International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Average full-trailer truck equivalency factors for

uphill flexible pavements in developing countries

Sabah Said Razouki , Raid Al-Muhanna & Zahraa Hashim

To cite this article: Sabah Said Razouki , Raid Al-Muhanna & Zahraa Hashim (2020): Average full-
trailer truck equivalency factors for uphill flexible pavements in developing countries, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2020.1859507

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1859507

Published online: 21 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1859507

Average full-trailer truck equivalency factors for uphill flexible pavements in

developing countries
Sabah Said Razoukia, Raid Al-Muhannab and Zahraa Hashimb
a
Civil Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Al- Jadiriya, Baghdad, Iraq; bCivil Engineering, Kerbala University, Kerbala, Iraq

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper presents the average truck equivalency factors for four types of full-trailer trucks on uphill Received 21 July 2020
flexible pavements. Rising grades of 6%,12% and 18% are considered in addition to level flexible Accepted 30 November 2020
pavements. To arrive at each truck equivalency factor for the 254 full-trailer trucks studied, the axle
KEYWORDS
loads were obtained from an axle load survey using permanent weighing stations. Assuming uniform Average truck equivalency
motion, the axle loads on uphill pavement were calculated for different relative height of the centre factor; full-trailer truck;
of gravity of truck above pavement taking into consideration the pull force in the hook connecting pavement design; uphill
both units of each full-trailer truck. The effects on average truck equivalency factor of uphill gradient, flexible pavement; uphill
type of full-trailer truck, relative height of centre of gravity of truck, pavement structural number and slope factor
terminal level of serviceability, were thoroughly studied. The paper reveals that an increase in uphill
slope causes a significant increase in flexible pavement thickness especially for steep rising grades in
developing countries. For rough estimation of standard single axle load applications on uphill
pavements from level pavements, overall average uphill slope factors were developed. The uphill
slope factor of unity for level pavement increases by about 0.038 per each 1% increase in uphill slope.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The problem of increased damage to uphill flexible pavements
from commercial vehicles (trucks) has received attention by
Razouki and Radeef (2005) and Razouki et al. (2017). This
increased damage on rising grades is due to the redistribution
of axle loads resulting, for the case of single-unit trucks, from
the moment produced by the weight component of the truck
parallel to the longitudinal gradient of the road surface. This
component acts at the centre of gravity of the truck. The on-
road centre of gravity height estimation of trucks has received
attention by Negrus and Cocosila (2000). Razouki and Radeef
(2005) restricted their study only to single-unit trucks, while
Razouki et al. (2017) restricted their study to a minor category
of full-trailer trucks type 11.22 + 2.22 (see Section 2 for coding)
that was observed recently by Al-hashimi (2017). The axle load
survey and analysis carried out by Al-hashimi (2017) focused
on new categories of full-trailer trucks in Iraq. She found
two new types namely 11.22 + 2.22 and 11.2 + 2.2 with
measured maximum axle loads of 278 and 339 kN for single
and tandem axles respectively. These maximum axle loads
exceed significantly the axle load limits according to State
Commission for Roads and Bridges in Iraq (SCRB 2009) of
13 tonnes (127 kN) and 20 tonnes (196 kN) for single and tan-
dem axles, respectively. It should be noted that the axle load
survey carried out by Al-Muhanna (2008) covered all common
types of full-trailer trucks, but he restricted his analysis to the
increased damage of uphill rigid pavements due to such trucks.
For 11.22 + 2.22 full-trailer trucks, Razouki et al. (2017)
presented design charts for the truck equivalency factors ver-
sus the total weight of full-trailer truck for different uphill
slopes ranging from zero to 18%. However, such charts require
the knowledge of the weight of each full-trailer truck to deter-
mine the corresponding truck equivalency factor on uphill
pavements. Note that the use of weight or average weight of
full-trailers requires an axle load survey from which the
required truck weights and their average can be determined.
This is costly and time-consuming procedure in developing
countries as weigh-in-motion stations/data are not available
Rys et al. (2016a) determined vehicles load equivalency
factors for level pavement using weigh-in-motion data.
They analysed the data using different methods including
the AASHTO (1993) approach. Their study revealed that
the maximum legal axle load limit has a significant effect
on axle load distribution and consequently on the axle load
equivalency factors. These factors are lower for roads where
lower axle loads limits are permitted. In addition Rys et al.
(2016a) pointed out that overloaded trucks occur less fre-
quently in comparison to properly loaded trucks. However,
due to their greater potential to cause damage, they signifi-
cantly contribute to the distress of pavement structure.
Note that the annual average percentage of overloaded
vehicles in Poland, as reported by Rys et al. (2016a), varies
from 6% to 25% what makes it a serious problem. It is also
worth noting that the study made by Rys et al. (2016b)
revealed that the load equivalency factor is proportional to
the increase of percentage of overloaded vehicles.
Pais et.al. (2019) pointed out that the large number of
different vehicle types on roads are considered in pavement
design by converting their effects through the use of truck fac-
tors. Their study revealed that overloaded vehicles increased
pavement damage and life cycle costs by about 30% compared
to their cost when loaded with legal limits.

CONTACT Sabah Said Razouki nspsf2004@yahoo.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. S. RAZOUKI ET AL.
1.2. Aim of the study
Due to the untenable problem of overloading truck traffic
(USDOT 2000, Rys et al. 2016a, 2016b, Pais et.al. 2019, Ekblad
et.al. 2020), especially in developing countries (Razouki 1992,
Razouki and Razouki 1993, Karim et al. 2013, Al-hashimi
2017), there is an urgent need for a new average truck equiv-
alency factor for each type of full-trailer trucks popular in
the Middle East. In addition, high uphill slopes in existing
roads in rolling and mountainous topography of the Middle
East are very common (Al-Muhanna 2008).
The present paper aims at obtaining and presenting in
Tables the urgently needed new average truck equivalency fac-
tor for each of the major categories of full-trailer trucks in use
in the Middle East. In these tables, different uphill slopes of
interest in developing and developed countries will be covered
together with different values for pavement structural number
and relative height of centre of gravity of the truck. The effect
of type of full- trailer trucks, uphill gradient, relative height of
centre of gravity above pavement, structural number and
terminal level of serviceability on the average truck equival-
ency factor will be studied too.
In addition, the paper aims at developing uphill slope fac-
tors (USFs) for each category, as well as an overall average
USF for all categories of full-trailer trucks under study. As
the USF represents the ratio of standard single axle load appli-
cations on uphill pavement to those on level pavement, it will
help the quick estimation of these load applications on uphill
pavement from those on level pavement.
2. Coding of full-trailer trucks under study
There are many types of full-trailer trucks all over the world.
European full-trailer trucks are widespread in the Middle
East. To differentiate between the different types of full-trailer
trucks in this paper, the code introduced by Jones and Robin-
son (1976) for representing axle configuration of commercial
vehicles, is adopted. Each axle is represented by a digit (either 1
or 2) depending on the number of tires on each end of the
axle. For tandem and triple axles as well as multi-axle groups,
the digits are recorded directly after each other. A decimal
point is placed between the code for front axle and that for the
rear axle of each truck unit. For full-trailer trucks, a plus sign is
used to separate the code of tractor unit from that for trailer unit.
According to Razouki and Al-Muhanna (2010), the follow-
ing four types of full-trailer trucks were observed in their axle
load survey in Iraq, namely: 1.2 + 2.2, 1.22 + 2.2, 1.2 + 2.22
and 1.22 + 2.22 as shown in Figure 1. This axle load survey cov-
ered 254 full-trailer trucks including 116 trucks (45.7%) of type
1.22 + 2.2, 66 trucks (26%) of type 1.2 + 2.2, 43 trucks (16.9%) of
type 1.22 + 2.22 and 29 trucks (11.4%) of type 1.2 + 2.22.
3. Axle loads on level pavements
To determine the axle loads of all types of full-trailer trucks of
interest in this study, use was made only of the axle load survey
carried out by Al-Muhanna (2008) using permanent weighing
stations in different Iraqi cities. This is due to the fact that no
way-in-motion stations were/are available and that the axle
load survey carried out by AL-hashimi (2017) focused atten-
tion only on two recently observed minor categories of full-
trailer trucks. In each of the weighing stations used by Al-
Muhanna (2008), the weighing unit consisted of a permanent
weighing platform connected to a digital readout unit operat-
ing electrically and having, generally, a load range of 0–80
tonnes (0–784.8 kN). The weighing stations used were in
different grain silos, General Company for Trade of Construc-
tion materials, General Company for Trade of Food Materials
and some local stations for weighing of dates. The weighing
process is explained fully by Al-Muhanna (2008) and Razouki
et al. (2017). These axle loads determined from the survey rep-
resent those under static conditions where the pull force in the
drawbar (hook) between tractor and trailer units of the full-
trailer truck, is zero. To arrive at the axle loads under uniform
motion on a level pavement (see Figure 2), the pull force in the
drawbar between tractor and trailer units was measured using
strain gauges and the corresponding axle loads were calculated
(Al-Muhanna 2008).
Al-Muhanna (2008) measured the pull force or tensile force
T0 (shown in Figure 2(A)) in the drawbar (hook) between the
tractor and trailer units of 66 trucks of four different types of
full-trailers on level pavements.
To fit the data by a regression curve, he found out that the
strongest fitting is achieved by the following non-linear
regression equation having a coefficient of correlation of R =
0.931 and a coefficient of determination R 2 = 0.866 indicating
a strong correlation after Anderson and Sclove (1978):
T0 = 0.0008 × (W2 )1.5433 for 73.379 ≤ W2
≤ 462.443kN (1)
where
T0 = pull force for the case of level highway (kN) as shown
in Figure 2(A)
W2 = total weight of trailer unit (kN).
4. Axle loads on uphill pavements
As discussed by Razouki and Radeef (2005) and Razouki et al.
(2017), there is an axle load redistribution on uphill pavement
due mainly to the moment of the weight component, of each
unit of the full-trailer truck, parallel to the uphill slope. There-
fore, the distribution of axle loads of vehicles on uphill pave-
ments differs from that on level pavements. However, the
weight of each unit of a full-trailer truck acts at the corre-
sponding centre of gravity of the corresponding unit. This
means that the axle load redistribution will be significantly
affected by the height of centre of gravity above the pavement.
In developing countries, this height of centre of gravity is
increased by using oversized trucks in height. The increase
in height is achieved by increasing the volume of loading
area to allow increased height of freight (Al. Muhanna 2008,
Al.hashimi 2017).
In addition, the weight component parallel to the uphill
slope affects significantly the pull force in the drawbar between
tractor and trailer units of a full-trailer truck. According to Al-

Figure 1. Characteristics of four types of full-trailer trucks under study.
hashimi (2017), this pull force T (shown in Figure 2(B)) on
uphill pavement is given for uniform motion by:
T = 0.0008(W2 cosu)1.5433 + W2 sinu
T = pull force for the case of uphill slope
θ = angle of uphill gradient = tan−1g
g = gradient
Note that to be on safe side and as no measurements are
available for the pull force in hook for the case of uphill pave-
ments, the weight component W2 sinθ parallel to uphill slope
was assumed to be transferred completely to the drawbar
(hook).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 3
Assuming uniform motion and no vertical vibrations, the
axle loads on uphill pavement can be derived using dynamic
equilibrium as follows (see Figure 2):
(2)
For the tractor unit:
Fg1 = W1 (cosQ)L12 /B1 − W1 (sinQ)H1 /B1 –TE/B1
= [F01 − W1 (tanQ)H1 /B1 ]cosQ − TE/B1 Rg1
= W1 (cosQ)L11 /B1 + W1 (sinQ)H1 /B1 + TE/B1
= [R01 + W1 (tanQ)H1 /B1 ]cosQ + TE/B1 (3a)
where W1 = weight of tractor unit of full-trailer truck (= F01 + R01)
4 S. S. RAZOUKI ET AL.

Figure 2. Forces acting on tractor and trailer units of type 1.2 + 2.22 full-trailer truck moving with uniform motion on level and uphill pavements.

Fg1,Rg1 = front and rear axle loads for the tractor unit on uphill For the trailer unit:
pavements during uniform motion
F01,R 01 = measured front and rear axle loads for the tractor Fg2 = W2 (cosQ)L22 /B2 − W2 (sinQ)H2 /B2 + TE/B2
unit on level pavements (static condition)
E = height (perpendicular to and above the pavement) of = [F02 − W2 (tanQ)H2 /B2 ]cosQ + TE/B2 Rg2
the drawbar (hook) between tractor and trailer units of a = W2 (cosQ)L21 /B2 + W2 (sinQ)H2 /B2 − TE/B2
full-trailer truck
= [R02 + W2 (tanQ)H2 /B2 ]cosQ − TE/B2 (3b)
L11 = distance (parallel to road gradient) between centre of
front axle and centre of gravity of tractor unit of a full-trailer where
truck W2 = weight of trailer unit (=F02 + R02)
L12 = distance (parallel to road gradient) between centre of Fg2, Rg2 = front and rear axle loads for the trailer unit on
rear axle and centre of gravity of tractor unit of a full-trailer truck uphill pavements during uniform motion
B1 = wheel base of the tractor unit F02, R02 = measured front and rear axle loads for the trailer
H1= height of centre of gravity (perpendicular to and above unit on level pavements (static condition)
the pavement) of the tractor unit H2 = height of centre of gravity (perpendicular to and above
θ = angle of uphill gradient, tanθ = uphill gradient the pavement) of the trailer unit
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 5

L21 = distance (parallel to road gradient) between centre of L2 = axle code (1 for single axle, 2 for tandem axle and 3 for
front axle and centre of gravity of trailer unit of a full-trailer triple axle).
truck SN = structural number for flexible pavements.
L22 = distance (parallel to road gradient) between centre of A computer programme was written in MatLab to calculate,
rear axle and centre of gravity of trailer unit of a full-trailer using Equation (3), the axle loads on uphill pavement for each
truck truck of any type of full-trailers included in this study. For each
B2 = wheel base of the trailer unit truck, all the geometrical data obtained during the axle load
H2 = height of the centre of gravity (perpendicular to and survey were used together with five values of H/B ratio of
above the pavement) of the trailer unit 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 and four values for the uphill slope
It is worth mentioning that during the axle load survey, the of 0%, 6%, 12% and 18%. A unique value of E = 1.0 m =
actual distances B1, B2, L11, L12, L21 and L22 were measured for 1000 mm for the height above pavement of the drawbar
each truck surveyed. Following Razouki et al. (2017) and between tractor and trailer units, was used for all trucks
Razouki and Radeef (2005), it was assumed that H1/B1 = H2/ studied as recommended by Razouki et al. (2017) and Al-
B2 = H/B and five different values of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 hashimi (2017).
were assigned to this ratio. Thus, on uphill pavements, the Thereafter, the equivalency factor for each axle load was cal-
axle loads for each full-trailer truck of any type can be calcu- culated using Equation (6) assuming a terminal level of servi-
lated using Equation (3). ceability of pt = 2.5 together with each of the adopted six values
for the structural number SN = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
After determining the load equivalency factors for all axle
5. Average truck equivalency factors loads of each truck, the truck equivalency factor was calculated
According to AASHTO Guide (1993), the truck equivalency using Equation (4). Using the truck equivalency factors for all
factor is the summation of the equivalency factors for all trucks belonging to the same type, the corresponding average
axle loads of the truck, which can be calculated as follows: truck equivalency factor was obtained using Equation (5).
Table 1 shows the measured static axle loads on a level sur-


n
Te = Ei (4) face of the 29 full-trailer trucks of type 1.2 + 2.22 studied. It is
i=1 quite obvious that extremely high axle loads are observed. For
example, the rear single axle load of the tractor unit of truck
where Te = truck equivalency factor. number 28 is 252.29 kN exceeding the corresponding legal
Ei = equivalency factor for the ith axle. limit of 13 tonnes (127 kN) according to State Commission
n = total number of axles in the truck. for Roads and Bridges in Iraq (2009). Similarly, the tandem
Thus, the average truck equivalency factor Ta becomes: axle of the trailer unit of truck number 29 is 276.10 kN exceed-


N ing its legal limit of 20 tonnes (196 kN). It is also worth noting
Ta = ( Tej )/N (5) that the comparison of these maximum axle loads with those
j=1 of Al-hashimi (2017) mentioned under 1.1 shows that the
overloading phenomenon continued for both single and tan-
where Tej = truck equivalency factor for the jth full-trailer
dem axles.
truck
Finally, this phenomenon of overloading in developing
N = total number of full-trailer trucks of type 1.2 + 2.2, 1.2
countries.is very common and has been mentioned by various
+ 2.22, 1.22 + 2.2 or 1.22 + 2.22
authors (Razouki 1992, Fekpe et al. 1993, Al-Muhanna 2008,
For flexible pavements, the AASHTO Design Guide (1993)
Karim et al 2013, Al-hashimi 2017).
recommends the following equation for calculating the
For the same 29 trucks mentioned above, Table 2 presents,
AASHTO load equivalency factor
for each truck, the axle loads and the corresponding truck
E†i = Nf 18 /N fi
= [(L1 + L2 )/(18 + 1)]4.79 [10(Gt /b18) ]/[{10(Gt /bi) }L4.35
2 ]
Table 1. Measured static axle loads for 1.2 + 2.22 full-trailer truck on a level
(6) surface.
Axle loads (kN)
Gt = log10 [(4.2 − pt )/(4.2 − 1.5)] (6a)
Truck number F01 F02 R01 R02
1 38.40 60.50 46.19 70.60
bi = 0.40 + [0.081∗(L1 + L2 ) 3.23
]/[(SN + 1) 5.19
∗L3.23
2 ] (6b) 2 39.70 81.80 50.90 100.36
3 49.20 97.90 59.00 103.80
where 4 58.80 98.53 62.70 123.20
Ei = AASHTO load equivalency factor for the ith axle. 5 59.60 119.08 71.90 124.20
25 97.90 215.30 141.30 225.21
Nfi = number of repetitions to failure for the ith axle. 26 97.99 216.60 161.40 242.50
Nf18 = number of repetitions to failure for the standard 27 98.80 234.60 161.40 242.70
80 kN (18 kip) single axle. 28 102.80 252.29 162.70 260.50
29 118.80 273.50 178.30 276.50
β18 = value of βi when L1 is equal to 18 and L2 is equal to 1.
Note: F01 = front static axle load for tractor unit on a level pavement, F02 = front
pt = terminal serviceability. static axle load for trailer unit on a level pavement, R01 = rear static axle loads
L1 = load on one single axle, one tandem axle, or one triple for tractor unit on a level pavement, R02 = rear static axle load for trailer unit on
axle set (kips, 1 kip = 4.448 kN). a level pavement.
6 S. S. RAZOUKI ET AL.

Table 2. Truck and average truck equivalency factor for 1.2 + 2.22 full-trailer truck equivalency factor on uphill flexible pavement assuming a
on uphill flexible pavements (Case: H/B = 1.0, structural number SN = 4, uphill
slope of 18% and pt = 2.5).
structural number SN = 4 for H/B = 1, a rising grade of 18%
Axle load on Total
and a terminal level of serviceability pt = 2.5. By averaging all
uphill Equivalency weight of truck equivalency factors, this Table presents also the corre-
Truck Axle pavement Factor on uphill full-trailer sponding average truck equivalency factor.
number type (kN) slope (Ei) (kN) Te
Tables 3–6 present the average truck equivalency factors for
1 S.A.S 14.39765 0.001182 215.69 1.3712 1.2 + 2.2, 1.2 + 2.22, 1.22 + 2.2 and 1.22 + 2.22, respectively. It
S.A 84.57713 1.223796
S.A 30.39829 0.021671 is obvious that in each of these tables, the average truck equiv-
T.A 86.32635 0.124577 alency factor is given for five different relative heights of centre
2 S.A.S 12.61376 0.000735 272.62 3.6052 of gravity above the pavement, four different uphill grades and
S.A 108.7413 3.100162
S.A 29.82896 0.020068 six different structural numbers.
T.A 121.4307 0.484197
3 S.A.S 16.70239 0.002048 309.08 6.8345
S.A 130.5057 6.254184
S.A 37.85752 0.05307 6. Factors affecting the average truck equivalency
T.A 124.0135 0.525202 factor
4 S.A.S 22.85057 0.006881 343.23 8.1509
S.A 134.583 7.065354 There are many factors that can affect the truck equivalency
S.A 37.82774 0.0529
T.A 147.967 1.025809 factors and hence the flexible pavement design on uphill pave-
5 S.A.S 16.10217 0.001786 374.68 16.5052 ments. The following factors, namely uphill gradient, height of
S.A 162.5541 15.3126 centre of gravity of each truck unit above pavement, structural
S.A 46.38531 0.121211
T.A 149.6349 1.069594 number, type of full-trailer truck and terminal level of service-
25 S.A.S 28.17319 0.01592 679.51 197.6507 ability, are chosen to study their effect in depth on the average
S.A 284.7646 185.3431 full-trailer truck equivalency factor on uphill flexible
S.A 90.85451 1.592295
T.A 275.7188 10.69944 pavements.
26 S.A.S 26.5038 0.012442 699.19 212.2274
S.A 288.5563 197.0158
S.A 91.90336 1.660943
T.A 292.2268 13.53816 6.1. Effect of uphill gradient
27 S.A.S 14.21072 0.001127 737.01 330.7745
S.A 318.9851 313.6036 The important effect of uphill gradient of flexible pavement on
S.A 108.9104 3.118324 the average full-trailer truck equivalency factors is shown in
T.A 294.899 14.05138
28 S.A.S 13.48733 0.000933 778.29 452.5259 Figure 3 for the case of 1.2 + 2.2 full-trailer truck, H/B = 1.0
S.A 341.5099 431.0326 and pt = 2.5. Each curve in this figure is devoted to a certain
S.A 108.389 3.062582 structural number of SN = 1, 3 and 5. It is quite obvious
T.A 314.9067 18.42984
29 S.A.S 30.59395 0.022244 846.78 590.3571 from this figure that there is a significant increase of the aver-
S.A 361.4465 562.0082 age truck equivalency factor with increasing uphill gradient
S.A 120.07 4.519411 indicating the need of considering this factor in pavement
T.A 334.6738 23.80727
Average truck equivalence factor (Ta) 115.4340 design for uphill flexible pavements. It is also worth mention-
Note: S.A.S. = Single axle single tired, S.A. = Single axle dual tired and T.A = tan- ing that the highest average truck equivalency factors are
dem axle. associated with a structural number SN = 1.

Table 3. Average truck equivalence factors for full-trailer trucks of type 1.2 + 2.2 for pt = 2.5.
Structural number, SN
H/B Uphill slope (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.2 0 49.0047 45.0678 36.4797 29.6044 28.0878 30.1677
6 55.0985 50.5911 40.7268 32.7098 30.7031 32.7984
12 61.0845 56.0136 44.8871 35.738 33.2323 35.3116
18 66.7092 61.1057 48.7856 38.5647 35.5747 37.6109
0.4 0 49.0047 45.0678 36.4797 29.6044 28.0878 30.1677
6 58.7448 53.897 43.2721 34.578 32.2846 34.3919
12 69.5638 63.7012 50.8073 40.0886 36.9118 38.9916
18 81.0586 74.1154 58.808 45.9382 41.8019 43.7972
0.6 0 49.0047 45.0678 36.4797 29.6044 28.0878 30.1677
6 62.7324 57.5124 46.0559 36.6222 34.0155 36.1334
12 79.4857 72.6968 57.7362 45.1833 41.2175 43.2825
18 98.8007 90.2009 71.2046 55.0597 49.4877 51.3889
0.8 0 49.0047 45.0678 36.4797 29.6044 28.0878 30.1677
6 67.0705 61.4456 49.0846 38.847 35.8993 38.0255
12 90.9378 83.0795 65.7352 51.0667 46.1827 48.2095
18 120.267 109.664 86.2086 66.0939 58.7565 60.4848
1 0 49.0047 45.0678 36.4797 29.6044 28.0878 30.1677
6 71.7692 65.7055 52.3653 41.2577 37.9399 40.0712
12 104.018 94.9384 74.8736 57.7881 51.8443 53.8011
18 145.842 132.852 104.087 79.2295 69.7534 71.2021
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 7

Table 4. Average truck equivalence factors for full-trailer trucks of type 1.2 + 2.22 for pt = 2.5.
Structural number, SN
H/B Uphill slope (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.2 0 71.9495 65.9072 52.6161 41.5263 38.1239 40.0647
6 83.1489 76.0573 60.4193 47.2128 42.833 44.6397
12 94.5936 86.4265 68.3809 53.0012 47.6064 49.2373
18 105.81 96.586 76.1733 58.6577 52.2549 53.6785
0.4 0 71.9495 65.9072 52.6161 41.5263 38.1239 40.0647
6 87.8783 80.3417 63.707 49.5968 44.7803 46.4835
12 106.041 96.7974 76.3439 58.7892 52.3474 53.7152
18 125.822 114.717 90.1026 68.8014 60.5717 61.5085
0.6 0 71.9495 65.9072 52.6161 41.5263 38.1239 40.0647
6 93.1209 85.0912 67.3528 52.2438 46.9481 48.5405
12 119.649 109.127 85.8156 65.686 58.0121 59.0761
18 150.906 137.446 107.577 81.5465 71.0415 71.378
0.8 0 71.9495 65.9072 52.6161 41.5263 38.1239 40.0647
6 98.8814 90.3102 71.3601 55.1564 49.3384 50.8122
12 135.48 123.471 96.8398 73.7236 64.6246 65.3388
18 181.341 165.027 128.792 97.0308 83.7708 83.3751
1 0 71.9495 65.9072 52.6161 41.5263 38.1239 40.0647
6 105.166 96.0039 75.733 58.3379 51.9536 53.3003
12 153.612 139.902 109.473 82.9426 72.216 72.5276
18 217.493 197.791 154.003 115.434 98.901 97.617

Table 5. Average truck equivalence factors for full-trailer trucks of type 1.22 + 2.2 for pt = 2.5.
Structural number, SN
H/B Uphill slope (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.2 0 27.5479 25.5874 21.3706 18.2812 18.2012 19.9258
6 28.4676 26.4167 21.9933 18.7133 18.5613 20.3242
12 29.1763 27.0518 22.4578 19.0175 18.8036 20.5966
18 29.6206 27.4446 22.7283 19.1713 18.9117 20.7234
0.4 0 27.5479 25.5874 21.3706 18.2812 18.2012 19.9258
6 29.755 27.5824 22.8855 19.3639 19.1278 20.9387
12 32.2393 29.8263 24.5862 20.585 20.1866 22.0954
18 34.7997 32.1374 26.3368 21.8538 21.2974 23.299
0.6 0 27.5479 25.5874 21.3706 18.2812 18.2012 19.9258
6 31.2718 28.9562 23.9385 20.1353 19.8022 21.6672
12 36.1826 33.3995 27.3336 22.6216 21.9847 24.0232
18 41.8833 38.5583 31.2907 25.5571 24.5702 26.7743
0.8 0 27.5479 25.5874 21.3706 18.2812 18.2012 19.9258
6 33.0172 30.5374 25.1519 21.0276 20.5842 22.5083
12 41.0165 37.7808 30.7088 25.1345 24.1983 26.372
18 50.9541 46.7839 37.6542 30.3176 28.7412 31.1406
1 0 27.5479 25.5874 21.3706 18.2812 18.2012 19.9258
6 34.9912 32.3259 26.5258 22.0412 21.4738 23.4608
12 46.7638 42.9909 34.7301 28.1355 26.8305 29.1378
18 62.1503 56.9426 45.5225 36.1903 33.8441 36.4153

It is worth mentioning that the uphill slope of 18%, which is
very high, has received attention in this paper as such a slope
was found during surveying on a short uphill section of an
existing old road in Iraq (Al-Muhanna 2008). Such uphill
slopes are not allowed now in many standards.
To take the effect of uphill slope on the equivalency factors,
the German Catalogue RSTO 12 (2012) gives USFs. Each such
factor represents the ratio of number of standard single axle
load applications on uphill pavement to that on level pave-
ment. Some selected values of these factors are 1.0, 1.14 and
1.45 for 0%, 6% and ≥10% uphill slope respectively. It is
quite obvious that the maximum uphill slope is not limited
in German data. To simplify the design process, these factors
are given for general conditions without mentioning any
truck category, H/B ratio, pavement structural number and
terminal level of serviceability. To compare the results of this
work with the German results, average pavement conditions
should be chosen. For this purpose, an H/B ratio of 0.6, a
structural number of SN = 3 and a terminal level of serviceabil-
ity of pt = 2.5 are chosen.
Table 7 shows, for different uphill slopes, the USFs for the
four main categories of the studied full-trailer trucks. This
Table presents also the overall average USFs. It is obvious
from this table that the overall average USF for 6% gradient
is 1.18 which is close to the corresponding German value of
1.14. To arrive at the USF for 10% gradient, use can be made
of Table 7 with some linear interpolation. This yields an overall
average USF of 1.33 which is less than the corresponding Ger-
man value of 1.45. The difference between the corresponding
values can be attributed to the fact that the results of this
work are devoted to full-trailers only, while the German values
were developed on the basis of the whole truck traffic including
single-unit trucks, semi-trailers and full-trailers.
At this stage, it is wise to develop a simple formula for
estimating the overall average USF for average conditions.
However, as can be seen from Figure 3, the average truck
8 S. S. RAZOUKI ET AL.

Table 6. Average truck equivalence factors for full-trailer trucks of type 1.22 + 2.22 for pt = 2.5.
Structural number, SN
H/B Uphill slope (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.2 0 17.0992 16.1149 14.0556 12.7551 13.0684 14.1050
6 17.9125 16.848 14.6054 13.1466 13.4303 14.5345
12 18.6594 17.5182 15.0987 13.4888 13.7432 14.9086
18 19.2825 18.0735 15.4979 13.7576 13.9846 15.1985
0.4 0 17.0992 16.1149 14.0556 12.7551 13.0684 14.1050
6 18.1046 17.0185 14.7247 13.2209 13.4954 14.6183
12 19.392 18.1758 15.586 13.8382 14.0678 15.2899
18 20.8315 19.4692 16.5553 14.5486 14.7225 16.0394
0.6 0 17.0992 16.1149 14.0556 12.7551 13.0684 14.1050
6 18.4584 17.3359 14.958 13.3829 13.6436 14.7961
12 20.7232 19.3769 16.4977 14.5166 14.7004 16.0161
18 23.6295 22.0001 18.5056 16.0274 16.0956 17.5871
0.8 0 17.0992 16.1149 14.0556 12.7551 13.0684 14.1050
6 18.9666 17.7934 15.3004 13.6294 13.872 15.0646
12 22.6081 21.0811 17.8047 15.5024 15.6201 17.0623
18 27.5705 25.5727 21.2769 18.1347 18.0491 19.7749
1 0 17.0992 16.1149 14.0556 12.7551 13.0684 14.1050
6 19.6225 18.385 15.7472 13.9573 14.1776 15.4202
12 25.0134 23.2587 19.4856 16.778 16.8096 18.4064
18 32.5977 30.1377 24.8244 20.8355 20.5478 22.5512

equivalency factor increases nonlinearly with increasing
uphill gradient. To simplify the estimation process, the
region between zero slope and 18% uphill slope will be
replaced by three regions in each of which the average
truck equivalency factor increases linearly with increasing
uphill slope. The first, second and third regions are devoted
to 0–6%, 6–12% and 12–18% uphill slope, respectively.
According to Table 7, the rate of increase in overall average
USF is 0.03, 0.038 and 0.047 for the three mentioned
regions, respectively.

Figure 3. Effect of pavement uphill gradient on the average full-trailer truck equivalency factor for different structural numbers. (Case: 1.2 + 2.2 truck, H/B = 1 and pt =
2.5).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 9

Table 7. Uphill slope factors (SN = 3, H/B = 0.6, pt = 2.5). uphill flexible pavements in developed and especially in devel-
Uphill slope Uphill slope Overall average uphill oping countries, where the overloading of commercial vehicles
(%) Truck type factor slope factor
and the use of oversized trucks are very common (Hutchinson
1.2 + 2.2 1.26 1990, Fekpe and Oduro-Konadu 1993, Chan 2008, Pais et.al.
6 1.2 + 2.22 1.28 1.18
1.22 + 2.2 1.12 2019, Ekblad et.al. 2020). To lessen or avoid this phenomenon,
1.22 + 2.22 1.06 better control of truck traffic is required.
1.2 + 2.2 1.58 Thus, for uphill flexible pavement design in developing
12 1.2 + 2.22 1.63 1.41
1.22 + 2.2 1.28 countries, it is recommended to use the higher values of height
1.22 + 2.22 1.17 of centre of gravity relative to wheel base of each unit (H/B)
1.2 + 2.2 1.95 when determining the average full-trailer truck equivalency
18 1.2 + 2.22 2.04 1.69
1.22 + 2.2 1.46 factor.
1.22 + 2.22 1.32 It is also worth mentioning that more economical design
can be achieved by better freight distribution to lower the
centre of gravity of the truck. This leads to more even axle
loads that contribute to decrease the axle load equivalency
Table 8. Effect of uphill slope on increasing flexible pavement thickness (case; factors.
full-trailer trucks, pt = 2.0).
Surface layer Base layer Base layer
thickness for thickness of thickness of Increase in
Uphill both level and level uphill thickness from 6.3. Effect of structural number
slope uphill pavement pavement pavement that on level
(%) (mm) (mm)* (mm) Highway (mm) The effect of flexible pavement structural number SN on the
6 141 342 361 19 average truck equivalency factor for type 1.22 + 2.2 full-trailer
12 147 320 377 57 truck is shown in Figure 5 for H/B = 1.0 and pt = 2.5. Each of
18 154 295 388 93
the four curves shown in this figure is devoted to a certain
*thickness of base layer for the same surface layer thickness on uphill slope.
uphill gradient of 0%, 6%, 12% and 18%. It is obvious from
this figure that the average truck equivalency factor decreases
Thus, using the corresponding value of the above men- with increasing structural number from one to five followed
tioned slope for each gradient region, the USF becomes: by a small increase at SN = 6. This is not surprising when
remembering that the AASHTO equivalency factor for a single
USF = 1 + 0.03 UPS for 0 ≤ UPS ≤ 6% (7a) axle load, for example, of 34 kips and pt = 2.5, decreases from
18.41 for SN = 1 to 11.18 for SN = 5 then increases to 12.51 for
USF = 1.18 + 0.038(UPS − 6) for 6% ≤ UPS
SN = 6 (Yoder and Witczak 1975). Similar phenomenon can
≤ 12% (7b) take place also with tandem axle loads.
Figure 5 reveals also that the highest value of the average
UPF = 1.41 + 0.047(UPS − 12) for 12% ≤ UPS full-trailer truck equivalency factor is associated with the low
≤ 18% (7c) structural number of unity. For 12% uphill slope, H/B = 1, pt
= 2.5 and SN = 1, the average full-trailer truck (type 1.22 +
where UPS = uphill slope (%). 2.2) equivalency factor is 46.76 (see Table 5) which is about
For rough estimation of the overall average USF for all 1.66 times that for SN = 4. As the structural number is signifi-
slopes between zero and 18%, use can be made of the average cantly affected by the drainage coefficient (see Equation (8)),
rate of increase of USF with increasing UPS appearing in good drainage results in higher drainage coefficient that stabil-
Equation (7). This average rate is (0.03 + 0.038 + 0.047)/3 = ises and/or improves the structural number and lessen the
0.0383 0.038. Thus, there is an increase of 0.038 in overall truck equivalency factor. Thus, improvement of drainage con-
average USF (which is unity for zero slope) per each 1% ditions is strongly recommended.
increase in uphill slope.

6.4. Effect of type of full-trailer truck

6.2. Effect of height of centre of gravity
The effect of height of centre of gravity above road pavement
(represented through the H/B ratio) on the average full-trailer
truck equivalency factor is shown in Figure 4 for the case of 1.2
+ 2.22 full-trailer truck, SN = 4 and pt = 2.5. Each curve in this
figure is devoted to a certain uphill gradient of 0%, 6%, 12%
and 18%. It is quite obvious from this figure that there is a sig-
nificant increase in the average full-trailer truck equivalency
factor with increasing relative height of centre of gravity
above road pavement, especially for steep slopes. This indicates
the need of considering this factor in pavement design for
The effect of type of full-trailer truck on the average truck
equivalency factor is shown in Figure 6 for pt = 2.5 and SN =
4. Each of the four curves shown in this figure is devoted to
a certain truck type namely, 1.2 + 2.2; 1.22 + 2.2; 1.2 + 2.22
and 1.22 + 2.22. It is obvious that truck type 1.2 + 2.22 has
the highest average truck equivalency factor and that this aver-
age truck factor increases rapidly with increasing H/B ratio.
The lowest average truck equivalency factors are associated
with truck type 1.22 + 2.22 that possesses two tandem axles.
For 12% uphill slope, H/B = 1, SN = 4 and pt = 2.5, the
average truck equivalency factor for 1.2 + 2.22 truck is 82.94
10 S. S. RAZOUKI ET AL.
Figure 4. Effect of H/B ratio on the average full-trailer truck equivalency factor for different uphill grades. (Case: 1.2 + 2.22 truck, SN = 4 and pt = 2.5).
(see Table 4) which is about five times that for 1.22 + 2.22 truck
(see Table 6). Thus, the use of full-trailer trucks having more
tandem axles such as!. 22 + 2.22 is strongly recommended.
6.5. Effect of terminal level of serviceability
To show the effect of terminal level of serviceability pt on the
average full-trailer truck equivalency factor, the truck equival-
ency factor was calculated for each truck of each of the four
categories of full-trailers under study. Two values were con-
sidered for pt namely 2.0 and 3.0. Thereafter, the average
truck equivalency factor was determined for an uphill gradient
of 6% as well as for level pavement, H/B of 1.0 and SN of 4 as
shown in Figure 7. It is obvious from this figure that an
increase in pt causes generally a significant decrease in the
average truck equivalency factor. However, this effect is of little
significance for truck category 1.22 + 2.22.
7. Use of average truck equivalency factor in uphill
flexible pavement design
To show the effect of increased damage to uphill flexible pave-
ments from the four types of full-trailer trucks discussed
above, the case of a flexible pavement of a road serving specialised
traffic will be investigated. Many of such roads lead to certain fac-
tories, silos, asphalt mixing plants, concrete mixing plants, etc.
For this purpose, the pavement case studied by Razouki and
Radeef (2005) will be investigated here but in connection with
the four types of full-trailer trucks under study. The flexible
pavement is assumed to consist only of two layers resting on
a subgrade soil having a resilient modulus of 62,053 kPa
(9000 psi). The base of the pavement is assumed to be granular
having a resilient modulus of 310,264 kPa (45000 psi). The
layer coefficients for asphalt concrete surfacing and granular
base are taken as a1 = 0.43 and a2 = 0.15, respectively and the
corresponding drainage coefficients are m1 = 1.0 and m2 =
0.8, respectively. For a terminal level of serviceability of pt =
2.0 and an initial level of service ability of 4.5, the loss in ser-
viceability becomes ΔPSI = 2.5
For this purpose, the composition of the mixed full-trailer
truck traffic on the road is assumed to be similar to that
obtained by Al-Muhanna (2008) axle load survey that covered
254 full-trailer trucks of different types.
According to Al-Muhanna (2008), the proportions were:
26%, 11%, 46% and 17% for 1.2 + 2.2, 1.2 + 2.22, 1.22 + 2.2
and 1.22 + 2.22 full-trailer trucks, respectively.

Figure 5. Effect of structural number on the average full-trailer truck equivalency factor for different uphill gradients. (Case: 1.22 + 2.2 truck, H/B = 1 and pt = 2.5).
Similar to Razouki and Radeef (2005), the structural design
of the flexible pavement to serve, on a level highway, 2 × 106
equivalent standard single axle load applications during its
design period, is assumed to be due to all four types of full-trai-
ler trucks only. The structural number above the roadbed soil
required on a level section of the road can be calculated from
the following AASHTO Guide (1993) equation:
log10 (W18 ) = ZR S0 + 9.36 log10 (SN + 1)–0.2 + A/B
+ 2.32 log10 (MR) − 8.07
where A = log10 (DPSI/(4.2 − 1.5)) = log10 (DPSI/2.7) B =
0.4 + 1094/(SN + 1)5.19
W18 = number of 80 kN (18-kip) equivalent single axle load
applications.
ZR = the standard normal deviate.
So = the combined standard error of the traffic prediction
and performance prediction.
ΔPSI = the difference between the initial design serviceabil-
ity index (po), and the design terminal serviceability index (pt).
MR = the resilient modulus (psi).
SN = the structural number which is given as follows
(Huang 2004):


n
SN = ai mi Di
1
where ai = ith layer coefficient.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 11
Di = ith layer thickness (inches).
mi = drainage coefficient for the ith layer
n = number of layers.
According to AASHTO Guide (1993), a standard normal
deviate of ZR = −2.327 and a combined standard error of
traffic and performance prediction of S0 = 0.45 were adopted.
Thus, Equation (7) can be written as follows:
(7) log10 (W18 ) − 9.31715 − 9.36 log10 (SN + 1)
+ (0.03342/B) − 2.32 log10 (MR)
=0 (9)
The solution of Equation (9) yields SN2 = 3.95 above roadbed
soil and SN1 = 2.28 above base for a level road.
Making use of Equation (8) for SN1 = 2.28, the required thick-
ness of asphalt concrete surfacing becomes D1 = 134.7 mm
(5.3 in.). Similarly, making use of this D1 together with SN2 =
3.95≈4, Equation (8) yields the required thickness of granular
base to D2 = 353.7 mm (13.92 in.) for a level highway.
The ratio of the average truck equivalency factor on, for
example, 12% uphill pavement, to that on a level highway
can be obtained from Figure 8. This ratio is 80.71/39.38 =
(8) 2.05 for 1.2 + 2.2, 117.73/56.7 = 2.08 for 1.2 + 2.22, 39.01/
23.8 = 1.64 for 1.22 + 2.2 and 21.04/15.05 = 1.40 for 1.22 +
2.22 full-trailer truck.
12 S. S. RAZOUKI ET AL.
Figure 6. Effect of type of full-trailer truck on the average truck equivalency factor versus H/B ratio. (Case: SN = 4 and pt = 2.5).
This means that the pavement on this uphill pavement
should be designed for
(2.05∗0.26 + 2.08∗0.11 + 1.64∗0.46 + 1.4∗0.17)∗2∗106
= 3.51∗106
standard single axle load applications.
Equation (9) yields the required structural numbers SN2 =
4.27 and SN1 = 2.49. Equation (8) yields the required thick-
nesses of surfacing D1 = 147.07 mm (5.79 in.) and base D2 =
376.68 mm≈ 377 mm (14.83 in.).
If the same thickness of D1 = 147.07 ≈147 mm for surfacing
is chosen for both level and uphill pavement, then the thick-
ness of base for level pavement becomes D2 = 319.95 mm-
≈320 mm and for the uphill pavement remains 377 mm.
Thus, the effect of uphill slope on pavement thickness is
quite obvious and it is reflected through an increase in granu-
lar base thickness of 57 mm on uphill pavement.
In a similar manner, the pavement layer thicknesses on both
level and uphill flexible pavements for rising grades of 6% and
18% were calculated and presented in Table 8 for the three
studied uphill slopes. This table shows that an increase in rising
pavement slope causes a significant increase in pavement thick-
ness especially for steep uphill gradients. Considering, for
example, the case of 12% uphill slope, Table 8 shows that
there is an increase in granular base thickness of 57 mm
when both uphill and level pavements have the same thickness
of surfacing. Relative to granular base thickness of 320 mm for
level pavement, this increase becomes 57/320 = 17.81%. Rela-
tive to the total thickness of level pavement, Table 8 reveals
an increase in pavement thickness of 57/(147 + 320) = 12.20%.
As the problem is nonlinear, it is worth considering the
important region of 0–6% uphill slope. For 6% uphill slope
the increase in granular base thickness is 19 mm resulting
into a relative increase of 19 / (141 + 342) = 3.93% with respect
to total pavement thickness. Thus, this increase is approxi-
mately 3.93/6 = 0.66% for each 1% increase in uphill slope..
Finally, returning back to the problem of USF, the ratio of
standard single axle load applications on uphill to level pave-
ment, namely, 3.51 × 106/2 × 106 = 1.755 is the actual USF
obtained from the analysis of the case under study. The com-
parison of this result with that of Equation (7c) for estimating
the USF for 12% slope, which is 1.41 is of interest, The differ-
ence between the true and estimated values is due to the differ-
ent conditions of both values. The true value of 1.755 was
obtained for SN = 4, H/B = 1 and pt = 2.5 taking into account
each truck category and its percentage, while the estimated
value of 1.41 is devoted to average conditions only (SN = 3,
H/B = 0.6 and pt = 2.5). Accordingly, the use of estimated
USF can underestimate significantly the number of standard
single axle load applications for uphill slopes. However, the
estimated USF can be very useful for the first estimations.

Figure 7. Effect of terminal level of serviceability on the average full-trailer truck equivalency factor for the four types of trucks under study. (Case: 6% uphill grade, H/B
= 1 and SN = 4).
For future research, it is suggested to extend this important
study to all types of single-unit trucks and semi-trailers on
uphill flexible and rigid pavements. This can be done as a thesis
for Ph.D. students and/or M.Sc. students or as a project to be
performed by the corresponding Department of Transport of
the State or country.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
This paper studied the average truck equivalency factors for
four types of full-trailer trucks on uphill flexible pavements.
The study included also the effects of uphill gradient, pave-
ment structural number, relative height of centre of gravity
of the truck, truck type and terminal level of serviceability
on the average truck equivalency factor. The developed
truck equivalency factors were applied on a road with
specialised traffic to reveal the magnitude of increased pave-
ment thickness for different uphill slopes taking into account
the different categories of full-trailer trucks involved. In
addition, the paper focused attention on developing USFs
for each category of full-trailer trucks covered in this study
to allow the prediction of standard single axle load
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 13
applications on any uphill flexible pavement from those for
level pavement.
The main conclusions of this work can be summarised as
follows:
(1) The average truck equivalency factors of any type of full-
trailer trucks on uphill flexible pavements, increases sig-
nificantly with increasing uphill pavement gradient. For
1.2 + 2.2 truck, the average truck equivalency factor for
12% uphill slope, H/B = 1 and pt = 2.5 is 74.87, which is
about twice that on level pavement
(2) The highest average full-trailer truck equivalency factors
are associated with a structural number of SN = 1. For
1.22 + 2.2 truck on 12% uphill slope, the average truck
equivalency factor for the case of H/B = 1 and pt = 2.5 is
46.76 for SN = 1, which is about 1.66 times that for a struc-
tural number of SN = 4.
(3) There is a significant increase in the average full-trailer
truck equivalency factor with increasing relative height
of centre of gravity of the truck above road pavement,
especially for steep slopes. For 12% uphill slope and
SN = 3, pt = 2.5, the average truck equivalency factor for
14 S. S. RAZOUKI ET AL.
Figure 8. Effect of uphill slope on the average truck equivalency factors for four types of full-trailer trucks under study. (Case: pt = 2.0, H/B = 1.0 and SN = 4).
1.2 + 2.2 is 74.87 for H/B = 1, which is about 1.68 times
that for H/B = 0.2.
(4) For uphill flexible pavement design in developing
countries, it is recommended to use the higher values of
height of centre of gravity relative to wheel base of each
truck unit (H/B) when determining the average full-trailer
truck equivalency factors.
(5) The lowest full-trailer truck equivalency factor is associated
with truck type 1.22 + 2.22 that increases very slightly with
increasing H/B ratio, while the highest factor is associated
with 1.2 + 2.22 truck category. For 12% uphill slope, H/B =
1, SN = 4 and pt = 2.5, the truck factor for 1.2 + 2.22 is 82.94
which is about five times that for 1.22 + 2.22 truck. Thus,
the use of full-trailer trucks having more tandem axles
such as 1.22 + 2.22 is strongly recommended.
(6) The use of the developed formulae for estimating the over-
all average USF for average conditions, is recommended
only for first estimations. The use of an USF for each
truck category can lead to more reliable results.
(7) An increase in rising pavement slope causes a significant
increase in flexible pavement thickness especially for
steep uphill gradients. For the road with specialised
traffic investigated that consists of two-layer pavement
structure, there is about 0.7% increase in granular base
thickness per each 1% increase in uphill slope from zero
to 6%. For the same road and an uphill slope of 12%,
there is an increase in granular base thickness of 57 mm
when both uphill and level pavements have the same
thickness of surfacing. Relative to granular base thickness
for level pavement, this increase becomes about 18% and
about 12% relative to total pavement thickness.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
AASHTO, 1993. AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures. Part I.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
Al-hashimi, Z.H., 2017. Increased damage to uphill flexible highway pave-
ment from full-trailers. M.Sc. thesis. College of Engineering, University
of Kerbala, Kerbala.
Al-Muhanna, R.A., 2008. Rigid pavement equivalency factors for full-trai-
lers on Upgrades. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Building and
Construction Engineering, University of Technology, Baghdad.
Anderson, T.W., and Sclove, S.L., 1978. An introduction to the statistical
analysis of data. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Chan, Y.C., 2008. Truck overloading study in developing countries and
strategies to minimize its impact. M.Sc. Thesis. Queensland
University of Technology, Anhui.
Ekblad, J., et al., 2020. Impact on rutting from introduction of increased
axle loads in Finland. International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
doi:10.1080/10298436.2020.1721497.
Fekpe, E.S., and Oduro-Konadu, E. 1993. Heavy vehicle overloading in
less developed countries: implications and considerations.
Transportation Planning and Technology, 17 (3), 281–294.
Huang, Y.H., 2004. Pavement analysis and design. NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
Hutchinson, B.G., 1990. Large truck properties and highway design
criteria. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 116 (1), 1–
22.
Jones, T.E., and Robinson, R., (1976) 1975. Turkey Traffic Survey
(Ankara-Istanbul Expressway): Axle Loads. Transportation and Road
Research Laboratory, Department of the Environment, TRRL Report
LR 713, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England.
Karim, M.R., et al., 2013. Degree of vehicle overloading and its implication
on road safety in developing countries, Civil and Environmental
Research. IISTE, 3 (12), 20–31.
Negrus, E.M., and Cocosila, M, 2000. On-road center of gravity height esti-
mation- A possible approach for decreasing rollover propensity of heavy
trucks. Seoul: FISITA Word Automotive Congress.
Pais, J.C., et al., 2019. The pavements cost due to traffic overloads.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 20 (12), 1463–
1473.
Razouki, S.S., 1992. Characteristics of axle loads in Arab world.
Proceedings Conference on the Technology of Pavement Design,
Jordanian Road Association, Amman, Jordan, 1, 60–77.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 15
Razouki, S.S., and Al-Muhanna, R.R., 2010. Increased damage to uphill
rigid pavements from full-trailers. Engineering and Technology
Journal, 28 (19), 5919–5937.
Razouki, S.S., Al-Muhanna, R.R., and Al-Hashimi, Z.H., 2017. Increased
damage to uphill flexible pavements from 11.22 + 2.22 full-trailer
trucks. The International Journal of Pavement Engineering & Asphalt
Technology, 18 (1), 62–74.
Razouki, S.S., and Radeef, H.Y., 2005. Increased damage to uphill flexible
pavements from trucks. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Transport Journal, 158 (TR1), 33–44.
Razouki, S.S., and Razouki, S.S., 1993. The status of axle loads and their
damaging effect on pavements in Iraq. Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 12 (2), 34–54.
RSTO 12, 2012. Richtlinien für die Standardisierung des Oberbaus von
Verkehrsflaechen. Catalog of Typical Pavement Structures, FGSV,
German Road and Transport Congress, Koln, Germany (in German).
Rys, D., Judvcki, J., and Jaskula, P., 2016a. Determination of vehicles load
equivalency factors for Polish catalogue of typical flexible and semi-rigid
pavement structures. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2382–2391.
Rys, D., Judycki, J., and Jaskula, P., 2016b. Analysis of effect of overloaded
vehicles on fatigue life of flexible pavements based on weigh in motion
(WIM) data. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 17 (8),
716–726.
State commission for Roads and Bridges (SCRB), 2009. Highway design
manual. Baghdad: Design and Studies Department.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), 2000. Comprehensive truck
size and weight study: Volume II, Issues and Background, Publication
FHWA-Pl-00-029 (Volume II), USDOT.
Yoder, E.J., and Witczak, M.W., 1975. Principles of pavement design.
Second ed. New York: John Wiley.