Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Preliminary Methodology For Estimating Cost
Preliminary Methodology For Estimating Cost
+
=
N
i
Fx PV
1
1
$ $
A 1
where
i = discount rate
N = year when the expenditure occurred ranges from 1 to 50 for the example in
Figure B 1.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
103
The total discounted life-cycle cost ($PVLCC) is then determined by summing the present value
discounted costs of all expenditure items over the analysis period. The PVLCC is then converted
to EAUC using the Equation A 2. EAUC spreads the costs of all items to an annual cost over the
analysis period for the agency cost profile (Figure B 2)
( )
(
=
n
i
i x PVLCC
EAUC
1
1
1
) ( ) ($
$
A 2
where
n = number of years in the analysis period e.g. =50.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
147
1
0
1
3
1
6
1
9
2
2
2
5
2
8
3
1
3
4
3
7
4
0
4
3
4
6
4
9
Year
E
A
U
C
$
B
Figure B 2: Equivalent annual uniformcosts (EAUC)
B.2 Annualising Period for Estimating EAUC under Different Loading
Scenarios
The total discounted life-cycle cost is annualised over the full 50 year analysis period. As noted in
Section 2.1, this allows time for at least one pavement rehabilitation to occur within the analysis
period to contribute to the road wear cost.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
104
APPENDIX C APPROACHES TO DETERMINE
LOAD-WEAR MODELS
The approaches to predicting pavement performance and developing long-term performance
models include the following:
Deterministic approaches predict a single value of the dependent variable from pavement
performance prediction models based on statistical relationships between the dependent and
independent pavement performance variables (Martin 1996). The models are deterministic
in that for any set of independent input variables these are processed through a strict set of
formulae to give unique predicted dependent variable outcomes. Examples of these models
include the following:
Mechanistic models are based on a fundamental and primary response stress strain
deflection etc.
Mechanistic-empirical models are based on theoretical models but are calibrated by
observational data using regression analyses. The calculated strain and stress in the
mechanistic model can be used as input (independent variable) to a regression
(empirical) prediction model. The mechanistic models are adjusted in line with
empirical experience and calibrated against field data.
Empirical models are developed from regression analyses of experimental or observed
data. They should not be used beyond the range of data from which the model was
developed. Examples include detailed surface distress prediction models for rutting or
roughness.
A probabilistic approach to pavement performance recognises that there is uncertainty in the
assessment of pavement condition and that pavements and the variables that influence their
behaviour are inherently non-homogeneous. A probabilistic approach assigns various
probabilities to the future condition of a pavement (Martin 1996) represented by indices such
as Pavement Condition Index (PCI) or Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) (Shahin 1994).
PCI or PCR the dependent variable is usually related empirically to pavement age
(independent variable) using regression analysis. The relationships are developed for
families or groups of pavements with similar climatic functional and pavement characteristics
and maintenance and rehabilitation treatments (Shahin 1994).
Two approaches are discussed here regarding developing load-wear relationships one uses
pavement response and the other uses pavement performance.
C.1 Incremental Mechanistic-empirical Models
The available pavement deterioration models in Australia used in the context of life-cycle analysis
are mainly deterministic based mechanistic-empirical models. Examples of these models include
those used in HDM-4 PLATO FAMLIT and PLCC in addition to specific models used by the
different road authorities. Most of the models used in these tools are incremental with the model
computations applied on an annual basis with last years output being used as the current years
input. The advantage of an incremental annual approach is that it greatly simplifies the application
of maintenance intervention modelling.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
105
C.2 Mechanistic Models
Examples of international models using the mechanistic approach and the output used in costing
include the National Pavement Cost Model (NAPCOM) (FHWA 1995) and the Long-term
Pavement Performance Model (LTPPM) (Collop et al. 1996). The limitation of the LTPPM model is
that it cannot be applied for network level analysis as it uses road surface profile. The NAPCOM
model predicts distresses using a mechanistic approach which can be calibrated using observed
data. This makes it suitable for use in determining lengths of network requiring maintenance or
rehabilitation and then using unit costs to determine total cost.
Another model is being developed by ARRB. It uses finite element analysis and AutoSim which is
expected to be incorporated in Austroads pavement design and rehabilitation guides. Currently the
database for this tool is being developed to cover performance of different pavement types ages
material types and locations. This database will make the prediction of performance of pavements
for any network possible without the need for detailed input data on pavement characteristics. The
user will need limited input such as pavement configuration age climate data etc. The truck
models in AutoSim are also being calibrated with data collected from Austroads Project AT1212.
The new tool will be able to predict pavement performance over time and remaining life (Austroads
2008a) of existing pavement under any combination of fleet vehicles. As it uses a mechanistic
approach it predicts deterioration for primary response modes such as rutting loss of shape and
fatigue cracking in addition to impacts of horizontal forces if the geometry of the road is known. It
allows for static and dynamic wheel loads. This tool will be very useful for predicting strength but
not roughness or other performance indicators which makes it hard to use in predicting costs. It
considers the impacts of the interaction of load and environment but does not look at impacts of
environment alone i.e. unsealed cracks leading to heaving of soil.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
106
APPENDIX D TOOLS FOR PAVEMENT LIFE-CYCLE
COSTING ANALYSIS
The available tools for life-cycle analysis of pavement performance and costing that were reviewed
include:
HDM-4 (PIARC 1999)
PLATO (Pavement Life Cycle Analysis and Treatment Optimisation) (Roberts et al. 2003)
ARRB PLCC (Pavement Life Cycle Costing) model (Linard et al. 1996)
FAMLIT (Freight Axle Mass Limits Investigation Tool) (Hassan et al. 2008).
These tools were reviewed in terms of their applications pavement distress modes modelled
interaction between the models and applicability to different pavement/road types and whether they
are calibrated to local conditions. Also reviewed were the required input data maintenance
intervention criteria possible outputs and whether works effects road user cost models and
optimisation are considered in each tool. A summary of all reviewed parameters is provided in
Table D 1.
PLATO models are built on HDM-4 but were modified by engineering judgement to be more
sensitive to major variables (strength loading and environment). These models also differ from the
HDM-4 models in that they include a structural adequacy model and a structural life index that
triggers rehabilitation works.
A strategic analysis level is believed to be sufficient for the purpose of developing the LWC
relationships which is possible using any of these tools. However the level of detailed input data
for the different distress modes required for HDM-4 and PLATO is not necessary considering the
fact that routine and periodic maintenance activities do not need to be responsive for Phase 1.
However Phase 2 requires the distress models to be responsive to routine and periodic
maintenance activities that increase with increased axle load.
The ARRB PLCC and FAMLIT on the other hand do not require that level of input. The difference
between the two is that in the PLCC the roughness and strength models act independently and are
not interactive whereas in FAMLIT the two models are interactive and are sensitive to the
environment.
FAMLIT has been developed under Austroads Project AT1165 (Hassan et al. 2008). FAMLIT will
be available to all Austroads members at no cost. Considering the importance of national
consistency in the development and application of the LWC relationships FAMLIT is suitable for
this project. The use of FAMLIT will ensure that all road agencies are able to develop LWC
relationships suitable for their network characteristics and usage and maintenance practice based
on the same modelling logic.
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
107
TableD1: Features and capabilities of theavailablelife-cyclecost analysis tools
Tool Application Distress modes
modelled
(Interaction)
Inputdata Applicabilityto
commonroadand
pavementtypes
Interventioncriteriafor
differentmaintenance
categories
Outputs Works effects Roaduser
costmodels
and
optimisation
HDM-4
Strategic
network analysis
level: allocation
of resources and
long-term
planning.
Programlevel:
develop works
program.
Project level:
treatment
selection.
Cracking
Ravelling
Rutting
Roughness
Potholing
Edge break
Texture
depth
Skid
resistance
(Yes)
Initial roughness, cracking, ravelled
area, no. of potholes, edge break,
texture depth, mean rut depth, skid
resistance, drainage condition, skid
resistance, pavement type,
maintenance history, road inventory
and geometry, environmental factors,
vehicle and traffic load (in ESA),
strength data (deflection or material
properties and thicknesses).
Maintenance policies intervention
levels for different treatments and unit
costs.
All sealed flexible
pavements
Concrete
pavements
Gravel roads
(Roughness, rutting
and cracking models
for, flexible pavement
are calibrated for
arterial and, local
roads in some states)
Routine: condition
responsive.
Periodic: condition
responsive or
scheduled.
Rehabilitation:
condition
responsive (surface
condition and
roughness).
Strategic: mediumto
long-termbudget
forecasts and network
condition trends.
Works program: a
defined long list of road
projects one year or
multi-year program
under constrained or
unconstrained budget.
Resets to
original or
user
defined
condition
or
predicted.
Yes
PLATO
Same as above Cracking
Ravelling
Rutting
Roughness
Potholing
Edge break
Strength
(Yes)
Same as above except for texture and
skid resistance.
Deflection data include parameters
related to deflection bowl shape.
Sealed flexible
pavements
(No)
Routine: condition
responsive.
Periodic: condition
responsive or
scheduled.
Rehabilitation:
condition
responsive (surface
condition roughness
and structural life
index).
Condition time series
cost time series total
transport cost network
condition (structural life
index surface condition
index) agency and user
costs (annual and total
discounted or not).
Works program
treatment type cost
and timing.
Same as
above
Yes
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
108
Tool Application Distress modes
modelled
(Interaction)
Inputdata Applicabilityto
commonroadand
pavementtypes
Interventioncriteriafor
differentmaintenance
categories
Outputs Works effects Roaduser
costmodels
and
optimisation
PLCC
Strategic
network analysis
level
Roughness
and
strength
(No)
Inventory, initial roughness, pavement
age and type, AADT, %CV, average
ESA/CV, growth rate, design traffic
growth rate, design life, routine and
periodic maintenance cost for each
road/pavement, type, unit cost for
rehabilitation.
Sealed flexible
pavements
(Both models are
calibrated for arterial
roads)
Routine and
periodic
maintenance: fixed
annual cost.
Rehabilitation:
granular or asphalt
overlay triggered by
roughness or
strength.
Annual and total
agency and user costs
discounted or not
maximumand average
network roughness.
Same as
above
Yes
FAMLIT
Scenario
analyses for
network and
route levels to
assess cost
implications of
changes in fleet
and axle mass
limits.
Roughness
and
strength
(Yes)
Inventory, seal and pavement age,
fleet composition, AADT, and growth
rates (by vehicle type), SARvalues by
vehicle and pavement type, initial
roughness, initial strength (deflection or
other), climate, geometry, annual
routine maintenance costs,
maintenance intervention levels and
unit costs.
Sealed flexible
pavements
(Can use calibration
factors for HDM-4
roughness model.
Calibration is required
for the strength
model)
Routine
maintenance: fixed
annual cost.
Periodic
maintenance:
scheduled reseal or
resurfacing.
Rehabilitation:
overlay (any) or
reconstruction
triggered by
roughness and/or
strength.
Total and annual
agency and user cost
(discounted or not)
annual or average
network or route
roughness and
strength.
Annual SAR-kmor
tonne-kmor user cost
by vehicle type.
Resets to
original or
user
defined
condition
Yes for RUC
but no
optimiser
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
109
APPENDIX E CALIBRATION OF FAMLIT STRUCTURAL
MODEL
E.1 FAMLIT Structural Model (Phase 1)
FAMLIT in Phase 1 uses the structural model used in PLATO (Roberts et al. 2003). The structural
deterioration of a pavement represented by the current value of the adjusted structural number
(SNP) is estimated using the model shown in Figure E 1.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.0000
0 Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Intercept Cal =1
Gradien Cal =1
Curviness Cal =
1
Figure E 1: Generic structural adequacy and deterioration (SNP-CAP-SNP) model
The structural capacity (SNP-CAP) relationships can be adjusted in FAMLIT using the calibration
factors for Intercept Gradient and Curviness to reflect typical structural lives of a pavement
network. These models assume that routine and periodic maintenance are adequately carried out
to minimise deterioration related to environmental conditions. The process adopted in FAMLIT for
determining current SNP at end of first analysis year and subsequent years involves the following
steps:
1 Calculation of the initial SNP from the input data based on SN values for pavement layers
and subgrade (see Appendix G).
2 Use the relevant pavement SNP-CAP-SNP model to determine remaining capacity in
MSARs (million SARs).
3 The current annual traffic loading (YSAR at end of the analysis year) is deducted from the
predicted remaining capacity to get the remaining capacity at the end of the analysis year.
4 Use the SNP-CAP-SNP model to determine the current SNP (at end of the analysis year).
5 The incremental annual SNP loss due to traffic loading (difference between initial (step 1)
and current SNP (step 4)) is adjusted for environmental effects.
6 Estimate the adjusted current SNP. This value is used in calculating roughness at the end of
the first analysis year and as the initial SNP for the following year.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
110
7 Steps 2 to 6 are repeated to determine current SNP at the end of each successive year.
The environmental adjustment factors (see step 5) currently used in FAMLIT are based on
simulated data which has not been verified.
E.2 Calibration of the Structural Deterioration Model
Most of the calibrated structural deterioration (SNP-CAP-SNP) models used in this study are based
on work undertaken for RMS NSW under a separate project (Roberts et al. 2006b). The calibration
factors used for the different pavement types and relevant roughness calibration factors are
summarised in Table E 1.
Table E 1: Calibration factors of SNP-CAP-SNP models and roughness model for different pavement types
SNP-Capacity calibration factors Roughness calibration factors
Kgm=Kgs
3
GN-SS
(1)
or GN thin AC (SAR4)
Intercept Cal0
(2)
1.5 0.7705
Gradient Cal0
(2)
0.5
Curviness Cal
(2)
0 1.6
CS(CS & thick AC) (SAR8)
Intercept Cal0 2 0.8797
Gradient Cal0 0.48
Curviness Cal0 1.78
AC (AC <100 mm /granular) (SAR5)
Intercept Cal0 1.0 0.7706
Gradient Cal0 1.0
Curviness Cal0 1.0
AC- thick(full depth or thick AC>100/GN) (SAR5)
Intercept Cal0 1.46 1.6568
Gradient Cal0 1.3
Curviness Cal0 1
CS-SS(CS with SS) (SAR8)
Intercept Cal0 0.75 0.9842
Gradient Cal0 0.68
Curviness Cal0 3
CS Concrete(SAR12)
Intercept Cal0 2.4 0.6541
Gradient Cal0 0.57
Curviness Cal0 1.48
1 SS = sprayed seal.
2 Intercept Cal0, Gradient Cal0 and Curviness Cal0 = calibration coefficients that define the shape of the SNP-CAP-SNP model., Kgm = Kgs = roughness model
calibration factors (Equation A 3).
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
111
The forms of the calibrated models relative to the default SNP-CAP-SNP model for the different
pavement types are presented in Figure E 2 to Figure E 7. The models for bituminous and
cementitious pavements were originally calibrated for traffic loading expressed in SAR4. For this
study, they were recalibrated for SAR5 (for AC pavements), SAR8 (for CS pavements) and SAR12
(for concrete). Due to lack of performance data, the adjustments/calibration of the CS-concrete,
thick AC and CS (CS with thick AC) models were based on engineering judgement.
Pavements with thick AC layers were assumed to deteriorate, structurally, at a lower rate than
pavements with thin AC layers. The structural capacities of CS pavements with a thick AC layer
were also assumed to deteriorate at a lower rate than those with sprayed seal (SS) or thin AC
layers, but with slightly higher deterioration rate than CS pavements simulating performance of
concrete pavements.
GN, SS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Default SNP from Capacity
Calibrated SNP curve
Figure E 2: Calibrated structural adequacy model for granular pavements with sprayed seal or thin asphalt (<50 mm)
Remaining Capacity (MSARs)
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
112
CS- concrete
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Default SNP from Capacity
Calibrated SNP curve
Figure E 3: Calibrated structural adequacy model for CS/concrete pavements
AC
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Default SNP from Capacity
Calibrated SNP curve
Figure E 4: Calibrated structural adequacy model for granular pavements with thin asphalt layers (<100 mm)
(MSARs)
Remaining Capacity (MSARs)
Remaining Capacity (MSARs)
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
113
AC- thick
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Default SNP from Capacity
Calibrated SNP curve
Figure E 5: Calibrated structural adequacy model for full depth asphalt pavements and granular pavements with thick
asphalt layers (>100 mm)
CS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.0000 0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000 1000.0000
Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Default SNP from Capacity
Calibrated SNP curve
Figure E 6: Calibrated structural adequacy model for CS pavements with thick asphalt layers (>100 mm)
(MSARs)
(MSARs)
Remaining Capacity (MSARs)
Remaining Capacity (MSARs)
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
114
CS-SS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.0000 0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000 1000.0000
Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Default SNP from Capacity
Calibrated SNP curve
(MSARs)
Figure E 7: Calibrated structural adequacy model for CS pavements with sprayed seal or thin asphalt
Remaining Capacity (MSARs)
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
115
APPENDIX F CALIBRATION OF FAMLIT ROUGHNESS
MODELS
This appendix details the process of calibrating the FAMLIT roughness model using data collected
from NSW and Austroads LTTP sections. The calibration process is divided into two parts. The
first part documents a data collection and cleaning analysis performed separately from FAMLIT.
The first part also documents preparing the data including time series filtering and removing any
apparent maintenance interventions that influence the actual rate of deterioration.
The second part describes the development of an Excel based spreadsheet which allows the
calibration of the multi-parameter FAMLIT roughness model. The final model form and calibration
parameters estimated for alternate pavement types are given at the end of this section.
F.1 Roughness Model (Phase 1)
To calibrate the FAMLIT roughness deterioration model an Excel based spreadsheet was
developed. FAMLIT uses a series of roughness calibration factors Kgm and K
gs
which can be
calibrated for each pavement type.
The roughness progression model for Phase 1 was derived from an HDM-4 aggregate roughness
model Equation A 3 determined by Paterson and Attoh-Okine (1992) and is defined below:
RI
t
=
RI
a
+[ K
gm
m RI
a
] +[ K
gs
EXP
mt
263 ( 1 +SNP
0
)
-5
YSAR ]
A 3
where
RI
t
= roughness at pavement age t (m/km IRI)
RI
a
= roughness at pavement age ( t -1), in m/km IRI
t = pavement age since construction or reconstruction (years)
m = environmental coefficient
SNP
0
= initial adjusted structural number i.e. at pavement age ( t =0 )
YSAR = annual number of standard axle repetitions, in millions for the lane carrying the
highest truck traffic
K
gm
= calibration factor for the environmental component
K
gs
= calibration factor for the structural component of roughness.
The derived roughness Equation A 4 used in FAMLIT predicts absolute roughness at a point in
time. This model was intended to be applied without knowledge of the surface distress and was
considered to be applicable up to moderate levels of distress (e.g. maintained before the area of
cracking exceeds about 30%), that is, before any imminent failure, which is typical of Australian
conditions.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
116
The major change between the two equations is that the strength variable moves from an initial
value in the aggregate form of Equation A 3 , to being defined by a separate incremental model in
Equation A 4. Equation A 3 simplifies to the following model (Michel & Toole 2005) for no surface
cracking and default (=1) values for the calibration coefficients:
RI
t
=
1.04 EXP
mt
[ RI
o
+263 ( 1 +SNC
t
)
-5
NE
t
]
A 4
where
RI
t
= roughness at pavement age t (m/km IRI)
RI
o
= initial roughness (m/km IRI)
NE
t
= cumulative ESA (or cumulative SAR) at age t (millions ESA/lane)
SNC
t
= modified structural number of the pavement age t.
The adjustment from an aggregate to an incremental model was used in the expectation of gaining
an improved prediction of roughness variation by including a more detailed prediction of strength
over the analysis period.
A direct comparison between the two roughness models aggregate and incremental (Figure F 1)
was performed on simulated data to identify whether the adjustment resulted in a similar prediction
of roughness. The adjustment from aggregate to incremental has not changed the overall
roughness prediction as both approaches match closely.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20
Years
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
I
R
I
HDM-4 Agregate
FAMLIT Incremental
Figure F 1: Comparison of incremental and aggregate roughness models
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
117
The above simulation checked whether the overall form of the two models predicted similar
roughness progression. If the two model forms were independently calibrated to the same dataset
they would not necessarily have the same degree of correlation. It was originally expected that the
inclusion of more complex strength models in the incremental model of FAMLIT would increase the
overall roughness prediction reliability. However this was found not to be the case.
F.2 Roughness Model (Phase 2)
Phase 2 used a cumulative rutting/roughness prediction model (Martin & Choummanivong 2009),
IRI, based on observational and experimental data collected from Australian pavements, and it
incorporated an independent variable for annual maintenance expenditure, me, which allowed me
to increase with increased traffic load via cumulative rutting, rut, and as predicted by Equation 11.
Equation A 5 defines the rutting/roughness model used by FAMLIT in Phase 2:
IRI = k
r
[ 196.74 STRUC +0.016 crx +0.25 rut +0.972 ENVIR ] A 5
where
IRI = cumulative increase in roughness, IRI (m/km), from the initial roughness, IRI
0
, at
zero pavement age, AGE
0
STRUC =
EXP [ m AGE
i
] MESA AGE
i
[ 1 +( SNC
0
0.0000758 crx B S ) ]
-5
S = nominal maximum size (mm) of seal aggregate
B = factor for estimating the field layer thickness (FLT) of bitumen binder
= 0.6 for single seals
= 0.9 for double seals
crx
= cumulative percentage (%) area of surface cracking (0 to 100%) contribution to
roughness deterioration
rut = cumulative rut depth (mm) after initial densification at AGE
i
=1
=
k (AGE
i
1)
0.617
{0.022 (100 +TI
i
)/SNC
0
+0.594 MESA 0.000102 me}
EXP = e raised to the power
ENVIR
=
m IRI
0
AGE
i
m = environmental coefficient
=
0.0197 +0.000155 TI
i
TI
i
= Thornthwaite Moisture Index for climate pavement conditions at year i
AGE
i
= number of years i since construction or last rehabilitation
MESA = annual traffic load per lane in millions of equivalent standard axles
IRI
0
= initial roughness, IRI (m/km), at zero pavement age (typical range 1.0 to 1.8)
k
r
= calibration coefficient for roughness (default =1.0).
SNC
0
= modified structural number for pavement/subgrade strength (years) at AGE
i
=0
= SNC
i
/{0.9035 [2 EXP(0.0023 TI
i
+0.185 AGE
i
/ DL)]}
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
118
SNC
i
= modified structural number pavement/subgrade strength at the time, I, of its
measurement
DL = pavement design life (years)
me = annualised pavement maintenance expenditure ($/lane-km/year, see Equation 11)
k = calibration coefficient for rutting for local conditions (default value =1.0)
crx = cumulative cracking (% total lane area)
= K 6.147 (crxAGE)
0.19
EXP(0.047 TI
i
), (sealed granular pavements)
= K 5.091 (crxAGE )
0.065
EXP(0.02 TI
i
+0.019 AGE
i
), (asphalt pavements)
= 0 (no cracking assumed)
crxAGE = cracking age (elapsed time from the commencement of cracking, years)
K = calibration coefficient for cracking for local conditions (default =1.0).
Equation A 5 is limited to predicting roughness deterioration occurring in the gradual deterioration
phase. The gradual deterioration phase is the normal in-service range for pavement distress which
once exceeded enters the rapid deterioration phase which results in imminent catastrophic failure.
The limit to the gradual deterioration phase is defined as follows (Equation A 6):
rut
max
= 86.347 11.008 IRI A 6
where
rut
max
= mean maximum vertical deformation from the original surface profile (mm)
= R0 +rut
R
0
= defined by HDM-4 model (Morosiuk et al. 2001)
( 0.09 +0.0384 6.5 SNC0
1.6
)
= Krid 51740 (MESA 10
6
)
SNC0
-0.502
100
-2.3
K
rid
= 1.0 (default value for all seals)
IRI = IRI
0
+IRI
all other terms are as defined previously.
Equation A 6 was therefore used as the ultimate limit for the rutting rut and roughness IRI., If the
rut
max
value was exceeded rehabilitation was initiated. Equation A 5 used the initial value of
pavement/subgrade strength SNC0 at zero age throughout the deterioration cycle. The structural
deterioration models shown in Appendix E were not used.
The rutting/roughness model used for Phase 2 was left with the default calibration values (=1.0)
on the basis of inspection of the models predictions for the various road types.
F.3 Data Collection and Filtering (Phase 1)
The first stage of the calibration process was to collect the data and filter the roughness time
series. The primary dataset used for calibration was a combination of observational pavement
performance data (roughness rutting and deflection) collected annually from the Austroads AT1064
Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) project and the NSW rural network. Given that the
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
119
data was to be used for calibration a data cleaning procedure was developed to ensure that the
data given to estimate the FAMLIT model parameters was free of errors which may bias the
estimates.
The focus of the data cleaning was on the roughness values only. The data cleaning was able to
smooth the time series roughness data provided in the dataset. This had the advantage of
removing any error bias in the calibrated model and secondly identified any pavement sections that
had significant maintenance interventions. Any sections identified as having a high probability of
maintenance interventions were removed from any further analyses so that calibration was only
carried out for pavement segments that were deteriorating with time.
To perform this cleaning a state of the art method developed by Byrne (2007) called the Minimum
Message Length Roughness Progression Rate (MML RPR) was used. The MML RPR is a pattern
recognition algorithm developed specifically to filter a time series of roughness observations. The
power of MML RPR is that it is able to balance multiple sources of information to identify likely
measurement errors and maintenance interventions that influence the rate of deterioration.
The MML RPR is the only current method of filtering a time series of roughness measurements
with the ability to simultaneously identify noise and maintenance intervention points. It has the
further advantage of making use of multiple sources of information for example extending the
inference over multiple time series e.g. rutting texture etc. to increase the overall accuracy when
selecting the most appropriate pattern to determine rates of deterioration to allow calibration. An
example of the MML RPR inference is shown in Figure F 2. Direct comparison between alternate
criteria on simulated data (Byrne 2007) led to the MML RPR being the preferred criteria to clean
time series roughness data.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
120
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
(a)
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
I
R
I
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
(b)
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
I
R
I
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
(c)
R
u
t
t
i
n
g
m
m
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
(d)
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
I
R
I
Data
Remving Maintenance
Effects
Ignoring Maintenance
Effects
Figure F 2: Comparison of MML RPR inference
Plots (a) and (b) in Figure F 2 describe two different possible patterns to interpret roughness
progression. The plot (a) interpretation implies no maintenance occurring while the plot (b)
interpretation implies that some maintenance has occurred after 2003 to split the time series into
two separate progression rates. It is difficult to decide which pattern is most appropriate given both
seem likely and that the estimated rates of deterioration are relatively similar in this case. However
a power specific to the MML RPR is that it can gather information from alternative time series.
Examination of the rutting series for the same time series for roughness see plot (c) in Figure F 2,
confirms that there was a maintenance intervention after 2003. Although rutting data is not
required for FAMLIT the MML RPR has identified a likely maintenance intervention within the time
series in question. This section was not passed to the calibration tool as it would bias any
parameters estimated. Further sections identified as not experiencing maintenance and therefore
used for calibration have had the noise filtered providing a cleaner dataset for calibration purposes.
It could be argued that given a relatively clean roughness time series the different roughness
progression rates (RPR) for example (a) and (b) in Figure F 2 will have little effect on the
roughness model calibration in FAMLIT. Plot (d) shows that although the two RPR appear very
similar they can quickly diverge over several years. As the roughness model in FAMLIT is
calibrated on these inferred RPR incorrectly identifying the true RPR will have significant
consequences when the calibrated model is used for long-term predictions.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
121
F.4 Calibration Tool (Phase 1)
To calibrate the FAMLIT roughness model Excel was used to estimate the roughness model
calibration factors that best meet the above criteria of basing calibration on the best possible
estimates of deterioration. The approach implemented was to use Solver an Excel application to
search for the calibration factors which minimise the sum of squares for each pavement type
individually.
Solver may have limitations where it finds the local rather than the global minimum for the sum of
least squares for each pavement type. To reduce the risk of this occurring, multiple searches were
trialled. Varying the starting conditions allows for Solver to increase the likelihood of finding the
global maximum.
Before the FAMLIT calibration was performed a simple set of rules were established to remove
outliers. These outliers were defined as pavement links at the end of their structural life or
conversely pavements which show no increase in roughness over time. The specific filtering rules
are described below.
F.4.1 Filtering SNP
The SNP values for the calibration data (from LTPP and NSW) were calculated from the deflection
measurements supplied. The deflection measurements (D
0
) were adjusted for seasonal variations
using the process described in Austroads (2003). The adjusted deflection (D
0adj
) values were then
used to calculate SNP using the following formula (Equation A 7):
SNP =167 / (D
0adj
) 0.57
A 7
where
D
0adj
= maximum deflection (microns) at 700 KPa applied stress adjusted for seasonal
variation.
The filter for strength (SNP) was based purely on removing pavements at the end of their structural
life as these may exhibit sudden rapid roughness progression as they near failure. If the estimated
initial capacity (MSAR) >total sum of MSAR for the period under analysis then the section was
accepted otherwise it was removed from the calibration dataset.
F.4.2 Filtering Roughness (IRI)
There are cases where the MML predicted trend of roughness progression is very low. These
sections are typically characterised with high levels of noise which makes detecting the true
progression pattern difficult. In these cases the MML sets the progression rate close to zero
IRI/year as a reasonable limit. These pavement links were filtered as they did not represent the
typical pavements modelled by FAMLIT.
If change in Log
10
IRI/year >0.02 then the section was accepted otherwise it was removed from
the calibration exercise. This value was selected as it was often the lower bound of typical
roughness progression rates.
A description of the breakdown of data filtering is shown in Table F 1. While the sample size used
for calibration was reduced the data was of higher quality and far more representative of typical
pavement performance. This ensured that the calibrated FAMLIT model was able to describe
typical roughness progression rather than be heavily biased by likely erroneous links.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
122
Table F 1: Comparison of data sample sizes
Pavement type Total links Total roughness
measurements
Filtered roughness
measurements
Asphalt AC 127 334 193
Granular GN 380 1212 554
Cement stabilised CS 89 246 137
Total 596 1792 884
F.4.3 FAMLIT Calibration Frequency Distribution
Frequency descriptions of the data for the variables contained in the roughness calibration are
included in Figure F 3. This was undertaken to ensure the calibration set appeared reasonably
representative of a wide range of likely pavements. Further a check was made to compare the
distributions of the total dataset and filtered calibration set to ensure the pavement segments
filtered were random.
From Figure F 3, it appears that the removal of the low RPR outliers to create the filtered
calibration set does not affect the frequency distribution of the data. This validates the filtering of
pavements with less than 0.02 IRI/year progression rate as not likely to impact the calibration
process.
F.5 Roughness Model Calibration Factors (Phase 1)
The FAMLIT roughness model contains two calibration factors Kgm and K
gs
. Previous work
(Martin 2003) has typically found a suitable simplification of the calibration exercise is to restrict the
two calibration factors to remain constant with no significant loss to model accuracy.
The filtered dataset as presented in Table F 1, with frequency distributions for the included
variables in Figure F 3, was calibrated with the restriction on equal K
gm
and K
gs
values with results
as shown in Table F 2. The cement stabilised pavements (CS) were calibrated for separate SAR8
and SAR12 values to identify the separate calibration factors under this alternative loading.
Table F 2: Calibration of data
Pavement type Kgmand Kgs Sample size N Standard error
Asphalt AC SAR 5 0.7706 193 0.339
Granular GN SAR 4 0.7705 554 0.215
Cement stabilised CS SAR 8 0.9842 117 0.143
Cement stabilised CS SAR 12 0.6541 97 0.148
From the factors presented in Table F 2 as calibrated for FAMLIT there appears to be similar
progression rates for the asphalt and granular pavements. The K
gm
factors match those discussed
in Martin (2003) which identified K
gm
typically ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 for granular pavements on a
stable subgrade.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
123
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0
0
.
6
1
.
2
1
.
8
2
.
43
3
.
6
4
.
2
4
.
8
5
.
46
6
.
6
7
.
2
7
.
8
Roughness (IRI)
Total Dataset
Analysed
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
7
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
8
0
.
1
9
0
.
2
1
Change In IRI/Year
Total Dataset
Analysed
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
0
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
9
1
.
2
1
.
5
1
.
8
2
.
1
2
.
4
2
.
73
3
.
3
3
.
6
3
.
9
YSAR
Total Dataset
Analysed
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
7
5
0
2
5
0
0
3
2
5
0
4
0
0
0
4
7
5
0
5
5
0
0
6
2
5
0
7
0
0
0
7
7
5
0
8
5
0
0
9
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
AADT
Total Dataset
Analysed
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
1
.
53
4
.
56
7
.
59
1
0
.
5
1
2
1
3
.
5
1
5
1
6
.
5
1
8
1
9
.
5
SNP
Total Dataset
Analysed
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
-
9
0
-
8
0
-
7
0
-
6
0
-
5
0
-
4
0
-
3
0
-
2
0
-
1
00
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
TMI
Total Dataset
Analysed
Figure F 3: Frequency distribution of analysed and total data
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
124
F.6 Identifyi ng Alternative Road Classes
While the use of alternative calibration factors for different pavement types is common practice,
there is a further option of identifying a series of factors for alternative road classes within a given
pavement type.
To identify whether the dataset showed a significant benefit in model accuracy from this approach
a trial was performed. The decision to allow road class subdivision was not made in terms of any
apparent increase in accuracy as a subdivision always results in higher accuracy. The decision of
allowing subdivision was made on whether there was significant evidence that the road classes
were deteriorating differently.
To identify whether the increase in accuracy brought by subdividing was significant a comparison
between the true and random assignment of road classes was made. If the accuracy of dividing a
pavement type into multiple road classes was not significantly higher than either all data combined
or the random assignment into classes, then the hypothesis fails and the true classes were
insignificant.
A failure of this dataset to identify significant subdivision of classes did not rule out alternative
calibration exercises which decided to subdivide. Rather it simply confirmed that the available
evidence was not significant to subdivide on this calibration dataset.
The existing dataset was exchanged with Victorian data to directly compare calibration factors K
gm
Kgs. The Victorian dataset contained a large number of alternative road classes for granular
pavements. The process used for the LTTP and RMS dataset was repeated for the Victorian
dataset as described in Table F 3. The Victorian calibration factors K
gm
and K
gs
are described in
Table F 4. The first section describes the calibration factors for all granular pavements. These
pavements were then further subdivided into the four road classes (A B C and M) and each
recalibrated subset independently calibrated.
This process was repeated but the third time the four subdivisions were randomly assigned road
classes but given the same overall approximate sample size as the true class subdivision. The
results of the subdivision trial in Table F 4 show there was no significant evidence of road classes
having alternative rates of progression. As the random classes were able to match the true road
classes (0.1664 compared with 0.1661) the reduction in standard error was attributed to a better fit
of noise rather than any significant proof of road classes deteriorating differently. Including road
classes at this stage would cause over-fitting reducing the performance of the model when used to
predict unseen data.
Table F 3: Comparison of Victorian data sample sizes
Pavement type Total links Total roughness
measurements
Filtered roughness
measurements
All granular GN 74 369 345
Granular Class A 14 77 77
Granular Class B 23 112 112
Granular Class C 20 96 96
Granular Class M 17 84 60
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
125
Table F 4: Calibration of all and subdivided Victorian data
Granular pavement road classes
Pavement type Kgmand kgs Sample size N Standard error
All granular GN 0.9108 193 0.1704
Total 0.1704
True road class
Granular Class A 0.7087 77 0.1068
Granular Class B 0.8994 112 0.1793
Granular Class C 1.1082 96 0.2184
Granular Class M 0.7365 60 0.1008
Total 0.1661
Randomroad class
Granular Class A 1.3080 73 0.2387
Granular Class B 0.8649 108 0.1331
Granular Class C 0.8246 133 0.1331
Granular Class M 0.8317 31 0.2080
Total 0.1664
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
126
APPENDIX G PAVEMENT DESIGN
The assumptions processes and parameters used in designing the pavements for the study are
described in this appendix.
G.1 Selection of a Representative Fleet and Growth Rates
This study was aimed at developing LWC relationships that would be suitable for application at the
national level. To achieve this nationally representative fleet compositions and distributions were
used for the different road categories. Nationally representative traffic growth rates based on the
national freight task and its predicted doubling by 2020 were also used. The development of these
initial parameters was undertaken under Austroads Project AT1165 (Austroads 2009). These
parameters were modified for this study as described in this appendix. These parameters were
used in determining traffic design loading for the pavements considered in this study and for
assessing the impacts of axle load increments.
G.1.1 Selection of Heavy Vehicle Fleet
Table G 1 shows a modified version of the nationally representative heavy vehicle fleet developed
under Austroads Project AT1165 based on traffic loading information provided by the road
authorities for the various road categories (see Appendix G.3.1). The number of vehicle types was
reduced due to the limitation on fleet vehicle types in FAMLIT. This fleet also varied from the
original in that it included buses (R11-bus) and seven axle prime-mover semi-trailers (A124).
However the fleet used covered most common types of heavy vehicle axle groups.
G.1.2 Determining Representative Traffic Volumes
Travel data of heavy vehicles on local and arterial roads collected for a project sponsored by the
National Transport Commission (2007b) was used to develop representative traffic volumes for the
different road categories. The average traffic volumes for each road category were determined
and used in estimating the design traffic for the different pavements.
The road classification (class 1 to 8) used in the NTC travel study is shown in Table G 3 together
with their equivalents of the classification adopted for the current project (freeway, arterial, local
collector and access). Also shown in Table G 3 are the adopted heavy vehicle (HV) annual
average daily traffic (AADT) volumes (both directions) for each of the road categories.
G.1.3 Representative Fleet Distributions
Initially the fleet distribution developed under project AT1165 was used (Austroads 2009). This
distribution was developed using on-road measurement and the distribution of 2004 national gross
tonne kilometre (GTK) and travel by area-of-operation data collected through the survey of motor
vehicle use. This initial distribution was adjusted to produce distributions that satisfied the
following criteria:
proportions of rigid and articulated trucks similar to the averages determined from the data
collected for the NTC project on heavy vehicle travel on local roads (National Transport
Commission 2007b)
axle group distributions that are close to the typical distribution reported in Austroads (2004)
and others provided by road authorities (RAs)
values of axle group (AG) per heavy vehicle (AG/HV) for each road category that are close to
those reported in Austroads (2004) and provided by some RAs.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
127
The final distributions for the eight road categories are shown in Table G 3 together with the
relevant proportions of rigid and articulated vehicles. Table G 4 presents the distribution of the
different axle group types for the eight road categories.
Table G 1: Representative vehicle fleets and distributions by road category and vehicle type
Vehicle
distribution
Rural Fwy Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban Fwy Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
R11 25% 23% 33% 40% 32% 37% 38% 62%
R11-bus 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 10% 15% 11%
R12 7% 15% 24% 28% 23% 15% 24% 12%
R22 1% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 2% 3% 5% 1%
R11T2 2% 1.5% 2% 2% 0.3% 3% 2% 1%
R12T2 1% 3% 2.0% 1.5% 0.2% 2% 1% 1%
R12T12 8% 2% 2% 1% 2.0% 1% 2% 0%
R22T22 1% 1.0% 0.5% 0% 2.0% 1% 1.5% 0%
A112 2% 2% 2% 2% 0.2% 2% 1.0% 2.0%
A122 2% 2% 2% 2% 0.3% 2% 1.0% 2.0%
A124 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0% 0%
A123 22% 22% 15% 17% 10% 20% 11% 8%
B1222 1% 1.0% 1.0% 0% 3.5% 0.3% 0% 0%
B1232 1% 1% 2% 0% 3.5% 0.3% 0% 0%
B1233 14% 11% 9% 0% 13% 4% 0% 0%
A123T23 4% 4.5% 0.4% 0% 1.5% 0% 0% 0%
A123T23T23 4% 4.0% 0% 0% 0.8% 0% 0% 0%
AG/HV 3.1 2.96 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.1
Rigid 40% 49% 67% 75% 69% 64% 82% 86%
Articulated 60% 51% 33% 25% 31% 36% 18% 14%
Table G 2: Assumed design traffic volumes for the different road categories
Road category Design traffic load (DTL), ESA
(HV AADT, two way)
Austroads class
Rural
Rural fwy DTL >1x10
7
(>1400) 1
Rural arterial 1x10
7
> DTL > 1x10
6
(220) 2 & 3
Rural collector 1x10
6
> DTL > 1x10
5
(40) 4 A (local arterial) & 4 B (local collector)
Rural local access 1x10
5
> DTL > 1x10
4
(20) 4 C
Urban
Urban fwy 1x10
8
> DTL > 5x10
7
(2750) 6
Urban arterial 5x10
7
> DTL > 5x10
6
(850) 7
Urban collector 5x10
6
> DTL > 1x10
5
(300) 8 A (local arterial) & 8 B (local collector)
Urban local access 1x10
5
> DTL > 1x10
4
(30) 8 C
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
128
Table G 3: Distributions of the different axle group types on each road category
Axle group
distribution
Rural
Fwy
Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban
Fwy
Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
SAST 31.9% 34.8% 39.5% 43.8% 35.9% 39.7% 42% 46%
SADT 13.8% 13.5% 17.8% 22.3% 15.1% 21.7% 26% 36%
TAST 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 1.5% 1.7% 3% 0.5%
TADT 30.8% 31.9% 28.5% 25.9% 30.7% 25.2% 24% 14%
TRDT 23.1% 19.1% 13.7% 7.5% 16.8% 11.7% 5% 4%
QADT 0.06% 0.11% 0.02% 0% 0.07% 0.08% 0% 0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
G.1.4 Growth Rates
Growth rates for the rigid and articulated vehicles developed under AT1165 and presented in
Table G 5 were used. Applying these rates results in doubling the freight task performed by the
selected fleet in 2020. They were applied to the eight road categories using relevant fleet
distributions (Table G 1) and traffic volumes (Table G 3) to determine an average growth rate for
the whole fleet for each road category (Table G 4).
Table G 4: Growth rates by vehicle type for each road category
Vehicle
type
Rural Fwy Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban Fwy Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
Rigid 3.0% 3.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7%
Artic. 4.6% 5.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3%
Average 3.80% 4.46% 2.19% 2.03% 2.43% 2.36% 1.90% 1.89%
G.2 Flexible Pavements
G.2.1 Design Traffic Loading
The design traffic loadings for the different road categories are presented in Table G 5. They were
determined per lane using the nominated HV AADT, design lives, growth rates and average
ESA/HV as shown in Table G 5. A lane distribution factor of 0.5 was used. The ESA/HV values
for light traffic pavements were adopted from Austroads (2004) and those used for arterial
pavements were provided by some RAs.
These ESA/HV values were determined from actual axle load distributions i.e. covering all loading
conditions. The assumption made in this assessment exercise is that all vehicles are fully loaded
to the maximum permitted under GML. Although this study was a simulation the aim was to get
results that closely represent reality. To achieve this heavy vehicle volumes (HV AADT per lane)
required to produce the same calculated design traffic loadings while operating fully laden were
determined.
This involved using the developed fleet distribution for each road category and SAR4 values
calculated for each fleet vehicle assuming each axle group was loaded to the maximum under
GML without consideration for vehicle stability (Table G 8). Through trial and error the equivalent
HV volumes were determined. They are presented in Table G 6 together with the final design
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
129
traffic loadings (DTL) for GN (using SAR4) AC (using SAR5) and CS (using SAR12) pavements.
They were calculated as follows (Equation A 8):
DL
=
((AADTHV1 * SARV1) +(AADTHV2 * SARV2) +(AADTHV3 * SARV3)
+(AADTHV4 * SARV4) +(AADTHV5 * SARV5) +(AADTHVn *
SARVn)) * 365* Growth Factor (GF)
A 8
where
AADTHV1-n = traffic volume for each of the specified heavy vehicle (HV) types (per
lane) (Table G 6)
SARV1-n = standard axle repetitions for each of the specified vehicle types
(Table G 7).
Table G 5: Design traffic loadings for each pavement category
HV AADT
per lane
Growth rate
design period
GF ESA/HV DTL
(ESA)
HV AADT per
lane (GML)
DTL GN
(SAR4)
DTL AC
(SAR5)
DTL CS
(SAR12)
Rural Fwy 700 3.8, 40 90.7 3.0 6.9E+07 406 6.9E+07
Rural Arterial
(in-service)
110 4.46, 20 31.2
3.0
3.8E+06 67 3.8E+06 4.3E+06 1.16E+07
Rural Arterial
(new)
110 4.46, 30 60.6
3.0
7.3E+06 67 7.3E+06 8.4E+06
Rural Collector 20 2.19, 20 24.8 1.3 2.4E+05 6 2.4E+05
Rural Access 10 2.03, 20 24.4 0.60 5.3E+04 2 5.3E+04
Urban Fwy 1380 2.43, 40 66.4 2.3 7.7E+07 704 8.8E+07 2.4E+08
Urban Arterial 430 2.36, 30 42.9 2.0 1.4E+07 213 1.4E+07 1.5E+07 4.1E+07
Urban
Collector
150 1.9, 20 24.1
1.30
1.7E+06 52 1.7E+06 2.0E+06
Urban Access 15 1.89, 20 24 0.6 7.9E+04 3 7.9E+04
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
130
Table G 6: HV AADT per lane by vehicle type for each pavement category
Rural Fwy Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban Fwy Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
R11 101 15 2 1 225 79 20 2
R11-bus 24 4 0.4 0.1 42 21 8 0.3
R12 28 10 1 0.4 158 31 12 0.3
R22 2 0.3 0.0 0.02 14 6 3 0.03
R11T2 8 1.0 0.1 0.03 2 5 0.8 0.03
R12T2 4 2 0.1 0.02 1.4 4 0.5 0.03
R12T12 32 1.3 0.1 0.02 14 2 0.8 0
R22T22 2 0.7 0 0.00 14 2 0.8 0
A112 8 1.3 0.1 0 1.4 4 0.5 0.1
A122 8 1.3 0.1 0 2 4 0.5 0.1
A124 0.8 0.2 0.0 0 1.4 0.4 0 0
A123 89 15 0.9 0.3 70 43 5 0.2
B1222 2 0.7 0.1 0 25 0.6 0 0
B1232 4 0.7 0.1 0 25 0.6 0 0
B1233 57 7 0.5 0 92 8.5 0 0
A123T23 16 3 0.02 0 11 0 0 0
A123T23T23 17 3 0 0 6 0 0 0
Total 406 67 6 2 704 213 52 3
Table G 7: Vehicle wear for different pavement types base case loading (max GML)
Payload Gross Tare SAR4 SAR5 SAR8 SAR12 Group
1
Group
2
Group
3
Group
4
Group
5
Group
6
Group
7
R11 9.00 15.00 6 3.00 3.33 4.51 6.78 6.00 9.00
R11-bus 5.00 16.00 11 3.78 4.46 7.41 15.01 6.00 10.00
R12 12.90 22.50 9.6 3.59 4.16 6.57 12.30 6.00 16.50
R22 16.50 27.50 11 4.12 4.94 8.50 17.52 11.00 16.50
R11T2 20.10 31.50 11.4 5.07 5.80 8.76 15.54 6.00 9.00 16.50
R12T2 24.30 39.00 14.7 5.65 6.63 10.82 21.06 6.00 16.50 16.50
R12T12 33.00 48.00 15 7.13 8.27 13.01 24.31 6 16.5 9 16.5
R22T22 40.50 60.50 20 8.25 9.88 17.00 35.05 11 16.5 16.5 16.5
A112 20.80 31.50 10.7 5.07 5.80 8.76 15.54 6.00 9.00 16.50
A122 23.70 39.00 15.3 5.65 6.63 10.82 21.06 6.00 16.50 16.50
A124 29.20 46.50 17.3 4.87 5.53 8.23 14.43 6.00 16.50 24.00
A123 26.20 42.50 16.3 4.96 5.66 8.47 14.92 6.00 16.50 20.00
B1222 38.10 55.50 17.4 7.71 9.10 15.07 29.83 6.00 16.50 16.50 16.50
B1232 38.90 59.00 20.1 7.03 8.13 12.72 23.68 6.00 16.50 20.00 16.50
B1233 40.20 62.50 22.3 6.34 7.15 10.37 17.53 6.00 16.50 20.00 20.00
A123T23 51.70 79.00 27.3 8.40 9.62 14.62 26.30 6.00 16.50 20.00 16.50 20.00
A123T23T23 77.80 115.50 37.7 11.84 13.58 20.77 37.67 6.00 16.50 20.00 16.50 20.00 16.50 20.00
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
131
G.2.2 Assumptions for Design
The assumptions made in designing the different pavement types for the eight road categories are
set out in Table G 9. A subgrade CBR of 5% was assumed for all pavements.
G.2.3 Calculation of SNP
The adjusted structural number (SNP) for each pavement was calculated considering contributions
from the surfacing base subbase and subgrade. It was calculated using layer thicknesses THxy
and material coefficients axy i.e. the sum of the structural numbers SN of the different layers and
the subgrade as shown below. The formulae for material coefficients used were developed for
in-service pavements (Equations A 9 to A 13).
SNP = SN
sf
+SN
bs
+SN
sb
+SN
sg
. A 9
SN
sf
= (TH
sf
/ 25.4) * a
sf
(sf =surface). A 10
SN
bs
= (TH
bs
/ 25.4) * a
bs
(bs =base). A 11
SN
sb
= (TH
sb
/ 25.4) * a
sb
(sb =subbase). A 12
The subgrade contribution to structural number SNsg (Hodges et al. 1975) is given by:
SN
sg
= 3.51[log
10
(CBR)] - 0.85[log
10
(CBR)]
2
- 1.43 A 13
where
CBR = California Bearing Ratio.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
132
Table G 8: Assumptions used in pavement design
Road category Design loading (SAR) Design assumptions
Granular pavements (SAR4)
Rural Fwy 6.9E+07
Assumptions apply to both new and in-service pavements.
Granular pavements with sprayed seal in all environments with subgrade CBR = 5%
crushed rock (CR) subbase with CBR = 20-50% and a CR base with CBR = 100%.
Use the minimum base thickness from Figure 8.4 of Austroads (2004) and assume that
the subbase layer makes up the remainder of the total thickness.
Local access roads: use Figure 8.5 of Austroads (2006c) the design guide for light
traffic.
Collector roads: design using Figure 8.4 of Austroads (2006c) as the maximum design
traffic loading in design chart 8.5 of Austroads (2006c) is 10
5
.
Rural Art new 7.3E+06
Rural Art in
service
3.8E+06
Rural Collector 2.4E+05
Rural Local Access 5.3E+04
Urban Art 1.4E+07
Urban Collector 1.7E+06
Urban Local Access 7.9E+04
Bituminous pavements
Rural Art 4.3E+06
(in-service, 20 yr design life)
8.4E+06
(new, 30 yr design life)
For in-service pavements asphalt (AC)> 50 mm but <150 mm on CR base and
subbase. Use Figure 8.4 of Austroads (2004) assume AC thickness = 100 mm with
minimum granular base thickness and the rest of the total thickness to be made up by
the granular subbase. Austroads (2004) does not allow an AC thickness <150 mm for
this traffic loading. Use SAR 5.
For new pavements use AC>150 mm and design using Circly (SAR 5).
AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 75km/h AC MPa = 5900 alpine 3400
temperate 1800 semi-arid.
Urban Fwy 8.8E+07
For both new and in-service pavements use full depth AC on 100 mm fine crushed rock
working platform. Design using Circly and SAR 5.
Subgrade modulus = 50 MPa AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 75 km/h
AC MPa = 5900 alpine 3400 temp (dry and wet).
Urban Art 1.5E+07
Same as for rural arterials for speed = 50km/h AC MPa =4600 alpine 2600 temp (dry or
wet).
Urban Collector 1.7E+06 (in-service, SAR4)
2.0E+06 (new, SAR5)
For in-service pavements use AC< 50 mm on CR base (use SAR4 no consideration for
AC fatigue). Use Figure 8.4 Austroads (2004) assume AC = 35 mm min. granular base
thickness and the granular subbase makes up the rest of the total thickness.
For new pavements use AC>40 mm design using Circly and SAR 5.
AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 50 km/h MPa = 4600 alpine 2600
temp (dry or wet).
Urban Local Access 7.9E+04
For both new and in-service pavements use AC< 40 mm on CR base. Design using
Figure 8.5 in design guide for Light traffic and SAR4. Assume AC = 35 mm min.
granular base thickness and the granular subbase makes up the rest of the total
thickness.
AC modulus varies with environment speed = 50 km/h AC MPa = 4600 alpine 2600
temp (dry or wet).
Cementitious pavements (SAR8)
Rural Art 1.16E+07
50 mm AC on cement treated crushed rock (CTCR) base. Design using Circly.
CTCR =2000MPa AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 75 km/h AC MPa =
5900 alpine 3400 temp 1800 semi-arid.
Urban Fwy 2.4E+08
Thick AC base on 2000MPa CTCR subbase no consideration for post cracking.
Thickness of CTCR is limited to a max of 200 mm and AC thickness is determined
using Circly.
AC modulus same as for bituminous pavements.
Urban Art 4.1E+07
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
133
Coefficients of the different materials were calculated using the following formulae.
For the granular material a CBR of 100% was assumed for the base a CBR of 50% for the upper
subbase and a CBR of 20% for the lower subbase. The formulae used for calculating material
coefficients for the base and subbase are (Watanatada et al. 1987) (Equations A 14 to A 16):
Base; a
bs
= (29.14 CBR - 0.1977 CBR
2
+0.00045 CBR
3
) 10
-4
. A 14
Subbase; a
sb
= -0.075 +0.184(log
10
CBR) 0.0444(log
10
CBR)
2
. A 15
Asphalt coefficient was calculated using asphalt moduli (E) as shown below (AASHTO 1993):
AC; a
sf
= 0.246+0.412*Log
10
(E/1000). A 16
Material coefficient a
cs
for cement treated crushed rock (CTCR) was determined by designing a
full depth asphalt pavement for the same design traffic loading, calculated as its SNP, which was
then used to back calculate a
cs
for the CTCR layer. This approach has been adopted since there
is no suitable formula for determining a
cs
and the fact that CTCR and AC are similar in initial SN,
but vary in performance.
The calculated SNP values are shown in Table G 10 for GN pavements, Table G 11 for AC
pavements and Table G 13 for CS pavements. These values were calculated taking into account
the variation in asphalt modulus in different locations. However, these values were found to be
different from those predicted from the FAMLIT structural deterioration model. The reason is that
the default strength (SNP-CAP) model in FAMLIT was developed using different design principles
to that in Austroads (2004) and was calibrated for the performance of different types of in-service
pavements. The differences between the calculated and predicted SNP values are small as shown
in the tables. The predicted SNP values were adopted in the analysis. As can be seen from the
tables, the variation due to climatic effects in initial strength for pavements with asphalt layers was
lost by adopting these values.
The CS pavements were designed using design loads in SAR12 and a SAR12 design load was
used for long-term performance so the final SNP values used were determined from the SNP-CAP-
SNC capacity curve calibrated for SAR12. Both the strength and roughness deterioration models
were calibrated for SAR12 for these pavements. Both design loads are presented in Table G 12.
The final predicted SNP was calculated using SAR12 design load.
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
134
TableG 9: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values GNpavements
Notes:
Base CBR=100%Subbase-upper CBR= 50%subbase-lower CBR= 20%.
Subgrade SN=0.61.
Road
type
Design
load
AC surfacing Base Subbase-upper Subbase-lower SN Calculated
SNP
Predicted
SNP
(SNP-
CAP
models)
Difference
in
calculated
and
predicted
SNP
SNP
used
SNP-CAP
model (see
Appendix F)
Modulus
MPa
Thickness
mm
Coefficient Thickness
mm
Coefficient Thickness
mm
Coefficient Thickness
mm
Coefficient
Rural Fwy 6.95E+07 Spray seal 300 0.14 275 0.11 0 0.09 2.83 3.44 5.08 -1.64 5.08 GN-SS
Rural Art-
in service
(20yr DL)
3.77E+06 Spray seal 150 0.14 100 0.11 200 0.09 1.95 2.56 3.12 -0.56 3.12 GN-SS
Rural Art -
new
(30yr DL)
7.32E+06 Spray seal 150 0.14 100 0.11 230 0.09 2.06 2.67 3.44 -0.77 3.44 GN-SS
Rural
Collector
2.35E+05 Spray seal 120 0.14 100 0.11 110 0.09 1.47 2.08 2.29 -0.21 2.29 GN-SS
Rural
Local
Access
5.34E+04 Spray seal 100 0.14 90 0.11 90 0.09 1.25 1.86 2.05 -0.19 2.05 GN-SS
Urban Art 1.35E+07 4 600 35 0.52 200 0.14 140 0.11 135 0.09 2.88 3.49 3.79 -0.29 3.79 GN-SS
2 600 35 0.42 200 0.14 140 0.11 135 0.09 2.74 3.35 3.79 3.79
Urban
Collector
1.72E+06 4 600 35 0.52 150 0.14 100 0.11 135 0.09 2.44 3.05 2.82 0.23 2.82 GN-SS
2 600 35 0.42 150 0.14 100 0.11 135 0.09 2.30 2.91 2.82 2.82
Urban
Local
Access
7.88E+04 4 600 25 0.52 100 0.14 160 0.11 0 0.09 1.75 2.35 2.10 0.26 2.10 GN-SS
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
135
TableG 10: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values AC pavements
Roadtype Design
load
AC Base Subbase-upper Subbase-lower SN Calculated
SNP
Predicted
SNP
(SNP-
CAP
models)
Differencein
calculatedand
predictedSNP
SNP
used
SNP-CAP
model
(see
Appendix
F)
AC andGN
moduli
Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff.
Rural Art-in
service
4.31E+06 AC5900,
GN150 MPa
100 0.56 150 0.14 100 0.11 100 0.09 3.82 4.43 3.81 0.62 3.81 AC
AC3400, GN
150MPa
100 0.46 150 0.14 100 0.11 100 0.09 3.43 4.04 3.81 3.81
AC1800,
GN150MPa
100 0.35 150 0.14 100 0.11 100 0.09 2.98 3.59 3.81 3.81
Rural Art-
new
4.31E+06 AC5900,
GN250 MPa
185 0.56 100 0.14 80 0.11 0 0.09 5.00 5.60 5.12 0.49 5.12 AC-thick
8.37E+06 AC3400, GN
280MPa
210 0.46 100 0.14 140 0.11 0 0.09 4.99 5.60 5.11 5.11
AC1800,
GN320 Mpa
250 0.35 100 0.14 90 0.11 0 0.09 4.39 5.00 5.11 5.11
Urban Fwy 8.79E+07 AC5900 100 0.56 170 0.56 0 0.09 100 0.09 6.34 6.95 7.61 -0.66 7.61 AC-thick
AC3400 100 0.46 210 0.46 0 0.09 100 0.09 6.03 6.63 7.61 7.61
Urban Art-
in service
1.54E+07 AC4600, GN
150MPa
100 0.52 150 0.14 130 0.11 140 0.09 3.91 4.52 4.50 0.03 4.50 AC
AC2600, GN
150MPa
100 0.42 150 0.14 130 0.11 140 0.09 3.51 4.12 4.50 4.50
Urban Art-
new
1.54E+07 AC4600,
GN260 MPa
215 0.52 120 0.14 100 0.11 0 0.09 5.48 6.09 6.01 0.07 6.01 AC-thick
AC2600, GN
300MPa
245 0.42 100 0.14 165 0.11 0 0.09 5.28 5.89 6.01 6.01
Urban
Collector-
in-service
1.72E+06 AC4600 40 0.52 150 0.14 100 0.11 130 0.09 2.52 3.13 2.82 0.31 2.82 GN-SS
AC2600 40 0.42 150 0.14 100 0.11 130 0.09 2.36 2.97 2.82 2.82
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
136
TableG 11: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values AC pavements
Notes:
Base CBR=100%Subbase-upper CBR= 50%subbase-lower CBR= 20%.
Subgrade SN= 0.61.
Roadtype Design
load
AC Base Subbase-upper Subbase-lower SN Calculated
SNP
Predicted
SNP (SNP-
CAP
models)
Differencein
calculatedand
predictedSNP
SNP
used
SNP-CAP
model (see
Appendix F)
AC and
GN
moduli
Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff.
Urban
Collector-
new
1.98E+06 AC4600 155 0.52 100 0.14 150 0.11 0 0.09 4.36 4.97 4.66 0.31 4.66 AC-thick
AC2600 180 0.42 100 0.14 100 0.11 0 0.09 3.93 4.54 4.66 4.66
Urban
Local
Access
7.88E+04 AC4600 35 0.52 100 0.14 150 0.11 0 0.09 1.91 2.52 2.10 0.42 2.10 GN-SS
AC2600 35 0.42 100 0.14 150 0.11 0 0.09 1.77 2.38 2.10 2.10
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
137
TableG 12: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values CS pavements
Notes:
Subgrade SN= 0.61.
Roadtype Design
load
(SAR12)
AC Base Subbase-upper SN Calculated
SNP
Design
load
(SAR8)
Predicted
SNP
(SNP-CAP
models)
Differencein
calculatedand
predictedSNP
SNP
used
SNP-CAP
model (see
Appendix F)
Modulus Thickness Coeff. Thickness Coeff. Thickness Coeff.
Rural Art-in
service
20yr
1.16E+07 AC5900 50 0.43 315 0.25 3.95 4.55 6.52E+06 4.67 -0.12 4.67 CS-SS
1.16E+07 AC3400 50 0.46 325 0.25 4.11 4.72 4.67 4.67
1.16E+07 AC1800 50 0.35 340 0.25 4.04 4.65 4.67 4.67
Urban Fwy 2.38E+08 AC5900 50 0.43 150 0.43 200 0.25 5.35 5.96 1.33E+08 6.81 -0.84 6.81 CS-thick
2.38E+08 AC3400 50 0.46 180 0.46 200 0.25 6.18 6.79 6.81 6.81
Urban Art 4.12E+07 AC4600 50 0.43 130 0.43 200 0.25 5.02 5.62 2.32E+07 4.83 0.79 4.83 CS-thick
4.12E+07 AC2600 50 0.42 155 0.42 200 0.25 5.33 5.94 4.83 4.83
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
138
G.3 Concrete Pavements
The changes in wear of concrete pavements due to selected axle group loading scenarios were
calculated on three concrete pavement structures. Concrete pavements are rigid unlike sealed
granular and asphalt pavements that are flexible.
G.3.1 Design Traffic Loading
The daily heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAGs) for each road type were determined using relevant
HV AADT/lane (GML) in Table G 13, corresponding HV fleet distributions and number of axle
groups for each fleet vehicle as shown in Table G 13. The design traffic loadings for the three
concrete pavements are presented in Table G 14.
Table G 13: Daily HVAGs for each vehicle on each road type concrete pavements
Fleet vehicles Axle group
per vehicle
Rural fwy Urban fwy Urban arterial
406HV AADT/lane 704HV AADT/lane 213HV AADT/lane
Fleet
distribution
HVAG Fleet
distribution
HVAG Fleet
distribution
HVAG
R11 2 25% 406*25%*2=203 32% 451 37% 158
R11-bus 2 6% 49 6% 84 10% 43
R12 2 7% 57 23% 317 15% 63
R22 2 1% 4 2% 28 3% 13
R11T2 3 2% 24 0.3% 6 3% 16
R12T2 3 1% 12 0.2% 4 2% 13
R12T12 4 8% 130 2.0% 56 1% 9
R22T22 4 1% 8 2.0% 56 1% 9
A112 3 2% 24 0.2% 4 2% 13
A122 3 2% 24 0.3% 6 2% 13
A124 3 0.2% 2 0.2% 4 0.2% 1
A123 3 22% 268 10% 211 20% 128
B1222 4 1% 8 3.5% 99 0.3% 3
B1232 4 1% 16 3.5% 99 0.3% 3
B1233 4 14% 227 13% 366 4% 34
A123T23 5 4% 81 1.5% 53 0.0% 0
A123T23T23 7 4% 122 0.8% 39 0.0% 0
Total HVAG/day 1260 1885 515
Table G 14: Design parameters for concrete pavements
Road
category
HVAG/day Growth rate, design
period
GF Design HVAG Design parameters
Rural Fwy 1260 3.8%, 40 90.7 1260*365*90.7 =
4.2E+07
PCP, Base = 225 mm, Shoulders, LSF = 1.3,
EffCBR = 75%
Urban Fwy 1885 2.43%, 40 66.4 4.6E+07 CRCP, Base = 180 mm, Shoulders, LSF = 1.2,
EffCBR = 75%
Urban Arterial 515 2.36%, 30 42.9 8.1E+06 PCP, Base = 210 mm, No shoulders, LSF = 1.3,
EffCBR = 75%
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
139
G.3.2 Design of Concrete Pavements
The concrete pavements were designed using the Austroads (2004) PDG for subgrade CBR
of 5% and the design traffic loadings shown in Table G 14.
For the rural freeway pavements the Austroads rural freeway traffic load distribution
(Appendix 7.2 of Austroads (2004) was used).
For urban freeways a typical Sydney freeway distribution provided by the Roads and
Maritime Services (RMS) of NSW was used.
For the urban arterial the Austroads (2004) PDG urban traffic load distribution was used
except that all SAST loads above 10 tonne were excluded as they are unrealistically high.
Except for the urban freeway pavement each pavement was assumed to be a plain concrete
pavement (PCP). The urban freeway pavement was designed as a continuously reinforced
concrete.
Each pavement had 150 mm of lean mix concrete as a subbase. Hence the effective
subgrade CBR was 75% in all cases.
The selected designs for the three pavements are presented in Table G 14.
G.3.3 SNP for Concrete Pavements
For all three concrete pavements an arbitrarily high value for SNP of 10 was used.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
140
APPENDIX H DEVELOPMENT OF NETWORK AND
LOADING SCENARIOS
H.1 New Pavements Network
The initial pavement network matrix and assumed characteristics (road category pavement type
initial SNP and roughness lane width (including shoulder) and climate) are shown in Table H 1 for
the rural network and Table H 2 for the urban network. As these tables show each pavement/road
combination was assumed to operate in three different climatic regions i.e. three different TMI
values.
The traffic data year and pavement construction year were assumed to be the same for each
pavement category and assumed to be the year 2008 for all pavements. The lane width was
assumed to vary between road types as shown in the tables. However all pavements were
assumed to be one kilometre long.
Table H 1: Characteristics of initial rural network
Road number Road name Pavement type Lane width, m TMI SN IRI, m/km
RF11 Rural Fwy GN 5 50 4.47 1.44
RF12 Rural Fwy GN 5 0 4.47 1.44
RF13 Rural Fwy GN 5 -50 4.47 1.44
RFC Rural Fwy Concrete 5 20 9.39 1.44
RA11 Rural Art (in-service) GN 5 50 2.51 1.6
RA12 Rural Art (in-service) GN 5 0 2.51 1.6
RA13 Rural Art (in-service) GN 5 -50 2.51 1.6
RAN11 Rural Art (new) GN 5 50 2.83 1.6
RAN12 Rural Art (new) GN 5 0 2.83 1.6
RAN13 Rural Art (new) GN 5 -50 2.83 1.6
RA21 Rural Art (in-service) AC 5 50 3.20 1.6
RA22 Rural Art (in-service) AC 5 0 3.20 1.6
RA23 Rural Art (in-service) AC 5 -50 3.20 1.6
RAN21 Rural Art (new) AC 5 50 4.51 1.6
RAN22 Rural Art (new) AC 5 0 4.51 1.6
RAN23 Rural Art (new) AC 5 -50 4.51 1.6
RA31 Rural Art CS 5 50 4.06 1.6
RA32 Rural Art CS 5 0 4.06 1.6
RA33 Rural Art CS 5 -50 4.06 1.6
RLC110 Rural Collector GN 4 50 1.68 1.8
RLC120 Rural Collector GN 4 0 1.68 1.8
RLC130 Rural Collector GN 4 -50 1.68 1.8
RLA110 Rural Access GN 4 50 1.44 1.8
RLA120 Rural Access GN 4 0 1.44 1.8
RLA130 Rural Access GN 4 -50 1.44 1.8
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
141
Table H 2: Characteristics of initial urban network
Road number Road name Pavement type Lane width, m TMI SN IRI, m/km
UF31 Urban Fwy CS 5 80 6.20 1.44
UF32 Urban Fwy CS 5 20 6.20 1.44
UF33 Urban Fwy CS 5 -20 6.20 1.44
UF21 Urban Fwy AC 5 80 7.00 1.44
UF22 Urban Fwy AC 5 20 7.00 1.44
UF23 Urban Fwy AC 5 -20 7.00 1.44
UFCon Urban Fwy Concrete 5 80 9.39 1.44
UACon Urban Arterial Concrete 4 80 9.39 1.6
UA31 Urban Arterial CS 4 80 4.22 1.6
UA32 Urban Arterial CS 4 20 4.22 1.6
UA33 Urban Arterial CS 4 -20 4.22 1.6
UA11 Urban Arterial GN 4 80 3.18 1.6
UA12 Urban Arterial GN 4 20 3.18 1.6
UA13 Urban Arterial GN 4 -20 3.18 1.6
UA21 Urban Art (in-service) AC 4 80 3.89 1.6
UA22 Urban Art (in-service) AC 4 20 3.89 1.6
UA23 Urban Art (in-service) AC 4 -20 3.89 1.6
UAN21 Urban Art (new) AC 4 80 5.40 1.6
UAN22 Urban Art (new) AC 4 20 5.40 1.6
UAN23 Urban Art (new) AC 4 -20 5.40 1.6
ULC21 Urban Collector (new) AC 4 80 4.05 1.7
ULC22 Urban Collector (new) AC 4 20 4.05 1.7
ULC23 Urban Collector (new) AC 4 -20 4.05 1.7
ULC110 Urban Collector GN 4 80 2.21 1.7
ULC120 Urban colLector GN 4 20 2.21 1.7
ULC130 Urban Collector GN 4 -20 2.21 1.7
ULA110 Urban Access GN 4 80 1.49 1.7
ULA120 Urban Access GN 4 20 1.49 1.7
ULA130 Urban Access GN 4 -20 1.49 1.7
H.2 Development of In-service Flexible Pavement Network
The network of in-service pavements was developed by applying life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA)
to the initial network using FAMLIT. The input data included those set out in Table H 1 and
Table H 2. The LCCA was conducted with the application of relevant traffic growth rates
maintenance interventions and works effects to simulate reality. The analyses results were then
used to establish the conditions of each pavement in terms of SNP and roughness at the ages of
10, 20, 30 and 40 years. This resulted in a total of 15 sections for each pavement category (road
category/pavement type combination) as shown in Table H 3 for an urban freeway with full depth
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
142
asphalt pavement (UFA). This process was applied to all pavement/categories except for the
concrete pavements due to lack of age distribution data.
Table H 3: Development of UFA (urban freeway with full depth asphalt) sub-network
Road number TMI SN Roughness m/km Traffic data year Year of last reseal Year of last overlay Year of last recon
UF210 80 7.00 1.44 2008 2008 2008 2008
UF211 80 6.95 2.48 2000 2000 2000 2000
UF212 80 7.18 1.93 1990 2008 2008 1990
UF213 80 7.09 3.84 1980 1998 1998 1980
UF214 80 7.30 3.06 1970 2003 2003 1970
UF220 20 7.00 1.44 2008 2008 2008 2008
UF221 20 6.96 2.17 2000 2000 2000 2000
UF222 20 6.90 3.00 1990 2002 1990 1990
UF223 20 7.15 2.65 1980 2002 2002 1980
UF224 20 7.38 2.08 1970 2007 2007 1970
UF230 -20 7.00 1.44 2008 2008 2008 2008
UF231 -20 6.97 1.99 2000 2000 2000 2000
UF232 -20 6.92 2.62 1990 2002 1990 1990
UF233 -20 6.85 3.08 1980 2004 1980 1980
UF234 -20 7.08 2.59 1970 2002 2002 1970
Figure H 1 shows the impacts of climate on the roughness deterioration rate for UFA. It can be
clearly noticed that the rates are higher in wetter environments (TMI 80 and 20) resulting in earlier
rehabilitation interventions. Figure H 2 shows the variation in cost profiles for the same section in
the three climatic regions.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
143
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
5
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
1
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
7
Year
I
R
I
,
m
/
k
mTMI=80
TMI =20
TMI =-20
Figure H 1: Variation in roughness progression rates due to climate
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
5
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
1
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
7
Year
$
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
TMI =80
TMI =20
TMI =-20
Resurfacing
Reconstruction
Overlay
Figure H 2: Variation in lifecycle agency cost profile due to climate
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
144
H.3 Age Distribution for Flexible Pavements
The age distributions of the different flexible pavement categories that were used in determining
the weighted average EAUC for the different scenarios are presented in Table H 4. They were
based on data provided by a number of state road authorities (SRAs). As data on the age
distribution of concrete pavements was not provided the concrete pavement network was assumed
to consist of new pavements only.
H.4 Change in Concrete Pavement Wear Due to Loading Scenarios
For each pavement and axle group the pavement wear impact of a loading scenario was
calculated by:
1 The overall damage (maximum of fatigue and erosion damage) with current traffic load
distributions was calculated.
2 For each axle group load scenario the axle group load was converted to a percentage of the
current prescriptive load. For example for single axle dual tyres (SADT) group the
prescriptive load was 9 tonne. Hence a 10 tonne prescriptive limit would be an increase of
about 11%.
3 For each load scenario these percentage load changes were applied to all the axle groups in
the traffic load distribution (TLD). For example all the SADT axle loads were increased by
11% while not changing the loads in the TLD for the other axle group types.
4 With the modified TLD the overall damage was then recalculated.
5 The change in wear was calculated by subtracting the percentage wear of the modified TLD
(step 4) from the wear with the current TLD (step 1).
6 This change in wear was then converted to a traffic multiplier to apply to the HVAG of loading
in FAMLIT analysis of concrete pavements. The traffic multipliers as explained in
Section 4.2.1 were estimated to reduce the numbers of heavy vehicles so that they were all
fully laden to GML. The traffic multipliers for each of the axle groups for different load
increments are presented in Table H6 together with their daily numbers.
Table H 4: Age distribution for the different pavement categories
Age range (years) <5 5- 15 15- 25 25- 35 >35
Urban
Thin AC over granular base
Arterial 10 20 20 20 30
Local Collector 5 15 20 20 40
Local Access 30 20 30 10 10
Full depth AC or thick AC over granular base
Fwy 20 40 5 10 25
Arterial 30 25 15 10 20
Local Collector 5 15 20 20 40
Thick AC over CS
Fwy 5 90 5 0 0
Arterial 25 70 5 0 0
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
145
Age range (years) <5 5- 15 15- 25 25- 35 >35
Rural
Sprayed seal or thin AC over granular base
Fwy 5 5 25 35 30
Arterial 5 35 20 10 30
Local collector 10 35 25 5 25
Local access 20 55 15 5 5
Thick AC over granular base
Arterial 5 5 5 25 60
Thin AC or sprayed seal over CS base
Arterial 5 60 20 5 10
H.4.1 Assessment Loading Scenarios for Concrete Pavements
As FAMLIT does not include models for concrete pavements as there are no appropriate concrete
deterioration models available these pavements were assessed assuming that their performance is
similar to CS pavements. SAR12 values for the six axle group types (SAST SADT TAST TADT
TRDT QADT) presented in Table H 5, were calculated using Austroads (2004) PDG and assuming
maximum loadings permitted under GML. They were used with the corresponding annual numbers
of HVAGs (HVSAST HVSADT HVTAST etc.) from Table H 5 to determine the annual traffic loading
for each scenario. The annual traffic loading is calculated using the following formula:
YSAR = ((HVSAST * SAR12
SAST
) +(HVSADT*SAR12
SADT
) +(HVTAST* SAR12
TAST
) +
(HVTADT * SAR12
TADT
) +(HVTRDT * SAR12
TRDT
) +(HVQADT * SAR12
QADT
)) *
365.
The daily numbers of each axle group (i.e. HVSAST HVSADT etc.) in Table H 5 were determined
using the total daily HVAGs (Table G 13) for each road type and the corresponding axle group
distributions in Table H 3. The variation in SAR12 for SADT between the three road types is
related to the percentages of SADT operating with 9 and 10 (R11-bus) tonnes. Table H 6 presents
the traffic multipliers for each loading scenario and the resulting daily HVAGs for each of the three
axle group types considered for the three road types.
Table H 5: Daily numbers of each axle group type and the three road types
Road
category
SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT QADT
Rural Fwy
SAR12 3.54 4.25 8.76 8.76 2.62 2.12
HVAG/day 401 =
1260*31.9%
174 =
1260*13.8%
4 =
1260*0.3%
388 =
1260*30.8%
292 =
1260*23.1%
0.8 =
1260*0.06%
Urban Fwy SAR12 3.54 4.30 8.76 8.76 2.62 2.12
HVAG/day 676 285 28 578 316 1.4
Urban Arterial
SAR12 3.54 4.56 8.76 8.76 2.62 2.12
HVAG/day 204 112 9 130 60 0.4
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
146
TableH6: Traffic multipliers and HVAGs for thedifferent loading scenarios for threeroad types
Scenario Load Multiplier SADT TADT TRDT Load Multiplier SADT TADT TRDT Load Multiplier SADT TADT TRDT
Rural fwy Urbanfwy Urbanarterial
Base 1 174 388 292 1 285 578 316 1 112 130 60
SADT 5.0 0.37 64 388 292 5.0 0.55 157 578 316 5.0 0.84 93 130 60
SADT 8.0 0.58 101 388 292 8.0 0.68 193 578 316 8.0 0.92 102 130 60
SADT 9.5 1.36 236 388 292 9.5 1.97 563 578 316 9.5 1.06 119 130 60
SADT 10.0 1.83 320 388 292 10.0 4.10 1 170 578 316 10.0 1.14 128 130 60
SADT 11.0 3.42 597 388 292 11.0 22.11 6 303 578 316 11.0 1.68 188 130 60
SADT 12.0 5.81 1 013 388 292 12.0 102.05 29 098 578 316 12.0 7.48 836 130 60
TADT 9.0 0.79 174 308 292 15.0 0.87 676 502 316 9.0 0.63 112 82 60
TADT 13.0 0.80 174 310 292 15.5 0.89 676 513 316 13.0 0.71 112 92 60
TADT 15.5 0.89 174 344 292 17.5 1.24 676 720 316 15.0 0.84 112 108 60
TADT 17.5 1.21 174 469 292 18.0 1.47 676 849 316 15.5 0.88 112 114 60
TADT 18.0 1.36 174 528 292 20.0 2.92 676 1 685 316 17.5 1.16 112 150 60
TADT 20.0 2.48 174 960 292 22.0 6.07 676 3 507 316 18.0 1.25 112 163 60
TADT 22.0 4.44 174 1 723 292 24.0 11.53 676 6 664 316 20.0 1.78 112 231 60
TADT 24.0 7.89 174 3 060 292 22.0 2.56 112 332 60
TADT 24.0 3.81 112 494 60
TRDT 18.5 0.99 174 388 290 23.0 1.03 285 578 325 13.0 0.93 112 130 56
TRDT 23.0 1.08 174 388 314 24.5 1.09 285 578 345 21.5 1.04 112 130 63
TRDT 24.5 1.17 174 388 343 26.0 1.23 285 578 390 23.0 1.10 112 130 66
TRDT 26.0 1.35 174 388 393 29.0 1.87 285 578 591 24.5 1.17 112 130 70
TRDT 29.0 1.95 174 388 570 32.0 3.12 285 578 987 26.0 1.27 112 130 77
TRDT 32.0 2.98 174 388 868 29.0 1.58 112 130 95
TRDT 32.0 2.04 112 130 123
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
147
APPENDIX I HEAVY VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS AND
PAVEMENT WEAR
I.1 Determining Pavement Wear Due to Heavy Vehicle Axle Loads
Austroads (2004) provides performance models that take into account the damaging effects of
different axle group loads. The PDG is currently used for the design of new pavements throughout
Australia. The PDG uses Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR) as the unit of damage due to a single
pass of a vehicle defined as follows (Equation A 17):
=
=
=
m i
i
LDE
i
SL
i
L SAR
1
) / (
A 17
where
L
i
= load carried by axle group type i (kN)
SL
i
= standard load for axle group type i (see Table I 1) =load which causes
same damage as a static single 80 kN dual wheeled standard axle.
LDE = load damage exponent, varies from 4 to 12 depending on the pavement
distress type
M = number of axle groups for the vehicle.
Table I 1: Axle group loads (standard loads) which cause same damage as the standard axle
Axle group type Load (kN) Load (tonne)
Single axle with single tyres (SAST) 53 5.4
Single axle with dual tyres (SADT) 80 8.16
Tandem axle with single tyres (TAST) 90 9.18
Tandem axle with dual tyres (TADT) 135 13.77
Triaxle with dual tyres (TRDT) 181 18.46
Quad-axle with dual tyres (QADT) 221 22.54
Source: Austroads (2004).
From the field trials conducted by Yeo et al. (2007), it was found that the standard load on the quad
axle group compared to a single axle loaded to 8.2 tonne (or the triaxle loaded to its 18.5 tonne
standard load) is 22.5 tonne. This compared well with the theoretical reference load estimate of
22.5 tonne for the quad axle group reported in Vuong (2002).
The standard loads currently used in Austroads (2004) to convert the wear of any axle group load
to equivalent number of load repetitions of a standard axle have been empirically derived assuming
equal maximum surface deflection under an axle group load causes equal damage. This
assumption is not consistent with the Austroads (2004) mechanistic design procedure in which
maximum strains rather than deflections are used to calculate performance (J ameson 2006).
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
148
The above assumption is supported by the findings of the 1960s AASHTO Road Test for tandem
axle groups. However the Road Test did not provide data on triaxle and quad axle loads.
Additionally pavement wear was characterised using the Present Serviceability Index (PSI) which
is a broad performance measure hence the findings are not necessarily applicable to specific
distress modes such as rutting or fatigue. Recent overseas laboratory asphalt fatigue testing
suggests that the current Austroads procedures may overestimate the wear due to axle groups
with two or more axles (J ameson 2006).
Austroads Project TT1219 was initiated in 2007 to address these issues and improve knowledge
about the pavement damage due to axle group types. The project also aimed to investigate
whether differences in dynamic loading of different axle group types need to be taken into account.
Project TT1219 will only consider flexible pavements while for concrete pavements the work being
undertaken concurrently at Michigan University will be monitored (J ameson 2006).
The load wear exponents used in Austroads (2004) that are used to calculate SAR for each
distress mode of flexible pavements are:
SAR4 Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 4, SAR4 is used to
assess the wear to sprayed seal surfaced unbound granular pavements, SAR4 is commonly
called Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA).
SAR5 - Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 5 SAR5 is used to
assess the asphalt fatigue wear to asphalt surfaced pavements.
SAR7 - Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 7 SAR7 is used to
assess the rutting and loss of shape of flexible pavements with bound layers.
SAR12 - Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 12 SAR12 is used
to assess the cemented materials fatigue wear of flexible pavements that include bound
cemented materials.
Clearly the Austroads (2004) provides models for most but not all types of pavement wear due to
vertical loading. Other load associated wear types that are not modelled include deformation and
stripping of asphalt polishing and flushing of sprayed seal surfacings.
The results of a recent Austroads Project TT1065 on the effects of increased axle loads on the
wear of thin-surfaced unbound granular pavements and cemented pavement indicate the following:
For thin-surfaced unbound granular pavements, the wear was assessed in terms of
rutting/deformation and roughness (Austroads 2007b)
load-damage exponents (LDE) ranged between two and four (based on surface
deformation) and three to five (based on roughness progression)
overall it was considered that the 4th power law (LDE =4) is adequate for the types of
granular pavements studied and under the test conditions; however this value may be
conservative in some instances and not in others.
For cemented pavements, the performance was assessed in terms of rutting, cracking
(fatigue), deflection (modulus) and strain (Austroads 2008b)
for the materials tested the LDE were found to range between six and eight although
more recent fatigue testing suggests that the LDE should be 12.
Considering the limitations associated with the study i.e. limited types of materials tested in dry
conditions the results will not be implemented until supported by further studies examining a wider
range of material under different environmental conditions.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
149
I.2 Factors Affecting Pavement Wear and Performance
The factors involved in the physical deterioration mechanism of road pavements under repeated
axle loading include pavement design subgrade strength maintenance practice operating speed
vehicle characteristics and the interaction effects of the materials environment road drainage traffic
loading and construction quality.
Available Australian in-service pavement performance models take into consideration the effects of
most of the factors influencing performance over its life cycle. It is important to note however that
none of these models consider the impacts of dynamic wheel loads. Dynamic wheel loads (DWL)
are generated by oscillations of the vehicle and its elements in response to excitations generated
primarily by the vertical displacement inputs to the wheels from the road surface (De Pont &
Pidwerbesky 2000). The magnitude of DWL is a function of vehicle (configuration geometry mass
distribution and properties of the suspensions and tyres) and pavement characteristics and
operating speed see Appendix J for details. They increase with increasing speed and roughness
(Cebon 1999).
Of the vehicle/axle group characteristics that influence pavement performance the relative
damaging effects of axle load and axle group configuration are considered in the determination of
wear caused by a single static vehicle as described in the previous section. The following section
provides a brief review of the effects of a number of heavy vehicle characteristics on pavement
performance (statically and dynamically) followed by a discussion on the feasibility of incorporating
them in wear calculations for this project.
I.2.1 Impacts of Vehicle Characteristics
The high wheel loads of heavy trucks are a major source of pavement damage by causing
permanent deformation which produces rutting and by fatigue (for pavements with bound layers)
which leads to cracking. Gillespie et al. (1993) analysed the effects of various axle and truck
configurations on pavement damage using mechanistic (static or dynamic) analyses and different
performance measures (fatigue and rutting). The study assessed the significance of truck tyre
pavement and environmental factors as determinants of pavement damage. Maximum axle load
and pavement thickness were found to have the primary influences on fatigue damage. Pavement
rutting was found to be influenced by the total vehicle gross weight i.e. the heavier the vehicle the
more pavement rutting impact. Truck properties such as number and location of axles suspension
type and tyre type are important but less significant. High temperatures in flexible pavements and
temperature gradients in rigid pavements adversely affect the damage caused by truck wheel
loads with a fairly strong interaction.
In terms of DWL Cebon (1999) reports that dynamic forces are not important in rutting damage
where gross vehicle weight is the dominant factor but they are important in fatigue damage (e.g.
thin asphalt pavements). For these pavements relatively low levels of dynamic loads can lead to
theoretical damage up to 2.5 times the value for static axle loads.
The following sections describe how the different axle group characteristics impact on pavement
wear. They include load on the individual axles or axle group axle group configuration and axle
spacing within a group tyre factors and suspension type.
Axle load
The results of a recent Austroads Project TT1065 on the effects of increased axle loads (Austroads
2007b) indicate that the wear (rutting) of thin-surfaced unbound granular pavements increases with
increasing axle loads as illustrated in Figure I 1 for one of the test pavements. For cemented
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
150
pavements (Austroads 2008b) the performance was assessed in terms of rutting cracking (fatigue)
deflection (modulus) and strain. Figure I 2 shows how the rate of loss in modulus of the cemented
base (due to fatigue cracking) increases with axle loading. The tests were conducted under
controlled environmental conditions and using the Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF) to apply
full-scale loading to the test pavements.
Ilves GJ and Majidzadeh K (1992) used field data to evaluate the damage caused by excessive
loads of heavy vehicles in Ohio USA. The data included traffic mix (number of axles axle
configuration and axle loads) and performance data (rutting cracking roughness faulting) monitored
over two years. Although the study was based on limited data they concluded that for flexible
pavements rutting increases under heavy axle loads faster than does roughness or cracking. For
rigid pavements cracking was found to increase faster than the other distresses.
0
10
20
0 50 100 150 200 250
ALF load cycles (kcycles)
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
r
u
t
)
(
m
m
)
Rut =Rut
0
+SNP
-6.739
.cycles
1.103
.(wheel load/40)
3.557
40 kN
(SNP 4.98)
60 kN
(SNP 4.74)
80 kN
(SNP 4.63)
0
10
20
0 50 100 150 200 250
ALF load cycles (kcycles)
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
r
u
t
)
(
m
m
)
Rut =Rut
0
+SNP
-6.739
.cycles
1.103
.(wheel load/40)
3.557
40 kN
(SNP 4.98)
60 kN
(SNP 4.74)
80 kN
(SNP 4.63)
Source: Austroads (2007b).
Figure I 1: Impact of axle mass increase
Source: Austroads (2008b).
Figure I 2: Typical test results for the cemented pavements
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
151
Axle group configuration
Axle groups such as tandems or triaxles distribute the load along the pavement allowing greater
weights to be carried and resulting in the same or less pavement distress than that occasioned by
a single axle at a lower weight.
A recent study (Yeo et al. 2007) involved heavy vehicle field trials to investigate the relative
pavement damaging effects of quad axle groups and triaxles. The field trial results indicated that
for the same response to load i.e. vertical surface deflection:
the equivalent load on the quad axle dual tyres compared to a single axle dual tyre load of
8.7 tonne was 23.0 tonne
the equivalent load on the quad axle compared to a triaxle group loaded to the legal General
Mass Limit (GML) of 20.0 tonne was 24.4 tonne
the equivalent High Mass Limit (HML) load on the quad axle compared to a triaxle group
loaded to 22.5 tonne was 27 tonne.
Vuong (2007) conducted a theoretical analysis using a truck model and a three dimensional Finite
Element (FE) pavement model to estimate the vehicle maximum vertical and horizontal forces
while executing the same low-speed turn manoeuvre. When simulating six and seven axle prime-
mover semi-trailers with different loads on an asphalt pavement it was found that:
the steer and drive axles produced similar loading/damage for all vehicles
the quad axles and triaxles produced significantly different loads, and therefore different
damage
for the same trailer load the triaxle group was found to produce more damage to the asphalt
layer than the quad axle (about 10 times at 20 tonne and 8.5 times at 22.5 tonne).
Considering the findings of the study Vuong (2007) recommended that consideration should be
also given to calculating the allowable loading of the whole vehicle. Vuong (2007) found that the
tandem drive for the vehicles tested applied high forces to the pavement and hence the overall
wear may be dominated by the wear due to the tandem axle. Reporting the wear associated with
each vehicle type may put the differences in wear between a triaxle and a quad axle in a more
appropriate perspective.
The findings from other studies conducted in the United States are summarised below:
Chatti and El Mohtar (2004) studied the fatigue life of an asphalt mix in the laboratory under
different truck axle configurations using the indirect tensile cyclic load test by applying load
pulses that are equivalent to the passage of an entire axle group or truck. Their results
showed that multiple-axle groups were less damaging in fatigue per tonne as compared to
single axles. Increasing the number of axles carrying the same load resulted in less
damage. This decrease in damage was found to be more significant between single tandem
and tri axles whereas it starts to level off at higher axle numbers.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
152
In a more recent study by Salama et al. (2006) of field data in Michigan was used to
investigate the relative damaging effects of different axle/truck configurations on flexible
pavement damage in terms of cracking, rutting and roughness using weigh station truck
traffic and in-service pavement performance data. The trucks were categorised into two
groups: single-tandem and multiple axle/trucks. The analysis included simple multiple and
stepwise regression. The results indicated that trucks with multiple axles (triaxle or more)
appear to produce more rutting damage than those with only single and tandem axles. On
the other hand trucks with single and tandem axles tend to cause more cracking. However
there was not enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion on whether trucks with different
axle configurations affected pavement roughness differently.
To improve knowledge of the relative damaging effects of the different axle group types on
Australian pavements Austroads has sponsored Project TT1219 Influence of Multiple Axle Loads
on Pavement Performance. The project will involve laboratory testing to assess pavement
response to load under different axle group configurations and supplemented by pavement
performance data using the ALF.
Axle spacing
The spread between two consecutive axles also affects pavement performance. When there is a
substantial spread between two axles in a tandem or tri-axle group each axle in the group tends to
act as a single axle. Conversely the closer the axles in a group are the greater the weight they
may carry without increasing pavement deterioration beyond that occasioned by the same number
of single axles (FHWA 1995). Two axles at more than 1.8 m spacing are not considered a tandem
axle but a double axle and are treated as two single axles (COST 2001). Static analyses have
shown that optimum spacing exists for axles in tandem and triaxle groups that minimise road
damage for given static loading conditions (Cebon 1999).
The current procedure in Austroads (2004) does not take into account the effects of axle spacing.
Simulating or assessing the damaging effects of this factor is complicated by the fact that the
impacts of the interaction between the different axles vary throughout the pavement structure.
However one of the aims of Austroads Project TT1219 is to develop a procedure that allows for
assessing the damaging effects of axle groups with different axle spacings.
Lift axles
Lift axles can improve the maneuverability of trucks with multiple widely spaced axles but if the
axle is not lowered when loaded or it is improperly adjusted pavement damage will increase
(Hirshhorn 2002).
Tyre features
The configuration of tyres as duals singles or wide-base singles affects the distribution of normal
stresses on the pavement surface when operated at rated load. Under a recent Austroads project
the estimated relative performance of different tyre types on unbound granular pavement with thin
bituminous surfacing was verified via full-scale accelerated performance testing. The testing was
conducted using a variety of tyre types at a 40 kN half-axle load applied using the Accelerated
Loading Facility. The study results (Austroads 2008c) indicate that wide single tyres are up to 6
times more damaging than dual tyres see Figure I 3.
The standard and legal loads for different tyre configurations which cause the same pavement
wear (vertical surface deformation) as the standard axle fitted with dual 11R22.5 tyres are
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
153
presented in Figure I 2 and Figure I 3, respectively. The results clearly indicate that wider tyres on
the steer axle allow only marginal increase in axle load for the same pavement wear.
These equivalencies were determined based on a tyre inflation pressure of 760 kPa for the single
tyres and 560 kPa for the reference dual tyres. The equivalent axle load results were found to be
similar although slightly higher using the ALF data when 315/80R22.5 reference dual tyres and an
inflation pressure of 760 kPa were tested. Given that the 11R22.5 tyre size is more commonly
used than the ALF 315/80R22.5 tyre size and that the tyre inflation pressure and net contact stress
for the alternative 11R22.5 reference dual tyre set were derived from the standard axle (Austroads
2004) it was recommended that the equivalent loads shown in Table I 2 and Table I 3 be adopted.
Source: Austroads (2008c).
Figure I 3: Damaging effects of different tyre configurations
Table I 2: Standard axle loads for single tyre configurations relative to 11R22.5 reference dual tyres
Designation and tyre
configuration on axle
Tyre Standard axle load (tonne) for different
levels of deformation
Tyre inflation
pressure (kPa)
Contact width
for tyre group
(mm)
Deformation 10 mm 15 mm
Reference dual tyres 11R22.5 8.2 8.2 560 380
Axle with wide single 445/65R22.5 7.3 7.4 760 332
Axle with wide single 385/65R22.5 5.3 6.1 760 270
Steer axle single tyres 295/80 R22.5 4.1 5.7 760 230
Source: Austroads (2008).
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
154
Table I 3: Axle loads for single tyre configurations relative to the legal axle load on 11R22.5 reference dual tyres
Designation and tyre
configuration
Tyre Axle load (tonne) for different levels of
deformation
Tyre inflation
pressure (kPa)
Contact width
for tyre group
(mm)
Deformation 10 mm 15 mm
Dual tyres at legal axle load 11R22.5 9.0 9.0 560 380
Axle with wide single 445/65R22.5 8.0 8.1 760 332
Axle with wide single 385/65R22.5 5.8 6.7 760 270
Steer axle single tyres 295/80 R22.5 4.5 6.2 760 230
Source: Austroads (2008c).
It should be noted however that these findings relate to one granular pavement tested at one
moisture condition. While a relationship was developed which provides a means of determining
the equivalent load for different tyre sizes and net contact stresses further validation of this
relationship is warranted for a wider range of tyres and pavement structures under different
conditions (Austroads 2008c).
Wide single tyres were estimated to cause slightly less pavement damage due to dynamic loading
with resultant general pavement wear ratios estimated to be 0.99 for primary roads and 0.97 for
secondary roads (COST 2001).
Singling out is the practice of using only one tyre on axles having hubs for two tyres. In their
study Bell et al. (1992) concluded that:
The partially singled-out tandem axle was found to be particularly damaging when carrying
the same legal load. Analysis of partially singled-out triaxles suggested that the potential
pavement damage is not as severe as with the partially singled-out tandem axle. The
damage caused by these axle configurations is dependent on the load sharing mechanism of
the suspension system.
Regardless of axle type the use of single tyres results in a greater damage potential relative
to a similarly loaded dual-tyred axle.
The singling out of tandem axles i.e. tandem axles with single tyres is less damaging than
comparably loaded single axles with dual tyres. Similarly triaxles with single tyres are less
damaging than similarly loaded tandem axles with dual tyres. As the tyre size increases the
damage potential from triaxles decreases.
For all tyre types inflation pressure in excess of the rated pressure will increase damage (Gillespie
& Karamihas 1992). The damage is influenced by the total contact area between the tyre and the
pavement; more contact between the tyre and pavement results in less damage to the pavement
(Bell et al. 1992). The European study COST 334 (2001) on the impacts of tyre features on
pavement performance confirmed these findings. In this study it was found that the main
influencing factors of pavement wear are width and size of the tyre-pavement contact area and the
ratio of the actual inflation pressure over the recommended inflation pressure for the actual load.
Pavement wear was assessed in terms of asphalt fatigue primary rutting in asphalt secondary
rutting in granular layers and subgrade. Road wear also increases as loads become imbalanced
due to unequal tyre pressure and uneven wear among the tyres of a dual set (Hirshhorn 2002).
Wide single tyres would cause less pavement wear by a factor of 0.94 compared to dual tyres in
situations where the load is not balanced between the dual tyres (COST 2001).
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
155
Cebon (1999) reports that variation in tyre contact conditions including the number and type of
tyres on an axle contact area pressure and pressure distribution mainly influence primary
pavement responses just below the surface of flexible pavements particularly for thin wearing
courses. Subgrade rutting and fatigue damage in thicker pavements are largely governed by the
total wheel load.
Suspension systems
The transfer mechanism of axle group loads to the pavement is controlled through the suspension
system. Research indicates that high-quality suspension systems may reduce pavement wear.
The findings of the DIVINE-OECD study indicated that (under certain assumptions if the damping
is properly chosen) air suspension would increase pavement life by 60% for thick pavements and
15% for thin pavements (Hirshhorn 2002).
Road-friendly suspensions (RFS) are defined as air suspensions or other equivalents that meet the
technical specification in Annex II of the Directive 96/53/EC (Hirshhorn 2002). Legislation by the
EC encouraged the use of road-friendly air suspensions by awarding a payload advantage
(Council of the European Communities 1992). However Collop and Cebon (2002) argue that the
approach used by the EC and the OECD study (using the road stress factor approach see
Appendix J ) overestimates the benefits of road-friendly suspensions on thick asphalt (major roads
which are assumed to fail by rutting) and underestimates the potential benefits on thin (minor roads
which fail by fatigue). These underestimates were believed to be due to an estimate of average
road damage due to DWL not correctly accounting for spatial repeatability (see Appendix J ).
In Australia heavy vehicles can operate under the High Mass Limit (HML) regulatory framework on
certain networks if they are equipped with RFS. The road wear reduction factors for HML vehicle
due to the use of RFS are presented in Table I 4 (National Road Transport Commission 1996).
They were estimated using the dynamic road stress factor approach considering the dynamic
loading effects and effects of roughness and speed.
However the road-friendliness of air suspension is dramatically reduced if shock absorbers are not
properly maintained. The results of a recent study sponsored by RMS NSW (Costanzi & Cebon
2006) showed that wear and maintenance costs of sealed granular pavements would increase if
the HML fleet is poorly maintained (see Appendix J for details). Cebon (1999) also reports that the
stiffness and damping properties of each suspension affect the dynamic forces generated by each
other suspension and that reduction in road damage by the whole vehicle is not simply related to
reductions in DWL generated by individual axles. All axles are involved and must be improved.
Table I 4: Road-friendly road wear reduction factors due to dynamic loading
Axle group Tyre fitment Lower-speed zones
road wear reduction
factors
High-speed zones road
wear reduction factors
Single axle Single tyres 1.00 1.00
Dual axle Dual tyres 1.11 1.18
Tandem axle on prime mover Dual tyres 1.17 1.28
Tandem axle on trailer Dual tyres 1.11 1.18
Tandem axle Dual and single tyres 1.11 1.18
Triaxle Dual tyres 1.11 1.18
Source: National Road Transport Commission (1996).
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
156
Austroads Project AT1212 aims at improving knowledge regarding the damaging effects of
different suspension types with different conditions on pavements with different roughness levels.
Load sharing
Distributing load uniformly among axles of a group and between tyres (of comparable size) will
reduce road damage (Gillespie & Karamihas 1992). Load transfer between axles which occurs
due to road geometry and roughness braking and accelerating leads to unequal redistribution of
the loads among the tyres. This non-uniform load sharing increases the wear of pavements at
particular points along the road. Depending on the assumptions theoretical road damage may be
increased by a factor of 1.2 to 2.9 for tandem suspensions with typical load sharing error of 20%
(Cebon 1999).
The uniformity of load distribution is influenced by the design of the load-sharing mechanism in the
vehicles suspension (Gyenes & Mitchell 1992). Michell (1987) reported that suspensions with
steel leaf springs do not equalise the loads between the axles of a group but air or fluid
suspensions lead to excellent equalisation. However these results apply to the static condition.
Preliminary findings of Austroads project AT1212 indicate that when the vertical axle loads are
measured dynamically from a step test and on-road test none of the suspension systems tested
including air provide good load-sharing mechanisms.
I.3 Proposed Approach for Determining Wear Caused by a Single
Vehicle
As described earlier the current approach allows consideration only for the axle load and axle
group configuration. In COST (2001) an approach that allows consideration of a number of axle
group characteristics is proposed for determining wear caused by a vehicle. The proposed
procedure is described below followed by a discussion on its adoption in this project.
The overall Vehicle Wear Factor (VWF number of Standard axles) is calculated as the sum of the
Axle Wear Factors (AWF) for each axle group on the vehicle as shown in Equation A 18.
=
n
1
n 2 1
AWF ,... AWF , AWF VWF
A 18
The standard axle has air suspension a reference load a reference dual tyre assembly (with a
reference inflation pressure contact pressure diameter contact width etc.) having equal loads on
both tyres. The AWF is determined as the product of a number of relative ratios or factors and is
estimated as shown below (Equation A 19).
Axle Wear Factor (AWF) =Tyre Configuration Factor (TCF)* Axle Configuration Factor (ACF) *
Suspension Configuration Factor (SCF)* Load Equivalency Factor
(LEF).
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
157
n n n n n
LEF SGF ACF TCF AWF =
A 19
where, for the nth axle group on the vehicle;
ACF
n
= expresses the relative pavement wear of an axle load, when
incorporated in a tandem axle or tri-axle configuration, relative to that
same axle load when single
SCF
n
= expresses the relative pavement wear of an axle load with a certain
suspension type, relative to an axle with a reference (air) suspension
TCF
n
= comprises influences of the tyre type (single/wide base/dual) inflation
pressure (or differences from the optimum pressure for a given load)
footprint width footprint length tyre diameter tyre characteristics
regarding dynamic force transmissibility potential load imbalance
(difference in load between the tyres of a dual tyre assembly) and
influences from yet unknown factors.
I.3.1 Axle Configuration and Load Equivalency Factors
The current Austroads (2004) procedure in determining axle group wear (SAR) combines the
factors relating to ACF and LEF. In terms of the standard axle group loads recent Austroads
research findings using the assumption of equal deflection confirm the values of standard loads
provided in Table I 1. These values can be used in this project since the outputs from Austroads
project TT1219 will not be available over the duration of this project (Equation A 20).
LDE
axlegroup
SAR
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
Load Group Axle Standard
Load Group Axle
A 20
The LDE values presented in Appendix J .1 can be used for different pavements and distress
modes and considering the environment conditions they are in. For example LDE 4 can be used
for all granular pavements with a sprayed seal in all environments.
The review has shown that rutting of flexible thick asphalt pavements increases with load so an
LDE of 7 can be used for such pavements in hot environments and an LDE of 5 can be used for
thick asphalt pavements in cold environments. For pavements with thin asphalt layers an LDE of 5
can be used for all environments. For pavements with cement stabilised layers an LDE of 12 can
be used until the findings of recent Austroads research are confirmed and implemented.
I.3.2 Tyre Configuration Factor
Tyre configuration factor (TCF) was the primary study area under COST 334. Relationships to
determine TCF for a range of pavements distress modes and tyre properties were developed. The
final model form included only factors related to pressure ratio tyre contact patch width and tyre
diameter. The contributions of unequal load sharing between dual tyres and dynamic load effects
were ignored as they were found to account for less than 1% of the pavement wear (COST 2001).
The wide range of tyre types considered in the COST study and the relationships developed based
on generic tyre properties would be applicable to Australian asphalt pavements typical of urban
arterial roads (Austroads 2008). TCF values for selected tyre types applying to primary roads
(thick pavements) and secondary roads (medium and thin pavements) are presented in
Table I 5. It has been noted in Austroads (2008c) that the most commonly used wide single tyre in
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
158
Australia (385/65R22.5) has a TCF of 5.76 for secondary rutting in medium/thin asphalt pavements
which are represented on Australian urban arterial roads. This indicates that one pass of a wide
single tyre causes the same magnitude of rutting in the granular base or subgrade as that caused
by almost six passes of a dual tyre assembly. This result is based on response measurements
and numerical modelling but clearly matches that of the actual performance measurement using
ALF reported in Austroads (2008) and shown in Figure I 3.
Table I 5: Tyre configuration factors (TCF) for selected tyres
Tyre size Fitment Tyre
width
(mm)
Contact
area
width
(mm)
Total
width
(mm)
Tyre
diameter
(mm)
Primary
road
Secondary roads
Primary
rutting
Weighted
average of
distress*
Primary
rutting
Secondary
rutting
Fatigue
Reference tyre Dual 235 470 570 1059 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
245/70R17.5 Dual 215 430 530 789 1.63 1.39 1.63 1.18 1.47
245/70R19.5 Dual 200 400 500 839 1.71 1.48 1.71 1.37 1.47
11R22.5 Dual 184 368 468 1054 1.52 1.45 1.52 1.63 1.23
315/80R22.5 Dual 247 494 594 1085 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.89
385/65R22.5 Single 285 285 285 1071 2.23 3.64 2.19 5.76 2.25
425/65R22.5 Single 308 308 308 1126 1.86 3.02 1.82 4.72 1.93
445/65R22.5 Single 340 340 340 1155 1.53 2.43 1.50 3.66 1.66
* For secondary roads a weighted TCF was developed based on 20% primary rutting 40% secondary rutting and 40%fatigue.
Note: The TCF values reported assume the tyres were inflated as recommended by the manufacturers that is a tyre inflation pressure ratio of 1.
Source: Austroads (2007b).
Granular pavements with sprayed seal and cement stabilised pavements with thin asphalt
surfacing were not considered in the COST 334 study therefore there is doubt as to the
applicability of the TCF factors to these pavement types. Another approach for addressing tyre
configuration effects is that adopted in Austroads (2008c) i.e. load equivalencies for different tyre
configurations. Considering the fact that tyre pressure and contact patch vary considerably in
service the latter approach can be considered sufficient for addressing the tyre configuration
effects.
Austroads (2008c) gives a relationship which gives a means of determining the equivalent load for
different tyre sizes (tyre contact width) and net contact stresses. However this relationship would
require further validation to cover a wide range of tyres and pavement structures under different
conditions (Austroads 2008c).
I.3.3 Suspension Configuration Factor
In terms of suspension configuration i.e. SCF suitable factors need to be developed considering all
common suspension types and their properties. A number of approaches for developing SCF are
possible as described below.
1 Road Stress Factor (RSF) approach that was used in determining road wear reduction
factors for HML vehicles. These values were determined using certain assumptions
regarding the properties of the airbag suspension system. If for example a vehicle has a
poorly maintained suspension then the road wear reduction factors in Table I 4 should be
reduced. However Costanzi and Cebon (2006) criticised this approach as it does not take
into account the effects of spatial repeatability.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
159
2 Fekpe (1999) proposes an approach to correct for the dynamic component of the moving
static load then calculate the vehicle wear using the conventional approaches i.e. using the
power law. The modified/corrected wheel load is the static load multiplied by an adjustment
factor which is determined as a function of travel speed roughness and suspension type (see
Appendix J ). However such an approach does not necessarily consider the spatial
repeatability effect rather it considers DWL as a uniform increase in load. Additionally the
importance of the power should not be underestimated and may result in dramatically over or
underestimating the effects of DWL (Cebon 1999).
Considering the spatial repeatability nature of DWL variability of roughness and speed along a
route and variations in suspension properties in service it is believed that applying the adjustment
through SCF to each vehicle may not be an appropriate approach. It is believed that an
appropriate approach would be to incorporate the impacts of DWL in the roughness progression
model. Cebon (1999) reported that the simulation of DWL using a whole of life pavement
performance model (WLPPM) indicates that DWL and pavement stiffness variations can have a
significant effect on pavement roughness particularly surface roughness. The simulation also
predicts that short wavelength roughness components are smoothed out and long wavelength
components increase in amplitude. These findings agree with the limited experimental evidence
available (Cebon 1999). These findings imply that a roughness measure that detects long
wavelength roughness might be a better measure for pavement deterioration than the current
measure (IRI).
For the current project it is recommended to ignore the impacts of the suspension system and
DWL. The results of Austroads Project AT1212 will help improve knowledge regarding the
performance of different suspension systems in terms of DWL and load sharing. These findings
can then be used in modifying current roughness performance models to quantify or simulate the
additional pavement wear due to DWL.
Considering the limitations associated with Austroads recent studies on the load equivalency and
damage exponents for the different pavement types it is recommended to use the relevant values
and procedure in Austroads (2004). For this project the impacts of tyre configuration can be also
ignored considering the limitations of available relationships and the fact that the distributions of
tyre types on the different road categories are not readily available.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
160
APPENDIX J IMPACTS OF DYNAMIC WHEEL LOADING
J.1 Introduction
Dynamic Wheel Loads (DWL) are generated by oscillations of the vehicle and its elements in
response to excitations generated primarily by the vertical displacement inputs to the wheels from
the road surface (De Pont & Pidwerbesky 2000). The magnitude and variation of DWL are specific
to the vehicle and pavement characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described with vehicle
type suspension system type and effectiveness speed of travel weight and position of payload.
The pavement characteristics are typically described by the longitudinal profile for example
roughness (IRI) (Fekpe 1999).
Separate investigations have found DWL are significant in the deterioration rates of pavements
primarily roughness and rutting. Key findings from the Dynamic Interaction between Vehicles and
Infrastructure Experiment (DIVINE) (OECD 1998) indicate that the interaction of pavement
variability and truck dynamics accelerates local pavement distresses roughness and failure. It was
found that there is little difference between road-friendly and non-road-friendly suspensions on
smooth heavily trafficked roads. A road-friendly suspension has been defined as one whose
operation in the road system will bring about less need for road maintenance for a given level of
axle load (Department of Transport 1988).
The difficulty in interpreting the specific contributions of DWL on pavement deterioration is the lack
of generality. The pavement type surface condition vehicle type vehicle load suspension type
suspension condition etc. will vary the DWL effects. These patterns of loading have been shown
as repeatable (Cole et al. 1996; Cole & Cebon 1992) and this spatial repeatability has a strong
effect on the mechanisms of degradation of road surfaces particularly when the road wear
mechanisms are sensitive to load level (Collop et al. 1996).
J.2 Interpreting Dynamic Wheel Loading Magnitudes
A typical interpretation of DWL is the dynamic load coefficient (DLC) which is defined as
(Sweatman 1983) (Equation A 21):
DLC =Standard deviation of the wheel load
Static wheel load
A 21
Sweatman (1983) demonstrated that the distribution of forces both static and dynamic are
approximately normal thus DLC provides a complete characterisation of the magnitude of dynamic
proportions in comparison to the static loading.
The advantage of DLC is it intrinsically considers not only the suspension type but also the vehicle
speed and pavement roughness. Different researchers provided different estimates of DLC values
for vehicles with different suspensions for example:
The DLC may range from 0.02 for a vehicle with a soft well-damped suspension operating at
a relatively low speed on a smooth road to 0.4 for a vehicle with a stiff under-damped
suspension operating at high speed on a rough road (De Pont & Pidwerbesky 2000).
In a comparison of the effects of vehicle type Sweatman (1983) found that DLC values
ranged from 0.13 to 0.27 depending on the suspension type of vehicles analysed on the
same conditions of highway speed at moderate roughness levels.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
161
The DLC estimated for well-damped air suspensions has typical values in the range 0.05 to
0.1, where as for well-damped soft steel leaf types, they are 0.2 to 0.4 (Department of
Transport 1988).
J.3 Approaches to Determining Road Damage Due to DWL
J.3.1 Dynamic Road Stress Factor
Sweatman (1983) introduced the concept of Dynamic Road Stress Factor (DRSF) for estimating
the additional pavement damage due to DWL. DRSF is defined as (Equation A 22):
4 2
3 6 1 1 DLC DLC DRSF + + =
A 22
The range of the DRSF measured by Sweatman (1983) was in the order of 1.11 to 1.46. Similar
results were obtained by Mitchell and Gyenes (1989). They estimated that switching from steel
leaf rubber and walking beam suspensions to air suspensions (or some dynamic equivalent) would
reduce pavement damage in the UK by 8% due to drive axles and in the range of 10% to 20% for
semi-trailer bogies. A comparable study as part of OECD (1998) DIVINE testing found air
suspensions increased pavement life between 45% and 65% for rutting and 30% for cracking.
Legislation by the EC encouraged the use of road-friendly air suspensions by awarding a payload
advantage (Council of the European Communities 1992). The benefit of increased pavement life
due to this legislation was estimated using Equation A.2 by Berry (1990). The results agreed with
Sweatmean (1983) concluding that for smooth pavement surfaces and a constant vehicle speed of
80 km/h typical DRSF values range from 1.01 for air suspension to 1.25 for steel leaf semi-trailer
suspension. On rougher pavements these values increase to 1.08 for air and 1.54 for steel.
If these factors were used to estimate pavement life assuming a 20 years design life the life of a
smooth pavement would equate to 19.8 years for air suspension and 16 years for a steel
suspension. For a rough pavement the life would reduce to 18.5 for air and 13 years for a steel
suspension. Or changing from a steel sprung to air sprung vehicle suspension would increase
approximate pavement life for smooth pavements by 24% and for rough pavements by 42%. This
percentage reduction is defined as the Pavement Life Reduction Factor (PLRF).
The DSRF approach has come under criticism for two major assumptions. The first is the use of
the 4
th
power law in determining pavement wear. Various authors have noted that the power may
take the range of 2 to 6 (Cebon 1993). The second major criticism of DSRF is it assumes uniform
damage along the pavement surface. There is significant evidence (Cole et al. 1996; Department
of Transport 1988) that peak dynamic loads tend to group along specific pavement locations
accelerating the damage at these points.
J.3.2 Correcting Static Wheel Load for DWL
Fekpe (1999) investigated using DLC to correct for DWL in pavement damage calculations. The
assumption was made that DLC provides a robust and statistically consistent indication of relative
potential pavement damage due to DWL from different suspension systems and further the DLC is
a derivable function of surface roughness and vehicle speed. The statistical models developed are
(Equations A 23 to A 25):
( )
( )
1000
.V
v A
+
=
A 23
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
162
( )
n
IRI v A DLC . =
A 24
WL
m
= SWL [1+ .A(V).IRI
n
] A 25
where
DLC = Dynamic Load Coefficient
IRI = International Roughness Index (m/km)
V = vehicle speed km/h
n
= exponent, function of axle and suspension type
,
= constants
WL
m
= corrected wheel load
SWL = average static wheel load
= multiplier 1-2 depends on roughness.
Different exponents and constants were developed for different axles with different suspension
systems. Corrected wheel loads were then used in calculating pavement wear for each vehicle
and weight class. The latter was then weighted by vehicle kilometres of travel to determine cost
allocations to each vehicle class (Fekpe 1999). Some of the findings were:
The cost share due to DWL increases with pavement roughness. An increase in 2% share is
estimated for combination vehicles equipped with air suspended axles when the pavement
surface deteriorates from smooth to rough i.e. new to old pavement.
For the equivalent steel suspensions the estimate is 3-4% i.e. steel suspensions cause
exponentially more damage than air equivalents as pavement roughness increases.
Spatial repeatability whereby variations in the magnitude and consequences of DWL are
experienced over the length of a pavement make inclusion of DWL effects into existing
performance models difficult. The simplest approach would be to incorporate a factor converting
DWL into the number of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) which certainly would ease the
incorporation of DWL into existing models. However the difficulty in equating to ESAs comes with
the power component. Cebon (1999) reports that the importance of the power should not be
underestimated as it may result in dramatically over or underestimating the effects of DWL.
Further adjustment of ESAs does not necessarily consider the spatial repeatability effect rather
considers DWL as a uniform increase in load.
J.3.3 Long-term Pavement Performance Model
Collop and Cebon (2002) took a different approach to DSRF developing the Long-term Pavement
Performance Model (LTPPM). Previous research by Cebon (1993) found that the simple linear
quarter car model used in roughness measurement has dynamic characteristics that are broadly
representative of the majority of single axle truck suspensions. A comparison of PLRF from EC
(Berry 1990) and the LTTPM (Collop & Cebon 2002) found that the LTTPM agreed on similar
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
163
PLRF values for minor roads, 42% for EC and 38.6% for LTTPM, but disagreed substantially on
the effect of air suspensions on major roads, 24% for EC and 2.8% for LTTPM.
The conclusions of Collop and Cebon (2002) in comparing the LTTPM and EC approaches found
that changing the fleet from steel to air sprung vehicles provides an estimated increase in
pavement life of less than 3% for thick asphaltic roads where the principal failure mechanism is
rutting. This percentage increase was found to be far more dramatic for local roads ranging
between 40% and 90% where failures were more sensitive to surface roughness. Collop and
Cebon (2002) stated that the EC approach overestimated the benefits of road-friendly suspensions
on thick asphalt (major roads) and underestimated the potential benefits on thin (minor roads).
The LTPPM is a framework (Figure J 1) combining a set of linked sub-models. It attempts to
predict pavement wear (roughness fatigue cracking and rutting) deterministically by taking into
account variations in flexible pavement structure dynamic loading effects and environmental
factors. Essentially the framework can be divided into three areas: dynamic wheel force simulation
pavement primary response simulation and pavement damage simulation. Particular attention is
given to modelling strength variation in the pavement and dynamic tyre forces.
In the LTPPM a road profile is fed into the vehicle module which calculates the
dynamic forces transmitted to the road surface by truck tyres. The static and
dynamic forces can be calculated using either the QCM or the TruckSim vehicle.
The deformation of the road surface is then calculated and subtracted from the
starting profile to generate the new road profile (see flow chart in Figure J 1). The
process is repeated to simulate the passages of a fleet of vehicles over the
progressively deforming road profile. A number of road damage criteria (rutting
potholing fatigue cracking and surface roughness) are used to trigger maintenance
intervention. The program simulates the rehabilitation process (e.g. modification of
the surface profile) and estimates the cost of the maintenance (Costanzi & Cebon
2006).
Source: Costanzi and Cebon (2006).
Figure J 1: Flowchart of the vehicle-road interaction calculation
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
164
J.4 Comparison of Suspension Type and Vehicle Mass in Australian
Conditions
In Australia vehicles are given higher mass limits (HML) if they use approved road-friendly
suspensions. The aggregated approach proposed by Collop and Cebon (2002) was applied to
identify the complicated effects of alternative vehicle mass limits and suspension types on the
performance and maintenance costs of a sample of sprayed sealed roads in NSW. Preliminary
calculations based on the dynamic road stress factor (DRSF) approach used by Sweatman (1983)
concluded that if a portion of the fleet of HML vehicles has partially non-functioning shock
absorbers then road maintenance costs can increase 6% to 12% compared with general mass limit
(GML) vehicles with conventional steel leaf spring suspensions.
Costanzi and Cebon (2006) provide an expansion of the analysis of Collop and Cebon (2002) by
simulating DWL effects using the LTPPM. The models in LTPPM were calibrated for sprayed seal
granular pavements. A number of road damage criteria (rutting potholing and surface roughness)
were used to trigger maintenance intervention. Key findings are reproduced in Table J 1 from
Costanzi and Cebon (2006) and are:
Steel leaf springs triggered potholing and patching maintenance interventions while air
springs triggered excessive roughness (IRI).
Various suspension effects on maintenance costs were largely independent of the strength of
spray-sealed roads considered in the study.
The effects of suspension performance on pavement maintenance costs were greater than
previous estimates. These underestimates were believed to de due to an estimate of
average road damage due to DWL not correctly accounting for spatial repeatability (Collop &
Cebon 2002).
Converting all leaf springs to well-maintained air suspensions at GML is predicted to give a
14% reduction in road maintenance costs per tonne/km.
If the same fleet was allowed to run on HML after air suspension conversion the benefit is
lost with just 1% lower maintenance costs than steel sprung fleets at GML.
The road-friendliness of air suspension is dramatically reduced if shock absorbers are not
properly maintained. If 50% of the fleet is poorly maintained the costs per tonne-km increase
to 21% more than for the reference GML with conventional steel suspension. The previous
simplified analysis based on RSF Collop and Cebon (2002) predicted a 6% increase.
Under GML road-friendly suspension will provide an economic benefit providing no more
than 40% of the fleet has disabled shock absorbers. Under HML no break-even point exists
and maintenance costs are expected to rise regardless.
The simulation predicts that changing to a fleet of air suspensions may change the type of
maintenance intervention required on Australian roads. It is likely that fewer potholes would
form but infrequent complete resurfacing would be needed to repair rutting and excessive
surface roughness which may change maintenance expenditure profiles.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
165
Table J 1: Comparison of road maintenance costs for various fleet scenarios on weak roads
Fleet #1 is considered as the reference scenario. The figures in green show lower maintenance costs than the reference fleet and those in red show higher
maintenance costs than the reference fleet.
Source: Costanzi and Cebon (2006).
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
166
APPENDIX K FAMLIT MODELLING PARAMETERS
K.1 Maintenance Strategies and Intervention Criteria
Maintenance intervention criteria adopted for the different combinations of pavement type/road
category are set out in Table K 1. The intervention levels and works unit costs were based on data
supplied by a number of SRAs except for the concrete pavements. The latter unit costs were
assumed in the FAMLIT analyses as no alternative data was available. The maintenance strategy
and relevant standards/intervention criteria adopted in FAMLIT for this study are described below.
1 Routine maintenance is accounted for as a fixed annual cost varying by road class and
surfacing type; for the same road class it is assumed higher for sprayed seals than for
asphalt surfacings.
2 Periodic maintenance is scheduled resealing/resurfacing. The purpose of periodic
treatments is to waterproof the pavement to reduce deterioration and improve surface
condition. Periodic maintenance is accounted for as a fixed annual cost varying by road
class and surfacing type.
3 Rehabilitation in the form of asphalt overlay or granular resheet is triggered to restore the
pavement structural capacity and reduce surface roughness.
Rehabilitation is triggered when the nominated roughness intervention level is reached.
The roughness intervention levels (roughness trigger) vary by road category and are
shown in Table K 1.
The age of the pavement is reset when a rehabilitation treatment is applied; see
Table K 1 for the nominated roughness resets.
The overlay/resheet auto thickness calculation feature was used in all analyses. It
involved specifying the overlay design life traffic growth rate (Table K 1) and the
minimum thickness. The system determines the overlay thickness required for
restoring pavement structural capacity. The thickness from the above is then selected
and tested as follows:
If the thickness is below the minimum the minimum specified thickness is used.
The SN is recalculated for the new thickness and added to the current SNP
(SNPcur) to determine the after works SNP (SNPaw)
If the thickness is greater than the minimum then it is rounded up to the nearest
10 mm the SN is recalculated and used to determine SNPaw.
The approach adopted in determining the SNPaw for all pavement types
simulates mill and replace treatments. That is the top pavement layer with a
thickness equivalent to that determined for the overlay and a material coefficient
that is half that of the new material is removed and replaced by the new overlay.
In other words SN of the removed material is half that of the new overlay i.e. the
improvement in SN =0.5 x thickness of overlay x coefficient of new material.
Material coefficients and minimum thicknesses used in the analysis are:
a = 0.14 for crushed rock and min. thickness = 80 mm
a = 0.4 for asphalt and min. thickness = 40 mm
a = 0.25 for cement treated crushed rock min. thickness = 100 mm.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
167
Table K 1: Maintenance intervention criteria used in the assessment for the different pavement categories
Road category Overlay/resheet criteria Roadworks unit costs
Trigger
(IRI)
Reset
(IRI)
Routine
(cost/m
2
)
Reseal
(cost/m
2
)
Overlay
(cost/m
3
)
Urban Collector GN 5 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Access GN 5.3 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Collector GN 5.3 2 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Access GN 5.5 2 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Fwy GN 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art GN (S) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Fwy CS 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art CS 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art AC (S) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art AC (S) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art GN 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art AC (N) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Fwy AC 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art AC (N) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Collector AC 5 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art CS 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art GN (N) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Fwy (CON) 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Fwy (CON) 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art (CON) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
168
APPENDIX L FAMLIT OUTPUT
Examples of the outputs of the FAMLIT analyses are shown in Table L 1 for Phase 1 for road
network number one. The example outcomes show for the axle groups SADT TDDT and TRDT
the increases in the estimated EAUC with increases in axle load above the GML and the
corresponding SAR increases. Also shown in Table L 1 are three values of Thornthwaite Index for
each road type for the increases in the estimated EAUC.
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
169
TableL 1: Output of FAMLIT analyses (Phase1 strength/roughness model)
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Rural Freeway GN SADT 50 9.0 766 159.30 19 962.88 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 9.0 120 811.47 17 844.17
50 10.0 808 636.61 20 125.39 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 10.0 126 193.36 17 883.08
50 11.0 865 960.59 20 506.98 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 11.0 133 456.34 18 544.19
50 12.0 941 243.87 21 343.21 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 12.0 142 994.76 20 016.49
50 13.0 1 037 895.50 22 661.16 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 13.0 155 240.56 20 563.78
50 14.0 1 159 620.96 23 976.78 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 14.0 170 663.23 21 031.59
50 15.0 1 310 422.20 24 904.99 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 15.0 189 769.82 21 848.86
0 9.0 766 159.30 14 859.91 Rural Arterial GN SADT 0 9.0 120 811.47 11 554.81
0 10.0 808 636.61 15 094.94 Rural Arterial GN SADT 0 10.0 126 193.36 11 725.33
0 11.0 865 960.59 15 491.33 Rural Arterial GN SADT 0 11.0 133 456.34 11 837.62
0 12.0 941 243.87 15 606.91 Rural Arterial GN SADT 0 12.0 142 994.76 12 029.65
0 13.0 1 037 895.50 15 863.71 Rural Arterial GN SADT 0 13.0 155 240.56 12 613.01
0 14.0 1 159 620.96 16 606.17 Rural Arterial GN SADT 0 14.0 170 663.23 13 158.16
0 15.0 1 310 422.20 18 266.06 Rural Arterial GN SADT 0 15.0 189 769.82 14 083.59
-50 9.0 766 159.30 12 342.21 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 9.0 120 811.47 11 168.22
-50 10.0 808 636.61 12 498.38 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 10.0 126 193.36 11 199.23
-50 11.0 865 960.59 12 581.29 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 11.0 133 456.34 11 959.21
-50 12.0 941 243.87 12 930.21 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 12.0 142 994.76 12 224.42
-50 13.0 1 037 895.50 13 614.99 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 13.0 155 240.56 12 519.53
-50 14.0 1 159 620.96 13 926.38 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 14.0 170 663.23 12 778.51
-50 15.0 1 310 422.20 14 672.20 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 15.0 189 769.82 13 570.34
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
170
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Urban Freeway CS SADT 80 9.0 2 005 804.02 7 475.68 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 9.0 541 759.90 5 521.34
80 10.0 2 262 655.51 7 721.07 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 10.0 637 492.28 5 738.30
80 11.0 2 778 398.39 8 797.20 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 11.0 829 717.35 6 396.12
80 12.0 3 750 827.74 9 890.51 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 12.0 1 192 156.28 7 886.11
80 13.0 5 490 503.00 13 623.67 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 13.0 1 840 559.20 11 732.04
80 14.0 8 467 275.66 19 115.83 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 14.0 2 950 046.79 21 952.62
80 15.0 13 369 954.80 32 406.72 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80
20 9.0 2 005 804.02 5 050.03 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20 9.0 541 759.90 3 757.74
20 10.0 2 262 655.51 5 386.46 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20 10.0 637 492.28 3 869.34
20 11.0 2 778 398.39 6 179.04 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20 11.0 829 717.35 4 675.59
20 12.0 3 750 827.74 7 269.02 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20 12.0 1 192 156.28 5 725.66
20 13.0 5 490 503.00 8 884.21 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20 13.0 1 840 559.20 8 482.00
20 14.0 8 467 275.66 14 565.00 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20 14.0 2 950 046.79 19 720.26
20 15.0 13 369 954.80 28 702.65 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20
-20 9.0 2 005 804.02 4 009.77 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 9.0 541 759.90 3 072.27
-20 10.0 2 262 655.51 4 011.92 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 10.0 637 492.28 3 101.26
-20 11.0 2 778 398.39 4 815.81 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 11.0 829 717.35 3 708.67
-20 12.0 3 750 827.74 5 466.22 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 12.0 1 192 156.28 4 628.41
-20 13.0 5 490 503.00 7 431.26 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 13.0 1 840 559.20 6 904.29
-20 14.0 8 467 275.66 10 765.91 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 14.0 2 950 046.79 17 813.20
-20 15.0 13 369 954.80 26 920.27 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
171
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Rural Freeway GN TADT 50 16.5 766 159.30 19 962.88 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 16.5 120 811.47 17 621.86
50 17.5 843 567.71 20 456.01 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 17.5 133 371.10 18 321.89
50 18.5 935 447.15 21 343.21 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 18.5 148 278.68 19 877.75
50 19.5 1 043 497.78 22 661.16 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 19.5 165 810.06 20 698.18
50 20.5 1 169 514.21 24 088.01 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 20.5 186 256.42 21 412.03
50 21.5 1 315 385.51 24 936.85 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 21.5 209 924.26 22 308.12
50 22.5 1 483 095.20 26 545.07 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 22.5 237 135.41 23 967.81
50 23.5 1 674 721.25 28 315.24 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 23.5 268 227.03 25 385.26
50 24.5 1 892 436.09 29 755.43 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 24.5 303 551.59 27 420.88
50 25.5 2 138 506.59 31 654.95 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 25.5 343 476.90 30 254.43
50 26.5 2 415 294.09 34 295.33 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 26.5 388 386.10 33 047.43
0 16.5 766 159.30 14 859.91 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 16.5 120 811.47 11 343.09
0 17.5 843 567.71 15 267.66 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 17.5 133 371.10 11 625.89
0 18.5 935 447.15 15 606.91 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 18.5 148 278.68 12 183.92
0 19.5 1 043 497.78 15 863.71 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 19.5 165 810.06 12 780.40
0 20.5 1 169 514.21 16 652.66 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 20.5 186 256.42 13 089.06
0 21.5 1 315 385.51 18 289.83 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 21.5 209 924.26 14 432.84
0 22.5 1 483 095.20 19 134.17 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 22.5 237 135.41 15 403.73
0 23.5 1 674 721.25 19 850.04 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 23.5 268 227.03 16 247.58
0 24.5 1 892 436.09 20 994.76 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 24.5 303 551.59 17 686.78
0 25.5 2 138 506.59 23 451.77 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 25.5 343 476.90 19 168.72
0 26.5 2 415 294.09 24 748.76 Rural Arterial GN TADT 0 26.5 388 386.10 21 288.03
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
172
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
-50 16.5 766 159.30 12 342.21 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 16.5 120 811.47 10 945.91
-50 17.5 843 567.71 12 532.92 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 17.5 133 371.10 11 725.79
-50 18.5 935 447.15 12 930.21 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 18.5 148 278.68 12 102.62
-50 19.5 1 043 497.78 13 635.94 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 19.5 165 810.06 12 460.29
-50 20.5 1 169 514.21 13 926.38 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 20.5 186 256.42 12 813.81
-50 21.5 1 315 385.51 14 672.20 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 21.5 209 924.26 13 939.71
-50 22.5 1 483 095.20 15 880.34 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 22.5 237 135.41 14 563.71
-50 23.5 1 674 721.25 16 760.79 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 23.5 268 227.03 15 545.93
-50 24.5 1 892 436.09 17 846.71 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 24.5 303 551.59 16 438.56
-50 25.5 2 138 506.59 18 932.22 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 25.5 343 476.90 18 267.58
-50 26.5 2 415 294.09 19 874.13 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 26.5 388 386.10 20 453.04
1 Urban Freeway CS TADT 80 16.5 2 005 804.02 7 475.68 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 16.5 541 759.90 5 521.34
80 17.5 2 544 810.19 8 387.31 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 17.5 662 729.10 5 740.20
80 18.5 3 348 476.75 9 288.92 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 18.5 843 096.06 6 424.90
80 19.5 4 521 222.92 11 508.38 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 19.5 1 106 295.58 7 570.50
80 20.5 6 199 772.57 14 949.38 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 20.5 1 483 012.63 9 747.25
80 21.5 8 560 702.85 19 689.56 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 21.5 2 012 876.42 13 263.10
80 22.5 11 829 245.60 29 428.32 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 22.5 2 746 435.75 18 243.31
80 23.5 16 289 473.00 40 984.05 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 23.5 3 747 444.99 24 927.48
Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 24.5 5 095 491.76 32 598.58
20 16.5 2 005 804.02 5 050.03 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 16.5 541 759.90 3 757.74
20 17.5 2 544 810.19 6 052.83 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 17.5 662 729.10 4 122.77
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
173
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
20 18.5 3 348 476.75 7 130.13 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 18.5 843 096.06 4 675.59
20 19.5 4 521 222.92 7 818.28 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 19.5 1 106 295.58 5 544.80
20 20.5 6 199 772.57 10 289.16 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 20.5 1 483 012.63 6 534.84
20 21.5 8 560 702.85 14 565.00 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 21.5 2 012 876.42 10 037.50
20 22.5 11 829 245.60 23 228.24 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 22.5 2 746 435.75 13 923.15
20 23.5 16 289 473.00 33 992.54 Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 23.5 3 747 444.99 20 136.28
Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 24.5 5 095 491.76 26 740.47
-20 16.5 2 005 804.02 4 009.77 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 16.5 541 759.90 3 072.27
-20 17.5 2 544 810.19 4 611.34 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 17.5 662 729.10 3 101.27
-20 18.5 3 348 476.75 5 063.79 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 18.5 843 096.06 3 735.23
-20 19.5 4 521 222.92 6 212.47 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 19.5 1 106 295.58 4 188.51
-20 20.5 6 199 772.57 7 708.62 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 20.5 1 483 012.63 5 531.39
-20 21.5 8 560 702.85 11 102.16 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 21.5 2 012 876.42 7 628.26
-20 22.5 11 829 245.60 19 823.33 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 22.5 2 746 435.75 11 889.42
-20 23.5 16 289 473.00 28 919.39 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 23.5 3 747 444.99 16 972.15
Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 24.5 5 095 491.76 23 108.45
1 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 50 18.5 726 877.80 19 728.32 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 18.5 726 877.80 14 638.16
50 20.0 766 159.30 19 962.88 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 20.0 766 159.30 14 859.91
50 21.0 797 757.74 20 125.39 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 21.0 797 757.74 14 926.79
50 22.0 834 207.62 20 456.01 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 22.0 834 207.62 15 104.82
50 23.0 875 981.78 20 713.66 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 23.0 875 981.78 15 491.33
50 24.0 923 575.10 21 329.46 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 24.0 923 575.10 15 615.20
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
174
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
50 25.0 977 504.41 21 749.81 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 25.0 977 504.41 15 837.11
50 26.0 1 038 308.57 22 661.16 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 26.0 1 038 308.57 15 863.71
50 27.0 1 106 548.42 23 389.40 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 27.0 1 106 548.42 16 173.14
50 28.0 1 182 806.77 24 213.81 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 28.0 1 182 806.77 16 733.53
50 29.0 1 267 688.47 24 430.76 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 29.0 1 267 688.47 17 960.25
50 30.0 1 361 820.32 24 936.85 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 30.0 1 361 820.32 18 321.47
50 31.0 1 465 851.15 26 097.56 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 31.0 1 465 851.15 18 849.15
50 32.0 1 580 451.75 27 141.97 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 32.0 1 580 451.75 19 601.70
50 33.0 1 706 314.92 28 672.04 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 33.0 1 706 314.92 19 865.41
50 34.0 1 844 155.46 29 621.94 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 34.0 1 844 155.46 20 854.83
50 35.0 1 994 710.16 30 635.44 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 35.0 1 994 710.16 21 916.41
-50 18.5 726 877.80 12 076.84 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 18.5 114 880.33 17 211.66
-50 20.0 766 159.30 12 342.21 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 20.0 120 811.47 17 621.86
-50 21.0 797 757.74 12 371.54 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 21.0 125 582.54 17 660.77
-50 22.0 834 207.62 12 532.92 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 22.0 131 086.13 18 177.65
-50 23.0 875 981.78 12 646.16 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 23.0 137 393.63 18 628.64
-50 24.0 923 575.10 12 930.21 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 24.0 144 579.78 19 794.18
-50 25.0 977 504.41 12 948.40 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 25.0 152 722.60 20 138.32
-50 26.0 1 038 308.57 13 614.99 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 26.0 161 903.46 20 434.90
-50 27.0 1 106 548.42 13 737.07 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 27.0 172 207.04 20 905.81
-50 28.0 1 182 806.77 13 926.38 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 28.0 183 721.34 21 412.03
-50 29.0 1 267 688.47 14 332.47 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 29.0 196 537.68 22 113.08
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
175
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
-50 30.0 1 361 820.32 14 867.74 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 30.0 210 750.71 22 370.46
-50 31.0 1 465 851.15 15 689.45 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 31.0 226 458.39 23 549.43
-50 32.0 1 580 451.75 16 060.45 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 32.0 243 762.00 23 995.34
-50 33.0 1 706 314.92 17 042.92 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 33.0 262 766.16 25 120.43
-50 34.0 1 844 155.46 17 637.49 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 34.0 283 578.80 25 968.25
-50 35.0 1 994 710.16 18 012.60 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 35.0 306 311.15 27 409.42
1 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 0 18.5 114 880.33 11 203.04 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 18.5 114 880.33 10 615.39
0 20.0 120 811.47 11 343.09 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 20.0 120 811.47 10 945.91
0 21.0 125 582.54 11 513.61 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 21.0 125 582.54 10 976.92
0 22.0 131 086.13 11 625.89 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 22.0 131 086.13 11 638.96
0 23.0 137 393.63 11 785.53 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 23.0 137 393.63 11 954.31
0 24.0 144 579.78 11 879.74 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 24.0 144 579.78 12 065.77
0 25.0 152 722.60 12 336.58 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 25.0 152 722.60 12 230.38
0 26.0 161 903.46 12 609.68 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 26.0 161 903.46 12 371.89
0 27.0 172 207.04 13 028.68 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 27.0 172 207.04 12 556.20
0 28.0 183 721.34 13 089.06 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 28.0 183 721.34 12 729.11
0 29.0 196 537.68 13 993.03 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 29.0 196 537.68 13 676.43
0 30.0 210 750.71 14 432.84 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 30.0 210 750.71 13 939.71
0 31.0 226 458.39 14 741.00 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 31.0 226 458.39 14 430.06
0 32.0 243 762.00 15 633.26 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 32.0 243 762.00 14 667.97
0 33.0 262 766.16 16 050.07 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 33.0 262 766.16 15 136.07
0 34.0 283 578.80 16 813.84 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 34.0 283 578.80 16 006.65
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
176
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
0 35.0 306 311.15 17 725.20 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 35.0 306 311.15 16 584.78
1 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 80 18.5 1 904 166.99 7 467.29 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 18.5 1 904 166.99 5 011.53
80 20.0 2 005 804.02 7 475.68 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 20.0 2 005 804.02 5 050.03
80 21.0 2 110 379.80 7 535.72 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 21.0 2 110 379.80 5 386.46
80 22.0 2 256 281.19 7 721.07 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 22.0 2 256 281.19 5 386.46
80 23.0 2 456 786.25 7 789.62 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 23.0 2 456 786.25 6 052.83
80 24.0 2 728 554.03 8 790.00 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 24.0 2 728 554.03 6 179.04
80 25.0 3 092 281.18 8 886.83 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 25.0 3 092 281.18 6 414.11
80 26.0 3 573 449.72 9 866.72 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 26.0 3 573 449.72 7 260.82
80 27.0 4 203 174.36 11 442.17 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 27.0 4 203 174.36 7 526.37
80 28.0 5 019 157.69 13 046.86 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 28.0 5 019 157.69 8 691.41
80 29.0 6 066 761.99 14 894.72 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 29.0 6 066 761.99 9 849.08
80 30.0 7 400 206.94 16 928.56 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 30.0 7 400 206.94 12 863.77
80 31.0 9 083 902.66 21 063.89 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 31.0 9 083 902.66 15 701.51
80 32.0 11 193 927.80 27 243.70 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 32.0 11 193 927.80 21 172.49
80 33.0 13 819 662.90 34 553.11 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 33.0 13 819 662.90 28 084.67
-20 18.5 1 904 166.99 4 009.77 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 18.5 522 377.88 5 249.79
-20 20.0 2 005 804.02 4 009.77 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 20.0 541 759.90 5 521.34
-20 21.0 2 110 379.80 4 011.92 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 21.0 561 702.33 5 521.34
-20 22.0 2 256 281.19 4 011.92 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 22.0 589 525.49 5 592.76
-20 23.0 2 456 786.25 4 033.54 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 23.0 627 761.49 5 738.30
-20 24.0 2 728 554.03 4 815.81 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 24.0 679 587.17 5 740.20
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
177
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
-20 25.0 3 092 281.18 4 980.52 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 25.0 748 949.35 5 954.19
-20 26.0 3 573 449.72 5 386.46 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 26.0 840 707.42 6 424.90
-20 27.0 4 203 174.36 6 169.47 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 27.0 960 794.90 6 608.21
-20 28.0 5 019 157.69 7 243.23 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 28.0 1 116 401.61 7 570.50
-20 29.0 6 066 761.99 7 694.80 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 29.0 1 316 178.07 8 605.05
-20 30.0 7 400 206.94 8 861.06 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 30.0 1 570 463.88 10 344.75
-20 31.0 9 083 902.66 12 748.85 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 31.0 1 891 541.95 12 164.82
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
178
APPENDIX M RESULTS FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
M.1 Concrete Pavements
Table M 1 presents the change in EAUC values EAUC for three types of concrete pavements for
the different axle groups at fixed climate values. The results for the urban freeway concrete
pavements indicate that increasing TRDT axle load to the maximum considered herein has no
impact on agency cost i.e. not associated with an SRMC. Similar results were found for the urban
arterial pavement for the range of loads applied to all three axle group types hence no LWC
relationships were developed.
Table M1: Incremental SRMC values for various concrete pavements
SADT TADT TRDT
Axle load
(tonne)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
Axle load
(tonne)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
Axle load
(tonne)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
Rural freeway (concrete, TWI =20)
9 3 394 0 9 3 394 18 3 394
9.5 3 394 0 13 3 394 0 20 3 394 0
10 3 394 0 15.5 3 394 0 23 3 394 0
11 3 394 0 16.5 3 394 0 24.5 3 394 0
12 3 858 464 17.5 3 394 0 26 3 394 0
18 3 394 0 29 3 394 0
20 3 885 491 32 3 394 0
22 3 975 90
24 4 248 273
Urban freeway (concrete, TWI =80)
5 4 338 15 4 338 20 4 396
8 4 338 0 15.5 4 338 0 23 4 396 0
9 4 396 57 16.5 4 396 57 24.5 4 396 0
9.5 4 396 0 17.5 4 396 0 26 4 396 0
10 4 456 60 18 4 456 60 29 4 396 0
11 5 520 1 065 20 4 456 0 32 4 396 0
12 10 560 5 040 22 5 484 1 029
24 5 920 436
Urban arterial (concrete, TWI =80)
5 3 201 9 3 201 13 3 228
8 3 201 0 13 3 201 0 20 3 228 0
9 3 228 27 15 3 201 0 21.5 3 228 0
9.5 3 228 0 15.5 3 201 0 23 3 228 0
10 3 228 0 16.5 3 228 27 24.5 3 228 0
11 3 228 0 17.5 3 228 0 26 3 228 0
12 3 228 0 18 3 228 0 29 3 228 0
20 3 228 0 32 3 228 0
22 3 228 0
24 3 228 0
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
179
APPENDIX N PARAMETRIC STUDY OUTPUTS FROM
FAMLIT
N.1 Summary of Parametric Study Outcomes
Table N 1 summarises the LWC relationships and the derived SRMC estimates developed from
the parametric study (see Section 6) under Phase 2.
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
180
TableN1: Parametric study of load-wear-cost relationships: estimated parameter values climatic factors and goodness of fitresults
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
1 Rural Freeway GN SADT 724 1.00 Base case 15 689 87.04 39.33 2.318 50 0 -50 0.95
601 0.83 Roughness progression 11 833 64.68 29.09 2.372 50 0 -50 0.96
1 093 1.51 Strength (low) 19 302 112.39 180.57 1.799 50 0 -50 0.95
495 0.68 Strength (high) 12 942 70.62 151.97 1.515 50 0 -50 0.97
527 0.73 Traffic level (low) 14 950 80.87 56.09 2.003 50 0 -50 0.95
827 1.14 Traffic level (high) 16 257 94.25 76.56 2.068 50 0 -50 0.95
TADT 1 933 1.00 Base case 15 563 104.26 157.92 1.758 50 0 -50 0.95
1 430 0.74 Roughness progression 11 735 78.20 135.11 1.712 50 0 -50 0.94
3 567 1.85 Strength (low) 19 675 136.23 188.74 1.897 50 0 -50 0.95
1 077 0.56 Strength (high) 13 110 83.26 161.80 1.566 50 0 -50 0.95
1 908 0.99 Traffic level (low) 14 974 96.25 89.17 1.937 50 0 -50 0.95
2 097 1.09 Traffic level (high) 16 186 110.94 205.13 1.701 50 0 -50 0.95
TRDT 1 036 1.00 Base case 15 714 97.15 36.98 1.932 50 0 -50 0.95
664 0.64 Roughness progression 11 730 72.65 61.44 1.656 50 0 -50 0.95
1 537 1.48 Strength (low) 19 485 125.94 96.04 1.769 50 0 -50 0.95
468 0.45 Strength (high) 13 072 78.93 100.90 1.416 50 0 -50 0.95
939 0.91 Traffic level (low) 15 048 89.91 24.74 2.021 50 0 -50 0.95
1 086 1.05 Traffic level (high) 16 280 104.04 64.02 1.786 50 0 -50 0.95
Rural Arterial GN SADT 528 1.00 Base case 12 413 76.03 93.14 1.769 50 0 -50 0.79
372 0.70 Roughness progression 9 433 54.55 18.97 2.348 50 0 -50 0.71
1 347 2.55 Strength (low) 15 869 106.89 93.86 2.201 50 0 -50 0.81
328 0.62 Strength (high) 10 740 63.70 77.70 1.633 50 0 -50 0.76
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
181
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
464 0.88 Traffic level (low) 11 934 69.98 28.65 2.258 50 0 -50 0.78
576 1.09 Traffic level (high) 13 344 83.49 73.35 1.920 50 0 -50 0.80
TADT 2 549 1.00 Base case 12 774 94.30 73.42 2.094 50 0 -50 0.87
2 837 1.11 Roughness progression 9 483 75.43 31.45 2.408 50 0 -50 0.81
5 071 1.99 Strength (low) 15 658 126.25 362.07 1.801 50 0 -50 0.92
1 102 0.43 Strength (high) 10 768 75.47 125.44 1.653 50 0 -50 0.82
1 735 0.68 Traffic level (low) 11 996 86.51 95.87 1.883 50 0 -50 0.84
3 315 1.30 Traffic level (high) 13 607 101.03 69.25 2.199 50 0 -50 0.88
TRDT 866 1.00 Base case 12 667 84.70 40.24 1.855 50 0 -50 0.83
831 0.96 Roughness progression 9 400 64.42 18.48 2.071 50 0 -50 0.77
2 395 2.77 Strength (low) 15 854 122.02 98.35 1.891 50 0 -50 0.89
566 0.65 Strength (high) 10 898 71.15 28.75 1.829 50 0 -50 0.80
670 0.77 Traffic level (low) 11 877 79.13 49.07 1.723 50 0 -50 0.82
1 219 1.41 Traffic level (high) 13 555 92.86 23.51 2.113 50 0 -50 0.85
Urban Freeway CS SADT 5 347 1.00 Base case 3 605 58.62 11.84 3.837 80 20 -20 0.96
4 939 0.92 Roughness progression 3 112 53.41 15.64 3.666 80 20 -20 0.95
9 425 1.76 Strength (low) 5 285 77.22 42.52 3.497 80 20 -20 0.99
2 208 0.41 Strength (high) 3 323 44.21 8.23 3.588 80 20 -20 0.93
4 272 0.80 Traffic level (low) 3 087 53.12 14.77 3.624 80 20 -20 0.95
6 445 1.21 Traffic level (high) 3 513 64.73 17.70 3.734 80 20 -20 0.97
TADT 36 837 1.00 Base case 3 453 70.99 33.13 3.252 80 20 -20 0.98
39 247 1.07 Roughness progression 3 019 62.46 24.73 3.373 80 20 -20 0.97
33 573 0.91 Strength (low) 4 793 88.27 227.90 2.571 80 20 -20 0.99
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
182
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
16 900 0.46 Strength (high) 3 375 50.42 14.08 3.278 80 20 -20 0.95
25 882 0.70 Traffic level (low) 3 256 59.26 36.01 3.104 80 20 -20 0.97
41 812 1.14 Traffic level (high) 3 932 72.47 41.32 3.220 80 20 -20 0.99
TRDT 7 033 1.00 Base case 3 269 57.08 10.21 2.887 80 20 -20 0.95
8 799 1.25 Roughness progression 3 066 54.02 3.29 3.298 80 20 -20 0.95
11 098 1.58 Strength (low) 4 263 77.46 35.84 2.646 80 20 -20 0.98
3 729 0.53 Strength (high) 3 478 44.30 2.05 3.181 80 20 -20 0.94
5 868 0.83 Traffic level (low) 3 251 54.71 5.56 3.016 80 20 -20 0.94
8 134 1.16 Traffic level (high) 3 531 62.34 17.40 2.770 80 20 -20 0.95
Urban Arterial CS SADT 5 025 1.00 Base case 2 795 38.38 15.42 3.681 80 20 -20 0.97
5 001 1.00 Roughness progression 2 443 33.67 16.65 3.642 80 20 -20 0.96
8 198 1.63 Strength (low) 3 691 51.22 96.41 3.041 80 20 -20 0.99
2 307 0.46 Strength (high) 2 783 26.91 4.34 3.915 80 20 -20 0.93
4 239 0.84 Traffic level (low) 2 801 33.58 9.29 3.842 80 20 -20 0.96
6 433 1.28 Traffic level (high) 2 908 41.67 16.98 3.753 80 20 -20 0.98
TADT 18 754 1.00 Base case 2 719 44.68 25.26 3.115 80 20 -20 0.98
16 515 0.88 Roughness progression 2 251 41.64 29.54 3.019 80 20 -20 0.97
14 719 0.78 Strength (low) 3 337 53.98 264.08 2.249 80 20 -20 0.99
16 956 0.90 Strength (high) 2 790 31.48 2.34 3.892 80 20 -20 0.94
16 179 0.86 Traffic level (low) 2 623 39.51 18.31 3.174 80 20 -20 0.97
18 641 0.99 Traffic level (high) 2 680 48.57 42.76 2.935 80 20 -20 0.98
TRDT 4 955 1.00 Base case 2 964 36.18 1.12 3.451 80 20 -20 0.96
4 601 0.93 Roughness progression 2 530 31.40 1.38 3.365 80 20 -20 0.94
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
183
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
5 615 1.13 Strength (low) 3 034 48.70 27.59 2.520 80 20 -20 0.98
1 275 0.26 Strength (high) 2 723 23.41 2.56 2.789 80 20 -20 0.92
4 069 0.82 Traffic level (low) 2 788 32.36 0.89 3.461 80 20 -20 0.95
6 480 1.31 Traffic level (high) 2 967 40.03 1.28 3.492 80 20 -20 0.97
2 Rural Art AC(S) SADT 235 1.00 Base case 6 318 43.46 8.88 2.489 50 0 -50 0.99
181 0.77 Roughness progression 5 271 36.37 1.99 3.072 50 0 -50 0.96
1 037 4.41 Strength (low) 7 457 46.98 54.55 2.333 50 0 -50 0.98
128 0.55 Strength (high) 5 733 43.14 31.21 1.622 50 0 -50 0.97
200 0.85 Traffic level (low) 6 122 42.84 9.07 2.403 50 0 -50 0.98
287 1.22 Traffic level (high) 6 475 44.92 10.09 2.522 50 0 -50 0.99
TADT 2 673 1.00 Base case 6 455 49.63 4.26 3.058 50 0 -50 0.98
2 851 1.07 Roughness progression 5 319 40.88 2.72 3.232 50 0 -50 0.98
2 507 0.94 Strength (low) 7 116 49.73 320.17 1.617 50 0 -50 0.99
536 0.20 Strength (high) 5 803 46.16 24.13 1.949 50 0 -50 0.98
2 179 0.82 Traffic level (low) 6 302 47.97 2.60 3.156 50 0 -50 0.98
2 799 1.05 Traffic level (high) 6 567 51.34 9.39 2.807 50 0 -50 0.99
TRDT 1 423 1.00 Base case 6 454 48.48 0.67 3.228 50 0 -50 0.98
1 549 1.09 Roughness progression 5 318 39.18 0.30 3.498 50 0 -50 0.97
1 627 1.14 Strength (low) 7 437 49.60 87.04 1.814 50 0 -50 0.99
296 0.21 Strength (high) 5 812 45.10 8.22 2.006 50 0 -50 0.98
1 086 0.76 Traffic level (low) 6 279 46.50 0.46 3.260 50 0 -50 0.97
1 660 1.17 Traffic level (high) 6 620 50.09 1.08 3.130 50 0 -50 0.98
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
184
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
Urban Art AC(S) SADT 516 1.00 Base case 5 848 2 301.30 39.32 2.159 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
403 0.78 Roughness progression 4 880 1 816.42 17.69 2.418 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
1 493 2.89 Strength (low) 7 022 2 758.47 34.70 2.718 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
354 0.69 Strength (high) 5 499 1 951.91 6.75 2.812 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
467 0.91 Traffic level (low) 5 720 2 190.96 22.20 2.381 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
560 1.09 Traffic level (high) 5 935 2 430.45 71.17 1.921 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
TADT 1 044 1.00 Base case 5 887 2 481.60 29.70 2.098 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
1 366 1.31 Roughness progression 4 951 2 022.81 5.43 2.750 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
2 836 2.72 Strength (low) 6 869 2 896.16 74.28 2.125 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 1.00
624 0.60 Strength (high) 5 418 2 113.66 18.20 2.090 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
770 0.74 Traffic level (low) 5 653 2 389.39 36.87 1.929 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
1 375 1.32 Traffic level (high) 6 120 2 573.30 24.23 2.255 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
TRDT 308 1.00 Base case 5 880 2 300.13 6.36 2.093 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
217 0.70 Roughness progression 4 926 1 700.84 4.41 2.097 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
1 251 4.06 Strength (low) 7 165 2 692.98 1.58 2.929 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
171 0.55 Strength (high) 5 493 1 855.31 3.67 2.081 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
344 1.12 Traffic level (low) 5 772 2 176.00 1.67 2.524 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
303 0.98 Traffic level (high) 6 029 2 388.83 12.74 1.884 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
Urban Art GN SADT 1 049 1.00 Base case 10 906 71.14 149.59 1.867 80 20 -20 0.93
808 0.77 Roughness progression 7 936 54.37 161.26 1.712 80 20 -20 0.89
2 239 2.14 Strength (low) 13 963 100.50 127.97 2.294 80 20 -20 0.96
665 0.63 Strength (high) 7 155 5 181.71 86.30 1.911 1 [80] 1 [20] 0 [-20] 0.93
917 0.87 Traffic level (low) 10 374 65.95 91.32 2.034 80 20 -20 0.91
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
185
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
1 152 1.10 Traffic level (high) 11 567 76.52 187.03 1.807 80 20 -20 0.93
TADT 1 579 1.00 Base case 10 827 77.43 147.77 1.715 80 20 -20 0.94
1 270 0.80 Roughness progression 7 884 61.80 118.86 1.715 80 20 -20 0.92
4 432 2.81 Strength (low) 13 563 115.76 143.90 2.055 80 20 -20 0.97
1 138 0.72 Strength (high) 7 005 5 374.77 65.47 1.870 1 [80] 1 [20] 0 [-20] 0.93
1 392 0.88 Traffic level (low) 10 226 71.97 114.09 1.757 80 20 -20 0.93
1 892 1.20 Traffic level (high) 11 541 84.50 139.37 1.791 80 20 -20 0.95
TRDT 513 1.00 Base case 11 115 68.28 28.63 1.802 80 20 -20 0.92
348 0.68 Roughness progression 8 166 50.64 42.10 1.579 80 20 -20 0.87
1 234 2.40 Strength (low) 14 314 94.98 17.86 2.198 80 20 -20 0.96
341 0.67 Strength (high) 7 529 4 956.22 13.55 1.901 1 [80] 1 [20] 0 [-20] 0.93
457 0.89 Traffic level (low) 10 512 63.29 19.51 1.880 80 20 -20 0.91
599 1.17 Traffic level (high) 11 892 72.93 26.27 1.872 80 20 -20 0.92
Urban Collector GN SADT 1 577 1.00 Base case 8 624 99.87 65.51 2.444 80 20 -20 0.95
1 657 1.05 Roughness progression 6 270 102.47 111.60 2.217 80 20 -20 0.93
2 722 1.73 Strength (low) 15 168 148.76 612.35 1.657 80 20 -20 0.99
578 0.37 Strength (high) 7 956 67.86 67.16 1.962 80 20 -20 0.97
1 187 0.75 Traffic level (low) 8 364 86.63 40.31 2.539 80 20 -20 0.95
1 887 1.20 Traffic level (high) 8 924 113.07 127.90 2.214 80 20 -20 0.96
TADT 2 788 1.00 Base case 8 328 111.57 71.70 2.131 80 20 -20 0.95
2 662 0.95 Roughness progression 5 938 117.48 114.06 1.965 80 20 -20 0.94
2 849 1.02 Strength (low) 14 919 156.31 702.56 1.413 80 20 -20 0.99
898 0.32 Strength (high) 7 793 72.86 56.73 1.840 80 20 -20 0.96
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
186
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
2 614 0.94 Traffic level (low) 8 151 98.39 29.32 2.404 80 20 -20 0.94
2 895 1.04 Traffic level (high) 8 573 125.21 144.84 1.915 80 20 -20 0.96
TRDT 305 1.00 Base case 9 265 77.69 1.87 2.454 80 20 -20 0.99
357 1.17 Roughness progression 7 109 76.52 3.44 2.319 80 20 -20 0.98
623 2.04 Strength (low) 16 203 135.82 27.14 1.874 80 20 -20 0.99
125 0.41 Strength (high) 8 140 60.21 3.73 1.985 80 20 -20 0.97
173 0.57 Traffic level (low) 8 868 71.03 1.92 2.277 80 20 -20 0.98
312 1.02 Traffic level (high) 9 634 88.39 10.26 1.956 80 20 -20 0.98
2 Urban Access GN SADT 928 1.00 Base case 3 113 46.64 128.76 1.880 80 20 -20 0.99
862 0.93 Roughness progression 3 017 40.20 168.77 1.721 80 20 -20 0.99
458 0.49 Strength (low) 12 749 23.43 0.24 4.529 80 20 -20 0.87
90 0.10 Strength (high) 3 316 31.94 6.50 2.186 80 20 -20 0.97
836 0.90 Traffic level (low) 3 150 44.04 38.29 2.398 80 20 -20 0.98
980 1.06 Traffic level (high) 3 222 48.28 257.69 1.586 80 20 -20 0.99
TADT 676 1.00 Base case 3 357 44.47 15.39 2.171 80 20 -20 0.98
586 0.87 Roughness progression 3 263 39.87 23.19 1.991 80 20 -20 0.98
104 0.15 Strength (low) 12 877 18.34 0.68 2.584 80 20 -20 0.87
68 0.10 Strength (high) 3 362 30.98 0.58 2.495 80 20 -20 0.97
687 1.02 Traffic level (low) 3 326 41.04 2.66 2.759 80 20 -20 0.97
577 0.85 Traffic level (high) 3 481 46.98 53.82 1.716 80 20 -20 0.99
TRDT 92 1.00 Base case 3 525 38.79 0.77 2.361 80 20 -20 0.98
69 0.75 Roughness progression 3 352 35.59 6.23 1.663 80 20 -20 0.97
4 0.05 Strength (low) 12 857 16.77 26.31 0.558 80 20 -20 0.95
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
187
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
13 0.14 Strength (high) 3 344 31.26 0.08 2.442 80 20 -20 0.97
38 0.41 Traffic level (low) 3 466 35.43 0.47 2.241 80 20 -20 0.98
129 1.40 Traffic level (high) 3 702 42.85 1.33 2.298 80 20 -20 0.99
3 Rural Art AC(N) SADT 241 1.00 Base case 5 342 4 922.32 0.47 3.897 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 1.00
147 0.61 Roughness progression 3 754 3 018.83 0.13 4.278 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.90
910 3.78 Strength (low) 7 598 3 211.29 19.45 2.758 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
61 0.26 Strength (high) 5 069 4 800.00 50.15 1.085 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 1.00
162 0.67 Traffic level (low) 5 319 4 902.14 0.09 4.501 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
274 1.14 Traffic level (high) 5 431 4 831.90 3.12 3.056 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 1.00
TADT 1 667 1.00 Base case 5 658 4 460.94 6.30 2.767 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
2 330 1.40 Roughness progression 4 294 2 307.40 0.94 3.525 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.91
3 614 2.17 Strength (low) 8 359 1 966.82 116.61 2.057 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
622 0.37 Strength (high) 5 111 4 929.43 2.29 2.776 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
1 158 0.69 Traffic level (low) 5 436 4 616.05 6.81 2.619 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
1 829 1.10 Traffic level (high) 5 895 4 245.55 10.69 2.621 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
TRDT 716 1.00 Base case 5 507 4 618.78 2.73 2.596 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
862 1.20 Roughness progression 4 118 2 471.41 0.39 3.240 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.88
2 283 3.19 Strength (low) 8 349 2 218.54 22.66 2.310 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
437 0.61 Strength (high) 5 153 4 901.53 0.15 3.324 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 1.00
775 1.08 Traffic level (low) 5 350 4 726.81 0.54 3.109 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.92
978 1.37 Traffic level (high) 5 740 4 445.41 2.57 2.708 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
188
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
3 Urban Fwy AC SADT 372 1.00 Base case 8 435 53.94 5.71 2.914 80 20 -20 0.98
247 0.66 Roughness progression 5 301 34.03 4.85 2.797 80 20 -20 0.94
1 290 3.47 Strength (low) 9 543 58.61 4.19 3.654 80 20 -20 0.98
160 0.43 Strength (high) 7 857 52.58 28.81 1.759 80 20 -20 0.98
279 0.75 Traffic level (low) 8 239 54.03 7.50 2.649 80 20 -20 0.98
397 1.07 Traffic level (high) 8 560 54.85 12.99 2.556 80 20 -20 0.98
TADT 1 195 1.00 Base case 8 380 56.65 21.38 2.250 80 20 -20 0.98
1 793 1.50 Roughness progression 5 398 37.38 0.97 3.425 80 20 -20 0.94
6 006 5.03 Strength (low) 9 076 66.76 44.08 2.545 80 20 -20 0.99
665 0.56 Strength (high) 7 910 54.34 10.31 2.297 80 20 -20 0.98
935 0.78 Traffic level (low) 8 195 55.50 21.61 2.166 80 20 -20 0.98
1 977 1.65 Traffic level (high) 8 631 58.25 10.56 2.651 80 20 -20 0.97
TRDT 478 1.00 Base case 8 446 54.05 3.09 2.438 80 20 -20 0.98
248 0.52 Roughness progression 5 279 34.81 3.99 2.167 80 20 -20 0.94
3 139 6.56 Strength (low) 9 569 60.00 0.92 3.372 80 20 -20 0.98
216 0.45 Strength (high) 7 910 53.22 3.27 2.185 80 20 -20 0.98
404 0.85 Traffic level (low) 8 249 54.35 2.51 2.450 80 20 -20 0.98
512 1.07 Traffic level (high) 8 566 54.92 5.36 2.294 80 20 -20 0.98
Urban Art AC(N) SADT 246 1.00 Base case 5 400 31.35 5.40 2.745 80 20 -20 1.00
298 1.21 Roughness progression 3 709 16.94 0.07 4.916 80 20 -20 0.98
1 996 8.12 Strength (low) 5 746 37.68 60.96 2.589 80 20 -20 1.00
114 0.46 Strength (high) 5 141 29.75 11.55 2.025 80 20 -20 1.00
189 0.77 Traffic level (low) 5 334 30.44 5.56 2.608 80 20 -20 1.00
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
189
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
370 1.50 Traffic level (high) 5 468 32.32 2.78 3.254 80 20 -20 0.99
TADT 2 905 1.00 Base case 5 499 33.03 0.08 4.446 80 20 -20 0.99
4 050 1.39 Roughness progression 3 674 19.65 0.02 5.039 80 20 -20 0.97
3 276 1.13 Strength (low) 5 527 39.07 142.59 1.960 80 20 -20 1.00
237 0.08 Strength (high) 5 152 30.30 7.20 2.077 80 20 -20 1.00
1 072 0.37 Traffic level (low) 5 376 31.88 0.56 3.437 80 20 -20 0.99
3 211 1.11 Traffic level (high) 5 528 33.95 0.26 4.075 80 20 -20 0.99
TRDT 151 1.00 Base case 5 409 30.87 1.01 2.427 80 20 -20 1.00
174 1.16 Roughness progression 3 718 16.15 0.04 3.446 80 20 -20 0.99
1 377 9.14 Strength (low) 5 923 36.46 6.12 2.550 80 20 -20 1.00
59 0.39 Strength (high) 5 160 29.26 2.61 1.869 80 20 -20 1.00
131 0.87 Traffic level (low) 5 359 30.03 0.55 2.567 80 20 -20 1.00
197 1.31 Traffic level (high) 5 465 31.65 0.97 2.520 80 20 -20 1.00
Urban Collector AC SADT 1 156 1.00 Base case 5 881 2 878.61 0.49 4.631 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
1 372 1.19 Roughness progression 3 779 2 136.37 7.54 3.403 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
1 948 1.69 Strength (low) 8 982 3 478.89 377.16 1.726 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
132 0.11 Strength (high) 5 671 30.86 8.95 2.215 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
889 0.77 Traffic level (low) 5 655 30.96 0.07 5.444 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.95
1 399 1.21 Traffic level (high) 5 988 32.93 4.10 3.703 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.94
TADT 3 563 1.00 Base case 5 711 3 132.63 3.13 3.260 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
2 800 0.79 Roughness progression 3 517 2 500.04 24.76 2.483 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
2 481 0.70 Strength (low) 9 209 3 613.85 321.85 1.612 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
260 0.07 Strength (high) 5 682 31.65 5.04 2.224 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
190
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
3 485 0.98 Traffic level (low) 5 650 32.41 0.73 3.749 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.94
3 055 0.86 Traffic level (high) 5 838 34.10 15.42 2.670 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.95
TRDT 96 1.00 Base case 5 902 2 803.60 0.02 3.477 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
678 7.04 Roughness progression 4 041 1 599.25 0.01 4.283 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
580 6.02 Strength (low) 9 371 3 330.53 17.88 1.975 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
15 0.16 Strength (high) 5 730 29.18 1.59 1.626 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
37 0.38 Traffic level (low) 5 753 31.06 7.96 1.414 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
146 1.52 Traffic level (high) 6 050 31.90 0.12 3.060 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
4 Rural Arterial CS SADT 17 489 1.00 Base case 6 509 98.97 78.73 3.498 50 0 -50 0.97
16 819 0.96 Roughness progression 6 057 97.67 44.58 3.751 50 0 -50 0.96
20 938 1.20 Strength (low) 9 986 134.09 214.73 3.106 50 0 -50 0.98
15 223 0.87 Strength (high) 5 844 80.94 17.95 4.139 50 0 -50 0.94
15 067 0.86 Traffic level (low) 5 867 81.71 31.80 3.860 50 0 -50 0.95
21 376 1.22 Traffic level (high) 8 030 118.70 93.84 3.510 50 0 -50 0.97
TADT 102 179 1.00 Base case 6 706 109.74 529.79 2.661 50 0 -50 0.97
95 162 0.93 Roughness progression 5 824 108.87 489.00 2.664 50 0 -50 0.96
88 924 0.87 Strength (low) 8 511 143.17 1 796.54 2.210 50 0 -50 0.97
127 762 1.25 Strength (high) 6 273 89.43 92.70 3.325 50 0 -50 0.95
133 173 1.30 Traffic level (low) 6 633 90.56 193.11 3.090 50 0 -50 0.96
85 829 0.84 Traffic level (high) 7 319 132.60 983.43 2.397 50 0 -50 0.97
TRDT 44 918 1.00 Base case 7 058 82.41 50.21 2.966 50 0 -50 0.95
32 374 0.72 Roughness progression 5 969 81.26 66.55 2.782 50 0 -50 0.96
31 272 0.70 Strength (low) 10 239 112.87 241.31 2.385 50 0 -50 0.97
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
191
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
43 303 0.96 Strength (high) 6 223 61.61 12.12 3.386 50 0 -50 0.93
39 307 0.88 Traffic level (low) 6 363 65.05 23.62 3.154 50 0 -50 0.94
37 312 0.83 Traffic level (high) 8 019 100.15 122.92 2.640 50 0 -50 0.96
Rural Arterial GN(N) SADT 248 1.00 Base case 7 099 5 935.70 29.53 1.951 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
312 1.26 Roughness progression 5 575 4 045.63 16.53 2.329 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.94
600 2.42 Strength (low) 8 841 6 574.22 115.97 1.727 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
211 0.85 Strength (high) 6 740 4 816.48 21.82 2.017 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
250 1.01 Traffic level (low) 7 282 5 150.52 8.25 2.552 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
451 1.82 Traffic level (high) 7 611 5 836.58 49.31 1.991 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
TADT 1 343 1.00 Base case 6 766 6 267.52 117.99 1.735 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
1 090 0.81 Roughness progression 5 168 4 709.39 53.02 1.924 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
3 797 2.83 Strength (low) 8 456 7 846.45 66.48 2.257 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 038 0.77 Strength (high) 6 419 5 419.75 32.97 2.062 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
1 206 0.90 Traffic level (low) 6 600 5 992.34 78.86 1.829 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
1 507 1.12 Traffic level (high) 7 081 6 682.99 130.74 1.739 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
TRDT 662 1.00 Base case 7 099 5 935.70 29.53 1.867 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
389 0.59 Roughness progression 5 339 4 311.59 34.97 1.664 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
1 260 1.90 Strength (low) 8 678 7 247.05 34.34 2.011 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
404 0.61 Strength (high) 6 555 5 174.83 13.55 1.950 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
631 0.95 Traffic level (low) 6 958 5 624.60 13.71 2.078 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
774 1.17 Traffic level (high) 7 390 6 277.29 33.24 1.878 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
192
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
Rural Collector GN SADT 546 1.00 Base case 3 886 7 407.62 5.35 3.128 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
636 1.16 Roughness progression 3 172 7 424.96 14.75 2.719 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
1 013 1.85 Strength (low) 11 199 5 858.00 474.42 1.326 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
199 0.36 Strength (high) 3 711 5 169.69 5.86 2.606 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
332 0.61 Traffic level (low) 3 710 6 897.62 14.20 2.431 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
703 1.29 Traffic level (high) 3 890 7 826.60 18.98 2.647 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
TADT 1 623 1.00 Base case 3 522 8 231.82 26.58 2.279 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
1 367 0.84 Roughness progression 2 736 8 274.75 70.56 1.905 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
1 258 0.78 Strength (low) 11 074 6 532.08 533.98 1.249 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
359 0.22 Strength (high) 3 405 5 937.97 27.40 1.780 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.92
1 388 0.86 Traffic level (low) 3 463 7 711.85 13.68 2.447 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 652 1.02 Traffic level (high) 3 539 8 710.68 61.24 2.012 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
TRDT 433 1.00 Base case 3 844 7 357.27 2.69 2.450 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
572 1.32 Roughness progression 3 193 7 430.55 3.49 2.455 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
522 1.21 Strength (low) 11 500 5 848.74 152.81 1.331 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
146 0.34 Strength (high) 3 712 5 138.90 2.21 2.184 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
268 0.62 Traffic level (low) 3 746 6 923.96 2.62 2.314 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
481 1.11 Traffic level (high) 3 856 7 822.09 9.62 2.102 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
Rural Access GN SADT 589 1.00 Base case 2 734 2 573.01 10.40 2.848 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
589 1.00 Roughness progression 2 454 2 649.98 17.76 2.595 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
737 1.25 Strength (low) 12 630 2 014.62 13.00 2.849 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
45 0.08 Strength (high) 2 725 1 860.99 4.70 2.012 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
440 0.75 Traffic level (low) 2 721 2 389.26 2.72 3.347 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.94
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
193
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
708 1.20 Traffic level (high) 2 718 2 913.02 33.97 2.376 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
TADT 1 151 1.00 Base case 2 612 2 819.01 17.96 2.295 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 125 0.98 Roughness progression 2 366 2 885.52 21.92 2.222 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 370 1.19 Strength (low) 12 506 2 215.28 26.37 2.226 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
44 0.04 Strength (high) 2 610 1 940.12 12.45 1.370 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
1 055 0.92 Traffic level (low) 2 620 2 551.84 6.13 2.623 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 068 0.93 Traffic level (high) 2 582 3 128.95 55.32 1.904 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
Rural Access GN SADT 589 1.00 Base case 2 734 2 573.01 10.40 2.848 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
589 1.00 Roughness progression 2 454 2 649.98 17.76 2.595 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
737 1.25 Strength (low) 12 630 2 014.62 13.00 2.849 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
45 0.08 Strength (high) 2 725 1 860.99 4.70 2.012 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
440 0.75 Traffic level (low) 2 721 2 389.26 2.72 3.347 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.94
708 1.20 Traffic level (high) 2 718 2 913.02 33.97 2.376 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
TADT 1 151 1.00 Base case 2 612 2 819.01 17.96 2.295 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 125 0.98 Roughness progression 2 366 2 885.52 21.92 2.222 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 370 1.19 Strength (low) 12 506 2 215.28 26.37 2.226 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
44 0.04 Strength (high) 2 610 1 940.12 12.45 1.370 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
1 055 0.92 Traffic level (low) 2 620 2 551.84 6.13 2.623 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 068 0.93 Traffic level (high) 2 582 3 128.95 55.32 1.904 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
TRDT 114 1.00 Base case 2 855 2 282.69 0.81 2.409 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.94
113 0.99 Roughness progression 2 549 2 374.51 3.09 2.009 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
221 1.94 Strength (low) 12 763 1 790.49 0.24 2.975 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
18 0.16 Strength (high) 2 851 1 772.73 0.12 2.426 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.94
PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements
Aust r oads 2012
194
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2
(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
56 0.49 Traffic level (low) 2 851 2 006.26 0.40 2.408 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
217 1.91 Traffic level (high) 2 891 2 649.36 1.20 2.485 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 Where a dummy variable has been used in place of actual Thornthwaite value the convention dummy value [corresponding Thornthwaite value] is used to represent input values.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
195
APPENDIX O EXTENDED INVESTIGATION OF LWC
RELATIONSHIPS (PHASE 2)
O.1 Introduction
Phase 2 estimation of the marginal road wear costs were carried out in order to extend analysis to
a wider range of axle groups and test the robustness of results to assumptions made with respect
of axle load initiating pavement deterioration. This work involved: (i) extending analysis to three
additional axle groups comprising SAST TAST and QADT axle groups; (ii) making use of an
alternative pavement deterioration model for estimation of load related road wear; and (iii)
estimating road wear costs below the current GML limit with estimated axle group tare load
providing the starting point for calculations.
As part of Phase 2 some minor changes were made to the equation form for the LWC relationships
to model and report results, the use of 0.25 tonnes load increments (compared with 1.0 tonnes) for
modelling purposes, and reporting of statistical significance measures in addition to goodness of fit
measures associated with estimated LWC functions.
O.2 Revised Models and Methods
As was the case with Phase 1 the FAMLIT model was used to estimate the impact of increasing
axle loads on road wear costs. Axle loads for target axle groups were varied one at a time using
the axle load group increments of 0.25 tonnes for a range of road types while holding loads of all
other axle groups at their GML level. FAMLIT was then used to generate cost estimates
corresponding to each increment in terms of EAUC in terms of $ per lane-km. In Figure O 1 axle
types and associated axle load ranges and levels used in investigations are set out.
While extension of analysis to include additional axle groups proved straightforward for the SAST
axle group this was not the case for the two other additional axle groups TAST and QADT axle
groups. Complications arose due to the very small proportions of total freight vehicle traffic
comprised by vehicles fitted with these axle groups irrespective of road network being considered.
As a consequence additional axle load increments for the latter two groups could be expected to a
cause very small changes in EAUC for a given road type. This is illustrated in Figure O 1 which
plots out a typical representative relationship between SARs and incremental axle mass increases,
given that SARs provide the direct linear measure (see Equations 4 and 9) by which loads are
modelled causing pavement deterioration and subsequent road wear costs, EAUC. Figure O 1
indicates that changes in loads with the SAST axle groups can be expected to appreciably affect
road wear costs. This outcome is due to two factors the high ratio of incremental tonnes to the
reference load and high traffic levels. The latter reflects the fact that this axle type comprises the
most common axle group associated with freight vehicles. The same does not hold true for TAST
and QADT axle groups. For both axle groups and the sample road type aggregate SARs appear
to be insensitive to equivalent unit changes in axle load. This result was more expected for QADT
axle groups than TAST because the former group has been adopted relatively recently and is
currently only fitted to a very few freight vehicles. In addition the reference load used to compute
SARs for the QADT axle group is the highest of all the axle groups considered. Low numbers
however appears to be the primary cause of insensitivity for TAST axles given that the reference
load is in fact the third lowest considered.
To address these issues it was decided to use alternative treatments. Traffic and traffic
proportions were left unchanged for TAST axle group analysis with measures being taken in
subsequent analysis to address this issue. For QADT analysis it was however decided for FAMLIT
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
196
calculations to temporarily swap traffic proportions and numbers with the TRDT axle group. This
was done because widespread QADT axle group use is seen as likely to occur at the expense of
TRDT axle group. The approach used simulates the impact of a 100% conversion.
55000
105000
155000
205000
255000
305000
355000
-3 -2 -1 GML +1 +2 +3 +4
Axl e mass i ncrement
S
A
R
(
4
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT
Figure O 1: Relationship between axle mass increments in tonnes and SAR4 (rural arterial GN (S) pavement)
To test the robustness of results an alternative deterioration model was used with the LWC
relationships compared to those previously obtained. The model strength/roughness model used a
theoretical approach which relates pavement loading to deterioration via modelling the relationship
between load induced reductions in pavement residual strength which in turn causes increased
road surface roughness. When roughness reaches user-defined levels pavement rehabilitation to
restore roughness and strength to specified levels is triggered resulting in an increase in life-cycle
road wear costs. In some cases reductions in strength below acceptable limits can also trigger
intervention. In the alternative rutting/roughness deterioration model load caused pavement
deterioration is based on projected rutting which in turn causes increased road roughness. In
contrast to the strength/roughness deterioration model previously used the rutting/roughness
deterioration models used are based more on empirical observation and measurement than
theoretical constructs (Martin & Choummanivong 2009). A further feature of the rutting/roughness
model is that levels of maintenance activity as distinct from rehabilitation and reconstruction
activities can directly affect the rates of rutting and roughness progression which is more in line
with observed practice and pavement behaviour. In the following sections results are reported for
both the strength/roughness and the rutting/roughness models across the full test factorial.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
197
O.3 Modelling Considerations
Environmental impacts are considered via the use of the Thornthwaite Moisture Index (TMI) for
which three ascending values are considered for each road type. Different ranges of TMI were
associated with different roads according to geographic location. In addition in some cases where
road wear costs were not observed to vary systematically with TMI replacement by dummy
variables modelling a two step rather than a three step scale was found to improve modelling
outcomes. TMI values and dummy variable schemas employed are set out in Section 2. These
should be used when interpreting axle load road wear costs modelling outcomes.
Despite expansion of axle mass categories to include values below GML, and generation of
estimates using quarter tonne intervals, model outcomes are relatively common where t values for
the a2 term in equation type (1) which could be regarded as statistically unacceptable (t <2.,
However it was found that dropping this terms solely on the basis of this statistic was not warranted
as it generally resulted in significant reductions in goodness of fit (r
2
) and explanatory power. From
a modelling perspective the a2 term is required to give the axle mass pavement cost function the
appropriate shape, which demonstrates minimal impact on pavement costs at masses below
reference load, and increasing sensitivity thereafter. An example of premature discarding of the
a2 term on the basis of a non-significant (p >.05) t statistic is demonstrated below both in
Table O 1, and in subsequent figures.
Table O 1: Alternative LWC models urban freeway cement stabilised roads (strength model)
full equation, and equation less linear mass parameter
Road type Equation Axle
group
a0 a1 a2 a3 r
2
Urban Freeway CS
Full equation
(POLYMOD)
SADT 3 722 1.82 0.000006 8.84 0.97
t 29.78 202.75 1.35 29.28
Reduced
(PWRMOD)
SADT 2 552 1.82 3.92 0.87
t 9.79 94.25 269.83
From Table O 1 it can be seen that the t statistic associated with the a2 term indicates non
statistical significance. However, dropping the term to convert the original polynomial model
(POLMOD) into a reduced equation (PWRMOD) while resulting in an equation where all
parameters have appropriate t terms, reduces fit to the extent that the equation provides poor fit to
the estimated EAUC data points. This is shown in Figure O 2.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
198
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Axle Mass (t)
E
A
U
C
Obsvd
PWRMOD
POLYMOD
Figure O 2: LWC model fits for original polynomial equation (POLYMOD) and reduced equation (PWRMOD)
(urban freeway (CS) SADT structural/roughness deterioration model)
When the information used to construct Figure O 2 is subsequently used to estimate incremental
costs distortions associated with dropping the t test deficient term can become magnified, as
shown in Figure O 3.
Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements
Aust r oads 2012
199
-1000
1000
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
17000
4
-
5
5
-
6
6
-
7
7
-
8
8
-
9
9
-
1
0
1
0
-
1
1
1
1
-
1
2
1
2
-
1
3
1
3
-
1
4
1
4
-
1
5
E
A
U
C
C
h
a
n
g
e
Obsvd
PWRMOD
POLYMOD
Figure O 3: Estimated incremental cost changes with axle mass increments; comparisons between full (POLYMOD) and
reduced models (PWRMOD) (urban freeway (CS) SADT axle groups strength/roughness deterioration model)
An examination of Figure O 3 indicates that while the full model containing the parameter with a
deficient t value tracks observed incremental costs well, (and in fact overlays and obscures
several observations) tracking by the reduced model is not satisfactory.
Consequently in cases similar to this, full models have been reported even where t statistic
indicate non-significance of estimated parameter values with 5% confidence limits. Only where
dropping of terms with deficient t statistics has little or no effect on r
2
, and tracking of cost
changes can be demonstrated to be adequate, can the case in favour of using the reduced
equation be justified. Perusal of the data to date has shown this to be a rare occurrence.
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2012, Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost
Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements, Sydney, A4,
pp.215. AP-R402-12
Keywords: axle group loading, incremental pricing, load-wear-cost, roughness
deterioration, maintenance intervention, road wear cost, marginal road wear
cost, pavement wear.
Abstract:
This report describes the approach, data, models and assumptions used in
developing pavement load-wear-cost (LWC) relationships for incremental
increases in axle loads. A preliminary set of LWC relationships was developed
as a basis for estimating the short-run marginal cost (SRMC) of road wear for a
range road of types in the sealed road network. A life-cycle costing analysis
(FAMLIT) was used in estimating the wear cost of incremental load increases
on road pavements, using available knowledge, existing tools, models,
processes and data. It is important to note that these estimates of SRMC are
highly dependent upon the assumptions, input parameters and models used by
this study.