Title: Impact of Overloaded Axle Effect on Asphalt Pavement

Abstract:
Road pavement is designed to be used by an enormous number of various types of trucks, which can be
contemplated in pavement design. During the pavement design, the Truck Factor (TF) is considered. Truck
Factor (TF) is a multiplier to convert the given number of commercial trucks having different axle
configurations and different axle weights into an equivalent number of standard axle load (80 kN single axle
with dual wheels) repetitions. The Truck Factors (TF) are defined by considering the average loads for each
axle to convert trucks into standard axles. This current study includes the trucks carrying axle loads above
the maximum safe axle weight based on MoRTH guidelines. There are also a considerable number of
overloaded trucks regarding Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). Axle load of overloaded trucks can cause
consequential damage to the road pavements, increasing the pavement restoration and rehabilitation cost.
Hence, this paper explores the impact of the overloaded axle effect of trucks on the road pavements by
studying the truck factors for different vehicle cases applied to a set of pavements made up of five different
asphalt layer thicknesses and five different subgrade stiffness moduli.

Keywords:
Truck Factor, Vehicle Damage Factor, Axle Configurations, ESAL, Gross Vehicle Weight, Subgrade
Stiffness Moduli.

Introduction:
Ministry of Road Transportation & Highways (MoRTH) pays out vast sums of money to conserve the Indian
road network. To hold out the life of pavement costs a substantial amount of investment for rehabilitation.
Usually, the design period of pavements for National Highways, State Highways, and Urban Roads is 20
years, but the pavement performance becomes mediocre, earlier than the design period of respective
pavement design, which demands rehabilitation or re-construction. Under gradually applied loads by trucks,
Pavement undergoes surface cracking, Temperature variations cause thermal shrinkage, Stress concentration
causes top-down cracking at the pavement surface and stress concentration causes reflective cracking near
the crack tip of the existing rehabilitated layers of the pavement.
The pavement performance also depends on a few other factors such as Characteristics of the pavement
structure like the thickness of pavement and components of each layer, Quality of materials used during its
construction, temperature and other climatic conditions, Bearing capacity, and the drainage of the subgrade
layer. Besides, traffic and the load applied by the overloaded truck axles can be considered as the core
reason for problems of pavement performance. Fatigue and Rutting are the two main pavement failures due
to heavy traffic and that demands pavement rehabilitation.
Road pavement is designed to be used by an enormous number of various types of trucks with a difference
in load magnitude, axle configurations: single axles when the distance between axles is more, tandem axles
when two axles are very close and far from the other axles, or tridem axles when three axles are very close
and far from the other axles). Trucks can have all types of axle combinations of various types. The type of
axle influences pavement performance in different ways.
The amount of damage to a pavement due to trucks is controlled by Truck Weight Regulations. Overload
can increase the amount of damage to pavement, resulting in high rehabilitation costs. Maintenance cost.
Overloaded trucks, axle configurations, and quantity of trucks can also result in pavement distresses poor
pavement performance, and pavement rehabilitation within the design period (Zaghloul and White 1994).
Based on two divergent datasets, one of those from Illinois another from the Federal Highway
Administration blending traffic data of seven states, Mohammadi and Shah (1992) identified the axle load
spectra discloses that overloads can show impact with divergent patterns in roads with heavy loads than in
those with lower loads, most importantly among the trucks with axles five or more. To decide up to what
extent overloads are responsible for the damage of pavement performance they developed a model to
constitute the divergent patterns that emerged in load spectra with the obtained results. The model they
developed can also be used to evaluate the repetition of massive loads on pavement and hence identify the
percentage of damage due to overloads when the traffic data is expressed in terms of the percentage of
mobility of each vehicle weight class. To precisely distinguish the axle load spectra, Timm et al. (2005)
come up with models to distinguish the traffic distribution, with the help of two or more theoretical
distributions that can be used to study the impact of overloaded trucks on pavement performance.
Fuentes et al. (2012) estimated the Truck Equivalency Factors (TEF) for Colombia and also determined that
truck classes such as C3: Truck with three axles: a single axle and a tandem axle and C3-S3: Truck with six
axles can be a tractor or semi-trailer: a single and tandem axle for the tractor and a tridem axle for the trailer.
The acquired values disclosed that some roads are bearing the truck which is extremely overloaded, resulting
in pavement distress in respect of fatigue, cracking, and rutting. The axle spectrum examined in this paper
disclosed an interchangeable trend.
The road pavement design considers a large array of types of trucks with the help of Truck Factor (TF) to
convert the commercial trucks having different axle configurations and different axle weights into an
equivalent number of the standard axle load of 80 kN single axle with dual wheels repetitions. Therefore a
total number of trucks can be converted into several movements of standard axle load.
The foremost process used to convert trucks into equivalent standard axle loads as defined in MoRTH Guide
for Planning, Development and Maintenance of National Highways (MoRTH 2018), which lets us convert
mixed traffic of trucks having distinct axle configurations and axle loads into an equivalent standard axle
load of 80 kN popularly called as Equivalent Single-Axle Load (ESAL) by using Truck Factor (TF)
determined by Load Equivalency Factor (LEF). ESALs later sum up for all the trucks.
Generally, road pavement design considers an average number of vehicles based on the Average Annual
Daily Traffic of prevailing pavement to define the number of equivalent movements of the standard axles for
the design period of 20 years. The traffic here indicates mainly trucks carrying heavy loads. The design
traffic in this instance includes the conversion of the average number of trucks for the design period into
ESALs. The conversion is executed with the help of Truck Factor based on axle configurations and axle load
of the respective truck. The vehicle damage factor for a road pavement is considered for all the trucks in the
traffic stretch and the damage factor for each truck is the sum of ESAL for all the truck axles.
Gross Vehicle Weight and corresponding axle loads depend upon various factors concerning the movement
of trucks on the road pavement. Gross Vehicle Weight is usually measured by Weight-in-Motion systems
that record the axle load of trucks.
To foresee the pavement life it is predominant to have knowledge of actual loads and overloads on to the
pavement and to establish the ESAL during pavement design. Hence, this paper study the impact of the
overloaded axle effect on pavement performance by analysing the collected truck traffic data. The data will
be analysed in the matter of:
• Average axle loads for each type of vehicle;
• Percentage of overloads;
• Percentage of vehicles in each traffic class; and
• Frequency of passage.
The analysis of the impact of the overloads on the pavement performance was carried out by studying the
following:
• Truck factor for overloaded vehicles;
• Truck factor for legal vehicles;
• Truck factor for all vehicles (overloaded and legal loads); and
• Influence of asphalt layer thickness and subgrade stiffness modulus on truck factor.
The present study will be appropriate for Pavement Engineers, Highway Designers, Transportation
Designers, and other professionals related to pavement design, since this study deals with Traffic, Most
importantly in terms of Load Equivalency Factors which are very useful for road pavement design.

Problem Recognition & Objective:

Overload of trucks is one of the core reasons for the damage of pavements within the design period. To
demonstrate that overloaded vehicles are one of the root cause for the premature failure of the pavements, an
analysis is to be done to determine the percentage of overload and percentage of damage on the pavement
due to overload of trucks regarding ESAL and Truck Factor.
Furthermore, this study is an attempt to determine the modified ESAL equation, given by Pais et al. (2013),
that differs from the standard ESAL equation provided in AASHTO guidelines. The modified ESAL
includes variables such as Type of axle, type of pavement, axle configuration, asphalt layer thickness,
subgrade stiffness, and axle parameters.

Traffic Data & Analysis

On account of several factors such as practical, financial, and Competition, Trucks and other vehicles have
Permissible Gross Vehicle Weight concerning the total number of axles that the vehicle have and the
permissible loads are based on its axle configurations such as for single axle it is defined by steering axle in
the front and rear axle comprises of single tire or dual tires at the end of each axle, tandem and tridem axles
defined by the distance between axles.
According to the Pune-based Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) or Vehicle Research
Development Establishment (VRDE), Vehicles are classified into different classes based on the number of
axles and axle configurations as shown in the Table-1. Category M2 vehicles are used for the carriage of
passengers and have a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 5 tons. Category M3 are vehicles
used for carriage passengers and have a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight exceeding 5 tons. Category N2
vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a Gross Vehicle Weight exceeding 3.5 tons but not
exceeding 12 tons. Category N3 vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a Gross Vehicle Weight
exceeding 12 tons. Category T4 are trailers used to carriage goods and have a Gross Vehicle Weight
exceeding 10 tons. The permissible GVW is used to define the overloads of vehicles. Overloaded vehicles
are the vehicle that exceeds the GVW more than the permissible loads.
 Axle Type Axle Vehicle Vehicle
Category Vehicle
Configuration Name Class
 M2 1-0-0 Mini Bus B1

Standard
M3 1-0-1.2 B2
Bus

N2 1-0-0 LCV 4W LCV1

N3 1-0-1.2 LCV 6W LCV2

[2-Axle]
N3 1-0-1.2 2T
Truck

[3-Axle]
N3 1-0-2.2 3T
Truck

[4-Axle]
N3 1-1.2-2.2 4T1
Truck
[4-Axle]
N3 1-1-2.2 4T2
Truck
[4-Axle]
N3 1-1.2-2 4T3
Truck
[4-Axle]
T4 1-0-3 (1,2.2) 4T4
Truck
[5-Axle]
N3 1-1.2-3.2 5T1
Truck

[5-Axle]
T4 1-2.2-2.2 5T2
Truck

[5-Axle]
T4 1-1-3(1,2.2) 5T3
Truck
[6-Axle]
T4 1-2.2-3.2 6T
Truck

The initial analysis of the Axle Load Survey represented that the annual average standard axle load is one of
the functions of the vehicle type. For down direction, Figure: 1 represents that each annual average standard
axle load ranged from 15% to 116% of the maximum permissible weight as per guidelines. For vehicle
classes: B1, B2, LCV1, LCV2 average load is are almost constant between axles. Besides, there is a
consequential difference between axles for the rest of the vehicle classes. The maximum load is observed for
2T trucks with 116% than the Maximum Safe Axle Weight. These are the results for the down direction,
however, the results for the up direction might get a similar shape of the graph but there would be a
significant difference between the axle loads i.e. axle loads for other directions would be much lower than
the down direction.

Figure: 1- Typical Annual Average Loads of Each Vehicle Class

 Front Axle (in T) Intermediate Axle (in T) Rear Axle (in T)
140
Avg. Load/Max. Load (%)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1

1
1

2T

3T
V

4T

4T

4T

5T

5T

6T
4T

5T
B

C
L

Vehicle Class

Even though there are maximum permissible weights for each vehicle, heavy load carrying trucks usually
carry lesser loads than the maximum load limits. It helps to accord Truck Factor with the help of Load
Equivalency Factor (LEF). For the trucks whose axle load is unknown, Maximum Safe Axle Weight is
considered.
The total number of overloaded trucks could be very high even though the annual average traffic loads are
less. A truck is specified as overloaded when one axle at the minimum has the load exceeding the maximum
allowable load. Figure: 2 represents the percentage of overloaded vehicles in up direction and the vehicle
classes: 4T2, 4T4, and 5T1 are overloaded
Figure: 2-Percentage of Overload

120

100
% of Overload

80

60 2017
2019
40 2021
2023
20

0
B1 B2 LCV1 LCV2 2T 3T 4T1 4T2 4T3 4T4 5T1 5T2 5T3 6T1

Vehicle Class

The outcome of the chart presented in Figure: 2 represents that the percentage of overload is higher in 2019
and 2023 for the vehicle classes: 4T2, 4T4, and 5T1 with above 90% of overload. The second highest
vehicle class that carries overload is 6T1. The vehicle classes: 4T1 and 5T3 carry the same percentage of
overload with around and above 60% in all the years. When compared to 2019 and 2013, the percentage of
overload in the other years is inferior. Throughout the axle load survey, there is no significant difference in
the percentage of overloads.
Figure: 3- Of Overload during the Analysis Period

100
% Of Overloaded Vehicles

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Average Loads

From Figure: 3 the relation between the average axle loads and the percentage of overloads is directly
proportional but reasonable for up to 40% of an average load and then the percentage of overloads gradually
increased to the peak. For Figure: 3, the analysis focused on rear axle loads on which the heavier loads are
usually carried by truck. Figure: 3 helps to evaluate the number of overloaded trucks regarding actual axle
loads from the traffic data.
Figure: 4 - Percentage of Each Vehicle Class during The Analysis Period

20
Percentage of Vehicles

15

10

0
1

3
2

1
1

2T

3T
V

4T

4T

5T

5T
4T

4T

5T

6T
B

C
L

Vehicle Class

2017 2019 2021 2023

From Figure: 4 among all the vehicle classes considered in the axle load survey, 3T have a significant traffic
flow with around 18%, while vehicle classes: 4T1, 4T3, and 4T4 are also above 10% and less than 15% of
traffic flow. The percentage of heavy load carrying trucks does not change throughout the year regarding
annual average load variations.

ESAL Calculation:
The impact of the overloaded axle effect of trucks on the road pavements was studied by determining the
truck factors for different vehicle cases applied to a set of pavements made up of different asphalt layer
thicknesses and different subgrade stiffness moduli. The impact of different vehicle classes carrying
different loads can be determined by converting all the vehicles into equivalent standard axle loads that
allow converting each vehicle into the determined number of single axle loads.
Based on the definition by the mechanistic method, ESAL can be defined as the ratio of damage occurred by
standard 80 kN axle load to the damage to the pavement surface due to the repetition of the passage of actual
axle load onto the pavement is given by equation (1). The usual ESAL is determined as equation (2)
according to the French Pavement Design Manual (Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, 1994).
According to French Pavement Design Manual, the coefficient “k” is given by equation (3). But, this
equation is inconvenient to calculate the truck factor. However, equation (4) which was developed by Pais et
al. (2013) considers axle configurations (i.e. single, tandem, and tridem), axle parameter, asphalt layer
thickness, subgrade stiffness moduli so that truck and the impact of axle effect can be determined with the
help of load equivalency factors. According to Amorim et al. (2014) equation (4) is only valid for the
pavement with the granular layer thickness of 20 cm and asphalt layer with 5000 MPa stiffness modulus.

N 80
ESAL=
Nx
(1)
Where:
N 80 = pavement life determined by Standard 80 kN axle load
Nx = pavement life determined by the actual axle load

α
Px
ESAL= k( ) (2)
P80

Where:
k = coefficient of the function of axle type
α = coefficient of the function of pavement distress
Px = actual axle load of the truck
P80 = standard axle load of the truck

α
ε2
k= ( ) (3)
ε1
Where:
ε = for standard axle load it is the strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer

k= 254.03 ×( E¿ )0.033393 ×( h)−1.0416 ×e−1.2928 × AP (4)

Where:
E¿ = subgrade stiffness (MPa)
h = asphalt layer thickness (cm)
AP = according to Pais et al., axle parameters are considered as the data represented in Table-2

Table-2: Axle Parameter (AP)

Type of Axle Parameter Value
Single-axle single-wheel 1
Single-axle dual-wheel 2
Tandem-axle single-wheel 3
Tandem-axle dual-wheel 4
Tridem-axle single-wheel 4.5
Tridem-axle dual-wheel 5.5

As mentioned in equation (2) α is analysed as the coefficient of the function of the pavement distress.
Initially, Archilla and Madanat (2000) found the value of α is 2.98 for a single axle and 3.89 for the tandem
axle in the case of rutting. After following the AASHTO road test and the Westrack road test Archilla and
Madanat (2001) modified the value of α for single axles as 2.44 and 2.86 for tandem axles. For the study of
pavement cracking, Prozzi and Madanat (2003) included the pavement roughness with the help of a
recursive non-linear model and found the approximate value of α as 4.2. To study the fatigue cracking, using
the data from the AASHO road test in combination with the MnRoad Project, Prozzi and Madanat (2004)
and Prozzi (2001) found the value of α as 3.85 when roughness is included and 4.15 when serviceability is
included. For pavement cracking, using the AASHO road test data, Guler and Madanat (2011) found the
value of α as 8.49 for single axles and 8.14 for tandem axles. Considering the value of α as a representative
for the pavement failure mode, Pais et al. (2013) gave the value of α as 4. Since the current study is related
to pavement distresses such as fatigue failure and rutting, the estimated value of α is 4.

Results and Discussion:

To study the impact of overloaded axle effect on pavement performance, along with stiffness modulus of
5000 MPa, five different subgrade stiffness (i.e. 40, 60, 80,100, 120 MPa) and five different asphalt layer
thicknesses (i.e. 10, 15, 20, 25, 30) are examined.
For all the vehicle classes mentioned in Table: 1, by evaluating the truck factor and segregating the
overloaded vehicles from the maximum legal load vehicles for different conditions the impact of the
overloaded axle effect can be evaluated. Truck Factor (TF) is evaluated for different conditions mentioned
as follows:
 Vehicles with the maximum legal load allowed by axle;
 Vehicles with the maximum truck factor;
 The average truck factor observed; and
 A vehicle with an average load of each axle.
Figure: 5- Truck Factors of Overloaded Vehicles

90

70

50
Truck Factor

30

10

-10
1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1
B B V V 2T 3T 4T 4T 4T 4T 5T 5T 5T 6T
C C
L L
Vehicle Class

Vehicles with average observed load of each axle (kN) Average truck factor observed (kN)
Vehicle with the maximum legal load per axle (kN) Vehicle with maximum truck factor (kN)

The analysis in figure: 5 is particularly concerned about the truck factors of overloaded vehicles for the
asphalt layer of 10 cm and subgrade stiffness of 80MPa. The output of the analysis concludes that excluding
the vehicle class 5T3 since it has the highest truck factor, the remaining vehicle classes are identical and
there is no remarkable difference that can be identified among the vehicles with the average observed load
on each axle.

Figure: 6-Truck Factor of Legal Load Vehicle

30
25
20
15
Truck Factor

10
5
0
-5
1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1
B B V V 2T 3T 4T 4T 4T 4T 5T 5T 5T 6T
C C
L L
Vehicle Class

Vehicles with average observed load of each axle (kN) Average truck factor observed (kN)
Vehicle with the maximum legal load per axle (kN) Vehicle with maximum truck factor (kN)

The graph presented in figure: 6 represents the truck factor for the vehicles within the maximum legal loads
are considered for the same pavement conditions mentioned in the figure: 5. Since B1 carries the least
possible overload, which carries loads that starts from 35 KN and the empty truck weighs around 18-25 kN
which results in the smaller values of truck factor. From figure: 6, as the empty vehicles can influence the
truck factor values, the graph concludes that there is an identical difference between the vehicles with the
average observed load on each axle, vehicles with maximum legal load, and vehicles with maximum truck
factor.
Figure: 7-Truck Factor for the vehicles of maximum legal load with variation in asphalt layer
thickness
30

25
B1
20 B2
LCV1
LCV2
15 2T
Truck Factor

3T
10 4T1
4T2
4T3
5
4T4
5T1
0 5T2
5T3
-5 6T
h10 h15 h20 h25 h30

Ashpalt Layer Thickness

Though the performance of all the vehicle classes on the other asphalt pavements would be the same, for
pavement of 80 MPa subgrade stiffness, the truck factor and asphalt layer thickness are inversely
proportional to each other i.e. as the asphalt thickness increases, the truck factor decreases which can be
identified from the figure: 7. Whereas for the asphalt layer thickness of 20 Cm, as the subgrade stiffness
increases, there is very little increase in the truck factor that can be identified in the figure: 8. Vehicles with
maximum legal load per axle are considered for the analysis of figure: 7 and figure: 8.
Figure: 8-Truck Factor for the vehicle classes of maximum legal load with variation in subgrade
stiffness
 1
6T
5T3
5T2
5T1
4T4
4T3
ESAL

0.5 4T2
4T1
3T
2T
LCV2
LCV1
B2
B1
0
40 60 80 100 120

Subgrade Stiffness (MPa)

Figure: 9 represents the impact of the overloaded axle effect on pavement performance. The comparison
between the average truck factors observed for overloaded vehicles and the average truck factor observed
for legal and overload (i.e. all vehicles) are almost similar. However the average truck factors for vehicle
class 5T3 utmost value among all the vehicle classes.
Figure: 9-Impact of Overloaded Axle Effect on Pavement Performance

75

65

55

45
Truck Factor

35

25

15

-5
B1 B2 L CV 1 LCV2 2T 3T 4T1 4T2 4T3 4T4 5T1 5T2 5T3 6T

Vehicle Class

Average truck factor observed-legal vehicles Average truck factor observed-all vehicles
Average Truck Factor Observed-Overloaded Vehicles Vehicles with the maximum legal load per axle

All these characteristics specify that the impact of overloaded vehicles is consequential when compared to
actual traffic instead of comparing with the maximum legal loads. On the whole, the total number of
vehicles with maximum legal loads causes more damage to the pavement performance than the overloaded
vehicles since, for the overloaded trucks, loads are distributed to a sufficient number of axles which does not
show much impact regarding Gross Vehicle Weight.
Depending upon the results of the analysis, cost estimation for the damage of pavement due to overloaded
vehicles can be recommended to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) by comparing the cost
of overloaded vehicles with the cost of legal load vehicles. When the overloaded vehicles are reduced to
maximum legal loads, the percentage of the difference between the two cases indicates the cost of the
overload.
Figure: 10-Percentage Cost of Overload Vehicles
80

70
% Cost Of Overloaded Vehicles

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
B1 B2 LCV1 LCV2 2T 3T 4T1 4T2 4T3 4T4 5T1 5T2 5T3 6T1
Vehicle Class

The assumption was executed to investigate the impact of overloaded axle effect on pavement performance
for the pavement having asphalt thickness of 20 cm and 80 MPa subgrade stiffness. Figure: 10 represents the
percentage cost of overloaded vehicles in each class. Regarding Pavement life, the result of the analysis
states that the pavement would receive 70% of its expected life. The marginal cost varies with the change in
α value in equation (2)
Conclusion: