Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Journal of Pavement Engineering: Click For Updates
International Journal of Pavement Engineering: Click For Updates
To cite this article: Sara I.R. Amorim, Jorge C. Pais, Aline C. Vale & Manuel J.C. Minhoto (2015) A model for equivalent axle
load factors, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16:10, 881-893, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2014.968570
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2015
Vol. 16, No. 10, 881–893, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.968570
Most design methods for road pavements require the design traffic, based on the transformation of the traffic spectrum, to be
calculated into a number of equivalent passages of a standard axle using the equivalent axle load factors (EALFs).
In general, these factors only consider the type of axle (i.e. single, tandem or tridem), but they do not consider the type of
wheel on the axles, i.e. single or dual wheel. The type of wheel has an important influence on the calculation of the design
traffic. The existing design methods assume that the EALFs are valid for all pavement structures and do not consider the
thickness and stiffness of the pavement layers. This paper presents the results of the development of a model for the
calculation of the EALFs considering the type of axle, the type of wheel and the constitution of the pavement. The model
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
was developed based on the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer that is responsible for bottom-up cracking in
asphalt pavement, which is the most widely considered distress mode for flexible road pavements. The work developed in
this study also presents the influence of the type of wheel (single and dual) on pavement performance. The results of this
work allowed the conclusion that the EALFs for single wheels are approximately 10 times greater than those for a dual
wheel. This work also proposes average values for the EALFs. An artificial neural network was developed to calculate the
EALFs.
Keywords: road pavements; traffic; axle type; wheel type; equivalent single axle load; equivalent axle load factor
1. Introduction group.
Traffic data constitute one of the key elements required X
n
for the design/analysis of pavement structures. Despite the ESAL ¼ EALFi £ ni : ð1Þ
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, where i¼1
traffic is defined by axle load spectra, the number of For flexible pavements, the EALF, which is defined
equivalent single axle loads (ESALs), as defined in the based on experience and on the results of the AASHTO
1993 Association of State Highway and Transportation Road Test (1962), is defined as
Officials (AASHTO) Design Guide, is a required traffic
feature for most pavement structural design procedures, W t18
which use the concept of the equivalent load to transform EALF ¼ ; ð2Þ
W tx
the expected traffic into the design traffic.
The first equivalency factors used to determine the where
number of ESAL were based on the Present Serviceability
Index concept and are dependent on the pavement type and W tx
Log ¼ 4:79 log ð18 þ 1Þ 2 4:79 log ðLx þ L2 Þ
surface thickness of the pavement. W t18
The ESAL uses the concept of the equivalent axle load Gt Gt
þ 4:33 log L2 þ 2 ;
factor (EALF), which defines the ratio between the bx b18
damage caused by the passage of an axle on a pavement ð3Þ
and the damage caused by the passage of a standard axle 4:2 2 pt
Gt ¼ log ; ð4Þ
on the same pavement. This EALF is used in pavement 4:2 2 1:5
design to convert the spectrum of vehicles with different
types of axles (i.e. single, tandem and tridem) into single 0:081ðLx 2 L2 Þ3:23
bx ¼ 0:40 þ ; ð5Þ
axles with dual tires, i.e. the ESAL, by using Equation (1), ðSN þ 1Þ5:19 L3:23
2
where n is the number of axle load groups, i is the number
of the axle load group, EALFi is the EALF for ith axle load where Wt18 is the number of standard 18-kip axle
group and ni is the number of passes of the ith axle load applications, Wtx is the number of x-axle applications,
Lx is the axle load (kip), L2 is the axle code (1 for single P80 is the load of the standard axle.
axle, 2 for tandem axles and 3 for tridem axles), pt is the
terminal serviceability, SN is the structural number (in) Px
EALF ¼ : ð9Þ
and b18 is the value of bx when Lx is equal to 18 and L2 is P80
equal to 1.
In the mechanistic method, the EALF is obtained by The different methods for the calculation of the EALF
the ratio between the pavement life for the standard axle fail to consider the type of axle; they only consider the
and the pavement life for the actual load, as expressed in total load of the axles. However, for tandem and tridem
Equation (2). Using the current pavement terminology, axles, the distance between the axles in the group has an
Equation (2) can be rewritten as important effect on the state of stress and strain in the
pavement and thus has an important effect on the load
N 80 equivalency factor.
EALF ¼ ; ð6Þ
Nx This effect is considered in the French Pavement
Design Manual (LCPC 1994), where the EALF is
where N80 is the pavement life for the standard axle load, generally expressed as Equation (10), where Px is the
usually the 80-kN axle load, and Nx is the pavement life for actual axle load, P80 is the load of the standard axle, k is a
the actual axle load. coefficient that is a function of the type of axle (i.e. single,
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
By considering the pavement life given by fatigue tandem or tridem) (Table 1) and a is a coefficient function
cracking, i.e. the main distress mode that appears in of the type of pavement.
flexible road pavements, the pavement life can be
a
expressed as a function of the asphalt mixture stiffness Px
and the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer, as EALF ¼ k : ð10Þ
P80
expressed in Equation (7), where N is the pavement life, E
is the asphalt mixture stiffness, 1 is the tensile strain at the This method does not consider the effect of the type
bottom of the asphalt layer, and a, b and c are constants of tire on the axles, i.e. single or dual tires, which has an
that are defined experimentally. important influence on the calculation of the EALF. The k
coefficient does not take into account the variety of flexible
N ¼ aE 2b 1 2c : ð7Þ pavements, both in terms of thickness and stiffness of the
pavement layers.
The substitution of Equation (7) into Equation (6) The report of the SPENS project (Kokot and Gaspar
leads to Equation (8), where 1x is the tensile strain for the 2009) summarises the models used to define the load
actual axle, and 180 is the tensile strain for the standard equivalency factors for various countries in Europe. The
axle, which in this case is the 80-kN axle load. only factor that considers the effect of the wheel type is the
c Slovenian method that is defined in Equation (11).
1x
EALF ¼ : ð8Þ
180 EALF ¼ 1028 £ f 0 £ ðf k £ Lstat Þ4 : ð11Þ
Equation (8) is used to calculate the EALF for any where f0 is the factor of axle distribution (single ¼ 2.212,
pavement structure and for any type of axle and tire tandem ¼ 1.583), fk is the factor of wheel distribution
configuration by considering fatigue cracking as the (single ¼ 1.0, double ¼ 0.9) and Lstat is the static axle load
failure criterion. of individual vehicle (kN).
Considering the linear-elastic behaviour of the These equivalency factors depend not only on the type
pavement materials, the tensile strain at the bottom of and thickness of the pavement surface, as stated above, but
the asphalt layers is proportional to the applied load, and also upon the type of distress. Studies from FHWA (2001)
Equation (8) can therefore be rewritten as Equation (9), and ERES Consultants (2001) have shown the effects of
which is the usual expression to convert a given axle load the distress type, failure criteria and other parameters on
to the equivalent load, where Px is the actual axle load and the equivalency or damage factors used to calculate ESAL.
Table 1. Values of the k and a coefficients according to Equation (10) for the French method (LCPC, 1994).
k
a Single axle Tandem axle Tridem axle
Flexible pavement 5 1 0.75 1.1
Rigid and semi-rigid pavements 12 1 12 113
International Journal of Pavement Engineering 883
The concept of an equivalent applied load allows the different road pavements were modelled, with different
pavement designer to consider the damage caused by loads values for the thickness and stiffness of the pavement
of varying magnitudes and axle configurations. Although layers. The asphalt layer thickness was set to values of
pavement damage can be expressed per axle, it is more 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 m, which are representative
convenient to express the damage in terms of the average of all of the flexible pavement structures from low to heavy
amount of damage caused by a particular vehicle, referred traffic. The asphalt layer stiffness was set to values of
to as a truck factor, which is the average number of ESAL 2500, 5000, 7500, 10,000 and 12,500 MPa, which are
applications per vehicle (Smith and Diefenderfer 2009). representative of the cracked asphalt layers up to high
Zaghloul and White (1994) studied the effect of heavy stiffness asphalt layers. The granular layer thickness was
loads on the Indiana highways and developed the EALF set to 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 m, and its stiffness
based on an analytical approach by considering the was twice the subgrade stiffness. The subgrade was
permanent deformation of flexible pavements. The modelled for 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120 MPa. The
approach was developed using a three-dimensional following Poisson’s ratios were considered: 0.35 for
dynamic finite element method for static and dynamic the asphalt layer, 0.40 for the granular layer and 0.45 for
analyses using multi-layer static analysis and actual field the subgrade layer. The complete factorial of the cases
measurements. The results showed that the EALF obtained presented leads to 750 different pavements that were
in that analysis agreed with the factors obtained by considered in this analysis. This factorial allows the
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
the pavement according to the positions indicated in defines the location for the strain calculation based on the
Figure 1, where St is the distance between the axles of a type of axle and type of wheel.
tandem axle. For the first axle, the strain must be obtained For this study, the failure criterion used was based on
below the first axle (1a). For the second and third axles, the the fatigue cracking results of a set of 16 asphalt mixtures
strain must be the difference between the strain below the used in asphalt base layers tested by Pais et al. (2009)
first axle (1a) and the strain at the midpoint between two through four-point bending tests at a temperature of 208C
axles (1b), resulting in 1a 2 1b. The above calculations and at a frequency of 10 Hz.
must be done in the positions indicated in Figure 1, namely Each mixture was tested using the AASHTO T321-03
at the centre of a single wheel (position 1), at the edge of a standard, which establishes testing at least six specimens at
single wheel (position 2) and at the centre of the double two or three tensile strain levels. Some mixtures were
wheels (position 3). tested using 18 specimens at 3 strain levels, as
The strain level for each pavement and for each type of recommended by the European standard – EN 12697-26.
axle and wheel considered in this study was calculated The fatigue curves for these mixtures are represented in
using Burmister’s (1945) theory, which was implemented Figure 2, where one can conclude that they have identical
in the JPav software developed by the first author. This slopes despite the different vertical axis intercepts.
theory was adapted for single, tandem and tridem axles The results obtained for all of the asphalt mixtures are
and for single and dual wheels. The software automatically expressed by Equation (12), which relates fatigue life to
1000
Tensile strain (E-6)
Figure 2. Fatigue curves of the base course mixtures (Pais et al., 2009).
International Journal of Pavement Engineering 885
the tensile strain applied during the laboratory fatigue is 8.49 when considering single axles and 8.14 when
tests, where N is the number of repetitions to failure, 1t is considering tandem axles.
the tensile strain, and k1 and k2 are experimentally
determined coefficients.
3. Simulation results
k 2
1 For the development of this study, the tensile strain at the
N ¼ k1 £ : ð12Þ
1t bottom of the asphalt layer of the 750 pavement structures
described earlier was calculated for six cases, namely three
The calculated coefficients k1 and k2 for all mixtures axle types and two wheel types, resulting in 4500 cases in
tested by Pais et al. (2009) are presented in Table 2. The this study.
average value for k2 is 4.147, which is inside the interval of For each case studied, the EALF is calculated by
the coefficient of the models defined by The Asphalt applying Equation (8), where 1x is the tensile strain for the
Institute (3.291) and Shell (5.671). The analytical analysis axle type and wheel type considered, 180 is the tensile
conducted in this paper used k2 value of 4, i.e. the strain for the standard axle (single axle with dual tire), and
coefficient a of Equation (10) was set to 4. c was set to 4 based on the results of the fatigue tests. If the
However, the coefficient for the EALF is a function of applied load is equal in both cases (for the calculation of 1x
the type of distress being analysed. For example, the value and for the calculation of 180), then the k coefficient of
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
used in this work compares well with the value obtained by Equation (10) is equal to the calculated ESAL.
Archilla and Madanat (2000) for rutting in the case of a Using this methodology, the k coefficients can be
tandem axle, where they found a value of 3.89, but the value calculated for any pavement structure and load configur-
is different when considering single axles, where they ation. As an example, Table 3 presents the k coefficient for
found a value of 2.98. Archilla and Madanat (2001) found a pavement with an asphalt layer stiffness of 5000 MPa and
values of 2.44 (for single axles) and 2.86 (for tandem axles) a 0.20-m granular layer with a stiffness of twice the value of
using data from the AASHO Road Test and the WesTrack the subgrade layer. The analysis of these results reveals that
Road Test, and both values are significantly different from all of the variables analysed have a significant influence on
4. When using a recursive nonlinear model considering the the k coefficient and thus on the EALF calculation. For
pavement roughness, Prozzi and Madanat (2003) found example, the k coefficient for a 0.10-m asphalt layer
that the power was approximately 4.2, which is close to the thickness is twice the value for a 0.30-m asphalt layer
power of 4 considered in this study for pavement cracking. thickness. The inverse effect is observed for the subgrade
Prozzi and Madanat (2004) and Prozzi (2001) found a value stiffness influence. In addition, the axle configuration has
of 3.85 when considering the roughness and 4.15 when an important influence on the k coefficient.
considering the serviceability using data from the AASHO For the development of a model for the k coefficient of
Road Test jointly with data from the MnRoad Project, EALF (Equation (10)), Figures 3 – 5 present the typical
which are values that compare well with the value defined influence, respectively, of the asphalt layer thickness, the
in this work for fatigue cracking. More recently, Guler and asphalt layer stiffness and the subgrade stiffness on the k
Madanat (2011) used the AASHO Road Test data to find coefficient. For all variables, including the thickness of the
that the appropriate power for pavement cracking initiation granular layer, the k coefficient can be expressed as a
function of the power of the variable considered.
Table 2. Fatigue test results (Pais et al., 2009). The influence of the asphalt layer thickness on the k
Mixture k1 k2 R2 coefficient is presented in Figure 3 for a pavement with an
asphalt layer with a stiffness of 5000 MPa, a 0.20-m
1 7.977E þ 17 4.717 0.980 granular layer with a stiffness of 160 MPa and a subgrade
2 4.628E þ 16 4.316 0.960 layer with a stiffness of 80 MPa, where the k coefficient
3 1.419E þ 16 4.210 0.996
4 2.823E þ 17 4.728 0.979 decreases with the increase of the asphalt layer thickness.
5 1.074E þ 13 3.311 0.968 The influence of the asphalt layer stiffness on the k
6 2.353E þ 15 4.121 0.977 coefficient is illustrated in Figure 4 for a pavement with a
7 4.297E þ 16 4.510 0.993 0.10-m asphalt layer thickness, a 0.20-m granular layer
8 7.865E þ 18 5.140 0.995 with a stiffness of 120 MPa and a subgrade layer with a
9 2.060E þ 16 4.268 0.959
10 1.103E þ 15 3.948 0.954 stiffness of 60 MPa, where the k coefficient decreases with
11 5.833E þ 13 3.552 0.949 the increase of the asphalt layer stiffness.
12 3.785E þ 13 3.431 0.990 The influence of the subgrade stiffness on the k
13 1.078E þ 14 3.584 0.986 coefficient is illustrated in Figure 5 for a pavement with a
14 6.720E þ 17 4.714 0.968 0.10-m asphalt layer thickness with a stiffness of
15 2.228E þ 15 4.146 0.984
16 7.772E þ 13 3.652 0.992 5000 MPa and a 0.15-m granular layer with a stiffness
twice that corresponding to the subgrade layer, where it
886 S.I.R. Amorim et al.
Table 3. The k coefficient (Equation (10)) for the different pavements and axle configurations.
k
Subgrade Asphalt Single Single Tandem Tandem Tridem Tridem
stiffness layer axle –single axle –dual axle – single axle – dual axle – single axle – dual
(MPa) thickness (m) wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel
40 0.10 5.394 1.000 0.502 0.128 0.068 0.016
40 0.15 3.886 1.000 0.334 0.076 0.046 0.009
40 0.20 3.077 1.000 0.274 0.059 0.038 0.007
40 0.25 2.531 1.000 0.247 0.053 0.037 0.006
40 0.30 2.144 1.000 0.233 0.051 0.039 0.008
60 0.10 6.268 1.000 0.614 0.163 0.078 0.020
60 0.15 4.345 1.000 0.379 0.090 0.052 0.011
60 0.20 3.346 1.000 0.290 0.064 0.041 0.008
60 0.25 2.705 1.000 0.249 0.053 0.037 0.006
60 0.30 2.252 1.000 0.227 0.049 0.037 0.006
80 0.10 6.924 1.000 0.703 0.190 0.085 0.022
80 0.15 4.703 1.000 0.422 0.103 0.057 0.013
80 0.20 3.576 1.000 0.307 0.069 0.044 0.008
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
can be concluded that the k coefficient increases with the because the tensile strain for multiple axles is the addition
increase of the subgrade stiffness. An identical behaviour and subtraction of the tensile strain for the individual
is expressed by the k coefficient due to the variation of the axles, which for several cases, changes the typical
granular base thickness. behaviour of the k coefficient.
For some cases studied in this work, the influence of The separation between the typical and the atypical
the variables that were considered on the k coefficient conditions presented earlier is a function of the pavement
presents a different trend, as observed in Figure 6. For properties, namely the thickness and stiffness of the
example, for the tridem axle with dual wheels, the k pavement layers. A value of 1.7 for the Stiffness Ratio
coefficient increases for asphalt layer thicknesses . 0.15 m defined as in the Equation (13) was found to correctly
Tandem axle;
dual wheel
0.01 Tridem axle;
single wheel
Tridem axle;
0.00 dual wheel
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Asphalt layer thickness (m)
Single axle;
10.00
single wheel
Single axle;
dual wheel
1.00 Tandem axle;
single wheel
k
Tandem axle;
0.10 dual wheel
Tridem axle;
single wheel
Tridem axle;
0.01
dual wheel
40 60 80 100 120
Subgrade stiffness (MPa)
Tandem axle;
dual wheel
0.01 Tridem axle;
single wheel
Tridem axle;
0.00 dual wheel
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Asphalt layer thickness (m)
Single axle – single Single axle – dual Tandem axle – single Tandem axle – dual Tridem axle –single Tridem axle – dual
wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel
1.0 2.2 2.7 4.1 3.6 5.1
10.00
Esubg=20 MPa Esubg=80 MPa
Esubg=40 MPa Esubg=100 MPa
Esubg=60 MPa Esubg=120 MPa
1.00
k
0.10
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Axle Parameter - AP
Figure 7. Influence of the AP value on the k coefficient for some subgrade stiffness conditions.
Stiffness Ratio a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6
# 1.7 1.275Eþ01 2 9.307E-01 8.280E-02 2 2.939E-01 2.963E-01 21.421Eþ00
. 1.7 6.416Eþ00 1.027E-01 2 2.597E-03 1.176E-01 21.335E-01 21.380Eþ00
International Journal of Pavement Engineering 889
10
y = 0.986x0.988
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
k calculated by the M-E approach
subgrade (MPa), AP is the axle parameter as defined in the single wheel leads to a k value that can be 10 times
Table 4, and a1, a2, a3, a4, a5 and a6 are the constants greater than the value obtained for dual wheels. This
presented in Table 5, which were developed using the least conclusion highlights the importance of the type of wheel
squares method. For a single axle with a single wheel, in the ESAL evaluation and thus in the analysis and design
k ¼ 1 and thus the model does not need to be applied. of road pavements.
The p-value of each variable considered in the model This conclusion can also be observed in Figure 12,
equals 0 for a level of significance of 0.05, which means where the average values of the k coefficient are
that all of the coefficients are indispensable to the model. represented for the entire axle and wheel configuration.
The quality of this model can be observed in Figure 8 This figure can also be used to define simplified values for
in which the k values calculated using the pavement the k coefficient (the average value for each type of axle
software are plotted against those predicted by the model and wheel). However, the high standard deviation observed
developed in this work. for each type of axle and wheel indicates that the use of
The consideration of the wheel type of the trucks in these values must be accompanied by some precaution, i.e.
the ESAL analysis is extremely important because this the average values must be used only when it is impossible
consideration results in different k values for single wheels to use the model presented in Equation (14).
and dual wheels, as shown in Figures 9– 11 for single Despite the quality of the statistical model that was
axles, tandem axles and tridem axles, respectively. Based developed, the use of artificial neural networks has a huge
on the analysis performed in this study, for the same load, potential in the modelling of complex problems, such as
12.00
Single wheel
10.00
Dual wheel
8.00
6.00
k
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 200 400 600 800
Simulation number
Figure 9. Difference between single and dual wheels on single axles on the k value.
890 S.I.R. Amorim et al.
10.00
Single wheel
Dual wheel
1.00
k
0.10
0.01
0 200 400 600 800
Simulation number
Figure 10. Difference between single and dual wheels on tandem axles on the k value.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
1.00
Single wheel
Dual wheel
0.10
k
0.01
0.00
0 200 400 600 800
Simulation number
Figure 11. Difference between single and dual wheels on tridem axles on the k value.
10.000 4.247
Average
1.000 Standard deviation
1.000 0.400
0.098
0.100 0.054
k
0.012
0.010
0.001
Single axle; Single axle; Tandem axle; Tandem axle; Tridem axle; Tridem axle;
single wheel dual wheel single wheel dual wheel single wheel dual wheel
Axle type and wheel type
Figure 12. Average values for the k coefficient for all of the types of axles and wheels.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering 891
Table 6. Synaptic weights and biases for the artificial neural network that was developed.
Layer 2
Output layer (layer 4)
Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Bias k
Input layer (layer 1) Hasp 2.29933 25.42569 2 2.68083 20.82218
Hgran 2 0.34464 0.43581 0.34726 20.02513
Easp 0.86772 21.04906 2 6.38637 20.15277
Esubg 5.51466 1.07156 0.65546 0.16987
AP 2 1.29847 25.90283 2 5.52637 27.70048
Bias 0.00925 20.59196 2 0.69706 0.62223
Layer 3 Node 1 2.33351 20.81311 2 2.14685 21.97248 2 3.50215 2 3.8601
Node 2 1.88271 23.29252 2 4.48686 22.72487 3.37904 2 5.59374
Bias 3.74243
Figure 14. Quality of the artificial neural network that was developed.
892 S.I.R. Amorim et al.
the values predicted by the artificial neural network allowed us to obtain a value for r 2 of 1.000, which is
developed, can be observed in Figure 14, where an r 2 of between the original and predicted values.
1.000 was obtained. The work performed in this paper is based on a linear
elastic analysis that considered fatigue cracking through a
set of results obtained in the laboratory. However, a field
5. Conclusions validation is important for a suitable application of the
In this paper, a study to define the EALFs for flexible developed model.
pavements by considering the type of axle (single, tandem The developed model can be used with weigh-in-
and tridem) and the type of wheels (single and dual) was motion data, despite requiring the knowledge of the wheel
conducted. A model was developed based on the type, because in several countries, it is easy to identify the
calculation of 750 flexible pavements by considering type of wheels that are used for each truck.
fatigue cracking as the main distress mode that appears in
pavements represented by the fourth power in the equation
used to calculate the EALF. The fourth power used in this References
work was validated for fatigue cracking based on laboratory Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
fatigue test results that were carried out for a set of asphalt (AASHTO), 1993. AASHTO guide for design of pavement
mixtures typically applied as asphalt base layers. structures. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
Prozzi, J. and Madanat, S., 2004. Development of pavement Smith, B.C. and Diefenderfer, B.K., 2009. Development of truck
performance models by combining experimental and field equivalent single-axle load (ESAL) factors based on weigh-in-
data. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 10 (1), 9 –22. motion data for pavement design in Virginia. Charlottesville,
Prozzi, J.A., Hong, F., and Grebenschikov, S., 2007. Equivalent VA: Virginia Transportation Research Council. Final Report
VTRC 09-R18.
damage factors based on mechanistic-empirical pavement Zaghloul, S. and White, T.D., 1994. Guidelines for permitting
design. In: Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, overloads – Part I. Effect of overloaded vehicles on the Indiana
Washington, DC, USA. highway network. West Lafayette, IN: Pardue University.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015