International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: 1029-8436 (Print) 1477-268X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

The pavements cost due to traffic overloads

Jorge C. Pais, Hélder Figueiras, Paulo Pereira & Kamil Kaloush

To cite this article: Jorge C. Pais, Hélder Figueiras, Paulo Pereira & Kamil Kaloush (2018): The
pavements cost due to traffic overloads, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2018.1435876

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1435876

Published online: 23 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1435876

The pavements cost due to traffic overloads

Jorge C. Paisa, Hélder Figueirasa, Paulo Pereiraa and Kamil Kaloushb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Portugal; bSchool of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The traffic on roads is characterised by a large number of different vehicle types; these vehicles are Received 6 July 2017
Accepted 26 January 2018
considered in the pavement design by converting their effects through the use of truck factors. The truck
factors transform the damage applied by the various axle types and loads to a standard axle. However, KEYWORDS
there is a considerable number of vehicles that travel with axle loads above the maximum legal limit. These Truck factors; pavement
axles/vehicles cause significant damage to the pavements, which increases the pavement construction damage; overloaded vehicles
and rehabilitation cost. This paper investigates the impact of overloaded vehicles using a vehicle weight
database by examining the truck factors for different vehicle categories. The study concluded that
overloaded vehicles increase pavement damage and life cycle costs by about 30% compared to the cost of
the same vehicles with legal loads.

1. Introduction
Pavements are designed to support the expected traffic under
certain climatic conditions but often develop distresses before
the end of the design period. These distresses can be related to
deficient pavement design, quality of the materials, or due to
traffic that was not well predicted both in terms of volume or
load intensity. These distresses appear as fatigue cracking due
to the bending of the pavement under traffic loads; thermal
cracking due to temperature variations (Minhoto et al. 2005);
top-down cracking due to stress concentration at the tyre–pave-
ment contact; and reflective cracking (Sousa et al. 2002) due
to stress concentration near the crack tip of the existing layers
of rehabilitated pavements (Minhoto et al. 2008). Permanent
deformation also appears in the pavement due to the reduced
strength of the pavement subgrade or due to the shear deforma-
tion of the asphalt layers, mainly the wearing course (Brovelli
et al. 2015).
Among the factors responsible for pavement distresses, traffic
is the main cause due to the loads applied by the various axle
vehicles. While light traffic doesn’t cause structural problems in
the pavement, heavy traffic causes the most significant failures
producing fatigue cracking and rutting that require pavement
rehabilitation.
Traffic characterisation for pavement analysis and design
include a large number of different types of vehicles with dif-
ferent carrying loads, number of axles and group of axles. For
example, single axles when the distance between axles is large,
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.
The design of pavements needs to take into account all heavy
vehicles that will pass on the road. Traffic spectra can be modelled
using the models developed by Timm et al. (2005). This is done
by converting all axles of the vehicles into a number of equivalent
passages of a standard axle (80 kN single axle with dual tyres,
ESAL) that is considered as the reference axle for the design. The
typical conversion of the load is carried out as a function of the
ratio between the actual load and the load of the standard axle.
So, if the load of the actual axle is known, a load factor can be
defined that allows to convert the axles into standard axle. The
application of this principle converts the effect of those vehicles
into the passages of the standard axle (Amorim et al. 2015).
The consideration of the traffic for pavement design is based
on the expected number of vehicles and their loads. The number
of vehicles is considered based on the actual traffic and the traffic
growth. The traffic loads can be obtained by considering the max-
imum legal load of each vehicle, or using weight measurement
from weigh-in-motion systems, which record the weight of each
axle of the vehicles. While the second takes into account the exact
loads of the axles, the first doesn’t, but the effect of the overloaded
vehicles can be compensated by the vehicles that circulate below
the maximum limit (Pais and Pereira 2016b).
The effect of the overloads in pavement analysis and design
was studied by several researchers. Rys et al. (2016) analysed the
effect of overloaded vehicles on fatigue life of flexible pavements
based on weigh-in-motion data. They concluded that the increase
of percentage of overloaded vehicles from 0 to 20% can reduce
the fatigue life of asphalt pavement up to 50%. This result is due
to the fact that in Poland the percentage of overloaded vehicles
is in the range from 6% (road where continuous control of traf-
fic is performed) to 16.5%. The study concluded that most of
overloaded vehicles exceeded the axle load limit, while the gross
weight was exceeded less frequently.
Straus and Semmens (2006) evaluated the impacts of over-
weight vehicles on pavements and concluded that for every dollar

CONTACT Jorge C. Pais jpais@civil.uminho.pt

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2  J. C. PAIS ET AL.

invested in motor carrier enforcement efforts, there would be 2. Traffic data

$4.50 saved or avoided in pavement damage.
The road traffic has weight limitations due to technical, economic
The presence of overloads was also investigated by Fuentes
and competitive factors. These weight limits are function of the
et al. (2012) regarding the existence of excessive axle loads in
number of axles and the axle configuration. Tandem and tridem
Colombia, mainly in vehicles with three axles (a single and a
axles have different weight limits because the total load of the
tandem axle) and with six axles (a single and a tandem axle in
axle is applied in several points whereas in the single axles the
the tractor; a tridem axle in the trailer).
load is applied only in one. The location of the axle in the truck
Wang et al. (2015) evaluated the impact of overweight traffic
is also a criterion for weight limit. For single axles, the maximum
on pavement life using mechanistic-empirical analysis approach.
weight limit depends on whether the axle is a steering axle or an
They found a linear relationship between the overweight per-
axle with or without traction. For tandem axles, the weight limit
centage and the reduction ratio of pavement life regardless of the
is function of the distance between the two axles of the tandem.
variation in traffic loading and pavement structure. In general,
For tridem axles, the weight limit is function of the distance
they showed that 1% increase of overweight truck may cause
between the outside axles of the tridem.
1.8% reduction of pavement life.
In addition to the weight limit for the vehicles’ axles, there are
Despite axle load limits in the USA, the Federal Highway
regulations for the weight limit for the entire truck. However, for
Administration (FHWA 2000) studied the potential impacts
pavement design purposes, this limit is not as important as the
of changes to those limits. Attention was focused primarily on
limits for the individual axles; therefore, in this study only the
options to improve productivity, and large reduction in shipping
limitation applied to the axles is considered.
costs associated with increases in load limits. Identical studies
In Portugal, heavy vehicles are classified into different classes
were carried out by Zaghloul and White (1994), Jessup (1996)
based on vehicle configuration and the number of axles. The
and Coley et al. (2016) for the estimation of pavement damage
classes analysed in this study are described in Table 1, where the
from overweight permit vehicles; the goal was to inform over-
load limit of each axle is also shown. Tandem and tridem axles
size-overweight programme policies and assist in optimising the
are considered as a set of axles. The limit on total vehicle load
permit issuance process.
is the sum of the maximum load for each axle. The load limits
Because the knowledge of the impact of overloads are impor-
shown in the table are used to define the overloads for the traffic
tant for pavement analysis and design as recognised by Pais et al.
considered in this work. In this work, an overloaded vehicle has
(2013), the work in this paper analyses the effects of overloads on
at least one axle carrying a weight greater than that allowed for
pavements in terms of ESAL, required pavement thickness, and
the axle. For the calculation of the ESAL of each vehicle, the
pavement costs. The study included traffic records of 420 manual
models used in this work consider the individual loads or group
vehicle weights obtained from a national road, divided into 4
loads. Thus, when applying models that consider the traffic as
classes of vehicles.
individual axles, the load limit for each axle of a tandem axle is
The work analyses the percentage of vehicles in each traffic
defined as half of the total load limit whereas for tridem axles,
class, percentage of overloads and average axle loads for each
the load limit for each individual axle is defined as one-third of
type of vehicle. The impact of the overloads in the pavement
the total load limit.
performance is analysed by studying the ESAL, required pave-
For the development of the work in this study, 420 manual
ment thickness and pavement cost considering the following
vehicle weights were carried out on a 2 lanes main road, during
conditions: (i) vehicle with the maximum legal load for each
a period of 1 month. This was also not done in consecutive days
axle; (ii) vehicle with average observed load for each axle; (iii)
to avoid having the overloaded vehicles escape for other roads
all vehicles; (iv) legal vehicles (not considering the overloaded
or decrease the typical loads. The measurements were done by
vehicles); (v) overloaded vehicles (vehicles with at least one axle
weighing the load on both sides of each axle. On average, the axle
weighing more than the maximum legal load); (vi) vehicles lim-
load was equally divided by both sides of the axles.
ited to the legal limits (all vehicles – case iii – where the load of
The classes presented in Table 1 follows the trend observed
the overloaded axles is considered equal to the maximum legal
by Pais et al. (2013) where, for a motorway, and using a weigh-
limit for that axle. This procedure transforms the overloaded
in-motion system, the observed traffic was concentrated mainly
vehicles into legal vehicles. The difference between actual vehi-
in F1, H3 and H5 classes.
cles and these ones expresses the effect of the overloads).
In this study, the percentage of vehicles are presented in Figure
The impact of the overloads in the pavement performance
2 where it can be observed that almost half of the traffic is com-
was analysed by the calculation of the ESAL for all six cases of
posed by vehicles in the H5 class that has a tractor with two
vehicles using three different models to consider the effect of
single axles and a trailer with a tridem. One-fourth of the traffic
the loads on the pavement, namely the four power model, the
is composed by trucks with two single axles (class F1). Classes F2
French model and the model developed by the authors. This
and H3 have the same amount of vehicles, around 15%.
impact was also calculated by the calculation of the pavement
More important than the number or the percentage of heavy
thickness required to support the traffic. In this case, a model
vehicles in a road, is to know the number of overloaded vehicles;
to define the pavement thickness as function of the traffic level
meaning that at least one axle has a weight greater than its max-
was defined. Applying the model, the pavement thickness was
imum legal limit. These results are presented in Figure 3 where
calculated for each vehicle and for the entire traffic that allowed
it can be observed that for classes F2, H3 and H5 (vehicles with
to compare the pavement thickness for overloads. A schematic
more than two axles) the percentage of overloaded vehicles reach
flowchart is presented in Figure 1 that exemplify the analysis
more than 50% of the vehicles in that class. Only for class F1
carried out in this work.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING  3

Figure 1. Percentage of heavy vehicles observed in this study.

Table 1. Vehicle classes and maximum legal load.

Maximum load per axle (kN)

Vehicle classes 1st axle 2nd axle 3rd axle 4th axle 5th axle
F1 75 120

F2 75 190

H3 75 120 190

H5 75 120 240

(vehicles with two axles), the percentage of overloaded vehicles

is lower, but it reaches almost 20%.
The high percentage of overloaded vehicles is also a result
of the ratio between the average load and the maximum load
observed in the measurement; where for classes F2, H3 and H5
(vehicles with more than two axles) this ratio is approximately 1,
as indicated in Figure 4. Having in mind that the average loads
include legal vehicles and overloaded vehicles, a ratio around 1
means that there is a huge number of vehicles that circulate with
overloads, as observed in Figure 3.
The distribution of the axle loads within all classes
allows recognising the amount of overloaded axles. This is
presented in Figures 5 through 8, for F1, F2, H3 and H5 class,
Figure 2. Percentage of heavy vehicles observed in this study.
respectively.
4  J. C. PAIS ET AL.
Figure 3. Percentage of overloaded vehicles in each class.
Figure 4. Ratio between average load and the maximum legal load.
Figure 5. Distribution of the loads of the vehicles of class F1.
For class F1 (Figure 5), one can observe that the loads of the
first axle are very low and almost below the legal limit. Only
14% of the first axles have overloads. For the second axle, the
percentage is identical, i.e. only 13% of the axles have overloads.
In the next figures, for a better visualisation of the overloads, the
observations are presented in ascending order of each axle load.
This means that the observation number 1 doesn’t correspond
to the lightest vehicle but to the lightest axle 1 (front axle) and
lightest axle 2 (rear axle). All axles represented above the axle
load limit indicate the overloaded axles and the corresponding
vehicles are considered overloaded.
For class F2 (Figure 6), it is notorious that more than 50%
of the axles have overload. In fact, 56% of the first axle have
overloads while 61% of the tandem axle (second + third) have
overloads. In terms of vehicles, 80% of the F2 class travelled with
overloads, meaning that the front axle is overloaded or the rear
axle is overloaded.
For class H3 (Figure 7), the conditioning axle is the tandem
composed by axle 3 and 4 that presented 66% of overloads; while
the first and the second axles travelled only with 17 and 25% of
overloads, respectively. In terms of vehicles, 83% of this class H3
have at least one axle with overloads.
Axle loads distribution for class H5 is presented in Figure 8.
The figure shows that the first axle of all vehicles has almost the
same load and only 15% travelled with overloads. For the second
axle, the load variation is larger and the percentage of overloads
reached 42%; but it is in the tridem that the load variation has
a huge variation and the number of overloaded axles was 32%.
Considering this type of vehicles, 61% of them travelled with
overloads.
3. Models
3.1. Equivalent single axle load
The impact of the vehicles and mainly the overloads on pave-
ment performance was analysed by converting all axle loads and
vehicles into a representative axle, i.e. the Equivalent Single Axle
Load (ESAL).
The conversion of an axle into ESAL allows to transform the
effect of that axle into the effect of the standard axle on the same
pavement. The conversion of all vehicles’ axles allows to trans-
form the effect of the vehicle into the effect of the standard axle
on the same pavement.
This approach will be used to study the effect of the axles and
the vehicles on a pavement.
To convert an axle into standard axle, the concept of ESAL is
used. By definition is the ratio between the damage of the passage
of an axle on a pavement and the damage of a standard axle, usu-
ally the 80 kN single-axle load, passing on the same pavement.
In Equation (1), the ESAL is generally expressed as the rela-
tionship between the actual axle load (Px) and the load of the
standard axle (Pref ), mainly with α = 4, even though it is recog-
nised that there is no unique power value and it varies with pave-
ment type, distress considered, failure level and contact stresses
(Hong and Prozzi 2006, Pereira and Pais 2017). For tandem or
tridem axles, Equation (1) is applied for all individual axles of
the axle group, meaning that for a tandem axle, it is applied two
times whereas for tridem axles it is applied three times.
(
Px
)𝛼
ESAL = (1)
Pref
To take into account the type of axle, i.e. single, tandem or tridem,
LCPC (1994) proposed Equation (2) for the calculation of ESAL.
It is based on Equation (1) and adding the coefficient k; which
is a function of the axle type (single, tandem or tridem), and α
is a coefficient that is a function of the type of pavement (most
importantly, the pavement stiffness). The k coefficient, extracted
from the French pavement design guide, is given in Table 2.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING  5

Consideration of the type of axle is important as demonstrated

by Salama et al. (2006), who concluded that trucks with single
and tandem axles appear to affect pavement cracking more than
those with multiple axles (tridem and higher).
( )𝛼
Px
ESAL = k (2)
Pref

Because the effect of one load on a pavement can be com-

pletely different on another pavement, coefficient k of Equation
(2) must quantify this effect. Also the effect of a single or a dual
load have different effects on the pavement, coefficient k can also
Figure 6. Distribution of the loads of the vehicles of class F2. be used to measure this effect. Thus, Pais and Pereira (2016a)
proposed a model to calculate the coefficient k as function of
the pavement composition, axle type, and wheel load, based on
a mechanistic analysis of an extended set of different configu-
rations of pavements, type of axles and wheels. This coefficient
is expressed in Equation (3), 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 subgrade (MPa), AP is the Axle Parameter as defined in
Table 3, and a1, a2, a3, a4, a5 and a6 are constants presented in
Table 4 for α = 4. Pais and Pereira (2016a) present these constants
for α = 3, 5 and 6 that can be used to interpolate for other alpha
values.
( ) a2 ( ) a3 ( ) a4 ( ) a5
Figure 7. Distribution of the loads of the vehicles of class H3. k = a1 × Hasp × Hgra × Easp × Esubg × e(a6 ×AP)
(3)
The coefficient ET (Equivalent Thickness) in Table 4 is defined
in Equation (4), 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).
√( )3 ( )3
√
Hasp × Easp + Hgra × Egra
√
3
(4)
√
ET =
√
Esubg

For tandem and tridem axles, coefficient k in Equation (3) was

Figure 8. Distribution of the loads of the vehicles of class H5. defined to be used considering all tandem and tridem axles as
only one axle, the load being is the sum of the load of the indi-
Table 2. Values of the k and α coefficients for the French method (LCPC, 1994). vidual axles.
For the calculation of ESAL for the individual axles of tandem
k
and tridem, the k coefficient defined in Equation (3) must be
α Single axle Tandem axle Tridem axle calculated according to Equations (5) and (6), for tandem and
Flexible pavement 5 1 0.75 1.1 tridem, respectively, where kset is the k coefficient defined for
Rigid and semi-rigid 12 1 12 113
pavements the set of axles (Equation (3)), and kindividual is the k coefficient
to be applied for the individual axles. Equations (5) and (6) were
developed considering that the total load of tandem and tridem
Table 3. Axle parameter (AP). axles are equally divided in their individual axles.
Single Tandem Tandem Tridem Tridem kindividual = kset × 2𝛼−1 (5)
Single axle axle axle axle axle axle
Single Dual Single Dual Single Dual kindividual = kset × 3𝛼−1 (6)
wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel
1.0 2.0 2.7 4.1 3.8 5.2
6  J. C. PAIS ET AL.

Table 4. Constants for Equation (3).

α ET (m) a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 R2
4 ≤1.2 1.08E+01 −9.41E-01 6.69E-02 −2.85E-01 3.04E-01 −1.41E+00 0.992
>1.2 5.20E+00 3.33E-02 1.82E-03 1.15E-01 −1.17E-01 −1.33E+00 0.975

3.2. Pavement life
The study of overloads impact was also made by calculating
the pavement thickness required to support the traffic, which
includes legal and overloaded vehicles. To calculate the pavement
thickness, a pavement was considered with two layers above the
subgrade, a granular layer 0.20 m thick with twice the stiffness
of the subgrade and an asphalt layer with a given thickness and
stiffness.
Because the required pavement thickness was calculated for
all vehicles analysed in this study, a model was developed to
relate the pavement thickness as function of the traffic level. The
model was developed for the pavement where the weighing was
carried out, with the following characteristics: 5000 MPa for the
stiffness of the asphalt layer and 60 MPa for the stiffness of the
subgrade. As mentioned earlier, the stiffness of the granular layer
was defined as twice the one of the subgrade.
The model was developed by simulating several pavement
designs with the asphalt layer thickness ranging from 0.05 m
up to 0.30 m. For each pavement design, the tensile strain at the
bottom of the asphalt layer and the vertical strain at the top of
subgrade were calculated for a 80 kN axle load.
The pavement life was calculated using the Shell (1978)
fatigue equation. This is defined in Equation (7) and correlates
the fatigue life (N) with the strain level (ε), stiffness of the asphalt
mixes (Smix) and volume of bitumen (Vb). This is the most used
fatigue equation in Europe, coming from an extensive laboratory
testing programme. This fatigue equation was calibrated in order
to be used in the pavement design to predict the pavement life.
−0.36
𝜀 = (0.856 × Vb + 1.08)Smix × N −0.2
In terms of permanent deformation, Equation (8) was used,
where a = 2.8 × 10−2 for 50% confidence, a = 2.1 × 10−2 for 85%
confidence and a = 1.8 × 10−2 for 95% confidence.
𝜀z = a.N −0.25
Using the fatigue equations defined by Shell method and consid-
ering a pavement with a granular layer with 20 cm, the thickness
of the asphalt layer (h) can be defined by Equation (9), where
N is the number of ESAL (80 kN standard axle) and a, b and
c are constants depending of the stiffness of the subgrade and
asphalt layer, given in Table 5, where Easp is the stiffness of the
asphalt layer and Esubg is the stiffness of the subgrade. This equa-
tion represents the best fit of the thickness of the asphalt layer
Table 5. Constants for Equation (9).
Easp (MPa) Esubg (MPa) a b
5000 20 −4.94E-01 6.63E-03
40 −2.66E-01 5.32E-03
60 −8.48E-02 4.53E-03
80 1.22E-01 3.67E-03
100 2.80E-01 3.12E-03
120 3.10E-01 3.18E-03
140 3.99E-01 2.95E-03
obtained for the design of a set of pavements composed with
different values for the subgrade and asphalt layer stiffness. The
development of such equation allows an easy design of multiple
asphalt pavements, as in the case of the weighing of vehicles that
requires the design of a pavement for each vehicle.
(
log (h) = a + b. log(N) +
)2 c
log(N) (9)
4. Analysis of the effect of the overloads
The analysis of the effect of the overloads on pavement cost
was made calculating the ESAL for two different cases: for the
axles and for the vehicles. In both cases, the models discussed
before were applied. These are: the model defined in Equation
(1), referred to as 4PW model. The model defined in Equation
(2) and Table 2, referred to as FR model, and the model defined
in Equations (2) and (3), referred to as JP model.
The application of these models is explained for a vehicle with
the characteristics indicated in Table 6, including the legal limits,
the actual load and axle loads limited to the legal limits that are
used to study the effect of the overloads.
The JP model requires the consideration of a pavement,
which is characterised by an asphalt layer with 0.15 m thick and
a stiffness of 5000 MPa; a granular layer with 0.20 m thick and a
stiffness of 120 MPa; a subgrade with a stiffness of 60 MPa. The
standard axle of 80 kN and α = 4 were considered for all models.
For the application of JP model, the k coefficient of Equation
(3) is function of the tyre/axle configuration and takes the values
indicated in Table 7, for the case when considering individual
(7) loads for the multiple axles and when considering group load
for the multiple axles. By definition k for single axle and dual
wheel is equal to 1.
The application of 4PW model is done by computing Equation
(1) for all axles with Pref = 80 kN and α = 4. Px is the load of each
(8) axle given in Table 6.
The application of FR model is done by computing Equation
(2) for all axles with Pref = 80 kN and α = 4. k coefficient is given
In Table 2. For the first and second axles, k = 1, and for third and
fourth axles, k = 0.75. Px is the sum of the load of these axles.
The application of JP model is done by considering Equation
(2) with k given by Equation (3). k coefficients are given in Table
7 and are function of the type of axle and wheel of the vehicle.
Pref = 80 kN and α = 4 were considered in the application of this
model.
The results for all models are indicated in Table 8 as well as the
truck factor (a coefficient that transforms the damage applied by
c
the various axle types and loads of a vehicle to a standard axle)
−2.79E+00
that is the sum of the ESAL for all axles.
−4.49E+00 These models have substantial differences producing differ-
−5.91E+00 ent results. The differences of these models can be observed in
−7.44E+00
−8.71E+00
Figure 9 for the second axle of F2 vehicles (single axle + tandem
−9.23E+00 axle), where the 4PW model gives the highest ESAL followed
−1.01E+01 by the FR model (75% of the 4PW model), while the JP model
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING  7

Table 6. Example of a vehicle to explain the ESAL models.

Axle load (kN)

H3 1st axle 2nd axle 3rd axle 4th axle

Type of axle/wheel Single axle Single axle Tandem axle

Single Wheel Single Wheel Single wheel
Legal limits 75 120 190
Actual load 73 148 102 94
Axle load limited to legal limits considering individual loads for the tandem 73 120 95 94
Axle load limited to legal limits considering group load for the tandem 73 120 190

Table 7. K coefficient for the pavement considered.

Single axle Single axle Tandem axle Tandem axle Tridem axle Tridem axle
Single wheel Dual wheel Single wheel Dual wheel Single wheel Dual wheel
Considering individual loads for the multiple axles 4.288 1.000 0.387 0.053 0.082 0.011
Considering group load for the multiple axles 4.288 1.000 3.095 0.427 2.203 0.304

Table 8. ESAL and truck factor.

ESAL

H3 1st axle 2nd axle 3rd axle 4th axle Truck factor
Type of axle/wheel Single axle Single axle Tandem axle
Single wheel Dual wheel Single wheel
4PW model 0.69 11.78 2.68 1.91 17.05
FR model 0.69 11.78 27.24 39.71
JP model 2.94 11.78 14.06 28.77

Figure 9. ESAL for the second axle of F2 vehicles.
Figure 10. ESAL for the fourth axle of H5 vehicles.
shows the lowest values due to the fact that the axle has a dual
wheel. Because the load is divided by two wheels, its effect in the
pavement is reduced, and the ESAL given by the JP model is low.
However, for single loads the JP model gives great ESAL when
compared with the other models as indicated in Figure 10 for the
fourth axle of the H5 vehicles. For this case, the ESAL given by
the FR model is 10% greater than the one obtained by the 4PW
model. In these figures, the results (ESAL of a given axle) are
presented in ascending order of resulting ESAL for each model.
The accumulated ESAL for all vehicles studied in this work,
calculated using the JP model, is expressed in Figure 11. The
slope of these lines give the truck factor for each type of vehicle
that can be used to characterise the traffic because it includes all
vehicles observed in the weighing operation. It can be observed
that H5 and F2 vehicles are more constant as the accumulated
ESAL are a straight line. In the other two classes, there is a var-
iation in the load of the vehicles that produced a non-uniform
line. The greater truck factor for H3 vehicles is due to the fact that
the rear axles have single wheels, which produce more damage
in the pavement and thus increases the ESAL. In this figure, the
vehicles are presented in the order as they were weighed.
The analysis of the impact of the overloads on pavement per-
formance was established by the calculation of the asphalt layer
thickness required for a pavement to support a given traffic level
defined in Table 9. Table 9 shows the six traffic levels used in
Portugal for pavement design. The pavement was defined with
the following characteristics:
8  J. C. PAIS ET AL.

Thus, using Equation (9) and the truck factor for each vehicle,
the thickness of the asphalt layer was calculated for the traffic
levels in Table 9.
The calculation of the required thickness for the vehicles
of class H3, and considering the track factor defined by the JP
model, is represented in Figure 12. The pavement thickness was
calculated applying Equation (9) for a traffic given by the values
indicated in Table 9 and the truck factor for each vehicle. Here,
the vehicles are ordered by the required thickness for each traffic
level. It is possible to verify that for example for T1 the thickness
required for the pavement ranges from 0.30 m up to 0.49 m;
Figure 11. ESAL for all vehicles calculated with JP model. meaning that the range of weight of these vehicles varies consid-
erably. For the other traffic levels, the required thickness follows
the same trend. This graph was made by the truck factors ordered
Table 9. Traffic levels. in increasing order, meaning that the last vehicles correspond to
Traffic the overloaded vehicles.
level T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 The required pavement thickness was also calculated for all
Number 1.8E+07 1.4E+07 8.9E+06 5.0E+06 2.7E+06 1.0E+06 vehicles but limited to the maximum axle legal load. For the legal
of heavy
trucks
vehicles, the axle loads were kept constant but for the axles that
exceed the legal load limit its load was reduced to the legal limit.
Thus, all vehicles considered in this analysis can be considered as
legal vehicles, resulting from the transformation of overloaded
vehicles into legal vehicles. The required pavement thickness for
these vehicles limited to the legal load is represented in Figure 13.
In this figure, the vehicles are ordered by the pavement thickness
required for the traffic level considered. These results are equal
to the one presented in Figure 12 for all legal vehicles. For the
overloaded vehicles, the thickness was reduced. The comparison
between these two types of vehicles gives the thickness due to
the overload which is represented in Figure 14.
The increase of pavement cost due to the overloads requires
an analysis based on the decrease of expected life due to the over-
loads and an increase of the present value due to the increase of
pavement thickness. This analysis can be simplified considering
Figure 12. Pavement thickness for all vehicles of class H3. that the increase of pavement cost is due to the increase of thick-
ness. Thus, the increase in pavement cost can be calculated as
the relative difference between the thickness of the pavement for
• Stiffness of the asphalt layer: 5000 MPa overloaded vehicles and the one transformed into legal vehicle by
• Thickness of the granular layer: 0.20 m considering the overloaded axles with the legal load limit. This
• Stiffness of the granular layer: 120 MPa increase of pavement cost due to the overloads is represented in
• Stiffness of the subgrade: 60 MPa Figure 15. Two conclusions can be drawn from this increase of
cost, namely the traffic level as a reduced effect on the increase of
pavement cost, but the effect is greater for lower traffic levels and
the increase for this class of vehicles can reach more than 30%.

Figure 13. Pavement thickness for all vehicles of class H3 limited to the maximum
axle load. Figure 14. Pavement thickness due to the overloads for all vehicles of class H3.

Figure 15. Increase of pavement cost due to the overloads for all vehicles of class
H3.
Figure 16. Increase of pavement cost due to the overloads for traffic T1.
Figure 16 presents the increase of pavement cost for all vehi-
cles considered in this study. These results correspond of the
application of the JP model for a pavement subject to traffic T1.
The increase in pavement thickness due to the overloads was used
Figure 17. Truck factor for all traffic.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING  9
to calculate the increase of cost. The analysis of this figure allows
to conclude that there is a lot of vehicles that produce a larger
increase of cost that reaches 30%. This increase of cost is more
evident in classes with less axles (F2 and H3), where most of the
vehicles travel with overloads. On average, the increase of cost is
2% for class F1; 6% for class F2; 9% for class H3 and 3% for class
H5. For traffic T6, not represented in this figure, the increase of
pavement cost is the same for classes F1 and H5 while for class
F2 is 7% and for class H3 is 10%.
As mentioned earlier, the truck factor was carried out for
different traffic configurations, namely (i) vehicle with the maxi-
mum legal load in for each axle; (ii) vehicle with average observed
load in for each axle; (iii) all vehicles observed in this work; (iv)
legal vehicles (not considering the overloaded vehicles); (v) over-
loaded vehicles (vehicles with at least one axle weighing more
than the maximum legal load); (vi) vehicles limited to the legal
limits. For each traffic class and for each traffic configuration, the
truck factors are the mean of all vehicles truck factor. For each
vehicle, the truck factor is the sum of the ESAL for all its axles.
The truck factor for these configurations is shown in Figure 17.
The use of truck factors given by the maximum legal load repre-
sents well the actual traffic of classes F2 and H5, while for class
F1 it represents a value greater than the actual, and for class H3
it represents a value lesser than the actual.
The presence of overloads increases the truck factor that
can reach 100% as indicated in Figure 18 for class H3, while for
classes F1 and F2, it is almost 60%. Only for class H5 the increase
of the truck factor due to the overloads is relatively low (30%).
This increase of the truck factor was calculated comparing the
truck factor for the vehicles limited to the legal limits with the
truck factors for all vehicles. However, these values emphasise
the effect of the overloads in the pavement analysis and design.
Without overloads, the design traffic can be significantly reduced
producing pavement less expensive than for the case that a huge
number of overloaded vehicles circulate in the road.
Considering the data obtained in Figure 17, the required
pavement thickness was calculated for the different traffic
10  J. C. PAIS ET AL.
Figure 18. Increase of truck factor due to the overloads.
Figure 19. Pavement thickness for all traffic configurations studied.
Figure 20. Increase of pavement thickness due to the overloads function of the
traffic level.
configurations. The results are presented in Figure 19. It is pos-
sible to observe that the pavement thickness follows a logarithmic
variation with the traffic level; and the difference among all traffic
configurations is relatively reduced, meaning that the influence
of the overloads in the pavement thickness, considering all traffic
and not only one class of vehicles, is relatively low. The influence
of the overloads of all traffic in the pavement thickness is given
in Figure 20 and it ranges from 3.5% up to 5% depending of
the traffic levels considered that is a relatively low value. This
is explained by the fact that there are a lot of legal vehicles that
compensate the effect of the overloaded vehicles.
5. Summary and conclusions
This study used a database of vehicle weighing measurements to
analyse the impact of the overloaded vehicles on pavement cost.
This was done by calculating the ESAL for each axle and vehicle,
which were used to calculate the required pavement thickness.
The pavement cost was then calculated and the effect of the over-
loads was obtained.
The traffic vehicle weights were obtained by manual meas-
urements from a national road in Portugal. It was composed of
four different type of vehicles: class F1 vehicles with two single
axles; class F2 vehicles with a single and a tandem axle; class H3
vehicles with a tractor with two single axles and a trailer with
a tandem axle; class H5 vehicles with a tractor with two single
axles and a trailer with a tridem axle.
Except of class F1, the percentage of overloaded vehicles,
meaning that at least one axle has load above the legal limit for
that axle, was greater than 60%; for classes F2 and H3 it reached
80%.
The analysis of the traffic was carried out by calculating the
ESAL for all observed axles using three different models: the
traditional four power model, the French model and the model
developed by Pais and Pereira (2016a) that takes into account the
axle type, wheel and pavement for the calculation of the ESAL.
These models produced different results. Despite the differences
among the different models, the trend was almost identical.
To calculate the required pavement thickness for different
traffic levels, a model was developed that expressed the Shell
fatigue equation. This model allowed for a fast calculation of
the pavement thickness for any traffic level. It can be adapted for
other pavement configurations and fatigue laws by calculating
the pavement thickness only for three pavements and adjusting
the model constants.
In terms of pavement thickness required to support a given
traffic level, it was concluded that the pavement thickness due
to overloads required 0.10 m for some vehicles, and the associ-
ated pavement cost due to the overloads can reach 30%. On the
average, the increase of the pavement cost reached 10% for class
H3 when considering a low traffic level.
In terms of the truck factor, the analysis carried out concluded
that it increased considerably due to the overloads; it can reach
100% for class H3.
For the analysis of the influence of the overloads on the
pavement thickness, it ranged between 3.5 and 5%, but it also
depended on the traffic level.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to express the support of Portuguese national
funding agency for science, research and technology (FCT) through schol-
arship SFRH/BSAB/114415/2016.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
[grant number SFRH/BSAB/114415/2016].
References
Amorim, S.I.R., et al., 2015. A model for equivalent axle load factors.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16 (10), 881–893.
Brovelli, C., et al., 2015. Using polymers to improve the rutting resistance
of asphalt concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 77, 117–123.
Coley, N., Titi, H.H., and Latifi, V., 2016. Mapping overweight vehicle
permits for pavement engineering applications. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 142, 10.
FHWA, 2000. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s comprehensive
truck size and weight study. Vol. I, Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration
Fuentes, L.G., et al., 2012. Evaluation of truck factors for pavement design
in developing countries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 53,
1140–1149.
Hong, F. and Prozzi, J.A., 2006. Comparison of equivalent single axle loads
from empirical and mechanistic-empirical approaches, Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting. Washington, DC.
Jessup, E.L., 1996. An economic analysis of trucker’s incentive to overload
as affected by the judicial system. Research in Transportation Economics,
4, 131–159.
LCPC, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, 1994. French design
method for flexible pavements. Paris.
Minhoto, M.J.C., et al., 2005. The influence of temperature variation in the
prediction of the pavement overlay life, Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 6 (3), 365–384.
Minhoto, M.J.C., Pais, J.C., and Pereira, P.A.A., 2008. The temperature
effect on the reflective cracking of asphalt overlays. Road Materials and
Pavement Design., 9 (4), 615–632.
Pais, J.C., Amorim, S.I.R., and Minhoto, M.J.C., 2013. Impact of traffic
overloads on road pavements performance. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 139 (9), 873–879.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING  11
Pais, J.C. and Pereira, P.A.A., 2016a. Development of a model for equivalent
axle load factors. 8th International Conference on Maintenance and
Rehabilitation of Pavements – MAIREPAV8, Singapore.
Pais, J.C. and Pereira, P.A.A., 2016b. The effect of traffic overloads on
road pavements. 8th International Conference on Maintenance and
Rehabilitation of Pavements – MAIREPAV8, 27–29 July 2016. Singapore.
Pereira, P. and Pais, J., 2017. Main flexible pavement and mix design
methods in Europe and challenges for the development of an European
method. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English
Edition), 4 (4), 316–346.
Rys, D., Judycki, J., and Jaskula, P., 2016. Analysis of effect of overloaded
vehicles on fatigue life of flexible pavements based on weigh in motion
(WIM) data. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 17 (8), 716–
726. doi:10.1080/10298436.2015.1019493.
Salama, H.K., Chatti, K., and Lyles, R.W., 2006. Effect of heavy multiple
axle trucks on flexible pavement damage using in-service pavement
performance data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132 (10),
763–770.
Shell, 1978. Shell pavement design manual: Asphalt pavements and overlays
for road traffic. London: Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd..
Sousa, J.B., et al., 2002. Mechanistic-empirical overlay design method for
reflective cracking. Transportation Research Board, 1809, 209–217.
Straus, S.H. and Semmens, J. 2006. Estimating the cost of overweight
vehicle travel on Arizona highways. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department
of Transportation, (Final Report 528).
Timm, D.H., Tisdale, S.M., and Turochy, R.E., 2005. Axle load spectra
characterization by mixed distribution modeling. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 131 (2), 83–88.
Wang, H., Zhao, J., and Wang, Z. 2015. Impact of overweight traffic on
pavement life using weigh-in-motion data and mechanistic-empirical
pavement analysis. 9th International Conference on Managing Pavement
Assets, 18–21 May. Washington, DC.
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.