Analysis Traffic Loading

Course: CE5212

Ref – Chapter 6 – Huang Y. (2004)

1
In this Module …
 Approaches in Traffic load analysis
 Equivalent Single Load Factor
 Known axle loads: AASHTO 1993 &
TAC
 Unknown axle loads: Traffic
Calculation & Asphalt Institute
methods
 Other ESAL calculation methods

2
Approaches of
Characterizing Traffic
Loading
 Fixed Traffic Approach
 The design of the pavement is governed by a single
wheel load; the number of load repetitions is not
considered.
 Multiple wheels are converted into an
Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL).
 Was frequently used in airport pavements. Usually
the heaviest expected wheel load is used for design
 Fixed Vehicle Approach
 Design is governed by number of repetitions of
a standard vehicle (or axle), usually the 80 kN
dual.
 Repetitions of other loads & configurations are
converted to Equivalent Single Axle Load
(ESAL).
3
Approaches for
Characterizing Traffic
Loading
 Variable Traffic and Variable Vehicle
Uses axle load spectra.
Design of pavement is determined
for individual axle load classes and
…
the total damage effect
accumulated and compared with
service life.
Used in Portland Cement Association
method for rigid pavement design.
Also in the NCHRP 1-37A M-E design
method. 4
Traffic Inputs in the
proposed M-E design
 Axle load spectra =

# of repetitions for each

axle type & axle group
over the design period.
Steer Singl  Axle types include
e single, tandem,
tridem and quad
axles.
 Traffic input will
consider distributions
by time of day and
Tridem Tandem Steer season of year.

5
Concept of Axle Load
Spectra

Axle Load Number of Axles

(1000 lbs) Single Tandem Tridem Quad
11-14 5,000 400 100 5
15-18 3000 2000 500 10
19-22 200 5000 800 30
23-26 50 4000 1000 80
27-30 6 2000 1500 100
etc

6
Equivalent Axle Load
Factor

7
Equivalent Axle Load Factor
 To compare damage caused by axle
loads on pavements we need a
standard configuration and load size

18000 lb
 The dual-tire
single axle with
80 kN (18,000
lb) load is taken
as the standard

8
LEF, EAL vs. Truck Factor

Gross weight
67 kN 27 kN 94 kN
15,000 + 6,000 lb = 21,000 lb
0.48
lb 0.01
TF = 0.49
LEF LEF

Gross weight
151 kN 151 kN 54 kN 356 kN
34,000 lb + 34,000 lb+12,000 lb = 80,000 lb
1.10 LEF 1.10 LEF 0.19 LEF TF = 2.39

9
Concept of Load Equivalency
Factor (LEF)
 Traffic loading is applied to pavements in a large
spectrum of axles loads and configurations
(mixed traffic, different vehicle makes, axle
spacing, etc.)
 Equivalent axle load factor (EALF) or load
equivalent factor (LEF) is defined as the
damage per pass to a pavement by a given
axle relative to the damage per pass of a
standard axle, usually the 80 kN (18,000 lb)
dual-wheel single axle
 The design is based on the total number of
passes of the Equivalent single axle load
(ESAL) during the design period
10
Load Equivalency Factor
(LEF)
 If the service life of a pavement under a
given axle is Nf, then damage caused by a
1 axle:
single pass of a the
Nf
1
NL Ns
 And LEF of a given axle L is:
LEF  
1 NL
Ns

Where, Ns = the number of load repetitions to failure

when the pavement is loaded by the

“standard” axle load

NL = the number of load repetitions to failure
when the pavement is loaded by the

given axle load 11

Load Equivalency Factor
(LEF)
 From the Asphalt Institute fatigue failure
criterion, we can write LEF as
LEF 
N s 0.796  ts 

 3.291
E1 
 0.854

  ts 
 
 3.291

N L 0.796  tL   3.291
E1 
 0.854

  tL  (tensile
strains)
 The strain ratio is proportional to load,
 3.291 3.291
  ts   L
LEF      
  tL   Ls 
Where, Ls = the “standard” axle load
L = the given axle load
 Similarly, from the Asphalt Institute
rutting failure criterion     4.477  L
4.477
cs
LEF      
(Compressive   cL   Ls  12
Pavement Response to
Load

Axle
Load

Surface 
SUR  SUR
Base/Subbase SUB

Subgrade Soil
13
Concept of Load Equivalency
Factor (LEF)
 Data from the AASHO 1960 Road Test
demonstrated that LEF varies approximately
as the fourth power of load ratio:
4 4
 L   Given axle load 
LEF     
 Ls   Single axle load 

 In practice the LEF power varies from

3.2 – 6 depending on pavement
structure, strength, and terminal
condition assumed
 Various sources offer LEF tables, charts
or equations, e.g., AASHTO 1993, TAC
1986, etc. 14
 Asphalt Institute LEF table.

Asphalt Institute. 1991. Thickness Design – Asphalt Pavements for Highways

and Streets, Manual Series No. 1. Lexington, KY. 15
AASHTO 1993 method of
traffic load analysis

16
 Structural Number
AASHTO road test, Highway Design Manual, World Bank
1960s (Watanatada et al 1987)

SN a1 H1  a2 m2 H 2  a3 m3 H 3 SNCK 0.0394 a1 H1  a2 H 2  a3 H 3   SOIL

SOIL 3.51log CBR   0.85 log CBR   1.43
2
Typical values
0.2  a1  0.44
0.08  a2  0.20
0.06  a3  0.16

17
 AASHTO 1993 LEF Tables

AASHTO. 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

18
American
Calculation of Design Traffic
 To design a pavement we need to
predict the number of repetitions of
each axle group during the design
period
 The equivalent single axle load for the
design
 m lane is given: 
ESAL    pi  LEFi  AADT0 TP   DS  LDF  DY  nD  GF 
 i 1 
Where, pi = percent of the i-th axle group in the AADT
LEFL = load equivalent factor of i-th axle group
AADT0 = base year annual average daily traffic (2-
way)
TP = Truck percentage of the AADT 19
Calculation of Design Traffic
DS = Directional Split, (usually 0.5 unless traffic in two
direction is different)
LDF = Lane Distribution Factor (1.0 for two-lane
highways)
DY = Number of Commercial Trucking Days per Year
(typically 365 day, but sometimes less)
nD = design period in years (expected service life to
rehab)
GFIn many
 cases,
= Growth the
Factor growth
(usually factor
average overisdesign
given as
an annual percent rate. Cumulative growth
period)
is found (the last two terms of equation):
(1  r ) n  1
nD GF 
r

20
Example 1: Analysis of Traffic
Load
(a) As a part of structural design of a flexible pavement for a four lane
highway you are required to estimate the cumulative design traffic
loading in equivalent single axle loads (ESAL).
Assume design period of 25 years, a lane distribution factor 80%,
and growth factor of 3% per year. The base year commercial
vehicles traffic consists of 1500 (mainly trucks) vehicles per day in
both directions. The traffic composition is as summarized in Table 1
and the axle loads are as given in Figure 1. State any other assumptions
made.
Table 1: Truck traffic composition

Class of truck Percentage

2-axle straight trucks 20%

3-axle straight trucks 25%
4-axle semi-trailers 30
5-axle combinations 15%
6-axle combinations 5%
Other traffic (average truck factor 0.65) 5%
21
Example 1: Analysis of Traffic
Load

5.5 10 5.5 17 16

5.5 18
5.5 17 25

5.5 10 16

Figure 1: Truck configurations and axle loads (metric

ton).
(b) If the design was later changed to utilize Portland cement
concrete, would the design traffic load estimated above be
applicable? Justify your answer
22
Example 1: AASHTO method
To use the AASHTO Tables we make the
following assumptions
1) Initial pavement strength SN= 5.0
2) Terminal serviceability Pt=2.5
3) Damage for the steering axle is twice that from a
equal wt. Twin wheel-single axle (due to low area of
contact)

Convert axle loads into kips (1000 lb)

1 metric ton (1000 kg) = 2204 lb = 2.204 kips
2-axle truck TF = 2(0.189) + 2.18 = 2.558
5.5 10 [Table D.4, AASHTO 93]
(12.1 kips) (22 kips)

23
 AASHTO 1993 LEF Table D.4. Single
Axle

AASHTO. 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

24
American
 AASHTO 1993 LEF Table D.4. Tandem
Axle

AASHTO. 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

25
American
Example: AASHTO method

3-axle truck TF = 2(0.189) + 2.08 = 2.458

5.5 18
(12.1 kips) (40 kips)

TF = 2(0.189) + 2.18+ 1.23 = 3.788

4-axle truck
5.5 10 16
(12.1 kips) (22 kips) (35.3 kips)

TF = 2(0.189) + 1.70 + 1.23 = 3.308

5-axle truck
5.5 17 16
(12.1 kips) (37.2 kips) (35.3 kips)

TF = 2(0.189) + 1.70 + 1.76 = 3.838

6-axle truck
5.5 17 25
(12.1 kips) (37.2 kips) (55 kips)

26
Example: ESAL calculation
1500 trucks in
this example

Vehicle % TF LEF/day = (% x No.trucks

x TF)
2-axle Truck 20 2.558 767.40
3-axle 25 2.458 921.75
4-axle 30 3.788 1704.60
5-axle 15 3.308 744.30
6-axle 5 3.838 287.85
Others 5 0.650 48.75
4474.65 ESALs/day
(2 way, 4 lanes)

ESAL = ESALs/day x DY x LDF x DS x GF

= 4474.65 x 365 x 0.8 x 0.5 x (1.0325-1)
(0.03)
= 23.82 x 106 ESALs

27
Transportation Association of
Canada (TAC, 1986) method

28
The TAC 1986 approach
 Load Equivalent SteeringLEF 
 L
2.9093

factors based on a 206.782

1986 WIM study
on a sample of Single LEF 
 L
2.9093

Canadian roads 413.565

 A set of 4 LEF
equations were Tandem LEF 
 L
2.540

derived 660.06

Tridem LEF 
 L
2.113

423.19
29
Load Equivalency Factor (LEF)
The TAC LEF vs. Load functions
10
Steering:

LEF 
 L
2.9093

8 206.782
Single:
6  L
2.9093
Tandem:
LEF 
413.565
LEF 
 L
2.540

4 660.06

Tridem:
2
LEF 
 L
2.113

423.19
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axle Group Load (Tonnes)
Example 2: (Ex. 1 using TAC
method)
Given the data in Example 1; use TAC 1986 method to carry out Traffic
load analysis.
Assume design period of 25 years, a lane distribution factor 80%, and
growth factor of 3% per year. The base year commercial vehicles traffic
consists of 1500 (mainly trucks) vehicles per day in both directions. The
traffic composition is as summarized in Table 1 and the axle loads are as
given in Figure 1. State any other assumptions made.

Table 1: Truck traffic composition

Class of truck Percentage

2-axle straight trucks 20%

3-axle straight trucks 25%
4-axle semi-trailers 30
5-axle combinations 15%
6-axle combinations 5%
Other traffic (average truck factor 0.65 5%
31
Example 2: Design Traffic
Load

5.5 10 5.5 17 16

5.5 18 5.5 17 25

5.5 10 16

Figure 1: Truck configurations and axle loads

(metric ton).

32
Example: ESAL calculation
LEF 
 L
2.9093

206.782
 2-axle: TF = 0.00486x(5.5)2.9093 + 0.002418x(10) 2.9093 =
2.6516
 3-axle: TF = 0.00486x(5.5)2.9093 + 0.001515x(18) 2.5401 =
3.0271
 4-axle:

 TF = 0.00486x(5.5)2.9093 + 0.002418x(10) 2.9093

+ 0.001515x(16) 2.5401 = 4.3848

 5-axle:

 TF = 0.00486x(5.5)2.9093 + 0.001515x(16) 2.5401

+ 0.001515x(17) 2.5401 = 4.4445

 6-axle:

 TF = 0.00486x(5.5)2.9093 + 0.001515x(17) 2.5401

+ 0.002363x(25) 2.1130 = 4.8360 33

Example 2: ESAL calculation

Two Way Daily ESALs

Vehicle % TF LEF/day = ( p% x
TF)
2-axle Truck 20 2.652 795.6
3-axle 25 3.027 1135.1
4-axle 30 4.385 1973.3
5-axle 15 4.445 1000.1
6-axle 5 4.836 362.7
Others 5 0.65 48.8
5315.6
ESALs/day
Design ESALs = LEF/day x DY x LDF x DS x GF
= 5315.6 x 365 x 0.8 x 0.5 x (1.0325-1)
(0.03)
= 28.29 x 106 ESALs
34
Basics of Traffic Count
Data

35
Traffic Count data
 Many agencies collect traffic count
data for both facility design and
pavement structural design
 In some sites Automatic vehicle
classifiers are installed to count
axle volume and classify vehicles
continuously
 Many cases manual counts are
carried out on a site for 24-hours
or 72-hours
36
Traffic Count Terminologies
 Traffic data is normally collected as
vehicle counts of mixed vehicle types
(large range of GVWs, axle loads & axle
configuration)
 The vehicle counts must be converted to
ESALs for purpose of pavement design
 Traffic counts terminologies:
 AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (average
24-hour, two way traffic over the entire year)
An average obtained from a single 24-hour or
72-hour count is converted into AADT by
appropriate factors accounting for day of
week, seasonal, etc.
37
Traffic counts terminology
(cont.)
 ADT = Average Daily Traffic (a 24 hour
average, not over entire year)
 AADTT = Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic
 TP = percent of trucks or heavy
commercial vehicles (%HCV) of AADT
 AADTT = (AADT) x (TP)
 ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Load, i.e., the
design number repetitions of standard
axle over the design period
 TF = Truck Factor i.e., sum of Load
Equivalent Factors of a given vehicle

38
Vehicle Classification: FHWA
1. Motorcycles
2. Passenger cars
3. Other two axle, four tire single units
4. Buses
5. Two Axle, six tire, single unit trucks
6. Three axle, single unit trucks
7. Four or more axle single unit trucks
8. Four or fewer axle single unit trailer
9. Five axle single trailer trucks
10.Six or more axle single trailer trucks
11.Five or fewer axle multi-trailer trucks
12.Six axle multi-trailer trucks
13.Seven or more axle multi-trailer trucks

39
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Scheme

40
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Scheme

41
Vehicle Classification:
Canada
1. Passenger Car
2. Light Single Unit Truck (LSU)
3. Medium Single Unit Truck (MSU)
4. Heavy Single Unit Truck (HSU)
5. WB-19 Tractor Semitrailers
6. WB-20 Tractor Semitrailers
7. A-Train Double (ATD)
8. B-Train Double (BTD)
9. Standard Single-Unit Buses (B-12)
10. Articulated Buses (A-BUS)
11. Intercity Buses (I-BUS)
Table 1.2.1. reproduced from TAC. 1999. Geometric design guide for Canadian
Roads. Updated 2007. Ottawa, ON for educational purposes only
Table 1.2.1. reproduced from TAC. 1999. Geometric design guide for Canadian
Roads. Updated 2007. Ottawa, ON for educational purposes only
Table 1.2.1. reproduced from TAC. 1999. Geometric design guide for Canadian
Roads. Updated 2007. Ottawa, ON for educational purposes only
Design Traffic Load from
Counts
 Both AASHTO 1993 and TAC 1986
methods assume we have axle
load data
 In many cases pavement design is
done on sites where no axle load
data is available
 Design ESAL is normally estimated
from historical typical Truck
Factors for vehicle classes
46
Typical truck factors in
Ontario
Table 2. Typical truck factors for major truck classes in Ontario
Major Truck Class Typical Truck Range of Typical
Factor, TF Truck Factors
2 and 3-axle trucks 0.40 0.05-0.90
4-axle trucks 2.00 2.0-4.0
5-axle trucks 1.20 0.3-3.5
6 and more axle trucks 5.10 2.0-6.5

Table 3. Truck factors for selected trucks in Ontario [Hajek 95b]

Truck Factor
Vehicle Class Vehicle Loaded to the
Vehicle Empty Allowable load limit*
Urban bus 0.15 2.5
4-axle gravel truck with one liftable axle 0.20 4.6
5-axle tractor-semi trailer (3S-2) 0.20 5.6
6-axle logging trucks, 3S-3, with one 0.25 7.8
liftable axle.
* Assumes 1994 Ontario vehicle regulations and Load Equivalency Factor (LEF) approximately
the same as in [AASHTO 93]
47
Canadian legal axle loads &
vehicle dimensions
overall length (max 23 m)
box length (max 14.65 m)

Interaxle
spacing
Tandem (min. 3 m)
Tridem
1.2 m - 1.85 m
2.4 m -3.7 m Tractor wheelbase
(max 6.2 m)
Single Axle:
9,100 kg Single Axle:
Tandem Axle: Maximum Gross Weights 9,100 kg
Steering Axle:
17,000 kg 3 axles.…. 23,700 kg Tandem Axle:
5,500 kg
Tridem Axle: 4 axles….. 31,600 kg 17,000 kg
24,000 kg 5 axles….. 39,500 kg
6 axles….. 46,500 kg 48
Traffic Load Analysis:
Method

49
Conversion of Traffic Counts
to ESALs
n
E SA L 's    A A D T T  F D  T F  L D F  D S  D Y  n
i 1
i i i i D G F 
Where,
ESAL = Design Equivalent Single Axle Load
AADTT = Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic
FD = Fleet Distribution Factor (=% of each
vehicle class in ADT)
TF = Truck Factor **
LDF = Lane Distribution Factor
DS = Directional Split
DY = Number of Commercial Trucking Days per
Year 50
Conversion of Traffic Counts to
ESALs
 In equation:
 Fleet Distribution and Truck Factor
 are assigned to traffic counts of a given road
section according to Weight in Motion (WIM)
studies
 It is assumed that today’s traffic
composition & TF’s of a given road site can
be approximated by one of the study sites

51
EXAMPLE for NB: Fleet
Distribution (% of truck
traffic)
FHWA Longs River St. Tide Oak
Class Creek Glade Basile Head Bay Mean
(FD1) (FD2) (FD3) (FD4) (FD5)
5 5.9 7.9 8.6 8.0 23.7 8.2
6 4.8 6.9 3.3 5.4 17.2 5.7
7 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.4
8 2.4 2.7 2.7 0.3 5.8 2.7
9 56.6 60.5 46.2 12.8 39.6 52.7
10 26.7 21.4 37.5 70.2 5.8 28.6
13 3.0 0.4 1.1 3.4 7.6 1.8

52
NB EXAMPLE (cont)
Table 2: Truck Factors
FHWA Longs River St. Tide Oak
Class Creek Glade Basile Head Bay Mean
(TF1) (TF2) (TF3) (TF4) (TF5)
5 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.60 0.52 0.45
6 1.04 1.25 1.08 1.06 1.37 1.18
7 2.19 2.26 4.49 na. 4.95 3.25
8 1.07 0.92 0.97 na. 1.07 0.99
9 2.40 2.26 2.34 2.57 2.24 2.33
10 5.44 6.33 5.92 6.25 4.55 5.91
13 4.78 5.80 4.59 3.08 4.72 4.70

53
NB Example
Table 3: Guidelines for choosing
Appropriate Fleet Dist/TF
Factors Location of Highway
Combination
Name
Set Highway Category
Activity In Area

Trans. Canada Primarily influenced by presence of

TCH Blend TF1:FD1 TCH
Highway long distance trucking/ cross boarder
TCH from Long distance trucking present but
TCH West TF1:FD2 Longs Creek TCH also influenced by adjacent resource
West (timber etc.) based activity
TCH from Long distance trucking present but
TCH East TF2:FD1 Longs Creek TCH greater use of double combinations -
East border areas.
Greater degree of intra- provincial
Provincial
Prov. Hwy. Provincial hauling, dominated by high gross
Highway in
Northeast TF3:FD3 hwy (non- weight, class 10 trucks. Dominance of
North East of
(PH/NE) TCH) Logging and resource-based
Province
activities.
Prov. Hwy. Provincial Provincial Greater degree of intra- provincial
Southwest TF4:FD4 Highway in hwy hauling. Local shorter distance
(PH/SW) South West (non-TCH) trucking (dominance of Single units)
Provincial Use on TCH Use on
TF5:FD5 Use on TCH only
Average only TCH only
54
Traffic Load Analysis:
Asphalt Institute Method

55
Asphalt Institute Approach
 Generally based on AASHTO 1993
method
 When axle loads are known, AASHTO
LEFs are used with SN=5, and Pt = 2.5
 When no axle load data exists, design
ESAL is based on historical truck
factors on similar (nearby) highways
 When vehicle classification data is
not available, Asphalt Institute Tables
IV can be used
56
Load
Equivalency
Factors
(Based on AASHTO
1986 Appendix D)

57
Load
Equivalency
Factors
(Based on AASHTO
1986 Appendix D)

58
Example of US axle-load
distribution for typical Interstate
rural highways Equivalent Axle Load.
 per axle load group

59
Example of US axle-load
distribution for typical Interstate
rural highways

60
Distribution of truck factors for
different classes of highways &
vehicles in the USA

61
Example work sheet traffic
analysis

Previous
slide

62
Module review
 Approaches in Traffic load analysis
 Equivalent Single Load Factor
 Known axle loads: AASHTO 1993 & TAC
 Unknown axle loads: Asphalt Institute
methods, Locally observed (NBDOT)
 Other ESAL calculation methods

63
Questions/discussions?

64
Appendices to Traffic
Analysis

65
AASHTO 1993 Traffic
Analysis Tables

66
Asphalt Institute Traffic
Analysis Tables &
Figures

67