Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/treng

Impact of pavement roughness and suspension systems on vehicle dynamic

loads on flexible pavements
Shahram Misaghi a, Cesar Tirado b,∗, Soheil Nazarian b, Cesar Carrasco a,b
a
Nichols Consulting Engineers, 501 Canal Boulevard, Ste. 1, Point Richmond, CA 94804, United States
b
Center for Transportation Infrastructure Systems (CTIS), The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W. University Ave., El Paso, TX 79968, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Several mechanistic-empirical software packages have been developed in the last two decades to address the
Pavements impact of axle load and axle configuration on pavement responses and their performance. These software packages
Dynamic loads generally do not consider the vehicle pavement interaction. The interaction of truck suspension system with the
Damage
roughness of the road surface may exert additional forces to the pavement.
Road roughness
Truck suspension A process to quantify the impact of truck suspension systems and road surface condition on the damage exerted
Truck-pavement interaction to the pavement is presented in this paper. The International Roughness Index (IRI) was used to simulate the
road roughness. The truck-pavement interaction was then modeled to estimate the dynamic load applied to
the pavement. The process followed to develop the algorithms is discussed, followed by a parametric study to
demonstrate the interaction among the suspension properties, road roughness and vehicle speed. The impact of
dynamic load on the pavement distresses and the progress of deterioration is also discussed.

Introduction
Trucking accounts for about 80% of freight transportation in the
United States. The impact of axle loads and axle configurations on the
US highway network has been a topic of continuous study by researchers
and highway agencies. Several software packages have been developed
to predict the pavement responses to traffic based on the axle load and
axle configuration. The responses obtained are then incorporated into
models to predict pavement distresses, e.g. permanent deformation (rut-
ting) and/or cracking, as a function of vehicular traffic. Several com-
puter programs have been released to calculate stresses (e.g. BISAR, EL-
SYM5, WESLEA) based on linear elasto-static layered theory. A natural
extension of layered elastic programs has been the viscoelastic-plastic
programs such as VESYS [12,27]. Saliba [18] described a brief review
of the mathematical theory of visco-plasticity and the computational
procedure used to model tire/soil interaction.
Finite element techniques provide the flexibility for incorporating
nonlinear and viscoelastic-plastic behavior of a system. Chen et al.
[4] compared the results obtained by ABAQUS with the ones coming
from layered-elastic programs under the same circumstances. Zaghloul
and White [26] compared the AASHTO load equivalency factors with
responses from a three-dimensional (3-D) dynamic finite element (FE)
model of an asphalt layer on top of a granular base as well as for full
depth asphalt pavements. The Pavement-ME software contains a multi-
layered linear elastic theory program called JULEA, developed by Uzan
[24]. That program uses an algorithm for calculating IRI based on the
quarter-car model to predict the rehabilitation required for a pavement
section [7]. Mulungye et al. [15] used viscoelastic response models from
ANSYS/ED finite element software to characterize the response of flex-
ible pavements under traffic load. They also analyzed the dynamic re-
sponse of flexible pavements in relation to tire pressure, axle load and
axle configuration, considering non-linear viscoelastic characteristics of
pavement material and cyclic wheel loads [16]. Shi and Cai [20] formu-
lated a three-dimensional (3D) vehicle-pavement coupled model using
ANSYS to simulate the pavement dynamic loads induced by the vehicle-
pavement interaction considering road surface condition and vehicle
parameters consisting of vehicle speed, weight, damping, and rigidity
to reflect the vehicle’s suspension system. Tirado et al. [23] developed
a process based on a mechanistic-empirical (ME) analysis to estimate
the permit fees based on truck-axle loading and configuration and the
associated predicted pavement deterioration using a finite element pro-
gram called IntPave. The authors conducted a parametric study show-
ing how the truck gross vehicle weight and axle configuration, as well
as the pavement structure and the damage threshold to rehabilitation
affect the permit fee. Xu et al. [25] used a quarter vehicle model to
calculate the dynamic tire force variation due to surface roughness in
jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCPs) to predict long-term degrada-
tion. The study also considered the deflection and flexural temperature

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: misaghi.sh@gmail.com (S. Misaghi), ctirado@utep.edu (C. Tirado), nazarian@utep.edu (S. Nazarian), ccarras@utep.edu (C. Carrasco).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.treng.2021.100045
Received 10 June 2020; Received in revised form 31 December 2020; Accepted 1 January 2021
2666-691X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al.
variations due to curling. A whole life pavement performance model was
proposed considering the dynamic interaction between vehicles and the
JPCP pavement, yet the case study did not consider the feedback of
surface and structural degradation during the pavement’s service life.
Elnashar et al. [6] evaluated the effects of suspension damping and vehi-
cle speed on flexible pavements. In that study, the vehicle was simulated
as a two-degree-of-freedom quarter-vehicle model, and the pavement-
foundation system was described by a simply supported Euler-Bernoulli
beam on top of a Pasternak model foundation. The dynamic responses
of the system were investigated using the Newmark-𝛽 method. The au-
thors observed the coupled system responses decreased with increasing
suspension damping, and its impact on the pavement dynamics is more
significant is stiffer and rougher pavements.
In summary, none of these studies consider the gradual increase in
the dynamic loads exerted to the pavement due to the vehicle-road in-
teraction as the pavement surface roughness gradually increases.
Objective
The main objective of this paper is to present a method that incorpo-
rates the effects of the road-vehicle interaction in the assessment of the
pavement performance. The truck-pavement interaction was modeled to
estimate the additional dynamic loads exerted to pavements due to the
interaction of the truck suspension system and the road surface rough-
ness. This procedure can be easily integrated into a tool that makes use
of finite element analysis to predict pavement response due to truck traf-
fic loads and that is capable to predict pavement distresses. The method
described in the paper was utilized to periodically modify the amplitude
of load applied to the pavement as it becomes more distressed.
Dynamic load coefficient
The road roughness may exert additional loads to each wheel. A
typical dynamic axle load probability density distribution, as shown in
Fig. 1, represents the likelihood that the wheel load would have a given
magnitude as it moves along a pavement section. The distribution has a
2
Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045
Fig. 1. Probability of distribution of dynamic load under
wheel [9].
mean value, 𝐹̄ , that is usually assumed to be equal to the static load, and
a standard deviation, 𝜎. The dynamic load coefficient (DLC) is defined
as a dimensionless variable obtained by dividing the standard deviation
by the mean static load [9]. In an equation form, this relationship is
shown as
𝜎
𝐷𝐿𝐶 = _ (1)
𝐹
The DLC concept allows the probabilistic magnitude of the dynamic axle
load at a certain vehicle speed and road roughness to be determined.
Theoretically, a truck passing over a smooth pavement should have a
DLC close to zero.
Tire force time-history can be used to determine the statistical dis-
tribution parameters. If N measurements of tire forces, fk , are available,
𝜎 is derived from:
1 ∑𝑁
𝜎2 = 𝑓2 (2)
𝑁 𝑘=1 𝑘
The dynamic impact factor, DI, which can be multiplied by the static
load to determine the dynamic load due to vehicle-pavement interac-
tion, is estimated from:
𝐷𝐼 = 1 + 𝑍𝑟 × 𝐷𝐿𝐶 (3)
where Zr is reliability index considered.
Cebon [2] experimentally measured the dynamic loads under rigid 3-
and 4-axle trucks. Sprung mass, unsprung mass and dynamic tire forces
were measured during his experiments. The results explained several es-
sential features of heavy vehicle vibration behaviors. Other researchers
have conducted experiments to obtain the DLC using weigh-in-motion
(WIM) sensors mounted on the tire-pavement interface [8] or stress-in-
motion (SIM) measuring mats [5]. Cebon [2] also attempted to validate
the 2- and 3-dimensional numerical models developed for the simula-
tion of those vehicles. The agreement between the behavior of the mod-
els and measurements was acceptable. The author presented additional
guidelines to improve the accuracy from numerical simulations by point-
ing up that road surface roughness is one of the most important factors
that cause discrepancy between the models and measurements [3].
Sweatman [22] studied the influences of the vehicle speed and
roughness on DLC with different suspension systems. His study showed
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al.
Table 1
Percentage usages of different suspension systems (from [14]).
Suspension Percent Usage
Tractors Trailers
Leaf spring 55 - 77 > 80
Walking beam 15 - 25 <2
Air spring 15 - 20 10 - 15
Other 2-4 Nil
that the DLC was linearly related to the vehicle speed. Sun [21] con-
ducted a numerical simulation of IRI by using the power spectral density
(PSD) obtained from Newmark sequential integration. Statistical analy-
sis of his simulations showed a linear relation between the IRI and the
standard deviation of relative sprung mass vertical velocity. That study
showed that if the PSD of roughness was defined by a polynomial func-
tion, the IRI could be calculated simply by means of the square root of
the sum of the weighted regression coefficients of roughness PSD.
Park et al. [17] conducted numerical simulations using a two-
dimensional (2D) half-truck FE model using OpenSees. The model con-
sisted of four elastic beam elements for the vehicle frame, four elastic
springs and four dashpot zero-length elements for the suspension and
tires. The study consisted on simulating the moving of the vehicle pass-
ing through a typical horizontal land rigid road pavement with different
IRI and travel velocities. Similar to other studies, the DLC increased as
road roughness and vehicle speed increased.
Kazemi et al. [11] investigated the impact of roughness-induced dy-
namic truck axle loadings on the pavement responses of two different
pavement structures using 3D-Move. The authors introduced a parame-
ter called the Dynamic Response Coefficient (DRC), based on the coef-
ficient of variation for a specific response at a specific point within the
pavement structure, to account for the variation in pavement responses
under variation in dynamic loading. Their results showed that the DRC
differed from the DLC, and also found that DRC was highly sensitive to
temperature and location within the pavement structure.
The studies presented hereby agree that, given the impact of the
pavement-vehicle interaction on the applied load to the pavement, it is
desirable that software packages that predict pavement performance be
powered by a method that considers the road-vehicle interaction.
Suspension systems
Three types of suspensions are popular in the US and throughout the
world. As reflected in Table 1, the most common suspension types are
the leaf spring, the walking beam, and the air spring suspension. Spring
ride suspensions, i.e. leaf spring and walking beams, consist of several
strips (leaves) of steel with rectangular cross sections are formed into
semi-elliptical arcs and tied together. The axle is secured to the center
of the arc, while the two ends are connected to the vehicle frame. The
stacked strips act as a spring to carry the payload of the truck elasti-
cally. These springs also absorb the energy by dry (‘Coulomb’) friction
among leaves and contact points. Parabolic leaf spring is the newest de-
sign that uses fewer leaves. In this design, the thickness of the leaves
changes from the center to the end following a parabolic curve. Bene-
fits of this type of design are reducing weight and better flexibility. Leaf
spring suspensions are usually used for tandem, tridem or more than
three axles. Traditionally, the behavior of leaf springs is modeled using
simple beam theory. The walking beam suspension system consists of
two sets of leaf springs rigidly supported by beams that transmit the
load to a beam centrally pivoted. Upper and lower shock insulators are
attached to the beam at each side of the walking beam, and a large cap
clamps the insulators to the axles. No shock absorbers are used in this
system.
3
Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045
Methodology
Two different approaches for solving a model excited by a rough
pavement can be pursued. This problem can be either solved in the time-
domain or the frequency-domain [3]. The time-domain simulations are
particularly attractive for nonlinear dynamic systems. The main concern
with this type of solution is the computation time because of the intense
numerical integration algorithms necessary. For complex dynamic sys-
tems that can be approximated as linear systems, the frequency domain
solutions are preferred. In this study a frequency domain solution, based
on the frequency response model, was implemented.
Frequency response model is an input/output linear model with the
applied force being the input and displacement being the output [3].
For a given frequency, 𝜔, the input and output are related according to:
𝑈 ( 𝜔 ) = 𝐻 (𝜔 ) × 𝐹 ( 𝜔 ) (4)
where U(𝜔) is a vector of displacements at frequency 𝜔, F(𝜔) is the vec-
tor of resulting forces at frequency 𝜔 and H(𝜔) is called the frequency
response function (FRF) or transfer function. The FRF is a matrix whose
elements are related to the masses, spring constants and damping char-
acteristic of the suspension system. Since the goal is to obtain the forces
from known displacements, Eq. (4) can be rearranged to:
𝐹 (𝜔) = 𝐻 (𝜔)∗ × 𝑈 (𝜔) × 𝐻 (𝜔)𝑇 (5)
where symbols ∗ and T signify the complex conjugate and the transpose
of matrix H(𝜔). In terms of power spectral density, the equation can be
rephrased to [3]:
[ ] [ ]
𝑆𝐹 (𝜔) = [𝐻 (𝜔)]∗ × 𝑆𝑢 (𝜔) × [𝐻 (𝜔)]𝑇 (6)
where SF (𝜔) is a matrix of the power spectral densities of tire forces,
Su (𝜔) is a matrix of road profile power spectral density of displacement.
Element H(i,j) of the matrix H(𝜔) is the dynamic force generated by tire
i due to a unit harmonic displacement input at tire j.
Simulating road roughness profile
The serviceability of a pavement is traditionally determined by its
smoothness. The serviceability concept was first described by Carey and
Irick [1] at the AASHO road test. The World Bank developed the In-
ternational Roughness Index (IRI) as a quantitative expression of the
smoothness of a pavement [19]. The IRI (ASTM E 1926) is defined as
the average rectified slope (ARS) which is a ratio of accumulated suspen-
sion motion to the distance traveled. A mathematical model of a quarter
car one-wheel vehicle passing a measured profile at 80 km/h is used for
that purpose.
Since there is not a direct approach to simulate a road based on a
given IRI, a road corresponding to an IRI is reproduced to assess the im-
pact of road roughness. Based on measurements on European roads, ISO
[10] proposed Eq. (7) to relate the vertical profile (u) spectral density
to wavenumber:
{ −𝑛
𝑆𝑢 (𝜅0 )( 𝜅𝜅 ) 1 𝜅
𝜅0
≤1
𝑆𝑢 (𝜅) = 0
𝜅 −𝑛2 𝜅 (7)
𝑆 𝑢 ( 𝜅0 ) ( 𝜅 ) 𝜅
> 1,
0 0
where 𝜅 = wavenumber, cycle/m, 𝜅 0 = datum wavenumber, cycle/m,
Su (𝜅) = displacement spectral density, m3 /cycle, and Su (𝜅 0 ) = spectral
density at 𝜅 0 , m3 /cycle or initial spectral density.
After several iterations, Cebon [3] recommended the following val-
ues for other parameters in Eq. (7), n1 = 3, n2 = 2.25, k0 = 1/(2𝜋)
cycles/m. The initial power spectral density is the power of spectral
density at datum wavenumber (1/2𝜋). The initial power displacement
spectral density Su (𝜅 0 ) is the parameter which generates different road
conditions. Table 2 provides a relationship between Su (𝜅 0 ) and the sub-
jective road roughness.
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al. Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045

Fig. 2. Simulated road with average road condition

(Su (𝜅 0 ) = 32 × 10−6 m3 /cycle).

Table 2
Relationship between Su (𝜅 0 ) and road roughness (from [3]).

Road Class Su (𝜅 0 )/10−6 m3 /cycle

Very Good 2-8

Good 8 - 32
Average 32 - 128
Poor 128 - 512
Very Poor 512 - 2048

The inverse Fourier transform of Su (𝜅), provides a harmonic road

profile (elevation vs. distance) that is associated with a given wavenum-
ber, k. To simulate a road profile, many wavenumbers should be con-
sidered and summed as reflected in Eq. (8) (from [3]):

∑𝑁−1 √ 2𝜋𝑘𝑟
𝑍𝑟 = 𝑘=0 𝑆𝑘 𝑒𝑖(𝜃𝑘 + 𝑁
)
𝑟 = 0, 1, 2, ..., 𝑁 − 1 (8) Fig. 3. Correlation between Su (𝜅 0 ) and IRI.

where, N = number of wavenumbers considered, Sk = (2𝜋/NΔ)S11 (𝛾 k ),

S11 (𝛾 k ) = target spectral density, 𝛾 k = (2𝜋k/NΔ) = the wavenumber in
rad/m, Δ = distance interval between successive ordinates of the surface
profile, and {𝜃 k } = a set of independent random phase angles uniformly
distributed between 0 and 2𝜋.
Fig. 2 shows a sample of road profile spectral density for an average
road condition (Su (𝜅 0 ) = 32 × 10−6 m3 /cycle). To develop this graph, k
was varied between 0.02 and 4 at 0.01 increments. As indicated before,
IRI is a filtered ratio of a standard vehicle’s accumulated suspension mo-
tion divided by the distance traveled by the vehicle during the measure-
ment. A specific quarter car is used in the calculation of the IRI. ASTM
E-1926 contains a detailed algorithm for filtering the data to remove the
road grade and the very long undulations from the measured data and
transforming the data to the motion of the suspension of the quarter car.
A virtual slope, which is the sum of the absolute values of the profile
divided by the distant travelled is then calculated to represent the IRI.
A Matlab subroutine, which took advantage of the detailed ASTM E-
1926 algorithm to calculate IRI, was developed using the ISO proposed
equation (Eq. (7)). Being concerned about the impact of the random
number generator used to define {𝜃 k }, the simulation was repeated 1000
times. To satisfy the ASTM E 1364 recommendation, a sampling interval
of less than 300 mm (i.e., 250 mm) was used along the pavement. The
statistical data obtained from the simulation process for a number of
road roughnesses are listed in Table 3.
The correlation between the average IRI and Su (𝜅 0 ) in Table 3 is
shown in Fig. 3. The two parameters correlate well with an R2 value of
close to unity. The proposed equation for estimating Su (𝜅 0 ) from IRI is
then:
𝑆𝑢 (𝑘0 ) = 2.52(𝐼 𝑅𝐼 )2.37 . (9)
This equation is very convenient in terms of estimating the abstract pa-
rameter Su (𝜅 0 ) from the commonly known IRI and can be used for se-
lecting appropriate Su (𝜅 0 ) for a known IRI.
The transfer matrix [H(𝜔)] is related to the response of the sys-
tem. If a road roughness displacement spectral density is assumed as
𝑢(𝑡) = 𝑢̄ 𝑒𝑖𝜔𝑡 , the vector of generalized force follows 𝑄(𝑡) = 𝑄̄ 𝑒𝑖𝜔𝑡 [3],
where parameter 𝑄̄ can be obtained from:
𝑄̄ = [𝐷][𝑅]𝑢̄ (10)
with [R] = [diag(kt + i𝜔ct )] and [D] is the linear transformation ma-
trix, and kt and ct are the spring ratio and damping coefficient of the
tire, respectively. The linear transformation matrix, which is based on

4
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al. Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045

Table 3
Statistical information about IRI for 1000 simulations.

Descriptive Statistics Road Roughness Initial Power Displacement Spectral Density Su (𝜅 0 ) (10−6 m3 /cycle)

2 8 32 128 512 2048

Average IRI (mm/m) 1.1 1.4 2.7 5.2 9.7 17.4

Standard Deviation of IRI (mm/m) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.2
Coefficient of Variation of IRI 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 7%

Table 4 different parameters impact with speed on the DI, the baseline parame-
Specifications assumed for single tandem leaf spring baseline. ters were multipled by 14 , 12 , 2 and 4 times to consider a wide range of
Symbol Parameter Value values.
Fig. 4 shows the impact of varying the first and second suspension
ms Sprung Mass 6700 kg
stiffnesses from 1 MN/m to 16 MN/m simultaneously. In this figure,
mu1 = mu2 Unsprung Mass 500 kg
Is Pitch Inertia 930 kg⋅m2 as well as the following ones, baseline stiffness properties shown in
cs1 = cs2 Suspension Damping 80 kN⋅s/m Table 4 are represented in solid black. This figure clearly shows that
ct1 = ct2 Tire Damping 4 kN⋅s/m DI increases with increasing vehicle speed and spring stiffness. For a
ks1 = ks2 Suspension Stiffness 4 MN/m
stiffness of 16 MN/m and a speed of 137 km/h, the load applied to
kt1 = kt2 Tire Stiffness 3.5 MN/m
IRI Road Roughness 2 mm/m
the pavement is about 1.88 times the static load. However, a decrease
in magnitude of DI will occur if only one suspension stiffness is var-
ied while the second one is maintained at 4 MN/m, as shown in Fig. 5.
In this case, the dynamic load is only 1.45 times the static load for a
geometry of the model, describes how much force is transferred to each
stiffness of 16 MN/m and a speed of 137 km/h.
wheel.
Likewise, the impact of the tire stiffness was evaluated by keeping all
Generally, the equation of motion for a linear vehicle model can be
other parameters constant. As shown in Fig. 6, the tire stiffness does not
written in matrix form as:
have much of an impact on DI. The impact of the suspension damping
[𝑀 ]𝑞̈ + [𝐶 ]𝑞̇ + [𝐾 ]𝑞 = 𝑄 (11) characteristics on DI is shown in Fig. 7. The suspension damping co-
efficient significantly impacts the DI, especially as the vehicular speed
where [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the damping matrix, and [K] is the
increases.
stiffness matrix. Combining Eqs. (10) and (11), one obtains:
At a given speed, DI decreases with the increase in the suspen-
[𝐵 ]𝑞̄ = [𝐷][𝑅]𝑢̄ (12) sion damping coefficient, except for a very high damping coefficient
(320 kN⋅s/m) that DI slightly increases. Even though not shown here,
where the damping coefficient of the tire has a minimal effect on DI.
[𝐵 ] = −𝜔2 [𝑀 ] + 𝑖𝜔[𝐶 ] + [𝐾 ]. (13) The impact of the load applied to the suspension (from 20% under to
20% over legal limits) is shown in Fig. 8. Similar to the previous case,
The vector of dynamic tire amplitude 𝐹̄𝑡 is given by as the load increases, the DI slightly decreases. This decrease is more
𝐹̄𝑡 = [𝑅]([𝐷]𝑇 𝑞 − 𝑢̄ ). (14) pronounced at higher speeds.
Finally, the impact of the change in IRI on DI is shown in Fig. 9.
Substitution of Eqs. (12) and (13) into Eq. (14) one obtains: At low speeds the change in dynamic load is small as the IRI increases.
𝐹̄𝑡 = [𝐻(𝜔)]𝑢̄ (15) However, as the speed increases, the DI is significantly impacted by the
IRI.
where
Impact of the dynamic impact (DI) factor and pavement distresses on
[𝐻(𝜔)] = [𝑅]([𝐷]𝑇 [𝐵 ]−1 [𝐷][𝑅] − [𝐼 ]) (16)
progress of deterioration
For n tires, matrices [R] and [D] can be defined as:
The previous section showed that the truck suspension system char-
⎡𝑘𝑡 + 𝑖𝜔𝑐𝑡1 0 ⋯ 0 ⎤
⎢ 1 0 𝑘𝑡2 + 𝑖𝜔𝑐𝑡2 0 ⋮ ⎥ acteristics and the road roughness have an impact on the magnitude
𝑅𝑛×𝑛 =⎢ ⎥ (17) of the load exerted to a pavement which, consequently, also affect the
⎢ ⋮ 0 ⋱ 0 ⎥
⎢ pavement distresses. In the case of flexible pavements, this increase in
⎣ 0 ⋯ 0 𝑘𝑡𝑛 + 𝑖𝜔𝑐𝑡𝑛 ⎥⎦
load magnitude will speed up propagation of fatigue cracks and rutting.
Thus, this will eventually lead to faster deterioration, and consequently,
⎡0 0 0 ⋯ 0⎤
⎢0 0 0 ⋯ 0⎥
a reduction in pavement service life. As these distresses increase with the
⎢ ⎥ number of truck passes, the road roughness will change as well. After
⎢1 0 0 ⋯ 0⎥
an extensive literature search, the WesTrack model [13] was selected
𝐷𝑛+2×𝑛 = ⎢0 1 0 ⋯ 0⎥ (18)
⎢ ⎥ to evaluate the impact of the additional loads on the surface rough-
⎢0 0 1 ⋯ 0⎥
⎢0 ness. This model relates the IRI and the major distress types for flexible
0 0 ⋱ 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ pavements. The proposed relationship was developed using field mea-
⎣0 0 0 ⋯ 1⎦
surements obtained from testing conducted at the WesTrack accelerated
pavement testing facility which involved pavement sections with differ-
Single tandem leaf spring suspension impact on dynamic impact
ent asphalt pavements and similar subsurface structure, as well as same
(DI) factor
traffic loading and environmental conditions with no frost heaving. This
model was evaluated using LTPP data was observed to have an average
A parametric study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the sus-
difference of 13.9% from the actual measured values. The relationship
pension spring stiffness and the pavement roughness on the dynamic
is in the form of
impact. For this purpose, a single tandem, leaf spring suspension system
with properties shown in Table 4 was used as baseline. To evaluate the 𝐼 𝑅𝐼 = 0.597𝐼 𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 + 0.0094𝐹 𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒% + 0.00847𝑅𝑢𝑡𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ + 0.382 (19)

5
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al. Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045

Fig. 4. Impact of suspension spring stiffness on DI for single

1.88
2.00
Spring Stiffnesses, MN/m tandem leaf spring.
1 2 4 8 16

1.68
1.80

1.61
Dynamic Impact Factor

1.53
1.60

1.47

1.37
1.36
1.36

1.29
1.40

1.25
1.25

1.22

1.21
1.20
1.17
1.15
1.15

1.15
1.13
1.11
1.10

1.09
1.20
1.06
1.04
1.03

1.00
8 40 72 105 137
Vehicle Speed (km/hr)

Fig. 5. Impact of varying one suspension spring stiffness on

1.45
1.50

1.43
First Spring Stiffness, MN/m DI for single tandem leaf spring.

1.37
1 2 4 8 16

1.35
1.40

1.33

1.29
1.29
Dynamic Impact Factor

1.27
1.25

1.24
1.30
1.23
1.22
1.21

1.19
1.18

1.17
1.15

1.15

1.20
1.12
1.11
1.08
1.07
1.06
1.04
1.04

1.10

1.00
8 40 72 105 137
Vehicle Speed (km/hr)

1.50 Fig. 6. Impact of the tire stiffness on DI for single tandem leaf
Tire Stiffness, MN/m spring.
1.38
1.37
1.37
1.37

0.875 1.75 3.5 7 14

1.40
1.32
1.31
1.30
1.29
Dynamic Impact Factor

1.28
1.25

1.24

1.30
1.23
1.22
1.20
1.17
1.16
1.16
1.15

1.20
1.13
1.10
1.06
1.06
1.06

1.10
1.03
1.02

1.00
8 40 72 105 137
Vehicle Speed (km/hr)

where IRI is measured in mm/m, RutDepth is in millimeters, and Fa- written as:
tigue% is the percentage of fatigue cracking in total lane area. This re- 𝑁2
lationship allows for an iterative process where, as rutting and fatigue 𝑅 𝐷 (𝑁 ) = 𝑈 ⋅ 𝜇 ⋅ 𝑁 −𝛼 𝑑𝑁, (21)
∫𝑁1
cracking progress, the IRI and the DI are updated.
In the performance model, the progression of rutting with load rep- where RD is the rut depth at the Nth load repetition and U is the layer
etition, N, was calculated using the VESYS model [12,27] in the form elastic deflection.
To predict fatigue cracking the Asphalt Institute MS-1 model was im-
plemented. Such model is suggested by the MEPDG as well [7]. Fatigue
𝜇 cracking is assumed to be related to tensile strain, 𝜀t , occurring at the
𝜀𝑝 = ⋅ 𝜀 ⋅ 𝑁 1−𝛼 , (20)
1−𝛼 𝑟 bottom of the HMA layers (bottom-up cracking). The form of the load
repetitions to failure of the cracking model is as follows:
where 𝜀p is the accumulated permanent strain, 𝜀r is the resilient elastic −𝑘2 −𝑘
𝑁𝑓 = 𝑘1 𝜀𝑡 𝐸𝐴𝐶𝑃
3
(22)
strain and 𝛼 and 𝜇 are the rate of increase in permanent deformation
against the number of load applications and the permanent deformation, where Nf is the number of load applications to failure, k1 = 0.0796,
respectively. The total elastic strain within a pavement layer is simply k2 = 3.291, and k3 = 0.854 are regression parameters based on a thresh-
the total compression of that layer, given by the difference in deflections old value of 20% cracked area and a typical HMA mix. Fatigue cracking
of the top and bottom of the layer [27]. For any layer this difference is predictions are calculated based on Miner’s law for cumulative damage,

6
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al. Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045

1.61
1.70 Damping Coefficients, kNs/m Suspension
20 40 80 160 320
1.60 characteristics
Dynamic Impact Factor

1.47

1.47
1.50

1.40
1.37
1.36
Road condition

1.35
1.35

1.32
1.40

1.29
1.27
1.27

1.25
1.24

1.22
1.30

1.21
1.19
1.19
DI calculation

1.15
1.15
1.20
1.09

1.07
1.07
1.06
1.06

1.10
Pavement static
1.00 response
8 40 72 105 137
Vehicle Speed (km/hr)
Pavement
IRI recalculation
distresses
Fig. 7. Impact of damping coefficients on DI for single tandem leaf spring.

1.50 Fig. 10. Progressive growth of IRI due to additional surface roughness devel-
Sprung Mass, kg
oped by growth of pavement distresses due to truck passes.

1.41
1.39
Dynamic Impact Factor

5369 6040 6711 7382 8053

1.37
1.36
1.35
1.40
1.32
1.30
1.29

HMA E = 3500 MPa, H = 75 mm., ν = 0.33 α = 0.78, μ = 0.25

1.28
1.27
1.24

1.30
1.23
1.22
1.21

E = 350 MPa, H = 300 mm., ν = 0.33, α = 0.74, μ = 0.40

1.20

Base
1.17
1.16
1.15
1.15
1.14

1.20
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.05

1.10 Subgrade E = 70 MPa, ν = 0.33, α = 0.90, μ = 0.40

1.00
8 40 72 105 137
Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Fig. 11. Control pavement section.

Fig. 8. Impact of sprung mass on DI for single tandem leaf spring.

quires the recalculation of DI after each truck pass since additional pave-
1.60

ment distress can cause additional roughness. This additional roughness

1.60
IRI, mm/m consequently leads to an increase of the dynamic loading, as shown in
1.49
1.46

1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1.50 Fig. 10. These additional dynamic loads result in a continuous increase
1.38

1.37

in rate of rutting and fatigue cracking that speeds up pavement deterio-

1.35
Dynamic Impact Factor

1.40
ration even further.
1.29
1.28

1.25
1.24

1.30 To evaluate the impact of a variable IRI to a constant DI, both ap-
1.22
1.20

1.20

1.18

proaches were evaluated using a 356 kN T3-S2 tractor-semitrailer stan-

1.15

1.15

1.14

1.20
1.10

1.10
1.09

dard truck simulated with traveling at speed of 90 km/h on a typical

1.07

1.07
1.06
1.04
1.03

1.10 pavement in Texas, whose properties are shown in Fig. 11.

1.00 The progressions of rutting, fatigue cracking and IRI with and with-
8 40 72 105 137 out progressive increase in the dynamic loads are shown in Fig. 12. For
Vehicle Speed (km/hr) a terminal rut depth of 15 mm, the life of the pavement decreases by a
factor of 2.08 (from 1.31 million passes to 0.63 million passes) when the
Fig. 9. Impact of IRI on DI for single tandem leaf spring. progressive IRI approach is used (see Fig. 12a). Similarly, for a terminal
fatigue cracking of 40%, the life of the pavement decreases by a factor
of 1.67 (from 1.07 million passes to 0.64 million passes) when the pro-
D,
gressive IRI approach (see Fig. 12b). Even though the change in IRI is
∑𝑇 reasonably significant between the two approaches, it seems that the IRI
𝑛𝑖
𝐷= (23) is not as drastically impacted by the consideration of the progressive DI
𝑖=1
𝑁𝑓 𝑖
as compared to rutting or fatigue cracking (Fig. 12c). This phenomenon
where ni = traffic for period i. This is later used for calculating the fa- may be a reason for the under-prediction of the progression of damage
tigued cracking area in current pavement design models.
( ) ( )
6000 1
𝐹 .𝐶. = ⋅ (24)
1 + 𝑒𝐶1 +𝐶2 log10 (100𝐷)
′ ′
60
Summary and conclusions
where C′2 = -2.40874 – 39.748 (1 + hac )−2.856 , C′1 = -2C′2 , and hac is
the total thickness of the asphalt layers [7]. A process has been presented to accommodate the additional dy-
After every single truck pass, additional deterioration takes place namic loads exerted to pavements due to the interaction of a truck sus-
and, as a consequence, the pavement becomes rougher. To evaluate the pension system and the road surface, represented by the dynamic impact
progress of deterioration in roughness, two different criteria were de- (DI) factor. After a parametric study, it was found that the suspension
veloped based on a constant DI and a progressive IRI (variable DI). The spring stiffness and the pavement roughness influence the DI. It was
constant DI criterion was established for the calculation of IRI based found the dynamic impact significantly increases with an increase in ve-
on an initial IRI, i.e. the opening road condition, and DI is assumed hicle speed. Also, the suspension damping coefficient had a significant
to stay constant regardless of the growth of pavement distresses due to impact on the DI, particularly with an increase in speed. However, the
truck traffic, i.e. no additional dynamic loads develop due to an increase impact of tire stiffness on DI seemed be less significant when compared
in surface roughness. On the other hand, a progressive IRI criterion re- to aforesaid parameters.

7
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al. Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045

20 80 Fig. 12. Progressive IRI approach to constant DI dam-

(a) Rutting (b) Fatigue Cracking age comparison on (a) rutting, (b) fatigue cracking and

Fatigue Cracking (%)

(c) IRI (surface roughness) with number of standard
15 60
Rutting (mm)

Failure Criterion truck passes.

10 40
Failure Criterion

5 20

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Standard Truck Passes (millions) Standard Truck Passes (millions)

2.0
(c) Surface Roughness
1.8
IRI (mm/m)

1.6 Constant DI
1.4 Progressive DI

1.2

1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Standard Truck Passes (millions)

This described methodology was incorporated into an algorithm that
made use of a finite element program and used to obtain the response of
a typical flexible pavement to a standard truck loading. The algorithm
was coupled with mechanistic-empirical distress models to predict pave-
ment damage to evaluate the impact the DI has on the rate of deteriora-
tion. This involved the comparison of two approaches, one considering
a constant DI factor and another involving the continuous growth in DI,
which involved the additional dynamic loads due to the deterioration
of the pavement with truck traffic. The additional dynamic loads due to
vehicle-road interaction was found to have a significant impact on the
deterioration of pavement in terms of rutting and fatigue cracking and
a smaller impact on the functional performance of the pavement.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Ohio Department
of Transportation (ODOT) for funding this study and providing valu-
able input. The contents of this paper reflect the authors’ opinions, not
necessarily the policies and findings of the listed agencies.
References
[1] W.N. Carey, P.E. Irick, The pavement serviceability–performance concept, Highw.
Res. Board Bull. (1960) 40–58.
[2] D. Cebon, Heavy vehicle vibration - a case study, in: Proceedings of the 9th IAVSD
Symposium on the Dynamic of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, 1985.
[3] D. Cebon, Handbook of Vehicle-Road Interaction, Swets and Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse,
The Netherlands, 1999.
[4] D.H. Chen, M. Zaman, J. Laguros, A. Soltani, Assessment of computer programs
for analysis of flexible pavement structure, Transp. Res. Rec. 1482 (137) (1995)
123–133.
[5] M. De Beer, C. Fisher, Stress-in-motion (SIM) system for capturing tri-axial tyre–road
interaction in the contact patch, Measurement 46 (7) (2013) 2155–2173.
[6] G. Elnashar, R.B. Bhat, R. Sedaghati, Modeling and dynamic analysis of a vehi-
cle-flexible pavement coupled system subjected to road surface excitation, J. Mech.
Sci. Technol. 33 (7) (2019) 3115–3125.
[7] ERES Consultants, IncGuide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabil-
itated Pavement Structures. ELEC Final Report – NCHRP Project 1-37A. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 2004.
[8] J. Gajda, P. Burnos, R. Sroka, Accuracy assessment of weigh-in-motion systems
for vehicle’s direct enforcement, IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 10 (1) (2018)
88–94.
[9] T.D. Gillespie, S.M. Karamihas, M.W. Sayers, M.A. Nasim, W. Hansen, N. Ehsan,
D. Cebon, Effects of Heavy Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Per-
formance, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
DC, 1993 NCHRP Report 353.
[10] International Organization for StandardizationMechanical Vibration – Road Surface
Profiles – Reported of Measured Data. ISO 8068: 1995 (E), Technical Committee
ISO/TC, Mechanical Vibration, Shock. Subcommittee SC2 Measurement, Evaluation
of Mechanical Vibration, & Shock as Applied to Machines, International Organiza-
tion for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.
[11] S.F. Kazemi, P.E. Sebaaly, R.V. Siddharthan, E.Y. Hajj, A.J. Hand, M. Ahsanuzza-
man, Dynamic pavement response coefficient to estimate the impact of variation in
dynamic vehicle load, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the
Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, 2017, pp. 702–718.
[12] W.J. Kenis, VESYS users manual: Predictive design procedures, Federal Highway
Administration, 1977, FHWA A-RD-77-154.
[13] J.A. Mactutis, S.H. Alavi, W.C. Ott, Investigation of relationship between roughness
and pavement surface distress based on WesTrack project, in: Transportation Re-
search Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1699, Transporta-
tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2000, pp. 107–113.
[14] J.R. Morris, Effects of Heavy Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response -
Phase 1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, 1987.
[15] R.M. Mulungye, P.M.O. Owende, K. Mellon, Analysis of response of flexible pave-
ments using finite element methods, Inst. Technol. Blanch. J. (2005) 40–52.
[16] R.M. Mulungye, P.M.O. Owende, K. Mellon, Finite element modelling of flexible
pavements on soft soil subgrades, Mater. Des. 28 (3) (2007) 739–756.
[17] D.-W. Park, A.T. Papagiannakis, I.T. Kim, Analysis of dynamic vehicle loads us-
ing vehicle pavement interaction model, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 18 (7) (2014) 2085–
2092.
[18] J.E. Saliba, Elastic-viscoplastic finite-element program for modeling tire/soil inter-
action, J. Aircr. 27 (1990) 350–357.
[19] M.W. Sayers, T.D. Gillespie, W.D.O. Paterson, Guidelines for Conducting and Cali-
brating Road Roughness Measurements, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1986
World Bank Technical Paper Number 46.
[20] X.M. Shi, C.S. Cai, Simulation of dynamic effects of vehicles on pavement using a
3D interaction model, J. Transp. Eng. 135 (10) (2009) 736–744.
[21] L. Sun, Simulation of pavement roughness and iri based on power spectral density,
Math. Comput. Simul. 61 (2003) 77–88.
[22] P.F. Sweatman, A Study of Dynamic Wheel Forces in Axle Group Suspensions of
Heavy Vehicles, Australian Road Research Board, 1983.

8
S. Misaghi, C. Tirado, S. Nazarian et al.
[23] C. Tirado, C. Carrasco, J.M. Mares, N. Gharaibeh, S. Nazarian, J. Bendaña, Process
to estimate permit costs for movement of heavy trucks on flexible pavements, in:
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
2154, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC,
2010, pp. 187–196.
[24] J. Uzan, JULEA Linear Elastic Analysis Computer Program, US Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1989.
[25] M.C. Xu, R. Roebuck, D. Cebon, Modelling the performance of jointed plain con-
crete pavements to dynamic vehicle loads, in: Proceedings of the 13th International
Transportation Engineering 3 (2021) 100045
Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Transport Technology (HVTT13), San Luis, Argentina,
2014.
[26] S. Zaghloul, T.D. White, Load equivalency factors for asphalt pavements (with dis-
cussion), J. Assoc. Asphalt Pav. Technol. 63 (1994).
[27] Zhou, F. and T. Scullion. VESYS5 Rutting Model Calibrations with Local Accelerated
Pavement Test Data and Associated Implementation. TX Report No. 9-1502-01-2.
FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Texas Transportation Institute, College
Station, 2002.