations
of the Benkelman beam test procedure exist,
most procedures generally aim at recording the
deflection response during the unloading or
rebound of the pavement as the standard test
wheel load moves away from the tip of the beam.
This rebound deflection level gives an
indication of the structural condition of an
existing pavement and is the major input into
overlay design procedures (Asphalt Institute
1983; NAASRA 1987).
2. Researchers found that the deflection bowl
shape, which is an influence line of the change
in deflection with distance as the load moves
during the test, would yield additional
information on pavement condition than would
just def l ection alone. The steepness of the
reflects the stiffness of the pavement base
with weak bases having steep slopes while stiff
bases have flat slopes. From the deflection
recorded at approximately 1 m away from the
maximum, an indication of subgrade strength
could be obtained. Higher deflections in this
region indicate weaker subgrade.
3. With the development of computer programs
that could represent pavement structures as
layered elastic models, deflection bowls could
be analysed to quantify the varying pavement
and subgrade strength properties that the
different bowl shapes indicated. This back
analysis of deflection bowl shapes was first
done by Main Roads (Queensland) (MR(Q in 1979
using a multi-layer linear elastic computer
program developed by the Chevron Resea rch
Company (Chevron 1963) called CHEVRON.
4. This procedure was essentially a trial and
error curve fitting exercise. Various
combinations of pavement and subgrade moduli

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors wish to thank Mr E.I'. Finger, Commissioner of Main Roads, Queensland, for
permission to present this paper. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Main Roads
Queensland.

PROC EED INGS 14th ARR B CONFEREN C E, PART 6 20 1

 BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH -
were input into the program until the predicted
deflection response of the pavement model
matched, as near as practical, the measured
response. This was a time consuming operation
and only considered practical when carried out
by experienced operators or where unlimited
access to computer time was available . In the
latter situation a large number of test runs
covering a range of pavement and subgrade
moduli increments are run and the output
scanned to select the best fit solution.
5. In the late seventies, the US Corps of
Engineers had' developed an iterative back
analysis program, which could handle up to five
layers using a multi-layer Chevron elastic
analysis program, that greatly reduced the work
involved in deflection bowl modelling. A
listing of this program, still in a
developmental stage was obtained by the
Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) in late
1979 from Mr W. Barker of the US Corps of
Engineers (Gray 1979; Bush 1980). This
program was made operational by MR(Q) staff,
modified slightly and metricated by ARRB staff
and the current version , titled CHEVDEF has
been in use by MR(Q) since 1983.
6. The main drawback of CHEVDEF was that by
using CHEVRON, which assumes that pavement
layers are isotropic, it could not accurately
predict the anisotropic behaviour of granular
and cohesive materials. It was therefore
decided to modify CHEVDEF to call in an
alternative program to CHEVRON that could
handle anisotropic behaviour .
7. The C.S.I.R.O's CIRCLY program (Wardle
1977) was selected for this purpose. A copy
was obtained in early 1987, the input and
output format simplified and a new program
4200
BALL BEARING FULCRUM
TIP
FOLDING PROBE
BALL BEARING RACE
*"
I
.. - - - - -------=-~
1
2440
---- ~~
(ALUMINIUM CONSTRUCTION)
Fig. 1 - Benkleman beam
202
BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS
named CIRCDEF, based on CHEVDEF's iterative
procedures but calling in CIRCLY rather than
CHEVRON, was developed.
8. Even with these developments, problems
still existed with the deflection bowl back
analysi s procedure. Past MR (Q) experience,
particularly in the analysis of bowls from
bound pavements, was that although the
procedure gave realistic estimates of base
modulus, the predicted subgrade modulus was
unreasonably high. These subgrade modulus
predictions were up to two times the estimate
obtained from insitu measurements.
9. It was found fr om analysis of deflection
bowls from bound pavements that the influence
of the bowl on the feet of the Benkelman beam,
during the test, was significant. On heavily
bound cement treated pavements this effect
contributed to an almost 50% reduc-tion in the
measured Benkelman Beam deflection response and
was the cause of the high subgrade strength
estimates obtained from back analysis of these
bowls. On thin granular pavements this effect
was greatly reduced .
10. A procedure was developed to correct for
the influence of the' deflection bowl on the
beam's legs and incorporated into the CIRCDEF
program. This overall bowl analysis procedure
aims at making the estimate of pavement and
subgrade strength from back analysis of
deflection bowls as simple and as accurate as
possible. This paper presents this developed
procedure, outlines the advantages in using
this approach, and suggests the direction for
further development and verification.
FI XED LEGS
CARRYING HANDLE
250 BODY REAR LEG
1220*
DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES
*CRITICAL DIMENSIONS
PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6
 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

DESCRIPTION OF BENKELMAN BEAM BOWLS
11. The Benkelman beam consists basically of a
3.66m long beam pivoted at a point 2.44 m from
the tip. (Refer Fig 1.) The pivot is held in
place by an external frame supported by a pair
of fixed legs, near the pivot point and an
adjustable leg at the end furtherest from the
tip. A dial gauge is mounted on the external
frame and makes contact with the beam at a
point 1.22 m from the pivot point. A
deflection applied to the tip results in,
because of the 2:1 lever arm ratio, half that
deflection being recorded on the dial gauge.
Figure 1 presents the Road Construction
Authority (RCA) (formerly Country Road Board)
Design (CRB 1967/69) Benkelman beam which is
used by MR(Q). I t should be noted that,
irrespective of design, all Benkelman beams
have the same critical dimensions.
12. Generally test procedures involve placing
the beam tip some distance between the dual
tyres of a single axle loaded to 8.2 tonnes an&
recording the deflection response as the test
axle is driven away from the tip. By fitting a
contact displacement transducer to the beam in
the vicinity of the dial gauge and using a
rotopulse, driven by the test vehicle's wheel to
provide a distance measure, the full deflection
response can be measured as a function of
distance from the test load. Figure 2 shows
the deflection bowl test setup and presents
typical bowl shapes obtained from the
deflection test procedure, a modified WASHO
(1955) procedure, used by MR(Q) (1978).
13. Although a loading phase is involved, the
MR(Q) procedure is aimed at measuring the
unloading or rebound of the pavement as the
test load moves away from the tip. Other

Residual
Deflection

Loading Bowl
Unloading Bowl (Rebound Bowll
Lead (mm)

.Travel (mml __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _--..,

Fig. 2 - Deflection bowl setup and typical output

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 203

 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Distance (m) Distance (m)

o 2:3 4 o 2 :3 4
o r-----~----~~----~----~. Or------'-----~~----~------J

OI + - --
. __ - - r - .
-=...-'-'----c::;;=-""""= - - - - - - -
----------
O I+-----:,,-'----~......,=-------

0 2b-:....~---,,---- 0 2t---r-~----
LEGEND LEGEND
- 250/50 ---250/50
- . - 400/100 - . -400/ 100
- - 5000/50 ---5000/50
- - - - - 5<X)()/ 1OO - - - - - 5000/100
'lit 250/50-2S0MPoiso MPo Deflection
-Povement / &bQrade Modul i. (rTYTl)O.:>+II-+_ _
TYPICAL CHEVRON GENERATED BONLS TYPICAL CHEVROO GENERATED BOWLS
06f--f--- PAVEMNT DEPTH =280 mm 06 PAVEMENT DEPTH = lBO mm

/:HIN!
0 8

O 09
BASE

11

Fig. 3 - Typical rebound deflection bowls

(for various extremes of pavement and subgrade modulus)

procedures such as having the test load

approach the tip of the beam, thereby producing
a loading rather than a rebound deflection bowl (0)
are not generally used in Australia although
the Lacriox Deflectograph does operate on this
principle.
(b)
14. It is Main Roads practice to define a bowl
by the deflection level at the point of maximum {Dial Gouge
deflection, designated DO' and at some LOA~II . ~FUlcrum
- _

~~~_T_I:f~'--
__yT't-~Z~\.---
distances from the maximum on the unloading
side of the bowl. These distances are 150 mm,
300 mm, 450 mm, 600 mm, 900 mm and 1200 mm.
All bowl deflections are measured from a zero Rear
Front Leg
datum defined as the tail end of the bowl as Legs
indicated in Figure 2. These seven deflections

::""1
[ ----~
have been found to be sufficient for defining
the bowl shape for analysis by the CHEVRON or (d)
CIRCLY program. The use of deflections at ' L nun n
additional distances increases computation time
with negligible improvement in accuracy.
x l x'{ ___ _
15. Typical computer generated rebound
deflection bowls for bound pavements and
unbound granular pavements are presented in
Figure 3. It can be seen from these bowls that
(e) ~ef:c~l:n-L- --= - -1 1
the steepness of the bowl in the vicinity of Reference 1: Tz
line A~orent y
the maximum deflection reflects the base Deflection
modulus while the deflection at approximately Reference
1 m from the maximum deflection refects the Line after
subgrade strength. Most importantly, it can be Legs Move
seen that significant deflections are still
predicted at distances of 2-4 metres from the Diagrams (a) - (c) show the movement of the
Benkelman beam during a typical reb ound test on
test load and it these deflections that a Bound pavement. x.y and z denote the
influence the legs of the Benkelman beam and displacement of the tip. front legs and rear
affect the measured deflection result . leg respectively.

In Diagram (d) a displacement of "x " mm at the

16. The reason for MR(Q) adopting the modified
WASHO (1955) method was the concept that by
placing the tip of the beam as far forward of
the test load as the fixed legs were back from
the load at the start of test, the influence of
the bowl on the beams legs was minimal .
However, this is not the c ase as the stylised
beam sketches in Figure 4 indi cate . Even a
rebound (CGRA 1959) test with the test load
tip is recorded as an u x /2 " mm displacement at
the dial guage . Ho wever , if the legs are moved
as indicate d in Diagram (e) then the measured
deflection is redu ced consid erably . Fo r the
exa mple shown, the apparent deflection .. xl .. is
a pprox im ate l y 40 % of t he actual deflection x .
Fig. 4 - Effect of beam leg movement on deflection
measurement

204 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6

 BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH -
moving an infinite distance away from the tip
will not result in the actual deflection being
recorded by the beam.
17. In the past the effect of the bowl on the
beam legs had been discounted because it was
considered that the deflections at these
distances from the load were very small, if
they existed at all, but it was conceeded that
they may be significant for pavements with very
stiff bases. The former conception has to be
discarded. The computer analysis programs used
to analyse pavement structures predict
significant deflections in the region as Figure
] shows. Also obvious frpm these computer
generated bowls is that the deflection in the
region > 2.0 m is a function of the subgrade
strength and independent of pavement strength
or thickness.
18. To see if deflections occur at distances
of 3-5 m from the load point as predicted, data
obtained by MR(Q) from monitoring of full depth
deflection gauges on ARRB experimental sites
near Brisbane (Sharp, Baran and Potter 1987)
were examined. These gauges, an example of
which is given in Figure 5, were installed by
ARRB pr'i marily for measurement of deflection
under moving loads during the 1984 ARRB Axle
Load Study (Sharp, Sweatman and Potter 1986).
The gauges being installed in the pavement,
record the actual deflection (with respect to
an anchor fixed 2-3 metres below the surface)
free of the influences that effect a Benkelman
beam, ' that occurs as a loaded wheel passes over
them.
DCDT core
DCDT
Body
...'"
Q)
~ base deflection bowls, which generally gave
E realistic values for base modulus and at least
r<>
I twice the expected subgrade strength, confirmed
N that, at least on stiff pavements, the Benkelman
Anchor
Fig, 5 - Insitu full depth deflection gauge
PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6
BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS
19. Typical data from one of these gauges,
installed in a pavement with a granular base
and a weak cement treated subbase, are
presented in Figure 6. At the time of testing,
March 1986, the concept of deflections
occurring at distances greater than 3-4 metres
from the load was not appreciated and the tests
were terminated at approximately 5 metres from
the gauge. Figure 6, which presents the
results of 10 repeat runs over a single gauge,
shaw that the majority of results indicate that
the deflection had not stabilised even when the
load was 5 m from the gauge.
20. If the rate of change of deflection
between 2.5 and 5 m is extropolated out to say
10 m and at this point the deflection assumed
to be zero (note CHEVRON still predicts a
deflection of 0.01 mm at this point for the
appropriate site subgrade conditions), then
the deflection at 2 metres from the load,
measured from this zero datum, would be
approximately 0.06 mm. This deflection, which
is dependent on subgrade strength alone, lies
between 0.05 m and 0.11 mm, predicted by
CHEVRON for subgrade strengths of 100 MPa and
50 MPa respectively, (refer Figure 3) ' and would
infer a subgrade strength at time of test of
CBR 1-10 which is considered appropriate for
the insitu site conditions at the time.
21. Accepting that deflections occur at
distances of 3-5 metres from the load and are
of the magnitude predicted by elastic analysis
programs and supported by results of insitu
deflection gauges, then it would be logical to
reasOh that the effect on a measured deflection
bowl, of the movement of legs of a Benkelman
beam during a test, would be greatest in very
low maximum deflection situations (Le. where
the movement of the legs is a significant
proportion of the maximum movement of the beam
tip) and least in high deflection &ituations
(where the magnitude of the deflection at the
tip would swamp any relatively minor movements
at the legs.
22. From observing the Benkelman beam
deflections being recorded on newly
constructed, full depth cement treated base
(design base modulus of 5000 MPa) it was
apparent that the measured deflection response
of these stiff pavements was much lower than
that predicted by elastic analysis programs.
Even failed cement treated base pavements had
no trouble meeting the NAASRA (1987) tolerable
deflection criteria. This, together with past
experience of back analysis of cement treated
beams were only measuring part of the actual
defle c tion that wa s oCf urring.
23. With back analysis of deflection bowls
from granular pavements using CHEVDEF, although
realisti c estimates of base and subgrade moduli
were generally obtained, the fit between the
measured and the computed bowls was usually
poor, espe c ially in the 900 mm - 1200 mm
region. This poor fit was attributed both to
the anisotr opi c behaviour of the granular
pavem ent material and to a le s ser part the
influenc e of the bowl on the legs of the beam.
205
 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Distance of Travel from

Maximum Def lection in metres
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
o
01
0 2
0 3
0-4
Deflection
(mm) 05 LEGEND
06 43-Run Number

0 7
0 8
0 9
10

Fig. 6 - Typical full depth deflection gauge output

for rebound bowl

Distance (metres) ADOPTION OF CIRCLY INSTEAD OF CHEVRON

00 0 2 OA 06 0-8 10 1-2 14 16 IS 20

02
25. Until r ecent years , most pavement analysi s
OA procedures have adopted an is otropic
Deflection
(mm) 0 6 -f?O 4OOMPo\'tT!2aomm~ 250MPo cha ra c terisati on of all pavement and subg rade
materials. In procedures used to back analyse
;r9
.,oJ 100 MPo 50 MPo deflection bowls, the same assumpti ons of
:t /STRONGJ /WEAK/ isotropy have normally been made.

/ THICK BASEl 26. Analysis of an increas ing amount of

research test da ta (NAASRA 1987; Anderson 19 83;
O+-~--~~~--~~--~~~~
Youdale 1984) is suggesting t hat unbound
granular pavi ng materials and s ubgrade
0 2 materials are better characterised using
anisotropic as sump tions about their behaviour .
OA
400MPO ::>:~ 180mm---250MPo 27. Although acceptance of anisotropy for
~ ~ these materials is not unive rsal and the reason
100 MPo 50 MPo for this apparent behaviour is not fully
/STROVGJ [WEAK} understood, it is now increas~ngly being
10 adopted by pavement designers for analysis.
Specifically, cross-ani sot ropy is commonly
/THINBASEJ assumed , with both horizonta l moduli being
about half of the vertical modulus (NAASRA
IA Legend
1987) .
ISO - Isotropic
ANISO - Anisotropic
250 MPo/50 MPo-Povement/Subgrode Modul i 28. Whether these unbound materials are in
fact anisotropic to this degree or if their
stress dependency contributes to this appar ent
Fig. 7 - Granular pavement bowls behaviour is not clear but physically it may be
attributable to the fact that the materials ar e
normally laid in layers and compacted
ver t ic a lly.

24. It was there f ore apparent, that the
procedures adopted in the past by Main Roads
for the analysis of deflection bowls, needed to
be improved to adequately handle the pavement
and materials being tested. The steps adopted
were to develop an i terative back analysis
proce du re based on the CIRCLY elastic analysis
prog ram and to include in that procedure a
method of allowing for the influence of the
bowl on the legs of the beam.
29. The CHEVRON computer program previously
used by MR(Q) for pavement analysis and back
analysis of deflection bowls uses only
isotropic characterisati on of a ll materials.
The CIRCLY program has now been adopted both
for pavement design and for back ana lysis, and
t his program is able to use either isotropic or
cross anisotropic characterisat ion of
materials. This capability is a major re as on
for the adoption of the CIRCLY program.

206 PR OCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6

 BARAN, ANGELL , EARL, WALSH -
30. CIRCLY has other advantages over CHEVRON
as a pavement analysis tool, including its
ability to handle:-
a greater range of load types including
vertical and hor izontal loads and moments
about three axes .
multiple loads and
a range of load distributions over the
contact areas.
31 . Although the above are significant
advantages for pavement analysis, these full
capabilities of CIRCLY are not normally used
for back analysis of deflection bowls. The
loading used for the back analysis is shown in
Figure 8.
107-6 mm
Uniform Vertical Load
distribution over circular
contact areas with a
Tyre Pressure of
330mm 550 kPa .
Fig. 8 - Representation of dual tyre loading for back analysis
32. In the MR(Q) procedure for back analysis,
all asphalt and cemented layers ("Treated"
layers) are assumed to be isotropic while
unbound granular and subgrade materials are
assumed to be cross anisotropic with vertical
moduli twice the horizontal moduli.
OPERATION OF CIRCDEF
33. CIRCDEF, the CIRCLY based iterative back
analysis program reads its required input from
a data file set up prior to execution. The
user is able, for the initial run, to set
parameters by specifying a keyword followed by
its appropriate value. In subsequent runs only
changes to the parameters, need be specified.
Parameters which may be set are presented in
Tablel.
34. The program also provides, where
applicable, defaults for many of these
parameters. The defaults are consistent with
the standard MR(Q) Benkelman beam test
procedure and deflection bowl presentation
formats. Hence only a few of the parameters in
Table 1 need to be included in the data set.
35. A flow chart of the CIRCDEF iterative
procedure is presented in Figure 9 . A typical
output from a CIRCDEF run which includes the
correction subroutine is given in Figure 10 .
The correct subroutine, is discussed in detail
in the following section. In brief , the CIRCLY
predicted bowl is corrected by the subroutine
to simulate a Benkelman beam bowl.
36. The first few lines of output echo the
input parameters. Details of the loads, layer
system and deflection to be analysed are
PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6
BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS
Keyword Description
ND Number of deflection points to be
input. 2~ND90
NS Number of layers in the pavement
system. l~NS..1.8
NL Number of variable layers. l~L..1.4
(Number of layers for which a
modulus value is to be calculated).
ILV A list of the layer numbers of the
variable layers
RR List of the distances from the dual
load centre to the measurement
positions.
RRD List of the deflections observed
at the points specified.
E List of the start moduli for each
layer. These values are used as the
moduli for each layer in the initial
iteration by CIRCDEF and for subsequent
iterations if the layer is not variable.
V List of the value of Poissons ratio for
each layer.
HH List of the thicknesses of each layer.
(0 may be specified for the last layer
to indicate semi-infinite).
LT List of flags indicating each layer's
type:
T for treated, G for granular,
& S for subgrade.
EMIN List of the minimum modulus value for
each layer.
EMAX List of the maximum modulus value for
each layer.
LS Distance between each of the two
circular loads or wheels.
WGT The load at each location (wheel).
KPA Pressure applied at the load locations.
Tyre pressure is used here for
calculation of the load radius.
TOL Tolerance of the fit. (Maximum absolute
sum of the percentage error in an
acceptable solution).
MAXIT Maximum number of iterations to be
performed.
CORECT* A flag indicating whether correction of
the predicted bowl is required.
START** The distance in front of the load where
the first measurement will be taken
(in mm).
TRAVEL**The travelling distance of the load in
Dml.
SEND This keyword is used to separate data
sets if required.
* this calls in the deflection bowl
correction sub-routine
** only required with CORECT
TABLE 1
CIRCDEF Input Parameters
followed by the defle ct ions predicted by CIRCLY
with the initial modulus values. Differences
and percentage errors between the "measured"
and "p redicted " are determined when the
correction routine is not used and between
"measured" and "corrected' when using the
correction routine .
207
 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH -- BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Check input
~or
\----oj initialise
consistancy

Yes

Flow Chart of CIRCDEF

No
Iterative Procedure

Calculate initial deflections

(call CIRCLY and correction r outines . )

OJput predic ted, neasured deflections

and percentage errors

Store this
as the best
Increrent No solut ion.
Iteration ~--r----------------<:
nurrber

Calcul?te a new set

of rrxxIulus va lues
for the variable
layers .
(Hethod obtained Yes
fran CHEVDEF
program. )

(A,tput these
rrxxIuli as the
predicted Yes
values for the
next interation.

Predict deflections for

OJtput final and best fit
the new rrxxIulus values
rrxxIulus wi th the
(call CIRCLY and the
terminating condition .

Store as the
best solution

Fig. 9 - Flow chart of CIRCDEF iterative procedure

208 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6

 BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

TYP I CAL CIReDEr RU N ( TlIIH GRA NULAR PAVEHEtlTJ 37. From these values CIRCDEF calculates a new
NUMBER OF VARIABLE LAYERS set of modulus values for the variable layers
HUHBER Of LAYERS rtf SYSTEM
and outputs these along with a table of the
HUHB!;R Of TARG ET DEFLECTIONS
deflections predicted and their corresponding
corrected values by CIRCLY for the new
TRA Y[I..LIHG DISTANCE or LOAD IN HH :: 6000 . 0
values. This output is produced for each
DISTANCE IN YROHT Of THE WAD Of fiR S T HEASUREl-IEHT (HH, lJflO
iteration performed until either (i) a suitable
ll[fLECTIOH READIHGG IN liM ,
POf.JTI ONNO : 1 2 3 .. ~ 6 7 solution is found, (ii) the maximum number of
0 . 9R4(1 0 n . son l) O . ~!>9 "n O . J~"{l(l 0 . 2470 0 0 . 14800 0.10100
DErLECT IOI"S:
WEIGHTING rACTOR: 1 . 005 1 . 181 1.189 2 . 625 4 . 0"" 6 . 157 9 . 90J iterations is reached or (iii) CIRCDEF detects
an inconsistency in the system. When one of
DETAILS OF VARIABLE LAYERS
these conditions applies, final as well as the
LAYER NO f. YSTEli VALUE 0F 11AKIHIIH VALUE OF' HI1IIIiUl1
best fit moduli are output along with the
LAYER NO VERTICAL HODIILUS VERTICAL HODULUS terminating condition.
20(10 . 0 10 . 0
2000 . 0 10 . 0

DETAILS 0' LAYERED SYSTEH

LAYER NO VERTICAL POISSONS RATIO THICKNESS LAYER TYP!:

OPERATION OF BOWL CORRECTION SUBROUTINE
HODULUS
lln . 0 . 350 1 ~O . 00 CROSS-AfHSOTROFIC
10 . 0 . 350 SEHI-INrINITE CROSS-ANISOTROPIC

DETAILS OF LOADS 38. The standard Benkelman beam geometry and

LOAD TYPE RADIUS REfEREUCE AVEnAGE LOAO/11Ot1ENT
dimensions are presented in Figure 1. The beam
STRESS GTRESS PER LOCATION acts as a lever with a single fulcrum two-
thirds the distance along the lever producing a
(1) VERTICAL FORCE 101.5867 o . f:t!'OOE+OO 0.5500E"00 0 . 2000';'+05 reading a the gauge equal to half the actual
deflection at the tip. There are three points
LOAD LOCATIONS
along the beam that come into contact with the
LOAD
NO. pavement surface, the tip and the two sets of
o (l(lOOE"OO O . nooor.t {'I{'I legs which support the body of the beam.
U.3300[+03 O. OUOOE~uU

POSITION PREOICTED CORRECTED HEASUREn DlffEREUCE , DIFf.

I 1 . 0663~B 0 . 964140 0.994000 0 . 029 2 60 2.9 39. As discussed earlier, the influence of the
0 . 709004 0 . 841000 0 . 131996 16 . J
2
3
0 . 621050
0 . 540395 0 . 423103 0 . 559000 0 . 135 2 97 24 . 2 deflection bowl at the start of test extends
0 . 383608
0 . 293695
0,2535480.354000
0.183512 0 . 241000
0.100452
0 . 063428
28. ~
25 . 1
past both beam legs. The movements of these
0 . 199286 0 . 113472 0.148000 0 . 034528
0 . 022699
23 . 3
22 . 1
legs during the test results in an
0 . 150651 0 . 018101 0 . 101000
ABSOLUTE SUH : 0.523858 143.496323 underestimation, by the standard Benkelman beam
. . . . . . . . . . . . . "' ...... t:f t1 t . . . . . . . . , t.
ARITIIHET I C SUH :
t .... t . . . . . . t, ....................
143 . "96323
f"4" I .... .
$ 1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
test procedure, of the actual deflection that
occurs.
PREDJCT!D HOOULI AT ITERATION J.
135 . 01 84 . 32

POSITION pnEOtCTEO CORRECTED HEA SlIRr.(l DIFrEREN CE , OJFf . 40. Correction of the measured deflection for
1.126057 0 . 993 9 81 O . ~ 9 4(lno 0 . 000 0 19 0 .0
I
2 0 . 814909 0.160476 0.1'41000 0 . O86~24 10 . 2 the influence on the legs requires the
O. 098861 17 . 1
3
~
O. 5B~902
0 . 06694
0 . 4601:19
0 . 2 '16412
0 . 5 5 9000
O , 3~4000 0.011fl. 2 8 21.9
knowledge of the pavement and subgrade moduli
5 0 . 318588 0 . 190881 0 . 2.0000
O. 14fHlOO
0 . 048119
0 . 025441
19.5
11 , 2
so that the deflections at the legs, can be
6 0 . 21581B 0 . 122559
1 0 . 163301 0 . 0 (1 4-\14 0 . 101000 O. a 16586 16 . .. calculated. However it is these pavement and
AEtSOLUTE Slit! : 0 . 353018 102 . 89 5 884
subgrade moduli that are being estimated by the
....................................." ..................................
ARITHMETIC SlIH :
AVERAGE : 0 . 050"
.. ,., ........................ i- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102 . 895884
14.6994

t" ............ .
bowl back analysis procedures and hence any
corrections to the measured bowl would be based
PREDICTED HODULI AT ITERAT.ION
311 , 49 fll.29
2, on assumed moduli of the layers. This type of
iterative procedure would be cumbersome and
POSITIOH PREOICTEO CORRECTED HEASURED 01 Ff[RENCE , our , time consuming.
1 1.151321 0 . 989401 0 , 994000 0 . 004593 0.5
2 O. 919~83 0 . 841621 O. f!41000 -0 . 0006 2 1 -l'. 1
3 0 . 1169!.o2 0 . 563241 O . !>59000 -0 . 004241 -0 8
4 0 . ~2"5(' 5 0 . 36159 0 O . .354000 -0 , 001590 -2.1
& O . 39f1S86 0 . 25212 3 0.241000 -0 . 00 (. 123 -2.3
-0 . !J
41. The MR(Q) approach was to use the much
6 0.26421& 0 . 148706 0 . 146000 -0 . 000106
1 0 . 198699 0 . 101 2 16 0 , 101000 -0 . 00021 B -0 . 3 simpler technique of correcting the CIRCLY
AB!:i()LUTE SUM: 0 . 023152 S . 501361
ARITlItiETlC SlI~l : -5 [83159 "predicted" bowl to what would have been
0 . 0034 0 9296
....... t .............................. t .... ~t ......
AVERAGE:
t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
measured by a Benkelman beam under the
............... *....... ....................................................... .
~ corresponding pavement and subgrade strength
PREDICTED HODULI AT ITERATIOn 3. conditions and for the deflection test
348 . 3& 52 . 01
procedure used in the field. In this situation
POSITION PREDICTEO CORRECTED HEASURED DIFFERENCE S DIff . the moduli of the pavement and subgrade, used
-0 . 000071
1
2
1. 1 !.o411Q
o 91640 2
0 . 994 0 11
O . 8 '6 2~ 6
0 . 9940 0 0
0 . 841000 0.000114
0.0
0.1
for the initial computation are the input start
3
4
0 . 1 J IJ2C
0 . 5 11023
0 .5~ 1393
0 . 355018
' 0 . 559000
0 . 3 5 4000
0 . 001601
- 0. 001018
0.3
-0 . 3
values and for subsequent iterations are the
5 0,3 92 1 80 0 . 2 4 82 4 0 0 . 241000 -0 .00 1 2 40 -0 . 5 CIRCLY predicted values. The "corrected"
6 o 26068 5 0 . 1461 50 0 . 14 8000 0 . 0 0 1250 0. 8
1 0 . 196453 0.100112 0 . tOl000 0 , 00 06 2 8 0.8 CIRCLY bowl is then compared with the
ABSOLUTE SUH: 0 , 006853 2 . 851298
ARl THHET I C SUI1 : 1 . 2 2903& "measured" bowl and the iterative procedure
AVERAGE : 0 . 0010 0 , 4082
continues. A flow chart of this procedure is
THE FINAL VERTICAL HODULUS VALUES ARE given in Figure 11 . A detailed description of
LAYER HO FINAL BEST FIT the procedure is given in Table 2.
MODULI (ITERATIOt~ 3)

348 , 35 348 . 3 5
52 . 01 52 . 01
42. To display the benefits of the new bowl
DEFLECTI ONS ARE IN TOLERAU CE
analysis procedure and to determine the factors
.. u" EN D Of PROGRAM . . . u
that effect the relationship of the measured
bowl to the actual bowl shape, an analysis was
Fig. 10 - Typical CIRCDEF output undertaken of typical pavement models and

PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 209

 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

INPUT: A number of deflection measurements representing half a bowl (PRED) .

Let this number be N.

OUTPUT: N deflection measurements representing half the corrected bowl. Note :

N may take any values 1 to 10, inclusive, although MR(Q) use 7.

METHOD: (1) Expand the N deflection points to a number spanning the entire
bowl at 50 mm intervals by interpolating curves and straight lines
between adjacent deflection points. Selection of curves or
straight lines is dependent on inbuilt program test conditions,
however, curves are generally used between 0-600 mm and beyond
90 0 mm, while str a ight lines are used between 60 0- 9 00 mm. A
Bezier routine is used to calculate the curves while straight line
interpolating calculates the lines. Duplicate thi s half bowl to
create a representation of a fu l l bowl.
(2) Using this set of deflections, simulate a Benkleman beam test by
using the geometry of the beam and ba s ic lever principles to
derive a set of corrected deflections as a function of the
deflec t ions at the fulcrum and at the gauge. In order to simulate
t his test:
(a) deflections at the fulcrum must be derived as a function of
the deflections at the legs of the beam.

DO = [(D 2 - D3 ) x ~~~~J + D3
(b) deflections at the gauge are derived as a function of the
deflections at the legs of the beam. ~hese derivations are
done by extrapolating and interpolating, respectively .

Dl = ~D2 - D3 ) x l:~~J + D3
Once the delections at the fulcrum and gauge have been
established, these measurements along with the deflections at the
beam tip are used as input to the simulated Benkelman beam test to
produce a reading at the gauge at every 50 mm. The formula to
calcul a te this corrected bowl is defined:

Dc = [Pf ; Do] + (Dl - DO)

where Df is the deflection at the beam tip

where Dc is the resulting corrected deflection
where DO is the deflection at the fulcrum
where Dl is the deflection at the gauge
where D2 is the deflection of the front leg
where D3 is the deflection at the rear leg
1 7 00 mm is the distance from fulcrum to rear leg
1450 mm is the distance between front and rear legs
480 mm is the distance from guage to rear leg

(3) From this array of corrected deflections, interpolate a set of N

deflections at the same displacements along the beam as the
original predicted set (PRED) by
(a) Finding the maximum deflection and making it the deflection
at displacement 0 mm . Read off N-l other deflections at
those positions equal to array PRED.
(b) Calculate average of last ten deflections and make the zero
deflection line. Normalize N corrected deflections to this
line.
(4) Substitute this corrected bowl for the predicted bowl input , and
return control back to circdef.

TABLE 2 Description of Correction Procedure

210 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB C ONFERENCE, PART 6

 BARAN, ANGELL, EARL , WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

circly creates theoretical bowl

fran rrodul i

theor etical bowl

cal culate new CORRECTION ROUTINE CORRECTS

rroduli TI1EORErICAL BCML TAKING TIlE
INFUJENCE OF TIlE BEAM' S LEGS
INl'O ACCOUNT

correct ed bowl

circdef compares measured bowl

with corrected bowl

if compar ison is favourab l e return

cur rent modul i to circdef ,
otherwise t est a di f fere nt set
of moduli

OK

End of Program

Fig. 11 - Flowchart of correction routine's role in CIRCDEF

Bound
Pavements

Subgrade Strengths Subgrode Strengths

508100 MPa 508100 MPa

Unbound
Pavements

50MPa 50MPa

/THICK/ /THINJ

Fig. 12 - Pavement models used in analysis

PROCEEDINGS 14t h ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6 211

 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

DIS TANCE Imm) DISTANCElmm l DIS TANCE ( mm)

oG 100 300 450 600 900 12CO 00 150 300 450 60D 900 1200 o0 150 300 450 600 900 I 00

~p7~ ~z:;...

h~@}
0'1 0 '1 01

DEF L ECT ION

(rrvn)
0,2 0 ,2 0' 2

~I
~
5000 MPo ,P':'C 280 mm 5000 MPo~iIJ80mm
!.:.CU 100MPo
ICOMPo
0 '3 0 '3 0
PredicTed Base Modulus 3900 - 5350 MPo Predicted Bose ModukJs 3000 -4000 r.tPo
Predicted $ubQrode Modulus 18 0-230 MPa Pred icf ed Suborode Modulus [5 0 - 180 ~

0 ,4 0 '4

/GRANULARJ
/ STRONG SUBGRADE' 0 ,5

250 MPo { {::::} 280 mm

00 150 300 4 600 900 1200 00 150 300 450 600 900 12 0 5OMPo

Predicted Base MOdu lus 150 - 200 MPo

Predicted SUbQrode Modulus 75- 80 MPo

~~~
0'1 0 ,'

DEFL ECTION / WEAK SUBGRADE}

( mm)
0 ,2 ~~ 0 ,2
0 '9

o0 150 300 450 60D 900 1200

0' 3

;at. . 0 ,1
5000 WFb ~ 1280 MPo
5OMPo 5OOOMPo: 2 i } 80 mm
0,4
Predicted Bose Modulus 4250 - 7000 MPo 5OMPo
Predicted SubgrOde Modulus 75-165 MPo 0 '2
PredicTed Bose Modulus 4OCX)-48(X)MAJ
PredicTed Subgrode Modulus 75-115 MPa

0 '3

/WEAK SUBGRADE/
0 -4

o 100 300 450 600 900 1200

o 0 ,5 /GRANUL ARJ
<;;>:5:;:1 ~
,0>..-0-
0 ,1
/<7 0' 1
// 0 '6

02 ~ 0
/,7
!GRANULARJ 0 ,7

DEFLECTION
l <rm)
0' 3 I~ 4 00 MPo Btl
100MPo
280mm
0 ,3
;: !GRANULAR/

MPo ~I 180mm Ll80 mm

~
2 5 0 MPc :::::::::::'
""'"'"'"'
100MPo 50MPo
PredicTed Bose Modulus 250 - 270 MPa Predicted Bose Modulus 175-250 MPo
Predic Ted Su bgrode Modulus 135- 150 MPo Predicted Bose Modulus 100 -110 MPo
Pred icted SubgrOde Modulus 14 0 -160 MPa
Predicted SUbQrooe tvlodulus 70-75 MPo

0 '5

/ WEAK SUBGRADEJ
1,1
/STRONG SUBGRADE)

_ _ _ _ _ Ac t ua l Deflection
Bowl Shope

"'" ' " " " ,,",,,Predicted Benkelmon

Fig. 13 - Actual deflection bowl shape vs predicted Benkelman beam bowl shape 'O...." ~ ~ ~ Beom Bowl Sh ope
(for various test procedures)

212 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CON FERENCE , PA RT 6

 BARAN, ANGELL, EARL, WALSH -
deflection test procedures. To simplify the
analysis procedure only full depth single layer
pavements were considered. Two pavement types,
a full depth cement treated base and a granular
pavement, were selected together with two
subgrade strengths . This gave four variations
of the basic 2 layer pavement and subgrade
model. To assess the effect of varying
pavement depth, two pavement thickness , 280 mm
and 180 mm, were analysed giving a total of 8
different pavement and subgrade models as
indicated in Figure 12.
43. Five deflection test procedures were also
incorporated giving a total of 40 variations of
pavement models and test procedures. The first
three test procedures are described below:
Lead = 1350 mm/travel - 6000 mm. The
standard MR(Q} test procedure.
Lead = 1350 mm/Travel = 4000 mm . This
shortened version of the standard MR(Q}
procedure was adopted to assess effect
of varing travel distance with a fixed
lead.
Lead = 1650 mm/Travel = 6000 mm. This
situation represents the maximum
possible distance that the tip can be
placed in front of the load at start of
test.
44. The above three test methods are
modifications of the basic WASHO (1955) test
procedure. The following two methods used in
the analysis can be classified as Rebound (CGRA
1959) procedures.
Lead 300 mm/Travel 3300 mm. Current
RCA (1987) procedure.
Lead 100 mm/Travel 6000 mm. A typical
rebound test with the same travel as
the MR(Q} procedure.
45 . The eight pavement models were analysed
with CIRCLY to determine the deflected shape
that would be expected under a standard axle
load . The deflection bowl correction
subroutine was then used, together with the
CIRCLY determined deflected shapes, to predict
the shape of the Benkelman beam bowls that
would have been measured by the various
deflection bowl test procedures. The computed
Benkelman bowl shapes were then back analysed
using the old procedures to display the results
that would have been obtained using analysis
procedures that did not include the deflection
bowl correction subroutine.
46. These results are presented graphically in
Figure 13. The shaded band represents the
range of Benkelman beam results that would have
been obtained, for the various test procedures,
from the 8 pavement types analysed. The
differen~e between these and the actual bowl
shape used to generate them represents the
effect of influence of the bowl on the legs of
the beam and the resulting measured deflection.
47 . For all pavement types, the procedures
that resulted in the shortest deflection bowl
"tail" .( i.e. trave l minus lead) resulted in the
lowest measure of Benkelman beam deflection
although this differenc e is not always
significant . Generally the shortened MR(Q}
PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6
BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS
pro c edure (1350/4000) and the RCA rebound
procedure (300/3300) gave similar results and
defined the upper limit of the shaded band.
The standard MR(Q} procedure (1350/6000) the
long lead test (1650/6000) and the long rebound
test (100/6000) produced s i milar results and
generally defined the bottom of the shaded
band.
48. From examination of these it can be seen
that :
(a) Bowls measured on stiff pavements have
the same shape as the actual bowl but
the magnitude of the deflections are
markedly lower.
(b) On granular pavements the measured
bowl, although closer in magnitude to
the maximum reading varies in shape
from the actual bowl.
(c) For stiff (bound) pavements on strong
subgrades there is little difference
between the various test methods.
Analysis of bowls in this situation
would generally indicate the correct
base stiffness but overestimate the
subgrade strength by 100%. This is
because a Benkelman beam would only
measure 40-50% of the actual deflection
that was occurring.
(d) With stiff (bound) pavements on weak
subgrades, the difference between the
test procedures becomes significant.
Methods with short deflection bowl
"tails" produce the lowest deflection
readings. A "tail" length of 4000-5000
mm appears to be optimum and no benefit
is to be gained from procedures with
longer "tails' (e .g. long rebound test
Lead-IOO mm/Travel=6000 mm).
(e) Back analysis of bowls from stiff
pavements on weak subgrades generally
indicate correct base modulus but
overestimate subgrade strength by 50%
for procedures with long "tails to
200% for procedures with short "tails".
(f) On granular pavements only minor
differences between the test methods
exist. However, the difference in bowl
shape and the lower measured
deflections results in an
underestimation of base modulus by 30-
35% and an overestimate of subgrade
strength by only 50%.
(g) For thick stiff (bound) pavements the
subgrade overestimates average (for the
various test procedures) 100% and 140%
for strong and weak subgrades
respectively with the estimate of base
modulus being generally correct.
(h) For thin stiff (bound) pavements the
subgrade overestimate reduces to 65%
and 95% for strong and weak subgrades
respectively but at the expense of a
slight underestimation of base modulus.
213
 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH -
Distance (mm)
o0 300 600 9CX) 1200
10
20
30
Deflection -Full Depth Deflection30
(nrnx 10 ) Deflection Gouge (mmxlO)
40 Results
-- - - Corrected
50 Benkleman Beam
Deflection Bowl
60
70
Fig. 14 - Comparison of measured deflection bowls with corrected
insitu deflection gauge results
(i) Reduction in granular base thickness
does not effect subgrade strength
estimates however underestima t es of
base stiffness is further reduced to
about 50% of the actual stiffness.
49. These results highlight the need to employ
corre ction routines in the back analysis
pr ocedures if calculations of pavement and
subgrade moduli are required. It is essential
i n the ana ly sis of cement treated pavements and
thin granular pavements on we ak subgrades.
Li ghtly trafficked r ural pavem ents and urban
residential s treets would fit into this latter
pavement cat egory.
VERIFICATION OF THE BOWL CORRECTION SUBROUTINE
50 . Verification of the bowl cor rection
procedure requires the mea s ur ement of actual
pavement deflections with insitu d ef lection
gauges and comparing this response with the
results obtained from a Benkelman beam test
obtained at the same location and time.
Limi ted data of this type was available from
the instrument ed ARRB ( Shar p et al 1986 and
1987) sites. Thes e full depth defl ect ion gauge
r esults were corrected with the cor rection
subroutine and the resulting predicted
Benkelman bowl shape compar ed with the ac tual
measured shapes as indicated in Figure 14.
The pavement used in this example has a 75 mm
Asphalt Surfacing , 150 mm Crushed Rock Base and
200 mm weak cement treated subbase .
51 . The predicted corrected Benkelman beam
bowl was simi lar to some the measured bowls .
The variation in measured Benkelman beam bowl
shape at a given loc a tion with repeat testing
is highlighted in Figure 14. At the time of
wri t ing of this paper ARRB and MR(Q) had just
completed a more de tailed asse ssment of the
deflection gauge instrumented sites and thi s
data is cur rent l y being analysed to provide
verification for the developed correction
procedures.
214
BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS
Distance (mm )
300 600 9CX) 1200
LEGEND
08 8 Actual Deflection Bowts
4 Measured Oller East Go.Jge
0 .8 tlctua I Deflect ion Bowls
Measured over West Gouge
+ Actual Deflection Bowl
Measured at Intermediate
60 Position
Corrected Deflection
70 D Gouge Results
a
Rooge -East West
Gouges
CONCLUSIONS
52. The Benkleman beam has, since its
development in 1953 , become the standard tool
used by many road authorities for the non-
destructive testi ng of pavements to obtain an
indication of their structural cond iti on and
hence determine sui table rehabilitation
measures.
53. Wi th the development of elastic analysis
computer programs , the i nterpretati on of the
full defle c tion bowl bec ame pos sib le. Since
this back analysis pr ocedur e has been in use,
it has been obse rved that the procedure
a ppeared to give err oneous re sult s when
anal ysing bowls from s tiff (cement treated
ba se ) pavem ents .
54. A computer analysis of predicted bowl
shapes and some limit ed verification from fu ll
depth deflection guag es, indi cat ed that
s i gnifi cant def lections were occuring at
di stanc e s of 3.5 metres from the load and that
de fl ections would r esult in the Benkl eman beam
under estimating the a c tual deflection that
occurred.
55. The percentage underestimation of
deflections was greatest where maximum
deflection level s were low (i.e. on stiff
pavements) . It was found also that the
deflections in the region that affected the
l egs of the Benkleman beam were d ependant on
subgrade st rength al one and independant on
pavement thickness and type.
56 . This investigation highlighted the need to
employ correction routines in the back analy sis
procedures if c alculati on of pave ment and
subgrade modulii is r equired. It was also
realised that the current procedures based on
elastic analysis programs that assumed
isotropic behaviour of pavement and subgrade
materials we re not the most sui table for
modelling t he performance of granular and
cohesive ma t erials which exhibit anisotropic
behaviour .
PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFEREN CE, PART 6
 BARAN , ANGELL , EARL, WALSH -
57. An interative procedure was developed by
the authors to:
allow for anisot ropic behaviour of some
pavement materials by utilising CSIRO's
CIRCLY program.
incorporate a routine into the
pro c edure to correc t for the influence
of the bowl on the Benkleman beam legs .
58. Thi s overall bowl analysis procedure,
still structured on the iterative procedures
developed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, is
aimed at making the estimate of pavement and
subgrade moduli as simple and as a ccurate as
possible. The use of this new MR(Q) procedure
is considered necessary at least for the
analysis of bowls from cement treated pavements
and thin granular pavements on weak subgrades.
59. With the current trend towards the use of
automated deflection measurement devices such
as the Lacriox Deflectograph and the Department
of Main Roads, NSW Deflectolab, both of which
measure very short deflection bowls, bowl
correction of these devices is essential if any
valid interpretation of the bowl shapes is
intended .
60. I t is hoped that the findings of this
investigation into the factors influencing
deflection bowls and procedure developed for
the back analysis should be of interest to all
engineers and researchers in the pavement
evaluation field. The modification of these
procedures to suit Deflectograph and
Deflectolab deflection bowls would be a simple
exercise and will be developed in due course.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, D.T. (1983) Anisotropy in Pavement
Layers. RCA In~ernal Repor~, Oc~ober .
ASPHALT INSTITUTE (1983) Asphalt Overlays for
Highway and Street Rehabilitation. (}'(S-17)
June 1983.
BUSH, A.J. (1980) Non Destructive Testing for
Light Aircraft Pavements - Phase 2 -
Development of the Non Destructive Evaluation
Procedure. Repor~ N. FAA-R~90-9-II prepared
for US FAA November 1980.
PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6
BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS
CGRA (1959) The CGRA Benkelman Beam Procedure .
Canadian Good Roads Assoc.ia~ion, J'echn1'cal
Publica~ion No 12.
CHEVRON (1963) Analysis of Stresses and
Displacements in an n-Layered Elastic System
under a Load Uniformly Distributed on a
Circular Area. Chevron Research Company,
Sep~ember 1963.
CRB (1967/69) Benkelman Beam Design Plans.
Coun~ry Road Board, }.(a~erials and Research
Division.
GRAY, W.J. (1979) W. Barker (U S Corps of
Engineers) to W.J. Gray (Research Scientist,
ARRB) . Personal communic8~1on.
MR(Q) (1978) Benkelman Beam Deflections Test
Method No Q701-1978.
NAASRA (1987) Pavement Design - A Guide to the
Structural Design of Road Pavements.
RCA (1987) Deflection Testing by Benkelman
Beam. RCA J'es~ }.(e~hod 420.01, J'echnical
Bulle~1'n No 33.
SHARP , K.G., BARAN, E AND POTTER, D.W. (1987)
Field Trials of Pavement Structures :
Construction Report - Queensland. AIR 357-5
July 1987.
SHARP, K.G., SWEATMAN, P.F. AND POTTER, D.W.
(1986) Comparative Effects of Dual and Wide
Single Tyres on Pavement Response. Proc 13
ARRB Conf. (13:4) Adelaide.
WARDLE (1977) Program Circly - A Computer
Program for the Analysis of Multiple Complex
Circular Loads on Layered Anisotropic Media.
Division of App11'ed Geomechanics, CSIRO.
WASHO (1955) The WASHO Road Test (Method of
Test for the Determination of the Load
Deflection Characteristics of Flexible
Pavements Employing the Benkelman Beam)
H1'ghway Research Board, Special Repor~ No 22.
YOUDALE, G. (1984) Anisotropy of Granular
Pavement Materials. D}'(R In~ernal Repor~,
April.
215
 BARAN , ANGELL, EARL, WALSH - BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION BOWLS

Ed Baran is the Engineer (Pavement Testing Services) with the Pavements Branch of the
Queensland Main Roads Department MR (Q). He joined MR (Q) in 1965 as a cadet draftsman
working in the road design and transportation studies areas. Tn 1974, he graduated in Civil
Engineering from the Queensland 1nstitute of Technology and was appointed to the Materials
Branch of MR (Q) working in the pavements investigation area. Currently, he is involved in the
planning, execution and reporting offield testing associated with pavement investigations and with
E.Baran the development of equipment and procedures associated with field testing of pavements.

David J . Angell is the Pavement Design Engineer with Main Roads, Queensland. After graduation
from the University of Queensland with a Bachelor of Engineering in 1972, he joined Main Roads
and worked on design of roads and construction of roads and bridges in several parts of
Queensland until 1982. During this period he completed a Master of Engineering Science degree at
the University of New South Wales in 1974. From 1982 he headed the South Western
Queensland Materials Unit until appointment to his present position in Pavements Branch in 1986.
He has been working on development of pavement design methods, production of the Main Roads
Pavement Design Manual, characterisation of paving materials and research into the behaviour of
D.J. Angell materials and pavements.

Steven W. Earl graduated in Science from the University of Queensland in 1986 majoring in
Computer Science. He started work in 1987 with the Main Roads Department of Queensland as a
Computer Systems Officer. Since then he has been involved in writing computer programsfor
applications of pavement testing, centred on the stress and strain analysis of multilayered
pavements, and pavement design, based on MR (Q) design standard. His other areas of
S.w. Earl programming include work with the analysis of the state's traffic accident statistics.

Sean W. Walsh is a Computer Systems Officer with the Main Roads Department, Queensland. He
joined Main Roads in January 1987 having completed a Bachelor of Science at the University of
Queensland in 1986. Since joining Main Roads, he has worked in Information Services Branch
developing computer systems for pavement analysis, data archival and communication with traffic
S.w. Walsh counting devices.

216 PROCEEDINGS 14th ARRB CONFERENCE, PART 6