This article was downloaded by: [Mr Pusjatan Bandung]

On: 27 August 2015, At: 02:35

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

International Journal of Pavement Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

A model for equivalent axle load factors

a a a b
Sara I.R. Amorim , Jorge C. Pais , Aline C. Vale & Manuel J.C. Minhoto
a
Territory, Environment and Construction Centre (C-TAC), University of Minho, Campus de
Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
b
School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Campus de
Santa Apolónia, Apartado 1134, 5301-857 Bragança, Portugal
Published online: 13 Oct 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Sara I.R. Amorim, Jorge C. Pais, Aline C. Vale & Manuel J.C. Minhoto (2015) A model for equivalent axle
load factors, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16:10, 881-893, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2014.968570

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.968570

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2015
Vol. 16, No. 10, 881–893, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.968570

A model for equivalent axle load factors

Sara I.R. Amorima, Jorge C. Paisa*, Aline C. Valea and Manuel J.C. Minhotob
a
Territory, Environment and Construction Centre (C-TAC), University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães,
Portugal; bSchool of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Braganc a, Campus de Santa Apolónia,
Apartado 1134, 5301-857 Braganc a, Portugal
(Received 9 October 2012; accepted 9 July 2014)

Most design methods for road pavements require the design traffic, based on the transformation of the traffic spectrum, to be
calculated into a number of equivalent passages of a standard axle using the equivalent axle load factors (EALFs).
In general, these factors only consider the type of axle (i.e. single, tandem or tridem), but they do not consider the type of
wheel on the axles, i.e. single or dual wheel. The type of wheel has an important influence on the calculation of the design
traffic. The existing design methods assume that the EALFs are valid for all pavement structures and do not consider the
thickness and stiffness of the pavement layers. This paper presents the results of the development of a model for the
calculation of the EALFs considering the type of axle, the type of wheel and the constitution of the pavement. The model
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015

was developed based on the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer that is responsible for bottom-up cracking in
asphalt pavement, which is the most widely considered distress mode for flexible road pavements. The work developed in
this study also presents the influence of the type of wheel (single and dual) on pavement performance. The results of this
work allowed the conclusion that the EALFs for single wheels are approximately 10 times greater than those for a dual
wheel. This work also proposes average values for the EALFs. An artificial neural network was developed to calculate the
EALFs.
Keywords: road pavements; traffic; axle type; wheel type; equivalent single axle load; equivalent axle load factor

1. Introduction group.
Traffic data constitute one of the key elements required X
n
for the design/analysis of pavement structures. Despite the ESAL ¼ EALFi £ ni : ð1Þ
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, where i¼1
traffic is defined by axle load spectra, the number of For flexible pavements, the EALF, which is defined
equivalent single axle loads (ESALs), as defined in the based on experience and on the results of the AASHTO
1993 Association of State Highway and Transportation Road Test (1962), is defined as
Officials (AASHTO) Design Guide, is a required traffic
feature for most pavement structural design procedures, W t18
which use the concept of the equivalent load to transform EALF ¼ ; ð2Þ
W tx
the expected traffic into the design traffic.
The first equivalency factors used to determine the where
number of ESAL were based on the Present Serviceability  
Index concept and are dependent on the pavement type and W tx
Log ¼ 4:79 log ð18 þ 1Þ 2 4:79 log ðLx þ L2 Þ
surface thickness of the pavement. W t18
The ESAL uses the concept of the equivalent axle load Gt Gt
þ 4:33 log L2 þ 2 ;
factor (EALF), which defines the ratio between the bx b18
damage caused by the passage of an axle on a pavement ð3Þ
 
and the damage caused by the passage of a standard axle 4:2 2 pt
Gt ¼ log ; ð4Þ
on the same pavement. This EALF is used in pavement 4:2 2 1:5
design to convert the spectrum of vehicles with different
types of axles (i.e. single, tandem and tridem) into single 0:081ðLx 2 L2 Þ3:23
bx ¼ 0:40 þ ; ð5Þ
axles with dual tires, i.e. the ESAL, by using Equation (1), ðSN þ 1Þ5:19 L3:23
2
where n is the number of axle load groups, i is the number
of the axle load group, EALFi is the EALF for ith axle load where Wt18 is the number of standard 18-kip axle
group and ni is the number of passes of the ith axle load applications, Wtx is the number of x-axle applications,

*Corresponding author. Email: jpais@civil.uminho.pt

q 2014 Taylor & Francis
 882 S.I.R. Amorim et al.
Lx is the axle load (kip), L2 is the axle code (1 for single
axle, 2 for tandem axles and 3 for tridem axles), pt is the
terminal serviceability, SN is the structural number (in)
and b18 is the value of bx when Lx is equal to 18 and L2 is
equal to 1.
In the mechanistic method, the EALF is obtained by
the ratio between the pavement life for the standard axle
and the pavement life for the actual load, as expressed in
Equation (2). Using the current pavement terminology,
Equation (2) can be rewritten as
N 80
EALF ¼ ; ð6Þ
Nx
where N80 is the pavement life for the standard axle load,
usually the 80-kN axle load, and Nx is the pavement life for
the actual axle load.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
By considering the pavement life given by fatigue
cracking, i.e. the main distress mode that appears in
flexible road pavements, the pavement life can be
expressed as a function of the asphalt mixture stiffness
and the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer, as
expressed in Equation (7), where N is the pavement life, E
is the asphalt mixture stiffness, 1 is the tensile strain at the
bottom of the asphalt layer, and a, b and c are constants
that are defined experimentally.
N ¼ aE 2b 1 2c : ð7Þ
The substitution of Equation (7) into Equation (6)
leads to Equation (8), where 1x is the tensile strain for the
actual axle, and 180 is the tensile strain for the standard
axle, which in this case is the 80-kN axle load.
 c
1x
EALF ¼ : ð8Þ
180
Equation (8) is used to calculate the EALF for any
pavement structure and for any type of axle and tire
configuration by considering fatigue cracking as the
failure criterion.
Considering the linear-elastic behaviour of the
pavement materials, the tensile strain at the bottom of
the asphalt layers is proportional to the applied load, and
Equation (8) can therefore be rewritten as Equation (9),
which is the usual expression to convert a given axle load
to the equivalent load, where Px is the actual axle load and
Table 1. Values of the k and a coefficients according to Equation (10) for the French method (LCPC, 1994).
a Single axle
Flexible pavement 5 1
Rigid and semi-rigid pavements 12
P80 is the load of the standard axle.
 
Px
EALF ¼ : ð9Þ
P80
The different methods for the calculation of the EALF
fail to consider the type of axle; they only consider the
total load of the axles. However, for tandem and tridem
axles, the distance between the axles in the group has an
important effect on the state of stress and strain in the
pavement and thus has an important effect on the load
equivalency factor.
This effect is considered in the French Pavement
Design Manual (LCPC 1994), where the EALF is
generally expressed as Equation (10), where Px is the
actual axle load, P80 is the load of the standard axle, k is a
coefficient that is a function of the type of axle (i.e. single,
tandem or tridem) (Table 1) and a is a coefficient function
of the type of pavement.
 a
Px
EALF ¼ k : ð10Þ
P80
This method does not consider the effect of the type
of tire on the axles, i.e. single or dual tires, which has an
important influence on the calculation of the EALF. The k
coefficient does not take into account the variety of flexible
pavements, both in terms of thickness and stiffness of the
pavement layers.
The report of the SPENS project (Kokot and Gaspar
2009) summarises the models used to define the load
equivalency factors for various countries in Europe. The
only factor that considers the effect of the wheel type is the
Slovenian method that is defined in Equation (11).
EALF ¼ 1028 £ f 0 £ ðf k £ Lstat Þ4 : ð11Þ
where f0 is the factor of axle distribution (single ¼ 2.212,
tandem ¼ 1.583), fk is the factor of wheel distribution
(single ¼ 1.0, double ¼ 0.9) and Lstat is the static axle load
of individual vehicle (kN).
These equivalency factors depend not only on the type
and thickness of the pavement surface, as stated above, but
also upon the type of distress. Studies from FHWA (2001)
and ERES Consultants (2001) have shown the effects of
the distress type, failure criteria and other parameters on
the equivalency or damage factors used to calculate ESAL.
k
Tandem axle Tridem axle
0.75 1.1
1 12 113
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
The concept of an equivalent applied load allows the
pavement designer to consider the damage caused by loads
of varying magnitudes and axle configurations. Although
pavement damage can be expressed per axle, it is more
convenient to express the damage in terms of the average
amount of damage caused by a particular vehicle, referred
to as a truck factor, which is the average number of ESAL
applications per vehicle (Smith and Diefenderfer 2009).
Zaghloul and White (1994) studied the effect of heavy
loads on the Indiana highways and developed the EALF
based on an analytical approach by considering the
permanent deformation of flexible pavements. The
approach was developed using a three-dimensional
dynamic finite element method for static and dynamic
analyses using multi-layer static analysis and actual field
measurements. The results showed that the EALF obtained
in that analysis agreed with the factors obtained by
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
AASHTO.
More recently, in Hong et al. (2006) and Prozzi et al.
(2007) as well as in various pavement design methods, the
EALF has been obtained by the mechanistic method and
by using failure criteria based on fatigue laws for fatigue
cracking and permanent deformation. The models from the
Asphalt Institute, from the University of Nottingham and
from Shell, are the main criteria used in the development
of the EALF.
Based on a literature review, the methods and models
developed to calculate the EALF fail to consider the type
of tire because the vehicle classification, by manual or
automatic systems, identifies only the type of axle.
However, the number of tires (single or dual) is extremely
important for a correct evaluation of the EALF.
In addition, the pavement constitution is not identified in
the models used to calculate the EALF due to the large
variability in pavements.
This paper intends to develop a model for the
calculation of the EALF by considering the type of
wheel, i.e. single or dual, valid for flexible pavements
composed of three layers (an asphalt layer, a granular layer
and a subgrade layer), defined by the thickness and
stiffness of the pavement layers. Both the asphalt layer
and the granular layer are defined by their thickness and
stiffness, whereas the subgrade layer is defined by its
stiffness. The model was developed using the results of the
simulation of 750 different pavement structures, assuming
different values for the thickness and the stiffness of the
pavement layers. In addition, an artificial neural network
was developed to calculate the EALFs.
2. Cases studied
This study developed a model for the calculation of the
EALF by defining the k coefficient of Equation (10)
through modelling a road pavement with an asphalt layer,
a granular layer and a subgrade layer. A total of 750
883
different road pavements were modelled, with different
values for the thickness and stiffness of the pavement
layers. The asphalt layer thickness was set to values of
0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 m, which are representative
of all of the flexible pavement structures from low to heavy
traffic. The asphalt layer stiffness was set to values of
2500, 5000, 7500, 10,000 and 12,500 MPa, which are
representative of the cracked asphalt layers up to high
stiffness asphalt layers. The granular layer thickness was
set to 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 m, and its stiffness
was twice the subgrade stiffness. The subgrade was
modelled for 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120 MPa. The
following Poisson’s ratios were considered: 0.35 for
the asphalt layer, 0.40 for the granular layer and 0.45 for
the subgrade layer. The complete factorial of the cases
presented leads to 750 different pavements that were
considered in this analysis. This factorial allows the
inclusion of all typical pavement configurations existing in
roads.
The load simulation was performed for single, tandem
and tridem axles, with single and double wheels. The load
was modelled as a circular area of a 0.125 m radius, which
is the typical value used in pavement design to simulate
the wheel load area. For double wheels, the distance
between the centres of the wheels was set to three times
their radius, i.e. 0.375 m. For multiple axles (tandem and
tridem axles), the distance between axles was defined as
1.35 m, a typical value for the distance between axles in
multiple configurations.
As reported in the COST Action 344 (Addis, 2000),
the tire – pavement contact area is more rectangular than
circular, and the contact area is a function of the tire
configuration, load and inflation pressure. However, the
contact areas indicated in the report for the usual tires have
the same value as a circular area with a radius of 0.125 m.
Both these rectangular and circular areas produce identical
tensile strains at the bottom of the asphalt layers
considered in this work.
For the calculation of the k coefficients (Equation
(10)), fatigue cracking was considered to be the main
distress mode of the pavements. Thus, for each pavement,
the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer was
considered for the calculation of the pavement life.
For single axles, the tensile strain to calculate the k
coefficient is the result of the application of the axle load,
whereas for tandem and tridem axles, the tensile strain
must be obtained by a damage analysis because the strain
level installed at the passage of a second axle of multiple
axles has two components: the strain level due to the
second axle and the part of the strain level of the first axle
that has not been recovered. The same phenomenon
appears for the third axle of a tridem axle.
For this study, the method proposed by Huang (2004)
to consider the damage analysis was used. The method of
Huang consists of the calculation of the strains installed in
 884
Figure 1. Damage analysis for multiple loads (Huang, 2004).
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
the pavement according to the positions indicated in
Figure 1, where St is the distance between the axles of a
tandem axle. For the first axle, the strain must be obtained
below the first axle (1a). For the second and third axles, the
strain must be the difference between the strain below the
first axle (1a) and the strain at the midpoint between two
axles (1b), resulting in 1a 2 1b. The above calculations
must be done in the positions indicated in Figure 1, namely
at the centre of a single wheel (position 1), at the edge of a
single wheel (position 2) and at the centre of the double
wheels (position 3).
The strain level for each pavement and for each type of
axle and wheel considered in this study was calculated
using Burmister’s (1945) theory, which was implemented
in the JPav software developed by the first author. This
theory was adapted for single, tandem and tridem axles
and for single and dual wheels. The software automatically
1000
Tensile strain (E-6)
Mix 31 Mix 04
Mix 10 Mix 11
Mix 19 Mix 20
Mix 26 Mix 27
100
1E+03
Figure 2. Fatigue curves of the base course mixtures (Pais et al., 2009).
S.I.R. Amorim et al.
defines the location for the strain calculation based on the
type of axle and type of wheel.
For this study, the failure criterion used was based on
the fatigue cracking results of a set of 16 asphalt mixtures
used in asphalt base layers tested by Pais et al. (2009)
through four-point bending tests at a temperature of 208C
and at a frequency of 10 Hz.
Each mixture was tested using the AASHTO T321-03
standard, which establishes testing at least six specimens at
two or three tensile strain levels. Some mixtures were
tested using 18 specimens at 3 strain levels, as
recommended by the European standard – EN 12697-26.
The fatigue curves for these mixtures are represented in
Figure 2, where one can conclude that they have identical
slopes despite the different vertical axis intercepts.
The results obtained for all of the asphalt mixtures are
expressed by Equation (12), which relates fatigue life to
Mix 07 Mix 08
Mix 12 Mix 18
Mix 24 Mix 25
Mix 14 Mix 29
1E+04 1E+05 1E+06
Fatigue life (cycles)
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 885

the tensile strain applied during the laboratory fatigue
tests, where N is the number of repetitions to failure, 1t is
the tensile strain, and k1 and k2 are experimentally
determined coefficients.
 k 2
1 For the development of this study, the tensile strain at the
N ¼ k1 £ : ð12Þ
1t
The calculated coefficients k1 and k2 for all mixtures
tested by Pais et al. (2009) are presented in Table 2. The
average value for k2 is 4.147, which is inside the interval of
the coefficient of the models defined by The Asphalt
Institute (3.291) and Shell (5.671). The analytical analysis
conducted in this paper used k2 value of 4, i.e. the
coefficient a of Equation (10) was set to 4.
However, the coefficient for the EALF is a function of
the type of distress being analysed. For example, the value
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
is 8.49 when considering single axles and 8.14 when
considering tandem axles.
3. Simulation results
bottom of the asphalt layer of the 750 pavement structures
described earlier was calculated for six cases, namely three
axle types and two wheel types, resulting in 4500 cases in
this study.
For each case studied, the EALF is calculated by
applying Equation (8), where 1x is the tensile strain for the
axle type and wheel type considered, 180 is the tensile
strain for the standard axle (single axle with dual tire), and
c was set to 4 based on the results of the fatigue tests. If the
applied load is equal in both cases (for the calculation of 1x
and for the calculation of 180), then the k coefficient of

used in this work compares well with the value obtained by Equation (10) is equal to the calculated ESAL.
Archilla and Madanat (2000) for rutting in the case of a Using this methodology, the k coefficients can be
tandem axle, where they found a value of 3.89, but the value calculated for any pavement structure and load configur-
is different when considering single axles, where they ation. As an example, Table 3 presents the k coefficient for
found a value of 2.98. Archilla and Madanat (2001) found a pavement with an asphalt layer stiffness of 5000 MPa and
values of 2.44 (for single axles) and 2.86 (for tandem axles) a 0.20-m granular layer with a stiffness of twice the value of
using data from the AASHO Road Test and the WesTrack the subgrade layer. The analysis of these results reveals that
Road Test, and both values are significantly different from all of the variables analysed have a significant influence on
4. When using a recursive nonlinear model considering the the k coefficient and thus on the EALF calculation. For
pavement roughness, Prozzi and Madanat (2003) found example, the k coefficient for a 0.10-m asphalt layer
that the power was approximately 4.2, which is close to the thickness is twice the value for a 0.30-m asphalt layer
power of 4 considered in this study for pavement cracking. thickness. The inverse effect is observed for the subgrade
Prozzi and Madanat (2004) and Prozzi (2001) found a value stiffness influence. In addition, the axle configuration has
of 3.85 when considering the roughness and 4.15 when an important influence on the k coefficient.
considering the serviceability using data from the AASHO For the development of a model for the k coefficient of
Road Test jointly with data from the MnRoad Project, EALF (Equation (10)), Figures 3 – 5 present the typical
which are values that compare well with the value defined influence, respectively, of the asphalt layer thickness, the
in this work for fatigue cracking. More recently, Guler and asphalt layer stiffness and the subgrade stiffness on the k
Madanat (2011) used the AASHO Road Test data to find coefficient. For all variables, including the thickness of the
that the appropriate power for pavement cracking initiation granular layer, the k coefficient can be expressed as a
function of the power of the variable considered.
Table 2. Fatigue test results (Pais et al., 2009). The influence of the asphalt layer thickness on the k
Mixture k1 k2 R2 coefficient is presented in Figure 3 for a pavement with an
asphalt layer with a stiffness of 5000 MPa, a 0.20-m
1 7.977E þ 17 4.717 0.980 granular layer with a stiffness of 160 MPa and a subgrade
2 4.628E þ 16 4.316 0.960 layer with a stiffness of 80 MPa, where the k coefficient
3 1.419E þ 16 4.210 0.996
4 2.823E þ 17 4.728 0.979 decreases with the increase of the asphalt layer thickness.
5 1.074E þ 13 3.311 0.968 The influence of the asphalt layer stiffness on the k
6 2.353E þ 15 4.121 0.977 coefficient is illustrated in Figure 4 for a pavement with a
7 4.297E þ 16 4.510 0.993 0.10-m asphalt layer thickness, a 0.20-m granular layer
8 7.865E þ 18 5.140 0.995 with a stiffness of 120 MPa and a subgrade layer with a
9 2.060E þ 16 4.268 0.959
10 1.103E þ 15 3.948 0.954 stiffness of 60 MPa, where the k coefficient decreases with
11 5.833E þ 13 3.552 0.949 the increase of the asphalt layer stiffness.
12 3.785E þ 13 3.431 0.990 The influence of the subgrade stiffness on the k
13 1.078E þ 14 3.584 0.986 coefficient is illustrated in Figure 5 for a pavement with a
14 6.720E þ 17 4.714 0.968 0.10-m asphalt layer thickness with a stiffness of
15 2.228E þ 15 4.146 0.984
16 7.772E þ 13 3.652 0.992 5000 MPa and a 0.15-m granular layer with a stiffness
twice that corresponding to the subgrade layer, where it
 886 S.I.R. Amorim et al.

Table 3. The k coefficient (Equation (10)) for the different pavements and axle configurations.

k
Subgrade Asphalt Single Single Tandem Tandem Tridem Tridem
stiffness layer axle –single axle –dual axle – single axle – dual axle – single axle – dual
(MPa) thickness (m) wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel
40 0.10 5.394 1.000 0.502 0.128 0.068 0.016
40 0.15 3.886 1.000 0.334 0.076 0.046 0.009
40 0.20 3.077 1.000 0.274 0.059 0.038 0.007
40 0.25 2.531 1.000 0.247 0.053 0.037 0.006
40 0.30 2.144 1.000 0.233 0.051 0.039 0.008
60 0.10 6.268 1.000 0.614 0.163 0.078 0.020
60 0.15 4.345 1.000 0.379 0.090 0.052 0.011
60 0.20 3.346 1.000 0.290 0.064 0.041 0.008
60 0.25 2.705 1.000 0.249 0.053 0.037 0.006
60 0.30 2.252 1.000 0.227 0.049 0.037 0.006
80 0.10 6.924 1.000 0.703 0.190 0.085 0.022
80 0.15 4.703 1.000 0.422 0.103 0.057 0.013
80 0.20 3.576 1.000 0.307 0.069 0.044 0.008
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015

80 0.25 2.846 1.000 0.253 0.054 0.038 0.007

80 0.30 2.343 1.000 0.225 0.048 0.037 0.006
100 0.10 7.390 1.000 0.771 0.211 0.091 0.024
100 0.15 5.105 1.000 0.464 0.116 0.062 0.014
100 0.20 3.788 1.000 0.326 0.074 0.047 0.009
100 0.25 2.976 1.000 0.260 0.056 0.040 0.007
100 0.30 2.425 1.000 0.224 0.048 0.037 0.006
120 0.10 7.792 1.000 0.830 0.230 0.095 0.026
120 0.15 5.444 1.000 0.504 0.128 0.066 0.016
120 0.20 3.972 1.000 0.343 0.080 0.049 0.010
120 0.25 3.083 1.000 0.267 0.058 0.041 0.008
120 0.30 2.496 1.000 0.226 0.048 0.038 0.006

can be concluded that the k coefficient increases with the
increase of the subgrade stiffness. An identical behaviour
is expressed by the k coefficient due to the variation of the
granular base thickness.
For some cases studied in this work, the influence of
the variables that were considered on the k coefficient
presents a different trend, as observed in Figure 6. For
example, for the tridem axle with dual wheels, the k
coefficient increases for asphalt layer thicknesses . 0.15 m
because the tensile strain for multiple axles is the addition
and subtraction of the tensile strain for the individual
axles, which for several cases, changes the typical
behaviour of the k coefficient.
The separation between the typical and the atypical
conditions presented earlier is a function of the pavement
properties, namely the thickness and stiffness of the
pavement layers. A value of 1.7 for the Stiffness Ratio
defined as in the Equation (13) was found to correctly

10.00 Single axle;

single wheel
Single axle;
1.00 dual wheel
Tandem axle;
single wheel
0.10
k

Tandem axle;
dual wheel
0.01 Tridem axle;
single wheel
Tridem axle;
0.00 dual wheel
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Asphalt layer thickness (m)

Figure 3. Typical influence of the asphalt layer thickness on the k coefficient.

 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 887

10.00 Single axle;

single wheel
Single axle;
dual wheel
1.00 Tandem axle;
single wheel
k Tandem axle;
0.10 dual wheel
Tridem axle;
single wheel
Tridem axle;
0.01 dual wheel
2500 5000 7500 10,000 12,500
Asphalt layer stiffness (MPa)

Figure 4. Typical influence of the asphalt layer stiffness on the k coefficient.

Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015

Single axle;
10.00
single wheel
Single axle;
dual wheel
1.00 Tandem axle;
single wheel
k

Tandem axle;
0.10 dual wheel
Tridem axle;
single wheel
Tridem axle;
0.01
dual wheel
40 60 80 100 120
Subgrade stiffness (MPa)

Figure 5. Typical influence of the subgrade stiffness on the k coefficient.

10.00 Single axle;

single wheel
Single axle;
1.00 dual wheel
Tandem axle;
single wheel
0.10
k

Tandem axle;
dual wheel
0.01 Tridem axle;
single wheel
Tridem axle;
0.00 dual wheel
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Asphalt layer thickness (m)

Figure 6. Atypical influence of the asphalt layer thickness on the k coefficient.

 888 S.I.R. Amorim et al.

Table 4. Axle parameter (AP).

Single axle – single Single axle – dual Tandem axle – single Tandem axle – dual Tridem axle –single Tridem axle – dual
wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel
1.0 2.2 2.7 4.1 3.6 5.1

10.00
Esubg=20 MPa Esubg=80 MPa
Esubg=40 MPa Esubg=100 MPa
Esubg=60 MPa Esubg=120 MPa

1.00
k

0.10
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015

0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Axle Parameter - AP

Figure 7. Influence of the AP value on the k coefficient for some subgrade stiffness conditions.

identify that separation. The axle – wheel configuration is considered in the

ðH asp Þ3 £ Easp þ ðH gra Þ3 £ Egra
Stiffness Ratio ¼ ; ð13Þ
Esubg
where Hasp is the thickness of the asphalt layer (m), Easp is
the stiffness of the asphalt layer (MPa), Hgra is the
thickness of the granular base layer (m), Egra is
the stiffness of the granular base layer (MPa) and Esubg
is the stiffness of the subgrade (MPa).
4. Model development
The main objective of this work was the development of a
model for the calculation of the EALFs considering the
type of axle, the type of wheel and the constitution of the
pavement. This was achieved by developing a model to
quantify the k coefficient (Equation (10)) function of the
pavement properties (thickness and stiffness of the
pavement layers) and the axle –wheel configuration.
model by a parameter named the axle parameter (AP). For
the definition of the AP, the k coefficients presented in
Table 3 were plotted against the AP. The defined AP values
presented in Table 4 are the ones that lead to a regular
variation of the k parameter with the AP values, as
observed in Figure 7. The AP increases from single to
tridem axles and from single to dual wheels. The analysis
of this figure reveals that the fit by an exponential law
simulates variation of the k coefficient with the AP
parameter.
Given the influence of the properties of the pavement
layers (thickness and stiffness) as well as the AP, Equation
(14) is proposed to model the k coefficient.
k ¼ a1 £ ðH asp Þa2 £ ðH gra Þa3 £ ðEasp Þa4 £ ðEsubg Þa5
£ exp ða6 £ APÞ; ð14Þ
where Hasp is the thickness of the asphalt layer (m), Hgra is
the thickness of the granular layer (m), Easp is the stiffness
of the asphalt layer (MPa), Esubg is the stiffness of the

Table 5. Constants for Equation (14).

Stiffness Ratio a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6
# 1.7 1.275Eþ01 2 9.307E-01 8.280E-02 2 2.939E-01 2.963E-01 21.421Eþ00
. 1.7 6.416Eþ00 1.027E-01 2 2.597E-03 1.176E-01 21.335E-01 21.380Eþ00
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 889

10

y = 0.986x0.988

k predicted by the model

1 R ² = 0.994

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
k calculated by the M-E approach

Figure 8. Predicted versus observed values of the k model (Equation (14)).

Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015

subgrade (MPa), AP is the axle parameter as defined in
Table 4, and a1, a2, a3, a4, a5 and a6 are the constants
presented in Table 5, which were developed using the least
squares method. For a single axle with a single wheel,
k ¼ 1 and thus the model does not need to be applied.
The p-value of each variable considered in the model
equals 0 for a level of significance of 0.05, which means
that all of the coefficients are indispensable to the model.
The quality of this model can be observed in Figure 8
in which the k values calculated using the pavement
software are plotted against those predicted by the model
developed in this work.
The consideration of the wheel type of the trucks in
the ESAL analysis is extremely important because this
consideration results in different k values for single wheels
and dual wheels, as shown in Figures 9– 11 for single
axles, tandem axles and tridem axles, respectively. Based
on the analysis performed in this study, for the same load,
the single wheel leads to a k value that can be 10 times
greater than the value obtained for dual wheels. This
conclusion highlights the importance of the type of wheel
in the ESAL evaluation and thus in the analysis and design
of road pavements.
This conclusion can also be observed in Figure 12,
where the average values of the k coefficient are
represented for the entire axle and wheel configuration.
This figure can also be used to define simplified values for
the k coefficient (the average value for each type of axle
and wheel). However, the high standard deviation observed
for each type of axle and wheel indicates that the use of
these values must be accompanied by some precaution, i.e.
the average values must be used only when it is impossible
to use the model presented in Equation (14).
Despite the quality of the statistical model that was
developed, the use of artificial neural networks has a huge
potential in the modelling of complex problems, such as

12.00
Single wheel
10.00
Dual wheel

8.00

6.00
k

4.00

2.00

0.00
0 200 400 600 800
Simulation number

Figure 9. Difference between single and dual wheels on single axles on the k value.
 890 S.I.R. Amorim et al.

10.00
Single wheel
Dual wheel

1.00

k
0.10

0.01
0 200 400 600 800
Simulation number

Figure 10. Difference between single and dual wheels on tandem axles on the k value.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015

1.00
Single wheel
Dual wheel

0.10
k

0.01

0.00
0 200 400 600 800
Simulation number

Figure 11. Difference between single and dual wheels on tridem axles on the k value.

10.000 4.247
Average
1.000 Standard deviation
1.000 0.400

0.098
0.100 0.054
k

0.012
0.010

0.001
Single axle; Single axle; Tandem axle; Tandem axle; Tridem axle; Tridem axle;
single wheel dual wheel single wheel dual wheel single wheel dual wheel
Axle type and wheel type

Figure 12. Average values for the k coefficient for all of the types of axles and wheels.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 891

the calculation of the EALF function of the variables

Figure 13. Architecture used for the artificial neural network.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
considered in this work. The advantage of this model is its
possible implementation in an Excel spreadsheet. Thus,
for this work, an artificial neural network model was
developed with the k coefficient predicted according to the
characteristics of the pavement and the type of wheel
and axle.
The model has four levels, namely the entry level
(level 1) with five nodes, two intermediate levels (levels 2
and 3, respectively, with four and two nodes) and the
output level (level 4) with one node, corresponding to a 5–
4– 2 –1-type architecture, as shown in Figure 13.
The synaptic weight and bias of each connection were
calculated using the QNET2000 software and are
presented in Table 6. The quality of the model, expressed
by the comparison between the original k coefficients and

Table 6. Synaptic weights and biases for the artificial neural network that was developed.

Layer 2
Output layer (layer 4)
Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Bias k
Input layer (layer 1) Hasp 2.29933 25.42569 2 2.68083 20.82218
Hgran 2 0.34464 0.43581 0.34726 20.02513
Easp 0.86772 21.04906 2 6.38637 20.15277
Esubg 5.51466 1.07156 0.65546 0.16987
AP 2 1.29847 25.90283 2 5.52637 27.70048
Bias 0.00925 20.59196 2 0.69706 0.62223
Layer 3 Node 1 2.33351 20.81311 2 2.14685 21.97248 2 3.50215 2 3.8601
Node 2 1.88271 23.29252 2 4.48686 22.72487 3.37904 2 5.59374
Bias 3.74243

Figure 14. Quality of the artificial neural network that was developed.
 892 S.I.R. Amorim et al.
the values predicted by the artificial neural network
developed, can be observed in Figure 14, where an r 2 of
1.000 was obtained.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a study to define the EALFs for flexible
pavements by considering the type of axle (single, tandem
and tridem) and the type of wheels (single and dual) was
conducted. A model was developed based on the
calculation of 750 flexible pavements by considering
fatigue cracking as the main distress mode that appears in
pavements represented by the fourth power in the equation
used to calculate the EALF. The fourth power used in this
work was validated for fatigue cracking based on laboratory
fatigue test results that were carried out for a set of asphalt
mixtures typically applied as asphalt base layers.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
The calculation of the EALFs can be conducted as a
function of the quotient between the actual load and the
load of the standard axle powered to the exponent of
the failure criterion. In this function, a coefficient (k)
exists that expresses the type of pavement and the type
of axle.
According to the results of this work, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
. The k coefficient decreases with the increase in the
asphalt layer thickness and stiffness and increases
with the increase of the granular layer thickness and
stiffness. For pavements with a Stiffness Ratio . 1.7
and for multiple axles, the k coefficient presents an
inverse behaviour.
. The axle type and wheel type were considered in
the model for the k coefficient through the AP,
which is approximately the number of wheels in
the axle.
. The model developed for the k coefficient predicts
the calculated models with good quality.
. The type of wheel in the axles has a significant
influence on the k coefficient, as demonstrated by
the value of k for a single wheel, which is
approximately 10 times greater than the k
coefficient for a dual wheel.
. The following average k coefficients were
obtained:
+ Single axle/single wheel ¼ 4.247.
+ Single axle/dual wheel ¼ 1.000.
+ Tandem axle/single wheel ¼ 0.400.
+ Tandem axle/dual wheel ¼ 0.054.
+ Tridem axle/single wheel ¼ 0.098.
+ Tridem axle/dual wheel ¼ 0.012.
An artificial neural network was developed with great
success to model the k coefficient, demonstrating the
ability of this technique to solve complex prediction
problems. The model based on the 5 –4 – 2– 1 architecture
allowed us to obtain a value for r 2 of 1.000, which is
between the original and predicted values.
The work performed in this paper is based on a linear
elastic analysis that considered fatigue cracking through a
set of results obtained in the laboratory. However, a field
validation is important for a suitable application of the
developed model.
The developed model can be used with weigh-in-
motion data, despite requiring the knowledge of the wheel
type, because in several countries, it is easy to identify the
type of wheels that are used for each truck.
References
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), 1993. AASHTO guide for design of pavement
structures. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), 1962. The AASHO road test. Washington, DC:
Highway Research Board of the NAS-NRC Division of
Engineering and Industrial Research, Report 5, Special
Report 61E.
Addis, R.R., 2000. Effect of wide single tyres and dual tyres.
Bruxelles: Cost – European Cooperation in Science and
Technology. COST action 334 Executive Report.
Archilla, R. and Madanat, S., 2000. Development of a pavement
rutting model from experimental data. ASCE Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 126 (4), 291– 299.
Archilla, R. and Madanat, S., 2001. Estimation of rutting models
by combining data from different sources. ASCE Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 127 (5), 379– 389.
Burmister, D.M., 1945. The theory of stresses and displacements
in layered systems and applications to the design of airport
runways. Highway Research Board, 23, 126– 144.
ERES Consultants, 2001. DataPave software (version 3.0).
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
FHWA, 2001. Guide to LTPP traffic data collection and
processing. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Adminstration.
Guler, I. and Madanat, S. 2011. Axle load power for pavement
fatigue cracking: empirical estimation and policy impli-
cations. Transportation Research Record, 2225, 21 – 24.
Huang, Y.H., 2004. Pavement analysis and design. 2nd ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hong, F., Pereira, F.M., and Prozzi, J.A., 2006. Comparison of
equivalent single axle loads from empirical and mechanistic-
empirical approaches. In: Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA.
Kokot, D. and Gaspar, L., 2009. Recommendation for traffic
equivalency factors. Project sustainable pavements for
European new member states. European Commission DG
Research. Sixth Framework Programme. Bruxelles: Euro-
pean Cooperation in Science and Technology.
LCPC, 1994. French design method for flexible pavements. Paris:
Laboratoire central des Ponts et Chausse´es (LCPC).
Pais, J.C., et al., 2009. The prediction of fatigue life using the k1-
k2 relationship. In: Second Workshop on Four-point Bending,
Guimarães, Portugal: University of Minho, 39 – 46.
Prozzi, J., 2001. Modelling pavement performance by combining
field and experimental data. Thesis (PhD). University of
California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Prozzi, J. and Madanat, S., 2003. Incremental nonlinear model
for predicting pavement serviceability. ASCE Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 129 (6), 635– 641.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Prozzi, J. and Madanat, S., 2004. Development of pavement
performance models by combining experimental and field
data. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 10 (1), 9 –22.
Prozzi, J.A., Hong, F., and Grebenschikov, S., 2007. Equivalent
damage factors based on mechanistic-empirical pavement
design. In: Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
Washington, DC, USA.
Downloaded by [Mr Pusjatan Bandung] at 02:35 27 August 2015
893
Smith, B.C. and Diefenderfer, B.K., 2009. Development of truck
equivalent single-axle load (ESAL) factors based on weigh-in-
motion data for pavement design in Virginia. Charlottesville,
VA: Virginia Transportation Research Council. Final Report
VTRC 09-R18.
Zaghloul, S. and White, T.D., 1994. Guidelines for permitting
overloads – Part I. Effect of overloaded vehicles on the Indiana
highway network. West Lafayette, IN: Pardue University.