TRAFFIC LOADING AND VOLUME

Pavement Design Parameters

• Traffic
• Climatic Factors
• Road Geometry
• Subgrade
• Material Properties
• Environment
Design Parameters – Traffic

• Maximum Wheel load

• Contact Pressure
• Multiple Wheel Loads
• Repetition of Loads
• Position
• Impact of wheels
• Iron-tyred vehicles
 Traffic Loading - Approaches

Approaches
Fixed traffic
• Single load, no load repetitions
Fixed vehicle
• No. of repetitions of a std. axle load
• Equivalent axle load factor
Variable traffic and vehicle
• Stresses, strains and deflections under
each load group separately
Wheel Load and Contact Pressure
Contact Pressure

The influence of
contact pressure
on stress levels
in base, subbase
and subgrade
layers are
marginal
Contact Pressure

The magnitude of
contact pressure
determines the
quality and
thickness of
wearing and
binder course
Wheel Load

The influence of
the magnitude of
the wheel load
on stress levels
in base, sub-base
and subgrade
layers is
significant
Wheel Load

Total thickness
of the pavement
is mainly
determined by
the magnitude
of the load and
not the contact
pressure
Axle Configurations and Loads

19t)
Axle Configurations

2Axle Truck – 16t

3 Axle Truck – 24t

4 Axle Semi Articulated – 34t

4 Axle Articulated – 34t

5 Axle Truck – 40t

LCV
Axle Configurations
Axle Configurations
Axle Configurations
Axle Configurations
Design Vehicle ?
 Effect of Wheel Configuration

The effect of axles 1, 2 and 3 on

stresses and strains within pavement
layers are considered independently
 Effect of Wheel Configuration

Within a group of axles, each axle is

not considered as independent
 Effect of Wheel Configuration

In flexible pavement design by layer

theory, only the wheels on one side
are considered
 Effect of Wheel Configuration

In rigid pavement design by plate

theory, the wheels on both sides are
usually considered (even when
distance > 1.8 m)
 6
5.11
5
ESALs per Vehicle

1.85
2
1.35
1
0.0007 0.10
0
Car Delivery Truck Loaded 18-Wheeler Loaded 40' Bus Loaded 60'
Articulated Bus

Notice that cars are insignificant and thus

usually ignored in pavement design.
 Shape of Contact area

The true shape of contact area is

elliptical
In flexible pavement analysis, it is
approximated to circular shape for
the ease of calculations
P
Radius of contact area, a =
pπ
 Shape of Contact area
In rigid pavement analysis, circular
shape approximation leads to
significant error
For the convenience of calculations,
the elliptical shape is approximated
by a rectangle and two semicircles
 Shape of Contact area

The contact area

0.3 L

0.4 L L

0.3 L

0.6 L

In FEM analysis of rigid pavement,

equivalent rectangular area of
0.8172 L x 0.6 L is assumed
 Multiple Wheel Loads

Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL)

Is a single wheel load having same contact
pressure which produces same value of
• Maximum stress
• Deflection
• Tensile stress
• Contact pressure
at the desired depth
 Graphical Solution

Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL)

Boyd and Foster method
Semi-rational method

Assumptions
• Equalancy concept is based on equal
vertical stress
• Contact area is circular
• Influence angle is 45o
• Soil medium is elastic, homogeneous and
isotropic half space
Graphical Solution . . . .
Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL)
 Graphical Solution . . . .
Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL)

(1)

P = load on one of the dual tires

z = pavement thickness
d = clearance between dual tires
s = center to center spacing between dual
tires
 Graphical Solution . . . .
Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL)

2P B
ESWL (Log Scale)

P1

P A

d/2 Z1 2S

Depth z (Log Scale)

Graphical Solution . . . .
Example
Find ESWL at depths of 5 cm, 20 cm and 40 cm for a dual
wheel carrying 2044 kg each. The center to center tyre
spacing is 20 cm and distance between walls of the two
tyres is 10cm

Solution
For desired depth z1 = 5 cm, which is half the distance
between the walls of tyre, ESWL = P = 2044

For z3 = 40 cm, which is twice the tyre spacing, ESWL =

2P = 4088 kg
 Graphical Solution . . . .
Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL)
Log10(d/2) = 0.7
2P B
Log10(P) = 3.3
ESWL (Log Scale)

3.6

P2 = 3.5 Log10(2S) = 1.6

Log10(2P) = 3.6
P A
3.3
Log10(Z2) = 1.3

d/2 Z2 2S P2 = Antilog (3.5)

0.7 1.3 1.6 = 3162 kg
Depth z (Log Scale)
Graphical Solution . . . .
Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL)

log10 P2 = 3.3+
(0.301)log10 (4)
= 3.5
log10 (8)

P2 = 10 = 3162 kg
3.5
 Equal Vertical Stress Criterion
From Boussinesq’s Theory PS

ɠɀ �ϼ ‫ﺤ‬ɻ  
or ꞉ (2)
Z
ɠ  �ᵂ‫ﺤ‬ɻ ɀ A
�ϼ
ɻ
Ɑ ���� ‫� ﺨ‬ σzs Maximum vertical
stress at A
Sd

Pd Pd

Numbers on
ʄ ‫ﺤ‬ɫ

curves indicate r/a

Sd/2 Z

1 2 3
σzd Maximum of vertical
stresses at 1, 2 and 3
Figure 1
Example 1
A set of dual tires has a total load 2P of 9000 lb (40 kN), a contact radius
a of 4.5 in. (114 mm), and a center to center tire spacing S of 13.5 in .
(343 mm), as shown in Figure. Determine the ESWL by Boyd and
Foster's method for a 13.5-in. (343-mm) pavement .
Solution:
Given S = 13.5 in. (343 mm) and a = 4.5 in. (114 mm), the clearance between the duals
d = 13.5 - 9 .0 = 4.5 in. (114 mm). When the thickness of pavement is equal to d/2, or
2.25 in. (57 mm), ESWL = P = 9000/2 = 4500 lb (20 kN). When the thickness is equal to
2S or 27 in. (689 mm), ESWL = 2P = 9000 lb (40 kN). After plotting thickness versus
ESWL in Figure below, the ESWL for a 13.5 in. (343 mm) pavement is 7400 lb (32.9
kN). The ESWL can also be determined from Eq. 1 or log(ESWL) = log 4500 + 0 .301
log(2 x 13.5/4.5)/log(4 x 13.5 / 4.5) = 3.87, or ESWL = 7410 lb (33.0 kN).
 Example 2:

Same as Example 1. Determine the ESWL by Boussinesq's theory.

Solution: With z/a = 13.5/4.5 = 3, the stress factors can be obtained from Figure 1 and the
results for dual wheels are presented in Table 6.1 . It can be seen that the stresses at the three
points are nearly the same with a maximum stress factor of 0.179 at point 2, which is slightly
greater than the minimum of 0.173 at point 1 . For a single wheel, the stress factor at point A is
0.143. From Eq. 2, ESWL = PS = 0.179/0.143 x 4500 = 5630 lb (25.1 kN), which differs
significantly from the 7410 lb (32.9 kN) by Boyd and Foster's method.
 Equal Vertical Deflection Criterion
Foster and Ahlvin (1958) PS

and
Z
A
ws Maximum vertical
deflection at A
Sd

Pd Pd

Numbers on curves
indicate r/a
z/a

Sd/2 Z

1 2 3
wd Maximum of vertical
(3)
deflections at 1, 2 and 3
Example 3:
Same as Example 1. Determine the ESWL by Foster and Ahlvin's method.

Solution: The chart shown in Figure 2 can be used to determine vertical deflections. The
deflection factors F at the three points shown in Figure 3 are calculated and presented in
Table 6.2 . The maximum deflection due to dual wheels occurs at point 3 with a deflection
factor of 0.78. The maximum deflection due to a single wheel occurs under the center of the
tire with a deflection factor of 0.478. From Eq. 3, ESWL = 0.78/0.478 x 4500 = 7340 lb (32.7
kN), which checks with the 7410 lb (32.9 kN) obtained in Example 1 by Boyd and Foster's
method. The close agreement between the two methods is a coincidence.
 Equal Vertical Deflection Criterion
Huang (1968)
ESWL based on interface
deflection of two layered
systems

(4)

(5)

(6)
 Example 4:
Same as Example 1 but the pavement is considered as a two-layer system, as shown in
Figure. Determine the ESWL by equal interface deflection criterion for E1/E2 of 1 and
25, respectively.

Solution: Given Sd = 13.5 in. (343 mm), a = 4.5 in. (114 mm), and h1 = 13.5 in. (343
mm), from Eq. 5, a' = 48/13.5 x 4 .5 = 16 in. (406 mm) and h'1 = 48/13.5 x 13.5 = 48 in.
(1.22 m). Because the modified contact radius is exactly 16 in. (406 mm), no interpolation
is needed. From the lower chart of Figure 4, L = 1.22 when E1/E2 = 1 and L = 1.06 when
E1/E2 = 25. With 2Pd = 9000 lb (40 kN), from Eq 4, ESWL = 9000/1.22 = 7380 lb (32.8
kN) when El /E2=1 and ESWL = 9000/1.06 = 8490 lb (37.8 kN) when E1/E2 = 25.
Equal Tensile Strain Criterion

(7)

the tensile strain e at the bottom of layer 1:

qs =contact pressure of single Wheel

qd =contact pressure of dual Wheel

(8)
Example 5 :
A full-depth asphalt pavement, 8 in . (203 mm) thick, is loaded by a set of dual wheels with a
tota l load 2Pd of 9000 lb (40 kN), a contact radius a of 4 .5 in . (114 mm), and a center to
center wheel spacing S d of 13 .5 in . (343 mm), as shown in Figure 6 .6 . If El1E2 = 50,
determine ESWL by equal tensile strain criterion.

Solution: Given Sd = 13.5 in . (343 mm), a = 4.5 in. (114 mm), and hl = 8 in. (203 mm),
from Eq. 7, a' = 24/13.5 x 4.5 = 8 in. (203 mm) and h1 = 24/13.5 X 8 = 14.2 in. (361 mm) .
Because the modified contact radius is exactly 8 in. (203 mm), no interpolation is needed .
From the lower chart in Figure 3, C = 1.50. From Eq. 6.14, ESWL = 1.50 x 4500 = 6750 lb
(30.0 kN) .
 Equal Contact Pressure Criterion
the interface deflections for single and dual wheels with the
same contact pressure can be written as:

To obtain equal deflection, ws = wd:

(9)

(10)
Example 6:
A two-layer system with a thickness hl of 13.5 in. (343 mm) and a modulus ratio El/E2 of
25 is loaded under a set of duals with a total load 2Pd of 9000 lb (40 kN), a contact pressure
q of 70 psi (483 kPa), and a center to center tire spacing Sd of 13.5 in. (343 mm), as shown
in Figure. Determine the ESWL based on the equal interface deflection criterion with equal
contact pressure.

Figura 6.7
Solution: Given Pd = 4500 lb (20 kN) and q = 70 psi (483 kPa), from Eq. 9, ad
= ����‫ = �� Ɑ � ﺤ‬4.5 in. (519 mm). With h1/ad = 13.5/4.5 = 3.0 and E1/E2 = 25, the
deflection factors at points 1, 2, and 3, as shown in Figure 6.7, can be obtained from Figure
and the results are presented in Table 6.3 . It can be seen that the same deflection factor of
0.36 is obtained at all three points, or Fd = 0.36.
Assume that Ps = 8000 lb (35.6 kN). From Eq. 9, as F
= ����‫ = �� Ɑ � ﺤ‬6.03 in. (153 mm) . With h1/as =
13.5/6.03 = 2.24 and E1/E2 = 25, from Figure, Fs =
0.26. From Eq. 10, Ps = (0.36/0.26)2 x 4500 = 8630 lb
(38.4 kN). Because the deflection factor cannot be read
accurately from Figure, a Ps of 8300 lb (36.9 kN),
which is midway between 8000 lb
(35.6 kN) and 8630 lb (38.4 kN), is taken as the final
solution.

h1/a
 Equivalent Contact Radius Criterion
Instead of equal contact radius or equal contact pressure, loannides and
Khazanovich (1993) proposed the use of an equivalent contact radius to
determine the load equivalency and called this method equivalent single-
axle radius (ESAR).
The basic concept is to determine a single wheel load with an equivalent
radius that would lead to the same response if loaded by the same total
load as the dual-wheel assembly .
By the use of statistical regression techniques, they found that the
maximum bending stress due to dual tires in the interior of a concrete slab
would be the same as a single tire with the equivalent radius:

(11)

in which aeq = equivalent tire contact radius, a = contact radius of each of

the dual tires, and S = center-to-center spacing between the dual .
 Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)

Is the equivalent repetitions of Standard Axle, usually 18

kip (80kN), during the design life of pavement
The number of repetitions of different types of axles are
converted into equivalent repetitions of standard axle by
using Equivalent Axle Load Factors (EALF)
Ⱥ

ɔ ɣɐ ɜ ꞉ İ ɕ ϻɸϻ
ϻᴊ ϸ

in which m is the number of axle load groups, Fi is the EALF

for the ith-axle load group, and ni is the number of passes of
the ith-axle load group during the design period.
Equivalent Axle Load Factor (EALF)
Defines the damage per pass to a pavement
by an axle relative to the damage per pass
of a standard axle
Exact EALF can be worked out only by using
distress models
Approximate EALF can be worked out using
the fourth power rule

Standard Axle Load Single axle : 8160 kg

Tandam axle : 14968 kg
 Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)
Instead of converting each axle pass into
equivalent standard axle passes, it will be
convenient to convert one truck pass into
equivalent standard axle passes
The factor that converts – VDF
VDF is the number of standard axles per truck
Determining VDF
Sample Axle Load Survey
Sample Axle Load Survey
Computation of VDF
Traffic on Design Lane
Need for Distribution Factors
 Traffic on Design Lane
Worked out by finding the
Directional Distribution Factor (0.5 to 0.6)
Proportion of ADT of trucks occurring in
the maximum direction

Lane Distribution Factor

Proportion of trucks occurring on the
design lane which depends on
Number of lanes and
Traffic volume
 Factors Suggested by IRC

Undivided Roads (Single Carriageway)

No. of Traffic Percentage of

lanes in two trucks in
directions Design Lane
1 100
2 75
4 40
 Factors Suggested by IRC

Divided Roads (Dual Carriageway)

No. of Traffic Percentage of
lanes in two trucks in
directions Design Lane
1 100
2 75
3 60
4 45
 Design Period
Depends on
 traffic volume
 growth rate
 capacity of road and
 possibility of augmentation
Flexible Pavement
15 years – NH, 20 years – Express ways &
Urban Roads, 10 to 15 years – Other Roads
Rigid Pavement
30 years. When Accurate prediction not
possible – 20 years
 Design Traffic

N = Cumulative std. axle repetitions during

design period (expressed in msa)
A = Initial traffic intensity (CVPD)
D = Lane distribution factor
F = Vehicle damage factor
n = Design life (years)
r = Annual rate of growth for commercial vehicles

Average annual growth rate – 7.5%

CVPD = Commercial Vehicles Per Day Msa=Million Standard Axle