AP-R486 15 Influence of Multiple-Axle Group Loads

Research Report
AP-R486-15
Research Report
AP-R475-15
The Influence of Multiple-axle Group

Loads on Flexible Pavement Design
The Influence of Multiple-axle Group Loads on Flexible Pavement Design

Prepared by
Publisher
Michael Moffatt
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Project Manager
Graham Hennessy
Abstract
About Austroads
The current Austroads approach to assess the relative damaging

effects of different axle groups on road pavements is by comparison
of the peak static pavement deflection response under the axle
groups. The assumption that deflection is the most appropriate
indicator of pavement damage is open to question and is not
consistent with the use of strains to calculate the performance of
pavement materials.
Austroads purpose is to:
In response, research conducted has determined that, with regard to

the fatigue damage of asphalt and cemented materials, the standard
load for an axle group type is dependent upon the thickness and
modulus of the asphalt and the underlying pavement structure.
promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
As a result, it is proposed that the mechanistic design procedure for

flexible pavements not use the concept of standard loads, but rather
that the procedure determines the pavement damage resulting from
each axle load and each axle group within a traffic load distribution.
An examination of the implications of pavement design outcomes in
using this method determined that in general, reductions in both
asphalt and cemented material thicknesses of up to 50 mm would
result.
The research also determined that the currently used standard loads
for tandem, triaxle and quad-axle were appropriate for use with the
current empirical procedures for the design of granular pavements
with thin bituminous surfacings.
promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport

outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy

development on road and road transport issues
promote improved practice and capability by road agencies

Austroads membership comprises the six state and two
territory road transport and traffic authorities, the
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development, the Australian Local Government Association,
and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board
consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative
senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member
organisations:
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

South Australia
Department of State Growth Tasmania
Keywords
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Pavement design, materials, laboratory testing, accelerated loading

facility, multiple-axle group, axles, design traffic, asphalt, cemented
materials, granular materials
Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian

Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development
ISBN 978-1-925294-43-9
Australian Local Government Association
Austroads Project No. TT1614
New Zealand Transport Agency.
Austroads Publication No. AP-R486-15
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of

member organisations and others in the road industry. It aims
to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality
information, advice and fostering research in the road
transport sector.
Publication date May 2015

Pages 268
Austroads 2015
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process
without the prior written permission of Austroads.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
Road network owners are being faced with the need to make predictions of the long-term effect of
heavy vehicle loading changes on their networks. Exploration of future mass-distance and
incremental pricing for heavy vehicles requires an understanding of the effects of different axle
groups loads and types on pavement performance.
The current Austroads approach to assess the relative damaging effects of different axle groups on
road pavements is by comparison of the peak static pavement deflection response under the axle
groups. This ignores the contribution to pavement damage made by the axles in the group which do
not correspond with the peak response. The traditional assumption that the deflection response is the
most appropriate indicator of pavement damage is also open to question and is not consistent with
the Austroads mechanistic design procedures, in which strains rather than deflections are used to
calculate the performance of pavement materials.
In response, this research study investigated improved methods for assessing the pavement damage
caused by different multiple-axle group loads, and developed a framework that can be used to
quantify this pavement damage for use in Austroads flexible pavement design processes. The project
focus was on utilising performance data that had been collected by others, and in the collection of
new performance data related to the pavement design performance criteria considered in the current
Austroads pavement design process.
In order to examine whether improvements were necessary for the design of unbound granular
pavements, the Accelerated Loading Facility was used to assess the deformation of a typical,
full-scale, unbound granular pavement and subgrade. Whilst analysis was hampered by significant
moisture change during the testing period, it was possible to demonstrate that the current standard
load value used for triaxle groups were appropriate. This standard load value assumes that the
interaction between axles of a multiple-axle group do not affect the relative damage caused by the
same number of ungrouped axles. Thus, the finding was extended to demonstrate that the currently
used standard loads for tandem, triaxle and quad-axle were appropriate for use with the current
empirical procedures for the design of granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings.
A laboratory-based study conducted in France provided the basis for an examination of the effect of
multiple-axle group loads on the fatigue of asphalt for pavement design purposes. That study
developed a model allowing the prediction of fatigue life of a sample as a function of the maximum
strain level resulting from the simulation of a single axle or multiple-axle group. The model does not
consider how the grouping of axles may affect the magnitude of the strain developed. This effect was
examined using response-to-load modelling, and it was found that the standard load for an axle group
is dependent upon the thickness and modulus of the asphalt and the underlying pavement structure.
A laboratory-based investigation of a cemented material, conducted as part of the Austroads project,
obtained similar findings. In contrast, the current Austroads mechanistic design procedure assumes
constant standard loads apply across all pavement configurations.
As a result, a potential design procedure was developed for the design of bound materials in flexible
pavements that determines the damage resulting from each axle load and each axle group within a
traffic load distribution. In principle, this is the same approach used in the Austroads procedure for the
design of rigid pavements, and its use for flexible pavements would align the design traffic
characterisation for the two types of pavement.
Austroads 2015 | page i
Contents
1.
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Australasian Pavement Network ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Traffic Loads ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Report Structure ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Previous Related Reports ........................................................................................................ 3
2.
Australasian Practice .................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Overview of Pavement Design Methods ................................................................................. 4
2.1.1
Design of Unbound Granular Pavements with Thin Surfacings ................................. 4
2.1.2
Mechanistic Design of Flexible Pavements ................................................................ 4
2.1.3
Rigid Pavement Design .............................................................................................. 6
2.2 Origins of Standard Axle Group Loads .................................................................................... 6

2.3 Assumed Interaction between Axles ....................................................................................... 8
2.4 Limitations of Current Practice ................................................................................................ 9
3.
Review of Alternative Methods .................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 1993 AASHTO Guide ............................................................................................................ 11
3.3 French Design Manual ........................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Response to Load Methods ................................................................................................... 14
3.4.1
Relating Response to Damage ................................................................................. 14
3.4.2
Maximum Response Methods .................................................................................. 16
3.4.3
MEPDG ..................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.4
Multiple Peak Response Methods ............................................................................ 17
3.4.5
South African Pavement Engineering Manual (2003) .............................................. 17
3.4.6
Peak Mid-way Methods............................................................................................. 18
3.4.7
Integration Methods .................................................................................................. 19
3.5 Summary................................................................................................................................ 21
4.
Review of Research..................................................................................................................... 23
4.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Asphalt Fatigue Using Simulated Multiple-axle Loads: Michigan State University ............... 23
4.3 Effect of Different Wave Forms and Rest Periods on Fatigue: Chuo University Study ......... 27
4.4 Effect of Different Wave Forms on Fatigue: French Studies ................................................. 28
4.5 Effect of Different Wave Forms on Laboratory Fatigue: Homsi Study .................................. 32
4.6 Pavement Response to Multiple-axle Loads: BASt Study ..................................................... 35
4.7 Summary................................................................................................................................ 39
5.
Outline of Project Work .............................................................................................................. 41

5.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 41
5.2 Rutting of Unbound Granular Pavements .............................................................................. 41
5.3 Asphalt Fatigue ...................................................................................................................... 42
5.4 Cemented Materials Fatigue.................................................................................................. 42
5.5 Pavement Design Processes................................................................................................. 43
Austroads 2015 | page ii
6.
Rutting of Unbound Granular Materials .................................................................................... 44

6.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 44
6.2 Accelerated Loading Facility .................................................................................................. 45
6.2.1
Overview of ALF Prior to Modification ...................................................................... 45
6.2.2
Multiple-axle Modifications ........................................................................................ 46
6.3 Site, Pavement Composition and Construction ..................................................................... 49

6.3.1
Description of Site ..................................................................................................... 49
6.3.2
Pavement Composition ............................................................................................. 50
6.3.3
Pavement Construction............................................................................................. 54
6.4 Loading Applied During Testing Program .............................................................................. 57

6.4.1
Loading Applied ........................................................................................................ 57
6.4.2
Transverse Distribution ............................................................................................. 58
6.4.3
Line Marking ............................................................................................................. 59
6.4.4
Pavement Bedding-in................................................................................................ 60
6.5 Experiment Progression ........................................................................................................ 61

6.6 Acquired Data ........................................................................................................................ 62
6.6.1
General ..................................................................................................................... 62
6.6.2
Loading Applied ........................................................................................................ 62
6.6.3
Particle Size Distribution of Base Material ................................................................ 65
6.6.4
Density and Moisture Content of Base Material ....................................................... 65
6.6.5
Deformation of Imported Clay Subgrade Material .................................................... 66
6.6.6
Deformation of the Surface of the Pavement ........................................................... 67
6.6.7
Pavement Deflection Testing .................................................................................... 71
6.7 Preparation of Data for Analysis ............................................................................................ 72

6.7.1
Overall Deformation and Variation of Results .......................................................... 72
6.7.2
Variation in Deformation Performance...................................................................... 73
6.7.3
Measured In Situ Material Properties ....................................................................... 74
6.7.4
Data to Reflect Pavement Properties ....................................................................... 78
6.7.5
Measure of Performance .......................................................................................... 83
6.8 Analysis Using Generalised Model ........................................................................................ 85

6.9 Analyses Using Axle Group Pairing ....................................................................................... 86
6.9.1
General ..................................................................................................................... 86
6.9.2
40 kN Single Axle and 80 kN Tandem Group ........................................................... 89
6.9.3
60 kN Tandem Group and 80 kN Tandem Group .................................................... 91
6.9.4
60 kN Tandem Group and 90 kN Triaxle Group ....................................................... 92
6.9.5
40 kN Single Axle and 90 kN Triaxle Group ............................................................. 92
6.10 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 95

7.
Fatigue of Asphalt ....................................................................................................................... 98

7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 98
7.2 Response-to-load Model........................................................................................................ 98
7.2.1
Model Selection ........................................................................................................ 98
7.2.2
FEM Mesh Generation .............................................................................................. 99
7.2.3
Analysis Parameters ............................................................................................... 102
7.2.4
Response Locations ............................................................................................... 103
7.3 3D-FEM Response-to-load Analyses .................................................................................. 103
Austroads 2015 | page iii
7.4 Analysis of 3D-FEM Response-to-load Results Using Homsis Damage Model ................. 105
7.4.1
Calculation of Homsi Parameters ........................................................................... 105
7.4.2
Calculation of Relative Fatigue Damage ................................................................ 105
7.4.3
Calculation of Standard Axle Loads ........................................................................ 106
7.4.4
Variations of Standard Axle Loads with Pavement Structure ................................. 106
7.5 Simplifying Homsis Model ................................................................................................... 110

7.6 Analysis of 3D-FEM Response-to-load Results Using Simplified Homsi Damage Model... 111
7.7 Adjustment of Simplified Homsi Model for Use with Austroads Fatigue Relationship ......... 114
7.7.1
Rearranging Simplified Homsi Model ..................................................................... 114
7.7.2
Maximum Peak Model ............................................................................................ 114
7.8 Generalising Model to Consider Strains Generated by Each Axle ...................................... 119
7.9 Analysis of 3D-FEM Response-to-load Results Using Summed Peaks Method ................ 119
7.10 Selection of Damage Calculation Method ........................................................................... 122
7.11 Damage Calculated Using Linear-elastic Response-to-load Model .................................... 123
7.12 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 128
8.
Fatigue of Cemented Materials ................................................................................................ 130

8.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 130
8.2 Laboratory Flexural Test Methods ....................................................................................... 130
8.3 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................................. 131
8.4 Laboratory Test Equipment ................................................................................................. 135
8.4.1
General ................................................................................................................... 135
8.4.2
IPC Global Universal Testing System ..................................................................... 135
8.4.3
IPC Global Test Control Software ........................................................................... 136
8.4.4
Pulse Shape Generation ......................................................................................... 136
8.4.5
Control Software ..................................................................................................... 140
8.5 Alterations to Test Procedures and Equipment ................................................................... 141

8.5.1
General ................................................................................................................... 141
8.5.2
LVDT Frame Alterations ......................................................................................... 142
8.5.3
Test Geometry ........................................................................................................ 142
8.5.4
Sample Size ............................................................................................................ 143
8.5.5
Definition of Initial Modulus and Strain for Fatigue Testing .................................... 143
8.6 Data ..................................................................................................................................... 144

8.6.1
Test Sequence ........................................................................................................ 144
8.6.2
Flexural Modulus Data ............................................................................................ 145
8.6.3
Flexural Fatigue Data.............................................................................................. 146
8.7 Flexural Fatigue for Each Load Type .................................................................................. 147

8.8 Analysis Using Estimated Strain Reach 100 000 Cycles of Loading .................................. 150
8.8.1
Background ............................................................................................................. 150
8.8.2
Tolerable Strain ....................................................................................................... 151
8.8.3
Correcting Tolerable Strains for Varying Density Condition ................................... 152
8.8.4
Effect of Load Shape on Tolerable Strain ............................................................... 153
8.9 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 155
Austroads 2015 | page iv
9.
Framework to Incorporate Multiple-axle Responses in Flexible Pavement Design ........... 157

9.1 Empirical Design of Unbound Granular Pavements with Thin Bituminous Surfacing ......... 157
9.2 Mechanistic Design of Bound Materials .............................................................................. 157
9.2.1
Modelling Each Axle Group/Load Combination ...................................................... 157
9.2.2
Scaling Response-to-load Calculations for Different Load Levels ......................... 158
9.2.3
Excluding Superposition of Responses Considering Isolated Axles ................... 158
10. Determination of Characteristic Values of Parameters for Multiple-axle Group Modelling

and Example Design Outcomes ............................................................................................... 160
10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 160
10.2 Design Traffic Distributions .................................................................................................. 160
10.3 Design Pavement Structures ............................................................................................... 160
10.4 Modelling Constituent Axles of Groups as Isolated Axles ................................................... 161
10.5 Modelling of Combined Multiple-axle Groups ...................................................................... 163
10.5.1 General ................................................................................................................... 163
10.5.2 Axle Spacing ........................................................................................................... 164
10.5.3 Effect of Superimposing Responses from Grouped Axles ..................................... 164
10.5.4 Comparison of Scaled and Calculated Responses ................................................ 165
10.5.5 Dynamic Load Considerations ................................................................................ 165
10.5.6 Significance of Design Traffic Distribution .............................................................. 169
10.6 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 176
11. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 178
11.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 178
11.2 Empirical Design of Unbound Granular Pavements with Thin Bituminous Surfacings ....... 178
11.3 Mechanistic Design of Bound Materials .............................................................................. 179
11.4 Design Reliability ................................................................................................................. 180
References ......................................................................................................................................... 181
Appendix A
Mean Deformation After Bedding-In: Tabulated .................................................. 185
Appendix B
Mean Deformation After Bedding-In: Plotted ....................................................... 190
Appendix C
Pavement Deflection and Back-Calculated Moduli .............................................. 214
Appendix D
Comparison of Deflection Data: Observed and Back-Calculated ...................... 220
Appendix E
Method of Equivalent Thickness ........................................................................... 235
Appendix F
Data Used in Load Pairing Analyses ..................................................................... 237
Appendix G
Axle Loads in Multiple-Axle Groups that Cause the Same Damage

as a Standard Axle Determined From 3d-Fem Analyses and Using
Homsis Damage Model .......................................................................................... 242
Appendix H
Cemented Material Flexural Modulus Test Results ............................................. 249
Appendix I
Cemented Material Flexural Fatigue Test Results ............................................... 256
Appendix J
Estimation of Tolerable Strain From Fatigue Test Results ................................. 260
Appendix K
Axle Group/Load Distributions .............................................................................. 263
Austroads 2015 | page v
Tables
Table 1.1:
Table 2.1:
Table 2.2:
Table 2.3:
Table 2.4:
Table 3.1:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 4.6:
Table 6.1:
Table 6.2:
Table 6.3:
Table 6.4:
Table 6.5:
Table 6.6:
Table 6.7:
Table 6.8:
Table 6.9:
Table 6.10:
Table 6.11:
Table 7.1:
Table 7.2:
Table 8.1:
Table 8.2:
Table 8.3:
Table 8.4:
Table 8.5:
Table 10.1:
Table 10.2:
Table 10.3:
Table 10.4:
Table 10.5:
Table 10.6:
Table 10.7:
Table 10.8:
Table 10.9:
Table 10.10:
Table 10.11:
Table 10.12:
Table 10.13:
Project reports .................................................................................................................. 3

Axle group loads which cause the same damage as a Standard Axle ............................ 5
Load damage exponents for each damage type ............................................................. 5
Scalas axle group loads which cause the same damage as a Standard Axle ............... 8
Axle group loads which cause the same damage as a Standard Axle ............................ 9
Typical values for parameters K and used in French aggressiveness calculation ...... 14
Fatigue testing matrix for the Michigan study ................................................................ 23
Load equivalency factors calculated by the Michigan study .......................................... 25
Effect of strain load shape on fatigue life in the French study ....................................... 30
Number of wheel (i.e. axle) passes represented by signals in the French study .......... 31
Homsis experimental plan and observed Nf = f() or each signal .................................. 33
Homsis relative signal equivalent factors (RSEF) ......................................................... 34
ALF specification (before multiple-axle upgrade) .......................................................... 45
Specifications of the modified ALF................................................................................. 47
Location of ALF experiment sites................................................................................... 52
Axle group load levels for ALF experimental program ................................................... 58
Initial pavement bedding-in process .............................................................................. 60
Experiments conducted ................................................................................................. 61
Back-calculation model parameters ............................................................................... 81
Aggregated stiffness parameters simple averages (arithmetic means)...................... 82
Aggregate stiffness parameters (MET) .......................................................................... 82
Proposed standard loads for dual-tyre axles for use with empirical design
procedure ....................................................................................................................... 97
Proposed standard loads for single-tyre axles for use with empirical design
procedure ....................................................................................................................... 97
Material thicknesses and model parameters used in 3D-FEM modelling ................... 102
Material thicknesses and model parameters used in CIRCLY modelling .................... 124
Description of load pulse shapes ................................................................................. 139
Fatigue regression equations for each load shape ...................................................... 149
Summary of tolerable strains for different load shapes ............................................... 153
Comparison of mean corrected tolerable strains ......................................................... 154
Relative damages between different load shapes ....................................................... 154
Axle group/load distributions used in example calculations ........................................ 160
Parameters used in asphalt pavement design cases .................................................. 161
Parameters used in cemented material pavement design cases ................................ 161
Minimum thicknesses of asphalt determined using current Austroads
and multiple-axle damage models (Pacific Motorway traffic distribution) .................... 162
Minimum thicknesses of cemented material determined using current Austroads
Axle spacings determined from WIM data ................................................................... 164
Maximum axle load sharing coefficients determined from WIM data .......................... 167
and multiple-axle damage models (Pacific Highway traffic distribution) ...................... 170
and multiple-axle damage models (Pacific Highway traffic distribution) ...................... 170
and multiple-axle damage models (Monash Freeway traffic distribution).................... 171
and multiple-axle damage models (Monash Freeway traffic distribution).................... 171
Austroads 2015 | page vi
Table 10.14: Minimum thicknesses of asphalt determined using current Austroads and multiple-axle
damage models (Kwinana Freeway traffic distribution) ............................................... 172
Table 10.15: Minimum thicknesses of cemented material determined using current Austroads and
multiple-axle damage models (Kwinana Freeway traffic distribution) .......................... 172
Figures
Figure 2.1:
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:
Figure 3.8:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6:
Figure 4.7:
Figure 4.8:
Figure 4.9:
Figure 4.10:
Figure 4.11:
Figure 4.12:
Figure 4.13:
Figure 4.14:
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6.3:
Figure 6.4:
Figure 6.5:
Figure 6.6:
Figure 6.7:
Figure 6.8:
Figure 6.9:
Figure 6.10:
Figure 6.11:
Figure 6.12:
Figure 6.13:
Figure 6.14:
Figure 6.15:
Figure 6.16:
Figure 6.17:
Figure 6.18:
Figure 6.19:
Figure 6.20:
Ratio of tandem to single load compared with ratio of deflections .................................. 7

Comparison of LEF values from 1993 AASHTO guide and current
Austroads (2012) guide with an LDE = 5 ......................................................................... 13
Comparison of LEF values for French design method and current
Austroads (2012) guide with an LDE = 5 ......................................................................... 14
Discrete and integration methods for calculating LEFs ................................................... 15
Strains generated by a quad-axle group ........................................................................ 17
Peak mid-way method using strain response for a five axle group ............................... 18
Zone of neglected tension in the peak mid-way method ............................................... 19
Stress-strain hysteresis loops for asphalt material ........................................................ 20
Area under initial strain response curve for simulated quad-axle group
in a controlled stress test ............................................................................................... 21
Levels of interaction between axles used in the Michigan study ................................... 24
Dissipated energy density fatigue curve from the Michigan study ................................. 24
Axle factors (AF) for different interaction levels calculated by the Michigan study ........ 26
Loading wave shapes used in the Chuo University study ............................................. 27
Relationship between rate of dissipated energy and load cycles determined
by the Chuo University study ......................................................................................... 28
Example complex strain pulse used in the French waveform study .............................. 29
Aggressiveness of signals in the French study .............................................................. 31
Definitions of Homsis strain shape parameters ............................................................ 32
Homsis multi-linear model predictions compared to the experimental results .............. 35
Truck passing over test pavements during BASt study ................................................. 36
Location of pavement instrumentation used in BASt study ........................................... 36
Geometry of a three axle prime mover and semi-trailer used in the BASt study ........... 37
Tensile strains measured at the bottom of the asphalt layer (transverse direction) ...... 38
Tensile strains measured at the bottom of the asphalt layer (longitudinal direction) ..... 39
The ALF machine within the research testing building .................................................. 44
Individual axle module ................................................................................................... 46
The ALF multiple-axle assembly (tandem axle configuration) ....................................... 46
Triaxle and tandem axle assembly configurations showing individual modules
and primary and secondary attachment plates .............................................................. 48
Pins allowing pivoting of multiple-axle attachment plate................................................ 48
Single axle assembly configuration................................................................................ 49
Indoor facility for the ALF (54 m long by 18 m wide) ..................................................... 49
Structure of test pavements ........................................................................................... 50
Layout of test pavement ................................................................................................. 53
Appearance of the research testing facility building during construction ....................... 54
Profiler removing clay from borrow pit ........................................................................... 55
Placement of imported clay subgrade ........................................................................... 55
Tipping and spreading for first lift of base ...................................................................... 56
Appearance of primed surface ....................................................................................... 57
Load wheels centred over experiment width ................................................................. 58
Transverse load distribution ........................................................................................... 59
Experiment site (12 m 1 m) with offset line for FWD testing....................................... 59
Strain gauge mounted to stub axle ................................................................................ 63
Example of data gained during single triaxle trolley pass .............................................. 64
Typical diagram of valid chainages (between vertical red dotted lines) ........................ 65
Austroads 2015 | page vii
Figure 6.21:
Figure 6.22:
Figure 6.23:
Figure 6.24:
Figure 6.25:
Figure 6.26:
Figure 6.27:
Figure 6.28:
Figure 6.29:
Figure 6.30:
Figure 6.31:
Figure 6.32:
Figure 6.33:
Figure 6.34:
Figure 6.35:
Figure 6.36:
Figure 6.37:
Figure 6.38:
Figure 6.39:
Figure 6.40:
Figure 6.41:
Figure 6.42:
Figure 6.43:
Figure 7.1:
Figure 7.2:
Figure 7.3:
Figure 7.4:
Figure 7.5:
Figure 7.6:
Figure 7.7:
Figure 7.8:
Figure 7.9:
Figure 7.10:
Figure 7.11:
Figure 7.12:
Figure 7.13:
Figure 7.14:
Trenching experiment 3502 ........................................................................................... 66

Pavement trench showing straight edge used for layer profile measurements
and benched subgrade .................................................................................................. 67
ALF profilometer............................................................................................................. 68
Typical transverse surface profile data set (single chainage displayed) ....................... 69
Typical mean deformation along the trafficked length of an ALF experiment ............... 69
Measurement of deformation and rut depth ................................................................... 70
FWD collecting data under ALF ..................................................................................... 71
Progression of (post-bedding-in) overall deformation for all experiments ..................... 72
Rainfall measured at Dandenong weather station ......................................................... 73
Density, moisture content and CBR of pavement materials 40 kN single axle
experiments.................................................................................................................... 75
Density, moisture content and CBR of pavement materials 60 kN tandem group
experiments.................................................................................................................... 76
experiments.................................................................................................................... 77
Density, moisture content and CBR of pavement materials 90 kN triaxle group
experiments.................................................................................................................... 78
Pavement model used in back-calculation .................................................................... 81
Alternative measures of deformation performance ........................................................ 83
Distribution of Erock for each axle type ............................................................................. 86
Distribution of maximum deformation observed for each load type ............................... 88
Distribution of cycles required to reach 4 mm deformation for 40 kN single axle
and 80 kN tandem group data ....................................................................................... 89
Distribution of Erock and E4 for 40 kN single axle and 80 kN tandem group paired data . 91
Distribution of cycles required to reach 3 mm deformation for 60 kN and 80 kN
tandem groups data ....................................................................................................... 92
Distribution of cycles required to reach 4 mm deformation for 40 kN single axle
and 90 kN triaxle group data .......................................................................................... 93
Distribution of Erock for 40 kN single axle and 90 kN triaxle group paired data ............... 94
Number of 40 kN single axle and 90 kN triaxle group cycles required to reach
4 mm deformation as a function of the effective stiffness of the crushed rock (Erock) ..... 95
Calculation of radius and contact stress for circular load model of tyre loads ............. 100
Example 3D meshes for 100 mm asphalt and 200 mm granular base pavements
(exploded view) ............................................................................................................ 101
Zoomed view of 3D mesh for load area ....................................................................... 102
Asphalt strains were recorded along the dotted lines for this quad-axle group ........... 103
Examples of strains ...................................................................................................... 104
Example calculation of tyre loads in multiple-axle groups that causes the
same damage as a Standard Axle using Homsis damage model .............................. 106
Example summary of standard axle loads in multiple-axle groups that causes
the same damage as a Standard Axle using Homsis damage model ....................... 107
Range of axle-loads in multiple-axle groups that causes the same damage
as a Standard Axle using Homsis damage model ...................................................... 108
Range of group loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle
using Homsis damage model ...................................................................................... 109
Cumulative distribution of Homsi shape parameters in 3D-FEM modelled strain
responses for single axle with 80 kN axle load ............................................................ 110
Range of axle-loads in multiple-axle groups that causes the same damage as a
Standard Axle using the simplified Homsi damage model .......................................... 112
Range of group loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle using
the simplified Homsi damage model ............................................................................ 113
Range of axle loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle using
the maximum peak model ............................................................................................ 116
Range of group loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle using
the maximum peak model ............................................................................................ 117
Austroads 2015 | page viii
Figure 7.15:
Figure 7.16:
Figure 7.17:
Figure 7.18:
Figure 7.19:
Figure 7.20:
Figure 7.21:
Figure 7.22:
Figure 7.23:
Figure 8.1:
Figure 8.2:
Figure 8.3:
Figure 8.4:
Figure 8.5:
Figure 8.6:
Figure 8.7:
Figure 8.8:
Figure 8.9:
Figure 8.10:
Figure 8.11:
Figure 8.12:
Figure 8.13:
Figure 8.14:
Figure 8.15:
Figure 8.16:
Figure 8.17:
Figure 8.18:
Figure 8.19:
Figure 8.20:
Figure 8.21:
Figure 8.22:
Figure 10.1:
Figure 10.2:
Figure 10.3:
Figure 10.4:
Figure 10.5:
Comparison of standard axle loads determined using simplified Homsi

and maximum peak methods ....................................................................................... 118
Range of axle loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle
using the summed peaks model .................................................................................. 120
using the summed peaks model .................................................................................. 121
Comparison of standard axle loads determined using summed peaks and
maximum peak methods .............................................................................................. 122
Range of axle loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle
using the summed peaks model (CIRCLY responses) ................................................ 124
using the summed peaks model (CIRCLY responses) ................................................ 125
Comparison of standard axle loads determined using simplified Homsi
and maximum peak methods (CIRCLY responses) .................................................... 127
Comparison of standard axle loads determined using summed peaks
and maximum peak methods (CIRCLY responses) .................................................... 127
Comparison of standard axle loads determined using 3D-FEM and CIRCLY
modelling ...................................................................................................................... 128
Flexural beam roller supports and load rollers ............................................................. 131
Marking saw cut lines for sample extraction ................................................................ 132
Precise cutting of samples using a concrete saw ........................................................ 133
Extraction of cut samples from road bed ..................................................................... 133
Samples being packed in damp sand in storage bins ................................................. 134
Cutting samples to the required depth ......................................................................... 134
Loading frame .............................................................................................................. 135
Assumed relationship between load pulse shape and axle spacing ........................... 137
Assumed relationship between vehicle speed and load pulse width ........................... 137
Load pulse shapes showing rest periods used in fatigue testing ................................ 138
Interaction between axle peaks within load pulse shape ............................................. 139
Load pulse shapes ....................................................................................................... 140
Succession of LVDT support frames used .................................................................. 142
Load support roller jigs ................................................................................................. 143
Distribution of modulus of samples (haversine pulse) ................................................. 145
Relationship between flexural modulus and relative density of samples
(haversine pulse).......................................................................................................... 146
Flexural fatigue results for single axle load shape ....................................................... 147
Flexural fatigue results for tandem axle group load shapes with interactions
between axles of 40% and 80%................................................................................... 148
Flexural fatigue results for triaxle axle group load shapes with interactions
between axles of 40% and 80%.................................................................................. 148
Flexural fatigue results for quad-axle group load shapes with interactions
between axles of 40% and 80%................................................................................... 149
Flexural fatigue relationships expressed in terms of cycles (axle groups)
of loading and peaks (axles) of loading ....................................................................... 150
Relative damages between different load shapes as a function of axle ratio .............. 155
Distribution of maximum LSC in WIM data .................................................................... 166
Minimum thickness of 3000 MPa asphalt for different design traffic levels ................. 173
Minimum thickness of 5000 MPa asphalt for different design traffic levels ................. 174
Minimum thickness of 4000 MPa cemented material for different design
traffic levels .................................................................................................................. 175
Minimum thickness of lean mix concrete for different design traffic levels .................. 176
Austroads 2015 | page ix
1. Introduction
1.1
The Australasian Pavement Network
Australia and New Zealand have led the world for many years in the design and management of low cost
road pavements. This has allowed sealed road access to areas which otherwise would only be serviced by
gravel roads, and has reduced the total cost of construction and maintenance across the network. In
Australia, these roads carry about 80% of the total road freight task, and therefore play a huge role in
regional, state and national economies.
Despite major dependence on these roads, Australasian design, material specifications and construction
technologies for them are still mostly empirically based. In a world without other constraints, building roads
today the same way as built yesterday may be sustainable, but it does not assist road agencies facing
todays challenges. These include an increasing scarcity of quality materials, rapidly changing vehicle
designs and loads, a desire to incorporate sustainable materials (including recycled and industrial waste
products), and the emerging pressures of climate change.
One of the largest challenges facing road network owners is the rapidly growing amount of freight carried
by road. Predictions of road freight doubling or more over a ten-year period have been made by various
government bodies. Additionally, there has been a recent trend towards more innovative heavy vehicle
designs, and network owners are being faced with the need to make predictions of the long-term effect of
these new vehicles on their networks. These pressures are placing increased focus on the way in which
pavement designers and asset managers estimate the performance of road pavements under different axle
loads.
1.2
Traffic Loads
Traditionally, pavement design was based on the number of equivalent standard axles likely to traffic a
pavement during its design life. With changing traffic demands of pavements, concerns have arisen that
this method may be too simplistic. A great deal of research has been conducted in recent years examining
the relative damaging effects of different axle loads on Australasian pavement types (e.g. Austroads 2006a,
Yeo & Sharp 2006); however, this work has addressed the damage related to a single axle carrying
different loads and/or tyre types. A serious examination of the effects of axle group type on pavement
performance has not been undertaken, particularly for Australian/New Zealand pavement types. It is
difficult to evaluate the effects of different axle groups using in-service pavements because of the problems
associated with isolating the effects of a particular axle group in mixed traffic, and practical problems
associated with obtaining performance data on long-life structures.
The development of more accurate procedures for assessment of the impact of a spectrum of axle group
loads is fundamental to many issues facing the road transport industry, and will assist:
pavement designers through the development of improved procedures for the structural design of
Australian and New Zealand road pavements
in the selection of the most appropriate pavement type for the prevailing traffic conditions
asset managers to develop improved models for management of the road network at the network level
industry (vehicle designers and operators) in the development of more efficient heavy vehicles, which
will maximise payload without increasing the wear to established road infrastructure
policy makers and planners in the development of improved methods of addressing the most equitable
method of estimating future maintenance and rehabilitation costs, and a transparent method of
defraying these costs to all stakeholders.
Austroads 2015 | page 1
The current Austroads pavement structural design methods for flexible and rigid pavements consider the
design traffic in different ways:
The rigid pavement design method considers the response of the candidate design pavement to
different load levels and group types (single, tandem, triaxle, etc.), and is based on analytical
modelling of those different load/group types.
The flexible pavement design method models the response of a pavement to a single axle load, and
provides means of translating different axle load/group combinations within the design traffic spectrum
to an equivalent count of repetitions of the single axle used in the pavement model.
As the analytical pavement modelling that underlies the rigid design method includes the direct
determination of pavement responses under multiple-axle groups and with varying pavement structure, it is
considered that the current procedure adequately addresses the different levels of damage caused by
grouped and ungrouped axles. As a result, the project did not examine multiple-axle effects on concrete
pavement design, and was limited to design flexible pavements only.
The current means of assessing the relative damaging effects of different axle groups (single, tandem,
triaxle, etc.) on road pavements is by comparison of the peak static pavement deflection response under
the axle groups. This approach ignores the contribution to pavement damage made by the axles in the
group that do not correspond with the peak response. Additionally, the traditional assumption that the
deflection response is the most appropriate indicator of pavement damage is open to question and is not
consistent with the Austroads mechanistic design procedures, in which maximum strains rather than
deflections are used to calculate the performance of pavement materials.
Despite the fundamental nature of this issue, little research work has examined these issues, and the little
international work that has been done has focussed on relatively thick asphalt pavements, not on pavement
types typical to Australia and New Zealand.
Austroads established projects TT1219 Influence of Multiple-axle Loads on Pavement Performance and
TT1614 Pavement Wear Effects of Heavy Vehicle Axle Groups to examine these issues further.
In general terms, the objective of this combined research study was to investigate using a combination of
current research, laboratory characterisation and field trials improved methods for assessing the
pavement damage caused by different multiple-axle group loads; and to develop a framework that can be
used to quantify this pavement damage for use in Austroads flexible pavement design processes.
Recognising that a severe lack of material pavement performance data was preventing the development of
a defendable framework, the project ambitiously sought to obtain performance data for common pavement
materials.
1.3
Report Structure
This report summarises the combined work undertaken by these Austroads projects. After the introductory
sections summarising current Austroads and international methods (Sections 2 to 4), the report presents an
outline of the project testing work plan in Section 5.
Section 6 is dedicated to the collection and analysis of performance data of an unbound granular pavement
under full-scale multiple-axle group loads applied with the Accelerated Loading Facility test system. This
work was focussed on the use of multiple-axle group loads in the Austroads empirical design process for
unbound granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings.
Sections 7 and 8 consider, in turn, the two bound materials whose flexural fatigue performance is central to
the Austroads mechanistic design process. Section 7 considers asphalt and contains an analysis based
upon the findings of an extensive international laboratory-based research project. Section 8 documents a
similar laboratory-based assessment, undertaken by the Austroads project, of the performance of a
cemented material subjected to simulated multiple-axle loads.
In order to assess how the findings of these three main bodies of work would impact on the design of
flexible pavements if the findings were to be implemented into Austroads procedures, Section 9 documents
a series of design examples.
The report finishes with an overarching summary and conclusions, followed by extensive appendices to
supplement the information provided within the report body.
1.4
Previous Related Reports
During the conduct of the projects, a series of reports have been produced (Table 1.1). Some of these
reports provide more detailed documentation of data collected than is contained within this final report, and
some of the reports represent progress studies. One report documents an approach to work that was being
planned at one stage, but was subsequently not pursued. The following table provides references to each
of these reports, and notes whether the report is superseded by this document, or provides additional
information.
Table 1.1:
Project reports
Reference
Title
Contents
Status
Austroads
(2011a)
The Influence of Multiple-axle

Loads on Pavement Performance:
Interim Findings.
Extensive interim report containing many

sections common to this report.
Superseded
Austroads
(2011b)
A Laboratory Study of the

Influence of Multiple-axle Loads
on the Performance of a Cement
Treated Material Interim Report.
Contains complete documentation on the

laboratory program to assess cemented
material performance. Contains raw data.
Contains an inconclusive analysis that was
expanded upon in this final report.
Current
Data collection
method and
reporting is more
comprehensive
than this report.
Analysis results
are less
comprehensive.
Austroads
(2011c)
Testing Plan to Examine the

Effects of Multiple-axle Loads on
Asphalt Fatigue Using Four-point
Beam Tests
Documents the development of a testing

plan to undertake a separate laboratorybased research program examining
asphalt flexural fatigue using Australianbased equipment and methods. The
testing plan was not undertaken as the
findings of international work were found to
be comprehensive enough to not warrant
replication.
Current
Contents not
relevant to final
project outcomes
or conclusions.
Austroads
(2011d)

Loads on the Performance of an
Unbound Granular Pavement
under Accelerated Loading:
Construction of Test Pavements
Comprehensive documentation of
construction of the test pavement used for
Accelerated Loading Facility testing.
Current
Contains
comprehensive
reference
information.
Austroads
(2013)

Loads on the Performance of an
Unbound Granular Pavement
under Accelerated Loading:
Interim Data Report
Contains comprehensive documentation of

all data collected during the Accelerated
Loading Facility loading of the unbound
granular test pavement. Does include data
processing, but does not contain any
analysis.
Current
Contains
comprehensive
reference
information.
2. Australasian Practice
2.1
Overview of Pavement Design Methods
The Austroads pavement design processes provide performance models to assess the damaging effects of
different axle loads on commonly used pavement materials (Austroads 2012a). The design processes
include three different design methods:
an empirical design method used for sprayed seal surfaced unbound granular pavements
a mechanistic method used for flexible pavements containing asphalt or cemented materials
a mechanistically-based analytical method used for rigid concrete pavements.
2.1.1 Design of Unbound Granular Pavements with Thin Surfacings

For a given thickness of granular pavement and strength of underlying subgrade, the empirical design
method uses a design chart to provide the allowable load repetitions before the terminal condition is
reached. Allowable load repetitions are expressed in terms of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESAs). The
terminal condition, considered to be an unacceptable degree of surface roughness and extent of rutting, is
not explicitly defined but probably corresponds with an average rut depth of 20 mm and a roughness level
approximately three times the initial level (Jameson 2013).
2.1.2 Mechanistic Design of Flexible Pavements

The mechanistic method is limited to the assessment of load-associated distresses, and considers three
different distress or damage types:
rutting and shape loss exhibited on the pavement surface
flexural fatigue of asphalt materials
flexural fatigue of cemented materials.
The method uses computer software to determine critical strain responses in pavement layers resulting
from the static application of a standard reference load, the Standard Axle. The Standard Axle is defined as
a single axle with dual tyres loaded with 80 kN. The performance models used in the design process relate
the computed strain levels resulting from a single (static) application of the Standard Axle to the number of
allowable repetitions of the load. The method uses the concept of a Standard Axle Repetition (SAR) as the
unit of damage due to a single pass of an axle.
Road pavements are subjected to a range of different axle group types, and a range of loads on those axle
types. In order to express the spectrum of different axle group load levels expected in the design traffic, the
design method uses Equation 1 to determine the number of Standard Axle Repetitions generated by a
given vehicle.
= (
=1
where
=
=
=
=
load carried by axle group type (kN)

standard load for axle group type (Table 2.1)
load damage exponent varies with distress type being considered (Table 2.2)
number of axle groups for the vehicle
Table 2.1 lists the standard loads for each axle group type. Each axle group type loaded to its standard
load is considered to cause the same amount of pavement damage as the Standard Axle.
Table 2.1:
Axle group loads which cause the same damage as a Standard Axle
Axle group type
Load (kN)
Single axle with single tyres (SAST)
53
Single axle with dual tyres (SADT)
80
Tandem axle with single tyres (TAST)
90
Tandem axle with dual tyres (TADT)
135
Triaxle with dual tyres (TRDT)
181
Quad-axle with dual tyres (QADT)
221
Note: A Standard Axle is an SADT axle with a load of 80 kN.

Source: Austroads (2012a).
The load damage exponent () used in the design method varies with the damage type being
considered (Table 2.2). These load damage exponents are used to calculate the following allowable SARs
for each damage mode:
SAR4 Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using an of 4:

This is used to assess the damage to sprayed seal surfaced unbound granular pavements. SAR4 is
commonly called Equivalent Standard Axles and is used as the unit of damage in the empirical design
method.

This is used to assess the flexural fatigue damage of asphalt materials within a flexible pavement
structure.

This is used to assess the rutting and loss of shape of flexible pavements.

This is used to assess the flexural fatigue damage of cemented materials within a flexible pavement
structure.
The mechanistic design method, using SAR7, can be used to design sprayed seal unbound granular
pavements, and will yield very similar results as the empirical method. The performance relationship used
in the mechanistic method for rutting and loss of shape distress was derived from the empirical method.
Table 2.2:
Load damage exponents for each damage type
Design method
Pavement type
Type of damage
Load damage exponent
Mechanistic
Pavement containing one or

more bound layers
Fatigue of asphalt
Fatigue of cemented material
12
Rutting and loss of surface shape
Overall pavement damage
Empirical
Empirical design chart for

granular pavement with thin
bituminous surfacing
2.1.3 Rigid Pavement Design

The rigid pavement design procedure is based upon the procedure developed by the US Portland Cement
Association (PCA 1984). The procedure considers two causes of pavement distress:
Flexural fatigue resulting from the generation of repeated tensile stresses at the bottom of the base
slab due to application of traffic loads. The analysis considers the location of the wheelpaths relative to
the outer longitudinal (in the direction of travel) edge of the slab, as this is the location where the
generated stresses are most critical.
Erosion of the pavement foundation in regions under joints or cracks caused by the accumulated
action of wheel passages crossing the joints/cracks.
Finite element modelling (Packard & Ray 1986, Packard & Tayabji 1985, Heinrichs et al. 1988) was used to
determine the response of the slab and foundation to a range of wheel loads and axle-group combinations.
A wide range of slab thicknesses were modelled.
As it is considered (Vorobieff & Hodgkinson in Jameson 2013) that the rupture of a concrete slab is caused
by heavier loads in the spectrum of all wheel/axle loads, and that the stresses generated within the slab are
dependent upon the thickness of the slab, the use of generalised load equivalencies, as used in the flexible
design methods, is inappropriate. Therefore, the design method considers the damage caused by each
combination of axle load and axle-group within the design traffic spectrum.
As the analytical pavement modelling that underlies the rigid design method included the determination of
pavement responses under multiple-axle groups, and with varying pavement structure, it is considered that
the current procedure adequately addresses the different levels of damage caused by grouped and
ungrouped axles. As a result, the project did not examine multiple-axle effects on concrete pavement
design, and was limited to the design flexible pavements only.
2.2
Origins of Standard Axle Group Loads
The following summary of the origins of standard axle group loads used in flexible design processes (Table
2.1) is drawn from Potters (in Jameson 2013) detailed description. Potters notes were based upon
surviving records, his recollection of analyses undertaken, and the resolutions of technical meetings.
During the 1960s, several independent analyses of AASHO road test data provided estimates of the
relative damaging effects of dual-tyred single axles and dual-tyred tandem axles (AASHO 1962). As the
test pavements in the road test were comprised of relatively thick asphalt layers and were subject to freezethaw cycles, it was considered inappropriate to directly use the results of these analyses for Australian
pavements due to their sprayed seal surfacing (or thin asphalt) and lack of freeze-thaw cycles. In addition,
the analyses did not provide insight into the damaging effects of both single-tyred single axles (steer axles)
and triaxles. Steer axles were considered to have caused little damage during the road test, and so were
not included in subsequent analyses, and triaxles were not included in the road test at all.
In order to determine standard load levels for each axle group type that were suitable for use in Australia,
Scala (1970b) undertook a field study, commencing in 1969. His work was based on the presumption,
considered to be reasonably supported by limited data from the AASHO test, that axle groups (type and
load) that caused equal maximum deflection of the pavement surface caused equal pavement damage.
Scala measured surface deflections caused by different axle group types and load levels on a small
number of sprayed seal and thin asphalt surfaced pavements in the Altona-Williamstown area of
Melbourne. Scalas primary data and analyses were documented in a series of internal ARRB reports,
which Potter was unable to trace at the time he prepared his notes. Given the lack of primary
documentation, and the passage of many years, it is understandable that Potter was unable to be clear in
describing the means by which the surface displacement data was collected. He mentions use of both a
conventional Benkelman Beam and a scaled up version. It would appear that a pad (approximately 50 mm
thick, made from industrial conveyor rubber belting) was placed on the pavement surface. The tip of the
Benkelman Beam(s) was placed in a transverse slit cut in the pad, i.e. the orientation of the Beam was
perpendicular to the travel path of the vehicle, and the peak surface deflection response was measured as
the axle group passed over the pad.
Some of Scalas data and findings are reported in a conference paper (Scala 1970a). The only data from
the field study presented in the paper relates to dual-tyred single and tandem axles, and is in the form of a
plot of tandem axle deflection/single axle deflection versus tandem axle load/single axle load (Figure 2.1).
A wide range of deflection ratios is evident for each of the six load ratios tested. Each load ratio was tested
on a separate day of testing. Scalas notes for three days of testing (shown as 11, 12 and 13 in Figure 2.1)
reveal that the data may be affected by water penetration.
Figure 2.1: Ratio of tandem to single load compared with ratio of deflections
Source: Scala (1970a).
Regarding the load level on a single-tyred single axle that produces the same maximum deflection as a
Standard Axle, Scala (1970a) states that the equivalent load by deflection tests is about 11.6 kips (ed. 51.6
kN) and in this paper, 12 kips (53.4 kN) is used mainly for ease of computation.
In the paper, Scala provides two values for the load on a tandem axle group which produced the same
maximum deflection as the 18 kip (80 kN) loaded Standard Axle 28.9 kip (128.6 kN) and 29.2 kip
(129.9 kN). The two values would appear to have been the values Scala determined from two separate
studies of surface deflections. Again, the paper does not present any data supporting these numbers. For
the remainder of the paper, Scala assumes that a 30 kip tandem axle load gives a deflection of the same
magnitude as an 18 kip single axle (dual tyre) load.
In the same paper, Scalas only statement regarding the load on a triaxle group that produces the same
maximum deflection as a Standard Axle is that it is expected that the three axle group with a load of
40.7 kip (181.0 kN) would be equivalent to a single axle of 18 kip (80.1 kN).
In an ARRB internal report that was written about five months after the paper described above was
published, Scala rounded his estimate for the load on a single-tyred axle that produces the same damage
as a Standard Axle to a neat 12 kip (53.4 kN) (Scala 1970b).
Potter records that, as part of the NAASRA Economics of Road Vehicle Limits (ERVL) study, Stevenson
(1976) used both of the Scala references discussed above and also conversations with Scala as a basis for
the values of load on each axle group considered to produce the same damage as the Standard Axle.
Scalas final values used by Stevenson are shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3:
Scalas axle group loads which cause the same damage as a Standard Axle
Axle group
Load
kip
kN
Tonnes
Single axle, single tyres (SAST)
12
53.4
5.4
Single axle, dual tyres (SADT)
18
80.1
8.2
30
133.4
13.6
40.7
181.0
18.5
Tandem axle, dual tyres (TADT)

Triaxle, dual tyres (TRDT)
The Interim Guide to Pavement Thickness Design (National Association of Australian State Road
Authorities 1979) used the load values but, Potter believed probably due to oversight, dropped
consideration of triaxles.
The NAASRA pavement design working group reviewing the interim procedures revisited the load values
prior to their publication (NAASRA 1987) as finalised procedures. Potter states that the working group
noted the difference between Scalas 30 kip load of a dual-tyred tandem axle group and values reported by
AASHO (33.4 kip) and the Asphalt Institute (31.5 kip) cited in Scala (1970a). Potter also states that the
working group had noted that Scala (1977) had subsequently adopted a value of 13.7 t for tandem axles.
On these grounds, Potter states that the working group adopted a revised value for tandem axles of
135 kN. Whilst not disputing Potters statements, it should be noted that this adjustment is relatively minor
in effect (corresponding to a change in only 0.2 t of load), and that Scalas use of 13.7 t in 1977 is simply a
reference to his earlier conference paper described above (Scala 1970a)1. The use of different conversion
factors between parameters and different unit systems may provide an alternative explanation for these
changes.
More significantly, the working group incorporated triaxles into the final procedures, and also implicitly
included a reference load level for twin steer axles by stating that twin steer axles may be considered to be
equivalent to tandem axles (both with dual wheels) which are loaded to 1.5 times the load on the twin steer
axles. This statement effectively translates into a load of 90 kN, a value explicitly stated, from 2004, in
subsequently published revisions of the pavement design process (Austroads 2012a). Although Potter
does not document the basis for this equivalency, it seems most likely that it was based upon equating the
maximum surface deflections under the axle group and the Standard Axle group determined using linear
elastic modelling.
Using a variety of theoretical procedures, Vuong (2002) estimated the load on a quad-axle that would
cause the same deflection as a Standard Axle. Based on this analysis, a value of 221 kN was used as the
reference load in the 2004 version of the pavement design procedures (Austroads 2004). Subsequent field
measurements undertaken on a road in the Port of Brisbane confirmed that this value caused the same
maximum surface deflection as a Standard Axle (Yeo et al. 2007). The testing used multi-depth
deflectometers installed within the structure of thin asphalt surfaced granular pavements to determine the
surface deflection under a Standard Axle, and both a triaxle and quad-axle group with various loads. As
with Scalas field testing of the late 1960s, this testing was conducted at creep travelling speeds.
2.3
Assumed Interaction between Axles
If it were assumed that a multiple-axle group is comprised of n single axles (SADT) of equal load, acting
entirely independently of each other, the total load, L, on those n single axles that causes the same
pavement damage as an Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) could be determined using Equation 2. Table 2.4
shows the results of this calculation for tandem, triaxle and quad-axle groups, and demonstrates that the
results are remarkably similar to those used in the Austroads design processes.
This confusion is not helped by Scalas incorrect dating of his ARRB Conference paper in the references of his 1977 report. Scala
gives a date of 1972 rather than the correct 1970 date.
1=(
)
80
where
Table 2.4:
=
=
number of axles in the multiple-axle group (i.e. 2 for tandem, 3 for triaxle, etc.)
total load on axle group (kN)
Axle group loads which cause the same damage as a Standard Axle
Axle group type
Load (kN)
Austroads
Equation 2
80
135
135
181
182
221
226
This implies that the loads used in the Austroads design processes implicitly assume that interaction
between the loads on each axle within a multiple-axle group does not occur, and that each axle of a
multiple-axle group can be considered to be equivalent to a single axle. That is, in terms of pavement
damage, there is no interaction between the axles in the group.
2.4
Limitations of Current Practice
The key assumption underlying the Australian method for determining loads on axle groups that cause
equal damage is that, any axle group that causes the same maximum surface deflection as a Standard
Axle causes the same damage as the Standard Axle. There are three potential areas where this
assumption is open to serious question.
Firstly, in equating damage based solely upon the maximum surface deflection response, the approach
ignores the number of axles within the group that may generate multiple occurrences of this maximum
deflection.
Secondly, the assumption that the deflection response is the most appropriate indicator of pavement
damage is open to question. By using the surface deflection response, the approach provides no insight
into the performance of the individual material layers of which the pavement is comprised, but rather treats
the pavement as a single entity. The mechanistic design process adopted in Australia and New Zealand
characterises the performance of pavement materials in terms of their response to strains and not
deflections. Hence, the use of deflection response is incompatible with the current design process. Other
mechanistic design procedures used internationally, similarly use either strain or stress responses or no
deflection.
Thirdly, surface deflection measurement field trials have been, for practical reasons, limited to creep speed
travel of the axle groups over the deflection sensors. The visco-elastic nature of some pavement materials,
as well as the development of pore pressures within unbound crushed rock and natural soil layers, would
be expected to be affected by the loading and unloading speed.
There is a dearth of data relating axle configuration to observed pavement performance. The AASHO road
test in the late 1950s represents the only significant pavement performance data set in which pavements
were subjected to different axle group load types and levels, in a manner that ensured that sections of
pavement were only subjected to a given load level and axle group type. The road test examined only
single and tandem axle groups, and used relatively thick pavements which were subject to freeze-thaw
cycles. All of these factors are particularly unrepresentative of Australian road pavements. Additionally, the
study expressed pavement performance in terms of the pavement serviceability index (PSI) and not on the
performance of individual pavement material layers. Incorporation of the general PSI measure of
performance into a mechanistic design framework is problematic, as the PSI does not allow any
explanatory link between pavement modelling responses and performance.
3. Review of Alternative Methods

3.1
Introduction
A review of international literature discussing the effect of multiple-axle groups on pavement performance
was conducted.
The concept of a load equivalency factor () is a convenient means of expressing the damage caused to
a pavement from a given load on an axle group, relative to the damage caused by the Standard Axle
reference load (Equation 3).
The load equivalency for a series of axle groups is determined by multiplying the for each axle load
level/group combination by the number of occurrences of that combination in the series. A load on an axle
group providing an of unity is considered to cause the same damage as the Standard Axle.
where
load equivalency factor for axle group
damage caused by
damage caused by Standard Axle load
Ideally, factors would be determined from observing pavement or material performance and directly
utilising pavement damage in Equation 3. An alternative approach is to use the response of pavements or
materials to load, in place of observed damage.
3.2
1993 AASHTO Guide
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have developed two
distinctly different pavement design guides. The last official release of the original guide was in 1993, and
so the following discussion refers to this guide as the 1993 AASHTO guide. The new AASHTO guide
(AASHTO 2008) incorporates radical changes in design methods, and is widely known as the MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). The MEPDG is discussed in Section 3.4.3.
The AASHTO 1993 method is predominantly used to design flexible pavement designs in the USA. It uses
s based on analysis of the AASHO road test (AASHO 1962) conducted in the late 1950s to early
1960s. The road test consisted of six loops of road, including a broad range of both flexible and rigid
pavement structures. The pavements were trafficked with test vehicles, and it was ensured that each lane
only received trafficking from a single type of vehicle (i.e. axle combination).
The flexible pavement structures were characterised in terms of their structural number (SN), and the
observed performance changes were expressed in terms of a change in the pavement serviceability index
(PSI). The performance data was observed and comparisons made between the same pavement
structures loaded with different axle configurations.
The s used in the 1993 AASHTO guide processes were based on analysis of the performance of road
test pavements under dual-tyred single and tandem axle groups. Factors are also provided for triaxle
groups, however, these were not based on road test data (the road test did not include triaxle groups), but
rather on the assumption that one pass of a triaxle is equivalent to one pass each of a single and tandem
axle. Rilett and Hutchinson (1988) concluded that this assumption was not supported by field observations
or theoretical analysis. Steer axles were not considered to contribute to pavement wear during the road test
and, consequently, s were not developed for this axle type (i.e. single-tyred single axle).
For a load level and axle group being considered, the relationship for determining the (Equation 4) is a
function of the structural number (SN) of the pavement being loaded and the terminal PSI value (i.e. the
serviceability of the pavement at the end of its design life).
A comparison of the values in the Austroads (2012a) guide with the 1993 AASHTO guide shows that
the AASHTO values are considerably lower. This is demonstrated for asphalt damage ( = 5) in the
example in Figure 3.1.
The performance data used to derive the 1993 AASHTO guide values was from the trafficking of
relatively thick asphalt pavements which were subjected to freeze-thaw cycles. Both of these factors are
especially unrepresentative of Australian road pavements, which are predominantly granular pavements in
non-freezing conditions. Additionally, the values were based upon pavement performance expressed
in terms of PSI, and not on the performance of individual pavement material layers. The incorporation of a
general PSI measure of performance into a mechanistic design framework is problematic, as the PSI does
not allow any explanatory link between pavement modelling responses and performance. The move to a
mechanistic design process has resulted in these old values not being adopted in the more recent
mechanistic design process used in the 2008 AASTHO Guide (Section 3.4.3).
1
18 + 2
=(
)
+ 2
4.79
10
( ) (2 )4.33
1018
where
load equivalency factor for axle group at the load being evaluated
axle load being evaluated (kip)
18
18 kip (i.e. Standard Axle load)
code for axle configuration

1 = single axle
2 = tandem axle
3 = triaxle
x = axle load equivalency factor being evaluated
s = Standard Axle (2 = 1)
4.2
log10 (
)
4.2 1.5
terminal pavement serviceability index
0.4 + (
structural number of the pavement
0.08( + 2 )3.23
)
( + 1)5.19 3.23
2
Figure 3.1: Comparison of LEF values from 1993 AASHTO guide and current Austroads (2012) guide
with an LDE = 5
5.0
4.0
3.0
LEF
Austroads single
Austroads tandem
Austroads triaxle
2.0
AASHTO single
AASHTO tandem
AASHTO triaxle
1.0
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Group load (kN)

Note: A typical terminal PSI value of two and pavement structural number of five was used in Equation 4 to generate
the 1993 AASHTO guide values.
3.3
French Design Manual
The French pavement design manual (LCPC & SETRA 1997) contains a method for determining the
aggressiveness of each axle, whether isolated or within a multiple-axle group, using Equation 5. The
aggressiveness is the damage caused by one pass of an axle with load compared to the damage caused
by one pass of the reference axle of load . A key factor in the relationship is the factor , which is used
to consider the effect that grouping axles together has on the damage caused. The manual states that the
factor varies with pavement structure and material composition, and provides a table of average values
(Table 3.1).

= ( )
where
aggressiveness of axle
factor used to take into account the axle group type (equals one for single axles)
load damage exponent
Table 3.1:
Typical values for parameters K and used in French aggressiveness calculation

K
Pavement type
Single axle
Tandem
Triaxle
Flexible and bituminous pavements
0.75
1.1
Semi-rigid pavements
12
12
113
Concrete pavements
Slabs
Continuously reinforced concrete
12
12
1
1
12
unknown
113
unknown
Source LCPC & SETRA (1997).
Using the average values in Table 3.1, values can be calculated relative to a standard 80 kN
Standard Axle as used in Australia (the reference axle load in France is 130 kN). This is shown in
Figure 3.2 for a flexible pavement (i.e. , equal to five). It can be seen that French values are lower
than Austroads ones, but not as low as those determined using the AASHTO 1993 method. It must be
remembered however, that the French method considers the value of the factor to be a function of both
the structure and composition of the pavement.
Figure 3.2: Comparison of LEF values for French design method and current Austroads (2012) guide
with an LDE = 5
5.0
4.0
3.0
LEF
Austroads single
Austroads tandem
Austroads triaxle
2.0
France tandem
France triaxle
1.0
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Group load (kN)

The line for single axle values using the French method is the same as the Austroads line, as they both use a
damage exponent of five.
3.4
Response to Load Methods
3.4.1 Relating Response to Damage

The concept of a load equivalency factor () is also a convenient means of expressing the response of a
pavement to a given load on an axle group, relative to the response of the pavement to the application of a
Standard Axle reference load (Equation 6). The load equivalency for a series of axle groups is determined
by multiplying the for each axle load level/group combination by the number of occurrences of that
combination in the series.
The load on an axle group providing an of unity is considered to cause the same damage as the
Standard Axle. The underlying premise of this approach is that equal response equates to equal pavement
damage.

= ( )
where
pavement response to load
pavement response to Standard Axle load

damage exponent for the response and mode of distress (i.e. = )
Response to load methods fall into two distinct categories (Figure 3.3):
discrete methods which characterise the response to load curve using only discrete values (typically
the magnitude of the peak and trough values of the response curve)
integration methods which use the whole response to load curve.
Figure 3.3: Discrete and integration methods for calculating LEFs
Source: Hajek and Agarwal (1990).
3.4.2 Maximum Response Methods

Maximum response methods consider only the maximum response of the pavement to the axle group load
applied. For example, in Case a in Figure 3.3, a maximum response method would only consider the value
of D1 in determining the load equivalency factor. The Austroads method for relating load damage between
axle groups discussed in Section 2.1.3 is a maximum response method that uses the surface deflection
(response) of the pavement.
The using the maximum response method is calculated using Equation 7.
= (
where
load equivalency factor for axle group i
An alternative to using surface deflection in the method would be the use of maximum strain generated in a
pavement layer under an axle group. Any maximum strain generated under a given axle group and load
that matched the strain generated under a Standard Axle would be considered to cause the same damage
as the Standard Axle.
Using strain response instead of surface deflection has the advantage that the strain response can be
related directly to strain-based material performance models (e.g. the mechanistic Austroads design
process uses tensile strains as a key input in determining the fatigue performance of asphalt materials).
As noted above, the main limitation of maximum response methods is that they ignore the potentially
pavement damaging effects of response peaks other than the maximum one (e.g. D *2 in Case a in Figure
3.3).
3.4.3 MEPDG
The MEPDG (AASHTO 2008) is a fundamentally different design method to the AASHTO (1993) method.
Central to the method is modelling of the response of pavements to applied loads. It uses a maximum
response method to consider damage caused by multiple-axle groups.
In the context of this report, the MEPDG differs from the current Austroads mechanistic design procedure in
two fundamental ways:
The Austroads procedure considers that the load applied to a multiple-axle group that will cause the
same damage as the Standard Axle is independent of the structure of the pavement. The MEPDG
considers that the pavement structure has an effect on the loads that cause equivalent damage.
The Austroads procedure uses the strain responses of the candidate pavement structure loaded with a
Standard Axle to determine the number of allowable repetitions of this load. Different load levels and
axle group tyres are equated to determine the design repetitions of the standard axle. The MEPDG
models the response of each axle load and each axle group type within the design traffic spectrum,
and determines a level of damage associated with each of those combinations.
To determine the strain response under a multiple-axle group load, the strains resulting from each axle
within the group are superimposed as shown in Figure 3.4. The maximum strain within the resulting
combined group response is then used to determine the damage caused by that group and load.
Figure 3.4: Strains generated by a quad-axle group
Source: Applied Research Associates (2004).
3.4.4 Multiple Peak Response Methods

A refinement of the maximum peak response method is to consider the magnitude of the peak response
under each axle in the group (i.e. to consider both D1 and D*2 in Case a in Figure 3.3).
This multiple peak response method calculates the using Equation 8.
1
= (
)
=1
where
number of peaks in the axle group response curve
An advantage of this method over the maximum peak response method is that it can distinguish between
Cases a and b in Figure 3.3, recognising the difference in magnitude of the minor peaks.
3.4.5 South African Pavement Engineering Manual (2003)

The current South African Pavement Engineering Manual (SAPEM) (South African National Roads
Agency 2013) contains a mechanistic procedure for the design of flexible pavements that is similar in
principle to the Austroads method. In characterising the damage caused by multiple-axle groups, the
SAPEM differs from Austroads and uses a variant of the multiple peak response method.
In principle, the process is similar to the MEPDG, wherein the damage resulting from each axle load and
group within the design spectrum is summed. However, whereas the MEPDG models a multiple-axle group
as a whole and determines the maximum resulting response, the mechanistic SAPEM method models the
group as separate isolated axles (i.e. with no superposition of responses from each axle) and determines
damage resulting from each axle. The guide acknowledges that this approach overestimates the damage
resulting from multiple-axle groups, but does not consider the overestimation to be significant.
Whilst the process considers the peak response associated with each axle within a group, it does not
consider the superposition of those responses, i.e. the grouping of the axles. Therefore, it is not a pure
example of a multiple-peak response method.
3.4.6 Peak Mid-way Methods

The peak mid-way method2 was originally used for analysis of the Canadian Vehicle Weights and
Dimensions Study (Christison 1986a, 1986b). The method uses the peak response under the lead axle (1
in Figure 3.5) and the difference between the peak and trough for remaining axles in the group (2, 3, 4
and 5 in Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5: Peak mid-way method using strain response for a five axle group
Source: Chatti and Lee (2004).
The formula for calculating the LEF for an axle group using the peak mid-way method is shown in Equation 9.
1
1
= (
) + (
)
=2
where
pavement response to 1st (lead) peak
pavement response to th peak
pavement response mid-way (in trough) between peaks ( 1) and
number of peaks in the axle group response curve
A criticism of this method (Chatti & Lee 2004) is that for some strain responses to load shapes, such as
that shown in Figure 3.6, there is a zone of neglected tension which is not considered in determination of
the .
Given this name by Chatti and Lee (2004).

Figure 3.6: Zone of neglected tension in the peak mid-way method
3.4.7 Integration Methods

By considering the entire response to load curve, integration methods can include the duration of the load
response curve, which is not done by the methods that only consider peak responses, as well as the
magnitude of the response(s). Integration methods can distinguish between Cases a and b of Figure 3.3,
as can some discrete methods, but they can also distinguish between Cases a and c which have the same
peak responses but over different durations.
Dissipated energy method

The area within a stress-strain hysteresis loop (i.e. the loop created by plotting the loading and unloading
stress-strain characteristic of a material) represents the energy lost to the material during the loading
regime, and is termed the dissipated energy. A linear-elastic material has identical and linear loading and
unloading stress-strain curves. The loading of such a material creates zero dissipated energy.
Asphalts have demonstrated non-linear elastic behaviour, and exhibit significant stress-strain hysteresis
loops. Generalised stress-strain loops generated by a single and triaxle (tridem) axle group are shown for
an asphalt material in Figure 3.7. Loops for both longitudinal (i.e. in the direction of travel) and transverse
strain (perpendicular to the direction of travel) are shown.
Dissipated energy changes with long-term loading of materials, and so it is common practice to
characterise a material in terms of its initial dissipated energy behaviour.
Figure 3.7: Stress-strain hysteresis loops for asphalt material
Transverse stress-strain hysteresis loop
Longitudinal stress-strain hysteresis loop
The dissipated energy method for determining LEFs uses the calculation shown in Equation 10.
,
= (
)
,
10
where
dissipated energy of axle group during initial cycles
dissipated energy of Standard Axle during initial cycles
Use of the method within a pavement design approach, however, requires the computation of dissipated
energy for all axle load and group combinations in the design traffic spectrum. The Austroads design
process makes use of linear-elastic computational tools and calibrated performance relationships, and so is
unable to determine dissipated energy.
Strain area method

The strain area method is a simpler integration method than the dissipated energy method, and simply
uses the area under the initial strain curve generated by the axle group (Figure 3.8). Equation 11 is used to
determine s using this method.
Figure 3.8: Area under initial strain response curve for simulated quad-axle group in a controlled
stress test
Source: Salama and Chatti (2006).
,
= (
)
0,
11
where
3.5
area under strain curve for axle group
area under strain curve for Standard Axle
Summary
Different international pavement design systems consider relative damage factors for multiple-axle groups
in different ways.
The AASHTO guide (1993), which is based upon a large-scale field study and does not contain a
mechanistic model, determines that load equivalency factors are a function of the pavements structure.
This is in contrast to the Austroads approach which uses the same values across all pavement
materials and thicknesses. The AASHTO (1993) factors result in higher equivalent loads on multipleaxle groups than the Austroads approach.
The French design method considers s to be affected by pavement structure, but only provides
example average values for structures varying by material type, not by thickness. The French method
results in equivalent higher loads on multiple-axle groups than the Austroads method, but not as high as
the AASHTO (1993) method.
The current South African method models each axle as an isolated axle, and sums the damage determined
from the response-to-load modelling of the load on of each of the individual axles within the design traffic
spectrum. This is similar to the French method in modelling the pavement response to each load level, but
does not consider the effect that any interaction between the axles within a group will have on the damage
resulting from that group. It results in lower equivalent loads for a given pavement structure than the French
method.
Finally, the new AASHTO MEPDG (2008) method also considers that the structure affects load
equivalence. The method uses a response-to-load model to determine the response of each group and
load level. In contrast, in the South African approach, the response to multiple-axle group loads is modelled
directly rather than considering the group to be composed of a series of isolated axles with equal load.
However, the method only uses the maximum peak response from each group, and does not consider
responses from other peaks as affecting damage.
Alternative theoretical methods of characterising the response of a pavement to multiple-axle loads have
been developed, but little work has been undertaken to demonstrate the relevance of these
characterisations to the performance of pavement materials/structures.
4. Review of Research
4.1
General
A range of theoretical methods of characterising the response of a pavement to multiple-axle loads were
described in Section 3. However, the AASHO road test (AASHO 1962) represents the only significant
pavement performance data set in which pavements were subjected to different axle group load types and
levels in a manner that ensures that sections of pavement were only subjected to a given load level and
axle group type. A range of relevant smaller-scale response-to-load and laboratory tests have been
conducted, and are summarised here.
4.2
Asphalt Fatigue Using Simulated Multiple-axle Loads: Michigan

State University
The Pavement Research Center of Excellence at Michigan State University conducted a comprehensive
study of the effect of multiple-axle trucks on the distress of typical Michigan flexible and rigid pavements.
Chatti et al. (2009) documents the work conducted on flexible pavements, including a laboratory-based
asphalt fatigue study.
In the study, 31 asphalt samples were subjected to fatigue testing using the indirect tensile method, with a
series of load pulses simulating different axle groups. Fatigue tests were conducted for single, tandem,
triaxle, quad-axle and eight-axle groups. Three different levels of peak stress were applied in the study, and
three levels of axle interaction (Figure 4.1) were included.
Controlled load/stress testing was used, with the load pulse shapes being determined from theoretical
analysis of pavement structures. Only responses transverse to the direction of travel were simulated in the
laboratory testing. Examination of longitudinal responses would have required the development of both
tensile and compressive strains/stresses in the samples, which is impossible within an indirect tensile test.
A rest period equal to four times the length of the loading pulse was used, regardless of the number of axles
within the axle group. The length of the loading pulse varied between axle group simulations, with the single
axle pulse width having a load time of 0.1 seconds. With the addition of a 0.4 second rest time, this
corresponds to a loading frequency of 2 Hz. Multiple-axle group load tests would have had lower frequencies.
The testing matrix is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1:
Fatigue testing matrix for the Michigan study
Stress level
Low
(30 kPa)
Medium
(60 kPa)
Interaction level
Number of axles
1
2 tests
2 tests
2 tests
Medium (50%)
High (75%)
3 tests
3 tests
3 tests
3 tests
Low (25%)
Low (25%)
3 tests
Medium (50%)
2 tests
2 tests
2 tests
2 tests
Medium (50%)
High (75%)
High (75%)
High
(120 kPa)
Low (25%)
2 tests
Source: Chatti et al. (2009).
Figure 4.1: Levels of interaction between axles used in the Michigan study
(a)
Low interaction (25%)
(b)
Medium interaction (50%)
(c)
High interaction (75%)
The study examined a range of alternative analysis methods, and found that a fatigue relationship based
solely upon the dissipated energy density determined during the initial cycles of the test provided the best
fit to the laboratory data. Significantly, the study found that a single fatigue relationship could be used for all
axle groups, load levels and interaction levels. Figure 4.2 shows the determined function relating the
number of load cycles to fatigue failure, , to the initial dissipated energy density (DE) of the test, and
shows the remarkable fit of the function to the collected data. It would appear that the differences in test
parameters, and thus the differences in load pulse shape, were all reflected in the initial dissipated energy
density value.
It is important to note, however, the very short test durations used the median test duration was less than
4000 cycles (and the upper quartile was approximately 7500 cycles).
Figure 4.2: Dissipated energy density fatigue curve from the Michigan study
Having developed a function relating the fatigue performance of asphalt to the initial dissipated energy
density of the material, the study then used computationally derived dissipated energy densities, using
finite layer analysis software, to explore the theoretical fatigue life of an asphalt material subject to a range
of different load levels, axle configurations and interaction levels. This data enabled the calculation
(Equation 12) of s relating the damage caused by each combination of axle group type (with each axle
within a group presumed to have a 13 kip (58 kN) load) and interaction level to a standard 18 kip (80 kN)
single axle load. These load equivalency factors are shown in Table 4.2.
(18 kip standard axle)

(axle configuration)
=
(18 kip standard axle)
(axle configuration)
12
where
load equivalency factor for the axle configuration being considered
=
=
damage caused by the axle configuration
Table 4.2:
number of cycles to fatigue failure
Load equivalency factors calculated by the Michigan study
Test conditions
1 axle 18 kip (80 kN)
5388
1.00
1 axle 13 kip (58 kN)
7750
0.70
2 axles
489
1.10
3 axles
3876
1.39
4 axles
2889
1.87
5 axles
2377
2.27
7 axles
1893
2.85
8 axles
1707
3.16
2 axles
5987
0.90
3 axles
4592
1.17
4 axles
3577
1.51
5 axles
2992
1.80
7 axles
2477
2.18
8 axles
2289
2.35
2 axles
5644
0.95
3 axles
4155
1.30
4 axles
3431
1.57
5 axles
3058
1.76
7 axles
2549
2.11
8 axles
2439
2.21
25%
interaction
50 %
interaction
75%
interaction
The Axle Factor (AF) is defined as the relative damage caused by an axle group compared to that of a
single axle carrying the same load as that carried on an individual axle within the group. For example,
Equation 13 shows determination of the AF for a 39 kip triaxle group. If, for a given multi-axle group, the AF
were to equal the number of axles within the group, then the grouping of the axles would have no effect on
the damage caused. Similarly, if the AF was lower than the number of axles within the group, then the
grouping of the axles would have reduced the damage caused. AF values computed in the Michigan study
are shown in Figure 4.3 for a range of different interaction levels. It can be seen that the study calculated
axle factors lower than the number of axles within the groups, reflecting the pavement-friendly benefit of
grouping axles together. It can also be seen, within the scale of the graph, that the effect of axle interaction
for tandem, triaxle and quad-axle groups is considerably less than for large axle groupings such as seven
and eight axles. The state of Michigan allows multi-axle groupings of up to eight axles.
(13 kip single axle)

(39 kip triaxle)
=
(13 kip single axle)
(39 kip triaxle)
13
where
=
=
=
axle factor for the axle group being considered (in this case a 39 kip triaxle)
damage caused by the axle configuration
number of cycles to fatigue failure
Figure 4.3: Axle factors (AF) for different interaction levels calculated by the Michigan study
The study then went on to determine the best means of relating the loading/response pulse shape to the
observed fatigue lives and resulting axle factors, without the need to determine dissipated energy.
In summary, the study determined that the dissipated energy-based fatigue approach was found to be
unique for all axle configurations examined. This allowed a single relationship to be used to predict the
fatigue life of any other axle group, if the initial dissipated energy density caused by that axle group could
be determined. The study also found that both speed of loading and asphalt thickness (reflected in the
interaction level between axles within a group) did not have a significant effect on the axle factors
determined (changes in either of them did affect fatigue life, but not the relative damage caused).
However, the study had its limitations. Firstly, the fatigue test durations were extremely short. Additionally,
the use of indirect tensile testing meant that only tensile strains could be generated in laboratory samples,
preventing examination of the effect of alternations between tensile and compressive strains/stresses
experienced in the longitudinal direction (i.e. the direction of travel). A major recommendation of the study
by Chatti et al. (2009) was that:
a different testing setup (flexural beam preferably) be used to check the consistency of the results
under different loading modes and stress states. The flexural beam test could allow for stress
reversals, which are relevant for longitudinal stresses and strains.
4.3
Effect of Different Wave Forms and Rest Periods on Fatigue:

Chuo University Study
At the University of Chuo in Tokyo, Kogo and Himeno (2008) conducted strain-controlled four-point bending
fatigue tests on beams made from a single dense graded asphalt mix using the following types of load
pulses (the shapes are shown in Figure 4.4):
continuous sinusoidal at 5 Hz
continuous triangular at 5 Hz
continuous twin peaks at 5 Hz
sinusoidal (loading time 0.2 s) with a 1 second rest period
sinusoidal (loading time 0.2 s) with a 10 second rest period.
Hence, in all cases, the length of loading was 0.2 seconds.

Figure 4.4: Loading wave shapes used in the Chuo University study
(a)
Sinusoidal
(b)
Triangular
(c)
Twin peaks
Source: Kogo and Himeno (2008).
The study calculated the rate of dissipated energy change for each test with increasing number of load
cycles. This rate was determined during the long gradual damage phase of the fatigue test, i.e. after the
initial damage caused by early loading and before the sudden drop indicating approaching failure. For the
continuous loading tests, plotting the rates of dissipated energy change against the number of cycles
required to reach fatigue failure (Figure 4.5(a)) demonstrated that the loading pulse shape (not the duration
of load, as that was constant) did not have a significant effect on the fatigue life of the samples.
As shown in Figure 4.5(b), the tests incorporating a rest period did, however, demonstrate a different
fatigue relationship. Uniaxial fatigue tests conducted as part of a separate study also demonstrated a
different relationship between rate of dissipated energy change and fatigue life.
The study demonstrated the potential for dissipated energy change to predict fatigue performance
independently to the load pulse shape (but not necessarily width of load pulse). Significantly, the study
showed the considerable effect that rest periods during testing can have on fatigue performance.
Figure 4.5: Relationship between rate of dissipated energy and load cycles determined by the
Chuo University study
(a) Effect of load shape
(b) Effect of rest period and loading type
Source: after Kogo and Himeno (2008).
4.4
Effect of Different Wave Forms on Fatigue: French Studies
Merbouh et al. (2007) conducted a series of controlled strain fatigue tests using synthetic load shapes. The
original paper is written in French. A summary of the test results is presented in Bodin et al. (2009).
The fatigue testing was conducted on laboratory-prepared trapezoidal samples comprised of a single
asphalt mix. The testing was conducted by generally following the requirements of the European Standard
EN12697-24:2012, originally developed in France. The equipment was modified to allow a numerical
generator to generate more complex strain shapes than the standard sinusoidal shape used in routine
tests.
In order to overcome creep of samples during fatigue testing, the standard tests make use of a sinusoidal
shape, moving the critical edge of the trapezoidal beam from tensile strain to compressive to tensile, etc.
The Merbouh et al. (2007) study extended this principle by applying complex shapes in a similar manner
as had been done, although using four-point bending, by Kogo and Himeno (2008).
Figure 4.6 shows an example of the complex waveforms applied during the testing, and also introduces the
parameter to reflect unloading between successive strain peaks. When = 0, there is no decrease of
the load between the two peaks, i.e. there is a single, long peak. When
= 0.5, the displacement level between the peaks is zero, i.e. touching the x-axis in Figure 4.6. When =
1, the valley between the two adjacent peaks is equal in magnitude to the peak level, but opposite in sign,
i.e. the signal is fully reversed, as shown by the grey line in Figure 4.6, and is sinusoidal in shape with a
frequency of three times the multiple peak shape.
Figure 4.6: Example complex strain pulse used in the French waveform study
Source: Bodin et al. (2009).
Fatigue tests were conducted at a temperature of 20C, at different strain levels, using the standard
sinusoidal load shape, and double peak shapes with equal to 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1. The period of each
signal was fixed at 0.12 seconds (i.e. a frequency for the shape of 8.3 Hz). Strain levels were selected to
obtain fatigue lives between 104 and 5 105 cycles. The test results for each load shape were grouped and
linear interpolation was used to define the strain level that would equate to a fatigue life of 10 5 cycles, 5 ,
and the load damage exponent, , in Equation 14. Table 4.3 lists the values of these parameters for each
shape reported by Bodin et al. (2009).

= 105 ( )
5
14
where
number of cycles to reach fatigue failure (i.e. modulus reduction to 50% of initial
modulus)
=
=
=
strain level that will result in a fatigue life of 105 cycles
strain level applied in test

load damage exponent
Table 4.3:
Effect of strain load shape on fatigue life in the French study

(m/m)
No. tests
Value
95% confidence interval
Sinusoidal
11
4.57 0.75
380
(297 488)
=0
12
4.29 1.36
323
(256 406)
= 0.25
12
4.76 0.90
324
(277 319)
= 0.5
12
4.26 1.43
319
(232 437)
= 0.75
12
4.79 1.89
321
(232 447)
=1
12
3.61 0.94
243
(170 349)
Type of signal
Bodin et al. (2009) concluded that:
Influence of :
In the range from 0 to 0.75, the parameter had no significant effect on the fatigue performance.
When was equal to 1, the fatigue performance noticeably dropped.
This indicates that the amount of decrease in strain level that occurs between the two peaks of the
signal had no significant effect on the fatigue life, until such point as the decrease results in a
completely symmetrical sinusoidal signal.
Duration of peak load:
The sinusoidal and = 0 shapes both had a single peak and a frequency of 8.3 Hz. The = 0
shape had a flat peak strain level, and therefore a longer period over which the peak load was
applied.
There is a noticeable decrease in fatigue performance when the longer load = 0 shape was used
when compared to the sinusoidal loading.
Bodin et al. (2009) examined the aggressiveness of each shape. They defined the aggressiveness of a
shape having a period of seconds, as:
15
where
=
=
aggressiveness of the signal with period of seconds

number of cycles of the signal to fatigue failure
It can be seen that aggressiveness and the term damaging, which is used elsewhere within this report, are
synonymous.
In addition, Bodin et al. considered that the shapes simulated different number of wheel (i.e. axle) passes,
as listed in Table 4.4. Equation 15 could then be rewritten to express the aggressiveness of wheel passes,
as shown in Equation 16.
Table 4.4:
Number of wheel (i.e. axle) passes represented by signals in the French study
Period of the signal,
Number of wheels,
Sinusoidal
0.12 s
=0
0.12 s
= 0.25
0.12 s
= 0.5
0.12 s
= 0.75
0.12 s
=1
0.12 s
Type of signal
16
where
=
=
=
aggressiveness of a wheel pass within a signal with period of seconds

number of cycles of the signal to fatigue failure
number of wheels represented in the signal
Figure 4.7 presents the aggressiveness of the signals, normalised to the aggressiveness of the sinusoidal
loading, in terms of both the periods and the number of wheel passes within each shape. Figure 4.7(a)
shows that all of the two-peak shapes, except for the = 1 shape, have aggressiveness about two times
greater than the sinusoidal signal with the same period/frequency (8.33 Hz). The = 1 shape is
considerably more aggressive. As noted earlier, this shape is equivalent to a sinusoidal shape of three
times the frequency, i.e. 25 Hz.
Figure 4.7 (b) demonstrates that the aggressiveness of a wheel pass for the = 0.25 0.75 shapes is
close to unity, indicating that for these shapes, the two-peak area as aggressive as two single peaks. The
longer duration single-peak load shape, = 0 is twice as aggressive as the shorter duration sinusoidal
shape, and has approximately the same wheel aggressiveness as the = 1 shape.
Figure 4.7: Aggressiveness of signals in the French study
(a) Period
(b) Wheel passes
4.5
Effect of Different Wave Forms on Laboratory Fatigue: Homsi

Study
As the basis of a doctoral thesis, Homsi (2011) undertook an extensive laboratory exercise examining the
effects of different load shapes on the flexural fatigue performance of a single asphalt mix. Her thesis is
written in French, and two English language journal papers also document the relevant work (Homsi et al.
2011, 2012).
To assist in defining the load shapes to investigate in the laboratory study, Homsi et al. (2011) describe the
collection of asphalt strain responses under multiple (half) axle loads applied using the Fatigue Carrousel
(a large circular accelerated pavement testing facility) operated by the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et
Chausses (LCPC) in Nantes, France. Data was collected under single, tandem and triaxle groups on two
different pavement structures, one with 160 mm asphalt material and the other with 260 mm of asphalt. A
tyre load of 42.5 kN was applied to all tyres (the half axles used were all fitted with single tyres typical of
those used as trailer tyres on European semi-trailers). Responses were collected in directions parallel and
perpendicular to the direction of travel, at loading speeds between 4 and 50 km/h, and asphalt
temperatures between 4 and 38 C. A total of 1700 loading signals were collected.
Principal components analyses (PCA) were then undertaken to determine which parameters could be best
used to characterise a strain response shape. A long list of candidate parameters were identified, and
response data collected from the Fatigue Carrousel exercise were analysed to determine which of the
candidate parameters were correlated with each other, and which were demonstrably independent. Both
longitudinal and transverse signals were analysed, and the list of parameters that were found to
independently characterise both signal types were:
maximum strain ()
number of peaks ( )
)
duration of the shape divided by the number of peaks (
area under the strain time shape, normalised by strain magnitude and divided by the duration ( ).
Figure 4.8 shows examples of these parameters for triaxle loading, i.e. = 3.
Figure 4.8: Definitions of Homsis strain shape parameters
(a) Longitudinal
(b) Transverse
Homsi et al. (2012) documents the results of a laboratory study wherein samples of a single asphalt mix
were subjected to a series of controlled strain fatigue tests at 20 C, using load shape signals representing
a range of the above shape parameters (Table 4.5). The same equipment used in the Merbouh et al.
(2007) testing program was used.
Single, tandem and triaxle groups were considered in the testing program, and three strain magnitudes
were used. The strains selected were high in comparison to both levels traditionally used in fatigue testing,
and to magnitudes experienced in situ under highway loading. The highest level used, 347 m/m, matched
the upper limit of the equipment used. The lowest level, 165 m/m, was selected to ensure that test
durations were not excessive (as only a single test was conducted at this strain level for each combination
of shape parameters). The mid-range value of 240 m/m was selected to be half-way between the other
values when represented on a logarithmic scale. The magnitudes of peaks within a multi-axle shape were
made equal.
The values of 0.21 and 0.42 were selected for the parameter, the first representing a longitudinal strain
signal (i.e. strain in the direction of travel), and the second representing a signal in the transverse direction
(i.e. strain perpendicular to travel). The response-to-load data collected using the Fatigue Carrousel was
were selected,
analysed, and median values of were selected for each strain direction. Two values for
0.105 and 0.25, representing a trafficking speed of between 20 and 150 km/h, depending upon the
thickness of the pavement structure.
At the two higher strain levels, three replicates of each combination of shape parameters were undertaken.
Due to the long duration of the test, only a single test was conducted at the lowest strain level. A total of 84
fatigue tests were conducted, with the number of cycles required to reach fatigue (a drop of modulus to
50% of its initial value) varying between 1500 to 1 million cycles. Long duration tests took up to 15 days to
complete. Homsi et al. (2012) records that a high amount of scatter was evident in the test results, but that
time restrictions prevented undertaking the six test beam replicates that would robustly be required using
EN12697-24:2012.
Table 4.5:
Signal
Homsis experimental plan and observed Nf = f() or each signal
0.21(1)
0.42(2)
2
3
4
5
0.21
6
7
0.42
8
9
0.21
10
11
0.42
12
Period
(s)
Frequency
(Hz)
0.105
0.28
0.25
0.105
( ) = () +
3.57
4.14
14.64
0.67
1.50
3.63
13.64
0.28
3.57
3.54
13.54
0.25
0.67
1.50
4.00
14.74
0.105
0.51
1.95
4.85
16.10
0.25
1.22
0.82
5.12
16.91
0.105
0.51
1.95
4.30
15.12
0.25
1.22
0.82
5.27
17.68
0.105
0.76
1.32
4.71
15.49
0.25
1.80
0.56
5.53
17.88
0.105
0.76
1.32
3.65
13.23
0.25
1.80
0.56
5.56
18.14
Strain level 165 240 and 347 m/m

and
combination
Replicates for each ,
240 and 347 m/m : 3 replicates
165 m/m : single test
1
2
Longitudinal signal
Transverse signal.
Source: Homsi et al. (2012).
The classic log-log fatigue relationship (see Equation 17) was fitted through the experimental data to yield
the results shown in Table 4.5. Using these relationships at a fixed peak strain level of 200 m/m, Homsi
calculated the damage (i.e. 1/ ) for each signal. Relative damages were then calculated to evaluate the
effect of each shape parameter, whilst holding all other parameters constant. Homsi called this ratio the
relative signal equivalent factor (RSEF). The results are shown here in Table 4.6.
10 ( ) = 10() +
17
where
=
=
Table 4.6:
number of cycles to achieve fatigue

peak strain level
Homsis relative signal equivalent factors (RSEF)
Effect of
Effect of
Effect of
_ _
_ _
_ _
5 1
1.49
1 3
1.91
1 2
1.49
6 2
1.44
2 4
1.77
3 4
1.39
7 3
1.47
5 7
1.93
5 6
1.54
8 4
0.96
6 8
2.66
7 8
2.13
9 1
2.89
9 11
1.51
9 10
3.19
10 2
1.36
10 12
1.55
11 12
3.27
11 3
3.66
12 4
1.55
The RSEF values in Table 4.6 indicate that, at the same peak strain level, the two-peak pulse shapes were
0.96 to 1.49 times more damaging than single-peak shapes, dependent upon the values of the parameters
. Three-peak shapes were 1.36 to 3.66 times more damaging than the equivalent single-peak
of and
shapes. Given that all bar one RSEF factor for the comparison were greater than one, Homsi et al.
concluded that multiple-peak configurations were more damaging than single-peak shapes when the strain
level and other shape parameters were held constant. However, the authors did not comment on the range
of damage factors obtained from this analysis.
When considering the effect of , it was concluded that an increase in leads to an increase in fatigue
life, and therefore a decrease in damage. It should be noted that the distinction in value of this parameter in
the conducted experiments was also a distinction between strain shapes representative of those in the
longitudinal and transverse directions. In this context, the RSEF values indicate that, at the same strain
magnitude and duration, a longitudinal strain shape is more damaging than a transverse one.
Unfortunately, time restraints on the experimental work did not allow for testing of different values of to
be used within each strain direction.
When considering the duration of the load pulse, the RSEF values obtained indicate that the lower the
, the higher the damage when strain magnitude and other shape parameters are held constant.
value of
,
This could be interpreted to indicate that as trafficking speed increases, leading to decreasing values of
the amount of damage incurred also increases. However, as noted by Homsi et al., in a pavement
structure, an increase in trafficking speed will also result in decreasing the magnitude of strain.
Homsi also developed a single multi-linear model to predict the number of cycles to reach fatigue failure as
a function of all of the shape parameters. This is shown here as Equation 18, with the significance of the
terms decreasing from left to right. A comparison of the models predictions compared to the experimental
data is presented in Figure 4.9.
Section 7.5 explores simplification of this model.
10( ) = 4.58 10()

+ 15.22
0.84 10( ) + 1.31 + 1.76
18
where
number of cycles to achieve fatigue
=
=
=
=
area under the strain time shape, normalised by strain magnitude and divided by the
duration
peak strain level

number of peaks in strain signal
duration of the shape divided by the number of peaks
Figure 4.9: Homsis multi-linear model predictions compared to the experimental results
4.6
Pavement Response to Multiple-axle Loads: BASt Study
Rabe (2008) documents a study conducted by the German Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen (BASt)
where trucks of different configurations and weights were driven over a series of eight asphalt pavements
(Figure 4.10). Subbase materials for the pavements included gravel, crushed rock, lean mix concrete and
cemented sand. Total asphalt thicknesses for the pavements varied from 120 mm to 340 mm. The
pavements were specially constructed in an indoor facility, and were heavily instrumented with strain
gauges (in the asphalt layers), soil pressure cells (in the unbound layers) and temperature gauges, as
shown in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.10:
Truck passing over test pavements during BASt study
Source: Rabe (2008).
Figure 4.11:
Location of pavement instrumentation used in BASt study
Note: Instruments shown (top to bottom) are: temperature sensor, H-bar strain gauge, soil pressure cell.
Source: Rabe (2008).
The following axle and tyre configurations were included, using a variety of different trucks:
single axle with single tyres
single axle with dual tyres
tandem group with single tyres
tandem group with dual tyres
tandem group with twin tyres on one axle and single tyres on the other
triaxle with single tyres
single axle with a 495 mm super single tyre (i.e. nominal width 495 mm).
Four different vehicle gross weight levels were used: 16, 28, 40 and 48 tonnes (the maximum permissible
gross weight in Germany is 40 tonnes). Tyre pressures were varied, and the speed of trafficking was varied
from 2 to 30 km/h. Lateral wander of the vehicles was also included in the study. A total of 2500 truck
passes were undertaken, and pavement response data was simultaneously collected from the pavement
instrumentation.
A huge volume of data was collected during the study, and was still being processed at the time of writing.
Of relevance to this Austroads research project is the strain data collected at the bottom of the asphalt
layers under single, tandem and triaxle groups. Of the trucks used in the study, the one shown in Figure
4.12 is of most relevance to the proposed laboratory study. The vehicle configuration would better reflect
Australian practice if dual-tyred axles had been used in the triaxle group (the use of single-tyred axles in
triaxle groups is standard practice in most European countries).
Figure 4.12:
Geometry of a three axle prime mover and semi-trailer used in the BASt study
Figure 4.13 shows tensile strains generated by this truck travelling at 30 km/h, measured at the bottom of
the asphalt material in three pavement structures of varying asphalt thickness. The gross mass of the truck
was 40 tonnes, and the asphalt temperature at the time of testing was 11 C. The strains plotted were
measured in the transverse direction, i.e. in the direction perpendicular to the direction of travel. The three
axle groups are clearly discernible in the response data. Of particular note are:
Increasing the thickness of the asphalt reduced the magnitude of the strains generated under all axle
groups.
Increasing the thickness of the asphalt increased the interaction between the axles of the tandem and
triaxle groups in the strain response (i.e. the depth of the valley between peaks of the response see
Figure 4.1).
Only tensile strains were generated in the transverse direction.
The visco-elastic response of asphalt meant that time was needed for the strains to relax to zero after
the axles had passed over the gauges note the longer period needed for the strain to return to zero
after passage of the triaxle group compared to the tandem group (the time between passage of the
single steer axle and the tandem drive axle group was not sufficient for the strains to relax to zero).
Similarly, the peak strain generated by passage of the second axle of the tandem group was slightly
higher than the first, and this phenomenon was demonstrated successively by all three axles of the
triaxle group.
Under the thinnest pavement, the peak strain level reached was 120 microstrain.
Similarly, Figure 4.14 shows the tensile strains generated by the same truck in the longitudinal direction,
i.e. parallel to the direction of travel. The following observations are made:
Increasing the thickness of the asphalt also reduced the magnitude of the strains and increased the
interaction level between axles, as shown for the transverse strains.
Both compressive (i.e. negative in the figure) strains and tensile strains were generated.
Superposition of the three axles in the triaxle group resulted in a slightly lower peak strain generated
under the middle axle of the group.
For each of the three pavements tested, the peak longitudinal tensile strains generated by all three
axle groups were of a similar magnitude, whereas the peak transverse strains were different between
groups (this was most evident in the strains generated in the 120 mm asphalt pavement). The tandem
group, it should be remembered, had dual tyres whereas the other axles only had single tyres.
Under the thinnest pavement, the peak strain level reached was approximately 130 microstrain.
Figure 4.13:
Tensile strains measured at the bottom of the asphalt layer (transverse direction)
Figure 4.14:
4.7
Tensile strains measured at the bottom of the asphalt layer (longitudinal direction)
Summary
Simulation of the fatigue performance of asphalt has been examined in the laboratory, with three main
studies.
Salama and Chatti (2006) undertook fatigue testing using controlled stress and an indirect tensile
approach. They determined that a fatigue relationship based solely upon the dissipated energy density
determined during the initial cycles of the test provided the best fit to the laboratory data. The testing only
considered shapes representative of strains in the transverse direction (i.e. perpendicular to the direction of
traffic), and included a variable rest period between axle group cycles, with the rest period equal to four
times the length of the loading pulse. This means that the rest period increased significantly with increasing
number of axles within the group. The application of a performance model based upon dissipated energy is
not simple in a static response-to-load design framework such as that used in current Austroads design
procedures. Limitation of the data to transverse strains only is also of concern, especially in light of the
findings by Homsi et al. (2012) that longitudinal strains are more damaging. However, if these issues could
be resolved, direct application of this work into a pavement design context is considered to be severely
limited by the nature of the load levels used in the study. The loads applied were high in comparison to
highway loading, and the resulting fatigue tests did not last for many cycles. The median test duration was
less than 4000 cycles (and the upper quartile was approximately 7500 cycles).
The Bodin et al. (2009) study examined a data set collected by Merbouh et al. (2007) using two-point,
controlled strain, flexural fatigue testing. Test durations were considerably higher than used in the Salama
and Chatti study, between 104 and 5105 cycles. The effect of the interaction between two axles within a
tandem group on fatigue life were examined and compared to the results obtained for a single axle. Rest
periods were not considered within the study. The experiment shapes used (where the minimum strain
magnitude between peaks was zero or greater) are similar to those obtained by Rabe (2008) in the
transverse direction. The Bodin et al. study indicated that these transverse shapes all produced
approximately the same fatigue life, regardless of the magnitude of the minimum strain level. These
experimental results do not indicate that the zone of neglected tension has a significant effect on fatigue
performance. Additionally, they demonstrate that for transverse strain directions at least, the peak mid-way
method does not better represent the fatigue life than simply considering the peak strain values.
The testing also included a shape where the minimum strain between peaks was 50% the magnitude of
the adjacent peak strains. This change from tensile to compressive strain within the pulse is more typical of
longitudinal strains. The study did not determine any appreciable difference in fatigue life for tests
conducted using this shape when compared to the results of tests conducted using transverse direction
shapes at the same peak strain level. In all of these cases, the study found that the fatigue life for twopeaked shapes was half that of the single-peak shape.
Homsi (2011) used a rational approach to determining shape parameters, whose effect on the flexural
fatigue of asphalt could be independently assessed in laboratory testing. Long duration flexural fatigue
testing using control strain was conducted at three peak strain levels yielding fatigue lives varying between
1.5103 and 106 cycles. Transverse and longitudinal direction shapes were considered, and it was found
that longitudinal shapes caused more damage than transverse shapes at the same peak strain level. The
duration of the load shape was also found to affect fatigue life, with quick duration shapes causing more
damage. However, the two most significant factors found were the peak strain level applied, and the
number of peaks within the shape. The study had limitations. It was limited to a single asphalt mix, tested at
a single temperature. Whilst three replicates were used for all tests at the two higher strain levels
considered, no replicates were undertaken for the lowest strain level tests (these tests lasted up to 15
days). Homsi et al. (2012) acknowledged a high amount of scatter in the collected data, and noted that six
replicates for each test condition would be required for rigour. However, it is considered that the study
represents the most exhaustive performance-related study of the effect of (simulated) multiple-axles on the
(laboratory) fatigue life of asphalt.
5. Outline of Project Work

5.1
General
The review of alternative methods contained in Section 3 highlighted a number of frameworks used in
international design and for considering the damage caused by multiple-axle groups. A range of theoretical
frameworks were also discussed. However, only a very limited number of studies were identified that
examined the actual performance of pavement materials or structures when loaded with varying types of
multiple-axle groups.
Without data relating to the performance of materials and structures, it is difficult to determine which
theoretical framework is suitable for application for Australasian pavement design. Accordingly, the project
focus was on utilising the performance data that had been collected, and collecting new performance data
related to the pavement design performance criteria considered in the current Austroads pavement design
process:
deformation of unbound granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings for use with current
empirical, chart-based pavement design procedure
flexural fatigue of asphalt for use with mechanistic design procedure
flexural fatigue of cemented materials for use with mechanistic design procedure.
The following sections describe the overall approach taken by the project regarding these three materials
and design criteria. A separate section of the report is dedicated to each one.
5.2
Rutting of Unbound Granular Pavements
No performance data has previously been obtained on the effects of multiple-axle loading on the rutting of
unbound granular materials, neither full-scale trafficking, accelerated pavement testing nor laboratorybased studies. As this material represents a very significant proportion of the Australian and New Zealand
road network, a significant proportion of the projects effort was spent on obtaining a relevant set of
performance data.
The potential to use laboratory tests to simulate multiple-axle effects, similar in principle to the French
asphalt study discussed in Section 3.3, was explored. The currently available laboratory test for assessing
the deformation performance of granular materials is a repeat load triaxial (RLT) test. Considerable effort
has been spent over the last two decades in developing suitable RLT testing equipment and test protocols
to rank the performance of different unbound materials. However, the use of such equipment and protocols
was not used for this study for the following reasons:
The loading pulse applied to samples in the RLT equipment is slow and unable to replicate the
complex loading shape of a multiple-axle group.
Recent work conducted by Jameson et al. (Austroads 2010) to compare the ranking of materials using
RLT testing (using different equipment and methods) to the performance of materials under full-scale
accelerated testing using the Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF), has shown a poor match.
Accordingly, it was considered that laboratory testing of unbound granular pavement material was not
appropriate for the study. Instead, the ALF was used to assess the rutting of a typical, full-scale, unbound
granular pavement and subgrade. ALF can be used to simulate trafficking over the life of a pavement in a
very short time compared with on-road test sites.
Prior to this study, ALF could only simulate a (half) single axle. The machine was modified to allow the
application of tandem and triaxle (half) axle groups (the geometry of the ALF frame is insufficient to support
development of a quad-axle group).
A single test pavement, being an example of an unbound granular, light-to-moderately trafficked, rural
highway pavement and subgrade, was constructed and trafficked.
The experimental program focussed on the effect of the number of axles within an axle group on pavement
performance. Each test location was only trafficked by a given axle configuration and load level. The load
on each axle configuration was adjusted so as to ensure that the same load per axle was applied across
the axle groups.
Section 6 summarises this work, and provides analyses of the collected data.
5.3
Asphalt Fatigue
The French study undertaken by Homsi (2011), and described in Section 3.3, represents the most
exhaustive assessment of the flexural fatigue performance of asphalt when subjected to multiple-axle
loads. The study was laboratory-based. A pre-existing flexural fatigue test method was modified to include
simulations of multiple-axle loads, and the effect of different axle group loads on the resulting fatigue life of
the asphalt samples was observed.
Homsi et al. (2012) recognised that there was a high amount of scatter in the collected data. In determining
the best use of this work for the Austroads project, it was considered that:
the project scope would not allow for repeating the experimental work of Homsi with the addition of
more test replicates
additional tests conducted to supplement Homsis data set could not be meaningfully conducted
without access to the same laboratory equipment and, more significantly, the same asphalt mix
(including its age) used in the original study
the study does represent the best available data for the project.
Homsi developed a model allowing the prediction of fatigue life of a sample as a function of the maximum
strain level, the number of peak strains, and two strain shape factors, all resulting from the simulation of a
single axle or multiple-axle group. The model does not consider how the grouping of axles may affect the
magnitude of the strain developed.
In order to determine how grouping of loads affects the strain developed in asphalt material layers, a series
of pavement structures were modelled using two response-to-load models, and Homsis model was applied
to the resulting strains. Section 7 is dedicated to this work.
5.4
Cemented Materials Fatigue
The review of available literature did not find records of data relating the observed flexural fatigue
performance of cemented materials to the application of various multiple-axle loads. However, Yeo
(Austroads 2008a) has established and validated laboratory test processes for assessing the flexural
modulus and fatigue characteristics of cemented materials. This project modified these processes by
simulating a range of multiple-axle loads, and aimed to develop a separate strain-fatigue performance
relationship for each load shape.
The use of laboratory simulation of cemented material flexural fatigue performance is similar to the
approach taken by Homsi for asphalt.
Section 8 describes this work.
5.5
Pavement Design Processes
The ALF work concluded with a confirmation of current practice regarding the characterisation of multipleaxle loads for empirical pavement design purposes. However, the analysis work for asphalt and the
laboratory study and analysis work for cemented materials both suggested a more rigorous means of
considering multiple-axle loads in the mechanistic pavement design procedure.
Section 9 examines whether this more rigorous approach has an appreciable effect on pavement design
outcomes (i.e. the critical material thicknesses that the pavement structural design process determines are
necessary for the design traffic). This work concluded that significant thickness reductions were possible for
both materials, if critical strains were determined under each axle group/load combination in the design
traffic load spectrum.
6. Rutting of Unbound Granular Materials

6.1
General
In order to obtain performance data, the Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF) was used to assess the
deformation of a sprayed seal surfaced unbound granular pavement and subgrade. ALF (Figure 6.1) can
be used to simulate trafficking over the life of a pavement in a very short time, compared with on-road test
sites. For this work, the machine was housed in a large (20 m 54 m) building at the ALF research testing
facility located in the south eastern Melbourne suburb of Dandenong South.
A single test pavement, representing a typical unbound granular second-class rural highway pavement and
subgrade, was constructed and trafficked.
Figure 6.1: The ALF machine within the research testing building
Prior to this study, ALF could only simulate a (half) single axle. The machine was modified to allow the
application of tandem and triaxle (half) axle groups (the geometry of the ALF frame is insufficient to support
development of a quad-axle group).
With a view to minimising the likelihood of the testing program being compromised by the unforeseen
malfunction of the new multiple-axle components, a lengthy commissioning exercise was undertaken on a
length of pavement outside the testing shed. Once the components had demonstrated reasonable
reliability, which took considerably longer than anticipated, trafficking of the test pavement properly
commenced.
6.2
Accelerated Loading Facility
6.2.1 Overview of ALF Prior to Modification

The ALF is a full-scale pavement test system enabling the assessment of road pavement performance
within a short time scale. The Australian ALF (Figure 6.1) is owned and operated by ARRB Group. Four
other ALF systems have subsequently been built and these are owned and operated by the Chinese
Research Institute of Highways, the US Federal Highway Administration (which operates two ALF
machines), and the University of Louisiana at Baton Rouge.
ALF uses a directly-driven load trolley to apply rolling wheel loads in a single direction to the pavement
strips, at a constant speed, using a constant mass. The load is applied to the test pavement through a load
assembly trolley, consisting of a standard heavy vehicle hub and wheel assembly, chassis and weight bed.
This trolley tracks linearly, guided by rails mounted on a stationary main frame, and is driven by electric
motors mounted directly onto the wheel hub.
The wheel is lifted off the pavement at the end of each cycle and supported by the main frame on its return.
By loading in a single direction only, the ALF machine is able to simulate real-world trafficking conditions,
and the raised rails at the ends of the machine allow for conservation of the majority of the trolleys kinetic
energy.
The load applied to the pavement can be varied from 40 kN to 90 kN in 10 kN increments, by adding ballast
weights to the trolley above the axle assembly.
The cycle time for each load is about 10 seconds, which corresponds to approximately 350 load cycles per
hour or, depending on the percentage of operating time, about 50 000 cycles per week (based on 22 hours
per day operation). ALF can be set up to apply loads using dual, single or super-single wheel types. The
loading can be channelised or applied over any transverse distribution pattern within a 1.2 m width. A
normal distribution of transverse locations covering a 1.0 m wide trafficked area is commonly used to
simulate typical traffic wander on a road.
Table 6.1:
ALF specification (before multiple-axle upgrade)
Test wheels
Dual tyres (11R22), 330 mm centre-to-centre
Mass of test wheel assembly
40 kN to 90 kN in 10 kN steps
Suspension for variable mass
Air bag and shock absorbers
Power drive to wheel
Two 11 kW electric geared motors, uni-directional operation, wheels off pavement

on return
Transverse movement of test

wheels
User programmable; typically a normal distribution about 0.9 m or 1.2 m wide

between outer edges of the dual tyres
Test speed
Nominally 17.5 km/h
Cycle time
Approximately 10 seconds
Pavement test length
Nominally 12 m
Site constraints
Max. grade: 1%; max. crossfall: 3%
Operation
Automatic control system and fail-safe operation
Portability
Readily detachable and transportable
Overall length of ALF
26.3 m
Overall width of ALF
4.0 m (operating); 3.2 m (transport)
Overall height of ALF
Total mass of ALF
Approximately 45 tonne
6.2.2 Multiple-axle Modifications

A key aspect of the modified machine is that the load trolley assembly uses identical and interchangeable
axle modules (Figure 6.2), which can be set up for single, tandem or triaxle group trafficking. Figure 6.3
shows an illustration of the new multiple-axle assembly for ALF (in a tandem axle configuration). To aid in
uniform loading of the pavement by each axle, the design incorporates separate swing arm suspensions,
including airbag and shock absorbers, for each axle, and a central pivot point attaching the assembly to the
main ALF loading trolley.
Figure 6.2: Individual axle module
Figure 6.3: The ALF multiple-axle assembly (tandem axle configuration)
Details of the modifications are beyond the scope of this report, but can be found in Austroads (2013). In
summary, the modifications were:
The main frame was lifted by 520 mm, allowing sufficient height for the new assemblies and
suspension components to operate within the suspension manufacturers specifications.
The main frame, return rails and all central webs were removed to allow the new wheel assembly
space to operate; and strengthening beams were added underneath the lower rails to compensate for
material removal.
The existing wheel assembly was removed and replaced with an attachment plate, allowing up to three
individual axle modules to be attached to the load trolley.
The load trolley membrane was stiffened to cope with the implications of the larger and heavier axle
assemblies.
Mass was removed from the load trolley membrane to compensate for the addition of mass in the
wheel assemblies, allowing the total minimum applied weight of single axle and tandem axle
configurations to be 40 kN and 60 kN, respectively.
The specifications of the modified machine are given in Table 6.2.

The triaxle and tandem assembly modules are bolted to a primary attachment plate, as shown in
Figure 6.4. This plate pivots around a secondary attachment plate though two large pins (Figure 6.5)
located symmetrically, relative to the axle positions of the modules. The secondary attachment plate is
bolted directly to the load trolley (not shown).
The reason for the pivot is two-fold, as it allows:
the ballast load from the assembly trolley to be transferred down through the centre of the assembly
plate and evenly applied to each axle
the trolley to remain level to the pavement surface, despite the surfacing progressively lowering due to
the pavement deformation that occurs over the course of the experiment.
Table 6.2:
Specifications of the modified ALF
Test wheels
Any dual, single, super-single or steer tyre and rim combination complying with
ISO 10/335 PCD, 26.75 mm stud holes and 281.2 mm centre bore diameter
Rim offsets of up to 250 mm
Mass of load trolley
40 kN to 90 kN in 10 kN steps
Axle group assemblies
Swing-arm mounted, 120 mm stub axle available in single, tandem and triaxle
assemblies
Suspension for variable ballast

mass
Standard BPW-Transpec air spring and standard heavy vehicle shock

absorbers
Power drive to wheel
Direct coupling drive onto wheel hub from swing-arm mounted single 22 kW
SEW bevel gear/motor, powered by 3phase 415V Toshiba AS-1 Variable
Speed drive
Transverse movement of test

wheels
Programmable in both pattern and frequency of movement. Typically uses a

normal distribution, nominally either a 0.9, 1.0 or 1.2 m width between outer
edges of the dual tyres
Test speed
Incrementally variable up to 17.5 km/h
Cycle time
Approximately 10 seconds at nominal operating speed
Pavement test length
Single axle assembly:

11 m + 3 m lead-in/lead-out
Tandem axle assembly: 9.5 m + 4.5 m lead-in/lead-out
Triaxle assembly:
8 m + 7 m lead-in/lead-out
Site constraints
Max. grade: 1%; max. crossfall: 1%
Operation
Fully automatic control system and fail-safe operation provided by

programmable logic controller. Wireless graphical user interface supporting
remote access, integrated data logging and machine cardiology reports
Portability
Readily detachable and transportable between sites. Self-powered intra-site

jockey movement over relatively level ground, both forwards and reverse with
360 degree turning radius
Overall length of ALF
26.3 m
Overall width of ALF
Overall height of ALF
Total mass of ALF
Approximately 45 tonne
Each axle module is individually sprung and damped, and the modules are attached to a pivoting
attachment plate, the geometry of which ensures that the overall self-weight of the assembly is shared
evenly across each axle. When operated in tandem or triaxle configurations, the drive motor is located on
one module and the remaining modules are free-wheeling, save for a flexible belt which runs between hub
lines of the dual wheels. This belt maintains rotational inertia of the freely spinning wheel sets, while the
load assembly is raised above the pavement on the return pass.
Figure 6.4: Triaxle and tandem axle assembly configurations showing individual modules and
primary and secondary attachment plates
Figure 6.5: Pins allowing pivoting of multiple-axle attachment plate
When operating as a single axle assembly, a lighter, non-pivoting attachment plate is used (Figure 6.6).
Figure 6.6: Single axle assembly configuration
6.3
Site, Pavement Composition and Construction
6.3.1 Description of Site

For the tests described in this report, the ALF was housed at the ARRB indoor research testing facility
(building 54 m in length and 18 m wide) at Dandenong South, Victoria (Figure 6.7).
The test pavement was constructed as detailed in Section 6.3.3. The size of the building, relative to the
size of the ALF machine, allows for 12 individual ALF experiment locations. An experimental layout plan of
the test pavement is shown in Figure 6.9.
Figure 6.7: Indoor facility for the ALF (54 m long by 18 m wide)
6.3.2 Pavement Composition

Test pavement structure
Available resources only allowed the test program to examine the effect of multiple-axle group loads on a
single pavement structure. The main factors affecting the selection of test pavement materials and
composition were:
The pavement would be an unbound granular pavement with a thin bituminous surfacing.
The pavement materials and thickness should be representative of a typical, not especially heavy duty,
state road.
As permanent deformation of the pavement was to be the performance measure used during the
experiments, it was important that at least moderate levels of deformation occur under the expected
ALF loading.
Deformation of the subgrade was to be considered in the experiments, so a weak-to-moderate

strength subgrade should be incorporated.
Uniformity of material quality, density and moisture content was considered important to the
experiment goals.
Figure 6.8 shows the pavement structure adopted for the test pavements. The crushed rock drainage layer
(which integrates with a drainage system that surrounds the test pavement area) and underlying clay
material were constructed some years ago to isolate any overlying pavement structure from variations in
the natural water table. Yeo documents their characteristics and construction in Austroads (2008b).
Based on the Austroads empirical design procedure (Austroads 2012a), the pavement structure would
have a design life of between 1.2 105 and 106 ESAs, depending upon the level of subgrade support
provided by the imported subgrade.
Figure 6.8: Structure of test pavements
Subgrade material selection

The previous trial conducted within the research testing building had used a cemented material subbase
overlying a sand subgrade (Austroads 2008c). For this research study, it was believed that the sand
subgrade would provide excessive support to an overlying crushed rock base, and the observed pavement
deformations would be too small to discern differences between axle group loads. Accordingly, it was
decided that a low-to-mid-strength clay subgrade would be more appropriate. Suitable clay was sourced
from within the ALF site area. This clay had been placed as imported subgrade for a previous ALF trial
conducted on a test area outside the current ALF testing shed (Moffatt et al. 1998).
Base material selection

The current ALF test facility is located in the Melbourne suburb of Dandenong South, which an area near
several large quarries producing crushed rock products for road pavements. There are several advantages
in using base material from one of these quarries when constructing a trial pavement:
the quarries are close to the test facility, resulting in low haulage costs
the proximity allows material to be pug-milled, hauled and placed within an hour, providing uniform
moisture condition of the placed material
the local quarries have process control systems to ensure uniform products.
For this trial, however, it was identified that a significant disadvantage would be the likely high-quality
material sourced being unrepresentative of many rural areas in Australia. Nevertheless, previous
experience with ALF trials has demonstrated that uniformity of pavement composition and construction is
critical to subsequent meaningful analysis. Accordingly, it was decided that local quarries would be used,
but that a search would be undertaken to select a material which, whilst uniform, was of representative
quality for the Australian rural network.
Ultimately, a 20 mm VicRoads (2013) Class 2 crushed rock product from the Boral quarry in Lysterfield (a
20 minute drive from the ALF site) was selected. A VicRoads Class 2 material is a base quality plant mixed
crushed rock material for use in unbound flexible pavements in locations where a very high standard of
surface preparation may not be required. VicRoads specifications do not have a minimum plasticity index
or a maximum permeability requirement for Class 2 materials (the plasticity index is specified to be
between 0 and 6%).
Layout of test pavement

A plan view of the pavement within the shed is shown in Figure 6.9, providing chainage (running along the
length of the shed) and offset distances (running along the width of the shed) measured relative to a
standard benchmark used in previous ALF trials. A 1% grade and crossfall is built into the site to enable
easy drainage.
The area provides 12 possible ALF experimental sites, each 12 m long by 1 m wide (Table 6.3). By predetermining these sites, care could be taken during the construction works to ensure that the pavement
constructed in these exact locations was the best that could be achieved. The numbering of the ALF
experiment sites followed established practice, and reflects that these pavements were to be tested as part
of the 35th ALF trial.
Near the conclusion of the loading program, additional experiment locations were defined between
previously tested experiments. As shown in Figure 6.9, the potential locations for these additional
experiment locations was limited by trench investigations in adjacent completed experiments.
Table 6.3:
Location of ALF experiment sites

Experiment no.
Chainage (m)
Centreline offset (m)
3500
820
3.375
3501
20.532.5
3.375
3502
3345
3.375
3503
820
7.125
3504
20.532.5
7.125
3505
3345
7.125
3506
820
10.875
3507
20.532.5
10.875
3508
3345
10.875
3509
820
14.625
3510
20.532.5
14.625
3511
3345
14.625
3514
26.536.5
9.090
Figure 6.9: Layout of test pavement
6.3.3 Pavement Construction

General
Prior to placement of the new test pavement, pavements constructed and trafficked with ALF for a previous
trial had to be removed. The following sections provide a brief overview of the removal of the old
pavements and construction of the new pavement. Also included are pavement layer relative levels,
thicknesses, and relative densities measured during the construction works.
A separate report (Austroads 2011d) documents the construction of the test pavement in much greater
detail than the following summary, and includes a construction diary, descriptions of the plant used, and
photographs of all construction activities. The report also contains design notes for the sprayed seal
surfacing.
Temporary removal of wall panels

To assist in drying back the new pavements, a considerable number of wall panels were removed from the
shed prior to pavement construction. Panels at both ends of the shed were entirely removed to a height
approximately one metre below the bottom of the gable. This arrangement allowed the free flow of air
throughout the test shed, facilitating material dry back, and also provided easier access by pavement
construction equipment. Free-flowing air during construction also minimised the build-up of equipment
exhaust fumes within the shed. Figure 6.10 shows the appearance of the shed, with the wall panels
removed, during the construction exercise.
The wall panels were stored offsite in the warehouse of the shed fabrication firm engaged to remove the
panels, and were reinstated upon completion of the construction works (i.e. after placement of the final
surfacing).
Figure 6.10:
Appearance of the research testing facility building during construction
Reclamation of clay subgrade material from Borrow Pit

A profiler was used to remove the clay material to be used as the imported subgrade from an old test area
adjacent to the ALF shed. The profiler did not encounter any trouble in removing the clay material. Trucks
were used to transport the clay to the floor of the excavated test area inside the ALF shed (Figure 6.12).
The clay was placed in two lifts, spread with a skid steer loader, and compacted with a padfoot roller and
smooth drum roller (Figure 6.12).
The use of the profiler to extract the clay resulted in a small clumpy material that proved to be very easy to
spread.
Figure 6.11:
Profiler removing clay from borrow pit
Figure 6.12:
Placement of imported clay subgrade
(a) Tipping reclaimed clay material onto floor of test

pavement area
(b) Rolling clay subgrade with smooth drum roller
Placement of granular base layers

The 300 mm thick unbound crushed rock base layer was placed in two lifts on two separate days. The
material was pug-milled at its source quarry and transported to the ALF site, with a haulage time of
approximately 20 minutes.
The delivery trucks were backed to the end of the pavement and then driven forwards as they dropped their
loads onto the subgrade (Figure 6.13). The material was spread by skid steer loader and compacted with a
smooth drum roller. The surface of the first lift was lightly scarified before placement of the second lift to
improve the bond with the second lift.
After compaction of the second lift, a level check conducted showed that the pavement area was generally
between 010 mm too high, with two areas being 1015 mm too low. A skid steer loader was again used to
conduct a final trim of the base, which was followed by a light rolling using a multi-tyred roller.
Figure 6.13:
Tipping and spreading for first lift of base
Sprayed seal surface

As the main pavement condition parameter to be measured during the ALF experimental program was rut
development, it was considered important that the final pavement surfacing be rut/deformation resistant in
its own right. This would ensure that any observed surface deformation would be a true reflection of the
deformation of the underlying base and subgrade.
A prime followed by a double/double sprayed seal (14/7 mm) was selected in place of asphalt to remove
the possibility of asphalt deformation to surface shape changes during the ALF experiments.
Previous experience of placing a sprayed seal inside the ALF shed demonstrated that there was insufficient
exposure to sunlight to remove cutback from the binder. The previous ALF trial had, however, used a
polymer modified emulsion binder in place of a cutback. As noted by Holtrop and Moffatt (2008), the
performance of that seal under ALF loading had been excellent.
As had been the case with the previously successful seal, the spray seal design was conducted in
accordance with current Austroads sprayed seal design methods (Austroads 2006b). Detailed design notes
can be found in Austroads (2011d).
Before application of the prime, the surface of the pavement was lightly broomed. This removed a
significant amount of crust resulting in an open and bony surface. The application and absorption of the
prime appeared uniform, even though the underlying texture of the base was very open (Figure 6.14).
Placement of the seal was undertaken using standard full-scale equipment.
Figure 6.14:
6.4
Appearance of primed surface
Loading Applied During Testing Program
6.4.1 Loading Applied

ALF loads the test pavement with half axles, and in this report, all loads relate to the load applied to the half
axles and need to be doubled to reflect the equivalent load on a full axle or axle group.
The experimental program focussed on the effect of a number of axles within an axle group on pavement
performance. Each test location was only trafficked by a given axle configuration and load level. The load
on each axle configuration was adjusted so as to ensure that the same load per axle was applied across
the axle groups.
Unfortunately, the self-weight of some of the assembly components meant that the lightest load that the
single axle assembly could apply was 40 kN. Maintaining this axle load level throughout the experimental
program would have meant that the tandem axle configuration would have used a load of 80 kN (which was
achievable) and the triaxle configuration would have had an unachievable 120 kN. The loadings shown in
Table 6.4 were used to overcome this limitation. The step change in loading level is undesirable, but
unavoidable.
Table 6.4:
Axle group load levels for ALF experimental program

Axle group
Total group load (kN)
Load per axle (kN)
Single
40
40
Tandem 1
80
40
Tandem 2
60
30
Triaxle
90
30
6.4.2 Transverse Distribution

The ALF machine was designed to enable trafficking at different transverse locations within a wheel path
width of up to 1.2 m, to simulate traffic wander within a lane. For this trial, the ALF was programmed to
conduct randomised passes of the load wheels according to a normal distribution within a 1.0 m width.
As described below, the change in transverse location of the load wheels occurred frequently during the
bedding-in process; initially being every cycle, then every 25 cycles and finally, after the bedding-in process
was completed, every 50 cycles. This was to ensure a more even transverse distribution of loading during
the crucial initial stages of loading.
Because the load applied to the pavement is applied through dual wheels (Figure 6.15), there are two
locations within the width of the trafficked area that have the same maximum amount of load passes
applied one for each wheel. These locations are located 165 mm each side of the centre of the dual
wheel assembly. The actual loading distribution that the pavement is subjected to over the course of an
experiment is depicted by the blue line shown in Figure 6.16.
Figure 6.15:
Load wheels centred over experiment width
Figure 6.16:
Transverse load distribution
6.4.3 Line Marking

After the test pavement was constructed, the locations of 12 possible experiment locations were marked.
The geometry of the shed only allowed 12 practical experiment locations. The geometry of the ALF
machine, and in particular the feet upon which it rests, tightly defined these locations. Since the experiment
locations were well-known before commencement of trafficking, the locations were clearly marked so that
any personnel conducting work on the site could avoid any activity that may compromise the conduct of a
future experiment.
Once trafficking of an experiment was under way, the markings were used as reference points in the
collection of data.
As described in Section 6.4.2, whilst the wander in the transverse position of loading followed a normal
distribution along the centreline of the experiment, the dual tyres used for loading meant that the lengths of
the experiment that received the most trafficking were located under each tyre, 165 mm either side of the
centreline.
The line under the left tyre (facing the direction of trafficking, i.e. looking towards the door) in Figure 6.9
was marked (Figure 6.17) to aid collection of falling weight deflectometer (FWD) data. After trafficking,
destructive forensic testing also took place along this line.
Figure 6.17:
Experiment site (12 m 1 m) with offset line for FWD testing
6.4.4 Pavement Bedding-in

As the test pavement was constructed in indoor laboratory-like conditions, the spray seal was not subjected
to normal traffic or environmental hardening that would normally take place following field placement.
Additionally, the unbound granular base layer would be expected to experience a bedding-in or
densification phase under normal in-service loading conditions.
To take account of this, a bedding-phase process at the commencement of loading was adopted to be
representative of in-service conditions. With the exception of experiment 3502, which used the 90 kN triaxle
configuration throughout all trafficking, each experiment utilised the 60 kN tandem axle configuration for the
duration of the bedding-in process. The bedding-in process is listed in Table 6.5.
This bedding-in process typically lasted for 48 hours. In order to provide a measure of the initial high rate of
pavement deformation, the transverse profilometer was used to collect deformation data (and texture data)
at frequent intervals during this time.
Table 6.5:
Initial pavement bedding-in process
ALF loading cycles
Activity
Prior to traffic
loading
If the pavement surface temperature was below 20 C, it was heated to this temperature and
this was maintained for 24 hours to ensure the seal binder was sufficiently pliable to allow the
aggregate in the seal to reorientate rather than have the seal break up during initial trafficking.
The entire experiment area was swept and vacuumed clean of any loose aggregate to enable
accurate and uniform readings from sensors used to measure surface profile of the pavement.
Initial surface profile measurements were recorded using the transverse profilometer.
Texture depth was measured using the volumetric patch method and also with the transverse
profilometer laser.
Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) measurements were taken.
Cycles 1500
(tandem axle with
60 kN)
ALF was operated at a reduced speed (16 km/h) with transverse movements at every cycle.
ALF profilometer collected deformation and texture data at regular intervals.
Cycle 500
Entire experiment pavement was re-swept of any loose aggregate.

ALF profilometer collected deformation data (these initial readings were used as a datum in
conjunction with subsequent repeat sets of data for pavement deformation calculations) and
texture data.
Transverse straight edge photographs were taken at 2 m intervals along the length of the
experiment (additional photographs were taken of any observed pavement abnormalities).
Cycles 50010 000

(tandem axle with
60 kN)
ALF was operated at full speed (approximately 22 km/h) with transverse movements every 25
cycles.
ALF profilometer collected deformation and texture data at regular intervals.
Cycle 10 000
Entire experiment pavement was re-swept of any loose aggregate.

ALF profilometer collected deformation and texture data.
Dynamic load measurements of the loaded axles were recorded for a short period of
trafficking.
Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) measurements were taken.
Bedding-in complete
Cycles 10 001+
(experiment axle
group and load)
ALF was operated at full speed with transverse movements every 50 cycles.
ALF profilometer robot collected deformation and texture data at varying intervals.
6.5
Experiment Progression
Following completion of the bedding-in period, deformation data collection intervals changed from 1000
cycles to approximately 2000 cycles, and the interval gradually increased as the experiment progressed
towards a total cycle count of 50 000. After this point, data collection intervals were aimed to be
approximately 20 000 cycles, but depended on operator convenience and were selected to coincide with
machine maintenance intervals.
The decision to cease trafficking for an experiment was based upon judgement, considering the following
factors:
the amount of pavement deformation achieved
seal and pavement condition
time available and budgetary constraints.
Table 6.6 lists the experiments conducted. The experiment numbers used, e.g. 3502, correspond to the
location of the experiment (as shown in Figure 6.9) and not to the order in which they were conducted.
Detailed descriptions of the conduct of each experiment and all of the collected data are reported in
Austroads (2013).
Table 6.6:
Experiments conducted
Experiment
number
Date commenced
Date completed
Duration
(days)
Assembly
Load
Total
cycles
3502
Thursday 15 October 2009
Thursday 19 November 2009
35
Triaxle
90 kN
210 000
3508
Monday 7 December 2009
Saturday 6 February 2010
61
Tandem
axle
60 kN
278 232
3505
Monday 15 March 2010
Monday 10 May 2010
56
Tandem
axle
80 kN
291 000
3511
Sunday 23 May 2010
Wednesday 7 July 2010
45
Single axle
40 kN
298 400
3504
Tuesday 13 July 2010
Monday 13 September 2010
62
Triaxle
90 kN
310 000
3507
Monday 20 September 2010
Tuesday 16 November 2010
57
Single axle
40 kN
350 000
3503
Monday 22 November 2010
Monday 10 January 2011
49
Tandem
axle
60 kN
322 600
3506
Saturday 19 February 2011
Tuesday 12 April 2011
52
Tandem
axle
80 kN
370 000
3501
Monday 18 April 2011
Tuesday 14 June 2011
57
Triaxle
90 kN
390 000
3510
Thursday 23 June 2011
Sunday 17 July 2011
24
Single axle
40 kN
75 000
3500
Wednesday 3 August 2011
Friday 7 October 2011
66
Single axle
40 kN
350 000
3512
Wednesday 18 February
2012
Wednesday 2 March 2012
14
Tandem
axle
80 kN
250 000
3514
Monday 19 March 2012
Monday 9 July 2012
113
Tandem
axle
80 kN
230 000
6.6
Acquired Data
6.6.1 General
Before and during each ALF experiment, data was collected using non-destructive methods in order to
capture the change in deformation of the pavement resulting from the application of cycles, as well as
measuring the deterioration of surface texture. At the end of each experiment, more destructive methods of
pavement data collection were employed to explore the physical condition of the base and subgrade.
Austroads (2013) contains all data collected during the experimental program.
6.6.2 Loading Applied

To assess whether individual axles within the multiple-axle groups (tandem and triaxle) were loading the
pavement evenly, strain gauges were fitted to each of the assemblies stub axles (Figure 6.18). This
allowed a measure of the load applied to the pavement from each set of dual wheels to be determined.
Due to the bulk and relative fragility of the logging equipment, and the huge amounts of data that would
have been generated, dynamic load data was not collected continuously during trafficking; but rather it was
collected for a limited number of loading cycles at the start and end of each experiment, and at occasional
times in between.
Strain gauges could have been fitted to measure either bending strain or shear strain in the stub axles.
Bending strain magnitudes would have been much higher and shown a greater range than shear strains,
yielding a higher signal-to-noise ratio. However, as the stub axles act as cantilevers, any small changes in
the load distance due to bending would produce high fluctuations in the bending strains measured by the
fixed gauges. Shear strain measurements do not suffer this problem and so, despite the smaller magnitude
and range of results, it was decided to measure shear strains.
On each stub axle, four gauges were arranged as a Wheatstone bridge to limit the effects of temperature
variation on the measurement signal. Each time data was collected, the measurement equipment was set
up with a specific signal conditioner paired with each Wheatstone bridge, using the same logging channels,
plugs and sockets. The signal conditioners used had a fixed range of amplification, which proved to be
much more resistant to drift than signal conditioners with variable range amplification.
At the beginning and end of an experiment, each individual assembly was weighed statically in order to
calibrate the responses of the strain gauges to the load on the axles. Having obtained a calibration
relationship, small adjustments to the pressure in each air-spring were made, if needed, to set the
assembly group at equilibrium when stationary and loaded to the test load for the experiment. ALF was
then operated for approximately 50 cycles and the strain gauge outputs were logged using acquisition
equipment temporarily mounted onto the ALF loading trolley. Analysis of this data provided reassurance
that the individual axle assemblies were applying equivalent load to the pavement during trafficking, and
also assisted in assessing which areas of the pavement were not loaded evenly by all axle groups at the
start (trolley landing) and end (trolley take-off) of an ALF load cycle.
Figure 6.18:
Strain gauge mounted to stub axle
The air-spring pressures were recorded during static calibration and used throughout the experiment as
reference pressures for conducting intermittent dynamic load checks without wheel-load scales.
Dynamic load data was collected at a rate of 50 samples per second (50 Hz) and required some filtering to
remove noise. Signal noise was present due to the physical vibrations of the ALF, the measurement
equipment, and also electro-magnetic signal interference from the variable speed drive (operating at 45 Hz).
At the conclusion of an experiment, the dynamic load data collected at the start and end of trafficking was
analysed in order to make a conservative decision about which pavement chainages were not subject to
full loading. Data at these locations could be marked as invalid, and could be excluded from any
subsequent analysis. Uneven loading of the pavement occurred as a result of lowering and lifting of the
load assembly during an ALF cycle. The extent of uneven loading fluctuated due to several factors:
variations made to the lift and lower trigger delays of the trolley lifting system to ensure
day-to-day smooth operation
the speed of the lift and lower movements, which were dependent upon the hydraulic system oil
temperature
the amount of ballast mass that was needed to contribute (with the trolley mass) to the total applied
load
the amount of deformation experienced by the pavement at different stages of an experiment.
Typical dynamic load data collected, for the triaxle assembly, is shown in Figure 6.19. Only chainages that
were subjected to trafficking by all wheels of the assembly group under stable and equivalent loading were
considered to be valid.
Figure 6.19:
Example of data gained during single triaxle trolley pass
With the speed of the trolley logged, it was possible to determine the distance trafficked under full and even
loading for any cycle. Using the clearly visible location of the landing point, trafficked distance could be
matched to a chainage on the experiment pavement to within half a metre. Dynamic load data collected at
different stages of each experiment had varying touchdown and lift-off locations, and the length of travel
that occurred between touchdown and the axle group stabilising also varied, due to the factors described
above.
As a result of these variations, a conservative approach to assessing data validity was used. The dynamic
load data analysis determined the minimum range for valid data. Figure 6.20 schematically shows the
different phases of the loading cycle that could be determined by examining the load data. Having defined
the minimum even loading distance, experiment observation notes and pavement deformation results were
used to identify any further invalid chainages.
Figure 6.20:
Typical diagram of valid chainages (between vertical red dotted lines)
6.6.3 Particle Size Distribution of Base Material

After trafficking of each experiment was completed, samples of base material extracted from both trafficked
and untrafficked areas were sieved and particle size distributions determined. At each location, samples
were extracted over two depths; the top 150 mm and the lower 150 mm of the base. The particle size
distribution data can be found in Austroads (2013) and, as noted in that report, the data did not indicate any
significant variation of particle size distribution between the trafficked and untrafficked areas, or with depth
within the base material. It can be concluded that aggregate particles did not significantly break down under
ALF trafficking. Therefore, surface deformation resulted from densification of pavement materials, and not
from breakdown of particles.
6.6.4 Density and Moisture Content of Base Material

Density testing was carried out during pavement construction as well as at the conclusion of each
experiment. In all cases, testing was conducted using a nuclear density meter (NDM) in direct transmission
mode, in which the probe containing the radioactive material is lowered into a prepared hole, and the
number of radiated particles reaching the gauge was counted.
Comprehensive density testing was conducted at the conclusion of each experiment. Readings were
collected along the centre trafficked offset, as well as along two outer untrafficked offsets. Testing was
conducted at metre intervals along the length of the experiment. Readings were taken with the probe
lowered to depths of 125 mm and 275 mm into the unbound granular base material.
To ensure accuracy, raw data collected from the nuclear density gauge was calibrated against third party
(NATA) accredited calibration datasheets for the particular nuclear gauge that was used. Samples of the
granular material were also extracted after testing, and the moisture content of the samples determined in
the laboratory. The raw count data was then reprocessed, using the laboratory-determined moisture
contents.
The full set of readings is presented in Austroads (2013). As documented in that report, a comparison of
the density readings taken in the trafficked areas with adjacent readings taken either side of the trafficked
area, demonstrated a consistent increase in density of the base course material for each experiment. This
supports the earlier conclusion (Section 6.6.2) that surface deformation resulted from solely densification of
pavement materials.
6.6.5 Deformation of Imported Clay Subgrade Material

After conclusion of most of the experiments, transverse trenches were cut across the trafficked areas. Two
trenches were cut for each experiment (Figure 6.21). Each trench exposed two faces of the pavements
depth profile.
The preparation of each trench involved the following activities:
marking out the area of the trench to be excavated (along the centreline of the experiment)
(dry) cutting through the sprayed seal with an abrasive saw
removal of the sprayed seal
excavation of the majority of the trench materials using a small mechanical excavator
manually excavating materials at the two faces of the trench
carefully exposing the subgrade material near the faces, creating a bench to clearly differentiate
between the subgrade and base.
To observe pavement deformation changes with depth within the pavement structure, the distance between
pavement layer boundaries (between sprayed seal, base and clay subgrade) was measured relative to an
overlying straight edge across the full width of the trench at 100 mm spacings (Figure 6.22).
The raw data is collated in Austroads (2013). Difficulty was encountered in clearly identifying the interface
between a granular material and a fine grained subgrade material, leading to an uncertainty of measure of
at least a few millimetres. Given the relatively low surface deformations, any contribution by subgrade
deformation would have been within this measurement uncertainly. Additionally, even though the imported
clay material was finished with smooth drum rolling, the presence of indentations made by pad foot rollers
was clearly evident in the trench profiles, adding increased uncertainty of measurement.
It was concluded that the data did not present evidence of deformation in the top surface of the clay
material.
Figure 6.21:
Trenching experiment 3502
Figure 6.22: Pavement trench showing straight edge used for layer profile measurements and
benched subgrade
6.6.6 Deformation of the Surface of the Pavement

ALF profilometer
The new ALF profilometer is a four-wheeled device (Figure 6.23) that uses a 12V DC system to drive itself
along a set of longitudinal steel tracks, and is assembled parallel to the ALF experiment strip at the
beginning of trafficking. A driven toothed wheel mates with a hole pattern in the tracks, thus ensuring
accuracy of the devices position relative to the tracks. The ALF profilometer uses an ultrasonic sensor to
measure the distance from the sensor to the pavement surface. The sensor is mounted to a carriage that
can be moved along the length of the profilometer frame. This allows the collection of transverse profile
data, or for precise positioning of the sensor to collect longitudinal profile data along a specified line.
The device uses rotary shaft encoders to measure the distance travelled in both the transverse and
longitudinal directions, relative to a physical home marker which is set up with the tracks at the beginning of
each ALF experiment.
Figure 6.23:
ALF profilometer
Surface deformation calculation

Transverse profile data was collected progressively throughout each experiment so as to track the gradual
deformation of the pavement surface as a result of trafficking. Each transverse profile consisted of 130
height readings, measured with the ultrasonic sensor, taken at even intervals of 16.92 mm across the
loaded pavement area.
Processing of the data from each survey allowed subsequent data sets (from different stages of the
experiment) to be overlayed and compared to each other as well as the datum set of data. Figure 6.24
shows the typical transverse profile of a particular chainage within an ALF experiment, with each data
series representing a different stage of trafficking. The amount of vertical downwards movement of each
profile in Figure 6.24 is defined as the deformation relative to the original (datum) profile. The surface
profile recorded after 500 cycles of the bedding-in stage was used as the datum profile.
Figure 6.24:
Typical transverse surface profile data set (single chainage displayed)
Whilst the transverse profiles are useful for observation of localised pavement deformations, to represent
the performance of the pavement over the whole experiment, a mean deformation value for the surface
profile at each chainage is required. The mean deformation for each chainage was defined as the mean of
the highest 60% of deformation values within the trafficked area. This was calculated during secondary
processing of the raw transverse profile data.
These mean deformation values can be used to create plots displaying the increasing deformation at each
chainage over the course of the experiment. An example is shown in Figure 6.25.
Figure 6.25:
Typical mean deformation along the trafficked length of an ALF experiment
In order to represent deformation of the entire pavement length within an experiment, after a given number
of loading cycles, the overall deformation was defined as the average of the mean deformations for each
chainage, excluding locations:
at the start and end of the experiment where the pavement was not subject to even loading
where isolated damage to the seal had occurred as a result of normal trafficking
where isolated surface or pavement damage had occurred as a result of an incident unrelated to
normal trafficking.
All deformation data collected during the experiments is documented in Austroads (2013).
Difference between deformation and rutting

Rut depth is usually defined as the maximum distance below a straight edge, of specified length, placed on
the road surface. Traditionally, ALF experimental data is presented as vertical deformation rather than
rutting. Figure 6.26 illustrates the difference between these two parameters. Deformation is used instead of
rutting as significant heave can occur just outside the area trafficked with ALF and this may be
exaggerated compared to that which may occur when normal wide traffic wander is applied. Any unusual
heave would exaggerate the rut depth, whereas this heave does not affect the vertical deformation results.
It should be noted that as deformation represents only downwards movement of the pavement, it is
generally less than the equivalent rut depth value. The magnitude is dependent upon the amount of heave
produced on the test pavement(s). Excessive heave was not observed in the experiments described in this
report.
Figure 6.26:
Measurement of deformation and rut depth
Post bedding-in deformation

As noted above, the profile measurements taken after 500 cycles of ALF loading was used as the datum
for calculating deformation. These readings were taken within the bedding-in period, wherein the pavement
was trafficked with 10 000 cycles of a 60 kN tandem group load. All deformation data in this report
represents post-bedding-in deformation. This was simply calculated using Equation 19.
= +10000 10000
19
where
+10000
10000
mean deformation at a location that occurred as a result of cycles of load being

applied after bedding-in
mean deformation at a location that occurred as a result of 10 000 cycles of

bedding-in and cycles after bedding-in
mean deformation at a location that occurred as a result of 10 000 cycles of

bedding-in
The analyses in this report ignores the progression of deformation during the bedding-in period, and
focusses solely on the deformations that resulted from the differing axle group loads that were applied after
the bedding-in period. This data is tabulated in Appendix A.
6.6.7 Pavement Deflection Testing

At the beginning and end of the bedding-in period, and at the end of each experiment, pavement deflection
was measured using a falling weight deflectometer (FWD). FWD drops were conducted every metre along
the marked line described in Section 6.4.3. As the ALF machine was not located directly above the
experiment locations, FWD testing prior to, and at the end of, each experiment was able to encapsulate
some extra chainages as lead-in for each experiment strip. However, because of the geometric
constraints of the ALF machine and FWD, it was not possible to collect this lead-in data when ALF was
placed over the experiment. FWD testing of the experiment area could, however, take place (Figure 6.27).
All FWD data is presented in Austroads (2013).
The FWD data used in the analyses in this report were the data collected at the end of the bedding-in
period, i.e. after 10 000 cycles of 60 kN tandem load applications. This FWD data is contained in
Appendix B; along with the results of back-calculation analyses (see Section 6.7.4).
Figure 6.27:
FWD collecting data under ALF
6.7
Preparation of Data for Analysis
6.7.1 Overall Deformation and Variation of Results

As described in Section 6.6.6, the average deformation readings taken at each longitudinal chainage within
an experiment is termed the overall deformation. Figure 6.28 plots the progression of this overall
deformation for each experiment, categorising the experiments by the type of loading applied.
In some of the experiments, it can be seen that the magnitude of overall deformation did not smoothly change
with increasing application of loading cycles: this is particularly evident in Figure 6.28 (d). This fluctuation in
overall deformation is simply explained. Prior to presenting the deformation data listed in Appendix A, the raw
data presented in Austroads (2013) were examined to ensure that inconsistent readings were identified and
removed. For each chainage, the progression of deformation with increasing loading cycles was plotted, and
visual examination was used to identify readings which were inconsistent with readings taken at adjacent
cycle counts. This means that deformation data for a given chainage might not be available for all cycle
counts. As the overall deformation parameter is simply an average of valid deformation data for all chainages,
it can be seen that the inclusion of data at a specific chainage in one cycle count, and its exclusion in the
subsequent cycle count, could lead to the fluctuations evident in Figure 6.28. This indicates the necessity to
examine the deformation progression data at a chainage-by-chainage level, and not as a simple aggregate
average such as the overall deformation parameter.
Figure 6.28:
Progression of (post-bedding-in) overall deformation for all experiments
(a) 40 kN single axle
(b) 60 kN tandem group
(c) 80 kN tandem group
(d) 90 kN triaxle group
6.7.2 Variation in Deformation Performance

Another, more significant issue that is highlighted by Figure 6.28 is the widely different performance
exhibited by the different experiment locations to the same loading. As described in Section 6.6.2, the load
applied to the pavement structure was checked at the start and conclusion of each experiment, and so the
variation in performance cannot be explained by unexpected variation in the loading. The pavement
structure was relatively uniform in construction thickness, as evident by the data presented Appendix C,
and so the only factors that could explain the variation in pavement performance were changes in the
properties of the materials. As the pavement materials and substructure were unbound materials, without
the presence of bituminous materials, variation of material stiffness or deformation resistance with
variations in ambient temperature can be excluded from consideration. Variations in moisture content within
the pavement structure, and over the time period in which the experiments were conducted, is considered
the most likely explanation for variable deformation performance.
The test pavement area was enclosed by a sub-surface drainage system, installed in November 2004. In
the intervening years, tests of pavement structures have not been affected by changing moisture conditions
of the pavement or subgrade materials. It had been presumed that the drainage system was functioning
appropriately. However, rainfall records from the nearby Bureau of Meteorology weather station
(Figure 6.29) indicate that the annual rainfall was considerably higher during the conduct of the
experiments than had occurred previously. This was also evident from anecdotal evidence as the creek
that runs adjacent to the facility had previously had very little to no flow, but in recent times had contained
running water. Given that the rainfall levels were unprecedented during the timeframe of testing conducted
at the site, it is conceivable that the installed drainage system was not sufficient to prevent groundwater
changes in the test area.
It is, therefore, considered likely that changes in moisture content of the crushed rock base and/or the
imported clay subgrade material could have occurred both within the total pavement area and the
timeframe of testing.
Figure 6.29:
Rainfall measured at Dandenong weather station
6.7.3 Measured In Situ Material Properties

In order to determine whether any changes in material properties could have occurred as a result of the
moisture changes, the following data (Austroads 2013) collected immediately after the conclusion of each
experiment, were examined:
Dry density measurements taken using a nuclear density meter, used in direct transmission mode,
collected every metre along each experiment in the trafficked area and either side of it.
Moisture content data recorded with a nuclear density meter, used in back-scatter mode, collected
every metre along each experiment in the trafficked area and either side of it (moisture contents
recorded using back-scatter mode are considered to only reflect the top 5080 mm of material).
In situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR) data estimated, from dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests
conducted every metre along the trafficked area and either side of it using the established Austroads
(2012a) method.
The density data was collected with two probe depths at 150 and 275 mm. The 150 mm data represents
the density of the top of the crushed rock base, and the density of the bottom of the base was determined
using Equation 20.
All of these data are plotted, grouped by load type, in Figure 6.30 to Figure 6.33.
275 275 150 150

275 150
20
where
dry density of bottom of crushed rock (t/m 3)
275
dry density recorded with probe at depth of 275 mm
150
dry density recorded with probe at depth of 150 mm
Figure 6.30 shows that experiments 3500 and 3511 had similar crushed rock densities (both top and
bottom) and similar moisture contents, and so differences in density cannot explain the wide difference in
performance between these two experiments shown in Figure 6.28 (a). Experiment 3507 had slightly higher
top density and slightly lower bottom density than 3500, and lower moisture content, and yet they had
similar deformation performance. The stark difference in performance demonstrated by experiment 3511 is
best reflected in the considerably lower CBR of the imported clay material.
Figure 6.33 shows a lower base bottom density, higher base moisture content and lower CBR of the clay
as the most likely explanation of the higher deformations observed for experiment 3501 than for experiment
3504.
Whilst similar assessments could be made for other experiments, the above example comparisons have
already highlighted that none of the examined parameters can solely explain variations in performance.
Additionally, as the data plotted in Figure 6.30 to Figure 6.33 demonstrates there is a considerable variation
in material properties within many of the experimental test sections.
Given the range of variation in properties and observed performance, the analytical use of a single average
overall deformation measure and average property data for each experiment runs the risk of assigning
average deformation and average property data that did not truly occur at any location within the
experimental length. Rigorous analysis of the data would require that the performance of each point within
an experiment be considered with the material and pavement properties at that point, rather than the use of
data averaged over the entire length. This is the approach used in this report.
Figure 6.30:
experiments
Density, moisture content and CBR of pavement materials 40 kN single axle
(a) Density of top of crushed rock
(b) Density of bottom of crushed rock
(c) Moisture content of crushed rock
(d) CBR of imported clay
Figure 6.31:
experiments
Figure 6.32:
experiments
Figure 6.33:
experiments
Density, moisture content and CBR of pavement materials 90 kN triaxle group
6.7.4 Data to Reflect Pavement Properties

Available data
Variation in four types of data could be used to help explain variation in observed pavement deformation:
variation in load applied
variation thickness of pavement layers
variation in density of crushed rock and clay materials
variation in moisture content of crushed rock and clay materials.
As discussed in Section 6.6.2, the dynamic loading applied was assessed at the start and conclusion of
each experiment, and the length of pavement that was subject to even loading identified. This analysis
report only contains data collected within these evenly loaded areas. The static mass of the applied load,
and the load applied by each axle within an axle group, was also checked using vehicle enforcement
scales. It is considered that the only variation in load that occurred during data collection was those
deliberately made between experiments.
The thickness of the crushed rock base and imported clay subgrade were collected during pavement
construction, and were observed to vary to a small degree within each experimental length, and to a higher
degree between experiments (Austroads 2011d, 2013).
In situ dry density data was collected using a nuclear density meter, for the crushed rock base material at
every metre within each experiment. As discussed above, the data allowed separation of the top 150 mm of
crushed rock base from the lower component.
As well as collecting density data, the same equipment also collected an estimate of the moisture condition
of the crushed rock base every metre along the experimental lengths. However, as noted above, it is
generally recognised that moisture contents recorded using back-scatter mode are considered to only
reflect moisture conditions of the top 5080 mm of material. As such, the moisture condition data does not
allow insight into the moisture condition of the majority of the depth of crushed rock base. Assessment of
the moisture condition of the imported clay subgrade is also not possible from this data set.
Dynamic cone penetrometer tests were conducted within the imported clay subgrade every metre along the
test lengths, and the collected data was used to estimate the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the clay.
It was postulated in Section 6.7.2 that variation in moisture condition was a major variance factor within and
between experiments. Figure 6.30 to Figure 6.33 indicate that the moisture condition of the top of the base
did in fact vary considerably. Additionally, these figures show that the CBR of the clay varied dramatically.
Whilst some of this variance maybe the result of varying density of materials resulting from the construction
processes, moisture condition must also have varied. However, the moisture content information available
for the crushed rock base material is limited to a relatively small proportion of that materials thickness, and
a similar data set does not exist for the clay subgrade 3, or the underlying pavement structure.
In order to provide some insight into the variation in pavement behaviour not allowed by these data sets,
pavement deflection data collected with a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) was examined. FWD
readings were taken at the end of the bedding-in period (i.e. at = 0 in Equation 19), and at the
conclusion of trafficking for each experiment. Readings were taken at load levels of 500 kPa and 700 kPa.
The deflection bowls measured were used to back-calculate the stiffness of the pavement materials, and
these stiffness were then used in subsequent analysis.
Back-calculation of pavement moduli

Of the available FWD data sets, back-calculation was conducted with the 500 kPa data collected at the end
of the bedding-in process. The reasons for excluding the other data sets were:
700 kPa data excluded because many deflection readings recorded exceeded the range of the
deflection sensors (the 500 kPa readings were all within scale)
experiment conclusion data excluded as the end of experiments was not uniformly defined, and in
some cases, was selected on the basis of operational issues.
Some selected samples of crushed rock material and clay subgrade were extracted and, via oven drying, their moisture contents
were established in the laboratory. However, the data set is not extensive, with only two or three locations within each experiment.
This data set is reported in Austroads (2013).
The computer program EfromD3 (developed from EfromD2, Vuong 1991) was used to estimate the moduli
of materials within the pavement structure. This program uses the linear-elastic software CIRCLY (MINCAD
Systems 2009) as its pavement response model, but incorporates processes to approximate the non-linear
behaviour exhibited by unbound pavement materials. Similar with most back-calculation programs,
EfromD3 uses pavement layer thicknesses and surface deflections as inputs to estimate the moduli of
pavement layers. The surface deflections calculated using the estimated moduli are compared to the
measured deflections, and this comparison is used as an assessment of the goodness of fit.
The pavement model structure adopted for the back-calculation analyses is shown in Figure 6.34, and the
model parameters are listed in Table 6.7. Key aspects of the model used are:
The crushed rock and imported clay layers were sub-divided into three sub-layers, as initial testing with
only a single layer for each material, or two sub-layers each, did not yield good fits to the deflection
data it is conjectured that three sub-layers were necessary due to the highly non-linear variation in
modulus that likely occurred in these materials as a result of varying amounts of moisture infiltration.
The thicknesses of the lower sub-layer of the crushed rock and imported clay layers were determined
by subtracting the fixed sub-layer thicknesses from the measured total thickness of the layer at the
location at which each deflection point was measured.
The thickness base and clay layers for experiment 3514 were (linearly) interpolated from
measurements taken at adjacent locations as the location of this experiment was not originally
planned, the exact thickness data was not collected during pavement construction.
The thickness data for the half-metre chainages (e.g. chainages 2.5 m, 3.5 m, etc.) for experiments
3500 and 3501 were interpolated from measurements taken at adjacent locations thickness data was
collected at one metre spacings during construction, and FWD data was available at half-metre
spacings.
The thickness data for the whole-metre chainages (e.g. chainages 2.0 m, 3.0 m, etc.) for experiment
3504 were interpolated, as there was a half-metre shift in the planned testing location and the one
actually undertaken.
The 75 mm crushed rock drainage layer was incorporated into the lime stabilised clay subgrade, and
the resulting consolidated layer was considered to have a uniform thickness of 375 mm.
The sprayed seal surfacing was considered to have not played a structural role in the pavement
structure and it was simply ignored in the analyses.
Figure 6.34:
Table 6.7:
Layer
Pavement model used in back-calculation
Back-calculation model parameters
Material
Thickness
(mm)
Seed
(MPa)
Minimum
(MPa)
Maximum
(MPa)
Anisotropy

Poissons
ratio
=
Rock base
100
200
150
1000
0.35
Rock base
100
200
50
700
0.35
Rock base
Total200
200
50
700
0.35
Imported clay
125
20
10
120
0.45
Imported clay
125
20
10
120
0.45
Imported clay
Total 250
20
10
120
0.45
Stabilised clay
375
200
50
300
0.35
Natural clay
Semi-infinite
100
100
200
0.45
Note: Thickness of lowest sub-layer for crushed rock base and imported clay subgrade was the measured thickness
less the two fixed thicknesses of the overlying sub-layers.
Appendix C contains the thickness and FWD data used in the back-calculation analyses, and also the
vertical modulus values calculated by the back-analyses (denoted 1 to 8 ), with the subscripts reflecting
the layer numbers listed in Table 6.7. Plots of the measured FWD deflection bowl and the calculated bowl
resulting from the back-calculation analyses are listed for every data location in Appendix D. It can be seen
from these plots that the shape of the deflection bowls, and the absolute magnitude of the maximum
deflections, varied considerably within the experimental test area, and also, in some cases, within
experiment locations. The back-calculation analyses would appear to have matched the observed bowls
well.
Aggregated stiffness parameters

In addition to the back-calculated moduli, some additional parameters were defined to provide aggregated
back-calculated moduli values at a given location. The first set of these aggregated parameters, simple
averages, are listed in Table 6.8.
Table 6.8:
Aggregated stiffness parameters simple averages (arithmetic means)
Parameter
Description
Calculation
The average modulus of the crushed rock base
The average modulus of the imported clay
The average modulus of underlying support layers (lime stabilised clay and natural
clay)
(1 + 2 + 3 )
3
(4 + 5 + 6 )
3
(7 + 8 )
2
Back-calculated modulus of layer in pavement model (Figure 6.34)
An additional set of aggregate parameters were calculated using Odemarks method of equivalent
thickness (MET) approach (Ullidtz 1998, see Table 6.9). The derivation of the general form of the equation
used is described in Appendix E. The following assumptions were used in generating these parameters:
the Poissons ratio of all merged layers were considered to be the same
the correction factor, , used by some applications of MET was ignored this is a simple multiplier in
the equation, and as the aggregate parameters were to be used in regression analyses, the factor
would effectively be absorbed into the coefficient for the parameter when used in the regression model
the contribution of the natural clay material was ignored in the determination of and
(as defined in Table 6.9) this layer is semi-infinite in the model and cannot easily be considered in
the MET calculations, and the back-calculated values for this parameter were not considered to be
varying to the same degree as moduli for overlying layers.
Unlike the simple averages used in the parameters in Table 6.8, these MET-based parameters take
consideration of the thickness of the various component sub-layers in determining an aggregate stiffness.
Table 6.9:
Aggregate stiffness parameters (MET)
Parameter
Description
Calculation
The overall modulus

of the crushed rock
base
The overall modulus

of lower two sublayers of the
crushed rock base
The overall modulus

of the imported clay
subgrade
The overall modulus

of the imported clay
and lime stabilised
clay
The overall modulus

of all pavement
layers
(except the natural
clay)
Back-calculated modulus of layer in pavement model (Figure 6.34)
1 11
2 21
+ 2 21 3 + 3 31 3
)
1 + 2 + 3
+ 3 31 3
)
2 + 3
+ 5 51 3 + 6 61 3
)
4 + 5 + 6
+ 5 51 3 + 6 61 3 + +7 71 3
)
4 + 5 + 6 + 7
+ 2 21
4 41
4 41
1 11
+ 3 31 3 + 4 41 3 + 5 51 3 + 6 61
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7
3 3
+ +7 71
6.7.5 Measure of Performance

Section 6.7.2 simplistically presented the deformation data collected as overall deformation, i.e. a single
measure is used to represent the deformation of an entire experimental length. As noted in Section 6.7.3,
rigorous data really requires that the performance of each measurement point within an experiment be
considered with the material and pavement properties at that point, rather than the use of data averaged
over the entire length. Before conducting any detailed analysis, the alternative parameters to reflect
deformation performance were investigated. Four different parameters were considered, each of which
would be calculated at each individual data point (i.e. chainage) within each experiment location:
1. Cycles to reach a given level of deformation.
As shown in Figure 6.35 (a), a given level of deformation is established, and the number of cycles
of the applied load needed to reach that level of deformation is obtained.
2. Long-term cycle rate
This parameter represents the long-term rate at which the cycles of the applied load need to be
applied to obtain an incremental increase in deformation (Figure 6.35 (b)).
3. Deformation at a given number of cycles
This parameter (Figure 6.35 (c)) is effectively the converse of the first parameter. In this case, a
given number of applied load cycles is defined and the deformation level at that number of cycles is
determined.
4. Long-term deformation rate
Similarly, this parameter (Figure 6.35 (d)) is the effective converse of the second parameter. It
represents the long-term rate at which deformation increases with increased application of load
cycles.
The aim of the experimental program and analyses was to determine the number of load cycles required by
different axle groups to produce the same level of damage. This is in keeping with the use of axle
equivalencies in a pavement design context different axle group types and load magnitudes are
converted into a number of equivalent axle repetitions of a Standard Axle based on equivalent pavement
damage occurring. As the focus of the analyses was to be on the number of cycles of load to reach
equivalent damage levels, only the first two parameters in the list above were explored in detail. For the
sake of brevity, the two parameters were given simple names:
cycle count the number of cycles of load applied, post-bedding-in, to reach the selected deformation
level
cycle rate the long-term rate of application of load cycles needed to increment the deformation level
by one millimetre.
Figure 6.35:
Alternative measures of deformation performance
(a) Cycles to reach deformation level
(b) Long-term cycle rate (cycles/deformation change)
(c) Deformation at specific number of cycles
(d) Long-term deformation rate (deformation/cycle)
In order to calculate cycle rate for all data locations in a consistent manner, a curve was fitted through the
cycles versus deformation data. A range of different functions were explored, and ultimately a simple loglinear model was selected:
10 = +
21
where
=
=
=
cycles of loading (after bedding-in) (x1000 cycles)

mean deformation (after bedding-in) (mm)
constants
Cycle rate was calculated as the slope of a straight line fitted through the last 150 000 cycles of cycles
versus deformation data. A graphical check was made to ensure that this straight line did not encroach into
the region of the data where the slope was rapidly changing. Subsequent analyses demonstrated that the
cycle rate parameter was extremely sensitive to minor fluctuations in the underlying data, and it proved
impossible to reliably link this parameter to changes in the pavement material properties. Unsuccessful
analyses using this parameter have not been included in this report.
The following analyses focus on relating cycle count at selected deformation levels, to material properties.
The curves fitted using Equation 21 are plotted, and the equations are listed for each chainage location and
experiment in Appendix B. The plots also include the marks on the curves showing a deformation level of
three and four millimetres (except for those cases where either or both estimates are beyond the scale of
the plots). These deformation levels were two levels used in the analyses discussed in the next section.
6.8
Analysis Using Generalised Model
Whilst the progress of deformation was recorded at half-metre intervals within each experiment location,
the back-calculated moduli data was only available, in most cases, at metre intervals. This resulted in a
substantial reduction in the size of the combined data set.
Initially a generalised analysis was considered, wherein the number of cycles required to reach a specified
deformation level was a function of a combination of some, or all, of the following general data types:
the total load and number of axles in the load group
select deflection responses of the bedded-in pavement, e.g. D0, D200, D600, D900, etc.
aggregate stiffness parameters.
It became apparent, however, that it was not possible to develop a generalised model able to encapsulate
the combined data set of all experiments. Whilst there was variation between many of the factors listed
above, the amount that each overlapped was not consistent across the four different group/loads applied.
By way of an example, Figure 6.36 represents the distribution of the aggregate variable (the stiffness
of the crushed rock base) for each data location 4. It can be seen clearly in the figure that, for example, half
of the chainages tested with the 60 kN tandem group had values of that were outside the range of
values encountered by the other three group/loads.
Even if a generalised model could have been developed using statistical regression techniques, it would
have been impossible to evaluate the model with fixed values for the dependent variables that were
representative of the variables values actually observed for all load types.
was selected for this example as it was found to be the most common dominant factor in subsequent analysis (Section 6.9).
Figure 6.36:
6.9
Distribution of Erock for each axle type
Analyses Using Axle Group Pairing
6.9.1 General
Given the above mentioned variability of test pavement properties, the detailed analyses focussed on data
from pairs of lead group types, attempting to understand the relationship between them, rather than
attempting the development of a generalised model. Four pairings were examined:
60 kN tandem group and 80 kN tandem group

This would allow an isolated assessment of the effect of axle group load on pavement deformation.
40 kN single axle and 80 kN tandem group

This would allow an examination of the effect of different axle numbers, with each axle loaded the
same, on pavement deformation.
60 kN tandem group and 90 kN triaxle group

This would allow an additional examination of the effect of different axle numbers, with each axle
loaded the same, on pavement deformation.
40 kN single axle and 90 kN triaxle group

This pairing represents loads that are considered to be equivalent using the current design
assumptions (i.e. the axles would act independently).
For each pair, the analysis approach used the following steps:
1.
Select the data for the load group pair being considered.
2.
For each test location (i.e. chainage), use a log-linear function to determine deformation as a function
of cycles of applied load checking the quality of the fitted curve by plotting it against the raw data
(Appendix B).
3.
Using Figure 6.37, identify the maximum deformation level that was achieved by the majority of the
data locations, for both load types. The maximum deformation level was chosen in order to reduce the
effect of measurement and uncertainty.
4.
Discard those test locations where the observed maximum deformation was less than the selected
deformation level (step 3) the number of cases was relatively small due to the selection process
used in step 3.
5.
Using the fitted curves from step 2, calculate, for each test location, the cycle count that matched the
deformation level selected in step 3.
6.
Discard those test locations where the deformation level selected in step 3 represented less than 30%
of the observed maximum deformation the intention being to exclude those locations where a very
high deformation was observed in comparison to the deformation level selected (since, in these cases,
the selected deformation level was obtained after extremely short numbers of cycles).
7.
Establish a baseline model form for each of the two load types. (cycle count) = + (0 ). This model
was considered to be the simplest form of model, in as much as it used a single parameter to
represent pavement strength, and that it used a directly measured parameter and not a derived one.
8.
Using a range of back-calculated moduli and aggregate stiffness parameters, attempt to develop a
model that improved the prediction of cycle count than that provided by the baseline model. Care was
taken during these analyses to ensure that the significance of additional parameters was statistically
valid, and that over-fitting of the model did not occur. With relatively few data points, models with fewer
parameters that offered only slightly poorer fits to data were accepted in preference to models with
slightly better fits but additional parameters. In order for the difference in performance under the two
load types to be examined, the models developed for the two load conditions would be need to be
compared with each other. For this comparison to be made, it would be highly desirable that the
models for each load type have similar parameters.
9.
Having determined an improved model form in step 8, set it as the new baseline model and repeat
step 8 until no further model improvement is possible.
10. Examine the range of values for each of the parameters used in both load type models, and select
representative value(s) for those parameters that could be seen to be common across data sets for
both load types.
11. Use the model parameter values determined in step 10 to determine the cycle count to reach the
established deformation levels, and compare the results.
Figure 6.37:
Distribution of maximum deformation observed for each load type
6.9.2 40 kN Single Axle and 80 kN Tandem Group

From Figure 6.37, it can be seen that the majority of data points for both experiments loaded with the 40 kN
single axle load and the 80 kN tandem group reached a deformation level of 4 mm or more. Accordingly,
4 mm was selected as the deformation level for the analysis. The cycles required to reach this 4 mm
deformation level were determined using the process described in Section 6.9.1, and the distribution of
these cycle count estimates is shown in Figure 6.38. The data is clearly scattered, and at a significant
number of test locations, for both load types, less than 50 000 cycles of loading were required to reach
4 mm of deformation, yet at other locations, in excess of 150 000 cycles were required. Some of the
locations loaded with the 80 kN tandem group required 250 000 or more cycles to reach this deformation
level.
Figure 6.38: Distribution of cycles required to reach 4 mm deformation for 40 kN single axle and
80 kN tandem group data
Regression models were developed to find those pavement material parameters which, when varied, could
explain the range of performance data obtained. Equation 22 was the model that was found to best fit the
40 kN single axle data. The model relates the number of cycles needed to reach the 4 mm deformation
level to the effective modulus of the crushed rock base, , determined using the MET method. Slightly
improved R2 values could be found for models that contained an additional term, notably ; however,
analysis determined that the additional terms were not statistically significant.
40,4 = 149407 + 1187
22
where
40,4
number of cycles of the 40 kN single axle to reach 4 mm of deformation
the overall modulus of the crushed rock base (definition in Table 6.9) (MPa)
Adjusted R2:
F-statistic:
p-value:
0.88
121.7 on two variables and 16 degrees of freedom
6.879 10-9
The model for the 80 kN tandem group data, Equation 23, uses the back-calculated modulus of the top
125 mm of imported clay subgrade (4 ) as the sole explanatory parameter for the variation in number of
cycles needed. A softening of the top of the clay material could well have resulted from water infiltration
and poor drainage of some of the experimental sections, as discussed in Section 6.7.1. As noted above, it
was considered to be beneficial if the two models had similar parameters, in order to make comparisons
between the two load cases easier. However, in this case, this was not possible. Attempts at using either
as a variable in modelling 80 kN tandem data, or using 4 with 40 kN single data, failed to produce
models of any statistical significance.
80,4 = 153895 + 157924
23
where
80,4
number of cycles of the 80 kN tandem group to reach 4 mm of deformation
the back-calculated modulus of the top 125 mm of imported clay (Table 6.7)
(MPa)
Adjusted R2:
F-statistic:
p-value:
0.93
151.3 on one variable and 11 degrees of freedom
9.019 10-8
The variation in the two explanatory parameters used in the models is shown in Figure 6.39. This figure
also includes shaded regions denoting the area enclosed by the upper and lower quartiles of each
parameter. The narrow range of variation in the parameter for the 80 kN tandem data is evident, as is
the wider range of variation in 4 for the same data. Represented in this fashion, it is clear why the models
differed in their parameters. Two distinct clusters of data are evident: locations with high 4 values and
locations with low values. These also correspond with high and low values for .
It is also evident that, for the locations with values of both parameters, almost all of the 80 kN tandem
group data shows a stiffer crushed rock base than the 40 kN single axle data. There would appear to be a
differentiation between the pavement conditions trafficked by the two load types, making confident direct
comparison of performance results impossible.
Another cluster of data showed a better matching of the pavement parameters across the two load types,
albeit with a wider spread in the 80 kN tandem data. This data cluster corresponds with locations that did
not require many load cycles to reach 4 mm deformation. As seen in Figure 6.38, all of the 40 kN single
axle data locations required 25 000 or less cycles to reach this level of deformation. Similarly, all but two of
the 80 kN tandem group data locations required similar numbers of cycles. Comparison between the two
load types at such low counts of load cycles is considered of little value, as small variations in pavement
behaviour would result in large differences in small cycle count numbers, swamping any meaningful
assessments to the difference in performance attributable to different loading conditions.
Unfortunately, variation in pavement material and subgrade moduli between the two data sets makes an
assessment of the difference in performance attributable to load type impossible.
Figure 6.39:
Distribution of Erock and E4 for 40 kN single axle and 80 kN tandem group paired data
Note: Shaded regions represent regions between lower quartile and upper quartile of observations.
6.9.3 60 kN Tandem Group and 80 kN Tandem Group

An examination of Figure 6.37 shows that the test locations loaded with the 60 kN tandem group exhibited
very little deformation. Of the 16 locations at which valid data was obtained, only eight locations showed
deformation exceeding 3 mm. These locations were the same locations that form the lower grouping of
data shown in Figure 6.36. The cluster of locations around 325 MPa in the same figure are the same
locations that did not reach any meaningful level of deformation at all. In attempting to compare the
difference in performance that could be attributed to changing the load level on the tandem axle group from
60 to 80 kN, a deformation level of 3 mm was selected. Figure 6.40 shows the distribution of the number of
cycles to reach this deformation level for the two load levels.
Figure 6.40: Distribution of cycles required to reach 3 mm deformation for 60 kN and 80 kN

tandem groups data
Modelling was undertaken to find parameters that would explain the spread of data evident for each load
type in Figure 6.40. A valid model could not be found for the small 60 kN tandem group data set. As there
was variation of parameters between cases, but no consistent parameter or combination of parameters, the
lack of an acceptable model is considered to be a result of the small data set.
A model was found to best match the 80 kN tandem axle data. It had a single term, 4 , which is the same
term used to model the same data locations, but to a deformation level of 4 mm (Section 6.9.2). The model
is not reported here, as without any matching model for the 60 kN data set, the model is of no practical use.
6.9.4 60 kN Tandem Group and 90 kN Triaxle Group

As with the prior load pairing, the lack of 60 kN tandem group data prevented any direct comparison
between the 60 kN tandem and 90 kN triaxle groups.
6.9.5 40 kN Single Axle and 90 kN Triaxle Group

A successful comparison was made comparing damage caused by loading with the 40 kN single axle and
the 90 kN triaxle group. This comparison is significant in that, as discussed in Section 2.3, if it is presumed
that each axle in an axle group acts independently (i.e. there is no damage increase or decrease caused
per axle as a result of grouping them together), then this pair of loading types should cause the same
damage per cycle of loading (i.e. one pass of the 90 kN triaxle causing the same damage as one pass of
the 40 kN single axle).
Figure 6.37 demonstrates that the majority of data locations for both load types reached a deformation level
of 4 mm or more. Therefore, 4 mm was selected as the deformation level for the analysis. The loading
cycles required to reach this deformation level were determined, and the distribution of these is shown in
Figure 6.41.
Figure 6.41: Distribution of cycles required to reach 4 mm deformation for 40 kN single axle and
90 kN triaxle group data
A regression model relating the number of cycles of 40 kN single axle load needed to reach the 4 mm
deformation level to the effective modulus of the crushed rock base, , had already been developed
(Equation 22). A similar model was determined for the 90 kN triaxle load, shown in Equation 24. Trials
testing whether incorporating additional parameters would improve the fit of the model determined that any
additional parameters were statistically insignificant, and that an improvement in the model could not be
made in any case.
90,4 = 217722 + 1607
24
where
90,4
number of cycles of the 90 kN triaxle group to reach 4 mm of deformation
the overall modulus of the crushed rock base (definition in Table 6.9) (MPa)
Adjusted R2:
F-statistic:
p-value:
0.87
62.43 on 1 variable and 8 degrees of freedom
4.77 10-5
Figure 6.42:
Distribution of Erock for 40 kN single axle and 90 kN triaxle group paired data
Fortunately, models for both load types shared a common and single parameter, . Figure 6.42 shows
the distribution of this parameter for the data locations for both load types. It can be seen that there is an
overlap of this parameter for the two load types between 140 and 250 MPa.
The number of load cycles needed to reach the 4 mm deformation level are plotted as a function of ,
using Equations 22 and 24, in Figure 6.43. It can be seen that for low values of , very few cycles of
either load type were required to reach the 4 mm deformation level, and there is little difference between
the cycles required by either load group to cause the same damage. As the modulus of the base increases,
however, the regression models slowly separate, with more cycles of the 90 kN triaxle group required to
cause the same damage as the 40 kN single axle.
Expressing the difference between the numbers of cycles required to reach the same deformation level as
a ratio results in the load equivalency factor () in Equation 25.
Figure 6.43: Number of 40 kN single axle and 90 kN triaxle group cycles required to reach 4 mm
deformation as a function of the effective stiffness of the crushed rock (Erock)
40 = 90
25
where
40
estimated number of cycles of the 40 kN single axle needed to reach 4 mm

deformation level
90
estimated number of cycles of the 90 kN triaxle group needed to reach 4 mm

deformation level
load equivalency factor, i.e. the factor which relates the equivalent number of
load applications to achieve the same level of damage
For locations that needed a minimum of 50 000 cycles of ALF loading to reach the 4 mm deformation level,
the factor varied from 0.8 (at high effective stiffness) to 1.0 (at low effective stiffness) across the range
of experimental data.
However, appreciating the spread of data points plotted in Figure 6.43, it is difficult to conclude that there is
a substantial difference between the data sets, and that both load groups caused the same amount of
deformation.
6.10 Conclusions
Whilst the experimental results indicated that an of 0.8 applied to the majority of pavement locations
tested indicating that 20% less cycles of an 180 kN triaxle were required than the single 80 kN Standard
Axle to achieve the same level of deformation the scatter of the data does not allow sufficient confidence
to translate this finding directly into design practice. Variations in moisture content within the pavement
structure, and over the time period in which the experiments were conducted, is considered the most likely
explanation for range of the scatter in the collected deformation data.
The experimental results cannot be reasonably considered to provide enough evidence that the currently
used standard load for triaxles of 181 kN (full axle) is inappropriate.
The small difference in to current practice (0.8 cf. 1.0) is insignificant in comparison to the variation in
experimental results and the variety of assumptions made in the analysis.
Accepting that the was four, and that the standard load for the (full) triaxle group was 181 kN, it can be
concluded that the interaction between axles does not affect deformation damage, and that the axles can
be considered to each contribute to the overall damage in isolation to each other (Section 2.3). No
interaction would be expected if most of the deformation occurred in the top 100 mm of the crushed rock
base. Higher interaction between the axles would be expected lower in the pavement structure. As
discussed in Section 6.6.5, deformation of the top of the imported clay subgrade was not observed in any
test locations, including those comprising weaker structures.
Accepting that no significant interaction between axle occurs, the standard load for a multiple-axle group,
that is the load on the group that will result in the same deformation damage as a single axle with dual tyres
and a load of 80 kN, can be calculated using Equation 26.
1=
4
( 80) or
1 1/4
26
= 80 ()
where
number of dual-tyred axles in the multiple-axle group (i.e. 2 for tandem, 3 for
triaxle, etc.)
standard load on the axle group with dual tyres (kN)
Equation 26 relates the damage caused by multiple axles with dual tyres to the damage caused by a single
axle with dual tyres. A similar function, Equation 27, can be used to do the same for single tyres using the
current standard loads for single axles with different tyre widths.
1 = (
) or =
27
1 4
()
where
number of single-tyred axles in the multiple-axle group (i.e. 2 for tandem, 3 for
triaxle, etc.)
standard load on the axle group with single tyres (kN)
standard load on a single axle; depends upon nominal tyre section width:
53 kN for width less than 375 mm
58 kN for width at least 375 mm but less than 450 mm
71 kN for width 450 mm or more
It is concluded that the ALF testing and analysis confirmed the suitability of current practice for equating the
damage of axle groups for use in the empirical design procedure. It is proposed that Equations 26 and 27
be used in the future to determine the standard loads for multiple-axle groups. This would result in little
change for all currently listed axle groups, except quad-axles, for which a slight increase in standard load
would occur. Standard loads for a series of multiple-axle groups are listed in Table 6.10 and Table 6.11.
Table 6.10: Proposed standard loads for dual-tyre axles for use with empirical design procedure
Axle group type
Load (kN)
Current
Proposed
80
135
135
181
182
221
226
Table 6.11: Proposed standard loads for single-tyre axles for use with empirical design procedure
Axle group type
Single axle with single tyres (SAST)
Tandem axle with single tyres (TAST)
Triaxle with single tyres (TRST)
Nominal tyre section width
Current
Proposed
Less than 375 mm
53
At least 375 mm but less than 450 mm
58
450 mm or more
71
Less than 375 mm
90
89
98
98
450 mm or more
120
119
Less than 375 mm
121
121
132
132
162
Less than 375 mm
150
150
164
164
201
450 mm or more
Quad-axle with single tyres (QAST)
Load (kN)
450 mm or more
7. Fatigue of Asphalt
7.1
Introduction
The search of international literature described in Section 3.3 concluded that the work undertaken by
Homsi (2011) represents the most exhaustive assessment of flexural fatigue performance of asphalt when
subjected to multiple-axle loads.
Homsis model (Equation 18) allows the prediction of fatigue life of a sample as a function of the maximum
strain level, the number of peak strains, and two strain shape factors, all resulting from the simulation of a
single axle or multiple-axle group. The model does not consider how the grouping of axles may affect the
magnitude of the strain developed.
In order to determine how grouping of loads affects the strain developed in asphalt layers, this section of
the report describes how Homsis model was applied to strains determined from response to load modelling
of a series of pavement structures.
7.2
Response-to-load Model
7.2.1 Model Selection

A three-dimensional finite element method (3D-FEM) was selected as the basis of the response-to-load
model, for the following reasons:
FEM modelling is able to cater for the non-linear behaviour of unbound pavement and subgrade
materials.
3D-FEM modelling is able to represent the simultaneous application of multiple loads, rather than
relying on post-processing to linearly superimpose responses to individual loads. This allows modelling
of the complex stress state that occurs horizontally within a non-linear material, and therefore, as the
modulus of a non-linear material is a function of stress, the stiffness variation of the material can be
modelled.
Austroads (2012b) documents the development of a 2D-FEM response-to-load model and software,
adopting Uzans (1992) universal model (Equation 28) for non-linear materials.
2 3
= 1 [ ] [
]
28
where
elastic modulus (MPa)
mean normal stress (kPa)
+ +
3
for standard triaxial compression loading with confining stress , and deviatoric
stress :
3 +
=
3
0.5
1
2 2
2
2
2
2
{ [( ) + ( ) + ( )2 ] + [
+
+
]}
9
3
for standard triaxial compression loading:
=
1 , 2 , 3
atmospheric pressure (normalising factor), assumed as 100 kPa
material parameters normally subjected to the following constraints:

1 > 0; 2 0; 3 0; 2 + 3 1.0, 1 (MPa)
In order to undertake 3D-FEM analysis, the Cast3M software package was selected, as a 3D model was
not developed in the previous Austroads project. Developed over the last two decades by the French
Commissariat lnrgie atomique (CEA), Cast3M is freely available for research purposes and has a
large user base who have ensured that it is extensively validated and robust. The universal model was
programmed into Cast3M as an additional material model.
7.2.2 FEM Mesh Generation

A script file, written using the Cast3M command language, was developed to automate the generation of a
3D pavement mesh based on user inputs of pavement thicknesses and materials, and axle group and load
definitions.
Before undertaking FEM analyses, the mesh generation aspect of the script was validated by comparing
the results of pure linear-elastic analyses conducting using Cast3M and CIRCLY.
The analysis required modelling pavement responses to tyre loads from 4 to 24 kN. The FEM mesh
modelled the loads as a circular load of constant stress. Jameson (2013) had previously developed a
process for modelling circular contact patches for various loads on a standard 11R22.5 tyre. This was used
to estimate the contact stress and load radius for each tyre load. The process, shown graphically in
Figure 7.1, uses an equation based on data reported by Bonaquist (1992) which was adjusted to reflect the
differences between gross contact area and net contact area, to predict the contact area for tyre loads less
than 20 kN. At 20 kN, the radius was assumed to be 92.13 mm with a contact stress of 750 kPa to match
current Austroads design values. A series of linear interpolations are used at fixed points to determine the
radius and stress for tyre loads in excess of 20 kN.
Figure 7.1: Calculation of radius and contact stress for circular load model of tyre loads
In order to reduce analysis time, the 3D pavement mesh used geometric symmetry that exists in both the
longitudinal and transverse directions of an axle group. Example meshes, with the different pavement
layers (asphalt, granular and subgrade) graphically separated, are shown in Figure 7.2. A detailed view of
the mesh representing the load is shown in Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.2: Example 3D meshes for 100 mm asphalt and 200 mm granular base pavements
(exploded view)
(a)
Single axle
(b)
Tandem axle group
(c)
Triaxle group
(d)
Quad-axle group
Figure 7.3: Zoomed view of 3D mesh for load area
7.2.3 Analysis Parameters

A three-layer pavement was modelled for all cases: asphalt base, unbound granular subbase and
subgrade. The materials used for each of these layers and their thicknesses were varied to create a wide
range of pavement configurations, as shown in Table 7.1. The characterisations of the two subbase and
two subgrade materials were taken from the presumptive values listed in Austroads (2012b).
Table 7.1:
Material thicknesses and model parameters used in 3D-FEM modelling
Parameter
Values
Asphalt model
1000 MPa
= 1000 MPa, = 0.4, = 2.1 t/m3
3000 MPa
= 3000 MPa, = 0.4, = 2.1 t/m3
5000 MPa
= 5000 MPa, = 0.4, = 2.1 t/m3
Asphalt
thickness
Granular model
50, 100, 200, 300 mm

High quality crushed
rock
1 = 250 MPa, 2 = 1.0, 3 = 0.25, RCS = 40 kPa, = 2.2 t/m3, = 0.35
Lower subbase
1 = 150 MPa, 2 = 0.8, 3 = 0.25, RCS = 40 kPa, = 2.2 t/m3, = 0.35
Granular
thickness
Subgrade
model
200, 400, 600 mm

Highly plastic clay
(CBR 3%)
1 = 15 MPa, 2 = 0, 3 = 0.5, RCS = 0 kPa, = 1.6 t/m3, = 0.45
Sand (CBR 15%)
1 = 85 MPa, 2 = 0.15, 3 = 0.35, RCS = 0 kPa, = 2.0 t/m3, = 0.35
Note: = Poissons ratio, = density, RCS = residual compaction stress, 1 3 = constants of Uzans stressdependency model.
The response-to-load of each pavement was calculated under single, tandem, triaxle and quad-axle
groups. Axle spacing for tandem, triaxle and quad-axle groups was fixed at 1.25 m. All axles were modelled
as dual tyre axles with 330 mm spacings, centre-to-centre, between the tyres. The length of the axles was
fixed at 1800 mm from centre-to-centre of the dual tyres. These individual axle dimensions were selected to
match the Standard Axle definition used by Austroads.
A range of load levels were applied to the axle groups. The loads were applied as variations to a tyre load
and in 2 kN increments.
7.2.4 Response Locations

Strain responses in the direction of travel (longitudinal) and perpendicular to the travel direction
(transverse) were calculated at the bottom of the asphalt layer, and were reported along longitudinal lines
under the innermost tyre and between the dual tyres, as demonstrated by the dotted lines in Figure 7.4.
Within these shapes, the peak strains occurring under each axle in the modelled group were also recorded.
Figure 7.4: Asphalt strains were recorded along the dotted lines for this quad-axle group
7.3
3D-FEM Response-to-load Analyses
Three-dimensional FEM response-to-load analyses were conducted for the 144 pavement structures
represented in Table 7.1. With four axle group types considered, a total of 576 analyses were conducted
for each tyre load level considered. Initially, four tyre load levels were analysed 14, 16, 18 and 20 kN
resulting in a total of 2304 analyses. For many pavement structures, load levels lower than 14 kN, always
decreasing in increments of 2 kN, were modelled in order to determine the tyre load for multiple-axle
groups that caused the same damage as a Standard Axle (i.e. a single axle with a tyre load of 20 kN). The
final number of analyses conducted exceeded 3100.
Analysis times varied with computing power used and with the number of axles being modelled in an axle
group. Typical analysis times using a 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7 running a 64 bit Unix operating system,
ranged from two minutes for a single axle analysis to 40 minutes for a quad-axle analysis.
Examples of strain outputs from the 3D-FEM analyses are presented Figure 7.5. The examples show
extreme asphalt thicknesses, whilst keeping the remainder of the pavement structure and load level
constant. The strains were extracted underneath the innermost tyre of the axles.
A key characteristic of shapes of strain pulses in the longitudinal direction (Figure 7.5(a) and (b)) is the
successive regions of compressive-tensile-compressive strain associated with each axle. In general, the
super-positioning of one area of compression generated by an axle, with an area of tension generated by
an adjacent axle, results in a reduction in the overall strain level in that area. Strains in the transverse
direction (Figure 7.5(c) and (d)) do not exhibit significant areas of compressive strain, and so the superpositioning of strains generated by adjacent axles results in higher strain levels.
For thin structures (Figure 7.5(a) and (c)), it can be seen that there is little impact on peak strain levels (in
either direction) from adjacent axles. With thicker asphalt structures (Figure 7.5(b) and (d)), it can be seen
that the grouping of axles leads to more significant differences in peak strains. With the effect of
superimposing compressive strains with tensile strains, longitudinal strain peaks generally reduce with
increasing number of axles, and transverse direction strains generally increase.
A key feature of the strain shapes shown in Figure 7.5 are the unequal peak strain levels for each axle
within a triaxle or quad-axle group. Homsis laboratory study was conducted with all strain peaks within an
axle group having the same magnitude. Strains at the bottom of thin asphalt layers would best reflect this
condition.
Figure 7.5: Examples of strains
(a)
50 mm asphalt longitudinal strain
(b )
300 mm asphalt longitudinal strain
(c)
50 mm asphalt transverse strain
(d)
300 mm asphalt transverse strain
Note: Asphalt model: 3000 MPa/granular model: high quality crushed rock/granular thickness: 400 mm/subgrade
model: highly plastic clay/tyre load level: 14 kN.
For all of the pavement configurations, axle group tyres and load levels, the highest magnitude strains
always occurred in the longitudinal direction. The location of these peaks strains varied, dependent upon
pavement configuration and load level, from beneath the axle tyres to between the dual tyres.
7.4
Analysis of 3D-FEM Response-to-load Results Using Homsis

Damage Model
7.4.1 Calculation of Homsi Parameters

For each 3D-FEM modelled pavement structure and group/load condition, the strains described in
Section 7.2.4 were extracted. For each of these strain shapes, Homsis shape parameters (Section 4.5)
were determined.
Homsis strain signals represent the rise and fall of strains within a load group as a function of time. The
3D-FEM response-to-load model was a static model and, therefore, reflected the strain shapes under the
axle group as a function of distance. A key parameter of Homsis model is the duration of the strain shape,
(Figure 4.8). This parameter could be expected to vary with the speed of travel of an axle group, and also
with the depth within a pavement structure at which the strain shape is located. In order to translate the
distance-domain modelled strain shapes into the time-domain shapes considered by Homsis model, the
was ignored, and a single distance-to-time translation was
possible effect of pavement structure on
values determined from the response-to-load results fell
made. In order to ensure that the majority of
within the range used by Homsi in developing her model, a travel speed of 22 km/h was selected.
As described below, the impact of ignoring the effect of pavement structure on the distance-to-time-domain
translation was greatly minimised by the use of relative damages rather than absolute damages in further
analysis and in drawing conclusions.
, the remaining Homsi parameters were calculated for each strain shape as follows:
Having determined
as the maximum tensile strain peak (set to zero if the entire strain shape was compressive)
as the number of peaks in the strain shape equal to the number of axles in the group
.
as the area under the strain shape, divided by and by
7.4.2 Calculation of Relative Fatigue Damage

Having determined the shape parameters for each strain location, Homsis multi-linear model, Equation 18,
was used to estimate the number of allowable loadings of each axle group type and load level on each of
the 144 pavement configurations before flexural fatigue of the asphalt occurs. The damage caused by the
group/load combination on each pavement was then determined as the inverse of the minimum number of
allowable loadings determined for each strain location. Finally, the relative damage caused in comparison
to that caused by the 80 kN single Standard Axle was determined using Equation 29.
, =
29
where
,
,
=
=
=
relative damage caused by axle group, , with load kN

damage caused by axle group, , with load kN
damage caused by the Standard Axle, i.e. a single axle with 80 kN load
In addition to allowing easy comparison of damages caused by different axle groups and loads for given
pavement structures, the relative damage parameter also significantly reduces the effects of ignoring the
pavement structure when translating from the distance to the time-domain. As the effect that pavement
structure, acting alone, has on the translation for a single axle can be reasonably assumed to be the same
as for other axle groups, the absolute value of the relative damage can be considered to be reasonably
unaffected by the influence of structure on the translation.
7.4.3 Calculation of Standard Axle Loads

Having obtained relative damages for each group/load/pavement combination, the load on a multiple-axle
group that would cause the same damage as the Standard Axle was determined for each pavement
configuration. This standard load corresponds to the load on the axle group that creates a relative damage
equal to one. The standard loads were determined by linearly interpolating the relative asphalt damages
resulting from variations in tyre load.
As noted in Section 7.2.3, the 3D-FEM analyses were conducted using 2 kN increments of tyre-load
varying between 14 and 20 kN. In many cases, this range of tyre loads did not allow interpolation of
standard loads, and so additional 3D-FEM analyses were conducted to ensure that interpolation could
occur within a 2 kN range. Figure 7.6 shows graphical examples of this interpolation for the same
pavement configurations used in Figure 7.5.
Figure 7.6: Example calculation of tyre loads in multiple-axle groups that causes the same damage
as a Standard Axle using Homsis damage model
(a) Asphalt thickness = 50 mm
(b) Asphalt thickness = 300 mm
Notes: Asphalt model: 3000 MPa/granular model: high quality crushed rock/granular thickness: 400 mm/subgrade
model: highly plastic clay.
N1,20 represents the allowable Standard Axle loading before asphalt fatigue, as determined by the current Austroads
design process (i.e. linear-elastic modelling and use of the Austroads fatigue performance relationship).
7.4.4 Variations of Standard Axle Loads with Pavement Structure

By way of example, Figure 7.7 presents a summary of the standard axle loads as a function of asphalt
thickness for pavements with the same underlying structure as used in Figure 7.6 for all three multiple-axle
groups. The figure also includes the allowable loading determined using current Austroads procedures for
both asphalt and subgrade performance criteria. Appendix G contains the complete set of these figures.
At very thin asphalt thicknesses, the standard load is considerably lower than for thicker asphalt layers, and
varies significantly with thickness. At higher asphalt thicknesses (greater than 200 mm), the effect of
asphalt thickness on standard load reduces in significance.
Figure 7.7: Example summary of standard axle loads in multiple-axle groups that causes the same
damage as a Standard Axle using Homsis damage model
Note: Asphalt model: 3000 MPa/granular model: high quality crushed rock/granular thickness: 400 mm/subgrade
model: highly plastic clay.
A comparison between figures within Appendix G could be made to see the effect that other pavement
structure parameters, such as granular thickness or subgrade model, had on the determination of standard
load. Figure 7.8 shows the range of determined standard axle loads that result from variations with
pavement structure. The individual bars within the figure represent the range of standard loads obtained by
varying granular thickness and granular and subgrade models. Each bar represents a specific asphalt
thickness, and a separate chart represents variations in asphalt modulus. The dotted horizontal lines in the
figure represent the standard axle loads currently used in the Austroads design procedure. Figure 7.9
shows the same data but in terms of the standard group load.
From these figures, it can be clearly seen that standard load for an axle group is dependent upon more
than just the thickness of asphalt. The underlying structure also plays a role, and that role is more
significant at lower asphalt thicknesses than at higher ones, as evidenced by the larger range of standard
loads for 50 mm thicknesses of asphalt in comparison to higher thicknesses. Additionally, the derived
standard loads for 50 mm asphalt structures are all lower than the standard loads used in the current
Austroads design processes (shown as dotted lines). For asphalt thicknesses of 100 mm or greater, the
standard load for all structures is above the current Austroads values for all cases except for some 100 mm
thick asphalt cases with a low stiffness of 1000 MPa. As noted earlier, 1000 MPa represents a minimum
expected asphalt modulus, and would coincide with high temperatures and/or slow loading speeds.
Figure 7.8: Range of axle-loads in multiple-axle groups that causes the same damage as a
Standard Axle using Homsis damage model
(a) Asphalt model: 1000 MPa
(b) Asphalt model: 3000 MPa
(c) Asphalt model: 5000 MPa
Figure 7.9: Range of group loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle using Homsis
damage model
7.5
Simplifying Homsis Model
Homsis model was developed using two discrete values of the areas of strain parameter, (0.21, 0.42),
(0.105, 0.25) used in the laboratory testing (Section 4.5).
and two values for duration of pulse parameter,
Figure 7.10 shows the cumulative range of these shape parameters for the critical strain locations and
directions determined using the 3D-FEM model under a Standard Axle load. In all cases, the magnitude of
the peak strain was greater for the longitudinal direction than the transverse. Homsis model also
determined that the damage resulting from longitudinal strains was greater than the transverse ones. The
figure also shows, as vertical lines, the discrete values for these parameters used in Homsis experimental
study.
Figure 7.10: Cumulative distribution of Homsi shape parameters in 3D-FEM modelled strain
responses for single axle with 80 kN axle load
Figure 7.10 shows that the two discrete values of used by Homsi to develop the model, 0.21 and 0.42,
bracket approximately 80% of the values of calculated from the 3D-FEM modelled strain responses.
However, as noted earlier, the significant difference between the values used by Homsi was that = 0.21
represented a longitudinal strain shape and = 0.42 represented a transverse one. The experimental plan
did not include variations of within a strain direction. This may mean that the term in Homsis model,
Equation 18, largely considers the effect of strain direction (Figure 4.8) on fatigue life, rather than a more
comprehensive quantification of pulse shape.
Accordingly, this may have led to inaccuracies in standard loads determined in Section 7.4.4. By using
fixed values of of 0.21 and 0.42 for longitudinal and transverse strain directions, respectively, Homsis
model (Equation 18) can be split into separate models for each strain direction, as shown in Equation 30.
These two models indicate that, all other factors being equal, longitudinal strains are 1.88 times more
damaging than transverse strains of the same peak magnitude. When isolating the effect on experimental
results of the two different values, one for each strain direction, Homsi determined (see Table 4.6) that
longitudinal strains were 1.51 to 2.66 times more damaging than transverse strains, with an average of
1.89.
10( ) = 4.58 10()

+ 15.4951
0.84 10( ) + 1.76
(a)
10( ) = 4.58 10()

+ 15.7702
0.84 10( ) + 1.76
(b)
30
where
=
=
=
=
number of cycles of axle group pulse shape to achieve fatigue

peak strain level of the pulse shape
number of peaks in the pulse shape (i.e. number of axles in the simulated group)
duration of the shape divided by the number of peaks
(a) applies for strains in the longitudinal direction
(b) applies for strains in the transverse direction
parameter was included in the Homsi study with the goal of better understanding how the duration of
The
loading affects fatigue life. As the parameter is normalised by the number of peaks in the strain shape, the
intended effect of the parameter was to be independent of the number of axles. As indicated by Table 4.6,
used in the experimental study had an isolated effect on fatigue life by a factor
the two different values of
parameter was
of between 1.39 and 3.27. As indicated in Figure 7.10, a considerably wider range of the
extracted from the 3D-FEM modelled pavements than the values used as the basis for Homsis model.
Whilst not disputing the likely significant effect that loading duration has on fatigue life, it is considered that
examining such an effect is beyond the direct scope of this report. Homsis study of the effect of duration on
fatigue life was not exhaustive, and it is considered that scope exists for other studies to examine the effect
on fatigue life. Such studies should consider both the effect that speed of loading has upon the pavement
surface, and also effect that the thickness and stiffness composition of the pavement structure have on
duration or width of strain shapes.
from Equation 30 by using a constant value of 0.1775,
Accordingly, it was decided to eliminate
representing the average of the two values used in Homsis experimental data. The resulting simplified
Homsi model is shown in Equation 31.
10 ( ) = 4.58 10 () 0.84 10 ( ) + 15.8075
(a)
10 ( ) = 4.58 10 () 0.84 10 ( ) + 16.0826
(b)
31
where
(a)
(b)
7.6
applies for strains in the longitudinal direction

applies for strains in the transverse direction
Analysis of 3D-FEM Response-to-load Results Using Simplified

Homsi Damage Model
The strains calculated from the 3D-FEM modelling were reprocessed to estimate fatigue life using this
simplified version of Homsis performance model (Equation 31).
Based on this modelling and following the process described in Section 7.4, Figure 7.11 shows the range of
determined standard axle loads that result from variations with pavement structure. Similarly, Figure 7.12
shows the results in terms of standard group loads. In comparison to the results obtained using the full
Homsi model in Figure 7.8 and Figure 7.9, it can be seen that the simplified model yields standard loads
that are slightly less dependent upon pavement structure. Significantly, at the high asphalt modulus of
5000 MPa, the reduction in variation of load with structure is more pronounced than at lower asphalt
parameters used in the full Homsi models, extracted from these
moduli. A check of the and
pavements, indicated that they were considerably different to the discrete values used in Homsis
experimental work.
Despite the slight reduction in standard load dependence upon pavement structure, the observations made
with regard to the full Homsi model still hold; namely:
the standard load for an axle group is dependent on the thickness and modulus of the asphalt layer,
and the underlying structure
the standard loads for 50 mm asphalt structures show greater dependence on underlying pavement
structure than structures with higher thicknesses of asphalt
for asphalt thicknesses of 100 mm or greater, the standard load for all structures is above the current
Austroads values for all cases, except for some 100 mm thick asphalt cases with a low stiffness of
1000 MPa.
Figure 7.11: Range of axle-loads in multiple-axle groups that causes the same damage as a
Standard Axle using the simplified Homsi damage model
Figure 7.12: Range of group loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle using the
simplified Homsi damage model
7.7
Adjustment of Simplified Homsi Model for Use with Austroads

Fatigue Relationship
7.7.1 Rearranging Simplified Homsi Model

The simplified Homsi model (Equation 31) can be rearranged as shown in Equation 32.
4.58
32
(
)
0.84
where
=
=
=
=

constant
= 2828 for longitudinal strains
= 3257 for transverse strains
Two aspects of the model coefficients are noted:
the load damage exponent of the model, 4.58, is similar to the value of 5 used in the current Austroads
design process
the number of axles within the group is raised to a power that is close to unity.
7.7.2 Maximum Peak Model

The current Austroads asphalt fatigue performance model can be expressed as shown in Equation 33. This
model only considers the damage caused by a single axle. If it were assumed that each axle within a
multiple-axle group acted independently of each other, other than the superposition effect in altering the
strain level, then a simple expansion of this model to consider multiple-axle groups would be as shown in
Equation 34. For sake of reference, this model is called the maximum peak method.
= (
)
33
where
=
=
=
number of single axle passes to achieve fatigue

maximum tensile strain generated by the single axle
constant (dependent upon asphalt stiffness and binder content)
1 5
= (
)

34
where
=
=
=
=
number of single axle passes to achieve fatigue

number of axles in axle group
maximum tensile strain generated by axle group
constant
The coefficients of this model are similar to those in the simplified Homsi model. In order to see whether the
maximum peak model differs significantly from the simplified Homsi model, the results of the 3D-FEM
analyses were re-processed and the damage caused by each axle group and load level determined using
Equation 34. Again, longitudinal strains dominated the calculated damages.
Figure 7.13 shows the range of determined standard axle loads that result from variations with pavement
structure, and Figure 7.14 shows the results in terms of standard group loads. The results are very similar
to those obtained using the simplified Homsi damage model.
Figure 7.13: Range of axle loads that causes the same damage as a Standard Axle using the
maximum peak model
maximum peak model
The loads on individual axles within a group that cause the same damage as the Standard Axle determined
using the two damage calculation methods are compared in Figure 7.15. All 3D-FEM modelled pavement
configurations and all three axle groups are included within the figure. The two methods can be seen to
produce almost identical results.
As the two exponents in the simplified Homsi model were slightly increased (0.84 to 1, and 4.58 to 5) in the
formation of the maximum peak model, it is understandable that the maximum peak model produces
slightly lower standard group loads (i.e. it is slightly more conservative).
Figure 7.15: Comparison of standard axle loads determined using simplified Homsi and
maximum peak methods
Asphalt thickness = 50 mm
Asphalt thickness > 50 mm
2 axles
3 axles
4 axles
7.8
Generalising Model to Consider Strains Generated by Each Axle
A significant factor in the Homsi experimental work, and therefore the resulting models, is that testing was
conducted with each strain peak within a multiple-axle group having the same magnitude. As demonstrated
in Section 7.3, the 3D-FEM modelled strains that result from superimposing equally loaded axles within an
axle group do not necessarily have equal magnitude peaks. In applying Homsis model to the results of 3DFEM analyses, only the maximum peak strain was considered. Similarly, the maximum peak method
described in Section 7.7.2 does not consider potential differences in peak strain magnitudes.
To date, models have been expressed in terms of the number of repetitions of the axle group that will lead
to fatigue failure, . This term is cumbersome when considering the contribution that each axle within a
group makes to the overall allowable repetitions of the group. A simpler parameter is the damage caused
by each axle of the group. The damage caused by a single pass of an axle is the inverse of the number of
allowable loadings of that axle. These axle damages can simply be summed to yield the damage cause by
the group. The number of allowable loadings of the group is the inverse of the group damage.
Equation 35 expresses the maximum peak model (Section 7.7.2) in terms of damage rather than allowable
loading, and also generalises the form of the model, whereby the damage associated with each axle peak
within the group is considered in its own right rather than simply assuming that each axle peak is equal to
the maximum peak (as done in the maximum peak method).
As an individual axle peak strain within a group cannot exceed the maximum peak strain within the group, it
follows that damages calculated using the summed peaks model will be equal or lower than damages
calculated using the maximum peak method.
35
5
= ( )
=1
where
7.9
=
=
=
=
damage caused by an axle group with axles

number of axles in the axle group
tensile strain under axle within the group
constant
Analysis of 3D-FEM Response-to-load Results Using Summed

Peaks Method
The 3D-FEM analyses were re-processed and the damage caused by each axle group and load level
determined using Equation 35. Figure 7.16 shows the range of determined standard axle loads that result
from variations with pavement structure, and Figure 7.17 shows the results in terms of standard group
loads.
The results are very similar to those obtained using the maximum peak method. The loads on individual
axles within a group that cause the same damage as the Standard Axle determined using the two damage
calculation methods are compared in Figure 7.18. Superposition of two axles within a tandem group always
generates two equal magnitude strain peaks, and so there is no difference between the maximum peak
and summed peaks methods for tandem groups. However, superposition can result in different peaks for
triaxle and quad-axle groups, with the difference in peak magnitudes being a function of the asphalt
thickness, stiffness and underlying pavement structure. The maximum difference in equivalent axle loads
between the two methods for the modelled pavements was found to be 5% for triaxle and 6% for quad-axle
groups.
summed peaks model
summed peaks model
Figure 7.18: Comparison of standard axle loads determined using summed peaks and maximum
peak methods
7.10 Selection of Damage Calculation Method

Four models for estimating the damage caused by multiple-axle groups have been examined in the
previous sections:
Homsi multi-linear model (Section 7.4)
simplified Homsi model (Sections 7.5 and 7.6)
maximum peak method (Section 7.7)
summed peaks method (Sections 7.8 and 7.9).
For the reasons outlined in Section 7.5, Homsis multi-linear model can reasonably be simplified into a
model relating cycles of loading to reach flexural fatigue to maximum strain level and the number of peaks
of tensile strain. The simplified Homsi model comprises separate relationships for strains in the longitudinal
and transverse directions. For the same number of peaks and same maximum strain level, longitudinal
strains are considered by the model to be 1.9 times more damaging than transverse direction strains.
Direct application of either the full or simplified Homsi models for pavement design purposes is hampered
by the use of a single asphalt mix in the development of the models. In a pavement design context, the lack
of means of discerning between the fatigue properties of alternative asphalt mixes and binder types is
problematic.
However, Section 7.7.2 demonstrated that results almost identical to those obtained from the Homsi
simplified model could be achieved by using a modification of the simplified Homsi model
the maximum peak method (Equation 34). This method would allow use of the current Austroads asphalt
fatigue performance model, or indeed any future performance model, wherein the constant in the model
is dependent upon properties of the asphalt mix. This method is, therefore, seen to be better suited to the
pavement design context.
Section 7.8 introduced the summed peaks method (Equation 35) as a means of recognising that the
individual peaks within a multiple-axle group do not necessarily have equal magnitudes. In Homsis original
experimental work, strain peaks had been set to be equal within an axle group. The maximum peak
method, with its very high correlation to the Homsi models, also assumes equal magnitude peaks. By
considering the damage associated with each axle peak with an axle group in its own right, the summed
peaks method is considered to be an improvement to the maximum peak method.
It should be noted that Homsis finding that longitudinal direction strains were more than 1.9 times
damaging than transverse strains for the same strain magnitude, was not directly considered in the
modelling work discussed in this section. As noted earlier, for all the modelled pavements, the strain
responses in the longitudinal direction had higher magnitudes than the strains in the transverse direction.
This meant that by comparison of strain magnitudes alone, longitudinal strains dominated damage
calculations. The fact that at the same strain magnitude, longitudinal strains appear to be more damaging
than transverse ones, did not affect which strain responses were more critical longitudinal ones had
already been determined to be so. As the analyses ultimately compared damage relative to the damage
caused by a Standard Axle, the inclusion of the 1.9 factor would have been present in both determination of
the damage of the multiple-axle group and the Standard Axle, and so would have been cancelled out and
played no role in the calculation of relative damage.
It should be noted that as longitudinal strain magnitudes exceed transverse ones in all the pavements
analysed, current application of the Austroads fatigue performance relationship is based upon longitudinal
strains. In this context, Homsis finding could be expressed as saying that transverse direction strains are
less damaging than longitudinal ones, and that this finding has no impact on pavement design as
longitudinal strains are known to be of greater magnitude in any case.
As noted in Section 3.5, Bodin et al. (2009) did not see a demonstrable difference in fatigue tests
conducted using strain signals similar to longitudinal and transverse shapes. Reconciling these two findings
is beyond the scope of this project.
For both of these reasons, it is proposed that Homsis finding that longitudinal strains are more damaging
than transverse strains, should not be incorporated into the Austroads design procedure. It should be
remembered that if any specific response-to-load model were to determine higher magnitude transverse
direction strains than longitudinal ones, then this decision would result in a more conservative design.
Regarding the damage calculation method, it is considered that the above analyses have demonstrated
that the summed peaks method (Equation 35) represents the best means of considering the asphalt fatigue
damage caused by individual axles within multiple-axle groups within the Austroads pavement design
context.
7.11 Damage Calculated Using Linear-elastic Response-to-load Model

A 3D-FEM model was used to demonstrate the effect of multiple-axle superposition on the magnitude of
strain peaks as it was able to consider the non-linear behaviour of unbound pavement and subgrade
materials, and it was also able to represent the simultaneous application of multiple loads rather than
relying on post-processing to linearly superimpose responses to individual loads. This allowed modelling of
the complex stress state that occurs horizontally within a non-linear material, and therefore, also modelling
of the stiffness variation of the material.
However, the current Austroads (2012a) pavement design procedure does not use a 3D-FEM response-toload model, but rather a linear-elastic model (with cross-anisotropic modelling of unbound granular and
subgrade materials). In order to determine how well linear-elastic modelling reflects dependence of
standard axle loads on pavement structure, the pavement modelling analyses conducted with 3D-FEM
were repeated using linear-elastic modelling using CIRCLY analysis software (MINCAD Systems 2009).
The pavement model parameters shown in Table 7.2 were used, and the Austroads design procedures
were used to sublayer the granular material into five sublayers, with the modulus of the sublayers being
dependent on both the overlaying asphalt cover and underlying subgrade support.
Table 7.2:
Material thicknesses and model parameters used in CIRCLY modelling
Parameter
Values
Asphalt model
1000 MPa asphalt
= 1000 MPa, = 0.4
3000 MPa asphalt
= 3000 MPa, = 0.4
5000 MPa asphalt
= 5000 MPa, = 0.4
Asphalt thickness
Granular model
50, 100, 200, 300 mm

High quality crushed rock
Maximum vertical modulus: 500 MPa
Lower subbase
Maximum vertical modulus: 350 MPa
Granular thickness
Subgrade model
200, 400, 600 mm

Highly plastic clay (CBR 3%)
Vertical modulus: 30 MPa
Sand (CBR 15%)
Vertical modulus: 150 MPa
Critical asphalt strains were extracted for each pavement analysed, and the damage caused by each axle
group and load level determined using the summed peaks method (Equation 35). Figure 7.19 shows the
range of determined standard axle loads that result from variations with pavement structure, and
Figure 7.20 shows the results in terms of standard group loads.
As with the results from 3D-FEM modelling, the results show a marked dependence of standard axle/group
loads on the pavement structure. For a given asphalt thickness, the effect of pavement structure is slightly
higher for the CIRCLY analyses than the 3D-FEM ones.
summed peaks model (CIRCLY responses)
summed peaks model (CIRCLY responses)
Both the maximum peak method and the simplified Homsi model were also used to determine the standard
axle/group loads. Figure 7.21 compares the standard axle loads determined using the simplified Homsi and
the maximum peak method. As with the 3D-FEM modelling, there is a very clear correlation between the
two methods.
Two regions in the figure demonstrate areas where the two approaches differed in outcome. Both of these
differences occurred as a consequence of differences in critical strain direction. In the 3D-FEM modelling,
the maximum strains in the longitudinal direction were in excess of those in the transverse direction.
However, the linear-elastic CIRCLY analysis did have some cases where the transverse strain became
critical.
The points in Figure 7.21 that are significantly below the line of equality correspond with the results where
the magnitude of transverse direction strains were found to be higher than the longitudinal ones in
modelling the Standard Axle (i.e. the 80 kN loaded single axle) using the maximum peak method. When
loaded with multiple-axle groups and analysed using the maximum peak method, the longitudinal direction
was dominant. Similarly, when using the simplified Homsi method, longitudinal strains were dominant for
these pavements. The pavements in question had low asphalt thickness and stiffness.
The points that are significantly above the line of equality reflect the results of a few very thick and stiff
asphalt pavement structures overlying weak substructures. In these cases, the simplified Homsi model for
some quad-axle loading cases was based on transverse strains, whilst the Standard Axle load cases used
longitudinal strains. The relative damages determined from CIRCLY for these cases were all based on
longitudinal strains.
Apart from these select cases where the direction of the critical strain response changed between the
Standard Axle reference damage case and the multiple-axle case, the vast majority of modelled cases
demonstrated a high correlation between the simplified Homsi model and the maximum peak method.
Figure 7.21: Comparison of standard axle loads determined using simplified Homsi and
maximum peak methods (CIRCLY responses)
Figure 7.22 shows the same agreement between standard axle loads determined using the maximum peak
and summed peaks methods as that demonstrated using 3D-FEM modelling (Figure 7.18).
Figure 7.22: Comparison of standard axle loads determined using summed peaks and maximum
peak methods (CIRCLY responses)
A comparison between the standard axle loads determined using 3D-FEM and linear-elastic analysis is
shown in Figure 7.23. There is general broad agreement in the results obtained from the two methods, with
those cases where significant differences are observed being limited to thin and low stiffness asphalt cases
with low subgrade support.
Figure 7.23:
(a)
Comparison of standard axle loads determined using 3D-FEM and CIRCLY modelling
All cases
(c)
Cases distinguished by asphalt
stiffness
(b)
Cases distinguished by asphalt
thickness
(d)
type
Cases distinguished by subgrade
7.12 Conclusions
The work conducted by Homsi (Homsi 2011, Homsi et al. 2012) represents the most detailed assessment
of the flexural fatigue performance of asphalt when subjected to multiple-axle loads. Her laboratory-based
controlled-strain study yielded an equation to predict the fatigue life of a sample as a function of the
maximum strain level applied, the number of peak strains (i.e. axles), and two strain shape factors relating
to load duration and strain direction.
A simplification of Homsis model reduced the prediction to being the function of the maximum strain level
and the number of peaks. Response-to-load analyses, using 3D-FEM, were conducted in order to assess
how grouping axles together affected the strain level obtained. Results of the analyses were expressed in
terms of standard loads that, when applied to multiple-axle groups, would lead to the same asphalt fatigue
damage that would occur under a single Standard Axle load. The analyses clearly indicated that the
standard load for an axle group is dependent upon the thickness of the asphalt, the modulus of the asphalt,
and the underlying pavement structure. This is in contrast to the use of constant standard loads across all
pavement configurations in the current Austroads mechanistic design procedure.
Direct application of either the full or simplified Homsi models for pavement design purposes is hampered
by the use of a single asphalt mix in the development of the models. In a pavement design context, the lack
of means of discerning between the fatigues properties of alternative asphalt mixes and binder types is
problematic.
However, analysis of strain responses using both 3D-FEM and linear-elastic response-to-load models
demonstrated that results almost identical to those obtained from the Homsi simplified model could be
achieved using a summed peaks method to calculate damage. In this method, the damage resulting from
the peak strain response of each axle within a group is summed to determine the overall damage caused
by the group (Equation 36). This method would allow use of the current Austroads asphalt fatigue
performance model, or indeed any future performance model with a strain damage exponent of five,
wherein the constant in the model is dependent upon properties of the asphalt mix. The summed peaks
method is, therefore, seen to be better suited to the pavement design context than Homsis models.
36
5
= ( )
=1
where
=
=
=
=
damage caused by an axle group with axles

number of axles in the axle group
tensile strain under axle within the group
constant
It is, therefore, suggested that using the summed peaks method would provide a more rigorous
representation of the asphalt fatigue damage caused by multiple-axle groups than the current Austroads
approach. Such a design process would require determining the damage (using Equation 36) resulting from
each axle load and each axle group within a traffic load distribution, as detailed in Section 9.2.1.
Section 9 of this report, by way of a series of design examples, examines whether this more rigorous
approach yields significantly different design outcomes.
8. Fatigue of Cemented Materials

8.1
General
The laboratory study reported here had the following broad characteristics:
use of established laboratory, controlled load, test process for assessing the flexural modulus and
fatigue characteristics of cemented materials
simulation of multiple-axle loads in the laboratory fatigue testing using a range of load shapes
designed not to precisely simulate truck axle groups, but rather to allow examination of the underlying
characteristics of the load shapes linkable to material performance
development of the relationship between fatigue performance and load level for each simulated load
shape, and subsequent comparison of those relationships
use of materials samples extracted from an existing, untrafficked pavement.
An alternative to the use of samples extracted from a pavement would have been the manufacture of
samples in the laboratory. This approach was not adopted for the following reasons:
Sample manufacture in the laboratory is a labour-intensive exercise, and the manufacture of a large
number of samples would be both costly and take several months to undertake.
After manufacture of samples, a minimum period of six months would be needed to cure and age the
samples to a condition approximating field conditions.
Concerns regarding the difference between compaction levels achieved in the laboratory not matching
field conditions would be negated if field samples were used.
Access to an existing two-year-old, well-documented, weather-protected, untrafficked cemented pavement

was available, and a large number of samples could be readily removed.
8.2
Laboratory Flexural Test Methods
In recent years, a suite of test methods have been developed by Yeo (Austroads 2008a) for assessing the
flexural behaviour of cemented materials. These methods were used as the basis for the laboratory study
test procedures. The methods cover determination of the following characteristics of rectangular beam
samples:
flexural resilient modulus
flexural strength
flexural fatigue.
The methods are based on the use of rectangular test beams (i.e. beams with uniform parallel surfaces)
whose cross-sectional dimensions may vary from 80 mm upwards, with a typical dimension of 100 mm.
The methods describe the manufacture of samples in the laboratory, and also the use of beams prepared
from pavement beds constructed in the field as in this study.
The beams are supported by apparatus used in concrete testing (AS 1012.11-2000), as shown in Figure
8.1.
Figure 8.1: Flexural beam roller supports and load rollers
Source: AS 1012.112000.
The pulsed load for each of the tests is applied via a pneumatic or hydraulic testing machine, following a
haversine shape. For each loading pulse, the displacement of the test sample is measured at the vertical
mid-span (i.e. between the two upper load rollers) and this displacement is then used, assuming simple
beam theory, to determine the resilient modulus.
The standard flexural fatigue test defines the fatigue life of a sample as the number of cycles to reduce the
flexural modulus of the sample to a value equal to half the initial value. The initial modulus of the sample is
defined as the average of the modulus values determined in the first 50 cycles of the test.
The testing apparatus used to conduct the testing is described in more detail in Section 8.4. The study
made use of the standard methods for determining flexural modulus and fatigue life, but with the following
refinements:
load shapes emulating multiple-axle groups were used (Section 8.4.4)
the definition of the initial condition of the test was altered (Section 8.5.5).
8.3
Sample Preparation
Yeo fully describes the construction of two pavements with cemented bases, both 150 mm thick, intended
for subsequent testing with ALF (Austroads 2008b). The pavements were constructed inside the large ALF
shed located in the Melbourne suburb of Dandenong South. The following is a brief summary of Yeos
report, focussing on the pavement area relevant to this study.
At the time of construction, each possible location for subsequent ALF trafficking was given a unique
numerical identifier, and all construction data was referenced to these sections. Samples for this laboratory
study were extracted from an untrafficked section of one of these constructed pavements, experiment
location 3300, where shrinkage cracking had not been observed during the construction and curing phases.
Additionally, the section was relatively uniform in thickness density and in deflection responses measured
with a falling weight deflectometer (Austroads 2008b).
The cemented material was sourced from the Boral Para Hills quarry in South Australia, and met the
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australias specification for a 20 mm
PM2/20QG Class 2 quarry produced stabilised material (DPTI 2014). The source rock was a
siltstone/quartzite. The material was bound with 4%, by dry mass, general purpose (GP) cement sourced
from Blue Circle (Victoria), with an additional retarding agent, Daratard, added at the manufacturers
recommended rate of 600 ml per 100 kg of cement. Addition of the retarder, whilst uncommon in Victoria
(where the pavement was placed), is common in South Australia. The retarder slowed the cement
hydration process, and provided an increased working time of up to four hours, increasing the likelihood of
achieving a uniform construction.
The sample size for flexural modulus and fatigue samples typically used in the test method is 100 (width) x
100 (depth) x 400 mm (length). Prior work had demonstrated that a skilled operator using a diamond
bladed concrete saw could accurately cut 100 (width) x 400 mm (length) samples from an in situ pavement,
provided that accurate guidelines were painted on the surface to be cut. Material cut in this manner
requires only the removal of surfacing material and trimming to the specified depth to yield test samples of
the required dimensions.
Exactly two years after construction of the cemented base, cutting guidelines were painted on the asphalt
surface of location 3300 (Figure 8.2). The painted pattern would produce a concentrated mass of 270
samples, nine samples across the width of the section, and 30 samples along its length. The lines were cut
on the same day using a diamond bladed concrete saw lubricated with water (Figure 8.3).
The samples were carefully extracted the following day (Figure 8.4), and were placed, packed with damp
sand, into storage bins (Figure 8.5). Despite the action of water and the saw blade, the cut faces of the
samples did not show signs of significant material erosion.
Figure 8.2: Marking saw cut lines for sample extraction
Figure 8.3: Precise cutting of samples using a concrete saw
Note: The samples being cut are not those used in the laboratory study.
Figure 8.4: Extraction of cut samples from road bed
Figure 8.5: Samples being packed in damp sand in storage bins
Before laboratory testing, samples were removed from the storage bins and trimmed to an even 100 mm
depth using a water lubricated saw in the laboratory (Figure 8.6). Again, no significant erosion of the cut
faces was evident. Once cut to final dimensions, the samples were stored indoors on rigid shelves,
wrapped in moist hessian fabric.
In accordance with the test procedure, the samples were transferred to the moist atmosphere of a fog room
at least two days before flexural testing.
Figure 8.6: Cutting samples to the required depth
8.4
Laboratory Test Equipment
8.4.1 General
Two alternative loading frames within the ARRB laboratories were assessed for possible use in the
laboratory study. The frames were controlled by similar closed-loop control hardware and software
produced by IPC Global. The first frame was an MTS Systems Corporation 25 kN hydraulic system, and
the second an IPC Global 14 kN pneumatic system. Surprisingly, it was found that the pneumatic system
was able to provide much smoother load shapes at high loading speeds than the hydraulic system. The
load shape generated on the hydraulic system exhibited a stepped shape rather than following the gradual
transition of the required haversine shape. Additionally, in recent months, the hydraulic system had proved
unreliable for long duration work such as fatigue tests, and timing of the necessary maintenance and
service checks would have compromised the planned testing program.
Accordingly, the IPC Global pneumatic testing system was selected for the laboratory study. A second,
identical unit was also used to help progress the testing program.
8.4.2 IPC Global Universal Testing System

The IPC Global 14 kN Universal Testing Machine (UTS-14P) is a closed-loop testing system that
incorporates a 14 kN pneumatic actuator on a large capacity load frame with integrated load cell. The
system can utilise a range of transducers and loading jigs. Control of the system is achieved through
software. Two calibrated Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) were attached to the system to
measure mid-span displacement during testing. These LVDTs were anchored to the sample by a support
frame resting over the support rollers. Three different support frames were used during the study, as
discussed in Section 8.5.2.
Figure 8.7: Loading frame
8.4.3 IPC Global Test Control Software

IPC Global supplied flexible programmable test software UTS019 User Programmable Test was used for
the laboratory study. This test software allowed the following:
a user interface and output data that could be programmed to suit flexural beam testing
programming of equations to calculate stresses, strains and resilient modulus values based on applied
load, beam and test geometry, and measured displacements
a user definable sequence of load shapes
recording of raw sensor data at a user-definable frequency.
The software was programmed to conduct both flexural resilient modulus testing and repeated flexural
fatigue testing under a variety of different load shapes. In line with the standard method, the software was
programmed to run controlled load tests, i.e. the load applied during each pulse cycle was automatically
adjusted to follow the load shape and magnitude selected by the user.
The control software allows adjustment of the proportion-integral-derivative (PID) characteristics of the
controller. By adjusting the PID parameters, the user can tune the control system to best follow the load
shape and system response required. A lengthy trial-and-error exercise was undertaken to determine what
load magnitude and cycle frequencies could be achieved in the control system, whilst ensuring both of the
following requirements:
the requested load magnitude entered into the system is achieved and sustained over repeated cycles
the load shape entered into the system is achieved and sustained over repeated cycles.
This exercise was conducted using a range of superfluous cement treated samples from previous research
work, and an aluminium rectangular hollow section with flexural modulus similar to that expected from the
field samples to be tested.
8.4.4 Pulse Shape Generation

The flexural modulus and fatigue test procedures discussed in Section 8.2 are controlled load tests, i.e. the
equipment control system controls the load applied during the test, ensuring that it follows a user-defined
shape. Alternative controls include controlled strain tests, in which the load is adjusted during the test to
ensure that a measured strain response follows a user-defined shape.
This controlled load approach was retained for the multiple-axle laboratory study, with different load shapes
developed to simulate different multiple-axle groups. The standard tests use a haversine load shape to
simulate a single axle, and haversine shapes were used as the basis for the multiple-axle load shapes.
Figure 8.8 shows a load shape representing a tandem axle, and shows some of the underlying
assumptions that were made when generating the load shapes:
the peak-to-peak spacing of the shape (a in Figure 8.8) matches the axle spacing at a given travel
speed
the load rise at the start of the pulse (a/2 in Figure 8.8) added to the load drop at the end of the pulse
(a/2) is the same as the spacing between axles (a).
Figure 8.8: Assumed relationship between load pulse shape and axle spacing
Using these assumptions, a relationship between the vehicle travel speed and the width of loading pulse
used in the simulation was determined. Figure 8.9 shows this relationship using a typical spacing between
axles within a group of 1.25 m. It can be seen that the standard tests use of a haversine representation of
a single axle with a pulse width of 250 ms corresponds with a travel speed of approximately 18 km/h. This
same pulse width also corresponds with a quad-axle group travelling at 72 km/h. Trial-and-error determined
that the pneumatic equipment could repeatedly apply a quad-axle shape in this time period, but was unable
to do so at faster test speeds, i.e. shorter pulse widths. Thus, the pulse width of 250 ms was fixed for the
quad-axle group.
Figure 8.9: Assumed relationship between vehicle speed and load pulse width
Given the long-term nature of fatigue testing and a finite number of samples, the testing program was
limited as follows (Figure 8.10):
one travel speed was simulated (72 km/h)
one axle spacing within multiple-axle groups was simulated (1.25 m)
the peak loads of all axles within a load shape were the same (i.e. the load applied by each simulated
axle within a group was equal)
the pulse width was varied between axle groups to ensure a single travel speed was simulated for all
axle groups (250 ms for a quad-axle, down to 250/4 = 62.5 ms for a single axle)
a rest period equal to the difference between the 250 ms and the pulse width was built into the load
shape
an additional rest period of 250 ms was added to all axle group shapes, giving a total 500 ms between
axle group simulations.
Figure 8.10:
Load pulse shapes showing rest periods used in fatigue testing
The varying rest period was due to the desire to keep the simulated travel speed constant for all load
shapes, and the practical constraints of the test control software.
In the tandem axle simulation shown in Figure 8.8, the load is seen to drop off between the two axles.
Figure 8.11 demonstrates the two extremes of load behaviour that could occur between axles in a group.
Using the term interaction to describe the degree to which the two haversine shapes interact with each
other, it can be seen that full interaction, i = 1, results in a situation where a single sustained load is
applied, whereas no interaction at all, i = 0, results in two distinct loads.
In order to determine how much the interaction affected the performance of the samples, two different
levels were used for all multiple-axle load simulations. The lowest level of interaction that could be reliably
achieved by the pneumatic equipment was i = 0.4. Lower levels could be achieved with longer pulse widths
(i.e. slower travel speeds); however, it was decided that it was important to maintain a reasonably high
simulated travel speed to ensure that the tests were representative of in-service pavements. The other
level of interaction was set at i = 0.8.
Figure 8.11:
Interaction between axle peaks within load pulse shape
Table 8.1 and Figure 8.12 show the load shapes used in the study. Flexural modulus tests were conducted
using all load shapes, including the standard test haversine shape; and flexural fatigue tests were
conducted using all shapes, with the exception of the haversine shape. Given a lack of observed field data
for cemented pavement materials, these shapes were generated mathematically by combining haversine
functions. Nevertheless, the generated load shapes compare well with strain data collected on asphalt
pavements (Section 4.6).
Table 8.1:
Description of load pulse shapes

Shape name
Axle group simulated
Interaction between axles within

group
Haversine
Standard tests pulse shape
1_00
Single axle
2_40
Tandem
40% (i = 0.4)
2_80
Tandem
80% (i = 0.8)
3_40
Triaxle
40% (i = 0.4)
3_80
Triaxle
80% (i = 0.8)
4_40
Quad-axle
40% (i = 0.4)
4_80
Quad-axle
80% (i = 0.8)
Figure 8.12:
Load pulse shapes
8.4.5 Control Software

Using the geometry of the sample and supporting rig, the measurement of vertical displacement mid-span
due to an applied load, and assuming linear elastic behaviour, the standard test method for determining
flexural modulus uses simple beam theory to determine the peak tensile stress and strain developed midspan at the bottom of the sample (Equations 37 and 38). The flexural modulus of the sample is determined
as the ratio of the stress and strain (Equation 39).
37
106
2
38
108
=
106
232
=
103
39
where

peak tensile stress (kPa)
peak tensile strain (microstrain)
flexural modulus (MPa)
peak force (kN)
beam span (mm)
sample width (mm)
sample height (mm)
peak mid-span displacement (mm)
Initially, the mid-span displacement was measured using a single LVDT mounted in an existing support
frame and anchored to the sample in line with the lower support rollers. When vibration concerns prompted
changes to the support frame design (Section 8.5.2), an additional LVDT was incorporated. The
displacements measured by the two LVDTs were averaged, unless examination of the data demonstrated
that one of the devices was generating spurious results, in which case, data from a single LVDT was used.
All these calculations were programmed into the control software. This allowed the software to provide realtime charting of modulus as a function of loading cycles as the tests progressed.
At the end of a test, be it modulus or fatigue, the control software generated an ASCII text file listing the
following data for each load cycle applied:
cycle number
maximum and minimum load applied during the loading cycle (kN)
maximum and minimum displacement of the actuator used to apply the load (mm)
maximum and minimum displacement measured by each LVDT (micron)
maximum resilient displacement measured by each LVDT (i.e. the difference between the minimum
and maximum displacements) (micron)
peak tensile stress (kPa)
peak tensile strain determined from each LVDT (microstrain)
flexural modulus determined from each LVDT (MPa)
mean flexural modulus (i.e. the average of the flexural modulus determined by both LVDTs) (MPa).
8.5
Alterations to Test Procedures and Equipment
8.5.1 General
In addition to the use of multiple-axle load shapes, elements of the testing process established at the start
of the testing program were also refined during the testing. The following sections briefly outline the
changes made.
8.5.2 LVDT Frame Alterations

During the initial machine and software investigation work, and before testing had commenced, the
lightweight aluminium LVDT support frame shown in Figure 8.13(a) was used. This pre-existing frame,
which supported a single LVDT, was found to vibrate during testing, especially when multiple-axle load
shapes were applied. This vibration was evident in the raw data files as excessive noise in the LVDT
response trace during each cycle. This vibration was attributed to the thin elements used in the frame, and
to its width (designed to ensure the frame stood clear of the load rollers). This support frame had support
rollers fixed at 300 mm.
A revised aluminium support frame was designed incorporating considerably stiffer members and a much
narrowed width. The new frame (Figure 8.13(b)) sat much closer to the sample than the initial frame, and
the load rollers were accommodated within the design by scalloping sections out of the side elements. An
additional LVDT was incorporated into the design, allowing simultaneous monitoring with two LVDTs. This
support frame also had support rollers fixed at 300 mm, and all tests conducted at this spacing used this
support rig.
As discussed in Section 8.5.3, once testing had commenced, it was found that the flexural modulus of the
samples was much stiffer than expected and that high strains could not be developed on the underside of
the samples. In order to ensure that high strains could be generated, it was decided that the test geometry
be changed to a load span of 375 mm (with the top load rollers spaced at 125 mm). This change in
geometry necessitated the design and construction of new support frames. Two of these new frames
(Figure 8.13(c)) were used for the majority of testing during the study. The frames were designed to allow
testing at spans of both 300 mm and 375 mm. During the study, these frames were only used for testing
samples at 375 mm spans.
Figure 8.13:
Succession of LVDT support frames used
8.5.3 Test Geometry

The initial loading jig used had a span of 300 mm between the support rollers (dimension L in Figure 8.1)
and 100 mm between the upper load rollers (dimension l in Figure 8.1). As the study aimed to use fatigue
testing to develop a relationship between fatigue performance and tensile strain for each load shape,
fatigue testing using a range of strain levels was required. After some modulus and flexural fatigue tests
had been conducted, it became apparent that the loading frame was unable to produce high enough tensile
strains at the bottom of the unexpectedly high stiffness material to generate a significantly wide enough
range of strain levels. Whilst the actuator in the pneumatic rigs was rated as having a capability of applying
a 14 kN peak load, it was found that application of the complex multiple-axle load shapes in a 250 ms cycle
was only reliably and sustainably achievable at about a 5 kN peak load.
As a result, it was decided that a simple change to the test geometry would enable the generation of higher
strains in the samples, without compromising the ability to also conduct tests at lower strain levels. As the
extracted samples were of 400 mm length, a final span of 375 mm was selected for the revised geometry
(i.e. L equal to 375 mm, and l equal to 125 mm in Figure 8.1).
A revised test jig was designed and two units created, one for each of the two pneumatic systems used in
the study. The revised jig allowed a spacing of 375 mm and the original 300 mm. Once these systems were
put into operation, all subsequent testing was conducted at 375 mm spacing. Some initial data was
collected using the 300 mm span jig. Figure 8.14 shows both the initial and final loading jigs used.
Figure 8.14:
Load support roller jigs
(a) Initial jig (300 mm span)
(b) Final jig (300 and 375 mm span)
As an alternative means of generating higher strain levels, changes in the load shapes, and particularly
changes in the load rates, were considered. However, reductions in pulse width time would have led to a
directly proportionate increase in the duration of each fatigue test. Additionally, such changes would result
in tests that could not be compared to the tests completed to date (conducted over several months), so
these changes were not made. It was considered that simple changes to the geometry of the test would
achieve the same outcome (higher strain levels), whilst still allowing test results that could be compared to
those conducted to date. As the test procedure simply uses the displacement response to an applied load
to determine strain and modulus, results conducted using different test geometries should be comparable
with each other.
8.5.4 Sample Size

The increased span of the loading jig allowed the generation of higher strain levels, but not high enough to
produce flexural fatigue of stiff materials in 10 000 to 50 000 load cycles. Having increased the span length
of the sample to the practical limit and rejected changes in pulse width, the only other recourse was to
reduce the cross-sectional area of the samples. Given the maximum aggregate size in the material was
20 mm, it was determined that 80 mm width by 80 mm depth was the smallest cross-sectional area that
could be achieved without compromising the homogeneity of the material within the sample.
8.5.5 Definition of Initial Modulus and Strain for Fatigue Testing

The standard test method to determine the flexural fatigue life of a sample defines the initial modulus of the
sample as the average modulus of the first 50 cycles of loading. The definition of the initial modulus was
changed to the modulus value at cycle 50, rather than the average of the first 50 cycles. Subsequent
versions of the test methods have also adopted this definition of the initial modulus as the value at cycle 50.
These revised test methods can be found in Austroads (2014b).
8.6
Data
8.6.1 Test Sequence

For each sample, the following testing sequence was followed:
the sample was prepared for testing
the flexural modulus was determined using all of the eight load shapes
flexural fatigue testing was conducted using a single load shape at a selected load level.
Sample preparation
The saw cut samples were removed from their storage in moist hessian and plastic wrapping and were
placed in the ARRB laboratory fog room for a minimum of two days of preconditioning prior to testing. A
sample ready for testing was then removed from the fog room and left standing whilst its dimensions were
measured and recorded on both paper log sheets and in the control software. The mass of the beam,
termed the wet mass, was measured to enable subsequent determination of the moisture content of the
sample.
The sample was then wrapped in thin plastic cling wrap to minimise any moisture loss during testing. The
wrapped sample was placed in the loading rig, and the LVDT support frame placed and held onto the
sample by use of rubber bands anchored to the lower support rollers. Flexural modulus testing was then
conducted.
Flexural modulus test

The modulus testing applied sequences of 100 cycles of each of the load shapes, shown in Figure 8.12,
with each pulse shape having a width of 250 ms and followed by a 750 ms rest period. The 100 cycles of
each load shape were separated by a five-second rest period prior to application of the 100 cycles of the
next shape. Each load shape sequence used the same maximum load level, which was set by the user at a
low enough value to ensure that the beam was not damaged by successive cycles, but high enough to
ensure that displacement transducer output was high enough to overcome any signal noise. This
displacement was typically 5 micron (i.e. 0.005 mm). Fatigue testings of the sample was commenced
immediately after the modulus tests were conducted.
Flexural fatigue test

Fatigue tests were conducted as load-controlled tests using a single load shape and load level. The pulse
width of the applied load shape was the same 250 ms used in the modulus test, but the rest period that
followed the load application was decreased to 250 ms in line with the standard method for fatigue
assessment.
Rather than conduct tests for a single load shape before progressing to the next load shape, tests for all
load shapes were interleaved so that the fatigue relationship for each shape could be developed
progressively. This allowed for progressive monitoring of results for all shapes, and also acted to neutralise
the effects of any unrecognised progressive systematic errors that may have occurred over the course of
the testing.
During fatigue testing of some samples, it was apparent that the load being applied was below the fatigue
threshold as the modulus was not reducing over time. In some very long-term tests, and in spite of the cling
film wrapping, the modulus of the sample was seen to gradually increase with slow drying of the sample
(i.e. the sample was slowly stiffening and the applied load level was no longer damaging). In both of these
cases, the testing was halted, the load level increased, and testing restarted. These cases were flagged for
subsequent examination, and in the majority of cases, they were excluded from subsequent analysis. The
only restarted tests that have been retained were those for which examination of the raw data showed a
reasonably smooth continuous transition between phases of the test. These cases were limited to those
where the increase in load after restarting the test was very minor, but enough for the sample to start to
exhibit deteriorating modulus with cycles. Excluded data is not represented in this document.
Following flexural fatigue testing, the sample was weighed and then oven dried to determine the moisture
content and dry density of the sample. This was done using the dry mass and the volume of the beam, a
method which would yield spurious results if the samples surface had been eroded during saw cutting.
Determination of the sample volume by immersion in water would have overcome this issue, but was not
considered warranted given the limited number of samples affected by erosion.
8.6.2 Flexural Modulus Data

The data collected during each modulus test was carefully examined for the following cases:
A degradation of the sample was observed during the modulus test (i.e. displacement was seen to
increase with successive applications of the same load level). These cases were noted and the sample
discarded.
The two LVDTs provided significantly different results, with one sensor obviously anomalous. One
case was found in which it was clear that one LVDT had become stuck, and the other was recording
appropriate results.
The two LVDTs provided significantly different results, with no way of determining which sensor was at
fault. In all cases where this occurred, there was evidence that the sample had either been dropped or
mishandled, and a note was subsequently made and the sample discarded.
A sudden increase in displacement, as measured by both LVDTs, leading to a drop in calculated

modulus occurred during the testing. This phenomenon was attributed to the expansion of pre-existing
micro-cracks within the sample. In such cases a note was made and the sample discarded.
The range of modulus values measured under the standard haversine loading across the samples is shown
in Figure 8.15. It can be seen that the modulus varied over a very wide range, 4000 to over 30 000 MPa,
with the majority of samples exhibiting a modulus between 15 000 and 22 000 MPa. This wide range of
modulus values was unexpected given the uniform nature of the field-collected density and FWD deflection
data, as was the magnitude of the modulus. As discussed in Section 8.5, the high modulus of the material
resulted in changes to the test geometry and sample size. A variety of strain levels were used in conducting
the modulus tests and no attempt has been made to standardise the test results to a single strain level.
Figure 8.15:
Distribution of modulus of samples (haversine pulse)
After fatigue testing of each sample, the density of the sample was determined. Figure 8.16 shows that the
spread of modulus data is not readily explained by sample density. The modulus tests were conducted at
similar, but not identical, load levels, and so the variation cannot be directly attributed to a modulus
dependency on load level (a dependency was observed but the dependency was not significant enough to
explain this range of data).
Given the lack of alternative explanations, this range of modulus values observed was attributed to natural
variation in material and cement binder composition and distribution, and on the likely presence of varying
amounts of micro-cracking within the samples caused by shrinkage-related stresses.
Figure 8.16:
pulse)
Relationship between flexural modulus and relative density of samples (haversine
8.6.3 Flexural Fatigue Data

Over 1400 hours of flexural fatigue testing time was used to generate the data set for analysis. In addition
to this testing, many hundreds of hours of compromised data were collected. This compromised data
included the following cases:
tests that did not fatigue the sample
tests that were prematurely halted by electrical power failure
tests that were prematurely halted by computer or operator error (unfortunately, these tests were often
long-term tests, with the error occurring after more than 500 000 cycles had been applied)
tests on 80 mm x 80 mm beams that had previously been subjected to repeated fatigue test cycles
when sized 100 mm x 100 mm
tests that were halted and restarted at higher load levels
fatigue tests that ran for less than 500 cycles
fatigue tests for which the modulus determined at cycle 50 was less than 10 000 MPa (as the majority
of samples exhibited much higher moduli, it was considered that modulus values lower than
10 000 MPa indicated a substantially different material probably as the result of more extensive
micro-cracking within the sample).
The definition of fatigue life or performance of a sample used in this study was the number of cycles of load
applied before the resilient modulus fell to a level equal to half the initial value. This definition is obviously
dependent upon determination of the initial modulus.
In any closed-loop laboratory test where a pulsed loading is applied, there will be a short period
immediately after the commencement of the test before the pulse shape stabilises. The length of time
required before this occurs obviously varies according to the testing equipment (pneumatic, hydraulic, etc.),
the testing conditions (pulse shape, cycle time, etc.) and the material being tested (sample dimensions,
stiffness, etc.). It was found in this study that the pulse shape did not stabilise until three or four cycles had
been applied. As a result, the data related to the application of the first four pulses was discarded and, for
reporting and analysis, the fifth load pulse application was considered to be the first pulse of the test
proper.
Three different fatigue lives, each based on a different definition of the initial modulus, were determined:
the initial modulus is that calculated from the displacement response to the first cycle (i.e. the first
pulse after the excluded pulses discussed above)
the initial modulus is that calculated from the displacement response to the 50 th cycle this is the
definition that was used for subsequent analysis
the initial modulus is the average of the moduli calculated from the displacement responses to the first
50 pulses (this is the definition used in the standard method).
The fatigue test results are presented in Appendix I.
8.7
Flexural Fatigue for Each Load Type
Figure 8.17 to Figure 8.20 presents the number of cycles to reach fatigue failure, , as a function of the
initial strain level applied. Also shown are the 95% confidence limits of the slope of the linear regression
lines plotted through the data. The regression equations are listed in Table 8.2. Underlying relationships
between fatigue life and material modulus, sample dimensions, and material density were explored but
were unable to provide improved fits to the data.
Figure 8.17:
Flexural fatigue results for single axle load shape
Figure 8.18: Flexural fatigue results for tandem axle group load shapes with interactions between
axles of 40% and 80%
(a) 40% interaction
(b) 80% interaction
Figure 8.19: Flexural fatigue results for triaxle axle group load shapes with interactions between
(a) 40% interaction
(b) 80% interaction
Figure 8.20: Flexural fatigue results for quad-axle group load shapes with interactions between
(a) 40% interaction
Table 8.2:
(b) 80% interaction
Fatigue regression equations for each load shape
Pulse shape
Regression equation
Number of beams
r2
1_00
log10 () = 29.942 12.91 log10 ()
16
0.55
2_40
log10 () = 59.149 27.95 log10 ()
0.56
2_80
log10 () = 23.586 9.82 log10 ()
0.60
3_40
log10 () = 36.989 16.44 log10 ()
0.63
3_80
log10 () = 20.032 8.04 log10 ()
12
0.80
4_40
log10 () = 41.007 18.64 log10 ()
0.81
4_80
log10 () = 16.302 6.13 log10 ()
0.84
Figure 8.21 (a) represents the resulting regression equations. In this figure, the parameter corresponds
to the loading cycle, or axle group being simulated; and so both a pulse of the single axle simulation and a
pulse of, say, the triaxle simulation would correspond to = 1.
Figure 8.21 (b) presents the same results but using the number of peaks, , corresponding to the number
of axles. One pulse of the single axle would have = 1, and one pulse of the triaxle group would have =
3.
Figure 8.21: Flexural fatigue relationships expressed in terms of cycles (axle groups) of loading
and peaks (axles) of loading
(a) Cycles to half modulus
(b) Peaks to half modulus
A disappointingly very wide range of scatter was observed in the flexural fatigue results. The test method,
apparatus, equipment, control and analysis software used for this study have produced more uniform data
when testing laboratory prepared and cured samples as part of subsequent research work (Austroads
2014a), and so the scatter observed here has been attributed to the use, and possibly the handling, of field
extracted samples. Despite uniform construction and the absence of trafficking, the test pavement would
have been subjected to shrinkage-related stresses during its initial curing period, leading to the possible
generation of micro-cracks within the material.
As a result of the scattered test results, there is a large amount of uncertainly in the performance models
determined for each load shape. This is particularly evident by the wide bands of the 95% confidence
interval for the slopes shown in Figure 8.17 to Figure 8.20. Given this uncertainly; it is difficult to draw
definitive conclusions from the grouped models shown in Figure 8.21. Attempts to provide meaningful
interpretation of the test results were largely unsuccessful, until the concept of developing a separate strain
damage model for each load type was abandoned. As discussed in Section 8.8, an analysis concept
developed after the conclusion of the testing program was utilised to greater success.
8.8
Analysis Using Estimated Strain Reach 100 000 Cycles of

Loading
8.8.1 Background
Jameson (Austroads 2014a) provides a summary of an extremely comprehensive research program
examining the flexural fatigue characteristics of cemented materials. A common issue to the undertaken
work was the difficulty in predicting laboratory and in-service modulus and fatigue life due to the very high
variability of mix composition, material density and, significantly, shrinkage cracking. The high variability
seen in the above multiple-axle laboratory testing can, therefore, be seen to be reasonably expected.
When the multiple-axle testing program was conducted, progress in the completed research program (later
summarised by Jameson), had concluded that a flexural strain based fatigue relationship could be
determined from a moderate number of beam samples subjected to repeated flexural loading (Austroads
2008a). As noted by Jamesons summary, in order to further validate this encouraging conclusion, an
exhaustive program of fatigue testing was conducted on a wide range of cemented materials. Alderson and
Jameson (Austroads 2014b) summarised this work, and in conjunction with additional parallel analysis
work undertaken by Jameson (Austroads 2014a), drafted revisions of the Austroads processes for
designing flexible pavements containing cemented materials and laboratory test methods.
The findings of this research work, and the proposed new design procedures, were utilised to re-analyse
the multiple-axle fatigue data.
8.8.2 Tolerable Strain

As a result of the high variability of fatigue results between samples of essentially the same composition,
the proposed new procedures recommend that fatigue testing be limited to determining the initial strain
level which will lead to a laboratory fatigue life of 105 repetitions. In doing so, the procedure recommends
that a strain damage exponent of 12 be presumed, and that a fatigue testing program should focus effort on
obtaining replicate test determinations of this strain value, rather than undertaking tests across a wide
range of strain levels in order to determine the strain-damage exponent. Alderson and Jameson (Austroads
2014b) had concluded that the exponent of 12 could reasonably be presumed.
For the purposes of the following discussion, the initial strain level that will lead to sample fatigue failure in
105 controlled-load cycles is called the tolerable strain.
For each of the fatigue tests conducted in the multiple-axle study, the tolerable strain was estimated using
Equation 43. These values are listed in Appendix J.
12
= ( )
40
solving Equation 40 for :

1
= ( )12
41
expressing Equation 40 in terms of tolerable strain:

12
10 = ( )
5
5
42
substituting Equation 41 in Equation 42 and solving for 5 :

1
12
5 = ( 5 )
10
43
where
=
=
=
=
number of load cycles to fatigue failure in test

constant
initial strain during fatigue test (m/m)
tolerable strain for sample (m/m)
8.8.3 Correcting Tolerable Strains for Varying Density Condition

Estimates of the tolerable strain for different load pulse shapes could be compared and conclusions drawn
as to the significance of applying grouped axle pulses on the fatigue life of the test beams. However, as
demonstrated in Figure 8.16, the tested beams had a wide range of moduli and densities. The results of the
testing summarised by Jameson enabled him to determine that the tolerable strain of a sample was, in part,
significantly dependent upon the samples stiffness and density (Austroads 2014a). Therefore, before an
examination of the different load shapes was made, the estimates of tolerable strain were normalised to
values representative of single modulus and density values. This was done by combining a series of
correction relationships, developed by Alderson and Jameson (Austroads 2014b) and Jameson (2014a), as
follows.
Firstly, an examination of the densities of each of the samples determined that a representative density of
98% of maximum dry density was mid-way within the spread of sample densities. Seven samples tested
had a relative density that differed from this representative value by more than 2% (i.e. they had a relative
density less than 96% or greater than 100%). The test results for these samples were dropped from further
analysis, as it was considered that the density was excessively different to the representative value of 98%.
Jameson did not develop a direct factor to correct measured tolerable strain values at a given sample
density and/or modulus to an estimated tolerable strain for different density/modulus conditions. He did,
however, develop a relationship to predict the tolerable strain that would result from a sample of given
modulus and flexural strength (Equation 44).
5 = 62.7 +
722700
74.6
44
where
5
=
=
=
tolerable strain for a fatigue life of 105 cycles (m/m)

flexural strength (MPa)
flexural modulus (MPa)
In order to correct the multiple-axle test results, a correction factor, , was developed by determining the
tolerable strain estimates using Equation 44, using flexural strength and modulus values of individual
samples and flexural strength and modulus value at average conditions (Equation 45).
(5 98% )
(5 )
722700
[ 62.798% +
74.6]
98%
=
722700
[ 62.7 +
74.6]
45
where
factor to be applied to tolerable strain values determined from each fatigue test result to
correct it to standard sample density conditions
estimate of tolerable strain for sample , estimated from the samples flexural strength
of and modulus of using Equation 44
598%
estimate of tolerable strain for a sample with a relative density of 98%, estimated using
Equation 44
Regarding the terms in Equation 45, parameter 98% was not directly measured during the laboratory
testing. However, Jameson and Alderson (Austroads 2014b) reported the results of four flexural strength
tests conducted on the same material (sampled from the quarry) and mixed with the same binder content
and moist cured for nine months prior to testing. The samples had a mean density ratio of 96.5% and mean
flexural strength of 1.55 MPa. Having reviewed individual test results from a large number of samples and
materials, Alderson and Jameson concluded that a 1% increase in relative density results in a 5% increase
in flexural strength. Using this relationship, the flexural strength of the material at 98% relative density was
estimated to be 1.67 MPa.
Alderson and Jameson also concluded that 1% increase in relative density results in a 5% increase in
modulus. Using the initial modulus of each fatigue test (i.e. the modulus at cycle 50) as input, this
relationship was used to estimate what each sample modulus would have been at relative density of 98%,
i.e. 98% .
The flexural strengths for each density condition of the tested samples were also not known. Using the
presumptive estimate of flexural strength of 1.67 MPa at 98% relative density, the flexural strength was
estimated for each samples density condition by Jameson and Aldersons relationship between density
change and flexural strength change, yielding .
Values for the modulus of each sample, , were directly measured during the flexural fatigue tests, and the
initial condition value (i.e. the value at cycle 50) was used.
With a separate correction factor, , having been determined for each sample tested, the factors were
used to correct each tolerable strain determined using Equation 43 to an estimated tolerable strain that
would have been determined if the sample had had a relative density equal to the representative value of
98%. The resulting corrected tolerable strains, as well as the correction factors and relevant components of
those factors, are listed in Appendix J.
8.8.4 Effect of Load Shape on Tolerable Strain

The tolerable strains to reach 105 cycles of loading for each applied shape are summarised in Table 8.3.
With the exception of the 2_40 shape, there is a trend of decreasing mean tolerable strain with increasing
number of axles for both of the interaction levels. However, the differences in means can be seen to be
small, especially in comparison to the standard deviation of the tolerable strains for each load shape.
A comparison of mean strains between the two interaction levels shows higher tolerable strains for the 40%
interaction shapes when compared to their counterparts with 80% interaction.
Table 8.3:
Summary of tolerable strains for different load shapes
Pulse shape
Cases
Corrected tolerable strain (m/m)

Mean
Standard deviation
1_00
13
86.8
8.7
2_40
81.1
13.7
3_40
86.6
11.8
4_40
80.3
10.0
2_80
80. 8
8.8
3_80
12
79.6
6.3
4_80
77. 7
4.5
In order to see whether the differences in strains between the load shapes are statistically significant, even
with the relatively high variations for each shapes data set, a series of single-sided, Students t-tests were
conducted to determine whether the means were the same (null hypothesis) or whether the shapes with
higher axle simulations had lower mean tolerable strains (alternate hypothesis). Use of a single-sided test
was considered appropriate as there was no sound engineering reason to consider that the load shapes
with more axles would have higher tolerable strains (i.e. be less damaging). The results of the statistical
tests are shown in Table 8.4
Table 8.4:
Comparison of mean corrected tolerable strains
Pulse shapes
t-statistic
Degrees of freedom
p-value
1_00 and 2_40
1.1329
18
0.14
1_00 and 3_40
0.0412
17
0.48
1_00 and 4_40
1.3514
16
0.10
2_40 and 3_40
0.7612
11
0.77
2_40 and 4_40
0.1065
10
0.46
3_40 and 4_40
0.9336
0.19
1_00 and 2_80
1.5777
20
0.07
1_00 and 3_80
2.324
23
0.01
1_00 and 4_80
2.704
18
0.01
2_80 and 3_80
0.3473
19
0.37
2_80 and 4_80
0.9839
14
0.17
3_80 and 4_80
0.9014
17
0.19
The p-values indicate that the chance that any observed difference in the mean tolerable strains may be
the result of random sampling, rather than resulting from a true difference in strain, ranges from 1% to 77%.
Despite the use of the tolerable strain approach, and the correction of those strains to reflect differences in
sample density, some of the load shape data sets still exhibit a wide range of scatter. However, the
statistical tests do indicate some clear differences in mean tolerable strains between some load shapes.
Raising the ratio of the mean tolerable strains of a pair of load shape data sets to the power of 12 enables
the difference in tolerable strains to be reflected as a relative damage. Table 8.5 contains the calculated
relative damages for all of the load shape pairs for which the t-tests indicated that there was more than an
80% chance that the observed difference in mean tolerable strains was the result of a true difference in
value, and not the result of random differences (i.e. p-value less than 0.20).
Table 8.5:
Relative damages between different load shapes

Pulse shapes
Axle ratio
Relative damage
2_40 cf. 1_00
2.0
2.2
4_40 cf. 1_00
4.0
2.5
4_40 cf. 3_40
1.33
2.5
2_80 cf. 1_00
2.0
2.4
3_80 cf. 1_00
3.0
2.8
4_80 cf. 1_00
4.0
4.1
4_80 cf. 2_80
2.0
1.7
4_80 cf. 3_80
1.33
1.5
Also included in Table 8.5 is the ratio of the number of axles within the paired load shapes. In many cases,
especially for the shapes with an interaction of 80%, there is quite a good match between the relative
damages and the axle ratios. A perfect match would indicate that relative damage was solely the result of
the difference in the number of axles within the shapes. Figure 8.22 presents relative damage as a function
of axle ratio, and also includes a line of equality.
For the 80% interaction shapes, there is a clear relationship between the relative damage of a load pair and
the ratio of the number of axles within that pair. Further, the correspondence appears to be one-to-one: a
difference in number of axles of resulted in a relative damage of . The results are considerably less
clear for the 40% load shapes.
Figure 8.22:
8.9
Relative damages between different load shapes as a function of axle ratio
Summary
A laboratory study was undertaken in an attempt to relate the shape of simulated multiple-axle loads to the
flexural fatigue of cemented materials. At the time the approach was formulated and undertaken, the
outcome of then-available Austroads research indicated that a flexural strain-based relationship could be
determined from a moderate number of beam samples subjected to repeated flexural loading. Subsequent
extensive testing of a wider range of materials and samples has indicated, however, that there is a very
large amount of scatter to be expected in fatigue results. This high variability was certainly observed in the
results of the multiple-axle study, and as a result, the initial analysis of the data did not allow the
formulation of conclusive findings.
However, subsequent analysis presuming a strain damage exponent of 12, and based around determining
the initial strain that would lead to failure at 105 load cycles (the tolerable strain), led to more consistent
findings.
Whilst there was still a large amount of variation in the estimated tolerable strains, even after an attempted
normalisation of those strains to represent a single density condition, comparison of the mean tolerable
strain values for each load shape generally showed that the relative damage caused by different numbers
of axles within a load shape was relatable to the difference in the number of axles within the group.
This relationship between relative damage and axle count is the same as that determined for asphalt in
Section 7. Accordingly, it is suggested that the same method to relate damage caused by a loaded
multiple-axle group proposed for asphalt also be used for cemented material. This would entail determining
the damage (using Equation 46) resulting from each axle load and each axle group within a traffic load
distribution.
12
= ( )
46
=1
where
=
=
=
=
damage caused by axle group with axles

peak tensile strain under each axle of the axle group
constant
In order to determine whether this more rigorous approach to modelling the axle load/group traffic
distribution yields significantly different design outcomes to the current Austroads process, a series of
design examples are examined in Section 9 of this report.
9. Framework to Incorporate Multiple-axle

Responses in Flexible Pavement Design
9.1
Empirical Design of Unbound Granular Pavements with Thin

Bituminous Surfacing
The current Austroads pavement design procedure for unbound granular pavements with thin bituminous
surfacings is a chart-based empirical procedure which characterises the design traffic in terms of
Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA).
Whilst the results of the ALF experiments detailed in Section 6 were scattered, it was concluded that the
results did not indicate any reason to alter current standard loads used to determine design ESAs. Hence,
no change is proposed to the design method using the empirical design chart.
9.2
Mechanistic Design of Bound Materials
9.2.1 Modelling Each Axle Group/Load Combination

Section 7 concluded that grouped pulses of equal strain, simulating grouped axles, did not cause any
significantly different asphalt fatigue damage to that caused by the same number of ungrouped pulses.
That is, there is no damaging or ameliorating effect of grouping strain pulses. Section 8 reached the same
conclusion regarding the fatigue damage resulting from grouped pulses of equal load level.
Section 7 also concluded that the grouping of axles has an effect on the magnitude of the peak tensile
asphalt strains developed, and that the magnitude of this effect is dependent upon the pavement structure
being considered. A similar exercise conducted for cemented material found the same dependence. This is
unsurprising, as the only significant difference between asphalt and cemented materials when response-toload modelling is conducted in the Austroads design context is the Poissons ratio used for the material
(0.4 for asphalt, 0.2 for cemented materials).
Therefore, the multiple-axle standard loads used to equate tensile strain associated damage to bound
materials are dependent upon the pavement structure.
The current Austroads processes for mechanistic design of flexible pavements with bound layers uses a
single standard load, for each axle group, to transform an axle group/load distribution into a design count of
Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR5 for asphalt, and SAR12 for cemented materials). The composition of the
pavement structure does not have an impact upon the transformation.
The Austroads rigid pavement design process incorporates the calculation of damage associated with each
axle group and each load level on those axle groups within a design traffic load distribution. This approach
can also be used for flexible pavements, and doing so would align the rigid and flexible design traffic
calculations. Design of both pavement types would characterise the design traffic as a distribution of axle
groups and loads and a total expected number of Heavy Vehicle Axle Groups (HVAGs). Such an approach
would not make use of the standard load concept, but rather would consider the damage caused by the
strains developed by each combination of axle group and load level.
The steps would be:
1. Select a traffic load distribution, including the proportion of axle group types and the range of loads on
those groups.
2. Determine the design number of heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAGs).
3. Using steps one and two, determine the number of expected repetitions of each axle group and load
level combination expected in the design period.
4. Select a candidate pavement structure.

5. Calculate the response-to-load of the candidate structure for each axle group and load combination.
Determine the peak tensile strain response for each bound material layer under each axle within the
modelled group. These peaks should be determined under the tyre of single-tyre axles, and both under
the innermost tyre and between the tyres of dual-tyred axles.
6. For these strain responses, determine the allowable loading for each axle group and load using
Equation 47. The allowable loading for the combination shall be the minimum of the results obtained
under the tyre of single-tyre axles, and both under the innermost tyre and between the tyres of dualtyred axles. Note, an upper limit of strain to account for maximum material breaking strain should be
considered.
1

=1 ( )
47
where
=
=
=
=
=
allowable loading repetitions for an axle group and load level combination
tensile strain under axle
constant (values would remain unchanged from current Austroads practice)
strain damage exponent (5 for asphalt, 12 for cemented materials)
7.
For each axle group and load combination, determine the percentage damage that will occur in the
design period by dividing the expected loading repetitions of that combination (step three) by the
allowable loading repetitions for the combination (step six).
8.
Sum the percentages of damage for all axle group types and load levels.
9.
If the sum determined in step 8 is less than or equal to 100% for each bound material layer, the
candidate pavement structure is acceptable. If step 8 is greater than 100%, a new candidate structure
must be selected and the process repeated from step 4.
9.2.2 Scaling Response-to-load Calculations for Different Load Levels

Step five of the process outlined above would require running the linear-elastic response-to-load model for
each combination of axle group and load in the group/load distribution. Unless the radius of the loaded area
changes, the responses calculated by linear-elastic models are linearly proportional to the load applied. In
such cases, only a single calculation is needed for each axle group type, at an arbitrary load level, from
which the results for all load levels can be linearly determined. However, if the load contact area also
changes, then scaling of results will not provide exactly the same results as direct calculation.
Section 10.5.4 demonstrates that the difference in direct calculation and scaled calculations is not
significant.
9.2.3 Excluding Superposition of Responses Considering Isolated Axles

The method described in Section 9.2.1 differs from the current SARs approach in two significant ways:
Unlike the SARs method, the above approach considers the peak strain response developed by each
axle within a multiple-axle group for each group/load combination within the design traffic distribution.
This means that the damage associated with a group comprised of axles with a load of is the same
as times the damage caused by a single axle loaded with /.
Additionally, the grouping of axles can, by means of superposition of strain responses, affect the peak
strain obtained under each axle within the group.
A simplification of the method outlined in Section 9.2.1 can be made by only considering the first of these
points. In effect, this would be to consider that the damage caused by each axle within an axle group was
independent of the presence of other axles within the group. When conducting response-to-load modelling
for this simplified method, only responses under single axles need to be determined.
This simplified process would be the same as listed in Section 9.2.1, with the following replacements for
steps five and six:
Step 5 (a): Divide each multiple-axle group, for each load level, into a series of single axles with a load
equal to the group load divided by the number of axles in the group. Calculate the response-to-load for
the candidate structure for all of the resulting single axles at their assigned load levels.
Step 5 (b): Determine the peak tensile strain response, for each bound material layer, under each axle.
These peaks should be determined under the tyre of single-tyre axles and both under the innermost
tyre and between the tyres of dual-tyred axles.
Step 6: For these strain responses, determine the allowable loading for each axle load using
Equation 48. The allowable loading for the combination shall be the minimum of the results obtained
under the tyre of single-tyre axles and both under the innermost tyre and between the tyres of dualtyred axles.
= (
)
48
where
allowable loading for axle group caused by axle group and load level
combination
=
=
=
=
tensile strain under single axle with load equal to the group load divided by
constant (values would remain unchanged from current Austroads practice)
strain damage exponent (5 for asphalt, 12 for cemented materials)
10. Determination of Characteristic Values of

Parameters for multiple-axle group Modelling
and Example Design Outcomes
10.1 Introduction
Section 9.2 describes two alternative frameworks for incorporating multiple-axle group modelling into the
mechanistic design process for flexible pavements:
modelling constituent axles of groups as isolated axles
modelling of combined multiple-axle groups.
This section of the report demonstrates the difference in design thicknesses that could arise from using
these frameworks when compared to the current SARs method, and example calculations were
undertaken. Additionally, when considering the modelling of combined multiple-axle groups, the effect of
changing the spacing of axles within groups, and of dynamic loading effects, are also examined. Using the
findings of these analyses, characteristic values for axle spacing and dynamic load parameters are
proposed.
10.2 Design Traffic Distributions

In conducting the design analyses, four design traffic distributions, representing urban highway/motorway
traffic for which asphalt and cemented material pavement structures would be common candidates, were
used. The distributions had previously been used in the preparation of Appendix D of the Austroads Guide
to Pavement Technology: Part 2 Pavement Structural Design (Austroads 2012a), and Table 10.1 shows
how the short names used to identify these distributions within this report relates to the full details of the
distribution as listed in the Guide. The four distributions are listed in Appendix K.
Table 10.1: Axle group/load distributions used in example calculations
Short name
Full details as listed in Austroads (2012a)
ESA/HVAG
Pacific Motorway
Pacific Highway (Pacific Motorway) Hotham Creek S (10036)
1.93
Pacific Highway
2010 Pacific Hwy (HW2) HVCS: 12 Mile Creek, Southbound (251)
0.95
Monash Freeway
Monash Freeway (Greater Dandenong) East (see)
0.76
Kwinana Freeway
Kwinana Freeway (Mandurah) South (50164)
1.05
10.3 Design Pavement Structures

Separate assessments were made on the effect of modelling axle group/load distributions for asphalt and
cemented materials. For each material assessment, the remaining material layers within the candidates
structures were kept constant, and the thickness of bound material that would be required to withstand
fatigue was determined for a range of design HVAG levels. The thickness required was also determined
using the current Austroads processes by determining the design SAR5 and SAR12 values represented by
the traffic load distributions and HVAG levels.
To assess the effect of modelling approaches on the determination of asphalt thickness, the pavement
composition shown in Table 10.2 was used. Candidate asphalt thickness was varied in 1 mm amounts, and
asphalt thicknesses below 40 mm were not considered. Separate analyses were conducted for two
different asphalt stiffness, 3000 and 5000 MPa.
Table 10.2: Parameters used in asphalt pavement design cases

Parameter
Value
Asphalt thickness
Minimum thickness determined
Asphalt modulus (isotropic)
3000 MPa and 5000 MPa
Asphalt Poissons Ratio
0.4
Volume of bitumen in asphalt
11%
Granular thickness
300 mm modelled in five sublayers with modulus varying as per Austroads

(2012a) design rules
Granular modulus
(cross-anisotropic: = 2 )
500 MPa maximum vertical modulus actual modulus dependent upon thickness
of asphalt and subgrade stiffness as per Austroads (2012a) design rules
Granular Poissons Ratio
0.35
Subgrade vertical modulus

70 MPa
Subgrade Poissons Ratio
0.45
The pavement composition shown in Table 10.3 was used to assess the effect of axle group/load
combination modelling approaches on the determination of cemented material thickness. An asphalt
thickness of 175 mm was used in all cases; this being the minimum thickness of cover over cemented
materials to inhibit reflection cracking (Austroads 2012a). Candidate thickness was varied in 1 mm
increments, with a minimum thickness of 100 mm selected. An analysis was conducted for a typical
cemented material with a design modulus of 4000 MPa. Additionally, analysis was conducted using
presumptive properties for a lean mix concrete subbase and the untested assumption that the summed
peaks model determined for cemented materials was applicable.
Table 10.3: Parameters used in cemented material pavement design cases
Parameter
Value
Asphalt thickness
175 mm
Asphalt modulus (isotropic)
3000 MPa
Asphalt Poissons Ratio
0.4
Cemented material (isotropic)
4000 MPa cemented material ( = 308)(1) and lean mix concrete

( = 10 000 MPA, = 260)
Cemented material thickness
Minimum thickness determined (100 mm minimum thickness)
Cemented material Poissons Ratio
0.2
Subgrade vertical modulus

70 MPa
Subgrade Poissons Ratio
0.45
Proposed as presumptive design values for cemented material in Austroads (2014b).
Thicknesses were determined for discrete levels of HVAGs, selected to represent the range of traffic levels
and spaced so as to be evenly distributed on a logarithmic scale. The HVAG levels in the resultant tables
and figures have also been transformed into Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) counts, using the ESA/HVAG
factors listed in Table 10.1, in order to assist those readers more familiar with expressing flexible pavement
design traffic in these units.
10.4 Modelling Constituent Axles of Groups as Isolated Axles

Table 10.4 and Table 10.5 present the minimum asphalt and cemented material thicknesses determined
using the current Austroads design approach and the isolated axles approach (Section 9.2.3). A single
design traffic distribution was used in conducting these analyses the effect of design traffic distribution
selection is examined in Section 10.5.6. The tables also include the results of modelling grouped axles
(Section 9.2.1) these results are discussed later in Section 10.5.
In determining the strain responses resulting from a specific group/load combination, the strains generated
by an arbitrary load were linearly scaled as described in Section 9.2.2. Section 10.5.4 discusses the
insignificant differences between the results using this simplification and the results obtained by specifically
modelling each axle load individually.
damage models (Pacific Motorway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs
Minimum asphalt thickness (mm)

Austroads
Isolated
axles
Grouped at
1.0 m
spacing
Grouped at
1.3 m
spacing
Grouped at
1.5 m
spacing
Sec. 10.4
Sec. 10.5.2
Sec. 10.5.2
Sec. 10.5.2
Grouped at
1.3 m
spacing
(calc.)
Sec. 10.5.3
3000 MPa asphalt

1 x 105
2 x 105
75
76
78
79
79
72
3x
105
6x
105
108
106
105
107
107
104
1x
106
2x
106
151
144
139
141
142
139
3x
106
6x
106
191
181
174
176
177
176
1 x 107
2 x 107
234
219
207
209
211
210
3x
107
6x
107
278
259
243
245
247
246
1x
108
2x
108
332
308
289
290
292
291
3 x 108
6 x 108
387
359
333
338
338
339
1x
105
2x
105
73
74
74
70
3x
105
6x
105
101
97
96
97
98
95
1 x 106
2 x 106
140
113
128
130
131
128
3 x 106
6 x 106
169
162
155
157
158
157
107
107
207
194
184
186
187
186
3 x 107
6 x 107
246
229
216
217
218
217
1x
108
2x
108
294
273
255
257
258
258
3x
108
6x
108
343
318
295
299
300
299
5000 MPa asphalt
1x
2x
72
73
multiple-axle damage models (Pacific Motorway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs
Minimum cemented material thickness (mm)

Austroads
Isolated
axles
Grouped at
1.0 m
spacing
Grouped at
1.3 m
spacing
Grouped at
1.5 m
spacing
Sec. 10.4
Sec. 10.5.2
Sec. 10.5.2
Sec. 10.5.2
Grouped at
1.3 m
spacing
(calc.)
Sec. 10.5.3
4000 MPa cemented material

1x
105
2x
105
3x
105
161
135
121
122
123
123
6x
105
181
154
139
140
140
141
1 x 106
2 x 106
204
175
159
161
161
162
3x
106
6x
106
226
195
179
179
180
180
1x
107
2x
107
251
219
202
201
203
202
3 x 107
6 x 107
276
241
225
222
223
222
1x
108
2x
108
304
268
252
247
247
249
3x
108
6x
108
331
293
279
271
271
274
1 x 105
2 x 105
100
100
100
100
100
100
3x
105
6x
105
114
100
100
100
100
100
1x
106
2x
106
132
110
100
100
100
100
3 x 106
6 x 106
150
126
114
115
115
116
1x
107
2x
107
170
144
131
132
132
133
3x
107
6x
107
189
162
149
148
149
149
1x
108
2x
108
210
182
169
167
168
168
6 x 108
231
202
189
186
186
187
10 000 MPa lean mix concrete
3 x 108
In comparison to the asphalt and cemented material thicknesses determined using the current Austroads
approach, Table 10.4 and Table 10.5 demonstrate that lower thicknesses result from calculating the strain
generated by each axle within groups, assuming no interaction between axles, and directly determining the
damage associated with each axle.
The reduction in asphalt thickness (Table 10.4) changes from relatively little to no reduction at low traffic
levels, and rises up to 2030 mm at high traffic levels (a 78% reduction). The significant reductions in
cemented material thickness of 2540 mm represent proportional reductions of between 11 and 16%.
Thus, by directly considering the damage caused by each axle of a multiple-axle group, in complete
isolation to its partner axles within the group, significant reductions in asphalt and cemented material
thickness can be obtained in comparison to those determined using the current Austroads design method.
10.5 Modelling of Combined Multiple-axle Groups

10.5.1 General
The design approach proposed in Section 9.2.1 entails separate modelling of each axle group type, at each
load level within the design traffic distribution, and determining the resultant peak strains under each axle
within the group. This section of the report examines the significance of both the assumed axle spacing
within the modelled groups and dynamic loading considerations on the outcomes of the design process.
10.5.2 Axle Spacing

The spacing of axles within a multiple-axle group will affect the combined strain response associated with
the combined group. In the modelling described in Section 7, a spacing of 1.25 m was used for tandem,
triaxle and quad-axle groups. That value was selected at the time that the modelling was conducted as it
represented the typical spacing for triaxle groups. This section of the report examines whether differences
in modelled axle spacings result in significantly different design outcomes, therefore a range of spacings
were considered.
Weigh-in-motion (WIM) data was used to ascertain the axle spacings that most commonly occur in vehicles
in use at present. Data from a range of Melbourne WIM sites, collected over a six-month period, were
obtained and the 5090 percentile values of the axle spacing were determined (Table 10.6). The mean
spacing for the combined data was 1.30 metres.
Table 10.6: Axle spacings determined from WIM data
Axle group
Observations
Percentiles of axle spacing (m)

50
90
95
97.5
99
Tandem
7 934 798
1.31
1.40
1.45
1.55
1.93
Triaxle
4 571 459
1.25
1.41
1.50
1.54
1.56
In order to examine the effect that axle spacing has on the calculated design thicknesses, calculations were
conducted assuming different spacings:
1.5 m representing the 95th percentile of axle spacings for triaxle groups within the WIM data
summarised in Table 10.6 (the 95th percentile of the spacing of tandem groups was slightly lower, at
1.45 m)
1.3 m representing the median of tandem groups and the mean of tandem and triaxle groups within
the WIM data summarised in Table 10.6
1.0 m representing an extreme lower bound.
The results of these calculations are listed above in Table 10.4 and Table 10.5. The difference in asphalt
and cemented material thicknesses that result from using the extremes of this range of axle spacings can
be seen to be 3 mm or less. The computed design thicknesses using the mean spacing of 1.3 mm and the
95th percentile spacing of 1.5 m are generally identical, with only the occasional 1 to 2 mm difference.
It is concluded that the choice of axle spacing does not need to play a critical role in the design process
proposed in Section 9.2.1. It is suggested that a value of 1.3 m be used as the spacing between adjacent
axles on all tandem, triaxle and quad-axle groups in that process, as this was the average spacing
determined from the WIM data. This is the value that has been used in the following sections of this report.
10.5.3 Effect of Superimposing Responses from Grouped Axles

Having determined that an axle spacing of 1.3 m is suitable for modelling tandem, triaxle and quad-axle
groups, a comparison of the minimum asphalt and cemented material thicknesses that result from using the
design approach proposed in Section 9.2.1 was made.
Generally lower asphalt thicknesses were determined when using this grouped method in comparison to
the isolated axles method (Table 10.4). This difference is solely the result of the potential reduction in peak
values resulting from super-positioning strains from adjacent axles within an axle group. The difference
between the isolated axles method and the grouped axles method is generally smaller than the difference
between the isolated axles method and the current Austroads method.
The difference in asphalt thickness determined using the proposed grouped axles approach and the current
Austroads approach varies from little-to-no reduction at low traffic levels, and increases with traffic level
rises up to a 4050 mm (13%) reduction at the highest levels considered.
As shown in Table 10.5, the results of the cemented materials design analyses followed the same trends
as the asphalt designs. Total reductions in the 4000 MPa cemented material thickness of 5560 mm
occurred at the highest traffic level considered. Maximum reductions for the lean mix concrete were 40
45 mm. These represent potential cemented material thickness reductions of up to 1820%.
Super-positioning will only result in lower peak strain values for strain responses that include a significant
compressive component, such as strains in the longitudinal direction. Strains in this direction were found to
be the most critical strains, i.e. they had the highest magnitudes in all cases examined.
10.5.4 Comparison of Scaled and Calculated Responses

As raised in Section 9.2.2, with a fixed radius of load, the responses calculated by linear-elastic models are
linearly proportional to the load applied. In such cases, only a single calculation is needed for each axle
group type, at an arbitrary load level, from which the results for all load levels can be linearly determined.
The results described in Section 10.4, 10.5.2 and Section 10.5.3 were obtained from response-to-load
calculations that were scaled in this manner, from response-to-load calculations conducted at a single load
level for each axle group type.
As change in both contact area radius and tyre pressure can be assumed to occur with change in axle load
(Section 7.2.2), it can be seen that the above linear scaling of responses is a simplification.
In order to determine whether this simplified scaling of responses is unreasonable, individual modelling of
each individual axle group type and load combination was also undertaken. The minimum asphalt and
cemented material thicknesses determined using these calculations is presented as the last column in
Table 10.4 and Table 10.5, respectively. For all but the lowest design traffic levels, the difference in asphalt
thickness determined using the simplified scaled approach and the rigorous individually modelled
approach, can be seen to be no more than 2 mm. At low traffic levels, with corresponding low asphalt
thicknesses, the difference between the two methods is larger up to 7 mm. Differences in cemented
material thickness were found to be no more than 2 mm.
Given these results, it is considered that conducting a separate response-to-load model for each axle group
type and load combination does not result in significantly different design results to those obtained by
scaling the responses, for each group type, obtained at a single load level.
10.5.5 Dynamic Load Considerations

All of the analyses described above have considered that the total load applied to a multiple-axle group is
equally distributed amongst the constituent axles of the group. Whilst this assumption may be reasonable
for static loads, it has been demonstrated (e.g. Sweatman 1983) that this equal distribution of load may not
occur under travelling conditions. This section of the report considers the effect on design outcomes if
unequal distribution of load between axles within a group is considered.
It is recognised (e.g. OECD 1998) that, dependent upon chassis and suspension characteristics and
pavement surface profile, the magnitude of total load on an axle group may exceed the static load on the
group. This report does not directly examine this dynamic effect for the following reasons:
The current Austroads flexible pavement design process does not explicitly consider such effects.
Design traffic distributions are determined from WIM data that does include the instantaneous
measurement of total dynamic loads at a single point along the pavement at which the data collection
system is located. Whilst it is typically ensured that the road surface profile at weigh-in-motion sites is
smooth so as to reduce contribution to dynamic effects, these smooth profiles also reflect typical road
profiles of newly constructed pavements.
The Austroads pavement design procedure utilises the response-to-load modelling of newly
constructed pavement structures comprised of pavement materials in an undamaged condition and
does not consider variations in pavement material condition along the length of pavement, or over the
passage of time. Such newly constructed pavements have good ride quality, similar to weigh-in-motion
sites. Direct consideration of dynamic load effects with length of pavement, or elapsed time, is,
therefore, incompatible with the structure of the current design approach, and would require the
utilisation of an incremental-recursive response-to-load modelling approach. Within the framework of
the current Austroads design approach, indirect consideration of increased vertical loads resulting from
dynamic loading is considered to be a component of the reliability factors used to link material
performance relationships to observed field performance.
Therefore, the following discussion is limited to consideration of the unequal sharing of dynamic total group
loads, measured at WIM sites, by the component axles of the group.
The parameter that is most commonly used to examine load sharing between axles of a multiple-axle group
is the Load Sharing Coefficient (). First proposed by Sweatman (1983), the for an axle within a
group is typically expressed in modern times as Equation 49.
49
where
=
=
=
=
load sharing coefficient for axle

load on axle (kN)
total load on axle group (kN)
number of axles within group
Six months worth of data from numerous WIM sites around metropolitan Melbourne were obtained from
VicRoads. The WIM equipment at these sites contained multiple sensors, allowing the determination of
individual axle masses with axle groups. Using Equation 49, the maximum for each observed axle
group was determined, and is summarised in Figure 10.1 and Table 10.7. Mean maximum s for both
tandem and triaxle groups were found to be 1.05.
Figure 10.1:
(a) tandems
Distribution of maximum LSC in WIM data
(b)
triaxles
Table 10.7: Maximum axle load sharing coefficients determined from WIM data
Percentiles of maximum
Axle group
Observations
50
90
95
97.5
99
Tandem
7 934 798
1.03
1.11
1.16
1.24
1.36
Triaxle
4 571 459
1.02
1.12
1.17
1.24
1.34
The design examples were re-analysed assuming that all tandem and triaxle groups in the design traffic
distribution had uneven load sharing between axles, and that the maximum was 1.1 (approximately the
90th percentile of the observed maximum s). In running these examples, it was assumed that the
minimum of the tandem and axle groups was equal to 0.1, and that the middle axle of a triaxle group
had an of 1.0. The minimum asphalt and cemented material thicknesses are shown in Table 10.8 and
Table 10.9, respectively.
damage models (Pacific Motorway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped = 1.0
Grouped = 1.1
3000 MPa asphalt

1x
105
2x
105
3x
105
75
76
79
80
6x
105
108
106
107
107
1 x 106
2 x 106
151
144
141
143
3 x 106
6 x 106
191
181
176
177
1 x 107
2 x 107
234
219
209
211
3x
107
6x
107
278
259
245
248
1x
108
2x
108
332
308
290
294
3x
108
6x
108
387
359
338
342
1 x 105
2 x 105
73
72
74
74
3 x 105
6 x 105
101
97
97
98
1 x 106
2 x 106
140
131
130
131
3x
106
6x
106
169
162
157
158
1x
107
2x
107
207
194
186
187
3x
107
6x
107
246
229
217
219
1x
108
2x
108
294
273
257
260
3x
108
6x
108
343
318
299
303
5000 MPa asphalt
multiple-axle damage models (Pacific Motorway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped = 1.0
Grouped = 1.1

1 x 105
2 x 105
161
135
122
128
105
105
181
154
140
146
1 x 106
2 x 106
204
175
161
167
3x
106
6x
106
226
195
179
187
1x
107
2x
107
251
219
201
210
3x
107
6x
107
276
241
222
233
1 x 108
2 x 108
304
268
247
260
108
108
331
293
271
287
1 x 105
2 x 105
100
100
100
100
3x
105
6x
105
114
100
100
100
1x
106
2x
106
132
110
100
104
3x
106
6x
106
150
126
115
120
1 x 107
2 x 107
170
144
132
138
3x
107
6x
107
189
162
148
155
1x
108
2x
108
210
182
167
176
6 x 108
231
202
186
196
3x
3x
6x
6x
3 x 108
It can be seen that assuming a maximum for each multiple-axle group had only a very minor effect on
the calculated minimum asphalt thickness for the design cases (Table 10.8). Thicknesses determined using
the uneven load distribution were higher than the case assuming perfect load sharing, as would be
expected, but the maximum thickness increase was only 4 mm.
With a load damage exponent of 12 in the cemented material performance model, cf. a value of 5 for
asphalt, it would be expected that the uneven load sharing within groups would lead to higher design
thicknesses. Table 10.9 does show a more significant effect of uneven load sharing on the determined
cemented material thicknesses than that observed for asphalt thicknesses. In comparison to the design
cases which assumed perfect load sharing between axles, additional cemented material thickness of up to
16 mm was found.
The modelling of uneven load sharing between axles clearly has an effect, especially on cemented material
design thicknesses. However, the challenge is to determine what level of assumed uneven load sharing is
reasonable to consider in the design process. The selection of a maximum value of 1.1 used for the
analyses presented in Table 10.8 and Table 10.9 was made solely on the basis that this value represented
the 90th percentile of the maximum s observed in the extensive VicRoads WIM data.
In order to determine whether this value was reasonable, additional design analyses were conducted in
which the maximum s for each axle group were selected from a range of s observed in the WIM
data. That is, instead of assuming a single maximum for all groups within the design HVAG count, the
maximum was varied in the same proportions as the observed WIM data.
For the asphalt design examples, it was found that modelling the full spectrum of maximum s produced
the same asphalt thicknesses as analyses with a maximum of 1.05 applied to all axle groups. For the
cemented material design examples, it was found that a single maximum of 1.07 produced the same
design outcomes as modelling the complete spectrum of maximum values.
As the use of a single maximum value of 1.1 produced only slightly more conservative design
outcomes than the complex and time-consuming analyses required to model a full spectrum of maximum
values, it is proposed that a single value of 1.1 be used in implementing uneven load sharing within the
pavement design procedure.
10.5.6 Significance of Design Traffic Distribution

The detailed modelling and conclusions discussed above were all based upon a single traffic distribution.
That distribution was selected as it represented an extreme case with a high proportion of heavily loaded
axle groups, and it was assumed that the determination of a suitable maximum based upon that
distribution could be conservatively applied to other distributions.
Having determined that an value of 1.1 was appropriate, Table 10.10 to Table 10.15 list the minimum
asphalt and cemented materials thicknesses determined using the three other traffic spectrums listed in
Table 10.1. Figure 10.2 to Figure 10.5 graphically presents these minimum thicknesses. In these tables
and figures, the following terms are used to describe the manner in which the axle loads were modelled:
Austroads damage calculated using current Austroads design approach (i.e. converting the traffic
distribution and HVAG level to a number of SAR5 for asphalt, and SAR12 for cemented materials, and
by modelling the candidate structure under a Standard Axle load).
Isolated axles damage calculated using the simplified approach described in Section 9.2.3, which
undertakes a response-to-load determination for each axle group/load combination by modelling the
response under a single axle and assuming the same response occurs under each other axle within a
multi-axle group (only the scaled method was used).
Grouped axles damage calculated using the approach described in Section 9.2.1, which undertakes
a response-to-load determination for each axle group/load combination by modelling the full axle group
for each case. Uneven load sharing was modelled with an of 1.1. Response to load analyses for
varying load levels on an axle group were linearly scaled from a single linear elastic analysis
conducted for the axle group.
Modelling with the isolated axles method resulted in generally lower asphalt thicknesses than the current
Austroads approach. The reduction in thickness changes from relatively little to no reduction at low traffic
levels, and rises up to 1731 mm at high traffic levels (a 68% reduction). Thus, by considering each axle
of a multiple-axle group in complete isolation to its partner axles within the group, a significant reduction in
asphalt thickness can be achieved for moderate-to-highly trafficked pavements.
Generally, lower asphalt thicknesses were determined when modelling the grouped axles (with an of
1.1) in comparison to modelling the isolated axles. This difference is solely the result of a potential
reduction in peak values resulting from super-positioning strains from adjacent axles within an axle group.
The difference between the isolated and grouped methods is generally smaller than the difference between
the isolated and current Austroads methods. The difference between grouped and Austroads methods
varies from little to no reduction at low traffic levels, and increases as traffic levels rise up to a 3146 mm
reduction at the highest levels considered. This represents an 1113% reduction in asphalt thickness.
Super-positioning will only result in lower peak strain values for strain responses that include a significant
compressive component, such as strains in the longitudinal direction. Strains in this direction were found to
be the most critical strains, i.e. they had the highest magnitudes in all cases examined.
The results of the cemented materials design analyses followed the same trends as the asphalt designs. A
substantial decrease in cemented material thickness occurred for both materials and for all traffic
distributions at moderate-to-high traffic loadings when the single method was used instead of the current
Austroads SAR12 method. A potential second decrease in design cemented material thickness results from
consideration of the strain reducing effect of superimposing responses from adjacent axles within a group.
Total reductions in the 4000 MPa cemented material thickness of 4456 mm (1320%) occurred at the
highest traffic level considered. Maximum reductions for the lean mix concrete were
3143 mm (1822%).
Table 10.10: Minimum thicknesses of asphalt determined using current Austroads and multipleaxle damage models (Pacific Highway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped = 1.0
Grouped = 1.1
40
40
3000 MPa asphalt

1 x 105
1 x 105
105
105
80
80
83
84
1 x 106
1 x 106
115
112
112
113
3 x 106
3 x 106
156
149
145
147
1x
107
1x
107
200
188
181
183
3x
107
3x
107
240
223
212
214
1 x 108
1 x 108
289
268
252
255
108
108
339
313
293
297
1 x 105
1 x 105
40
40
50
51
3x
105
3x
105
76
75
77
78
1x
106
1x
106
109
104
104
105
3x
106
3x
106
145
140
133
134
1 x 107
1 x 107
176
170
162
163
3x
107
3x
107
212
200
188
190
1x
108
1x
108
255
240
223
225
3 x 108
300
280
260
263
3x
3x
3x
3x
40
40
5000 MPa asphalt
3 x 108
multiple-axle damage models (Pacific Highway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped = 1.0
Grouped = 1.1

105
110
100
100
100
3 x 105
3 x 105
128
100
100
100
148
118
106
111
3x
106
167
136
123
128
1x
107
189
156
142
148
3 x 107
3 x 107
210
175
160
166
1x
108
1x
108
235
198
180
188
3x
108
3x
108
258
219
200
210
1x
105
1 x 10
3x
106
1x
107
1x
1 x 10

1 x 105
1 x 105
100
100
100
100
3x
105
3x
105
100
100
100
100
1x
106
1x
106
100
100
100
100
3 x 106
3 x 106
103
100
100
100
1x
107
1x
107
121
100
100
100
3x
107
3x
107
137
111
100
104
1 x 108
1 x 108
157
128
117
122
108
108
175
145
132
138
3x
3x
Table 10.12: Minimum thicknesses of asphalt determined using current Austroads and multipleaxle damage models (Monash Freeway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped = 1.0
Grouped = 1.1
40
40
3000 MPa asphalt

1 x 105
8 x 104
105
105
67
72
77
77
1 x 106
8 x 105
108
107
107
108
3 x 106
2 x 106
147
141
138
139
1x
107
8x
106
192
182
176
177
3x
107
2x
107
231
216
206
208
1 x 108
8 x 107
279
259
245
247
108
108
328
304
286
288
1 x 105
8 x 104
40
40
40
40
3x
105
2x
105
70
70
72
72
1x
106
8x
105
101
98
98
99
3x
106
2x
106
137
130
127
128
1 x 107
8 x 106
170
162
157
158
3x
107
2x
107
204
191
183
184
1x
108
8x
107
247
229
217
219
2 x 108
291
269
253
255
3x
3x
2x
2x
40
40
5000 MPa asphalt
3 x 108
multiple-axle damage models (Monash Freeway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped = 1.0
Grouped = 1.1
4 000 MPa cemented material

1 x 105
8 x 104
107
100
100
100
3x
105
2x
105
125
102
100
100
1x
106
8x
105
145
121
111
114
3 x 106
2 x 106
164
139
128
132
1x
107
8x
106
186
159
148
152
3x
107
2x
107
207
179
166
171
1x
108
8x
107
231
201
187
193
3 x 108
2 x 108
254
223
208
215
105
104
100
100
100
100
3 x 105
2 x 105
100
100
100
100
1x
106
8x
105
100
100
100
100
3x
106
2x
106
100
100
100
100
1x
107
8x
106
118
100
100
100
3 x 107
2 x 107
134
113
104
107
1x
108
8x
107
154
131
121
125
3x
108
2x
108
172
148
137
141

1x
8x
Table 10.14: Minimum thicknesses of asphalt determined using current Austroads and multipleaxle damage models (Kwinana Freeway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped
= 1.0
Grouped = 1.1
3000 MPa asphalt

104
40
40
49
51
3 x 105
2 x 105
87
86
89
89
1x
106
8x
105
122
118
117
118
3x
106
2x
106
165
156
151
153
1x
107
8x
106
207
195
186
188
3 x 107
2 x 107
248
230
218
220
1x
108
8x
107
299
276
258
261
3x
108
2x
108
350
322
300
304
1x
105
8x
5000 MPa asphalt

1 x 105
8 x 104
50
52
57
57
3x
105
2x
105
82
80
82
82
1x
106
8x
105
116
111
110
111
3 x 106
2 x 106
151
142
138
140
1x
107
8x
106
183
172
166
167
3x
107
2x
107
219
204
193
195
1 x 108
8 x 107
264
244
228
231
108
108
310
285
266
269
3x
2x
multiple-axle damage models (Kwinana Freeway traffic distribution)
HVAGs
ESAs

Austroads
Isolated axles
Grouped
= 1.0
Grouped = 1.1

1 x 105
1 x 105
130
100
100
100
149
116
105
108
1x
106
170
135
123
127
3x
106
190
153
140
144
1 x 107
1 x 107
213
174
160
165
3x
107
3x
107
236
195
179
185
1x
108
1x
108
262
218
200
208
3 x 108
3 x 108
286
241
222
230
1x
105
1x
105
100
100
100
100
3x
105
3x
105
100
100
100
100
1 x 106
1 x 106
105
100
100
100
3x
106
3x
106
121
100
100
100
1x
107
1x
107
140
110
100
103
3 x 107
3 x 107
157
126
115
119
1x
108
1x
108
177
144
132
137
3x
108
3x
108
197
162
148
154
3 x 10
1x
106
3x
106
3 x 10
Figure 10.2:
Minimum thickness of 3000 MPa asphalt for different design traffic levels
(a) Pacific Motorway
(b) Monash Freeway
(c) Pacific Highway
(d) Kwinana Freeway
Figure 10.3:
Minimum thickness of 5000 MPa asphalt for different design traffic levels
(b) Monash Freeway
(c) Pacific Highway
(d) Kwinana Freeway
Figure 10.4:
Minimum thickness of 4000 MPa cemented material for different design traffic levels
(b) Monash Freeway
(c) Pacific Highway
(d) Kwinana Freeway
Figure 10.5:
Minimum thickness of lean mix concrete for different design traffic levels
(b) Monash Freeway
(c) Pacific Highway
(d) Kwinana Freeway
10.6 Summary
The linear-elastic and FEM analyses in Section 7 demonstrated that for pavements with asphalt
thicknesses of 100 mm or more, the current standard loads used in the Austroads SAR approach results in
less damage than that caused by the Standard Axle. The analyses showed that, for each axle group type,
the standard load that would cause the same damage as the Standard Axle was dependent upon the
pavement structure.
In order to take this variation into account in the pavement design process, the design process outlined in
Section 9.2 considers the damaging effects of each axle group type/load combination on the bound
materials within a candidate pavement structure. As a result, it is considerably more numerically intensive
than the current Austroads SAR approach.
The design example analyses described within this section of the report have demonstrated that at low
traffic levels, the additional complexity in calculation does not generally result in a significantly different
design outcome. However, for moderate traffic levels and above, the material thicknesses resulting from
the multiple-axle group method can be significantly lower than those determined from using the current
SAR approach.
It was found that the assumed spacing of axles with multiple-axle groups had little effect on design
outcomes. In the proposed alternative procedures, an axle spacing value of 1.3 m should be presumed to
apply to all tandem, triaxle and quad-axle groups.
Dynamic loading effects on design outcomes were also examined, and it was found that the determination
of cemented material design thicknesses was sensitive to the level of load sharing that was assumed to
occur within multiple-axle groups. When modelling grouped loads, it is suggested that uneven load sharing
be modelled and that an of 1.1 be used.
11. Conclusions
11.1 General
Different international pavement systems consider relative damage factors for multiple-axle groups in
various ways. The AASHTO (1993), French (LCPC & SETRA 1997) and AASHTO (2008) MEPDG design
methods all consider that the pavement structure affects relative damage factors, whereas the current
Austroads (2012a) approach considers the damage factors to be constant.
The AASHTO 1993 and French methods relative damage factors are lower than those currently used by
Austroads, resulting in higher equivalent loads on multiple-axle groups than those used in the Austroads
approach. The South African (SANRAL 2013) and MEPDG (AASHTO 2008) methods both determine
strains resulting from different axle groups. In doing so, these methods do not use relative damage factors,
but rather use the calculated strains from multiple-axle groups loaded directly in the pavement material
damage models. In general, these methods will result in higher multiple-axle group loads than the
Austroads loads to cause the same pavement damage.
A review of other methods highlighted a number of theoretical frameworks for considering the relative
damage caused by multiple-axle groups. However, only a very limited number of studies were identified
that examined the actual performance of pavement materials or structures when loaded with varying types
of multiple-axle groups. The focus of the project was on utilising the performance data that had been
collected, and collecting new performance data related to the pavement design performance criteria
considered in the current Austroads pavement design processes:
deformation of unbound granular pavements with thin bituminous surfacings for use with the current
empirical, chart-based pavement design procedure
flexural fatigue of asphalt for use with the mechanistic design procedure for flexible pavements
flexural fatigue of cemented materials for use with the mechanistic design procedure for flexible
pavements.
The conclusions drawn from the work conducted for each of these design criteria is summarised below.
11.2 Empirical Design of Unbound Granular Pavements with Thin

Bituminous Surfacings
The Accelerated Loading Facility was used to assess the deformation of a typical granular pavement and
subgrade. A wide range of variation occurred between the deformation observed under the same loading
conditions but at different locations and times during the loading. This variation was attributed to wide
variations in the pavements moisture contents. Only a direct comparison of the deformation obtained under
an 80 kN single axle and a 180 kN triaxle group was possible. From this analysis, load equivalency factors
() were found to range from 0.8 to 1.0 for most of the experiment test points i.e. the 180 kN triaxle
group was found to have caused 0.8 to 1.0 times the damage caused by the 80 kN single axle. Lower s
occurred for stiffer pavement structures (i.e. when the pavement materials were in a dryer moisture state)
than for weaker structures (when the moisture contents were presumed to be higher).
However, there was a significant degree of spread in the observed data and it is considered that the
experimental results cannot be reasonably considered to provide enough evidence that the currently used
standard load for triaxles of 181 kN (full axle) is inappropriate. The small difference in to current
practice (0.8 cf. 1.0) is insignificant in comparison to the variation in experimental results and the variety of
assumptions made in the analysis.
Accepting that the was four, and that the standard load for the (full) triaxle group was 181 kN (current
practice), it can be concluded that the interaction between axles does not affect the deformation damage,
and that the axles can be considered to each contribute to the overall damage in isolation to each other.
This assumption would allow the numerical calculation (Section 6.10) of standard loads for multiple-axle
groups for use with the empirical design procedure. This calculation results in the same (within 1 kN)
standard loads currently used in the Austroads procedure, with the exception of the quad-axle group, for
which the calculated standard load would be 226 kN rather than the current 221 kN.
It is proposed that the current standard reference load for a triaxle group of 181 kN be retained. It is also
proposed that the standard loads listed within the Austroads guide be those calculated using the formula
discussed in Section 6.10 and that the current analysis design processes be retained.
11.3 Mechanistic Design of Bound Materials

A laboratory-based study conducted in France (Homsi 2011) provided the basis for an examination of the
effect of multiple-axle group loads on the fatigue of asphalt for pavement design purposes. A similar study
was undertaken for cemented materials as part of this Austroads project. Both of these studies used pulses
simulating multiple-axle groups within existing flexural fatigue testing protocols. Analysis of the French
asphalt work indicated that grouped pulses of equal strain magnitude, simulating grouped axles, did not
cause any significantly different asphalt fatigue damage to that caused by the same number of ungrouped
pulses of the same magnitude. That is, there is no damaging or ameliorating effect of grouping strain
pulses. Analysis of the cemented material study data reached the same conclusion regarding the fatigue
damage resulting from grouped pulses of equal load level.
However, for both materials, it was demonstrated that the grouping of axles has an effect on the magnitude
of the peak strains developed, and that the magnitude of this effect is dependent upon the pavement
structure being considered. Therefore, the standard load used to equate tensile strain-associated damage
to bound materials is dependent upon the pavement structure.
The current Austroads process for mechanistic design of flexible pavements with bound layers uses a
single standard load, for each axle group, to transform an axle group/load distribution into a design count of
Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR5 for asphalt, and SAR12 for cemented materials). The composition of the
pavement structure does not have an impact upon the transformation.
The Austroads rigid pavement design process incorporates calculation of damage associated with each
axle group and each load level on those axle groups within a design traffic load distribution.
It is proposed that this approach also be used for flexible pavements. This approach would not make use of
the standard load concept, but rather would consider the damage caused by the strains developed by each
combination of axle group and load level. It would also align the rigid and flexible (mechanistic) design
traffic calculations into a common method characterising the design traffic as a distribution of axle groups
and loads and a total expected number of HVAGs. The calculation and use of SAR5 and SAR7 would no
longer be required.
This proposal does not alter the assumed relationship relating strain level to allowable repetitions, and so
use of current performance relationships for asphalt and cemented materials could continue. Significantly,
the approach addresses the effect of multiple-axle grouping in isolation to other factors, and so future
refinements to the performance relationships for bound materials can be accommodated with no change to
the traffic characterisation method.
Using a range of axle group/load distributions demonstrated that using this approach would result in little to
no reduction in design asphalt thickness when compared to the method for lightly trafficked pavements.
However, for moderate-to-heavily trafficked pavements, the proposed approach resulted in progressively
lower asphalt thicknesses than the current method. Reductions in thickness were found to be typically 31
46 mm (1113%) for reduction, high traffic levels of 108 HVAG and above.
Similar changes in design thickness were found for a typical cemented material subbase and for a lean mix
concrete subbase used in heavily trafficked flexible pavements. Reductions of up to
1822% were found.
The potentially lower design thickness for bound materials determined using the proposed traffic
characterisation process in the mechanistic design procedure are significant, and represent considerable
savings in material and construction costs.
11.4 Design Reliability

The reliability factors used by the current Austroads flexible pavement design procedure consider the
uncertainty relating to the future performance of pavement structures designed using the procedure. Any
change to the pavement design procedure, such as that proposed by this report, requires a determination
of the overall reliability level of pavements that are constructed in accordance with the changed procedure.
The analyses contained in Section 10 did not examine design reliability, and associated reliability factors.
Revision of the reliability factors is outside the scope of this report, but it will be required in order for the
revised procedure to be implemented. Such revision would consider how uncertainties in future increases
in axle loads could be incorporated, such as load factors.
References
American Association of State Highway Officials 1962, The AASHO road test, report 5, pavement research,
AASHO, Washington, DC, USA.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 1993, AASHTO guide for design of
pavement structures 1993, AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2008, Mechanistic-empirical pavement
design guide: a manual of practice, interim edition, AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
Applied Research Associates 2004, Mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement
structures: final report: part 1 introduction and part 2 design inputs, March, NCHRP project 1-37A,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, viewed 25 January 2011,
<http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/guide.htm>.
Austroads 2006a, Investigation of the load damage exponent of unbound granular materials under
accelerated loading, AP-T73-06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006b, Update of the Austroads sprayed seal design method, AP-T68-06, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2008a, The development and evaluation of protocols for the laboratory characterisation of
cemented materials, AP-T101-08, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008b, Construction report for cemented test pavements: influence of vertical loading on the
performance of unbound and cemented materials, AP-T103-08, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008c, Optimum use of granular bases: construction of test pavements, AP-T93-08, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010, Assessment of rut-resistance of granular bases using the repeated load triaxial test, APR360-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011a, The influence of multiple axle loads on pavement performance: interim findings, AP-T18411, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011b, A laboratory study of the influence of multiple axle loads on the performance of a cement
treated material: interim findings, AP-T185-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011c, Testing plan to examine the effects of multiple axle loads on asphalt fatigue using fourpoint beam tests, AP-T186-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011d, The influence of multiple axle loads on the performance of an unbound granular pavement
under accelerated loading: construction of test pavements, AP-T187-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012a, Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02-12,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012b, Development of a nonlinear finite element pavement response to load, AP-T-199-12,
Austroads, Sydney. NSW.
Austroads 2013, The influence of multiple-axle loads on the performance of an unbound granular pavement
under accelerated loading: interim data report, AP-T232-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014a, Framework for the revision of Austroads design procedures for pavements
containing cemented materials, AP-R463-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014b, Cemented materials characterisation: final report, AP-R462-14, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Bodin, D, Merbouh, M, Balay, J-M, Breysse, D & Moriceau, L 2009, Experimental study of the waveform
shape effect on asphalt mixes fatigue, in Loizos, A, Parti, MN, Scarpas, T & Al-Qadi, IL (eds), Advanced
testing and characterization of bituminous materials, Taylor & Francis, London, UK, chapter 70.
Bonaquist, R 1992, An assessment of the increased damage potential of wide based single tires,
International conference on asphalt pavements, 7th, 1992, Nottingham, UK, International Society for
Asphalt Pavements, Austin, Texas, pp 1-16.
Chatti, K & Lee, HS 2004, Evaluation of strain and energy based fatigue prediction methods for asphalt
pavements subjected to multiple-axle loadings, International Journal of Pavements, vol. 3, no. 1/2, pp.
39-49.
Chatti, K, Manik, A, Salama, H, Brake, N, Haider, SW , El Mohtar, C & Lee, HS 2009, Effect of Michigan
multi-axle trucks on pavement distress and profile: volume 2: flexible pavements, final report, project RC1504, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI, USA.
Christison, JT 1986a, Vehicle weights and dimensions study: volume 8: pavements response to heavy
vehicle test program: part 1: data summary report, Canroad Transportation Research Corporation,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Christison, JT 1986b, Vehicle weights and dimensions study: volume 9: pavements response to heavy
vehicle test program: part 2: load equivalency factors, Canroad Transportation Research, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 2014, Master specification: part 215: supply of
pavement materials, DPTI, Adelaide, SA.
Hajek, JJ & Agarwal, AC 1990, Influence of axle group spacing on pavement damage, Transportation
Research Record, no. 1286, pp. 138-49.
Heinrichs, KW, Liu, MJ, Darter, MI, Carpenter, SH & Ioannides, AM 1988, Rigid pavement analysis and
design, FHWA-RD-88-068, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia, USA.
Holtrop, W & Moffatt, MA 2008, Design of sprayed seal suitable for accelerated pavement testing,
International sprayed sealing conference, 1st, 2008, Adelaide, South Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont
South, Vic, 17 pp.
Homsi, F 2011, Endommagement des chausses bitumineuses sous chargements multi-essieux, (in
French), Thses de Doctorat, Universit de Nantes, France.
Homsi, F, Bodin, D, Yotte, S, Breysse, D & Balay, J-M 2011. Multiple-axle loadings: shape parameters and
their effect on the fatigue life, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, vol. 15, no. 5,
pp. 743-58.
Homsi, F, Bodin, D, Yotte, S, Breysse, D & Balay, J-M 2012, Fatigue life modelling of asphalt pavements
under multiple-axle loadings, Road Materials and Pavement Design, vol.13, no.4, pp. 749-68.
Jameson, G 2013, Technical basis of Austroads guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural
design, research report ARR 384, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Kogo, K & Himeno, K 2008, The effects of different waveforms and rest period in cyclic loading on the
fatigue behavior of the asphalt mixtures, in Al-Qadi, IL, Scarpas, T & Loizas, A (eds), Pavement cracking:
mechanisms modeling, detection, testing and case histories, CRC Press, London, UK, pp. 509-17.
LCPC & SETRA1997, French design manual for pavement structures, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et
Chausses & Service dtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Paris, France.
Merbouh, M, Breysse, D, Moriceau L & Laradi, N 2007, Comportement en fatigue des enrobs de
chausses aronautiques sous actions de grande intensit (in French), Actes des Rencontres de
lAssociation Universitaire de Gnie Civil (AUGC), 25th, 2007, Bordeaux, AUGC, Bordeaux, France, 9 pp.
MINCAD Systems 2009, CIRCLY 5: user manual, MINCAD Systems, Richmond South, Vic.
Moffatt, MA, Sharp, KG, Vertessy, NJ, Johnson-Clarke, JR, Vuong, BT & Yeo, REY 1998, The performance
of insitu stabilised marginal material sandstone pavements, research report ARR 322, ARRB Transport
Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Nataatmadja, A, Tao, SY & Chim, K 2012, Design of subgrade CBR for flexible pavements: comparison of
predictive methods, ARRB conference, 25th, 2012, Perth, Western Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont
South, Vic, 16 pp.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1998, Dynamic interaction between vehicles and
infrastructure experiment (DIVINE): Technical report, final report, DSTI/DOT/RTR/IR6(98)1/FINAL,
OECD, Paris, France.
Packard, R & Ray, GK 1986, Update of Portland cement concrete pavement design, in Sanford, PH,(ed),
Solutions for pavement rehabilitation problems, American Society of Civil Engineers. Highway Division,
Arlington, Texas.
Packard, R & Tayabji, S 1985, New PCA thickness design procedure for concrete highway and street
pavements, International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design And Rehabilitation, 3rd, 1985, West
Lafayette, Indiana, USA, Purdue University School of Engineering, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp. 225-36.
Portland Cement Association 1984, Thickness design for concrete highway and street pavements, PCA,
Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Rabe, R 2008, Pavements under permanent stress: a closer look inside a structure, International
conference on accelerated pavement testing, 3rd, 2008, Madrid, Spain, Centre for Studies And
Experimentation In Public Works (CEDEX), Madrid, Spain, 20 pp.
Rilett, LR & Hutchinson, BG 1988, LEF estimation from Canroad pavement load-deflection data,
Transportation Research Record, no. 1196, pp. 170-8.
Salama, H & Chatti, K 2006, Comparison of different summation methods to account for fatigue and rutting
damage in asphalt concrete pavements subjected to multiple axle loads, International conference on
asphalt pavements, 10th, 2006, Quebec City, Canada, International Society for Asphalt Pavements, White
Bear Lake, MN, USA.
Scala, AJ 1970a, Comparison of the response of pavements to single and tandem axle loads, ARRB
conference, 5th, 1970, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont
South, Vic, pp. 231-52.
Scala, AJ 1970b, Prediction of repetitions on roads, internal report AIR 139-2, Australian Road Research
Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Scala, AJ 1977, Preliminary study of a pavement management system, internal report AIR 175-1, Australian
Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
South African National Roads Agency 2013 South African pavement engineering manual: chapter 10:
pavement design, revision 1.0, SANRAL, Pretoria, South Africa.
Stevenson, JM 1976, A study of the economics of road vehicle limits: pavements, National Association of
Australian State Road Authorities, Sydney, NSW.
Sweatman, PF 1983, A study of dynamic wheel forces in axle group suspensions of heavy vehicles, special
report 27, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Subagio, B, Cahyanto, H, Rahman, A & Mardiya, S 2005, Multi-layer pavement structural analysis using
method of equivalent thickness: case study: Jakarta-Cikampek toll road, Journal of the Eastern Asia
Society for Transportation Studies, vol. 6, pp. 55-65.
Ullidtz, P 1998, Modelling flexible pavement response and performance, Polyteknisk Forlag, Lyngby,
Denmark.
Uzan, J 1992, Resilient characterization of pavement materials, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 453-59.
VicRoads 2013, Standard specification: section 812: crushed rock for pavement base and subbase,
VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Vuong, B 2002, Estimates of equivalent load for a quad axle, contract report RC2776, ARRB Transport
Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Vuong, B 1991, EFROMD2 users guide: a computer-based program for back calculating elastic properties
from pavement deflection bowls, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Yeo, REY & Sharp, KG 2006, Influence of vertical load and tyre type on the performance of unbound
granular pavements, ARRB conference, 22nd, 2006, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, ARRB Group,
Vermont South, Vic, 11 pp.
Yeo, R, Koh, SL, Hore-Lacy, W & Uebergang, T 2007, The relative damaging effects of quad axles and
triaxles, research report ARR 369, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Australian Standard
AS 1012.11-2000, Methods of testing concrete: method 11: determination of the modulus of rupture.
International Standard
EN12697-24:2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 24: resistance to fatigue.
Superseded and no longer available
Austroads 2004, Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP-G17-04,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1979, Interim guide to pavement thickness design,
NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1987, Pavement design: a guide to the structural
design of road pavements, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
Appendix A
Mean Deformation after Bedding-in:

Tabulated
The following tables list the mean deformation for each chainage against the number of cycles applied after
bedding-in. Prior to calculating these values, the raw data presented in Austroads (2013) were examined to
ensure that inconsistent readings were identified. For each chainage, the progression of deformation with
increasing loading cycles was plotted, and visual examination was used to identify readings which were
inconsistent with readings taken at adjacent cycle counts. The excluded data points are denoted N/A in the
following tables. Additionally, only chainages that were considered to have been evenly loaded
(Section 6.6.2) are presented.
Table A 1: Mean deformation (mm) after bedding-in Experiment 3500
Cycles
Chainage (m)
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
5 000
0.1
0.2
N/A
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
N/A
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
12 500
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.5
20 000
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.8
0.3
1.3
1.1
50 610
1.4
1.7
0.9
1.0
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.0
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.7
1.1
1.9
2.0
64 611
2.0
2.3
1.5
1.2
1.9
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.6
2.1
2.9
2.0
1.5
2.2
2.0
71 250
2.0
2.4
1.7
1.4
2.1
N/A
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.2
3.0
2.3
1.5
2.3
2.2
79 000
2.2
2.5
1.8
1.6
2.4
N/A
3.2
2.6
2.7
2.5
3.1
2.4
1.6
2.5
2.4
90 000
2.5
2.6
1.7
1.6
2.4
N/A
3.3
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.1
N/A
1.8
2.5
2.7
112 000
N/A
3.0
2.1
2.3
N/A
2.9
3.7
3.2
3.3
3.0
3.3
3.1
N/A
3.1
N/A
165 000
3.0
3.8
2.8
2.7
4.0
3.8
4.7
3.5
4.0
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.1
3.8
3.9
190 000
3.2
4.0
2.9
2.9
4.3
4.0
5.0
N/A
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.2
4.1
4.1
215 000
3.2
N/A
3.0
3.0
4.5
4.3
5.2
4.2
N/A
4.1
4.1
4.4
3.4
4.1
4.3
285 000
3.7
4.5
N/A
3.5
5.2
4.6
5.6
N/A
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.8
3.6
4.6
N/A
315 000
3.7
4.6
3.6
3.7
N/A
4.7
5.7
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.5
N/A
3.7
4.6
4.8
337 450
3.7
4.6
N/A
3.8
5.6
4.9
5.8
5.0
5.1
5.0
4.6
5.1
3.8
4.7
4.9

Cycles
Chainage (m)
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
2 500
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
5 000
2.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
15 500
5.8
4.1
3.3
2.9
2.5
2.1
1.7
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.8
30 000
8.3
6.1
5.0
4.8
3.8
3.4
2.5
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.2
66 000
10.7
8.8
7.3
6.5
5.5
4.8
3.7
3.0
2.6
2.2
2.0
90 000
11.8
9.7
8.4
7.5
6.3
5.5
4.3
3.5
3.3
2.6
2.2
120 000
12.4
10.4
9.1
8.0
7.0
6.2
4.8
4.0
3.6
2.9
2.5
139 000
12.9
11.0
9.3
8.3
N/A
6.6
5.1
N/A
N/A
3.0
2.6
161 303
13.2
11.3
9.4
8.9
7.3
6.7
5.3
4.5
3.8
3.2
2.7
190 000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.9
5.5
N/A
4.0
N/A
N/A
239 000
13.7
12.0
10.0
9.3
7.9
7.3
5.8
4.9
4.3
3.5
3.1
290 000
14.0
12.4
10.4
9.9
8.3
7.6
6.2
5.2
4.5
3.6
3.1
315 000
14.2
N/A
10.4
N/A
N/A
7.6
6.1
5.2
4.5
3.7
3.2
338 000
14.3
12.6
10.6
10.1
8.4
7.7
6.3
5.4
4.6
3.8
3.3
380 000
14.8
12.9
10.9
10.1
8.6
7.9
6.5
5.5
4.8
N/A
3.4

Cycles
Chainage (m)
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
5 500
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.2
N/A
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
8 500
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
N/A
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
15 000
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.5
23 000
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
30 000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.7
38 000
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.7
50 000
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
65 000
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
102 000
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
115 000
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.2
130 000
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.4
161 850
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.3
220 000
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.4
253 101
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.6
265 350
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.7
2.2
1.7
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.8
279 111
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.7
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.8

Cycles
Chainage (m)
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
1 000
0.1
N/A
N/A
0.1
0.3
N/A
0.5
N/A
N/A
0.1
6 000
0.5
N/A
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.2
N/A
0.1
11 750
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.5
25 750
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.3
0.8
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.8
35 001
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.9
1.2
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
41 000
2.1
1.9
1.6
2.0
1.3
0.8
1.4
0.9
0.8
0.8
55 088
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.7
0.9
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
77 000
3.1
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.1
90 000
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.6
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
103 615
3.5
3.3
2.8
2.8
2.0
1.2
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.4
125 000
3.7
3.6
2.9
3.0
2.1
1.2
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.4
155 000
4.1
3.9
3.2
3.3
2.3
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.5
181 148
4.3
4.2
3.3
3.6
2.6
1.6
2.1
2.0
2.2
1.8
194 600
4.4
4.3
3.4
3.7
2.8
1.6
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.0
212 419
4.5
4.4
3.6
4.0
3.0
2.1
2.4
2.1
2.3
2.2
245 190
5.0
5.3
N/A
N/A
3.4
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.2
272 200
5.5
5.6
4.4
4.7
3.4
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.2
279 400
5.4
5.6
4.4
4.5
3.3
2.5
2.9
2.7
3.1
2.4
294 820
5.4
5.8
4.7
5.0
3.5
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.7

Cycles
Chainage (m)
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
10.5
11.0
5 000
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
2.2
1.5
1.3
0.6
0.8
10 800
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.4
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.7
3.3
2.6
1.9
1.3
1.6
13 000
2.1
2.0
2.6
2.2
2.9
2.3
3.0
2.9
3.3
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.5
3.0
2.3
1.6
0.9
20 000
2.2
2.7
2.7
2.5
3.3
2.7
3.2
3.3
3.9
3.4
3.6
4.0
4.0
3.4
2.3
1.7
0.9
25 900
2.6
3.1
2.9
3.0
3.4
3.1
3.5
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.0
2.8
2.1
1.3
33 030
3.2
3.4
3.0
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.7
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.8
5.3
4.8
3.3
2.3
1.7
44 000
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.8
4.2
4.3
4.3
5.5
5.1
4.9
5.1
5.6
6.1
5.3
3.8
2.8
2.2
52 572
4.2
4.4
3.9
3.9
4.8
4.8
4.1
5.2
5.3
5.0
5.6
5.7
6.8
6.1
4.4
3.3
2.8
66 700
4.6
4.7
4.4
4.6
5.3
5.4
4.7
5.8
5.5
5.9
6.3
6.3
7.4
6.8
5.1
3.6
3.2
79 900
4.6
4.8
4.2
4.9
5.2
5.4
4.9
6.0
6.1
5.9
6.6
6.6
7.8
7.3
5.1
3.7
3.4
8.3
8.0
5.6
4.6
3.3
113 000
5.0
5.4
4.8
5.4
6.1
5.8
5.8
6.7
6.9
7.3
7.2
N/
A
123 200
5.1
5.4
5.0
5.7
6.1
6.1
5.8
6.9
7.1
7.8
7.3
N/
A
8.4
8.4
5.8
4.9
3.3
140 000
5.4
5.6
5.3
5.9
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.1
7.4
7.7
7.4
7.4
8.6
8.8
6.2
5.0
3.6
158 000
5.5
6.0
5.7
N/
A
6.4
6.2
6.3
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.6
9.0
8.4
6.9
5.0
4.1
180 267
5.8
6.3
5.7
6.2
N/
A
6.7
6.6
7.8
N/
A
8.4
8.0
N/
A
9.3
9.2
7.4
5.9
4.4
194 000
5.9
6.5
5.8
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.5
7.7
7.8
8.2
8.3
8.2
9.5
9.0
7.1
5.7
4.5
222 656
6.1
6.5
6.1
6.7
6.8
6.7
7.1
7.8
8.1
8.9
8.7
8.6
9.7
9.5
7.4
6.1
4.6
238 900
6.2
N/
A
6.2
6.8
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.9
N/
A
8.7
8.7
8.8
9.7
9.7
7.8
6.5
5.1
260 000
6.4
6.9
6.3
7.1
7.1
7.1
NA
8.2
8.5
8.8
N/
A
8.9
9.8
10.
2
8.0
6.7
5.6

Cycles
Chainage (m)
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
10.5
3 000
0.1
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.2
0.3
N/A
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
N/A
0.2
0.1
N/A
8 280
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.2
14 000
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.5
23 000
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.9
44 000
2.0
2.3
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.1
1.7
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
68 200
2.3
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.5
89 000
2.7
3.1
2.5
2.6
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.5
120 000
3.2
3.7
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.3
2.8
3.3
2.7
3.2
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.0
150 000
3.3
3.9
3.2
3.1
3.8
3.7
3.0
3.6
3.1
3.1
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.4
193 100
3.6
4.1
3.5
3.5
4.1
4.1
3.4
4.0
3.3
3.4
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.4
233 000
4.0
4.5
3.7
3.8
4.3
4.4
3.5
4.4
3.6
3.8
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.6
254 600
4.1
4.3
3.8
4.0
4.5
4.6
3.8
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.7
287 500
4.3
4.7
4.3
4.1
4.6
4.6
3.9
4.7
3.9
4.0
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.8
312 223
4.3
5.0
4.4
4.4
4.8
4.7
4.2
4.8
4.1
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
2.8
3.1
360 000
4.6
5.0
4.4
4.6
4.9
4.7
4.3
5.1
4.2
4.3
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.4
2.9
2.9

Cycles
Chainage (m)
3.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
6.5
7.0
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
4 675
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
7 650
1.3
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.3
13 300
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.5
21 150
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
30 000
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.2
0.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
N/A
1.2
1.6
40 001
2.6
2.5
2.2
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.5
45 296
2.9
2.7
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.9
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.5
54 000
3.3
2.9
2.7
1.9
1.9
1.3
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.6
2.3
1.5
1.6
63 401
3.4
3.0
2.7
1.9
1.9
1.5
2.4
1.9
2.3
1.7
2.5
1.8
1.6
70 000
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.0
2.0
1.6
2.6
1.9
2.4
1.6
2.4
2.0
1.5
77 549
3.6
3.2
2.9
1.9
2.1
1.7
2.7
2.0
2.6
2.0
2.6
2.1
1.7
88 201
3.9
3.5
2.9
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.2
2.9
2.1
2.7
2.3
1.8
101 350
4.0
3.6
3.0
2.2
2.4
1.8
2.9
2.3
2.9
2.2
2.8
2.5
1.7
108 000
4.0
3.6
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.0
3.0
2.3
2.9
2.3
3.0
2.4
1.9
116 000
4.2
3.9
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.9
2.3
3.2
2.4
3.0
2.4
2.4
124 000
4.3
3.9
3.3
2.7
2.5
2.2
3.0
2.5
3.2
2.5
3.2
2.2
2.1
139 200
4.4
4.3
3.4
2.7
2.6
2.2
3.0
2.7
3.5
2.5
3.3
2.3
2.1
155 000
4.5
4.3
3.4
2.7
2.7
2.2
3.1
2.5
3.3
2.7
3.4
2.5
2.3
170 000
4.8
4.3
3.6
2.9
2.8
2.5
3.3
2.6
3.4
2.9
3.6
2.6
2.2
186 500
4.7
4.6
3.5
3.1
3.0
2.5
3.4
2.7
3.5
2.7
3.5
2.8
2.5
206 500
5.3
4.4
3.9
3.1
3.2
2.6
3.4
3.1
3.5
2.8
3.5
N/A
2.5
216 000
5.1
4.5
3.7
3.1
3.0
2.6
3.6
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.7
N/A
2.7
230 765
5.0
4.6
4.1
3.3
3.1
2.7
3.5
3.1
3.8
3.0
3.7
3.0
2.7
240 600
5.3
4.8
4.0
3.4
3.3
2.9
3.6
3.2
3.7
3.0
3.7
2.8
2.8
265 000
5.3
5.0
4.1
3.7
3.3
3.0
3.6
3.3
3.9
3.2
3.8
2.9
2.7
280 000
5.6
5.1
4.3
3.5
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.3
3.9
3.2
3.9
3.0
2.9
304 003
5.8
5.0
4.2
3.4
3.5
3.1
N/A
3.4
3.9
3.3
3.9
3.1
2.9
312 000
5.7
5.2
4.3
3.5
3.5
3.0
N/A
3.6
4.1
3.3
4.0
3.0
2.9
325 700
5.8
5.1
4.5
3.5
3.5
3.2
N/A
3.4
4.1
3.3
4.0
3.0
2.8

Cycles
Chainage (m)
4.0
4.5
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
8 200
1.0
2.0
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.5
1.7
15 325
0.3
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.5
2.0
1.8
0.9
1.4
1.1
1.8
36 000
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.4
2.6
1.1
2.2
1.7
2.9
66 366
1.7
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.9
3.1
3.1
1.8
3.1
2.3
3.3
73 000
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.9
3.6
3.2
2.5
3.2
2.1
3.4
174 939
3.0
3.3
3.1
3.9
3.5
4.8
N/A
3.6
4.4
3.4
3.9
180 640
3.1
3.2
3.4
4.3
3.7
N/A
4.2
3.4
4.3
3.4
4.0
192 532
3.4
3.3
3.3
4.3
3.9
5.0
4.1
3.8
N/A
3.6
4.2
211 273
3.1
3.3
3.8
N/A
3.8
4.9
4.1
4.1
4.9
3.6
4.3
230 402
3.2
N/A
3.9
4.4
4.1
5.2
4.3
4.0
N/A
N/A
4.4
268 232
3.9
3.5
3.7
N/A
4.3
N/A
4.7
4.0
5.1
3.9
4.7

Cycles
Chainage (m)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
4 525
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.3
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.9
12 900
2.6
2.1
2.9
1.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.9
1.7
2.5
1.5
3.2
4.2
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.6
18 418
3.0
2.3
3.4
2.1
2.7
2.8
3.1
3.3
2.1
3.0
2.0
3.9
5.2
3.2
3.3
2.6
3.2
28 000
4.0
3.2
4.4
3.4
4.0
3.9
4.2
4.5
3.2
4.0
2.9
5.7
6.5
4.9
4.9
4.6
4.8
42 100
5.3
4.3
5.6
4.4
4.7
4.8
5.2
5.5
4.1
4.9
4.1
6.7
7.8
5.8
5.8
5.3
5.9
51 000
6.1
5.2
6.2
5.1
5.3
5.4
5.7
6.0
4.7
5.7
4.4
7.2
8.4
6.6
6.3
6.1
6.6
72 300
7.2
6.2
7.1
6.0
6.2
6.3
6.7
6.7
5.6
6.2
5.3
8.3
9.6
7.8
7.2
7.2
7.5
81 701
7.8
6.3
7.6
6.4
6.8
6.7
6.9
7.2
6.0
6.6
5.6
8.8
10.0
8.1
7.5
7.3
8.2
94 657
7.8
6.4
7.6
6.7
6.7
6.7
7.2
7.6
5.9
6.8
6.1
9.1
10.2
8.6
8.2
8.1
8.4
102 257
8.2
6.9
8.3
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.5
6.0
7.0
6.1
9.2
10.3
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.7
178 000
9.8
8.9
8.5
8.6
7.9
7.7
8.3
8.6
8.2
8.9
8.2
10.0
10.9
10.6
9.6
10.5
10.4
183 764
9.7
8.8
8.3
8.5
8.0
7.9
8.4
8.6
8.3
9.0
8.3
10.0
10.9
10.6
9.5
10.6
10.3
190 426
9.9
8.9
8.8
9.0
8.0
8.2
8.6
8.8
8.2
8.8
8.0
10.2
11.5
10.9
10.2
10.6
10.4
197 000
10.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.3
8.3
8.6
8.8
8.3
9.0
8.2
10.3
11.5
10.9
10.0
10.8
10.7
204 400
10.2
9.2
8.8
8.8
8.4
8.3
8.8
8.9
8.2
9.0
8.1
10.3
11.4
10.9
10.0
10.7
10.6
212 700
10.1
9.1
8.8
8.9
8.2
8.4
8.8
9.0
8.4
9.1
8.2
10.4
11.6
10.9
10.1
10.7
10.7
226 400
10.4
9.2
9.1
8.9
8.5
8.5
8.8
9.1
8.4
9.0
8.3
10.6
11.8
11.0
10.3
11.0
10.6
239 100
10.4
9.4
9.0
9.0
8.5
8.6
9.0
9.3
8.4
9.1
8.4
10.7
11.9
11.2
10.5
11.0
10.9
247 320
10.3
9.6
9.2
9.2
8.6
8.6
9.2
9.3
8.7
9.4
8.5
10.9
12.2
11.4
10.6
11.1
10.9
254 958
10.5
9.5
9.1
9.1
8.4
8.6
9.3
9.3
8.7
9.3
8.5
NA
12.1
11.3
10.5
11.1
10.9
260 900
10.7
9.4
9.4
9.1
8.6
8.9
9.2
9.5
8.7
9.5
8.7
11.0
12.1
11.5
10.6
11.3
11.1
281 878
10.8
9.6
9.6
9.4
8.8
8.9
9.4
9.6
8.8
9.5
8.6
11.2
12.3
11.6
10.7
11.6
11.1

Cycles
Chainage (m)
3. 5
4.0
4. 5
5.0
5. 5
7.0
7. 5
8.0
8. 5
9.0
7 500
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.1
15 000
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.4
0.4
20 000
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.9
28 900
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.7
2.3
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.4
40 000
2.4
2.8
1.9
2.4
2.1
3.0
0.8
2.8
1.6
1.6
50 000
2.3
2.9
2.2
2.0
2.0
3.1
1.6
2.4
1.6
1.6
65 000
2.3
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.1
1.5
80 000
2.5
2.3
N/A
2.3
2.5
2.3
N/A
2.1
N/A
1.6
115 000
2.5
N/A
2.8
2.4
N/A
2.6
3.0
2.4
1.7
2.0
140 000
2.6
2.8
3.1
2.5
3.1
2.8
3.1
2.6
2.0
2.0
161 695
2.8
3.1
3.3
2.6
3.1
2.8
3.5
2.7
1.9
2.1
190 000
2.7
3.2
3.5
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.5
2.8
2.4
2.2
224 500
N/A
3.5
3.7
2.8
N/A
3.2
4.0
3.2
2.4
2.3
Appendix B
Mean Deformation after Bedding-in:

Plotted
Figure B 1: Experiment 3500
(a) Chainage 1.0 m
(b) Chainage 1.5 m
(c) Chainage 2.0 m
(d) Chainage 2.5 m
(e) Chainage 3.0 m
(f) Chainage 3.5 m
Figure B 2: Experiment 3500 (continued)
(g) Chainage 4.0 m
(h) Chainage 4.5 m
(i) Chainage 5.0 m
(j) Chainage 5.5 m
(k) Chainage 6.0 m
(l) Chainage 6.5 m
(m) Chainage 7.0 m
(n) Chainage 7.5 m
(o) Chainage 8.0 m
(a) Chainage 3.5 m
(b) Chainage 4.0 m
(c) Chainage 4.5 m
(d) Chainage 5.0 m
(e) Chainage 5.5 m
(f) Chainage 6.0 m
(g) Chainage 6.5 m
(h) Chainage 7.0 m
(i) Chainage 7.5 m
(j) Chainage 8.0 m
(k) Chainage 8.5 m
(a) Chainage 4.5 m
(b) Chainage 5.0 m
(c) Chainage 5.5 m
(d) Chainage 6.0 m
(e) Chainage 6.5 m
(f) Chainage 7.0 m
(g) Chainage 7.5 m
(h) Chainage 8.0 m
(i) Chainage 8.5 m
(j) Chainage 9.0 m
(k) Chainage 9.5 m
(l) Chainage 10.0 m
(m) Chainage 10.5 m
(a) Chainage 4.0 m
(b) Chainage 4.5 m
(c) Chainage 5.0 m
(d) Chainage 5.5 m
Figure B 10:
Experiment 3504 (continued)
(e) Chainage 7.0 m
(f) Chainage 7.5 m
(g) Chainage 8.0 m
(h) Chainage 8.5 m
(i) Chainage 9.0 m
(j) Chainage 9.5 m
Figure B 11:
Experiment 3505
(a) Chainage 3.0 m
(b) Chainage 3.5 m
(c) Chainage 4.0 m
(d) Chainage 4.5 m
(e) Chainage 5.0 m
(f) Chainage 5.5 m
Figure B 12:
(g) Chainage 6.0 m
(h) Chainage 6.5 m
(i) Chainage 7.0 m
(j) Chainage 7.5 m
(k) Chainage 8.0 m
(l) Chainage 8.5 m
Figure B 13:
(m) Chainage 9.0 m
(n) Chainage 9.5 m
(o) Chainage 10.0 m
(p) Chainage 10.5 m
(q) Chainage 11.0 m
Figure B 14:
Experiment 3506
(a) Chainage 3.0 m
(b) Chainage 3.5 m
(c) Chainage 4.0 m
(d) Chainage 4.5 m
(e) Chainage 5.0 m
(f) Chainage 5.5 m
Figure B 15:
(g) Chainage 6.0 m
(h) Chainage 6.5 m
(i) Chainage 7.0 m
(j) Chainage 7.5 m
(k) Chainage 8.0 m
(l) Chainage 8.5 m
Figure B 16:
(m) Chainage 9.0 m
(n) Chainage 9.5 m
(o) Chainage 10.0 m
(p) Chainage 10.5 m
Figure B 17:
Experiment 3507
(a) Chainage 3.5 m
(b) Chainage 4.0 m
(c) Chainage 5.0 m
(d) Chainage 6.0 m
(e) Chainage 6.5 m
(f) Chainage 7.0 m
Figure B 18:
(g) Chainage 8.0 m
(h) Chainage 8.5 m
(i) Chainage 9.0 m
(j) Chainage 9.5 m
(k) Chainage 10.0 m
(l) Chainage 10.5 m
Figure B 19:
(m) Chainage 11.0 m
Figure B 20:
Experiment 3508
(a) Chainage 4.0 m
(b) Chainage 4.5 m
(c) Chainage 5.5 m
(d) Chainage 6.0 m
Figure B 21:
(e) Chainage 6.5 m
(f) Chainage 7.0 m
(g) Chainage 7.5 m
(h) Chainage 8.0 m
(i) Chainage 8.5 m
(j) Chainage 9.0 m
Figure B 22:
Experiment 3508 (continued
(k) Chainage 9.5 m
Figure B 23:
Experiment 3511
(a) Chainage 2.0 m
(b) Chainage 2.5 m
(c) Chainage 3.0 m
(d) Chainage 3.5 m
Figure B 24:
(e) Chainage 4.0 m
(f) Chainage 4.5 m
(g) Chainage 5.0 m
(h) Chainage 5.5 m
(i) Chainage 6.5 m
(j) Chainage 7.0 m
Figure B 25:
(k) Chainage 7.5 m
(l) Chainage 8.0 m
(m) Chainage 8.5 m
(n) Chainage 9.0 m
(o) Chainage 9.5 m
(p) Chainage 10.0 m
Figure B 26:
(q) Chainage 10.5 m
Figure B 27:
Experiment 3514
(a) Chainage 3.5 m
(b) Chainage 4.0 m
(c) Chainage 4.5 m
(d) Chainage 5.0 m
Figure B 28:
(e) Chainage 5.5 m
(f) Chainage 7.0 m
(g) Chainage 7.5 m
(h) Chainage 8 m
(i) Chainage 8.5 m
(j) Chainage 9 m
Appendix C
Pavement Deflection and Back-Calculated Moduli
Table C 1: Pavement thickness, deflection and back-calculated moduli after bedding-in Experiment 3500
Chainage
(m)
Deflection (500 kPa load) (m)
Thickness
(mm)
Back-calculated moduli
(MPa)
Offset from load (mm)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
2.0
300
403
814
586
409
255
159
109
85
61
50
1000
341
52
35
83
120
178
137
2.5
292
404
929
605
431
253
153
108
83
61
51
757
232
75
26
120
85
241
135
3.0
284
405
994
701
494
287
171
116
90
62
52
1000
195
53
26
71
84
158
132
3.5
285
408
1108
802
557
318
185
124
94
65
51
999
139
50
24
79
55
128
130
4.0
286
410
1012
726
494
297
174
119
90
63
49
1000
167
53
28
94
59
126
137
4.5
288
406
1002
704
497
291
164
112
87
58
48
936
201
50
26
86
72
153
141
5.0
289
401
972
670
464
266
153
101
79
56
46
1000
175
59
25
71
119
180
147
5.5
288
401
936
647
425
241
136
94
75
56
46
750
217
50
33
76
120
239
149
6.0
287
401
902
635
427
240
139
94
75
54
46
1000
198
50
30
101
120
212
151
6.5
290
403
967
649
425
233
134
93
76
57
49
865
163
50
31
107
120
276
144
7.0
292
404
876
621
420
239
138
99
80
60
49
948
225
50
33
107
112
252
140
7.5
296
402
892
611
429
249
151
104
83
58
50
1000
196
76
28
72
118
228
139
8.0
299
399
931
624
446
259
157
108
84
63
53
995
226
50
27
120
119
232
131
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
3.5
300
378
1925
1286
846
430
220
122
95
77
66
255
74
50
10
37
119
300
107
4.0
294
380
1808
1250
813
402
211
121
96
75
63
549
50
50
13
29
120
300
108
4.5
287
382
1836
1262
813
386
186
104
91
73
61
419
50
50
12
46
120
300
115
5.0
284
384
1648
1135
721
341
169
101
88
73
58
586
50
50
13
82
120
300
118
5.5
281
385
1546
1034
603
308
157
102
86
69
58
465
66
50
16
72
96
298
122
6.0
279
393
1492
1034
645
319
174
104
83
69
56
540
73
50
17
40
119
262
123
6.5
277
401
1354
938
587
312
168
108
88
66
55
752
84
50
19
64
93
178
125
7.0
279
408
1251
846
548
304
169
106
87
64
53
790
100
50
22
55
103
172
129
7.5
280
415
1165
786
519
289
159
102
82
62
53
788
132
50
21
68
99
280
131
8.0
283
421
1119
731
473
255
151
98
79
59
50
865
109
50
33
54
115
201
139
8.5
285
427
958
708
472
263
154
101
82
61
55
1000
170
50
27
68
120
300
130
Table C 3:
Chainage
(m)
Pavement thickness, deflection and back-calculated moduli after bedding-in Experiment 3503
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
5.0
283
419
836
550
370
220
141
98
77
54
51
956
253
54
50
66
109
262
144
6.0
286
405
818
547
386
208
130
89
71
50
43
1000
225
50
47
98
120
176
166
7.0
286
406
772
512
346
194
120
80
66
52
46
1000
230
50
52
120
120
300
161
8.0
285
422
850
572
371
209
129
87
72
54
46
1000
188
50
48
87
119
274
153
9.0
279
422
855
604
421
268
176
120
92
58
47
1000
272
75
45
63
68
97
148
10.0
269
411
945
656
457
293
189
129
100
63
49
995
216
60
48
65
59
74
142
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
4.5
300
347
933
617
399
204
119
83
72
53
42
1000
105
53
46
120
120
191
164
5.5
275
368
909
592
354
189
108
75
66
51
42
1000
109
50
47
120
120
295
167
6.5
279
360
725
421
255
144
92
67
59
46
39
914
127
91
112
120
120
300
192
7.5
293
349
636
434
271
146
94
71
61
47
39
1000
201
69
120
120
120
300
187
8.5
297
340
664
435
263
150
94
67
58
44
36
1000
203
63
115
120
120
300
198
9.5
294
355
673
456
274
152
92
68
58
43
34
1000
200
57
113
120
120
300
200
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
3.0
301
383
1390
860
675
371
209
134
100
85
69
206
387
50
12
120
120
300
102
4.0
282
398
1384
983
702
381
207
129
97
84
70
809
93
50
13
55
120
300
101
5.0
292
399
1420
981
685
371
209
135
100
87
73
874
73
50
15
45
120
287
100
6.0
291
402
1543
1017
788
439
232
135
99
88
74
295
173
50
13
28
120
300
100
7.0
292
387
1647
1017
779
385
211
121
91
81
69
154
260
50
10
117
120
300
106
8.0
293
384
1781
1092
806
400
200
121
90
81
68
542
58
50
10
99
120
300
106
9.0
286
390
1671
1019
778
383
193
112
83
77
63
162
211
50
10
101
120
300
115
10.0
296
377
1467
925
674
332
174
108
81
74
59
297
139
50
14
64
120
299
120
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
3.0
270
376
1033
779
498
250
125
77
64
53
48
1000
87
50
23
100
120
300
157
4.0
295
367
947
728
473
246
133
89
70
55
46
999
133
50
28
74
120
300
151
5.0
296
363
1000
673
463
247
140
93
71
56
48
1000
142
50
25
95
120
300
147
6.0
290
362
1119
742
481
259
143
88
70
53
51
690
120
50
33
67
106
132
159
7.0
295
366
1048
740
478
250
138
85
67
51
42
1000
103
50
28
67
120
210
164
8.0
291
372
1007
765
481
255
132
79
61
49
41
1000
105
50
29
47
120
300
169
9.0
288
373
912
678
441
212
113
71
56
45
38
1000
118
50
35
73
120
300
186
10.0
284
375
776
537
339
190
113
75
59
43
37
997
208
50
56
107
120
185
196
Table C 7: Pavement thickness, deflection and back-calculated stiffnesses after bedding-in Experiment 3507
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
2.5
289
331
1254
919
588
285
131
78
65
55
48
989
50
50
18
118
120
300
154
3.5
289
336
1313
875
555
277
140
82
68
58
47
829
61
50
26
40
120
300
150
4.5
293
334
1094
811
513
257
134
86
71
56
47
1000
76
50
24
78
120
300
149
5.5
293
336
993
613
401
199
107
72
64
52
43
996
80
50
43
120
120
300
168
6.5
285
354
850
566
332
181
104
71
61
52
42
1000
117
50
59
120
120
300
173
7.5
288
353
762
545
343
183
105
70
61
51
41
1000
175
50
55
120
120
300
177
8.5
296
351
801
526
334
171
101
68
60
51
38
1000
136
50
71
120
120
300
183
9.5
287
357
776
511
319
170
100
69
58
45
38
1000
168
50
64
120
120
300
190
10.5
289
355
770
483
306
167
99
68
58
44
37
864
202
50
72
120
120
294
194
Table C 8: Pavement thickness, deflection and back-calculated stiffnesses after bedding-in Experiment 3508
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
3.0
280
360
1385
1060
653
335
162
94
83
72
58
881
50
50
15
87
120
300
122
4.0
280
365
1438
1004
638
302
150
96
87
71
58
538
72
50
17
67
120
300
122
5.0
281
351
1329
999
586
301
161
100
85
70
56
992
50
50
18
84
120
276
123
6.0
284
351
1286
928
568
272
134
89
80
69
56
856
50
50
21
120
120
300
130
7.0
285
356
1379
1003
617
286
136
83
77
71
57
705
50
50
18
120
120
300
132
8.0
281
361
1469
1018
621
282
124
84
79
73
57
549
50
50
18
120
120
300
131
9.0
289
365
1530
962
598
262
124
81
78
69
53
486
50
50
19
120
120
300
137
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
3.0
272
386
1581
1095
660
319
138
68
57
62
59
526
50
50
13
97
120
300
154
4.0
277
397
1490
1076
674
328
144
76
67
65
58
631
50
50
15
80
120
300
140
5.0
272
413
1761
1224
769
366
170
91
75
69
63
486
50
50
12
54
120
300
123
6.0
284
418
1674
1173
737
387
198
117
94
75
67
376
80
50
14
29
120
300
107
7.0
281
430
1577
1015
661
328
173
106
92
76
67
692
50
50
16
81
120
300
109
8.0
280
424
1699
1218
770
399
209
127
100
80
68
360
83
50
15
28
70
300
103
9.0
290
416
1748
1102
736
369
203
128
107
76
70
602
50
50
16
36
120
200
102
10.0
292
404
1601
989
636
334
178
111
89
74
66
390
82
50
16
56
120
300
112
Chainage
(m)
Thickness
(mm)
(MPa)
Base
Clay
200
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
3.5
294
368
1633
1032
615
300
131
75
67
66
51
442
50
50
15
120
120
300
146
4.5
293
368
1726
958
572
243
86
51
60
64
54
225
50
50
20
119
120
300
184
5.5
290
358
1499
948
573
252
99
57
59
64
55
417
50
50
20
120
120
300
171
6.5
291
350
1543
894
530
218
74
53
60
63
53
298
50
50
26
120
120
300
189
7.5
288
350
1494
1021
607
283
119
67
64
64
55
409
53
50
19
103
117
300
154
8.5
294
348
1379
865
543
242
106
71
66
65
54
571
50
50
25
120
120
300
152
Appendix D
Comparison of Deflection Data:

Observed and Back-calculated
Figure D 1: Experiment 3500
(a) Chainage 2.0 m
(b) Chainage 2.5 m
(c) Chainage 3.0 m
(d) Chainage 3.5 m
(e) Chainage 4.0 m
(f) Chainage 4.5 m
Figure D 2: Experiment 3500 (continued)
(g) Chainage 5.0 m
(h) Chainage 5.5 m
(i) Chainage 6.0 m
(j) Chainage 6.5 m
(k) Chainage 7.0 m
(l) Chainage 7.5 m
(m) Chainage 8.0 m
(a) Chainage 3.5 m
(b) Chainage 4.0 m
(c) Chainage 4.5 m
(d) Chainage 5.0 m
(e) Chainage 5.5 m
(f) Chainage 6.0 m
(g) Chainage 6.5 m
(h) Chainage 7.0 m
(i) Chainage 7.5 m
(j) Chainage 8.0 m
(k) Chainage 8.5 m
(a) Chainage 5.0 m
(b) Chainage 6.0 m
(c) Chainage 7.0 m
(d) Chainage 8.0 m
(e) Chainage 9.0 m
(f) Chainage 10.0 m
(a) Chainage 4.5 m
(b) Chainage 5.5 m
(c) Chainage 6.5 m
(d) Chainage 7.5 m
Figure D 10:
(e) Chainage 8.5 m
Figure D 11:
(f) Chainage 9.5 m
Experiment 3505
(a) Chainage 3.0 m
(b) Chainage 4.0 m
(c) Chainage 5.0 m
(d) Chainage 6.0 m
Figure D 12:
Figure D 13:
(e) Chainage 7.0 m
(f) Chainage 8.0 m
(g) Chainage 9.0 m
(h) Chainage 10.0 m
Experiment 3506
(a) Chainage 3.0 m
(b) Chainage 4 m
Figure D 14:
(c) Chainage 5.0 m
(d) Chainage 6.0 m
(e) Chainage 7.0 m
(f) Chainage 8.0 m
(g) Chainage 9.0 m
(h) Chainage 10.0 m
Figure D 15:
Experiment 3507
(a) Chainage 2.5 m
(b) Chainage 3.5 m
(c) Chainage 4.5 m
(d) Chainage 5.5 m
(e) Chainage 6.5 m
(f) Chainage 7.5 m
Figure D 16:
(g) Chainage 8.5 m
(h) Chainage 9.5 m
(i) Chainage 10.5 m
Figure D 17:
Experiment 3508
(a) Chainage 3.0 m
(b) Chainage 4.0 m
Figure D 18:
(c) Chainage 5.0 m
(d) Chainage 6.0 m
(e) Chainage 7.0 m
(f) Chainage 8.0 m
(g) Chainage 9.0 m
Figure D 19:
Experiment 3511
(a) Chainage 3.0 m
(b) Chainage 4.0 m
(c) Chainage 5.0 m
(d) Chainage 6.0 m
(e) Chainage 7.0 m
(f) Chainage 8.0 m
Figure D 20:
(g) Chainage 9.0 m
Figure D 21:
(h) Chainage 10.0 m
Experiment 3514
(a) Chainage 3.5 m
(b) Chainage 4.5 m
(c) Chainage 5.5 m
(d) Chainage 6.5 m
Figure D 22:
(e) Chainage 7.5 m
(f) Chainage 8.5 m
Appendix E
Method of Equivalent Thickness
Odemark (Ullidtz 1998) developed an approximate method for transforming multi-layer structures into an
equivalent single layer structure with equivalent thicknesses and a modulus. The concept assumes that the
stresses and strains below a layer depend only upon the stiffness of that layer. Odemark defines that
stiffness layer as proportional to:
3
1 2
A1
where
thickness of the layer
elastic modulus of the layer
poissons ratio of the layer
It holds that if the two layers shown in Figure E 1 have the same stiffness, then the following equality applies:
13 1
23 2
=
1 12 1 22
A2
Figure E 1: Different layers
If the Poissons ratio of the two materials is the same, this equality can be transformed to yield:
A3
1
2 = 1
2
3
Attempting to match stresses and strains calculated using Odemarks method with those obtained from
elastic theory has prompted some researchers to incorporate a correction factor, , whose range has been
found to vary from 0.8 to 0.9 (Subagio et al. 2005) and 0.5 to 0.9 (Nataatmadja et al. 2012).
A4
1
2 = 1
2
3
This equation can be used to determine the stiffness of a single layer equivalent to two or more separate
layers.
Figure E 2: Transformation of two layers into single equivalent layer
Layer 1:
1 = 1
Layer 2:
2 = 2
= 1 + 2 = ( 1
Summing:
= [
(1 11
= [
3 2
1
) + ( 2 )
(1 31 + 2 32 )]
+ 2 21 3 )
]
= 1 + 2
If,
then:
(1 31 + 2 32 )
(1 11 3 + 2 21 3 )
= [
]
1 + 2
A5
Equation A5 allows the combination of two layers into a single layer with an equivalent modulus and
thickness equal to the sum of the two layers. The general form of the equation, allowing the determination of
the equivalency of layers is shown in Equation A6.
3
=1( 113 )
= [
]
=1
A6
Appendix F
Data Used in Load Pairing

Analyses
The following tables include the estimated number of loading cycles needed to reach the various deformation
levels used in the load pairing analyses in Section 6.9, as well as the aggregate stiffness parameters used in
those analyses. Definitions of the aggregate parameters can be found in Section 6.7.4.
The tables are presented in the following order:
40 kN single axle cycles to 4 mm deformation
60 kN tandem group cycles to 3 mm deformation
90 kN triaxle group cycles to 3 mm deformation
90 kN triaxle group cycles to 4 mm deformation.
Table F 1:
Cycles to 4 mm deformation level and aggregate stiffness parameters for 40 kN single axle locations
Experiment
Chainage
(m)
Group
Load
(kN)
Cycles to
4 mm
deformation
D0
(m)
E4
(MPa)
Ebase
(MPa)
Eclay
(MPa)
Esg
(MPa)
Estructure
(MPa)
Esupport
(MPa)
Erock
(MPa)
Ebase_low
(MPa)
Eimp_sg
(MPa)
3500
3.0
single
40
165 778
994
26
416
60
145
137
98
297
115
58
3500
4.0
single
40
110 931
1012
28
407
60
132
123
85
281
104
56
3500
5.0
single
40
175 369
972
25
411
72
164
149
112
287
110
67
3500
6.0
single
40
198 339
902
30
416
84
182
167
132
292
113
78
3500
8.0
single
40
200 571
931
27
424
89
182
175
141
287
117
81
3507
3.5
single
40
96 251
1313
26
313
62
225
157
145
190
56
48
3511
10.0
single
40
22 033
1601
16
174
64
206
140
142
137
65
57
3511
3.0
single
40
20 028
1581
13
209
77
227
150
151
149
50
63
3511
4.0
single
40
26 425
1490
15
244
72
220
151
148
162
50
62
3511
5.0
single
40
23 075
1761
12
195
62
212
139
138
142
50
54
3511
7.0
single
40
24 265
1577
16
264
72
205
153
148
168
50
67
3511
8.0
single
40
14 745
1699
15
164
38
202
122
118
137
67
36
3511
9.0
single
40
19 068
1748
16
234
57
151
117
106
151
50
51
Table F 2:
Cycles to 3 mm deformation level and aggregate stiffness parameters for 60 kN tandem group locations
Experiment
Chainage
(m)
Group
Load
(kN)
Cycles to
3 mm
deformation
D0
(m)
Ebase
(MPa)
Eclay
(MPa)
Esg
(MPa)
Estructure
(MPa)
Esupport
(MPa)
Erock
(MPa)
Ebase_low
(MPa)
Eimp_sg
(MPa)
3508
4.0
tandem
60
153 880
1438
220
68
211
151
147
161
62
56
3508
6.0
tandem
60
69 090
1286
319
87
215
170
164
188
50
72
3508
7.0
tandem
60
42 326
1379
268
86
216
163
161
168
50
70
3508
8.0
tandem
60
105 092
1469
216
86
216
157
161
148
50
71
3508
9.0
tandem
60
120 479
1530
195
86
219
154
161
135
50
72
3514
4.5
tandem
60
123 103
1726
108
86
242
139
162
91
50
73
3514
5.5
tandem
60
132 681
1499
172
87
236
151
162
124
50
72
Table F 3:
Experiment
Chainage
(m)
Group
Load
(kN)
Cycles to
3 mm
deformation
D0
(m)
E4
(MPa)
Ebase
(MPa)
Eclay
(MPa)
Esg
(MPa)
Estructure
(MPa)
Esupport
(MPa)
Erock
(MPa)
Ebase_low
(MPa)
Eimp_sg
(MPa)
3505
tandem
80
25 340
1390
12
214
84
201
161
155
177
164
67
3505
tandem
80
25 111
1384
13
317
63
201
157
140
214
71
53
3505
tandem
80
17 361
1420
15
332
60
194
151
134
202
61
52
3505
tandem
80
18 621
1543
13
173
54
200
136
130
154
102
44
3505
tandem
80
12 286
1647
10
155
82
203
148
152
139
132
65
3505
tandem
80
13 405
1781
10
217
76
203
148
148
147
54
61
3505
tandem
80
9780
1671
10
141
77
208
144
149
132
118
62
3505
10
tandem
80
22 778
1467
14
162
66
210
143
143
141
88
54
3506
tandem
80
93 896
1033
23
379
81
229
180
159
250
70
71
3506
tandem
80
110 665
947
28
394
74
226
180
156
251
86
66
3506
tandem
80
71 568
1000
25
397
80
224
184
160
254
89
70
3506
tandem
80
127 141
1119
33
287
69
146
119
94
204
82
63
3506
tandem
80
120 974
1048
28
384
72
187
150
123
234
74
63
3506
tandem
80
216 738
1007
29
385
65
235
170
148
239
75
58
3506
tandem
80
231 735
912
35
389
76
243
181
159
250
81
70
Table F 4:
Experiment
Chainage
(m)
Group
Load
(kN)
Cycles to
4 mm
deformation
D0
(m)
E4
(MPa)
Ebase
(MPa)
Eclay
(MPa)
Esg
(MPa)
Estructure
(MPa)
Esupport
(MPa)
Erock
(MPa)
3505
10.0
tandem
80
38 461
1467
14
162
66
210
143
143
3505
3.0
tandem
80
51 405
1390
12
214
84
201
161
155
3505
4.0
tandem
80
52 555
1384
13
317
63
201
157
3505
5.0
tandem
80
33 547
1420
15
332
60
194
3505
6.0
tandem
80
35 696
1543
13
173
54
3505
7.0
tandem
80
21 844
1647
10
155
82
3505
8.0
tandem
80
22 323
1781
10
217
3505
9.0
tandem
80
15 627
1671
10
3506
3.0
tandem
80
255 188
1033
23
3506
4.0
tandem
80
291 016
947
3506
5.0
tandem
80
180 451
3506
6.0
tandem
80
3506
7.0
tandem
80
Table F 5:
Ebase_low
(MPa)
Eimp_sg
(MPa)
141
88
54
177
164
67
140
214
71
53
151
134
202
61
52
200
136
130
154
102
44
203
148
152
139
132
65
76
203
148
148
147
54
61
141
77
208
144
149
132
118
62
379
81
229
180
159
250
70
71
28
394
74
226
180
156
251
86
66
1000
25
397
80
224
184
160
254
89
70
346 622
1119
33
287
69
146
119
94
204
82
63
349 890
1048
28
384
72
187
150
123
234
74
63
Cycles to 3 mm deformation level and aggregate stiffness parameters for 90 kN triaxle group locations
Experiment
Chainage
(m)
Group
Load
(kN)
Cycles to
3 mm
deformation
D0
(m)
Ebase
(MPa)
Eclay
(MPa)
Esg
(MPa)
Estructure
(MPa)
Esupport
(MPa)
Erock
(MPa)
Ebase_low
(MPa)
Eimp_sg
(MPa)
3501
5.5
triaxle
90
13 712
1546
194
61
210
142
141
145
58
54
3501
triaxle
90
17 954
1492
221
59
193
135
126
163
62
50
3501
6.5
triaxle
90
30 464
1354
295
59
152
125
102
204
68
54
3501
triaxle
90
47 737
1251
313
60
151
127
101
218
75
57
3501
7.5
triaxle
90
71 700
1165
323
63
206
159
137
235
89
59
3501
triaxle
90
138 534
1119
341
67
170
143
118
231
78
66
3501
8.5
triaxle
90
242 093
958
407
72
215
180
151
281
103
70
3504
4.5
triaxle
90
63 777
933
386
95
178
160
135
234
76
88
3504
5.5
triaxle
90
88 701
909
386
96
231
195
174
259
80
90
Table F 6:
Cycles to 4 mm deformation level and aggregate stiffness parameters for 90 kN triaxle group locations
Experiment
Chainage
(mm)
Group
Load
Cycles to 4
mm
D0
(m)
Ebase
(MPa)
Eclay
(MPa)
Esg
(MPa)
Estructure
(MPa)
Esupport
(MPa)
Erock
(MPa)
Ebase_low
(MPa)
Eimp_sg
(MPa)
3501
triaxle
90
11 181
1808
216
54
204
134
130
142
50
42
3501
4.5
triaxle
90
14 941
1836
173
59
208
133
136
126
50
48
3501
triaxle
90
17 635
1648
229
72
209
148
147
152
50
59
3501
5.5
triaxle
90
24 691
1546
194
61
210
142
141
145
58
54
3501
triaxle
90
33 227
1492
221
59
193
135
126
163
62
50
3501
6.5
triaxle
90
64 374
1354
295
59
152
125
102
204
68
54
3501
triaxle
90
113 701
1251
313
60
151
127
101
218
75
57
3501
7.5
triaxle
90
192 493
1165
323
63
206
159
137
235
89
59
3504
4.5
triaxle
90
133 404
933
386
95
178
160
135
234
76
88
3504
5.5
triaxle
90
235 555
909
386
96
231
195
174
259
80
90
Appendix G
Axle Loads in Multiple-axle Groups

that Cause the Same Damage as a
Standard Axle Determined from
3D-FEM Analyses and using
Homsis Damage Model
The following figures show the calculated axle loads with tandem, triaxle and quad-axle groups that will
cause the same damage as that caused by the Standard single axle with a load of 80 kN. Damage was
calculated as the inverse of the number of cycles to reach fatigue failure according to Homsis full multi-linear
model, using strain results from 3D-FEM modelling using Cast3M.
Figure G 1: Axle loads in multiple-axle groups that cause the same damage as a Standard Axle using
Homsis damage model asphalt model: 1000 mpa / granular model: high quality crushed rock
(a) Granular thickness = 200 mm / subgrade = highly

plastic clay
(b) Granular thickness = 200 mm / subgrade = sand
(c) Granular thickness = 400 mm / subgrade = highly

plastic clay
(d) Granular thickness = 400 mm / subgrade = sand
(e) Granular thickness = 600 mm / subgrade = highly

plastic clay
(f) Granular thickness = 600 mm / subgrade = sand
Homsis damage model asphalt model: 1000 MPa / granular model: lower subbase

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay
Homsis damage model asphalt model: 3000 MPa / granular model: high quality crushed rock

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay
Homsis damage model asphalt model: 5000 MPa / granular model: high quality crushed rock

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay

plastic clay
Appendix H
Cemented Material Flexural modulus test results
Table H 1: Summary of flexural modulus tests under different load pulse shapes
Sample
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Relative
density
%
Peak
strain
()
Peak
stress
(kPa)
Modulus (MPa)
C001
97.0
100.8
300
97.4
Sample deteriorated during test. Sample discarded.
C002
97.8
100.8
300
97.9
Large differences between LVDTs during tests. Logs indicated poor sample handling. Sample discarded.
C003
82.3
80.8
375
97.8
14
105
7 738
7 812
7 813
7 834
7 823
7 879
7 916
7 881
C004
80.5
82.5
375
97.1
12
207
17 874
17 778
17 740
17 660
18 134
18 079
18 214
18 093
C005
81.8
82.5
375
97.3
12
202
16 798
16 777
16 783
16 661
16 783
16 701
16 748
16 635
C006
81.5
81.5
375
99.0
15
139
9 213
9 374
9 234
9 251
9 434
9 511
9 484
9 485
C007
81.5
82.0
375
97.7
13
205
16 245
16 550
16 447
16 499
16 482
16 384
16 438
16 399
C008
96.0
100.8
300
96.4
28
431
16 059
15 955
15 765
15 480
15 561
15 464
15 331
15 222
C009
96.5
101.5
300
97.0
22
483
22 115
22 854
22 727
22 506
22 605
22 471
22 408
22 166
C010
95.0
102.5
300
97.8
27
451
16 441
16 791
16 842
16 674
16 962
16 837
16 834
16 585
C011
95.0
100.8
300
C012
104.3
101.3
300
98.3
23
449
19 882
19 742
19 545
19 470
19 560
19 435
19 610
19 461
C013
96.5
102.5
300
96.5
19
473
25 354
25 581
25 539
25 476
25 232
25 140
25 309
25 095
C014
102.0
102.0
300
100.0
24
452
19 255
19 296
19 145
18 828
19 075
18 859
19 093
18 848
C015
95.0
103.3
300
97.0
30
444
15 331
15 373
15 197
15 110
14 971
15 000
14 936
14 936
C016(1)
95.0
102.8
300
96.6
21
479
23 201
23 517
23 507
23 262
23 253
22 925
23 104
22 734
Pulse:
Haversine
Pulse:
1_00
Pulse:
2_40
Pulse:
2_80
Pulse:
3_40
Pulse:
3_80
Pulse:
4_40
Pulse:
4_80
Sample deteriorated during test. Sample discarded.
C017
96.5
95.8
300
98.3(2)
22
543
25 667
25 610
25 181
24 913
25 169
24 608
25 053
24 567
C017B
80.0
80.3
375
98.3
13
255
19 913
20 201
20 110
19 941
20 162
20 003
20 201
19 956
C018
96.0
100.3
300
99.5
24
498
21 449
21 590
21 164
20 932
21 380
20 840
21 341
21 155
C019
80.5
81.5
375
96.7
14
235
17 273
17 551
17 468
17 325
17 344
17 139
17 385
17 148
C020
80.8
81.0
375
95.3
14
191
14 336
14 396
14 355
14 309
14 383
14 285
14 401
14 316
C021
95.5
102.3
300
96.0
25
451
18 323
18 165
17 959
17 546
18 109
17 924
18 006
17 810
C022
79.8
79.3
375
101.0
13
262
19 775
19 965
19 882
19 772
19 903
19 729
19 862
19 760
23
474
21 143
21 225
20 742
20 515
20 707
20 433
20 876
20 543
13
265
20 549
20 722
20 626
20 549
20 542
20 269
20 133
19 875
C023
97.8
101.8
300
96.8(2)
C023B
82.0
81.0
375
96.8
Sample
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Relative
density
%
Peak
strain
()
Peak
stress
(kPa)
C024
96.3
101.3
300
99.3(2)
23
C024B
81.3
80.8
375
99.3
C025
95.3
99.3
300
Modulus (MPa)
Pulse:
Haversine
Pulse:
1_00
Pulse:
2_40
Pulse:
2_80
Pulse:
3_40
Pulse:
3_80
Pulse:
4_40
Pulse:
4_80
486
21 847
22 265
21 853
21 463
21 662
21 473
21 662
21 455
12
262
22 055
22 429
22 398
22 219
22 311
22 192
22 296
22 160
96.9
24
400
16 603
17 144
16 960
16 932
16 709
16 475
16 584
16 419
C026(1)
103.3
99.3
300
97.6(2)
21
472
23 494
23 628
23 474
22 675
23 238
22 654
23 068
22 636
C026B
80.8
82.8
375
97.6
13
271
22 184
21 985
21 879
22 057
21 970
22 015
21 826
21 849
C027
96.0
100.8
300
96.9
28
369
13 315
13 651
13 459
13 282
13 184
13 024
12 971
12 824
C028
103.5
99.0
300
97.9(2)
22
473
21 133
21 788
21 374
21 304
21 439
21 271
21 342
21 462
C028B
79.3
81.0
375
97.9
12
274
22 081
22 428
22 306
22 381
22 374
22 428
22 494
22 592
20
446
23 222
22 920
22 445
22 120
22 415
22 208
22 353
22 176
C029
104.5
101.5
300
97.8(2)
C029B
80.5
80.3
375
97.8
13
289
22 656
22 980
22 842
22 636
22 834
22 636
22 812
22 601
C030
103.0
101.8
300
96.4
24
450
19 438
19 369
19 166
19 203
18 875
18 607
18 980
18 495
C031
78.8
80.3
375
98.9
13
170
13 358
13 620
13 536
13 337
13 483
13 269
13 368
13 365
C032
81.0
81.5
375
98.1
13
230
18 380
18 627
18 681
18 303
18 453
18 190
18 488
18 216
C033
80.3
81.3
375
98.0
14
248
18 580
18 216
18 298
18 340
18 381
18 302
18 456
18 370
C034
80.3
80.8
375
96.7
14
251
18 103
18 274
18 287
18 157
18 181
18 013
18 202
18 029
C035
106.0
99.0
300
88.3
22
232
10 607
10 886
10 860
10 749
10 835
10 723
10 814
10 692
C036
80.5
81.0
375
97.2
14
249
18 042
18 235
18 269
18 163
18 261
18 213
18 201
18 140
C037
99.0
100.5
300
95.1
23
450
19 470
20 100
19 616
19 545
19 445
19 591
19 375
19 383
C038
80.5
80.5
375
97.7
13
252
19 613
19 870
19 825
19 636
19 802
19 610
19 799
19 585
C039
80.8
81.0
375
93.5
13
226
17 064
17 365
17 317
17 250
17 528
17 520
17 489
17 405
C040
79.5
80.5
375
98.9
13
217
16 633
16 908
17 051
16 914
16 735
16 703
16 735
16 644
C041
95.3
102.8
300
98.1(2)
22
477
21 971
21 921
21 960
21 652
21 827
21 560
21 686
21 515
C041B
79.8
82.0
375
98.1
13
259
20 502
20 745
20 624
20 466
20 537
20 409
20 522
20 387
C042
79.5
80.0
375
95.4
13
59
4 412
4 574
4 643
4 596
4 651
4 480
4 585
4 628
C043
100.8
100.8
300
99.2(2)
22
469
21 382
21 811
21 512
20 951
21 408
20 777
21 483
20 763
C043B
80.8
81.5
375
99.2
12
262
22 726
23 103
23 109
23 094
22 956
23 018
22 936
22 977
22
464
21 523
21 853
21 276
20 667
21 431
20 861
21 536
20 635
C044
100.8
101.5
300
98.6(2)
C044B
80.5
82.0
375
98.6
12
260
21 630
22 011
21 895
21 851
21 915
21 887
21 833
21 867
C045
79.8
79.8
375
97.1
13
259
19 394
19 848
19 799
19 808
20 023
19 853
19 996
20 056
Sample
C047
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Relative
density
%
Peak
strain
()
Peak
stress
(kPa)
82.3
80.5
375
98.2
13
Modulus (MPa)
Pulse:
Haversine
Pulse:
1_00
Pulse:
2_40
Pulse:
2_80
Pulse:
3_40
Pulse:
3_80
Pulse:
4_40
Pulse:
4_80
246
19 617
19 852
19 846
19 774
19 881
19 700
19 845
19 781
24
484
20 004
20 653
20 338
20 103
20 136
19 945
20 133
19 945
C048
96.8
101.3
300
98.5(2)
C048B
96.8
101.3
300
98.5
25
484
19 480
19 872
19 427
19 488
19 442
19 099
19 551
19 258
C048C
81.0
80.3
375
98.5
13
266
20 735
21 063
20 913
20 772
20 907
20 704
20 954
20 740
C049
105.0
99.8
300
97.7(2)
23
459
19 828
20 653
20 045
19 581
20 072
19 655
20 005
19 707
C049B
80.8
80.5
375
97.7
14
287
20 458
20 792
20 737
20 563
20 647
20 560
20 605
20 566
C050
80.5
80.3
375
96.2
16
235
15 149
15 362
15 321
15 289
15 177
15 111
15 067
15 013
C051
81.5
80.8
375
97.2
14
175
13 131
13 302
13 192
13 177
12 964
13 012
12 923
12 865
C052
80.8
81.0
375
94.0
13
163
12 267
12 494
12 307
12 297
12 378
12 414
12 436
12 411
C053
99.3
100.3
300
99.9
23
391
16 688
17 173
17 078
16 968
16 955
16 893
16 977
16 911
C054
80.3
80.3
375
99.3
12
181
15 631
15 822
15 719
15 715
15 741
15 682
15 731
15 689
C055(1)
79.0
79.3
375
98.0
13
136
10 938
11 072
11 058
10 909
11 018
10 987
10 842
10 824
C056
100.3
99.8
300
96.2
23
451
19 672
20 205
19 814
19 611
19 829
19 645
19 833
19 538
C057
80.8
80.3
375
98.9
13
245
19 044
19 340
19 386
19 279
19 229
19 189
19 197
19 165
C058
81.8
79.5
375
98.7
12
254
21 053
21 058
20 996
21 004
20 974
20 968
21 044
20 946
23
496
21 728
22 393
22 029
21 977
22 087
21 950
22 054
21 979
C059
100.8
98.0
300
98.1(2)
C059B
80.5
80.3
375
98.1
12
253
21 096
21 212
21 113
21 027
21 046
20 958
21 022
21 035
C060
80.3
80.3
375
96.2
12
254
20 806
21 105
21 042
20 749
21 023
20 764
20 960
20 679
21
467
22 356
22 091
21 753
21 363
22 182
22 132
22 436
22 322
C061
100.3
101.3
300
96.2(2)
C061B
82.5
79.3
375
96.2
13
271
21 358
21 847
21 810
21 751
21 787
21 760
21 748
21 702
C062
79.5
80.8
375
98.3
13
271
21 080
21 423
21 377
21 243
21 260
21 117
21 170
21 033
C063
79.3
79.3
375
97.5
13
188
14 427
14 613
14 529
14 449
14 488
14 417
14 510
14 451
C064
81.0
81.3
375
95.5
13
217
16 810
17 060
16 879
16 797
16 809
16 779
16 783
16 749
C065
78.5
80.0
375
101.8
13
243
19 528
19 858
19 840
19 694
19 799
19 660
19 793
19 614
C066
96.3
100.5
300
94.6(2)
23
494
21 660
22 497
22 210
21 897
22 125
21 798
22 143
21 872
C066B
81.5
81.3
375
94.6
13
244
18 666
19 253
19 074
18 998
19 065
18 858
18 931
18 936
C067
102.5
100.0
300
96.1
24
380
16 174
16 385
16 168
15 729
16 149
15 659
15 868
15 586
20
461
22 971
23 350
23 032
22 891
23 111
22 826
23 131
22 992
12
268
21 839
21 787
21 646
21 717
21 668
21 611
21 731
21 662
C068
101.5
101.3
300
98.2(2)
C068B
80.0
81.0
375
98.2
Sample
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Relative
density
%
Peak
strain
()
Peak
stress
(kPa)
C069
80.5
79.0
375
96.7
13
C070
79.5
80.5
375
100.7
Modulus (MPa)
Pulse:
Haversine
Pulse:
1_00
Pulse:
2_40
Pulse:
2_80
Pulse:
3_40
Pulse:
3_80
Pulse:
4_40
Pulse:
4_80
224
18 419
18 557
18 425
18 337
18 459
18 383
18 433
18 339
13
291
23 225
23 374
23 400
23 208
23 372
23 080
23 276
23 096
20
449
23 040
23 337
23 326
22 946
23 309
23 279
23 104
23 078
C071
100.3
103.3
300
98.9(2)
C071B
80.3
79.8
375
98.9
13
294
22 561
22 682
22 630
22 508
22 577
22 487
22 511
22 448
C072
79.5
81.5
375
96.7
14
249
18 218
18 248
18 291
18 254
18 283
18 151
18 278
18 151
C073
101.5
101.5
300
96.5
27
459
17 752
17 883
17 583
17 133
17 565
17 333
17 585
17 271
C075
81.5
81.0
375
96.8
14
228
16 902
17 099
16 996
16 858
16 946
16 853
16 903
16 843
C076
102.5
98.0
300
96.8(2)
23
488
21 215
21 738
21 503
21 068
21 440
21 292
21 377
21 246
C076B
81.3
80.3
375
96.8
12
251
20 694
20 974
20 849
20 598
20 800
20 656
20 588
20 485
C077
79.8
80.3
375
97.1
13
219
17 756
17 922
17 786
17 742
17 782
17 749
17 802
17 744
C078
102.5
99.0
300
95.4
26
299
11 770
12 039
11 927
11 855
11 798
11 680
11 628
11 522
C080
79.0
79.0
375
99.4
12
243
19 839
20 057
20 017
19 916
20 125
19 681
20 028
19 896
C081
80.8
82.3
375
96.8
16
481
30 983
31 311
31 215
31 036
31 121
31 176
31 176
31 044
C082
80.0
79.0
375
97.9
12
225
18 816
19 151
19 074
19 019
19 103
18 923
19 175
19 057
C083
99.8
99.0
300
96.3(2)
24
491
20 541
21 325
21 019
20 661
20 881
20 476
20 723
20 225
C083B
81.0
81.8
375
96.3
13
260
20 186
20 282
20 223
20 083
20 305
20 085
20 115
20 180
C084
81.0
80.5
375
98.0
13
243
19 389
19 808
19 760
19 716
19 722
19 569
19 613
19 433
C086
104.3
99.5
300
96.5(2)
23
465
20 427
21 067
20 565
20 153
20 606
20 047
20 632
20 147
C086B
82.5
80.8
375
96.5
13
261
19 991
20 388
20 316
20 262
20 234
20 184
20 172
20 288
C088
81.0
81.0
375
100.0
14
247
18 528
18 316
18 306
18 139
18 283
18 198
18 400
18 181
C089
96.8
100.5
300
98.5(2)
20
491
25 179
26 237
25 925
25 285
25 423
25 002
25 699
24 931
C089B
80.3
80.5
375
98.5
13
288
22 083
22 392
22 330
22 027
22 274
22 004
22 241
22 006
21
460
22 870
23 292
22 781
22 505
22 491
22 296
22 270
22 363
C090
104.3
100.0
300
99.2(2)
C090B
80.8
80.5
375
99.2
13
287
22 722
23 027
23 021
22 812
22 987
22 834
22 933
22 813
C091
104.0
98.8
300
97.7(2)
20
473
23 748
24 655
23 986
23 129
23 907
23 205
23 734
23 408
C091B
81.5
80.3
375
97.7
13
250
20 170
20 023
19 954
19 808
19 886
20 080
19 881
20 011
20
472
23 247
23 751
23 430
22 981
23 497
22 983
23 778
23 203
C092
98.8
101.5
300
96.8(2)
C092B
79.5
81.0
375
96.8
15
288
20 204
19 968
19 895
19 871
20 006
19 881
19 966
19 866
C094
80.0
79.8
375
97.7
12
221
18 014
18 311
18 233
18 114
18 402
18 200
18 380
18 147
Sample
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Relative
density
%
Peak
strain
()
Peak
stress
(kPa)
C095
104.5
98.0
300
96.1(2)
20
C095B
80.5
81.5
375
96.1
94.6(2)
C096
Modulus (MPa)
Pulse:
Haversine
Pulse:
1_00
Pulse:
2_40
Pulse:
2_80
Pulse:
3_40
Pulse:
3_80
Pulse:
4_40
Pulse:
4_80
478
23 901
24 562
24 255
23 333
24 484
23 712
24 371
23 918
13
246
18 997
19 102
19 143
19 061
19 190
19 024
19 084
19 092
22
496
23 374
24 278
23 745
22 811
23 266
22 713
23 088
22 750
100.3
98.3
300
C096B
81.3
80.8
375
94.6
12
212
17 402
17 720
17 643
17 480
17 628
17 479
17 566
17 410
C097
103.8
97.8
300
98.3(2)
21
484
22 981
24 105
23 719
23 171
23 493
23 176
23 272
23 093
C097B
79.8
79.5
375
98.3
12
260
21 446
21 662
21 605
21 594
21 532
21 536
21 497
21 492
C098
80.8
79.5
375
95.8
14
220
15 320
15 572
15 542
15 434
15 469
15 313
15 388
15 291
C099
82.0
81.5
375
99.4
13
220
17 207
17 514
17 399
17 317
17 722
17 512
17 338
17 171
20
470
23 304
24 031
23 667
23 372
23 601
23 124
23 737
23 059
C100
101.0
100.5
300
97.2(2)
C100B
101.0
100.5
375
97.2
15
294
18 915
19 176
19 124
19 179
19 175
19 235
19 104
19 266
C101
105.0
97.3
300
20
483
24 187
25 164
24 402
24 200
24 421
24 123
24 431
24 506
C101B
105.0
97.3
375
14
302
20 697
21 235
21 046
21 129
20 923
21 168
20 719
21 166
C102
81.5
82.0
375
97.5
14
205
14 984
15 150
15 123
14 999
15 105
14 986
15 087
14 976
C104
97.0
97.0
300
97.5(2)
23
526
22 716
23 698
23 268
22 900
23 405
23 064
23 154
23 047
C104B
97.0
97.0
375
97.5
16
308
19 008
19 478
19 479
19 390
19 337
19 397
19 398
19 369
C105
99.8
97.0
300
98.1
24
320
13 390
13 362
13 287
13 222
13 318
13 202
13 339
13 193
C106
98.0
97.3
300
99.9
25
485
19 521
19 947
19 627
19 258
19 643
19 321
19 461
19 340
C107
80.3
82.0
375
99.9
15
208
14 261
14 373
14 321
14 194
14 287
14 178
14 257
14 168
C108
99.8
98.0
300
97.7
24
438
18 764
19 182
18 931
18 945
18 839
18 851
18 792
18 894
C109
80.8
84.0
375
C110
95.8
96.0
300
C111
96.0
97.5
300
99.5(2)
23
526
23 075
23 574
23 290
22 827
23 484
23 090
23 340
23 085
C111B
96.0
97.5
375
99.5
15
288
19 594
19 979
19 973
19 936
19 980
19 983
19 965
19 882
C112
80.5
80.3
375
97.7
13
181
14 639
14 767
14 583
14 559
14 624
14 573
14 588
14 554
C113
81.8
80.8
375
98.5
13
162
12 109
12 253
12 137
12 166
12 281
12 218
12 260
12 187
C114
95.8
98.0
300
98.2(2)
23
522
22 606
23 237
22 816
22 323
22 948
22 397
23 005
22 395
C114B
95.8
98.0
375
98.2
14
285
19 898
20 067
19 989
20 043
20 105
20 072
20 140
20 120
C115
81.3
81.3
375
98.1
14
210
15 251
15 403
15 438
15 329
15 395
15 280
15 374
15 251
C116
80.8
82.0
375
98.9
15
242
16 899
17 053
17 009
16 924
17 054
16 908
17 039
16 861
Distinct and sudden drop in modulus during test sequence. Sample discarded.
Large differences between LVDTs during tests. Logs indicated poor sample handling. Sample discarded.
Sample
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Relative
density
%
Peak
strain
()
Peak
stress
(kPa)
C117
80.5
80.8
375
96.2
12
C118
80.5
81.0
375
98.2
C119
81.8
81.5
375
C120
80.8
80.8
C121
80.5
81.8
C122
81.5
C123
C124
Modulus (MPa)
Pulse:
Haversine
Pulse:
1_00
Pulse:
2_40
Pulse:
2_80
Pulse:
3_40
Pulse:
3_80
Pulse:
4_40
Pulse:
4_80
200
16 284
16 560
16 466
16 363
16 400
16 321
16 403
16 296
14
178
12 474
12 638
12 548
12 444
12 536
12 446
12 483
12 485
98.0
14
207
14 969
15 123
15 042
14 893
15 045
14 861
15 020
14 875
375
97.3
13
264
19 888
20 317
20 186
20 059
20 193
19 983
20 203
19 933
375
97.5
14
209
14 943
15 196
15 049
14 887
15 012
14 864
15 060
14 899
82.3
375
98.4
13
250
19 528
19 333
19 222
19 141
18 923
18 853
19 044
18 851
79.8
80.8
375
97.4
12
180
15 276
15 260
15 153
15 296
15 194
15 247
15 041
15 189
80.0
80.0
375
99.5
13
278
21 771
22 170
22 140
21 957
22 130
21 948
22 129
21 920
C125
79.3
82.8
375
98.2
14
242
17 568
17 838
17 866
17 767
17 899
17 793
17 893
17 844
C126
80.3
80.0
375
97.3
13
161
12 731
12 841
12 818
12 665
12 723
12 725
12 824
12 679
C127
79.8
81.0
375
98.1
13
215
17 550
17 710
17 519
17 489
17 503
17 502
17 494
17 483
C128
79.0
80.0
375
12
148
12 059
12 195
12 240
12 224
12 150
12 140
12 200
12 116
C129
80.0
80.5
375
98.2
12
246
20 728
20 721
20 707
20 643
20 711
20 508
20 639
20 560
C130
81.0
79.5
375
98.1
13
278
21 289
21 812
21 605
21 459
21 560
21 349
21 502
21 353
C131
81.8
79.3
375
C132
80.0
81.8
375
97.7
12
105
8 711
8 879
8 916
8 893
8 872
8 841
8 896
8 860
C133
79.8
81.0
375
13
287
22 012
22 465
22 389
22 386
22 429
22 298
22 419
22 321
C134
80.5
82.5
375
97.5
C135
80.0
81.0
375
60.9
6 371
6 356
C136
79.5
80.0
375
C137
80.3
80.5
375
98.2
14
225
16 729
17 090
17 031
17 003
17 259
17 168
17 209
17 150
C138
81.3
81.3
375
97.1
13
175
13 545
13 695
13 612
13 612
13 577
13 608
13 549
13 565
C139
82.5
80.5
375
96.8
14
281
20 373
20 655
20 718
20 720
20 611
20 668
20 574
20 620
C140
80.3
81.3
375
13
212
17 074
17 036
17 068
16 952
17 046
17 017
17 075
17 021
C141
81.0
81.3
375
C142
82.5
82.5
375
97.0
14
234
17 294
17 549
17 481
17 505
17 464
17 503
17 383
17 326
C144
82.8
82.0
375
98.1
14
168
12 528
12 713
12 641
12 661
12 639
12 564
12 609
12 515
C145
82.0
80.5
375
98.7
13
282
21 123
21 587
21 513
21 472
21 531
21 479
21 536
21 455
C146
81.5
81.8
375
97.3
14
224
16 141
16 138
16 077
16 034
16 057
16 020
16 012
15 983
13
79
6 265
6 440
6 441
6 421
6 376
6 359
Sample
1
2
Width
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Relative
density
%
Peak
strain
()
Peak
stress
(kPa)
Modulus (MPa)
C148
80.5
82.0
375
99.4
C150
83.8
88.3
375
96.0
15
172
11 511
11 629
11 569
11 490
11 513
C152
79.8
81.5
375
98.0
14
212
15 476
15 569
15 543
15 465
C154
81.3
81.5
375
97.6
14
208
14 770
15 025
14 998
14 923
C156
86.0
81.5
375
99.3
C158
83.0
82.0
375
97.7
13
242
19 365
19 289
19 194
19 075
18 800
C159
80.0
80.0
375
95.4
15
183
12 726
12 902
12 806
12 651
C160
80.0
81.8
375
97.0
14
168
12 781
12 928
12 831
12 806
Pulse:
Haversine
Pulse:
1_00
Pulse:
2_40
Pulse:
2_80
Pulse:
3_40
Pulse:
3_80
Pulse:
4_40
Pulse:
4_80
11 477
11 541
11 496
15 529
15 520
15 475
15 472
15 014
14 935
15 007
14 912
18 804
19 015
18 995
12 198
12 310
12 377
12 134
12 890
12 822
12 779
12 810
A single spike reading during the modulus test was excluded from subsequent analysis.
These density values are assumptions based on the density determined from the resized sample subjected to subsequent fatigue testing.
Appendix I
Table I 1:
Sample
Cemented Material Flexural Fatigue Test Results
Summary of flexural fatigue tests under different load pulse shapes

Height
(mm)
Width
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Relative
density
%
Pulse
Modulus
test
sample
LVDT
data
used
Peak
load
(kN)
Peak
stress
(kPa)
Initial condition: Cycle 1
Initial condition: Mean cycles 1

50
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
C005
82.5
81.8
375
9.0
97.3
1_00
C005
LVDT 1
and 2
1.604
1 080
86
12 654
95 023
89
12 247
95 057
87
12 382
95 047
C007
82
81.5
375
8.8
97.7
1_00
C007
LVDT 1
and 2
1.395
954
74
12 894
243 485
81
11 935
243 653
79
12 223
243 617
C020
81
80.8
375
10.2
95.3
1_00
C020
LVDT 1
and 2
1.596
1 129
100
11 363
3 481
105
10 798
3 481
103
10 989
3 481
C022B
79.3
79.8
375
7.6
101.0
1_00
C022
LVDT 1
and 2
1.748
1 306
88
14 885
158 588
88
14 889
158 588
88
14 887
158 588
C037
100.5
99
300
8.4
95.1
1_00
C037
LVDT 1
and 2
3.958
1 187
72
16 531
305 255
73
16 395
305 389
72
16 624
305 129
C056
99.8
100.3
300
9.0
96.2
1_00
C056
LVDT 1
and 2
3.766
1 131
81
13 945
2 152
108
10 700
2 634
101
11 411
2 575
C059B
80.3
80.5
375
9.3
98.1
1_00
C059B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.300
1 662
90
18 446
14 297
93
17 947
14 300
92
18 076
14 299
C080
79
79
375
8.8
99.4
1_00
C080
LVDT 1
and 2
1.700
1 293
79
16 434
222 123
81
16 082
222 218
80
16 177
222 198
C082
79
80
375
9.5
97.9
1_00
C082
LVDT 1
and 2
1.689
1 269
83
15 381
79 340
87
14 789
79 342
85
14 994
79 342
C099
81.5
82
375
8.9
99.4
1_00
C099
LVDT 1
and 2
1.650
1 136
80
14 156
189 887
85
13 552
189 941
82
13 839
189 921
C100B
100.5
101
375
8.6
97.2
1_00
C100B
LVDT 1
and 2
3.489
1 283
74
17 284
618 211
75
17 190
618 277
75
17 170
618 289
C120
80.8
80.8
375
10.1
97.3
1_00
C120
LVDT 1
and 2
2.022
1 437
84
17 156
15 210
88
16 354
15 223
87
16 658
15 219
C122
82.3
81.5
375
9.5
98.4
1_00
C122
LVDT 1
and 2
2.098
1 425
87
16 494
833 115
90
15 919
833 151
89
16 050
833 145
C123
80.8
79.8
375
9.9
97.4
1_00
C123
LVDT 1
and 2
1.199
863
75
11 576
24 235
82
10 760
24 262
78
11 038
24 254
C124
80
80
375
9.7
99.5
1_00
C124
LVDT 1
and 2
2.156
1 579
82
19 387
297 940
84
18 959
297 941
83
19 104
297 941
C158
82
83
375
9.0
97.7
1_00
C158
LVDT 1
and 2
2.044
1 373
85
16 213
374 748
88
15 747
374 804
87
15 910
374 787

Sample
Height
(mm)
Width
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Relative
density
%
Pulse
Modulus
test
sample
LVDT
data
used
Peak
load
(kN)
Peak
stress
(kPa)

50
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
C033
81.3
80.3
375
9.1
98.0
2_40
C033
LVDT 1
and 2
1.794
1 268
85
14 909
98 139
88
14 625
98 142
87
14 677
98 142
C036
81
80.5
375
9.3
97.2
2_40
C036
LVDT 1
and 2
1.794
1 273
87
14 794
164 788
91
14 119
164 826
89
14 318
164 816
C039
81
80.8
375
10.7
93.5
2_40
C039
LVDT 1
and 2
1.778
1 258
85
14 929
83 213
88
14 523
83 214
87
14 606
83 214
C045
79.8
79.8
375
9.3
97.1
2_40
C045
LVDT 1
and 2
1.845
1 362
84
16 221
1 664
90
15 114
1 666
87
15 636
1 665
C047
80.5
82.3
375
9.2
98.2
2_40
C047
LVDT 1
and 2
1.985
1 396
86
16 209
3 253
100
14 110
3 258
94
14 963
3 256
C053
100.3
99.3
300
7.5
99.9
2_40
C053
LVDT 1
and 2
3.574
1 073
85
12 685
3 995
91
11 956
4 010
89
12 171
4 006
C068B
81
80
375
9.4
98.2
2_40
C068B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.492
1 781
95
18 786
3 394
100
18 161
3 395
97
18 462
3 394
C090B
80.5
80.8
375
8.5
99.2
2_40
C090B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.400
1 719
84
20 401
571 245
85
20 381
571 245
84
20 382
571 245
C117
80.8
80.5
375
10.5
96.2
2_40
C117
LVDT 1
and 2
1.552
1 107
81
13 691
345 669
85
13 129
345 739
83
13 316
345 723
C004
82
80.5
375
9.0
97.1
2_80
C004
LVDT 1
and 2
1.694
1 174
90
13 202
12 922
98
12 231
13 419
94
12 553
13 299
C024B
80.8
81.3
375
8.9
99.3
2_80
C024B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.138
1 510
80
18 970
634 960
82
18 298
634 967
80
18 545
634 964
C030
101.8
103
300
9.8
96.4
2_80
C030
LVDT 1
and 2
3.986
1 120
70
16 173
26 575
72
15 729
26 675
71
15 861
26 645
C061BCD
79.3
82.5
375
8.6
96.2
2_80
C061B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.000
1 446
75
19 281
482 525
77
18 925
482 543
76
19 035
482 538
C089B
80.5
80.3
375
8.9
98.5
2_80
C089B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.202
1 587
82
19 277
57 155
84
18 856
57 165
83
19 028
57 161
C091B
80.3
81.5
375
9.7
97.7
2_80
C091B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.385
1 702
101
16 919
2 456
104
16 359
2 459
98
18 814
2 432
C114B
98
95.8
375
8.4
98.2
2_80
C114B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.788
1 136
62
18 345
548 320
65
17 580
550 593
64
17 778
550 127
C115
81.3
81.3
375
9.1
98.1
2_80
C115
LVDT 1
and 2
1.617
1 128
96
11 788
7 470
103
10 841
7 486
101
11 096
7 483
C127
81
79.8
375
8.8
98.1
2_80
C127
LVDT 1
and 2
1.601
1 147
81
14 148
11 816
88
12 998
11 837
86
13 348
11 832

Sample
Height
(mm)
Width
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Relative
density
%
Pulse
Modulus
test
sample
LVDT
data
used
Peak
load
(kN)
Peak
stress
(kPa)

50
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
C021
102.3
95.5
300
9.6
96.0
3_40
C021
LVDT 1
and 2
3.980
1 195
84
14 216
331 827
90
13 360
331 852
88
13 640
331 844
C023B
81
82
375
10.0
96.8
3_40
C023B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.398
1 672
100
16 834
8 949
105
16 071
8 950
103
16 333
8 949
C044B
82
80.5
375
9.4
98.6
3_40
C044B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.246
1 556
84
18 690
23 093
89
17 666
23 094
87
18 012
23 094
C060
80.3
80.3
375
9.8
96.2
3_40
C060
LVDT 1
and 2
2.237
1 620
87
18 569
44 255
91
17 991
44 257
90
18 200
44 256
C064
81.3
81
375
9.8
95.5
3_40
C064
LVDT 1
and 2
1.751
1 227
82
14 959
66 0798
83
14 752
660 806
83
14 796
660 805
C065B
80
78.5
375
8.6
101.8
3_40
C065
LVDT 1
and 2
1.998
1 492
100
14 954
48 773
101
14 941
48 773
100
14 930
48 773
C075
81
81.5
375
9.3
96.8
3_40
C075
LVDT 1
and 2
1.653
1 159
96
12 133
1 422
107
10 921
1 423
103
11 247
1 423
C106
97.3
98
300
8.9
99.9
3_40
C106
LVDT 1
and 2
3.978
1 286
83
15 575
49 112
86
15 046
49 180
85
15 182
49 166
C013BC
102.5
96.5
300
9.0
96.5
3_80
C013
LVDT 1
and 2
3.992
1 181
66
17 822
340 929
67
17 700
341 089
67
17 768
340 958
C015
103.3
95
300
9.7
97.0
3_80
C015
LVDT 1
and 2
3.397
1 005
86
11 654
15 623
96
10 515
15 719
93
10 833
15 703
C029B
80.3
80.5
375
9.7
97.8
3_80
C029B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.747
1 985
99
20 075
1 794
108
18 468
1 796
104
19 074
1 795
C057
80.3
80.8
375
8.9
98.9
3_80
C057
LVDT 1
and 2
1.996
1 437
96
15 081
15 944
104
13 907
15 950
101
14 229
15 949
C072
81.5
79.5
375
9.7
96.7
3_80
C072
LVDT 1
and 2
1.744
1 238
80
15 527
11 620
85
14 735
11 640
83
14 981
11 635
C076B
80.3
81.3
375
10.1
96.8
3_80
C076B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.095
1 499
85
17 674
16 455
88
17 014
16 458
87
17 259
16 457
C094
79.8
80
375
9.3
97.7
3_80
C094
LVDT 1
and 2
1.746
1 286
87
14 847
69 498
91
14 099
69 987
90
14 335
69 872
C102
82
81.5
375
9.5
97.5
3_80
C102
LVDT 1
and 2
1.490
1 020
86
11 819
15 157
95
10 904
15 279
92
11 184
15 258
C109
84
80.8
375
8.7
98.4
3_80
LVDT 1
and 2
1.804
1 186
87
13 627
15 418
95
12 533
15 655
92
12 865
15 600
C111B
97.5
96
375
8.7
99.5
3_80
C111B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.595
1 066
58
18 444
432 552
60
17 841
432 653
59
18 041
432 622

Sample
Height
(mm)
Width
(mm)
Span
(mm)
Moisture
content
(%)
Relative
density
%
Pulse
Modulus
test
sample
LVDT
data
used
Peak
load
(kN)
Peak
stress
(kPa)

50
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
C112
80.3
80.5
375
9.6
97.7
3_80
C112
LVDT 1
and 2
1.499
1 083
91
11 920
12 576
94
11 530
12 588
93
11 700
12 583
C129
80.5
80
375
9.7
98.2
3_80
C129
LVDT 1
and 2
1.895
1 371
87
15 837
11 089
94
14 699
11 100
91
15 053
11 097
C010
102.5
95
300
9.0
97.8
4_40
C010
LVDT 2
3.185
957
74
12 858
99 759
83
11 561
103 963
81
11 945
103 385
C043B
81.5
80.8
375
9.9
99.2
4_40
C043B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.383
1 665
90
18 615
3 202
96
17 524
3 207
94
17 879
3 206
C049B
80.5
80.8
375
9.6
97.7
4_40
C049B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.501
1 791
102
17 682
4 512
109
16 501
4 519
106
16 890
4 517
C066B
81.3
81.5
375
10.6
94.6
4_40
C066B
LVDT 1
and 2
1.897
1 320
80
16 476
153 384
84
16 041
153 392
82
16 166
153 390
C071B
79.8
80.3
375
8.2
98.9
4_40
C071B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.199
1 612
82
19 612
589 340
83
19 415
589 340
83
19 454
589 340
C116
82
80.8
375
9.0
98.9
4_40
C116
LVDT 1
and 2
1.805
1 246
97
12 921
1 135
105
11 983
1 138
102
12 239
1 137
C011
100.8
95
300
9.1
97.2
4_80
C011
LVDT 1
and 2
3.395
1 055
50
21 328
452 949
53
20 240
474 828
51
20 608
468 139
C012
101.3
104.3
300
8.8
98.3
4_80
C012
LVDT 1
and 2
3.195
896
63
14 227
99 123
70
12 859
109 229
68
13 274
106 948
C017B
80.3
80
375
9.8
98.3
4_80
C017B
LVDT 1
and 2
2.298
1 670
100
16 655
8 015
104
16 130
8 016
103
16 262
8 016
C086B
80.8
82.5
375
9.9
96.5
4_80
C086B
LVDT 1
and 2
1.947
1 355
77
17 615
24 304
80
17 066
24 304
79
17 291
24 304
C104B
97
97
375
8.7
97.5
4_80
C104B
LVDT 1
and 2
3.497
1 437
81
17 809
63 175
83
17 426
63 186
82
17 571
63 182
C108
98
99.8
300
9.1
97.7
4_80
C108
LVDT 1
and 2
3.689
1 155
84
13 803
9 857
91
12 768
9 931
89
13 096
9 912
C146
81.8
81.5
375
9.4
97.2
4_80
C146
LVDT 1
and 2
1.402
964
74
13 100
48 391
78
12 327
48 850
76
12 662
48 679
C148
82
80.5
375
8.2
99.4
4_80
C148
LVDT 1
and 2
1.806
1 251
81
15 622
86 375
83
15 277
86 381
81
15 414
86 381
Appendix J
Estimation of Tolerable Strain from Fatigue Test Results
Table J 1: Estimates of tolerable strain for each fatigue test

Sample
Relative
density
(%)
Pulse
Parameter (section X)
Fatigue test results
Correction to 98% density ratio
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Tolerable
strain (TS)
()
Modulus
(MPa)
Flexural
strength
at 98%
(MPa)
Predicted
TS at 98%
density
()
Flexural
strength
at test
density
(MPa)
Predicted
TS at test
density
()
Correction
factor
Tolerable
strain at
98%
density
()
89
12 247
95 057
88.62
12 676
1.67
86.89
1.61
85.48
1.02
90.08
12 114
1.67
89.53
1.64
88.97
1.01
87.79
C005
97.30%
1_00
C007
97.70%
1_00
81
11 935
243 653
87.24
C020
95.30%
1_00
105
10 798
3 481
79.37
Relative density of sample less than 96%. Case dropped.
C022B
101.00%
1_00
88
14 889
158 588
91.45
Relative density of sample greater than 100%. Case dropped.
C037
95.10%
1_00
73
16 395
305 389
80.12
C056
96.20%
1_00
108
10 700
2 634
79.76
11 663
1.67
91.84
1.53
88.67
1.04
82.62
C059B
98.10%
1_00
93
17 947
14 300
79.09
17 857
1.67
70.34
1.67
70.63
1.00
78.77
C080
99.40%
1_00
81
16 082
222 218
86.57
14 956
1.67
78.19
1.77
81.62
0.96
82.94
C082
97.90%
1_00
87
14 789
79 342
85.34
14 863
1.67
78.50
1.66
78.26
1.00
85.60
C099
99.40%
1_00
85
13 552
189 941
89.67
12 603
1.67
87.22
1.77
90.00
0.97
86.89
C100B
97.20%
1_00
75
17 190
618 277
87.30
17 878
1.67
70.30
1.60
68.03
1.03
90.21
C120
97.30%
1_00
88
16 354
15 223
75.22
16 926
1.67
72.57
1.61
70.66
1.03
77.25
C122
98.40%
1_00
90
15 919
833 151
107.39
15 601
1.67
76.20
1.70
77.22
0.99
105.98
C123
97.40%
1_00
82
10 760
24 262
72.87
11 083
1.67
95.08
1.62
94.12
1.01
73.61
C124
99.50%
1_00
84
18 959
297 941
92.00
17 537
1.67
71.08
1.78
75.28
0.94
86.87
C158
97.70%
1_00
88
15 747
374 804
98.24
15 983
1.67
75.09
1.64
74.31
1.01
99.27
C033
98.00%
2_40
88
14 625
98 142
87.86
14 625
1.67
79.29
1.67
79.29
1.00
87.86
C036
97.20%
2_40
91
14 119
164 826
94.87
14 684
1.67
79.09
1.60
77.17
1.02
97.23
C039
93.50%
2_40
88
14 523
83 214
86.66
C045
97.10%
2_40
90
15 114
1 666
63.98
15 794
1.67
75.63
1.60
73.32
1.03
66.00
C047
98.20%
2_40
100
14 110
3 258
75.18
13 969
1.67
81.61
1.68
82.06
0.99
74.76
C053
99.90%
2_40
91
11 956
4 010
69.60
10 820
1.67
96.67
1.81
99.55
0.97
67.59
Sample
Relative
density
(%)
Pulse
C068B
98.20%
C090B
C117
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Tolerable
strain (TS)
()
Modulus
(MPa)
Flexural
strength
at 98%
(MPa)
Predicted
TS at 98%
density
()
Flexural
strength
at test
density
(MPa)
Predicted
TS at test
density
()
Correction
factor
Tolerable
strain at
98%
density
()
2_40
100
18 161
3 395
75.43
17 979
1.67
70.07
1.68
70.64
0.99
74.83
99.20%
2_40
85
20 381
571 245
98.29
96.20%
2_40
85
13 129
345 739
94.26
14 311
1.67
80.37
1.53
76.17
1.06
99.46
C004
97.10%
2_80
98
12 231
13 419
82.90
12 781
1.67
86.42
1.60
84.59
1.02
84.69
C024B
99.30%
2_80
82
18 298
634 967
95.66
17 109
1.67
72.12
1.77
75.69
0.95
91.14
C030
96.40%
2_80
72
15 729
26 675
64.49
16 987
1.67
72.42
1.54
68.05
1.06
68.64
C061BCD
96.20%
2_80
77
18 925
482 543
87.79
20 628
1.67
64.91
1.53
59.31
1.09
96.07
C089B
98.50%
2_80
84
18 856
57 165
80.18
18 385
1.67
69.18
1.71
70.63
0.98
78.53
C091B
97.70%
2_80
104
16 359
2 459
76.37
16 604
1.67
73.40
1.64
72.59
1.01
77.22
C114B
98.20%
2_80
65
17 580
550 593
74.93
17 404
1.67
71.40
1.68
71.95
0.99
74.35
C115
98.10%
2_80
103
10 841
7 486
82.99
10 787
1.67
96.87
1.67
97.02
1.00
82.86
C127
98.10%
2_80
88
12 998
11 837
73.66
12 933
1.67
85.75
1.67
85.96
1.00
73.49
C021
96.00%
3_40
90
13 360
331 852
99.46
14 696
1.67
79.05
1.51
74.25
1.06
105.89
C023B
96.80%
3_40
105
16 071
8 950
85.87
17 035
1.67
72.30
1.57
69.01
1.05
89.96
C044B
98.60%
3_40
89
17 666
23 094
78.77
17 136
1.67
72.05
1.71
73.70
0.98
77.00
C060
96.20%
3_40
91
17 991
44 257
85.02
19 610
1.67
66.73
1.53
61.30
1.09
92.56
Modulus exceeds 20 000 MPa. Case dropped.
C064
95.50%
3_40
83
14 752
660 806
97.14
C065B
101.80%
3_40
101
14 941
48 773
95.13
Relative density of sample greater than 100%. Case dropped.
C075
96.80%
3_40
107
10 921
1 423
75.07
11 576
1.67
92.30
1.57
90.22
1.02
76.81
C106
99.90%
3_40
86
15 046
49 180
81.06
13 617
1.67
82.95
1.81
87.14
0.95
77.16
C013BC
96.50%
3_80
67
17 700
341 089
74.21
19 028
1.67
67.86
1.55
63.42
1.07
79.41
C015
97.00%
3_80
96
10 515
15 719
82.28
11 041
1.67
95.33
1.59
93.75
1.02
83.67
C029B
97.80%
3_80
108
18 468
1 796
77.26
18 653
1.67
68.62
1.65
68.03
1.01
77.92
C057
98.90%
3_80
104
13 907
15 950
89.25
13 281
1.67
84.29
1.74
86.21
0.98
87.26
C072
96.70%
3_80
85
14 735
11 640
71.05
15 693
1.67
75.93
1.57
72.60
1.05
74.31
C076B
96.80%
3_80
88
17 014
16 458
75.71
18 035
1.67
69.95
1.57
66.52
1.05
79.62
C094
97.70%
3_80
91
14 099
69 987
88.33
14 310
1.67
80.38
1.64
79.68
1.01
89.11
C102
97.50%
3_80
95
10 904
15 279
81.23
11 177
1.67
94.54
1.63
93.72
1.01
81.94
Sample
Relative
density
(%)
Pulse
C109
98.40%
C111B
C112
Initial
strain
()
Initial
modulus
(MPa)
Cycles to
half
modulus
Tolerable
strain (TS)
()
Modulus
(MPa)
Flexural
strength
at 98%
(MPa)
Predicted
TS at 98%
density
()
Flexural
strength
at test
density
(MPa)
Predicted
TS at test
density
()
Correction
factor
Tolerable
strain at
98%
density
()
3_80
95
12 533
15 655
81.40
12 282
1.67
88.71
1.70
89.48
0.99
80.70
99.50%
3_80
60
17 841
432 653
67.79
16 503
1.67
73.67
1.78
77.67
0.95
64.29
97.70%
3_80
94
11 530
12 588
79.09
11 703
1.67
91.63
1.64
91.10
1.01
79.55
C129
98.20%
3_80
94
14 699
11 100
78.27
14 552
1.67
79.54
1.68
80.01
0.99
77.80
C010
97.80%
4_40
83
11 561
103 963
83.27
11 677
1.67
91.77
1.65
91.41
1.00
83.59
C043B
99.20%
4_40
96
17 524
3 207
72.07
16 473
1.67
73.75
1.76
76.95
0.96
69.08
C049B
97.70%
4_40
109
16 501
4 519
84.21
16 749
1.67
73.02
1.64
72.21
1.01
85.15
C066B
94.60%
4_40
84
16 041
153 392
87.05
C071B
98.90%
4_40
83
19 415
589 340
96.22
18 541
1.67
68.85
1.74
71.47
0.96
92.70
C116
98.90%
4_40
105
11 983
1 138
72.31
11 444
1.67
93.03
1.74
94.56
0.98
71.14
C011
97.20%
4_80
53
20 240
474 828
60.35
C012
98.30%
4_80
70
12 859
109 229
70.52
12 666
1.67
86.93
1.69
87.53
0.99
70.03
C017B
98.30%
4_80
104
16 130
8 016
84.27
15 888
1.67
75.36
1.69
76.14
0.99
83.42
C086B
96.50%
4_80
80
17 066
24 304
71.10
18 346
1.67
69.27
1.55
64.93
1.07
75.85
C104B
97.50%
4_80
83
17 426
63 186
79.88
17 862
1.67
70.33
1.63
68.92
1.02
81.53
C108
97.70%
4_80
91
12 768
9 931
75.07
12 960
1.67
85.64
1.64
85.02
1.01
75.62
C146
97.20%
4_80
78
12 327
48 850
73.48
12 820
1.67
86.25
1.60
84.61
1.02
74.90
C148
99.40%
4_80
83
15 277
86 381
81.99
14 208
1.67
80.74
1.77
83.98
0.96
78.83
Modulus exceeds 20,000 MPa. Case dropped.
Appendix K
Axle Group/load Distributions
Table K 1: Traffic load distribution: Pacific Motorway

Axle group type
Axle group load

(kN)
SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
QADT %
10
0.0101
1.0001
0.0000
0.0900
0.0000
0.0000
20
1.2666
1.5502
0.0000
0.2100
0.0200
0.0000
30
12.5342
13.5614
0.0000
0.4600
0.0300
0.0000
40
13.9123
14.6415
0.0414
1.7100
0.1100
0.0000
50
13.8717
14.8615
0.1448
2.5000
0.6000
0.0000
60
18.4011
13.5814
1.5517
4.1100
2.0900
0.5539
70
20.6708
10.5511
5.6481
5.7500
3.6800
0.5539
80
14.8445
9.1009
9.0824
7.0100
5.2800
0.3728
90
4.4888
7.1007
8.7825
6.8800
5.6500
2.2262
100
5.3405
10.6031
6.2500
5.2800
5.9438
110
3.7704
13.1271
5.6300
4.8400
9.8530
120
2.3202
13.5306
4.7000
4.3200
18.4065
130
1.4901
14.1202
4.7600
4.3300
12.6438
140
0.7801
10.9341
4.7000
3.8800
5.3899
150
0.3500
6.6205
4.9700
3.8900
2.7908
160
0.0000
3.7550
5.5600
4.1600
2.5991
170
0.0000
2.0585
5.4800
3.9000
2.0452
180
0.0000
5.7200
4.3000
0.7456
190
5.1800
4.3000
1.6723
200
4.8500
4.6000
1.2995
210
4.4200
5.2400
0.5539
220
3.2700
5.1800
1.1184
230
2.3500
5.5300
1.2995
240
1.4300
4.9500
1.4913
250
0.8800
4.2700
1.8641
260
0.5900
3.5600
1.4913
270
0.3000
2.3500
1.4913
280
0.1700
1.5100
0.9267
290
0.0600
0.8700
1.2995
300
0.0100
0.4700
0.9267
310
0.0000
0.3000
0.7456
320
0.0000
0.1800
1.1184
330
0.0000
0.1100
1.6723
340
0.0700
1.6723
350
0.0500
1.4913
360
0.0400
1.2995
370
0.0200
0.9267
380
0.0200
0.9267
390
0.0100
1.8641
400
0.0100
1.1184
410
0.6711
420
1.1184
430
1.5658
Axle group load

(kN)
Axle group type

SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
QADT %
440
0.8948
450
0.8948
460
0.4474
470
0.8948
480
Proportion of group
(%)
1.1184
35.77
14.96
1.21
30.50
17.52
0.04
Table K 2: Traffic load distribution: Pacific Highway

Axle group type
Axle group load

(kN)
SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
QADT %
10
0.0003
0.6399
0.0000
0.0589
0.0003
0.0000
20
0.0343
0.8419
0.0000
0.1951
0.0549
0.0000
30
5.2513
11.3236
0.0000
0.6612
0.0988
0.0000
40
7.3739
18.7895
0.0000
2.3701
0.1836
0.0000
50
26.6742
17.9312
0.1912
2.8199
1.9650
0.0000
60
55.0585
14.6000
4.4393
5.4972
5.0161
0.0000
70
5.5357
10.7853
12.4681
8.4829
7.8058
0.9524
80
0.0618
10.4537
22.7910
8.1220
7.6824
0.0000
90
0.0090
11.6400
17.9269
6.4052
6.0080
3.8095
100
0.0010
2.5302
22.2175
5.3395
4.5971
1.9048
110
0.3690
15.8029
5.2308
3.7932
8.5714
120
0.0642
3.4834
5.7328
3.6554
11.4286
130
0.0280
0.2549
6.7512
3.6457
12.3809
140
0.0035
0.2549
8.2191
3.7700
3.8095
150
0.1487
11.3515
4.1846
4.7619
160
0.0212
12.7967
5.0045
2.8571
170
7.5614
6.5240
2.8571
180
2.0526
8.7055
5.7143
190
0.2610
10.2682
5.7143
200
0.0496
9.0760
2.8571
210
0.0196
5.3317
4.7619
220
0.0123
1.9664
1.9048
230
0.0068
0.5099
3.8095
240
0.0026
0.1021
1.9048
250
0.0279
2.8571
260
0.0088
3.8095
270
0.0050
2.8571
280
0.0050
1.9048
290
0.0033
1.9048
300
0.0008
0.9524
310
0.0000
320
0.9524
330
1.9048
340
0.9524
350
0.9524
Axle group load

(kN)
Axle group type

SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
360
QADT %
0.9524
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
Proportion of group
(%)
31.16
6.68
0.37
33.52
28.26
0.01
Table K 3: Traffic load distribution: Monash Freeway

Axle group type
Axle group load

(kN)
SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
QADT %
9.8
0.5838
4.6646
0.1030
0.0874
0.0014
0.0000
19.6
3.3239
4.0160
0.1030
0.2637
0.0537
0.0000
29.4
9.2880
8.1740
0.5151
1.0795
0.1439
0.0000
39.2
13.3060
12.5626
1.4423
3.2185
0.1990
0.0000
49.0
37.2624
23.5526
3.6745
5.1012
0.5763
1.0823
58.8
30.8125
17.2424
8.6710
9.6968
2.1386
1.0823
68.6
4.9647
12.7747
9.8558
12.0036
5.8807
2.8139
78.4
0.3914
8.0898
14.6806
10.7106
10.5234
5.6277
88.2
0.0672
5.0981
17.3935
8.0117
12.3969
8.6580
98.0
2.4546
14.7837
5.8960
10.2260
16.2338
107.8
0.9360
12.7747
4.8825
6.7648
12.3377
117.6
0.3380
9.1690
4.9832
4.8796
13.8528
127.4
0.0741
4.4643
5.2834
3.4289
10.8225
137.2
0.0173
1.6827
5.8200
2.7631
3.8961
147.0
0.0051
0.5323
6.5911
2.4415
3.0303
156.8
0.0000
0.1545
7.0403
2.3651
2.3810
166.6
0.0000
5.1661
2.3548
0.6494
176.4
0.0000
2.7243
2.5820
1.2987
186.2
1.0337
3.1101
0.8658
196.0
0.2873
4.1938
1.9481
205.8
0.0760
5.3072
1.5152
215.6
0.0243
5.6624
1.7316
225.4
0.0089
5.2562
1.7316
235.2
0.0066
3.5934
1.0823
245.0
0.0033
1.8466
0.4329
254.8
0.0000
0.8531
0.6494
264.6
0.0000
0.2864
0.8658
Axle group load

(kN)
Axle group type

SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
QADT %
274.4
0.0000
0.0978
0.4329
284.2
0.0000
0.0441
0.8658
294.0
0.0000
0.0138
0.0000
303.8
0.0000
0.0076
0.6494
313.6
0.0000
0.0028
0.2165
323.4
0.0000
0.0028
0.2165
333.2
0.0000
0.2165
343.0
0.0007
0.0000
352.8
0.0014
0.0000
362.6
0.0007
0.0000
372.4
0.0000
0.0000
382.2
0.0000
0.2165
392.0
0.0000
0.0000
401.8
0.0000
0.2165
411.6
0.0000
0.4329
421.4
0.0000
0.4329
431.2
0.0000
0.8658
441.0
0.0000
0.4329
450.8
0.2165
460.6
0.0000
470.4
0.0000
Proportion of group (%)
34.07
12.46
0.74
34.30
18.37
0.06
Table K 4: Traffic load distribution: Kwinana Freeway

Axle group load
(kN)
Axle group type

SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
QADT %
10
5.8921
16.4096
0.4600
0.7542
0.0032
0.0000
20
25.6345
32.0016
0.1045
1.9000
0.0601
0.0000
30
10.5723
11.3824
0.2300
1.4020
0.2119
0.0000
40
7.1698
9.5948
0.7527
1.2715
0.4238
0.0000
50
9.7216
8.2274
0.4600
3.3480
1.1703
0.0000
60
20.4841
6.9558
0.4391
6.6162
5.8673
0.0000
70
17.1335
5.3176
2.0071
8.6613
10.1594
0.0000
80
3.1570
3.7105
4.3696
8.0255
7.2874
0.0000
90
0.2351
3.1917
11.2273
6.8821
4.4028
0.0000
100
0.0000
1.9708
14.6770
5.5429
3.8209
8.0000
110
0.0000
0.8797
24.9425
4.9531
3.3338
4.0000
120
0.0000
0.2763
26.4269
5.0063
2.9605
8.0000
130
0.0000
0.0648
10.4955
5.6058
2.7454
16.0000
140
0.0000
0.0113
2.7598
5.9128
2.6474
16.0000
150
0.0000
0.0056
0.5436
6.8024
2.5304
0.0000
160
0.0000
0.0000
0.0836
7.6436
2.3785
0.0000
170
0.0000
0.0000
0.0209
7.9288
2.3216
0.0000
180
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
6.0288
2.6379
0.0000
190
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.5341
2.6189
0.0000
Axle group type
Axle group load

(kN)
SAST %
SADT %
TAST %
TADT %
TRDT %
QADT %
200
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.4601
3.2136
8.0000
210
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5028
4.5673
0.0000
220
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1475
5.9653
0.0000
230
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0459
7.0059
0.0000
240
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0193
6.8004
4.0000
250
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0048
6.2563
4.0000
260
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
4.6938
8.0000
270
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5209
0.0000
280
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.9837
0.0000
290
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3226
0.0000
300
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0664
4.0000
310
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0127
8.0000
320
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0095
4.0000
330
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
4.0000
340
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
350
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
4.0000
360
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
370
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
380
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
390
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
400
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
410
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
420
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
430
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
440
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
450
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
460
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
470
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
480
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Proportion of group (%)
33.80
20.73
2.80
24.18
18.48
0.01

AP-R486 15 Influence of Multiple-Axle Group Loads

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AP-R486 15 Influence of Multiple-Axle Group Loads

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research Report

The Influence of Multiple-axle Group

The Influence of Multiple-axle Group Loads on Flexible Pavement Design

The current Austroads approach to assess the relative damaging

Austroads purpose is to:

In response, research conducted has determined that, with regard to

promote consistency in road and road agency operations.

As a result, it is proposed that the mechanistic design procedure for

promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport

provide expert technical input to national policy

promote improved practice and capability by road agencies

Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales

Roads Corporation Victoria

Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland

Main Roads Western Australia

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Department of State Growth Tasmania

Department of Transport Northern Territory

Pavement design, materials, laboratory testing, accelerated loading

Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian

Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and

Australian Local Government Association

Austroads Project No. TT1614

New Zealand Transport Agency.

Austroads Publication No. AP-R486-15

The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of

Publication date May 2015

The Influence of Multiple-axle Group Loads on Flexible Pavement Design

Austroads 2015 | page i

The Influence of Multiple-axle Group Loads on Flexible Pavement Design

Australasian Practice .................................................................................................................... 4

Design of Unbound Granular Pavements with Thin Surfacings ................................. 4

Mechanistic Design of Flexible Pavements ................................................................ 4

Rigid Pavement Design .............................................................................................. 6

2.2 Origins of Standard Axle Group Loads .................................................................................... 6

Review of Alternative Methods .................................................................................................. 11

Relating Response to Damage ................................................................................. 14

Maximum Response Methods .................................................................................. 16

Multiple Peak Response Methods ............................................................................ 17

South African Pavement Engineering Manual (2003) .............................................. 17

Peak Mid-way Methods............................................................................................. 18

Integration Methods .................................................................................................. 19

Outline of Project Work .............................................................................................................. 41

Austroads 2015 | page ii

The Influence of Multiple-axle Group Loads on Flexible Pavement Design

Rutting of Unbound Granular Materials .................................................................................... 44

Overview of ALF Prior to Modification ...................................................................... 45

Multiple-axle Modifications ........................................................................................ 46

6.3 Site, Pavement Composition and Construction ..................................................................... 49

Description of Site ..................................................................................................... 49

Pavement Composition ............................................................................................. 50

6.4 Loading Applied During Testing Program .............................................................................. 57

Loading Applied ........................................................................................................ 57

Transverse Distribution ............................................................................................. 58

Line Marking ............................................................................................................. 59

6.5 Experiment Progression ........................................................................................................ 61

Loading Applied ........................................................................................................ 62

Particle Size Distribution of Base Material ................................................................ 65

Density and Moisture Content of Base Material ....................................................... 65

Deformation of Imported Clay Subgrade Material .................................................... 66

Deformation of the Surface of the Pavement ........................................................... 67

Pavement Deflection Testing .................................................................................... 71

6.7 Preparation of Data for Analysis ............................................................................................ 72

Overall Deformation and Variation of Results .......................................................... 72