Appendix Ear RB TR Quad Axle Report

Austroads Project Report
Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle
This report is being released as a reference work. This report is commissioned work and represents the views of the consultant and has not been considered by the Austroads Council. The report is the result of work undertaken on Austroads behalf, for the project on performance based standards for heavy vehicles being managed by the National Road Transport Commission.
Reviewed Binh T Vuong Project Leader Geoff W Jameson Quality Manager
RC2776-
Although the Report is believed to be correct at the time of publication, ARRB Transport research Ltd, to the extent lawful, excludes all liability for loss (whether arising under contract, tort, statute or otherwise) arising from the contents of the Report or from its use. Where such liability cannot be excluded, it is reduced to the full extent lawful. Without limiting the foregoing, people should apply their own skill and judgement when using the information contained in the Report.
ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOAD FOR A QUAD AXLE
Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle First Published 2013
Austroads Inc. 2013 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle ISBN Austroads Project No. Austroads Publication No. Project Manager Phil W Rankine Prepared by Binh Vuong ARRB Transport Research Ltd Published by Austroads Incorporated Level 9, Robell House 287 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Phone: +61 2 9264 7088 Fax: +61 2 9264 1657 Email: austroads@austroads.com.au www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOAD FOR A QUAD AXLE
Sydney 2001
AUSTROADS PROFILE
Austroads is the association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities whose purpose is to contribute to the achievement of improved Australian and New Zealand transport related outcomes by: developing and promoting best practice for the safe and effective management and use of the road system providing professional support and advice to member organisations and national and international bodies acting as a common vehicle for national and international action fulfilling the role of the Australian Transport Councils Road Modal Group undertaking performance assessment and development of Australian and New Zealand standards developing and managing the National Strategic Research Program for roads and their use.
Within this ambit, Austroads aims to provide strategic direction for the integrated development, management and operation of the Australian and New Zealand road system through the promotion of national uniformity and harmony, elimination of unnecessary duplication, and the identification and application of world best practice.
AUSTROADS MEMBERSHIP
Austroads membership comprises the six State and two Territory road transport and traffic authorities and the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services in Australia, the Australian Local Government Association and Transit New Zealand. It is governed by a council consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member organisations: Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales Roads Corporation Victoria Department of Main Roads Queensland Main Roads Western Australia Transport South Australia Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania Department of Transport and Works Northern Territory Department of Urban Services Australian Capital Territory Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services Australian Local Government Association Transit New Zealand
The success of Austroads is derived from the synergies of interest and participation of member organisations and others in the road industry.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) and Austroads are sponsoring two major projects that are central to the development of a Performance Based Standards (PBS) approach to the regulation of heavy vehicles in Australia. The two projects, 'Specification of Performance Standards for Heavy Vehicles (Project A3)' and 'Documentation of the Performance of the Current Fleet (Project A4)' , have the primary aims of: 1) determining and establishing agreement with the jurisdictions and industry on the 'standards' to apply for an agreed set of Performance Measures; and 2) documenting the performance of nominated vehicles within the current heavy vehicle fleet using costeffective sources, including available records, calculation and the results of computer simulation. There has been general agreement to adopt the performance measure of Gross Mass per vehicle Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR) for PBS vehicles. However, there is concern as to whether which performance level (standard) of this measure could be set to: reflect the current specification in terms of Gross Mass limits for different fleet vehicle classes; and protect existing pavements from excessive loads. The calculation of SAR requires the use of equivalent loads of common axle groups, which cause same damage as a Standard Axle, as given below. Axle Group Single axle/single tyres SAST Load (kN) 53 Single axle/dual tyres SADT 80 Tandem axle/single tyres TAS 90 Tandem axle/dual tyres TADT 135 Triaxle/dual tyres TRIDT 181
Austroads (NRTC) recently commissioned ARRB Transport Research to carry out an investigation to estimate the equivalent load for a quad axle that can be adopted for the calculation of SARs for flexible pavements. The 2001 Draft Austroads Guide has procedures for assessing quad axle damage to concrete pavements. A literature review of the current equivalent axle loads being adopted for flexible pavements by different road authorities throughout the world indicates that equivalent loads for quad axle have not yet been developed for use in any pavement design procedures. Different pavement design procedures adopt different standard axle loads, different pavement damage criteria, and different procedures for the determination of equivalent axle loads. As such the procedures for estimating of equivalent axle loads adopted in other pavement design procedures may not be readily applied to the Austroads pavement design procedures to estimate equivalent loads for quad axle. Four procedures were used to estimate the equivalent load of a quad axle, namely: Extrapolation of the existing relationships between axle group load and number of tyre per axle group as adopted by different Road Authorities. Extrapolation of the relationship of predicted surface deflection and number of tyre per axle group: The Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to calculate the surface deflection. Extrapolation of the relationship of predicted critical strain and number of tyre per axle group: The Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to calculate the critical strain. Calculation of Group Equivalence Factor using the South African method: The Austroads mechanistic design procedures is used to predict pavement deflection, critical strain and design life.
Three granular pavements (which have thickness in the range of 250-480 mm and subgrade CBR in the range of 5-15%), one full depth asphalt pavement and one CTCR Subbase asphalt pavement were used in this study. Comparison of the estimates of equivalent load of a quad axle derived by different procedures indicates that the load-extrapolation and critical strain-extrapolation procedures produce consistent estimates of equivalent load of a quad axle, which are in the range of 215-226 kN. These estimates are slightly lower than the
i
estimates produced by the maximum deflection-extrapolation procedure (in the range of 222-247 kN), and much lower than the estimates produced by the South African approach (in the range of 266-339 kN). Given that the South African approach consistently produces higher estimates of equivalent loads for all axle group types (tandem-axle, tri-axle and quad-axle), it is considered that this method is inconsistent with the current Austroads accepted values. As such the South Africa approach will need to be investigated further, particularly the consideration of the influence of axle spacing, tyre pressure, material type and damage criteria (for different pavement types and classes). It is recommended that As interim measure a quad axle of 221 kN (22.5 tonne) be considered to cause equivalent damage to a Standard Axle. Further investigation of the South African approach to changing elastic properties with axle loads and tyre pressure to investigate the influence of nonlinear material properties on the estimates of equivalent axle loads. Further analysis will be undertaken to confirm this equivalent load of quad-axle is appropriate in terms of damage to pavements with asphalt and cemented materials.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................1 2.Equivalent Axle Loads Adopted in Various Countries............................................................................................1 3.Procedures for the Determination of Equivalent Axle Loads Adopted in Various Countries...............................2
3.1 Standard Axle Load (or Reference Axle Load).................................................................................................................2 3.2 Pavement Damage Criteria................................................................................................................................................2 3.3 Procedures Used to Derive Equivalent Axle Loads...........................................................................................................3 3.4 Procedures to Calculate Equivalent Axle of Loading........................................................................................................4 4.1 Austroads Mechanistic Pavement Design Procedure for Flexible Pavements................................................................5 4.2 Procedures Used to Estimate Quad Axle Equivalent Load...............................................................................................7
4.Estimation of Equivalent Loads for Quad Axle for Flexible Pavements (Austroads 1992)...................................5 5. Comparison of Estimates of Equivalent Loads of Quad Axle..............................................................................14 6. Summary................................................................................................................................................................17 7. Recommendation...................................................................................................................................................17
iii
TABLES
TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF EQUIVALENT LOADS FOR AXLE GROUP TYPES FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS....2 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF PROCEDURES FOR THE DERIVATION OF EQUIVALENT LOADS FOR AXLE GROUP TYPES..................................................................................................................................................................3 TABLE 3 DAMAGE EXPONENTS FOR ALL PAVEMENT TYPES (AUSTROADS 1992)....................................................6 TABLE 4 PAVEMENTS USED IN THE ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................9 TABLE 5 ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOADS FOR QUAD AXLE BASED ON EXTRAPOLATION OF EQUIVALENT SURFACE DEFLECTION....................................................................................................................9 TABLE 6 ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOADS FOR QUAD AXLE BASED ON EXTRAPOLATION OF EQUIVALENT CRITICAL STRAIN............................................................................................................................11 TABLE 7 ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT AXLE LOADS FOR GRANULAR PAVEMENTS USING GROUP EQUIVALENCE FACTOR (GEF) ...............................................................................................................................14 TABLE A1 COMPARISON OF EQUIVALENT LOADS FOR AXLE GROUP TYPES (FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS).........18 TABLE A2 COMPARISON OF EQUIVALENT LOADS FOR AXLE GROUP TYPES (FOR RIGID PAVEMENTS)........22 TABLE A3 AXLE GROUP LOAD FOR AUSTROADS LEF OF 1 (EROSION) AND COMPARISON WITH AASHTO PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................................................................24
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 EXTRAPOLATION OF EQUIVALENT LOAD OF A QUAD AXLE BASED ON EXITING AUSTROADS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOAD PER AXLE GROUP AND NUMBER OF TYRES...........................................................................................8 FIGURE 2 EXTRAPOLATION OF EQUIVALENT SURFACE DEFLECTION OF A QUAD AXLE BASED ON EXITING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CALCULATED SURFACE DEFLECTION PER AXLE GROUP AND NUMBER OF TYRES............................................................................................................................10 FIGURE 3 EXTRAPOLATION OF EQUIVALENT CRITICAL SUBGRADE STRAIN OF A QUAD AXLE BASED ON EXITING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CALCULATED CRITICAL SUBGRADE STRAIN PER AXLE GROUP AND NUMBER OF TYRES.......................................................................................................11 FIGURE 4 EXTRAPOLATION OF EQUIVALENT CRITICAL TENSILE STRAIN OF A QUAD AXLE BASED ON EXITING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CALCULATED CRITICAL TENSILE STRAIN PER AXLE GROUP AND NUMBER OF TYRES................................................................................................................12 FIGURE 6 COMPARISON OF EQUIVALENT AXLE LOADS ACCEPTED BY DIFFERENT ROAD AUTHORITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.......................................................................................................15
iv
FIGURE 7 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOADS OF A QUAD AXLE BASED ON DIFFERENT EXTRAPOLATION APPROACHES....................................................................................................15 FIGURE 8 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOADS FOR VARIOUS AXLE GROUPS PRODUCED BY THE AUSTROADS AND SOUTH AFRICAN MECHANISTIC DESIGN PROCEDURES (BOTH WITH THE SOUTH AFRICAN EDF)............................................................................................................16
Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-
1.
Introduction
The National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) and Austroads are sponsoring two major projects that are central to the development of a Performance Based Standards (PBS) approach to the regulation of heavy vehicles in Australia. The two projects, 'Specification of Performance Standards for Heavy Vehicles (Project A3)' and 'Documentation of the Performance of the Current Fleet (Project A4)' , have the primary aims of: 3) determining and establishing agreement with the jurisdictions and industry on the 'standards' to apply for an agreed set of Performance Measures; and 4) documenting the performance of nominated vehicles within the current heavy vehicle fleet using costeffective sources, including available records, calculation and the results of computer simulation. There has been general agreement to adopt the performance measure of Gross Mass per vehicle Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR) for PBS vehicles. However, there is concern as to whether which performance level (standard) of this measure could be set to: reflect the current specification in terms of Gross Mass limits for different fleet vehicle classes; and protect existing pavements from excessive loads. The calculation of SAR requires the use of equivalent loads of common axle groups, which cause same damage as a Standard Axle, as given below. Axle Group Single axle/single tyres SAST Load (kN) 53 Single axle/dual tyres SADT 80 Tandem axle/single tyres TAST 90 Tandem axle/dual tyres TADT 135 Triaxle/dual tyres TRADT 181
Austroads (NRTC) recently commissioned ARRB Transport Research to carry out an investigation to estimate the equivalent load for a quad axle that can be adopted for the calculation of SARs for flexible pavements. The 2001 Draft Austroads Guide has procedures for assessing quad axle damage to concrete pavements. This report describes the investigation, which consists of three parts:
A review of Australian and overseas literature with respect to equivalent loads of axle groups that cause equal pavement damage to both flexible and rigid pavements. A review of procedures/models currently being adopted to estimate the equivalent load of axle configurations with multiple axles (tandem, tridem and quad axles). A study to estimate the equivalent load for a quad axle that can be adopted for the calculation of SARs for flexible pavements using the Austroads pavement design procedures. Equivalent Axle Loads Adopted in Various Countries
2.
A literature review was conducted to compare the current equivalent axle loads being adopted for both flexible and rigid pavements by different road authorities in different countries throughout the world. Appendix A provides a summary of this literature review, including the background to the equivalent axle loads currently recommended in the Austroads (1992) Pavement Design Guide. Table 1 summarises the results of equivalent axle loads (or axle loads of equal damage) for flexible pavements being adopted by different road authorities. The results indicate that equivalent loads for quad axle have not yet been developed for use in any pavement design procedures. Therefore, it is imperative to select a procedure/model that can determine or estimate the equivalent loads for new axle configurations of future
Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 1
generations of heavy vehicles such as quad axle. The procedures/models currently being adopted to determine equivalent axle loads that cause equal pavement damage are briefly discussed below.
Table 1 Comparison of Equivalent Loads for Axle Group Types for Flexible Pavements
Axle Group Type
Austroads (1992)1
AASHTO (1993) 2
Department of Transport, South Africa (1997) 3 61 kN 80 kN 134 kN 187 kN.
Ministry of Transportation (Canada)
LCPC and SETRA, France (1997)
Department of Transport, Great Britain (1993) NA NA NA NA
SAST SADT TADT TRIDT
53 kN 80 kN 135 kN 181 kN
NA 4 80 kN 151 kN 214-205 kN
61 kN 78 kN 126 kN 172 kN
NA 4 130 kN 275 kN 383 kN
Note 1: Tyre pressure of 550 kPa and axle spacing of 1320 mm were used in Austroads (1992)
Note 2: Axle spacing of 1219 mm (4 ft) was used in the AASHTO Road Tests Note 3: Values derived using tyre pressure of 520 kPa and axle spacing of 1400 mm
Note 4: AASHTO (1993) and LCPC and SETRA (1997) provide no guidance for SAST
3.
Procedures for the Determination of Equivalent Axle Loads Adopted in Various Countries
Table 2 compares various components of the procedures for determining/estimating equivalent axle loads adopted by various road authorities throughout the world. The differences between the procedures adopted different road authorities are briefly discussed below. 3.1 Standard Axle Load (or Reference Axle Load)
A Standard Axle load is often selected as the most common axle configuration, which is used as the reference load to compare damaging effects of loads on different axle configurations. Referring to Table 2, most road authorities (e.g. Austroads, AASHTO and Department of Transport South Africa) define the Standard Axle as a dual-tyred single axle (SADT) transmitting a load of 80 kN to the pavement. However, Ministry of Transportation in Canada adopts a slightly lower SADT load of 78 kN, whereas France adopts a much higher SADT load of 130 kN. 3.2 Pavement Damage Criteria
Pavement damage criteria describe a specific level of pavement damage to be used in the comparison of damaging effects of loads on different axle configurations. Referring to Table 2, different road authorities adopt different damage criteria in the comparison of damaging effects of loads on different axle configurations. AASHTO (1993) equivalent axle loads were derived from data collected during the AASHO Road Test, by referencing pavement damage to a terminal serviceability value (pt). Pavement designers may select different specific terminal serviceability values for different pavement types and classes in the determination of equivalent axle loads. Austroads (1992) equal axle loads are based on the assumption that axle groups that produce same maximum deflection for a given pavement would cause equal pavement damage. This principle was reasonably well supported by limited data from the AASHO road test, from which Scalas (1970 a) estimated relative destructive effects, used a number of pavements of known construction. Given that the
pavement damage is not specifically defined, the comparison is strictly based on relative damage (rather than absolute damage). The South African method (Prozzi and de Beer 1997) considers total pavement damage from damages of individual layers in the pavement, in terms of fatigue failure for bound layers and deformation (or shearing) failure for granular layers and subgrade. As such the total life of an asphalt pavement with cement-treated subbase may have different phases, including fatigue failure of the cement-treated subbase in phase 1, fatigue failure of the asphalt surface in phase 2 and shearing of the granular subbase and/or subgrade in phase 3. Highways Directorate of France refers pavement damage to the fatigue damage of the surface bound layers caused by the applied axle loads.
Table 2 Comparison of Procedures for the Derivation of Equivalent Loads for Axle Group Types
Pavement Design Procedure Austroads (1992)
Standard Pavement Damage Criteria Procedures to derive axle load of equal damage Axle Load 80 kN SADT Equal maximum surface deflection cause equal pavement damage Response to load on pavements with chip seal and thin asphalt surfacing using SAST, SADT, TADT, and TRIDT (one level of tyre pressure) Performance data obtained from AASHO Road Test using SADT and TADT (one level of tyre pressure)
Procedures to calculate equivalent axle loads Standard Axles Repetitions (SAR) from mixed traffic (damage exponent varies with distress mode) Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) when the fourth power law is applied Equivalent Standard Axle Load (ESAL) procedures to estimate equivalent loads for TRIDT (one level of tyre pressure) from performance data of in-service pavements Equivalent Damage Factor (EDF) procedures to estimate equivalent loads for SAST, TADT, TRIDT from total design life (predicted with DOT SA mechanistic design procedures) Equivalent Standard Axle Load (ESAL) Procedures to estimate equivalent loads for SAST, TADT, TRIDT from performance data of inservice pavements (?) Axle Aggressiveness (A) Procedures to estimate equivalent loads for TADT and TRIDT from performance data (?)
AASHTO (1993)
18 kips (80 Total pavement damage in kN) SADT terms of terminal serviceability value (pt), [pt = 2.0-3.0]
Dept of Transport (South Africa)
80 kN SADT
Total pavement damage from damages of individual layers in the pavement, in terms of fatigue failure for bound layers and deformation (or shearing) failure for granular layers and subgrade
Ministry of Transp. (Canada)
78 kN SADT ?
Highways Directorate (France)
130 kN SADT
Fatigue failure of surface layer
3.3
Procedures Used to Derive Equivalent Axle Loads
A procedure to derive equivalent axle loads allows measuring/determining the axle configurations that are considered equivalent to the Standard Axle load, i.e. all axle configurations produce the same the number of repetitions that causes the same pavement damage.
Referring to Table 2, different road authorities adopt different methods for measuring/determining equivalent axle loads. In the AASHTO road tests, the number of repetitions of the SADT and TADT (with loads up to 133 kN and 214 kN, respectively) that caused pavement damage to a terminal serviceability value could be determined. From the test results, it was possible to deduce the equivalent load for TADT (see Table 1) that produced the same damage as the Standard 80 kN SADT. Austroads (1992) derived the axle loads of equivalent damage for SAST, TADT and TRIDT (see Table 1) from deflection data produced by field testing with different axle groups on granular and thin asphaltsurfaced pavements (Scala 1970a, 1970b). In this field study, actual trucks with different axle configurations were loaded to different loads to determine the load for each axle configuration that produced the same vertical pavement deflections as that produced by the Standard 80 kN SADT for each pavement case. Procedures to Calculate Equivalent Axle of Loading
3.4
Performance data obtained from in-service pavements are generally influenced by mixed traffic. To convert a mixed traffic into the total design traffic, expressed in terms of equivalent Standard Axle loads (EASL), requires factors applied to each axle group, which are often called as Load Equivalency Factors (LEF). Referring to Table 2, different LEF procedures are adopted in various pavement design procedures. AASHTO (1993) firstly used the Equivalent Standard Axle load (ESAL) procedure to compare the damage caused by different axle configurations. In this procedure, the damage caused by a passage of a given axle over the pavement is described in terms of a unit damage caused by the standard 80 kN SADT. Using this concept, each axle type will have a Load Equivalency Factor, which is defined as: unit damage caused by the passage of the axle/unit damage caused by the passage of a Standard Axle load (expressed in ESALs). This concept can be extended to determine the load equivalency for each vehicle, which is the sum of the LEFs of each axle group constituting the vehicle. As discussed above, AASHTO (1993) used the performance data obtained from the AASHTO road tests to determine the equivalent loads for TADT. However, the equivalent load for TRIDT (see Table 1) was estimated using the EASL procedures and performance data observed from in-service pavements. Austroads (1992) uses Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR) to estimate design traffic from mixed traffic. In this case, SAR is the number of Standard Axles that will provide the same damage as that caused by the various group types. Various values of damage exponents (4, 5, 7, 122) are used depending on distress type. When using a damage exponent of 4, the Standard Axle Repetition is called Equivalent (ESA). Given that equivalent loads for SAST, TADT, TAST and TRIDT could be determined by deflection-toload testing (see Table 1), these procedures are not used to predict equivalent axle loads. Department of Transport South Africa (1997) used the procedures developed by Prozzi and de Beer (1997) to determine the Equivalent Damage Factor (EDF), which is the number of repetitions of the Standard Load Configuration (identical to a Standard Axle) that will cause the same damage as the given axle group. In this procedure, the EDF recognises the influence of the axle spacing within an axle group (Group Equivalence Factor), the mass on the axle group (Axle Load Factor) and the tyre contact stress (Contact Stress Factor): EDF = GEF x ALF x CSF where EDF GEF ALF CSF = Equivalent Damage Factor, = Group Equivalence Factor, = Axle Load Factor, and = Contact Stress Factor. (1)
GEF takes into account the effects of inter-axle spacing and represents the ratio between the allowable loading under the single axle to the life under a group with multiple axles (tandem and tridem axles). ALF
assesses the influence of axle load and is the ratio between the allowable loading under 80 kN single axle to the life under an axle of any given group. CSF considers the effect of contact stress and is the ratio between the allowable loading under a contact stress of 520 kPa to the life under any given contact stress at the same axle load of 80 kN. Prozzi and de Beer (1997) incorporated the EDF procedures into the South African mechanistic design procedures to predict equivalent loads for SAST, TADT and TRIDT (see Table 1) that produce the same the total life as the Standard Load Configuration. In this method, fatigue life of a bound layer and deformation life of a granular layer or subgrade are predicted from the critical strain or stress in the layers concerned, which are calculated with a linear-elastic layered model. Material inputs into this model are determined from a suit of laboratory testing methods. The relationships between fatigue/deformation life and critical stress/strain (Transfer Functions) are developed based on both material performance data from laboratory testing and pavement performance data from accelerated pavement testing with the Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS). The method adopted by the Highways Directorate of France considers the Aggressiveness of an Axle, which is based on the fatigue damage caused to the pavement. Aggressiveness, A, corresponds to the damage caused by one passage of an axle load ( P) compared to the damage due to one passage of the reference isolated1 axle load (PO). Aggressiveness (A) is determined using the following relationship (LCPC and SETRA 1997):
P A = k PO
(2)
where A P PO k = = = = = Aggressiveness; load on each axle of the axle group; reference axle (dual-wheel isolated [single] axle, weighing 130 kN); constant depending on pavement type (flexible, semi-rigid or concrete); and constant depending on axle type (single, tandem or triaxle).
As the reference axle load is different from a Standard Axle, the French equivalent axles cannot be readily compared to values derived using other pavement design procedures. In summary, different pavement design procedures adopt different standard axle loads, different pavement damage criteria, and different procedures for the determination of equivalent axle loads. As such the procedures for estimating of equivalent axle loads adopted in other pavement design procedures may not be readily applied to the Austroads pavement design procedures to estimate equivalent loads for quad axle. 4. Estimation of Equivalent Loads for Quad Axle for Flexible Pavements (Austroads 1992) Austroads Mechanistic Pavement Design Procedure for Flexible Pavements
4.1
The Austroads mechanistic pavement design procedure (Austroads 1992) for flexible pavements is based on semi-empirical approach and has two components:

a pavement response model to predict critical strains in pavement layers under standard loads, and various empirical performance relationships to estimate the allowable number of loading cycles of standard loads on the selected pavement.
For practical reasons, Austroads adopts the simple linear elastic layered model CIRCLY with the following considerations in the selection of loading input and critical strains.
1
Isolated axle [group] is when the nearest axle is greater than 2 m distant.
Loading input is expressed in terms of standard axles of equivalent damage, which equate to a standard single axle, dual tyre arrangement loaded to 8.2 tonne. In the standard analysis procedure with CIRCLY, the loading is simulated as a half-standard axle (i.e. only one pair of tyres) and only vertical loading (i.e. no shear force) being applied. For pavements with bound surface layers that have high capacity to sustain high vertical and horizontal stress (asphalt, cemented material and concrete), material fatigue is the major failure mode. CIRCLY can be used to model the linear elastic behaviour of bound materials and produces consistent estimation of maximum tensile strain in each bound layer, the critical parameter for fatigue failure. For predicting permanent deformation, the Austroads design method uses the maximum compressive strain at top of the subgrade as the performance index parameter.
The vehicle-pavement conditions applied in the standard analysis procedures with CIRCLY are equivalent to steady speed travel without consideration of horizontal tyre force for uphill grade, turning, start-up and breaking operations. Based on the above considerations, Austroads has established three empirical pavement allowable loading-critical strain relationships to predict bound layer fatigue cracking and deformation performance, viz. NDeform = (KDeform/SG )7.14 NAC = (KAC /AC) 5 NCT = (KCT /CT) 12 Where NDeform = Pavement deformation allowable loading, i.e number of loading repetitions (standard axle) which produce a terminal rutting and shoving (say 20 mm). NAC = Asphalt fatigue allowable loading, i.e. number of loading repetitions (standard axle) which produce a terminal cracking of the asphalt layer. NCT = Cemented material fatigue allowable loading, i.e. number of loading repetitions (standard axle) which produce a terminal cracking of the cemented material layer. (3) (4) (5)
SG = AC CT
= =
the magnitude of the peak vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade calculated under vertical loading (without shear force) using CIRCLY. the magnitude of the peak horizontal tensile strain at bottom of the asphalt layer calculated under vertical loading (without shear force) using CIRCLY.
the magnitude of the peak horizontal tensile strain at bottom of the cemented material layer calculated under vertical loading (without shear force) using CIRCLY. In these relationships, deformation life or cracking life is expressed in terms of the loading index Standard Axles of allowable loading. Austroads (1992) also assumes that there is a linear relationship between vertical loading and critical strain, which means that the damage exponents (DE) and criteria as given in Table 3 may also be applied to the loaddamage relationships for analyses with different vertical loads (without shear forces).
Table 3 Damage Exponents for All Pavement Types (Austroads 1992)
Distress Mode
Critical Strain Criterion
Constant K
Damage Exponent DE 5 12
Asphalt fatigue Cemented material
Maximum tensile strain at bottom of asphalt layer Maximum tensile strain at
A function of binder content and mix stiffness A function of layer
fatigue Total permanent deformation
bottom of cemented material layer Maximum compressive strain at top of subgrade
stiffness 8511 7.14
4.2
Procedures Used to Estimate Quad Axle Equivalent Load
It is imperative that the Austroads procedure for the determination of the equivalent axle loads (i.e. field testing to determine equal maximum surface deflection) be used for quad axle to be consistent with the current Austroads accepted values for SAST, SADT, TADT and TRIDT. However, it was commented by Prozzi and de Beer (1997) that the Austroads approach is only valid, or approximately valid, when the performance of the pavement is governed by the behaviour of the lower layers, i.e. selected layers or subgrade. The approach has some shortcomings due to the surface deflection not being directly related to some pavement response parameters. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the effects of material properties on the validity of the Austroads approach. The Department of Transport South Africa has incorporated the Equivalent Damage Factor (EDF) procedure into their mechanistic pavement design to predict equivalent loads for SAST, TADT and TRIDT. This EDF procedure may also have the potential to be developed further for incorporation into the Austroads mechanistic design procedures to predict equivalent loads for different axle configurations, particularly for bound pavements. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the incorporation of the South African EDF procedure into the Austroads mechanistic design to determine validity of this approach. Given the lack of field data for the determination of equivalent load for quad axle, it is proposed to use the four following theoretical procedures to estimate the equivalent load for quad axle for flexible pavements: Procedure 1: Extrapolation of the existing Austroads relationships between axle group load and number of tyre per axle group. Procedure 2: Extrapolation of the relationship of predicted surface deflection and number of tyre per axle group The Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to calculate the surface deflection. Procedure 3: Extrapolation of the relationship of predicted critical strain and number of tyre per axle group The Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to calculate the critical strain. Procedure 4: Calculation of Group Equivalence Factor using the South African method The Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to predict pavement deflection, critical strain and design life. Extrapolation of Austroads Equivalent Loads for Common Axle Groups
4.2.1
Figure 1 shows the relationship between current Austroads accepted values of Equivalent Loads for axle group with dual tyres (SADT, TADT and TRIDT) and number of tyre per axle group.
Axle Group Load versus Number of Tyres

250
200 Load per Axle Group (kN)
y = 28.559x R2 = 0.9999 150
0.7444
Austroads (1992) Power (Austroads (1992))
100
50
SADT 0 0 2 4 6
TADT 8 10
TRIDT 12 14
QUADT 16 18
Number of Tyres
Figure 1 Extrapolation of equivalent load of a quad axle based on exiting Austroads relationship between load per axle group and number of tyres
The relationship in Figure 1 is best presented by the power function Y = 31.9888 X 0.6914 (with the fitting R2 = 0.997) where Y = equivalent load per axle group (kN) X = number of tyre per axle group The estimate of the equivalent load for quad axle (X = 16 tyres) based on extrapolation of the above relationship is 225 kN. 4.2.2 Extrapolation of Predicted Surface Deflection Three granular pavements with thin surface seal, which have thickness in the range of 250-480 mm and subgrade CBR in the range of 5-15%, a full depth asphalt and an asphalt pavement with cemented subbase were considered in this study. Their details are given in Table 4. (6)
Table 4 Pavements Used in the Analysis
Pavement No 1 2 3 4
Surface thickness and Type Sprayed seal Sprayed seal Sprayed seal 40 mm Size 14 mm Mix (2,200 MPa) 40 mm Size 14 mm Mix (2,200 MPa)
Base Thickness and Type 250 mm crushed rock 320 mm crushed rock 480 mm crushed rock 180 mm Size 20 mm Mix (2500 MPa) 110 mm Size 20 mm Mix (2500 MPa)
Upper Subbase Thickness and Type -
Lower Subbase Thickness and Type -
Subgrade (CBR) 15 10 5 5
120 mm CTCR (2000 MPa)
200 mm granular
For each pavement, the Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to calculate the maximum surface deflections (between or under the tyres) using the Austroads accepted values of Equivalent Loads for axle groups with dual tyres (SADT, TADT and TRIDT), and the results are given in Table 5. Referring to Table 5, for granular pavement with thin surface seals (Pavements 1, 2 and 3), the Austroads accepted Equivalent Loads for SADT, TADT and TRIDT produce similar maximum surface deflections. However, for bound pavements (Pavements 4 and 5), the Austroads accepted Equivalent Loads for SADT, TADT and TRIDT produce different maximum surface deflections. This may indicate that the Austroads approach for determination of equivalent axle loads based on equal maximum surface deflection (Scala 1970a, 1970b) may be applicable for granular pavement with thin surface seals, but not for pavements with bound materials. Figure 2 shows the relationships between the predicted surface deflections for axle groups with dual tyres (SADT, TADT and TRIDT) and number of tyre per axle group. The relationships in Figure 2 are best presented by the linear function Y = a.X + b where Y = predicted surface deflection for a given axle group X = number of tyre per axle group a and b are fitting constants. These relationships were used to estimate the equivalent surface deflections for quad axle (that have 16 tyres). The Austroads design procedures were then used to calculate the quad axle loads that produce these equivalent surface deflections. The results of equivalent surface deflections and equivalent quad axle loads are also given in Table 5. Referring to Table 5, for granular pavements with thin surface seal (Pavements 1, 2 and 3), the estimated equivalent quad axle loads are in the range of 222-231 kN, with an average value of 226 kN. For bound pavements (Pavements 4 and 5), the estimated equivalent quad axle loads are much higher (in the range 243-247 kN). This indicates that the deflection-extrapolation procedure produces different estimates of equivalent load for different pavement compositions.
Table 5 Estimates of Equivalent Loads for Quad Axle Based on Extrapolation of Equivalent Surface Deflection
(7)
Pavement No 1 2 3 4 5
Equivalent Surface Deflection (mm) SADT 0.58 0.71 0.93 0.57 0.47 TADT 0.57 0.70 0.96 0.64 0.56 TRIDT 0.56 0.70 1.00 0.72 0.64 QUAD 0.55 0.69 1.04 0.79 0.73 80 80 80 80 80
Equivalent Axle Load, EAL (kN) SADT TADT 135 135 135 135 135 TRIDT 181 181 181 181 181 QUAD 222 224 231 243 247
Surface Deflection versus Number of Tyres

1.20 y = 0.009x + 0.892 R2 = 0.9647 1.00 y = -0.0013x + 0.7144 2 R = 0.3784 y = 0.0184x + 0.4976 2 R = 0.9996 Pav-1 Pav-2 Pav-3 0.60 y = -0.0029x + 0.5939 2 R = 0.8052 Pav-4 Pav-5 Linear (Pav-2) Linear (Pav-3) Linear (Pav-1) Linear (Pav-4) Linear (Pav-5) 18
Surface Deflection (mm)
0.80
0.40
y = 0.0212x + 0.3876 2 R =1
0.20 SAST 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Tyres SADT TADT TRIDT QUADT
Figure 2 Extrapolation of equivalent surface deflection of a quad axle based on exiting relationships between calculated surface deflection per axle group and number of tyres
4.2.3
Extrapolation of Predicted Critical Strain
The Austroads mechanistic design procedures were used to calculate the equivalent critical strains (maximum tensile strain at bottom of a bound layer and maximum strain at top of the subgrade under/between the tyres) using the Austroads accepted values of Equivalent Loads for axle groups with dual tyres (SADT, TADT and TRIDT). The results are given in Table 6. Figure 3 shows the relationships between the predicted critical subgrade strain for axle groups with dual tyres (SADT, TADT and TRIDT) and number of tyre per axle group for all granular pavements with thin surface seal (Pavements 1, 2 and 3). Similarly, Figure 4 shows the relationships between the predicted critical tensile strain for SAST, SADT, TADT and TRIDT and number of tyre per axle group for all bound pavements (Pavements 4 and 5). The relationships in Figures 3 and 4 are best presented by the power function Y = a.X b where
(8)
Y = predicted critical subgrade strain for a given axle group X = number of tyre per axle group a and b are fitting constants.
Table 6 Estimates of Equivalent Loads for Quad Axle Based on Extrapolation of Equivalent Critical Strain
Distress Mode
Equivalent Critical Strain (micro-strain) SADT TADT 597 563 599 156 121 TRIDT 540 503 542 135 103 QUAD 503 465 504 121 92 709 682 710 201 158
Equivalent Axle Load, EAL (kN) SADT 80 80 80 80 80 TADT 135 135 135 135 135 TRIDT 181 181 181 181 181 QUAD 221 220 226 217 215
SG Strain SG Strain SG Strain Tensile strain in AC Base Tensile strain in CTCR Subbase
Subgrade strain versus Number of Tyres

900 800 Critical Subgrade Strain (micro-strain) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 SADT 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of Tyres TADT TRIDT QUADT y = 957.76x-0.2272 2 R = 0.9994 y = 961.56x 2 R = 0.9996
-0.2564
y = 1021.4x 2 R = 0.9992
-0.2568
Pav-1 Pav-2 Pav-3 Power (Pav-2) Power (Pav-3) Power (Pav-1)
Figure 3 Extrapolation of equivalent critical subgrade strain of a quad axle based on exiting relationships between calculated critical subgrade strain per axle group and number of tyres
Critical Tensile Strain versus Number of Tyres

250 y = 330.94x-0.3658 2 R = 0.9957 Critical Tensile Strain (micro-strain) 200
Pav-4 (AC) 150 y = 270.24x R2 = 0.9975 100 y = 72.183x 2 R = 0.9979 50

-0.232 -0.3873
Pav-5 (AC) Pav-5 (CTCR) Power (Pav-4 (AC)) Power (Pav-5 (AC)) Power (Pav-5 (CTCR))
SADT 0 0 2 4 6
TADT 8 10
TRIDT 12 14
QUADT 16 18
Number of Tyres
Figure 4 Extrapolation of equivalent critical tensile strain of a quad axle based on exiting relationships between calculated critical tensile strain per axle group and number of tyres
Using the regression relationships shown in Figure 3 and 4, the equivalent critical subgrade strain and critical tensile strain for quad axle (that have 16 tyres) were extrapolated. The Austroads design procedures were then used to calculate the quad axle loads that produce these equivalent critical subgrade strains and critical tensile strains. The results of equivalent critical strains and equivalent quad axle loads are also given in Table 6. Referring to Table 6, for granular pavements with thin surface seal (Pavements 1, 2 and 3), the estimated equivalent quad axle loads are in the range of 222-231 kN, with an average value of 222 kN. For bound pavements (Pavements 4 and 5), the estimated equivalent quad axle loads are slightly lower (in the range 215217 kN). 4.2.4 Estimates based on South African Damage Equivalence Factor Procedures
As discussed in Section 3 (also see Equation 1), the South African Equivalent Damage Factor (EDF) is the product of Group Equivalence Factor (GEF), the Axle Load factor (ALF) and the Contact Stress Factor (CSF). For a group consisting of multiple single axles at a given axle spacing (SP) and a given tyre pressure (): Group Equivalence Factor (GEF) is defined as the ratio between the allowable loading (N ISO) under an isolated single axle of an axle group and the allowable loading (NG) under the axle group. GEF = NISO /NG (9) Axle Load Factor (ALF) is defined as the ratio between the allowable loading (NS) under the Standard 80 kN SADT and the allowable loading under an isolated single axle (NISO) of an axle group. ALF = NS /NISO (10) Contact Stress Factor (CSF) is defined as the ratio between the allowable loading (N S) under the Standard 80 kN SADT with standard tyre pressure and the allowable loading (N S) under a single 80 kN SADT with the tyre pressure ().
CSF = NS /NS
(11)
In this study, the following conditions were applied to be consistent with the Austroads Equivalent Loads for SAST, SADT, TADT and TRIDT (see Table 1): an axle spacing (sp) of 1350 mm was applied for all axle groups TADT, TRIDT and QUADT; a Standard SADT of 80 kN; and a tyre pressure () of 550 kPa was applied to all axle groups (SADT, TADT, TRIDT and QUADT).
The current Austroads design procedures (Austroads 1992) do not cover changes of the elastic properties of all layers with axle load level. In this study, it is also assumed that elastic properties are unchanged with axle load level. There is a need to consider changes in elastic properties with axle loads to investigate the influence of nonlinear material properties on the estimates of equivalent axle loads. It should be noted that the new Draft Austroads Guide (Austroads 2001) adopts a tyre pressure of 750 kPa for Standard Axle load without changing the values of Equivalent Loads for SAST, SADT, TADT and TRIDT. It is recommended that this be investigated. An axle group (with a total load of EGAL) will have the same damage as the Standard Axle load when EDF = GEF x ALF x CSF = 1 Given that all axle groups have the same tyre pressure as the Standard SADT ( = 550 kPa), CSF = 1 Therefore, Equation (12) can be rewritten as: GEF x ALF x 1 = 1 ALF = 1/GEF (14) Referring to Equations 3, 4 and 5 (also Table 3), the allowable loading is proportional to (1/Critical Strain)DE. Therefore, Equation 10 can be expressed as ALF =(Critical Strain under an isolated single axle/Critical Strain under 80 kN SADT) DE The isolated single axle will have a load of: ESAL = EGL/n where EGL ESAL n = equivalent load of the axle group = equivalent load of a single axle of the group = number of axles of the group. (15) (13) (12)
Given that elastic properties were assumed to be unchanged with axle loads, critical strains are proportional to axle load level. Therefore, ALF can be calculated as: ALF = (ESAL/80) DE (16)
Combining the two Equations (14) and (16) , the equivalent single axle load (ESAL) of a group can be calculated as: ESAL = 80 /GEF 1/DE The equivalent load of an axle group (EGL) can be calculated as: EGL = number of single axles in the group x 80/GEF 1/DE (18) (17)
Equation (18) indicates that EGL is a function of number single axle in the group, Standard Axle load (80 kN) and Group Equivalence Factor (GEF).
The South African procedure for determining GEF is given in Appendix B. This procedure was used to derive the GEF values for TADT, TRIDT and QUADT for all selected pavements in Table 4, and the results of GEF are given in Table 7. Equivalent load of each axle group (EGAL) was calculated using Equation (17) and the results of EGAL for TADT, TRIDT and QUADT are also given in Table 7. Referring to Table 7, for granular pavements with thin surface seal (Pavements 1, 2 and 3), the estimated equivalent quad axle loads are in the narrow range of 266268 kN, which is much lower than the estimates for bound pavements (282 kN and 339 kN for Pavements 4 and 5, respectively). This indicates that the South African procedure produce different estimates of equivalent load for different distress modes.
Table 7 Estimates of Equivalent Axle Loads for Granular Pavements using Group Equivalence Factor (GEF)
Distress Mode
Group Equivalence Factor (GEF) TADT TRIDT 2.79 2.70 2.64 1.33 0.39 QUAD 3.73 3.62 3.54 1.77 0.49
Equivalent Axle Load, EAL (kN) TADT 147 147 147 161 173 TRIDT 208 209 209 227 259 QUAD 266 267 268 285 339
Critical SG Strain Critical SG Strain Critical SG Strain Critical Tensile strain in AC Base Critical Tensile strain in CTCR Subbase
1.86 1.81 1.79 0.96 0.38
5.
Comparison of Estimates of Equivalent Loads of Quad Axle
Figure 6 compares the values of Equivalent Load for axle groups with dual tyres (SADT, TADT and TRIDT) accepted in various pavement design procedures throughout the world. It can be seen from Figure 6 that the AASHTO values for TADT and TRIDT are significantly higher than the others. It should be noted that the South African values were calculated using the South African mechanistic design procedures with the South African EDF (Prozzi and de Beer, 1997). Referring to Figure 6, by using load extrapolation method, Austroads and Canadian Design procedures produce comparable estimates of equivalent load for quad axle (approximately 225 and 219 kN, respectively), which is much lower than those produced by the South African and AASHTO procedures (approximately 241 kN and 279 kN, respectively). Figure 7 compares the estimates of equivalent load of a quad axle derived by all extrapolation procedures adopted in this study (i.e. load-extrapolation, deflection-extrapolation and critical strain-extrapolation). Referring to Figure 7, load-extrapolation (Procedure 1) and critical strain-extrapolation (Procedure 3) produce comparable estimates of equivalent load for quad axle (in the range of 215-226 kN), which are lower than those produced by deflection-extrapolation (Procedure 2) (in the range of 222-247 kN).

300 y = 23.758x 2 R = 0.9989 y = 13.375x + 26.667 2 R =1 200
0.7444 0.8806
Austroads (1992) AASHTO (1993) pt = 2.5
150
y = 28.559x 2 R = 0.9999
Sth. Africa Ministry of Transpn (Canada) Power (AASHTO (1993) pt = 2.5) Linear (Ministry of Transpn (Canada)) Linear (Sth. Africa ) Power (Austroads (1992))
100 y = 11.75x + 31.333 2 R = 0.9998 50 SADT 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of Tyres TADT TRIDT QUADT
Figure 6 Comparison of equivalent axle loads accepted by different road authorities throughout the world

250

Load Extrapolation Critical Strain Extrapolation Critical Strain Extrapolation Critical Strain Extrapolation Deflection Extrapolation Deflection Extrapolation Deflection Extrapolation
150
100
SADT
TADT
TRIDT
QUADT
50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of Tyres
Figure 7 Comparison of estimates of equivalent loads of a quad axle based on different extrapolation approaches
Figure 8 compares the estimates of equivalent loads for axle groups with dual tyres (SADT, TADT and TRIDT) produced by the Austroads and South African mechanistic design procedures, both with the South African EDF. Referring to Figure 8, the Austroads mechanistic design procedures with the South African EDF consistently produce higher estimates of equivalent loads for axle groups with dual tyres than those produced by the South African mechanistic design procedures with the South African EDF. It should be noted that the equivalent loads for TADT, TRIDT and QUADT produced by the Austroads-South African EDF procedures are consistently higher than those accepted by Austroads (say 9%, 15% and 21% for granular pavements, 19%, 26%, 30% for the full-depth asphalt pavement and 28%, 43% and 54% for the asphalt pavement with CTCR subbase). Given that the Austroads mechanistic design procedures with the South African EDF also consistently produce higher estimates of equivalent loads for all axle groups than the current Austroads accepted values (see Figure 8), it is considered that this method is not accepted at this stage and will need to be investigated further. As discussed previously, there is a need to consider changes in elastic properties with axle loads and tyre pressure to investigate the influence of nonlinear material properties on the estimates of equivalent axle loads. There is also a need to investigate the influence of damage criteria on the estimates of equivalent axle loads, i.e. the total damage criteria (i.e. combined fatigue life of bound layers and deformation life of granular layer and subgrade) and limited-damage criteria (either fatigue life of bound layers or deformation life of subgrade).
350

Austroads mechanistic design procedures with South Africa EDF
250
Pav-1,2,3 (SG Strain) Pav-4 (AC Strain)
200
Pav-5 (CTCR Strain) South Africa (existing)
150
Austroads (existing)
100
SADT TADT TRIDT QUADT
50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of Tyres
Figure 8 Comparison of estimates of equivalent loads for various axle groups produced by the Austroads and South African mechanistic design procedures (both with the South African EDF)
There are two scenarios in the selection of equivalent axle loads: Scenario 1: Acceptance of a single value of equivalent load for each standard axle group as currently adopted in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide This will not cover influence of axle spacing, tyre pressure, material type and damage criteria (for different pavement types and classes). Scenario 2: Acceptance of different values of equivalent load for each standard axle group to cover influence of axle spacing, tyre pressure, material type and damage criteria This requires further work to provide information for the above effects and revise the Austroads mechanistic pavement design procedures.
For Scenario 1, given the smallest variation between the load-extrapolation and critical strain-extrapolation, it is likely that Austroads would accept the estimates of equivalent load for quad axle derived from these procedures (in the range of 215-226 kN). 6. Summary
A literature review of the current equivalent axle loads being adopted for flexible pavements by different road authorities throughout the world indicates that equivalent loads for quad axle have not yet been developed for use in any pavement design procedures. Different pavement design procedures adopt different standard axle loads, different pavement damage criteria, and different procedures for the determination of equivalent axle loads. As such the procedures for estimating of equivalent axle loads adopted in other pavement design procedures may not be readily applied to the Austroads pavement design procedures to estimate equivalent loads for quad axle. Four procedures were used to estimate the equivalent load of a quad axle, namely: Extrapolation of the existing relationships between axle group load and number of tyre per axle group as adopted by different Road Authorities. Extrapolation of the relationship of predicted surface deflection and number of tyre per axle group: The Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to calculate the surface deflection. Extrapolation of the relationship of predicted critical strain and number of tyre per axle group: The Austroads mechanistic design procedures are used to calculate the critical strain. Calculation of Group Equivalence Factor using the South African method: The Austroads mechanistic design procedures is used to predict pavement deflection, critical strain and design life.
Three granular pavements (which have thickness in the range of 250-480 mm and subgrade CBR in the range of 5-15%), one full depth asphalt pavement and one CTCR Subbase asphalt pavement were used in this study. Comparison of the estimates of equivalent load of a quad axle derived by different procedures indicates that the load-extrapolation and critical strain-extrapolation procedures produce consistent estimates of equivalent load of a quad axle, which are in the range of 215-226 kN. These estimates are slightly lower than the estimates produced by the maximum deflection-extrapolation procedure (in the range of 222-247 kN), and much lower than the estimates produced by the South African approach (in the range of 266-339 kN). Given that the South African approach consistently produces higher estimates of equivalent loads for tandem-axle and tri-axle than the existing Austroads accepted values, this method is unsuitable for estimating equivalent quad axle load. As such the South Africa approach will need to be investigated further, particularly the consideration of the influence of axle spacing, tyre pressure, material type and damage criteria (for different pavement types and classes). 7. Recommendation
It is recommended that

As interim measure a quad axle of 221 kN (22.5 tonne) be considered to cause equivalent damage to a Standard Axle. Further investigation of the South African approach to changing elastic properties with axle loads and tyre pressure to investigate the influence of nonlinear material properties on the estimates of equivalent axle loads. Further analysis will be undertaken to confirm this equivalent load of quad-axle is appropriate in terms of damage to pavements with asphalt and cemented materials.
Appendix A Literature Review of Equivalent Axle Loads Adopted in Various Countries

A literature review of axle loads for equivalent damage was undertaken by Foley (2001) to compare the current Austroads LEFs for flexible and rigid pavements with those of other countries. The data in Foley (2001) has been revised and is given below.
A.1
Equivalent Axle Loads for Flexible Pavements
Table A1 summarises information of equivalent axle loads for flexible pavements that is available from the current published design guides and commentary documents relevant to Australia, the USA, South Africa, France, Great Britain and Canada.
Table A1 Comparison of Equivalent Loads for Axle Group Types (Flexible Pavements)
Axle Group Type
AASHTO (1993) 2 pt = 2.0-3.0
Austroads (1992)
Dept. of Transport (Sth. Afr.)3 axle spacing of 1400 mm 61 kN 80 kN 134 kN 4 185 kN 6
Dept. of Transport (UK)
Ministry of Transpn (Canada)
SAST SADT TADT TRIDT
NA (Note 1) 18 kips (80 kN) 34 kips (151 kN) 48-46 kips (214-205 kN)
53 kN 80 kN 135 kN 181 kN
NA (Note 1) 130/130 kN 275/211 kN

5
NA NA NA NA
61 kN 78 kN 126 kN 172 kN
383/263 kN
1. AASHTO (1993) and LCPC and SETRA (1997) provide no guidance on the equivalent damage for these axle types.
A.1.1 USA AASHTO (1993) recognises the origin of the development of the damage factors, which were derived from data collected during the AASHO Road Test, by referencing them to a terminal serviceability value (p t). In Table A1, equivalent loads are presented for a range of p t values between 2 and 3. The Equivalent Standard Axle Load (ESAL) presented in Table A1 is the summation of equivalent 18,000 pound (80 kN) single axle loads used to combine mixed traffic to design traffic for the design period (AASHTO 1993). AASHTO also recognise the effect of different pavement strengths on the damage factors by tabulating these values for a range of Structural Numbers (SN). The SN is an index derived from an analysis of traffic, roadbed soil conditions, and environment which may be converted to a thickness of the flexible pavement layers through the use of suitable layer coefficients related to the type of material being used in each layer of the pavement structure (AASHTO 1993). A.1.2 Australia
Terminal Serviceability Values. A proposed method to determine LEFs as contained in DoT (1997). 4 Foley (2001) quoted a value of 132 kN for TADT. 5 Masses for TADT and TRIDT axles have been calculated for the whole axle group. 6 Foley (2001) quoted a value of 212 kN for TRIDT.
2 3
Potter (1999) recently conducted a review of the technical basis of the Austroads (1992) Pavement Design Guide. One of the issue addressed by Potter is Axle Loads Which Cause Equal Damage. As stated by Potter, in assessing the damaging effect of design traffic, an essential requirement is the ability to compare damaging effects of loads on different axle configurations. In the Austroads Guide, the basis for this comparison is provided in Table 7.1 (reproduced above in Table 1), which lists, for the common axle configurations, the axle load which will produce the same damage as a Standard Axle, a Standard Axle being defined as a dual-tyred single axle transmitting a load of 80 kN to the pavement. Potter further reports that, during the mid-1960s, several independent analyses of AASHO Road Test data were reported which inter alia provided estimates of the relative damaging effects of dual-tyred single axles and dual-tyred tandem axles. Because these estimates were based on the performance of pavements with relatively thick asphalt surfacings which were subject to freeze-thaw cycles, they were considered to be not directly applicable to the bulk of the Australian road network with its surfacing of chip seal or thin asphalt and not subject to freeze-thaw cycles7. For these reasons, Scala (1970 a) undertook a field study based on the premise (reasonably well supported by limited AASHTO data8) that those axle groups that cause equal maximum deflection in the pavement cause equal pavement damage. The study was undertaken on a range of pavements, with both chip seal and thin asphalt surfacing, in the Altona-Williamstown area of Melbourne. A scaled-up version of the Benkelman Beam was used to record peak deflections for steer axle and triaxle deflections. A pad, approximately 50 mm thick, composed of industrial rubber conveyor belting, and with a transverse slit cut in it, was placed on the road and a conventional Benkelman Beam was positioned transversely with its tip in the slit. Maximum deflection was recorded as the axle (group) passed over the pad. Scala reported that, with regard to the load on a single-tyred single axle which produces the same maximum deflection as a Standard Axle: The equivalent load by deflection tests is about 11.6 kip (51.6 kN). and In this paper 12 kip (53.4 kN) is used mainly for ease of computation. As stated by Potter (1999), the only data in the paper was related to maximum deflection recorded for dualtyred single and tandem axles. It is presented in the form of a plot of the ratio (tandem axle deflection)/(single axle deflection) versus the ratio (tandem axle load)/(single axle load). A broad range of deflection ratios is plotted for each of six load ratios (corresponding to six days of testing). For three of the six load ratios, the reader is cautioned that the data may be affected by water penetration . With regard to the load on a tandem axle group which produced the same maximum deflection as a Standard Axle, Scala (1970a) provided two values 28.9 kip (128.6 kN) and 29.2 kip (129.8 kN) in a summary Table (Table VIII of Scala 1970a), together with the statement: Assuming that a 30 kip tandem axle load gives a deflection of the same magnitude as an 18 kip single axle (dual tyre) load, . With regard to the load on a triaxle group which produced the same maximum deflection as a Standard Axle, information in Scala (1970a) is restricted to the statement: it is expected that the three axle group with a load of 40.7 kip (181.0 kN) would be equivalent (in terms of maximum deflection) to a single axle of 18 kip (90.1 kN).
In addition, the analyses did not encompass single-tyred single axles (steer axles) or triaxles. Steer axles were considered to cause minimal damage at the AASHO Road Test and, hence, were not included in the analyses. Triaxles were not included in the AASHO performance studies. 8 The AASHO road test, from which Scalas (1970 a) estimated relative destructive effects, used a number of pavements of known construction. These comprised pavements of thick asphalt (typically 100 mm to 150 mm) on granular material. The granular pavement with thin bituminous surface did not perform well in the AASHO Road Test, due to freeze-thaw effects, and consequently the data from this pavement type was not included in the above derivation of the relative destructive effect of different loads.
7
Potter also reported that, in a report written approximately five months after the above paper, Scala (1970 b) was much more focussed, stating that: Using an 18 kip single axle load (dual wheel) as the standard axle load, equivalent repetitions of other axle loads are given by: (i) (ii) (iii) single axle (single wheel) single axle (dual wheel) tandem axle (dual wheels) (w/12)4 (w/18)4 (w/30)4
During the NAASRA Economics of Road Vehicle Limits (ERVL) Study, Stevenson (1976) adopted the following values, based on the above two Scala references and discussions with him: single-tyred single axle 5.4 t (53.0 kN) dual-tyred single axle 8.2 t (80.4 kN) dual-tyred tandem axle 13.6 t (133.4 kN) dual-tyred triaxle 18.5 t (181.5 kN) Potter (1999) further reported that, in the NAASRA (1979) Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design (IGPTD) the first three of the above values were adopted in its Table 2.15. It did not cater for triaxles, which was considered by Potter to be most probably an oversight. Finally, Potter (1999) reported that the Austroads Working Group, in its formulation of Table 7.1 in the 1992 Guide, reviewed the above material and, in addition, values in use overseas. The largest discrepancy between the above values and those in use overseas was for the dual-tyred tandem axle (see, for example, the values for AASHO and Asphalt Institute in Table VII of Scala (1970 a)). Further, the Working Group noted Scalas later adoption of 13.7 t for tandem axles (Scala 1977). On this basis, the Working Group opted for the values presented in Table 7.1, and given in Table 1 of this report, as follows9: single-tyred single axle 53 kN dual-tyred single axle 80 kN dual-tyred tandem axle 135 kN dual-tyred triaxle 181 kN A.1.3 South Africa The Department of Transport, South Africa (DoT 1997) recognise that factors other than axle group load, such as inter-axle spacing and tyre contact stress, also influence pavement damage. As such, there is no one equivalent load as per the current Austroads (1992) procedure. The method of determining load equivalency is based upon the concept of equivalent pavement response, equivalent pavement damage. This concept has been used previously; for example, by Scala and Potter (1981) when they derived a method for the prediction of load equivalence factors for specialised vehicles. In the South African procedure, however, other criteria such as equivalent strain or stress levels in the materials have been utilised, rather than the equivalent total deflection at the pavement surface used by Scala and Potter. The method also assumes linear-elastic material characterisation. The Equivalent Damage Factor (EDF) see Table A1 expresses the number of repetitions of the Standard Load Configuration (identical to a Standard Axle) which would cause the same damage as the given axle group. As just discussed, the EDF recognises the influence of the axle spacing within an axle group (Group Equivalence Factor), the mass on the axle group (Axle Load Factor) and the tyre contact stress (Contact Stress Factor): EDF = GEF x ALF x CSF where EDF = Equivalent Damage Factor, GEF = Group Equivalence Factor, ALF = Axle Load Factor, and
Note that in Table 1, the Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) is the number of Standard Axles that will provide the same damage as that caused by the various group types. A damage exponent of 4 is inherent in this definition.
9
CSF = Contact Stress Factor. A.1.4 Great Britain The Department of Transport, Great Britain (DoT 1993) uses a relatively simple approach to the determination of pavement damage related to different axle groups. Individual axle groups are not considered, but rather the vehicle types for which these axle groups form a part. Therefore each commercial vehicle classification or type (defined as over 15 kN unladen weight) has a Wear Factor which is identical to the (Loading) Factor (F) presented in Method 3 of Appendix E of Austroads (1992). A.1.5 France The method adopted by the Highways Directorate of France considers the Aggressiveness of an Axle, which is based on the fatigue damage caused to the pavement. Aggressiveness, A, corresponds to the damage caused by one passage of an axle load, P, compared to the damage due to one passage of the reference isolated 10 axle load, PO. Aggressiveness is determined using the following relationship (LCPC and SETRA 1997):
P A = k PO
where
A P PO k
= = = = =
Aggressiveness; load on each axle of the axle group; reference axle (dual-wheel isolated [single] axle, weighing 130 kN); constant depending on pavement type (flexible, semi-rigid or concrete); and constant depending on axle type (single, tandem or triaxle).
As the reference axle load is different from a Standard Axle, the French equivalent axles cannot be readily compared to values derived using other pavement design procedures. A.1.6 Canada The Ministry of Transportation, Canada, established a set of LEFs following a nation-wide experiment conducted during the late 1980s. These LEFs are as follows:
SAST:
LEF =
2.9093
0.004836xLoad
2.9093
SADT:
LEF =
0.002418xLoad
TADT: TRIDT:
LEF = 0.001515 xLoad 2.5403 LEF = 0.002363 xLoad 2.1130
where Load is the axle group mass in tonne. The equivalent axle group loads given in Table A1 have been calculated using these relationships.
10
Isolated axle [group] is when the nearest axle is greater than 2 m distant.
A.2
Equivalent Axle Loads for Rigid Pavements
Table A2 summarises information of equivalent axle loads for rigid pavements that is available from the current published design guides and commentary documents relevant to Australia, the USA and France.
Table A2 Comparison of Equivalent Loads for Axle Group Types (for Rigid Pavements)
Axle Group Type
AASHTO (1993)11 pt = 2.0-3.0
Austroads (1992) 12
Erosion SAST SADT TADT TRIDT NA (Note 2) 80 kN 129 kN 171 kN 80 kN 80 kN 165 kN 244 kN
Fatigue 67 kN 80 kN 191 kN 385 kN NA (Note 1) 130 kN 211 kN 263 kN
Note 1 - AASHTO (1993) and LCPC and SETRA (1997) provide no guidance on the equivalent damage for these axle types.
A.2.1 USA The AASHTO design procedure for rigid pavements is based upon AASHO Road Test pavement algorithms. For this procedure, the equivalent number of 18 kip single axle load applications are calculated and compared to the design number of equivalent Standard Axles. Load equivalency factors are used to convert the actual traffic load spectrum into numbers of equivalent Standard Axles, in the same manner as Austroads flexible pavement design (Method 1; Austroads 1992) for characterising initial daily traffic. The AASHTO procedure is fundamentally different to the PCA method whereby the latter procedure has the ability for individual loads on all four axle groups to be considered in the determination of the base slab thickness. Using the example of a rigid pavement base slab thickness of 200 mm and a Terminal Serviceability of 2.5 , the results of equivalent axle loads for SADT, TADT and TRIDT found in Tables D.13, D.14 and D.15 AASHTO (1993) are presented in Table A2.
11 12
Estimates from AASHTO (1993) using a typical pavement example (Foley 2001). Estimates from Austroads (1992) using a typical pavement example (Foley 2001).
A.2.2 Australia Austroads (1992) recommends the use of the US Portland Cement Association (PCA 1984) method for determining the thickness of concrete base. This method considers two modes of limiting distress in concrete bases: (a) fatigue of the concrete slab and (b) erosion, a mode of distress related to the joint and planned crack performance. The Austroads procedure allows different masses on different axle group types to be assessed, but it does not cater for changes in axle spacing in multi-axle groups, or for wide super-single tyres, unlike procedures developed by others, such as Ioannides et al. (1998). A simple design exercise was undertaken to gain an estimate of equivalent damage for both these distress modes associated with the four axle load types. Note that the rigid pavement design procedure incorporates estimates of repetitions of individual axle groups over the full load range for each axle group type. Erosion Analysis For the erosion distress type, a trial pavement comprising a 210 mm thick undowelled plain concrete base with shoulders and having an effective subgrade CBR of 75% was used. A design Load Safety Factor (LSF) of 1.2 was used. Using Table 9.3 of Austroads (1992) the following Erosion Factors for each axle group type were derived.
Axle Group Erosion Factor SAST 1.86 SADT 2.47 TADT 2.45 TRIDT 2.46
The load on each wheel of an 80 kN (Standard Axle) load on a SADT axle group is (80 kN x 1.2)/4 = 24 kN per wheel. From Figure 9.6 of Austroads (1992) the allowable number of repetitions is therefore 40 x 10 6. Using this number of allowable repetitions (40 x 106), and the Erosion Factors for the other three axle group types, it was possible to back-calculate, using Figure 9.6, the load on each axle group. The results are presented in Table A2. Fatigue Analysis For the fatigue distress type, a trial pavement comprising a 200 mm thick undowelled plain concrete base without shoulders and having an effective subgrade CBR of 15% was selected. The design flexural strength was 4.25 MPa and a design LSF of 1.2 was used. Using Table 9.2 of Austroads (1992) the following Equivalent Stresses, and Stress Ratio Factors (divide by the flexural strength of 4.25 MPa) for each axle group type were derived.
Axle Group Equivalent Stresses Stress Ratio Factor SAST 1.02 0.24 SADT 1.65 0.39 TADT 1.40 0.33 TRIDT 1.05 0.25
The load on each wheel of an 80 kN (Standard Axle) load on a SADT axle group is (80 kN x 1.2)/4 = 24 kN per wheel. From Figure 9.4 of Austroads (1992) the allowable number of repetitions is therefore 10 x 10 6. Using this number of allowable repetitions (10 x 10 6) and the Stress Ratio Factor for the other three axle group types, it was possible to back-calculate, using Figure 9.4, the load on each axle group. The results are presented in Table A2. Examination of the above axle loads for the Austroads load equivalency factor of unity shows the much lower masses for the TADT and TRIDT axle groups, as compared to those adopted by AASHTO (1993) (see Table A3). Given that the AASHTO method equivalent loads for the TADT and TRIDT axle groups are lower than the Austroads (PCA) method by 20 to 30% mass on the axle groups, the Austroads axle load masses (at Austroads LEFs of 1.0) would produce between approximately 3 to 24 times the amount of damage than those of the AASHTO loads at an LEF of unity.
Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776Table A3 Axle Group Load for Austroads LEF of 1 (Erosion) and Comparison with AASHTO Procedure
Erosion Axle Group Austroads Equivalent Axle Loads (kN) Austroads LEFs AASHTO LEFs (approx.) SAST 80 1.00 NA SADT 80 1.00 1.00 TADT 165 1.00 2.6 TRIDT 244 1.00 4.2 SAST 67 1.00 NA 80
Fatigue SADT TADT 191 1.00 4.7 TRIDT 385 1.00 24.9
1.00 1.00
A.2.3 France As discussed in Section 3.1.5, The method adopted by the Highways Directorate of France considers the Aggressiveness of an Axle, which is based on the fatigue damage caused to the pavement. Aggressiveness, A, corresponds to the damage caused by one passage of an axle load P, compared to the damage due to one passage of the reference isolated axle load PO. Aggressiveness is determined using the following relationship:
P A = k PO
where
A P PO k
= = = = =
Aggressiveness, load on each axle of the axle group, reference axle; dual-wheel isolated [single] axle, weighing 130 kN. constant for concrete pavement is 5, and constant for axle type for concrete slab pavement (single axle: 1.0; tandem axle: 12.0; triaxle: 113).
Using this relationship, the following loads for an LEFs equivalent to one Reference Axle were calculated as given in Table A2. As the reference load for the French rigid pavement design procedure is different from that of Austroads and AASHTO, the equivalent axle loads for other axle groups cannot be compared. In addition, the French method, as with the AASHTO and Austroads procedures, does not cater for changing axle spacings in multiaxle groups, or the use of super single wide tyres.
Appendix B The South African Procedure for Determining Group Equivalence Factor (GEF)
Group Equivalence Factor (GEF) was defined as the ratio between the allowable loading (N ISO) under an isolated single axle of an axle group and the allowable loading (NG) under the group. GEF = NISO/NG The allowable loading under the group (NG) was determined using the following equation: NG = NCR/(1+Fc) Where NCR is the number of repetitions of the critical axle (most damaging axle) of the group. Fc is the contribution factor, which was developed to take into account the contribution of other minor axles (less damaging axle) of the group to the critical axle Fc was defined as: Fc = nA Where nA is the number of axles of the group is the ratio between the peak surface deflection of critical axle and the peak surface deflection of minor axle (B2) (B1)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, USA. Austroads (1992). Pavement Design: A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements . Austroads, Sydney. Austroads (2001). 2001 Austroads Pavement Design (Final draft) For Public Comment . Austroads, Sydney. Department of Transport, Great Britain (1993). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 7: Pavement Design and Maintenance. Section 2, Part 1, HD 24/96, Revision dated February 1996. Department of Transport, UK. Department of Transport, South Africa (1997). Rehabilitation Design of Flexible Pavements in South Africa. RR 93/296 Book 1 of 2. Department of Transport, Pretoria, SA. Foley, G.D. (2001). Axle Loads For Equivalent Damage: Literature Review. ARRB Transport Research Limited, APRG Document, APRG 00/31 (LO), June 2000. Ioannides, A.M., Karanth, R.K. and Sanjeevirao, K. (1998). Mechanistic-Empirical Approach to Assessing Relative Pavement Damage. Transportation Research Record, No: 1639, pp. 112-19. Transportation Research Board, Washington, USA. Lay, M. G. (1993). Modelling Pavement Behaviour. Road & Transport Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, June. ARRB Transport Research Ltd. Vermont South. LCPC and SETRA (1997). French Design Manual for Pavement Structures. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris and Service dEtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Bagneux, France. English translation of December 1994 French version. National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (1979). Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design. NAASRA, Sydney. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1998). Dynamic Interaction Between Vehicles and Infrastructure Experiment (DIVINE). Technical Report DSTI/DOT/RTR/IR6(98)1/FINAL. Programme of Co-operation in the Field of Research on Road Transport and Intermodal Linkages. Portland Cement Association (1984). The Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements . PCA, Skokie, Ill. USA Potter, D.W. (1999). Technical Basis of the 1992 Austroads Pavement Design Guide (Flexible Pavements) . Contract Report RC7095-1, June. ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South. Prozzi, J.A. and de Beer, M. (1997). Mechanistic Determination of Equivalent Damage Factors for Multiple Load and Axle Configurations : Proc. 8th. Int. Conf. on Asphalt Pavements, Vol: 1, pp. 161-78. University of Washington, T: Seattle, Washington, USA. Rodway, B. (1997). Boeing's Full-Scale Pavement Rutting Test . Proc. 10th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference, Perth, Vol: 2, Paper 49. Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, Hawthorn, Victoria. Scala, A.J. (1970a). Comparison of the Response of Pavements to Single and Tandem Axle Loads . Proc. 5th. ARRB Conf. 5(4), pp 231-52. ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South. Scala, A.J. (1970b). Predictions of Repetitions on Roads . ARRB Internal Report, AIR 139-2, November. ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South. Scala, A.J. (1977). Preliminary Study of a Pavement Management System. ARRB Internal Report AIR 1751, April. ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South. Scala, A.J and Potter, D.W. (1981). A Method to Predict Load Equivalence Factors for Specialised Vehicles. ARRB Research Report, ARR No. 114. ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South.
Sharp, K.G., Sweatman, P.F. and Potter, D.W. (1985). Effects of Wide Single Tyres on Pavements. Review of Road Vehicle Limits for Vehicles Using Australian Roads. Technical Supplement No. 8. NAASRA, Sydney. Sharp, K.G., Sweatman, P.F. and Potter, D.W. (1986). A Comparative Study of the Effects of Wide Single and Dual Tyres on Rebound Pavement Response. ARRB Internal Report, AIR 1137-1. ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South.. Stevenson, J. McL. (1976). Pavements. Study Report T4. Economics of Road Vehicle Limits (REVEL) Study. NAASRA, Sydney.
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads (2001), Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle, Sydney, A4, pp, KEYWORDS: ABSTRACT:
AUSTROADS PUBLICATIONS
Austroads publishes a large number of guides and reports. Some of its publications are: AP-1/89 Rural Road Design AP-8/87 Visual Assessment of Pavement Condition Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice AP-11.1/88 Traffic Flow AP-11.2/88 Roadway Capacity AP-11.3/88 Traffic Studies AP-11.4/88 Road Crashes AP-11.5/88 Intersections at Grade AP-11.6/93 Roundabouts AP-11.7/88 Traffic Signals AP-11.8/88 Traffic Control Devices AP-12/91 AP-13/91 AP-14/91 AP-15/96 AP-17/92 AP-18/00 AP-22/95 AP-23/94 AP-26/94 AP-29/98 AP-30/94 AP-34/95 AP-36/95 AP-38/95 AP-40/95 AP-41/96 AP-42/96 AP-43/00 AP-44/97 AP-45/96 AP-46/97 AP-47/97 AP-48/97 AP-49/97 AP-50/97 AP-51/98 AP-52/97 AP-53/97 AP-54/97 AP-55/98 AP-56/98 AP-57 & 58/98 AP-59/98 AP-60/98 AP-61/99 AP-62/99 AP-63/00 AP-64/00
AP-11.9/88 Arterial Road Traffic Management AP-11.10/88 Local Area Traffic Management AP-11.11/88 Parking AP-11.12/88 Roadway Lighting AP-11.13/95 Pedestrians AP-11.14/99 Bicycles AP-11.15/99 Motorcycle Safety
Road Maintenance Practice Bridge Management Practice Guide to Bridge Construction Practice Australian Bridge Design Code Pavement Design RoadFacts 2000 Strategy for Pavement Research and Development Waterway Design, A Guide to the Hydraulic Design of Bridges, Culverts & Floodways Strategy for Structures Research and Development Austroads Strategic Plan 19982001 Road Safety Audit Design Vehicles and Turning Path Templates Adaptions and Innovations in Road & Pavement Engineering Guide to Field Surveillance of Quality Assurance Contracts Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development Bitumen Sealing Safety Guide Benefit Cost Analysis Manual National Performance Indicators Asphalt Recycling Guide Strategy for Productivity Improvements for the Road Transport Industry Strategy for Concrete Research and Development Strategy for Road User Cost Australia at the Crossroads, Roads in the Community A Summary Roads in the Community Part 1: Are they doing their job? Roads in the Community Part 2: Towards better practice Electronic Toll Collection Standards Study Strategy for Traffic Management Research and Development Strategy for Improving Asset Management Practice Austroads 1997 Bridge Conference Proceedings Bridging the Millennia Principles for Strategic Planning Assessing Fitness to Drive Cities for Tomorrow Better Practice Guide & Resource Document Cities for Tomorrow CD Guide to Stabilisation in Roadworks Australia Cycling 1999-2004 The National Strategy e-transport The National Strategy for Intelligent Transport Systems Guide to the Selection of Road Surfacings Austroads 4th Bridge Conference Proceedings Bridges for the New Millenium
These and other Austroads publications may be obtained from: ARRB Transport Research Ltd 500 Burwood Highway VERMONT SOUTH VIC 3131 Australia Telephone: Fax: Email: Website: +61 3 9881 1547 +61 3 9887 8144 donm@arrb.com.au www.arrb.com.au
or from road authorities, or their agent in all States and Territories; Standards New Zealand; Standards Australia & Bicycle New South Wales.

Appendix Ear RB TR Quad Axle Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Appendix Ear RB TR Quad Axle Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Austroads Project Report

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle

Reviewed Binh T Vuong Project Leader Geoff W Jameson Quality Manager

ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOAD FOR A QUAD AXLE

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle First Published 2013

ESTIMATES OF EQUIVALENT LOAD FOR A QUAD AXLE

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 1

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Axle Group Type

Department of Transport, South Africa (1997) 3 61 kN 80 kN 134 kN 187 kN.

Ministry of Transportation (Canada)

LCPC and SETRA, France (1997)

Department of Transport, Great Britain (1993) NA NA NA NA

SAST SADT TADT TRIDT

NA 4 130 kN 275 kN 383 kN

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 2

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Pavement Design Procedure Austroads (1992)

Dept of Transport (South Africa)

Ministry of Transp. (Canada)

Highways Directorate (France)

Fatigue failure of surface layer

Procedures Used to Derive Equivalent Axle Loads

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Critical Strain Criterion

Asphalt fatigue Cemented material

Maximum tensile strain at bottom of asphalt layer Maximum tensile strain at

A function of binder content and mix stiffness A function of layer

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 6

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

fatigue Total permanent deformation

bottom of cemented material layer Maximum compressive strain at top of subgrade

stiffness 8511 7.14

Procedures Used to Estimate Quad Axle Equivalent Load

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 7

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Axle Group Load versus Number of Tyres

200 Load per Axle Group (kN)

y = 28.559x R2 = 0.9999 150

Austroads (1992) Power (Austroads (1992))

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 8

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Table 4 Pavements Used in the Analysis

Upper Subbase Thickness and Type -

Lower Subbase Thickness and Type -

120 mm CTCR (2000 MPa)

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 9

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Surface Deflection versus Number of Tyres

Surface Deflection (mm)

0.20 SAST 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Tyres SADT TADT TRIDT QUADT

Extrapolation of Predicted Critical Strain

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Subgrade strain versus Number of Tyres

Pav-1 Pav-2 Pav-3 Power (Pav-2) Power (Pav-3) Power (Pav-1)

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd 11

Estimates of Equivalent Load for a Quad Axle RC2776-

Critical Tensile Strain versus Number of Tyres

Pav-4 (AC) 150 y = 270.24x R2 = 0.9975 100 y = 72.183x 2 R = 0.9979 50