Sr. No. Axle Configuration Commodities Code Count %age Parameters Load (Tons) Front Rear 1 Rear 2 Rear 3 Rear 4 Rear 5 Total

NTRC Axle Load Survey on National Highway & Motorway Network of Pakistan
FINAL REPORT
Load (Tons)
Sr. Axle
Commodities Code Count %age Parameters Rear Rear Rear Rear
No. Configuration Front Rear 5 Total
1 2 3 4
Manufactures Max. Load 7.78 12.64 12.31 32.73
Avg. Load 7.68 12.48 12.16 32.32
Standard
0.14 0.23 0.21 0.58
Deviation
Variance 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.34
Min. Load 9.31 15.17 14.78 39.29
Max. Load 10.89 23.35 25.80 58.50
Mining and Avg. Load 9.70 18.08 20.96 48.74
800 5 2.81%
Quarrying Standard
0.67 3.25 4.32 7.64
Deviation
Variance 0.45 10.55 18.64 58.32
Min. Load 6.98 12.84 14.99 38.51
Max. Load 10.66 18.52 21.48 47.93
Fuel,
Avg. Load 8.93 15.97 18.89 43.79
Lubricants 900 13 7.30%
Standard
(Minerals) 1.23 1.73 1.98 3.46
Deviation
Variance 1.51 2.98 3.93 11.94
Min. Load 4.93 10.17 10.78 25.88
Max. Load 10.85 17.63 20.99 46.61
Miscellaneous
Avg. Load 8.24 15.22 17.67 41.13
Goods not A00 10 5.62%
Standard
Classified 1.72 2.48 2.79 6.17
Deviation
Variance 2.94 6.14 7.79 38.09
Min. Load 3.97 4.68 3.62 12.37
Max. Load 4.16 4.93 3.96 12.81
Avg. Load 4.04 4.83 3.76 12.63
Empty E00 6 3.37%
Standard
0.07 0.12 0.15 0.19
Deviation
Variance 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04
Total 178 100%
Min. Load 7.19 13.11 10.15 11.84 42.29
Max. Load 8.36 15.25 11.81 13.78 49.20
Agriculture Avg. Load 7.78 14.18 10.98 12.81 45.75
100 2 3.39%
Items Standard
0.83 1.51 1.17 1.37 4.89
Deviation
Variance 0.68 2.29 1.38 1.88 23.87
Min. Load 5.91 7.03 9.26 11.05 35.27
Max. Load 9.55 17.17 18.45 19.35 59.84
Avg. Load 8.16 13.28 13.10 15.23 49.78
Food Items 200 27 45.76%
Standard
1.01 2.53 2.70 2.60 6.94
Deviation
Variance 1.02 6.39 7.29 6.75 48.12
Min. Load 4.56 6.99 7.99 8.87 28.41
Max. Load 8.89 16.21 12.55 14.64 52.29
Bulk Avg. Load 7.43 13.37 10.68 12.40 43.87
500 8 13.56%
Manufactures Standard
1.52 3.15 1.77 2.17 8.54
Deviation
Variance 2.32 9.91 3.13 4.69 72.91
Min. Load 5.73 11.25 9.41 10.98 38.79
Max. Load 9.23 16.83 14.30 17.71 54.29
Basic Avg. Load 7.70 13.47 12.71 14.45 48.32
600 9 15.25%
1.31 2.20 1.37 2.16 5.15
Deviation
Variance 1.72 4.85 1.88 4.65 26.47
4 Axle Single
3 Min. Load 8.77 16.00 12.38 14.45 51.60
Tandem
Max. Load 8.77 16.00 12.38 14.45 51.60
Miscellaneous Avg. Load 8.77 16.00 12.38 14.45 51.60
700 1 1.69%
- - - - -
Deviation
Variance - - - - -
Min. Load 7.70 14.04 10.87 12.68 45.29
Max. Load 7.70 14.04 10.87 12.68 45.29
Mining and Avg. Load 7.70 14.04 10.87 12.68 45.29
800 1 1.69%
Quarrying Standard
- - - - -
Deviation
Variance - - - - -
Min. Load 9.57 17.45 13.51 15.76 56.29
Max. Load 9.57 17.45 13.51 15.76 56.29
Fuel,
Avg. Load 9.57 17.45 13.51 15.76 56.29
Lubricants 900 1 1.69%
Standard
(Minerals) - - - - -
Deviation
Variance - - - - -
Min. Load 6.78 10.45 9.58 11.17 39.90
Max. Load 8.43 15.38 16.24 18.42 54.25
Miscellaneous
Avg. Load 7.85 13.71 11.64 13.88 47.07
Goods not A00 10 16.95%
Classified Standard
0.51 1.58 1.75 2.18 3.74
Deviation
Variance 0.26 2.49 3.07 4.74 14.02
Total 59 100%
8-181
FINAL REPORT
Load (Tons)
Sr. Axle
1 2 3 4
Min. Load - - - - - -
Max. Load - - - - - -
Agriculture Avg. Load - - - - - -
100 0 0.00%
Items Standard
- - - - - -
Deviation
Variance - - - - - -
Min. Load 7.32 10.44 10.46 10.98 11.51 52.30
Max. Load 9.56 13.41 14.69 17.73 18.21 70.63
Avg. Load 8.20 12.43 11.93 12.98 13.53 59.07
Food Items 200 5 45.45%
Standard
0.83 1.24 1.62 2.70 2.67 6.91
Deviation
Variance 0.69 1.55 2.62 7.31 7.13 47.70
Min. Load 8.85 14.54 12.64 13.27 13.90 63.20
Max. Load 9.69 15.92 13.84 14.53 15.22 69.20
Bulk Avg. Load 9.27 15.23 13.24 13.90 14.56 66.20
5 Axle Single 500 2 18.18%
4 Manufactures Standard
Tridem 0.59 0.98 0.85 0.89 0.93 4.24
Deviation
Variance 0.35 0.95 0.72 0.79 0.87 18.00
Min. Load 8.58 14.10 12.26 12.87 13.49 61.30
Max. Load 8.58 14.10 12.26 12.87 13.49 61.30
Basic Avg. Load 8.58 14.10 12.26 12.87 13.49 61.30
600 1 9.09%
- - - - - -
Deviation
Min. Load 6.90 11.34 9.86 10.35 10.85 49.30
Max. Load 7.73 12.70 11.04 11.59 12.14 55.20
Miscellaneous
Avg. Load 7.21 11.85 10.31 10.82 11.34 51.53
Standard
Classified 0.45 0.74 0.64 0.67 0.70 3.20
Deviation
Variance 0.20 0.55 0.41 0.45 0.49 10.26
Total 11 100%
Min. Load - - - - - -
Max. Load - - - - - -
Agriculture Avg. Load - - - - - -
100 0 0.00%
Items Standard
- - - - - -
Deviation
Min. Load 6.05 11.70 10.64 10.91 12.77 52.94
Max. Load 6.92 12.90 11.67 21.55 24.74 76.91
Avg. Load 6.49 12.30 11.16 16.23 18.76 64.93
Food Items 200 2 28.57%
Standard
0.62 0.85 0.73 7.52 8.46 16.95
Deviation
5 Axle Variance 0.38 0.72 0.53 56.60 71.64 287.28
5 Tandem Min. Load 7.68 13.00 11.36 11.82 14.18 58.04
Tandem Max. Load 7.68 13.00 11.36 11.82 14.18 58.04
Bulk Avg. Load 7.68 13.00 11.36 11.82 14.18 58.04
500 1 14.29%
- - - - - -
Deviation
Min. Load 6.67 9.68 10.26 10.36 12.31 50.89
Max. Load 8.79 14.04 11.98 12.76 15.31 62.38
Miscellaneous
Avg. Load 7.87 12.02 11.13 11.79 13.98 56.77
Standard
Classified 0.91 1.93 0.92 1.04 1.24 4.89
Deviation
Variance 0.83 3.72 0.85 1.09 1.54 23.89
Total 7 100%
Min. Load 8.16 13.87 14.69 13.06 14.69 17.14 81.61
Max. Load 8.16 13.87 14.69 13.06 14.69 17.14 81.61
Agriculture Avg. Load 8.16 13.87 14.69 13.06 14.69 17.14 81.61
100 1 1.72%
Items Standard
- - - - - - -
Deviation
Variance - - - - - - -
Min. Load 5.79 10.25 11.30 10.05 11.30 13.19 62.80
Max. Load 9.92 16.86 17.86 18.32 17.86 26.55 99.20
Avg. Load 8.00 13.19 14.09 13.98 15.10 18.09 82.44
Food Items 200 18 31.03%
Standard
1.21 1.95 1.85 2.32 2.00 3.12 9.95
6 Axle Deviation
6 Tandem Variance 1.47 3.80 3.41 5.39 4.01 9.71 98.96
Tridem Min. Load 6.54 11.12 11.77 10.46 11.77 13.73 65.39
Max. Load 9.72 16.52 17.50 15.55 17.50 20.41 97.20
Bulk Avg. Load 8.28 14.37 15.39 13.58 15.40 18.03 85.04
500 12 20.69%
1.17 1.73 1.79 1.61 1.81 2.12 10.03
Deviation
Variance 1.38 3.00 3.22 2.60 3.27 4.48 100.57
Min. Load 4.77 9.56 8.47 10.43 11.74 13.69 65.20
Max. Load 9.55 15.52 16.43 18.04 18.76 20.43 97.29
Basic
600 8 13.79% Avg. Load 8.03 12.87 13.64 13.35 15.22 16.98 80.09
Manufactures
Standard
1.68 2.28 2.87 2.34 2.15 2.35 11.99
Deviation
8-182
FINAL REPORT
Load (Tons)
Sr. Axle
1 2 3 4
Variance 2.81 5.19 8.25 5.46 4.62 5.51 143.76
Min. Load 6.81 12.17 12.89 11.46 12.71 15.04 71.61
Max. Load 7.16 12.63 13.42 12.16 12.89 16.14 73.87
Miscellaneous Avg. Load 6.99 12.40 13.16 11.81 12.80 15.59 72.74
700 2 3.45%
0.25 0.33 0.37 0.49 0.13 0.78 1.60
Deviation
Variance 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.24 0.02 0.61 2.55
Min. Load 8.17 11.65 13.40 13.63 15.34 17.89 85.20
Max. Load 9.76 14.48 16.26 18.43 19.51 21.45 95.92
Mining and Avg. Load 8.82 12.86 15.00 16.28 18.00 20.21 91.16
800 3 5.17%
Quarrying Standard
0.84 1.46 1.46 2.44 2.31 2.01 5.46
Deviation
Variance 0.70 2.13 2.13 5.94 5.35 4.03 29.82
Min. Load 6.23 10.59 11.21 9.97 11.21 13.08 62.29
Max. Load 9.21 15.62 16.54 17.95 18.21 21.40 92.06
Miscellaneous
Avg. Load 7.59 12.59 13.81 12.65 14.17 16.54 77.35
Goods not A00 12 20.69%
Standard
Classified 1.11 1.91 1.98 2.34 2.29 2.78 11.36
Deviation
Variance 1.22 3.65 3.93 5.46 5.24 7.75 129.02
Min. Load 3.21 4.36 3.52 3.32 3.26 3.56 22.11
Max. Load 3.35 4.36 3.56 4.06 4.03 3.96 22.44
Avg. Load 3.28 4.36 3.54 3.69 3.65 3.76 22.28
Empty E00 2 3.45%
Standard
0.10 0.00 0.03 0.52 0.54 0.28 0.23
Deviation
Variance 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.30 0.08 0.05
Total 58 100%
8.13.13 Damage Factor for Major Axle Configuration on National Highway

N-85
As discussed in section 2.5.5, damage factors or load equivalency factors have been
calculated using following two approaches, i-e AASHTO 1993 and Road Note 40. The
average damage factors calculated for major axle configuration are presented in
Table 8-190.
Table 8-190: Damage Factor for major Axle Configuration on National Highway N-85
Damage Factor
Sr. No. Axle Configuration Code
Road Note 40 AASHTO 1993
1 2 Axle Single 1.2 8.36 6.17
2 3 Axle Tandem 1.22 61.00 25.04
3 4 Axle Single Tandem 1.2-22 36.45 19.72
4 5 Axle Single Tridem 1.2-222 45.05 21.09
5 5 Axle Tandem Tandem 1.22-22 56.69 24.95
6 6 Axle Tandem Tridem 1.22-222 88.46 31.94
The average damaging factors at each station along National Highway N-85 are
tabulated in Table 8-191. The results provide a comprehensive description of
locations where maximum overloading is being followed and vice versa. The results
will help in pavement design for rehabilitation and maintenance of existing roadway
and for new one.
Table 8-191: Damage Factors at different stations along National Highway N-85
Damage Factor
Road Note 40 AASHTO 1993
Near Sohrab Toll Plaza
1 2 Axle Single 1.2 10.562 7.39
2 3 Axle Tandem 1.22 66.091 27.12
5 5 Axle Tandem Tandem 1.22-22 82.426 34.97
Near Hoshab Toll Plaza
1 2 Axle Single 1.2 7.061 4.12
2 3 Axle Tandem 1.22 64.123 25.77
5 5 Axle Tandem Tandem 1.22-22 - -
8-183
FINAL REPORT
8.13.14 Tire Pressure Measurements on National Highway N-85

The tires of overloaded vehicles are over-inflated far in excess of their normal
pressure. The Consultants site teams have checked tire pressure of each truck
weighed during the survey. The average tire pressure value of front and rear axles of
trucks plying on National Highway N-85 is listed in Table 8-192.
Table 8-192: Average Tire Pressure per Axle on National Highway N-85
Average Pressure (Psi)
Front Rear 1 Rear 2 Rear 3 Rear 4 Rear 5
1 2 Axle Single 1.2 124.36 151.49
2 3 Axle Tandem 1.22 132.14 152.50 158.11
3 4 Axle Single Tandem 1.2-22 133.00 153.62 153.02 157.90
4 5 Axle Single Tridem 1.2-222 126.64 156.64 151.82 150.91 156.36
5 5 Axle Tandem Tandem 1.22-22 128.00 151.00 152.00 156.00 163.00
6 6 Axle Tandem Tridem 1.22-222 130.78 154.51 154.51 181.16 156.76 163.24
8-184
FINAL REPORT
9 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
9.1 General
Overloading is a universal phenomenon; the problem exists in developed as well as
developing countries. However, the problem is severe in developing countries
compared to developed countries. The reason is, no or improper legislations or lack
of enforcement. Transporters and driver desire to economize their business by
transporting more in fewer trips (short term gain without realizing the impact on the
country’s economy). Another reason for overloading is probably availability of
resources (the truck fleet is smaller than the requirement of the country) and
accessibility to technology (increasing space between axles or making vehicle
capable of take more weight with less damage to the road).
9.2 Comparison of Rehabilitation of Pavement versus Fine System

Enforcement of fine, may be a good tool to discourage transporters to overload
vehicles, however this is not a solution to fight with the menace. The amount
collected through fine during the past four years on 7 stations out of a total of 9
stations on the National Highway Network N-5 is approximately Rs 1.3 billion. The
accuracy of this data could not be ascertained as complete data of different station is
not available, e.g. for Pattoki data is only available for February 2020 to June 2020.
The total length of the road network that is owned maintained operated by National
Highway Authority (NHA) is 12,800 kilometers. It carries 80% of commercial traffic
and N-5 (Karachi to Torkham, 1,819 Km.) which is blood-line of Pakistan, carries 65%
of this load in the country (NHA website). A simple analysis is run on the available
N-5 data, assumptions and the outcome of the analysis is as follows.
The study is carried out based on the information collected during the axle
load survey
AASHTO 1993 is used to calculate the Load Equivalency Factor (LEF) a
Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt) of 2.5) and a Structure Number (SN) of 5 is
taken to calculate LEF for all axles
The number of trucks has been increased to cater for the extra load carried
by the trucks for legal load analysis
It has been observed that the total number of ESAL will be reduced to about
1/3, if all trucks are legally loaded
This implies that due to overloading the pavement life reduces to almost one
third
Thus result in premature failures, expensive maintenance, rehabilitation and
reconstruction
Following tables are showing the impact of current loading pattern Table 9-1 and the
scenario when all trucks required transporting the load will be legally loaded
Table 9-2.
Table 9-1: Calculated ESA using Current Truck Loading Spectrum
Load (Kips) LEF at Pt 2.5 and SN 5 ESAL
No. of
Axle Configuration Parameters Rear Rear Rear Rear
trucks Front Front Rear 1 Rear 2 Front
1 2 1 2
Within permissible load limits
748 12 26 0.198 4.36 148 3261
(Max.)
2 Axle Single
911 15% extra load (Average) 13 28 0.261 5.681 238 5175
882 30 % extra load (Average) 15 33 0.448 9.496 395 8375
9-1
FINAL REPORT

No. of
Axle Configuration Parameters Rear Rear Rear Rear
trucks Front Front Rear 1 Rear 2 Front
1 2 1 2
160 >75% extra load (Average) 24 53 3.055 68.811 489 11010
357 12 49 0.198 4.336 71 1548
(Max.)
3 Axle Tandem 464 30 % extra load (Average) 15 65 0.483 13.237 224 6142
627 >75% extra load (Average) 24 101 2.878 76.85 1805 48185
1608 12 26 49 0.198 4.36 4.336 318 7011 6972
(Max.)
909 15% extra load (Average) 13 28 57 0.265 5.741 7.678 241 5219 6979
4 Axle Single Tandem 511 30 % extra load (Average) 15 32 65 0.468 9.03 12.971 239 4614 6628
333 50 % extra load (Average) 17 37 74 0.781 15.188 21.025 260 5058 7001
81 >75% extra load (Average) 25 50 100 3.361 53.014 72.583 272 4294 5879
116 12 26 68 0.198 4.36 4.128 23 506 479
(Max.)
5 Axle Single Tridem 104 30 % extra load (Average) 15 32 97 0.468 9.18 15.092 49 955 1570
56 12 49 49 0.198 4.336 4.336 11 243 243
(Max.)
5 Axle Tandem
Tandem
0 >75% extra load (Average) 22 0 0 0
455 12 49 68 0.198 4.336 4.128 90 1973 1878
(Max.)
6 Axle Tandem Tridem 961 30 % extra load (Average) 15 64 97 0.488 12.132 15.139 469 11659 14549
Calculated ESA 452,136
The above scenario is as per the survey conducted on N-5 during this study.
Estimation is made to assess extra trucks required to take the total load in the above
scenario. For simplicity it has been assumed that similar type of truck will be used to
take the extra load. The result of the analysis is shown in Table 9-2 below.
Table 9-2: ESA Based on Legal Loading
Sr. No. of
Axle Configuration Rear Rear Rear Rear Rear Rear
No. trucks Front Front Front
1 2 1 2 1 2
1 2 Axle Single 4123 12 26 0.198 4.36 816 17974
2 3 Axle Tandem 8441 12 49 0.198 4.336 1671 36600
3 4 Axle Single Tandem 4171 12 26 49 0.198 4.36 4.336 826 18186 18085
4 5 Axle Single Tridem 627 12 26 68 0.198 4.36 4.128 124 2734 2588
5 5 Axle Tandem Tandem 330 12 49 49 0.198 4.336 4.336 65 1431 1431
6 6 Axle Tandem Tridem 5392 12 49 68 0.198 4.336 4.128 1068 23380 22258
Calculated ESA 149,237
33 % of the Actual traffic
The above analysis shows that if a section of N-5 is designed for 10 years it will start
deteriorating within 4-5 years’ of it’s useful life, depending on the traffic. It is therefore
concluded that trucks should not be allowed to take loads in excess of the legal load
limit on any highway.
A further analysis is done to check the fines which may be collected (mandatory fine
collection from all overloaded truck, no exploitation scenario) on the bases of truck
loading in the vicinity of Lahore against the cost of repair and overlay.
A simple asphalt milling and 5 cm overlay cost as per NHA Schedule of Rate (CSR)
2014 around Lahore is about 5 million rupee (Rs. 5,000,000) per kilometer
(Table 9-3).
9-2
FINAL REPORT
Table 9-3: Per Km Cost of Road (overlay)

Description Width (m) Length (m) Depth (m) Unit Quantity Rate (Rs) Amount(Rs)
Wearing Course 3.65 1000 0.05 M3 182.5 20861 3,807,080
Tack coat 3.65 1000 M2 3650 49 179,033
Milling 0-50 mm 3.65 1000 M2 3650 184 671,199
Deep patching 0-15cm 3.65 1000 0.1 M2 365 128 46,800
Total cost per lane per km (Rs.) 4,704,111
Total cost 2 lane per km (Rs.) 9,408,222
Total cost 2 lane per 100 km (Rs.) 940,822,175
Cost of reconstruction of road as per NHA CSR 2014 have also been prepared for
area around Lahore and the cost of 1 km of reconstruction is provided in Table 9-4
below:
Table 9-4: Per Km Cost of Road (Reconstruction)
Description Width (m) Length (m) Depth (m) Unit Quantity Rate (Rs) Amount(Rs)
Wearing Course 3.65 1000 0.05 M3 182.5 20861 3,807,133
Asphalt Base Course 3.65 1000 0.16 M3 584 19248 11,240,832
Tack coat 3.65 1000 2 M2 7300 49 357,700
Prime coat 3.65 1000 1 M 2 3650 123 448,950
Aggregate base Course 3.65 1000 0.3 M 3 1095 2479 2,714,505
Sub base Course 3.65 1000 0.3 M3 1095 2196 2,404,620
Breaking and removal of old road surface 3.65 1000 1 M2 3650 609 2,222,850
Excavation 3.65 1000 0.81 M3 2956.5 363 1,073,210
Total cost per lane per km (Rs.) 24,269,799
Total cost 2 lane per km (Rs.) 48,539,598
Total cost 2 lane per 100 km (Rs.) 4,853,959,800
An estimate is made based on the following assumptions to give a basis for

comparison of fine system with cost of rehabilitation. The toll collected on the Pattoki
NB in a Year may directly be taken from the relevant authority to directly check the
difference in cost of rehabilitation and revenue collection in terms of fines.
Survey carried out on between 10% - 20% of the vehicle crossing the toll
station during a week.
52 weeks are considered for estimating traffic for one year.
All truck axle configurations that have not been observed during axle load
survey is not considered.
Only vehicles exceeding legal load limits + concession granted by NHA on
National Highways are considered.
Table 9-5: Overloaded Vehicles (Pattoki NB)
Concession Trucks carrying load
Allowable Trucks carrying load
Granted by above allowable load Trucks carrying load 15%
Load Limits more than 15% of
NHA on limits but less than above concession
on National concession granted by
Sr. Axle National concession granted by granted by NHA
Highways NHA
No. Configuration Highways NHA
Number Number Number
Percentage Percentage Percentage
(Ton) (Ton) of of of
of trucks of trucks of trucks
Trucks Trucks Trucks
1 2Axle Single 17.5 20 / 23 64.75% 79 9.84% 12 25.41% 31
3Axle
2 27.5 32 23.23% 36 28.39% 44 48.38% 75
Tandem
4Axle Single
3 39.5 42 48.35% 44 20.88% 19 30.77% 28
Tandem
5Axle Single
4 48.5 51 44.44% 4 0.00% 0 55.56% 5
Tridem
6Axle
5 Tandem 58.5 61 0.00% 0 1.33% 1 98.67% 74
Tridem
Table 9-6: Estimated Revenue Generated from Fine System
Trucks carrying load 15% above Trucks carrying load more than 15%
Number of concession granted by NHA of concession granted by NHA
Number of
Sr. truck Number Number
Axle Configuration Truck Number Total Number Total
No. estimated of of
Surveyed of truck / Generated of truck / Generated
in a week Trucks / Trucks /
year fine year fine
week week
1 2Axle Single 122 610 12 624 624000 31 1612 4836000
2 3Axle Tandem 155 775 44 2288 2288000 75 3900 11700000
3 4Axle Single Tandem 91 455 19 988 988000 28 1456 4368000
9-3
FINAL REPORT
Trucks carrying load 15% above Trucks carrying load more than 15%
Number of concession granted by NHA of concession granted by NHA
Number of
Sr. truck Number Number
Axle Configuration Truck Number Total Number Total
No. estimated of of
Surveyed of truck / Generated of truck / Generated
in a week Trucks / Trucks /
year fine year fine
week week
4 5Axle Single Tridem 9 45 0 0 0 5 260 780000
5 6Axle Tandem Tridem 75 375 1 52 52000 74 3848 11544000
Total Amount 3,952,000 33,228,000
Total All Fines Rs. 37,180,000
Notes:
Fine for Carrying goods less than 15% in excess of permissible load= Rs.1000
Average Fine for Carrying goods more than 15% in excess of permissible load= Rs. 3000
The expected revenue from fines as estimated for Pattoki NB, a station near Lahore
considering data collected in this study and assuming that the situation is ideal at the
toll collection point is approximately Rs.37 Million per annum and 5 years collection
will be about Rs.185 million. This is much less than what is required to provide an
overlay after 5 years (Rs.941 million, almost 5 times more), hence fine collection is
not a substitute and it is essentially required to enforce legal load limits.
9.3 Braking Efficiency of Overloaded Vehicles

During the study it has been observed that overloading on National Highways is a
severe problem. It is estimated that more than 75% of commercial vehicles plying on
Pakistan's National Highways are overloaded. The legal axle load limits and gross
vehicle weight limits are overlooked and violated by the transporters. The problems
resulting from overloading are manifold. Newly constructed roads experience
accelerated loading conditions resulting in loading to exceed the limits much before
their design life is over. This results in premature failure of roads or requires heavy
maintenance expenditure to keep the road in good functional condition.
Overloaded vehicles impend road safety and are the reason for many of the fatal
accidents on the roads. Overloaded vehicles are a risk for all road users irrespective
of the fact that other road users are following the entire requirement for
roadworthiness the reason being the following:
1. Overloaded vehicle will be less stable (especially improperly loaded vehicle),
tough to steer and take more time and distance to stop (increase stopping
distance).
2. When a vehicle has more weight than its design weight, the vehicle reacts
differently.
3. Overloaded vehicles will cause the tires to overheat and wear rapidly which
increases the chances of early, risky and expensive failure or blow-outs.
4. The driver’s control and operating space in the overloaded vehicle are
reduced, increasing the chances of an accident.
5. The overloaded vehicle will not accelerate as normally loaded vehicles thus
making it difficult to overtake.
6. Due to overloading of the rare axles, the headlights of the vehicle will tilt up,
blinding approaching drivers which may result in accidents.
7. Brakes efficiency will reduce drastically due to overloading as more force is
required to stop a heavy object as compared to a lighter object. This results
in overstressing and overheating of the braking system and eventually its
failure or ineffectiveness.
8. Overstressing the suspension system, over time, leads to failure of the
weakest point of the system hence vehicle failure.
9-4
FINAL REPORT
9. In passenger vehicles overloading means taking more passengers than the

available safe space resulting in a compromise in safety aspects such as not
using seat belts in passenger cars and vans.
10. Overloading vehicles will incur higher maintenance costs to the vehicle
mainly for the following reason:
a. wearing and tear of tires,
b. wearing and tear of brakes,
c. Shock absorbers and suspension system maintenance
d. Engine performance and maintenance
11. Overloaded trucks will use more fuel per kilometer run.
Other negative effects of overloading include increased incidences of road accidents,
damage to vehicles, lower speeds and inefficiency, delays to vehicular traffic and
congestion.
Road safety is compromised due to overloading when a driver is not able to apply
brakes in time to stop a vehicle or when not able to overtake a vehicle, when driving
slowly on a high speed road making it unsafe for other drivers especially at night, due
to blowouts or failure of suspension system in the middle of the road, and due to
unstable conditions during turning or braking.
9.4 Shedding of Excessive Loads and their Storage

Shedding of excessive loads from trucks and providing storage facility for the load
removed from the overloaded vehicle is a big issue and need to be realized by the
drivers and the transport companies. On the other hand, if government is not
enforcing axle load rules on some sections of highways and observing the rules on
other sections it is difficult for the transporters to manage their affairs properly.
If a truck driver requires to re-select travel route due to any reason and wants to
move from National Highway Network to Motorway Network, it is not possible for him
to do that due to difference in allowed load limits. NHA could be helpful to these
transporters by providing them storage facilities on all Motorway entry points and this
facility should either be very cheap or free of cost to the transporter (there is still be a
cost to the transporter for transporting the leftover goods). However this is not easy
due to space requirement of the warehouse and other administrative and
management cost.
It is therefore better for the both NHA and the transporters if a uniform policy is
adopted with regard to permissible axle load and enforce it so that issue of shedding
excess load will not arise. Illegal loading should be penalized.
9.5 Transport Cost & benefits of Overloading versus Overloading

Control
Overloading laws are made so that vehicles operate safely on the roads. Weigh
bridges for monitoring overloaded vehicles are installed to check and take appropriate
action against the lawbreakers. Severe accidents may be avoided if drivers give
attention to the laws regarding overloading.
There are many different reasons as to why overloading is not allowed on the roads.
Few of these are tabulated below.
Overloading causes unnecessary strain on the trucks mechanical systems
9-5
FINAL REPORT
and axles making it difficult to control, under the circumstances it is more

likely that the drivers may not control the trucks in an emergency or crises
situation where immediate control is required and hence chances of accident
will increase.
Overloading and improper loading of vehicle is also an issue and drivers are
to be educated in avoiding overloading (both volume and weight) and
properly loading a vehicle, proper loading means loading a vehicle in such a
way that it will not change center of gravity of the vehicle. Improperly loaded
truck is dangerous as it may overturn on turnings.
Overloading also put a lot of pressure on the braking system and the tires
which results in poor control, more braking distance requirement and results
in road accidents.
In poor weather condition, it is more difficult to control a vehicle if it is
overloaded.
In addition to all the above road safety problems, overloading also cause
distress on the pavement infrastructure and result in premature failure of the
infrastructure which in turn be responsible for other road distress related
accidents.
Overloading also burdened the tax payer as lot of tax payer’s money is
wasted in rehabilitation and reconstruction of the infrastructure and in the
form of accident related loses.
Against above, the benefit of overloading is minimal and is only limited to surficial.
Less vehicles are required to transport goods from one place to another.
Less fuel is required for transportation of goods.
Cost of insurance will be less for transporter.
Overhead and operational cost will be less.
Reduce cost of transportation of manufactured goods.
Apparently more profit for the transporter and freighter and manufacturer.
Transporter will ultimately be at lost due to cost of wear and tear and accident
cost.
All the above mentioned benefits are to individuals and organizations against a huge
cost to the exchequer.
9-6

Sr. No. Axle Configuration Commodities Code Count %age Parameters Load (Tons) Front Rear 1 Rear 2 Rear 3 Rear 4 Rear 5 Total

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sr. No. Axle Configuration Commodities Code Count %age Parameters Load (Tons) Front Rear 1 Rear 2 Rear 3 Rear 4 Rear 5 Total

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NTRC Axle Load Survey on National Highway & Motorway Network of Pakistan

8.13.13 Damage Factor for Major Axle Configuration on National Highway

8.13.14 Tire Pressure Measurements on National Highway N-85

9.2 Comparison of Rehabilitation of Pavement versus Fine System

Load (Kips) LEF at Pt 2.5 and SN 5 ESAL

Table 9-3: Per Km Cost of Road (overlay)

An estimate is made based on the following assumptions to give a basis for

9.3 Braking Efficiency of Overloaded Vehicles

9. In passenger vehicles overloading means taking more passengers than the

9.4 Shedding of Excessive Loads and their Storage

9.5 Transport Cost & benefits of Overloading versus Overloading

and axles making it difficult to control, under the circumstances it is more

You might also like