Traffic Load & Volume Chapter

Chapter 6 Traffic Loading and Volume
Yang H. Huang, Pavement Analysis and Design (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall, Inc., 2004
Traffic Loading and Volume

Design Procedures Traffic is the most important factor in pavement design. The consideration of traffic should include both the loading magnitude and configuration and the number of load repetitions.

Design Procedures There are three different procedures for considering vehicular and traffic effects in pavement design: fixed traffic fixed vehicle variable traffic and vehicle

Fixed Traffic In fixed traffic, the thickness of pavement is governed by a single-wheel load, and the number of load repetitions is not considered as a variable. If the pavement is subjected to multiple wheels, they must be converted to an equivalent single-wheel load (ESWL ) so that the design method based on a single wheel can be applied .

Fixed Vehicle In the fixed vehicle procedure, the thickness of pavement is governed by the number of repetitions of a standard vehicle or axle load, usually the 18-kip (80-kN) single-axle load. If the axle load is not 18 kip (80 kN) or consists of tandem or tridem axles, it must be converted to an 18-kip single-axle load by an equivalent axle load factor (EALF) .

Fixed Vehicle The number of repetitions under each single- or multiple-axle load must be multiplied by its EALF to obtain the equivalent effect based on an 18-kip (80-kN) single-axle load. A summation of the equivalent effects of all axle loads during the design period results in an equivalent single-axle load (ESAL), which is the single traffic parameter for design purposes.

Variable Traffic and Vehicle For variable traffic and vehicles, both traffic and vehicle are considered individually, so there is no need to assign an equivalent factor for each axle load. The loads can be divided into a number of groups, and the stresses, strains, and deflections under each load group can be determined separately and used for design purposes .

Variable Traffic and Vehicle This procedure is best suited for the mechanistic methods of design, wherein the responses of pavement under different loads can be evaluated by using a computer .

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion Equal Vertical Deflection Criterion Equal Tensile Strain Criterion Criterion Based on Equal Contact Pressure

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD The ESWL can be determined from theoretically calculated or experimentally measured stress, strain, or deflection . It can also be determined from pavement distress and performance such as the large-scale WASHO and AASHO road tests (HRB, 1955, 1962). Any theoretical method can be used only as a guide and should be verified by performance. This is particularly true for the empirical methods of design in which the ESWL analysis is an integral part of the overall design procedure .

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Erroneous results may be obtained if different ESWL methods are transposed for a given set of design curves.

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion The method assumes that the ESWL varies with the pavement thickness, as shown in Figure 6.1 .

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion For thicknesses smaller than half the clearance between dual tires: ESWL is equal to one-half the total load indicating that the subgrade vertical stresses caused by the two wheels do not overlap .

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion For thicknesses greater than twice the center to center spacing of tires: ESWL is equal to the total load indicating that the subgrade stresses due to the two wheels overlap completely.

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion By assuming a straight -line relationship between pavement thickness and wheel load on logarithmic scales, the ESWL for any intermediate thicknesses can be easily determined . After the ESWL for dual wheels is found, the procedure can be applied to tandem wheels.

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion Instead of plotting, it is more convenient to compute the ESWL by

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD: Equal Vertical Stress Criterion

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD: Equal Vertical Stress Criterion

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD: Equal Vertical Stress Criterio n

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion


EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Deflection Criterion In this method, the pavement system is considered as a homogeneous halfspace and the vertical deflections at a depth equal to the thickness of the pavement can be obtained from Boussinesq solutions. A single-wheel load that has the same contact radius as one of the dual wheels and results in a maximum deflection equal to that caused by the dual wheels is the ESWL.

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Deflection Criterion


EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Deflection Criterion Since then ESWL for layered systems is greater than that for a homogeneous half-space, Huan g (1968b) suggested the use of layered theory and presented a simple chart for determining ESWL based on the interface deflection of two layered systems, as shown in Figure 6.4. Given contact radius a, pavement thickness h1, modulus ratio E1/E2 , and dual spacing Sd , the chart gives a load factor

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Figure 6.4 Chart for determining equivalent single wheel load. (1in = 25.4mm)

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD The procedure can be summarized as follows:

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD: Equal Tensile Strain Criterion



EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Tensile Strain Criterion

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Criterion Based on Equal Contact Pressure All of the above analyses of ESWL are based on the assumption that the single wheel has the same contact radius as each of the dual wheels. Another assumption, which has been frequently made, is that the single wheel has a different contact radius but the same contact pressure as the dual wheels .

EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR An axle is a central shaft for a rotating wheel or gear. ..

EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR An equivalent axle load factor (EALF) defines the damage per pass to a pavement by the axle in question relative to the damage per pass of a standard axle load, usually the 18-kip (80-kN) single-axle load. The design is based on the total number of passes of the standard axle load during the design period, defined as the equivalent single-axle load (ESAL) and computed by

EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR The EALF depends on the type of pavements, thickness or structural capacity , and the terminal conditions at which the pavement is considered failed . Most of the EALFs in use today are based on experience. One of the most widely used methods is based on the empirical equations developed from the AASHO Road Test (AASHTO, 1972). The EALF can also be determined theoretically based on the critical stresses and strains in the pavement and the failure criteria.

EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR Flexible Pavements



EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR Rigid Pavements AASHTO Equivalent Factors The AASHTO equations for determining the EALF of rigid pavements are as follows :

EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR Rigid Pavements



EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR

Traffic Analysis

Traffic Analysis To design a highway pavement, it is necessary to predict the number of repetitions of each axle load group during the design period. Information on initial traffic can be obtained from field measurements or from the W-4 form of a loadometer station that has traffic characteristics similar to those of the project in question . The initial daily traffic is in two directions over all traffic lanes and must be multiplied by the directional and lane distribution factors to obtain the initial traffic on the design lane .

Traffic Analysis The traffic to be used for design is the average traffic during the design period, so the initial traffic must be multiplied by a growth factor . If n, is the total number of load repetitions to be used in design for the ith load group, then

Traffic Analysis If the design is based on the equivalent 18-kip (80-kN) single-axle load, then the initial number of repetitions per day for the ith load group can be computed from

Traffic Analysis

Average Daily Truck Traffic

Average Daily Truck Traffi c The minimum traffic information required for a pavement design is the average daily truck traffic (ADTT) at the start of the design period . The ADTT may be expressed as a percentage of ADT or as an actual value. This information can be obtained from the actual traffic counts on the existing roadway where the pavement is to be constructed or on nearby highways with similar travel patterns .

Truck Factor A single truck factor can be applied to all trucks, or separate truck factors can be used for different classes of trucks . The latter case should be considered if the growth factors for different types of trucks are not the same .



Truck Factor

Growth Factor

Growth Factor

Growth Factor

Lane Distribution Factor For two-lane highways, the lane in each direction is the design lane, so the lane distribution factor is 100%. For multilane highways, the design lane is the outside lane. Table 6 .14 shows the truck distribution on a multiple-lane highway based on 129 counts from 1982 to 1983 in six states (Darter et al., 1985). For four-lane highways with two lanes in each direction, the lane distribution factors range from 66 to 94% . For multiple-lane highways with three or more lanes in each direction, the lane distribution factors range from 49 to 82% .

Lane Distribution Factor




EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD FACTOR Seatwork 6.6 Estimate the equivalent 18-kip single-axle load applications (ESAL) for a four-lane pavement (two lanes in each direction) of a rural interstate highway with a truck count of 1000 per day (including 2-axle, 4-tire panel, and pickup trucks), an annual growth rate of 5%, and a design life of 20 years. [Answer: 2 .82 X 106 ]
Important points in Chapter 6

The concept of load equivalency has been used most frequently in the empirical methods of pavement design. In the mechanistic methods, it is not necessary to apply the load equivalency concept because different loads can be considered separately in the design process . This is why the concept has been used more frequently on flexible pavements than on rigid pavements .

There are two types of load equivalency: equivalent single-wheel load (ESWL) and equivalent axle load factor (EALF) The ESWL is based on the fixed traffic procedure of converting the most critical wheel loads, usually in multiple wheels, into an equivalent singlewheel load and using it for design purposes. The EALF is based on the fixed vehicle procedure of converting the number of repetitions of a given axle load, either single, tandem, or tridem, into an equivalent number of repetitions of an 18-kip (80-kN) single-axle load.

Various criteria have been used for determining the ESWL for a two-layer system, e.g., equal vertical interface stress, equal interface deflection, and equal tensile strain. The equivalency based on one criterion may be quite different from that based on other criteria . Also, the equivalency based on equal contact radius is different from that based on equal contact pressure.

The values of EALF depend on the failure criterion employed . The EALF based on fatigue cracking is different from that based on permanent deformation . The use of a single value for both modes of failure is approximate at best. The most widely used method for determining the EALF is that which uses the empirical equations developed from the AASHO Road Test . However, damage analyses by KENLAYER and KENSLABS indicate that the values of EALF vary a great deal and are difficult to predict. The complex interactions among a large number of variables make it impossible to select an appropriate EALF that can be applied to all situations . For a truly mechanistic design method, each load group should be considered individually, instead of via equivalent single-axle loads .

The traffic to be used in design is not the average traffic during the first year, but the average during the design period. Three different methods based on the compound rate are presented to compute the traffic growth factor. The use of average traffic at the start and the end of the design period gives the highest growth factor, while the use of the traffic at the middle of the design period results in the lowest growth factor .

Traffic is the most important factor in pavement design. Every effort should be made to collect actual traffic data. If actual data are not available, Tables 6 .9 and 6.10, which give average values for different classes of highways in the United States, can be used as a guide.

In addition to the initial traffic and the growth factor, the directional and lane distribution factors must also be considered. Unless the traffic loading or volume is heavier in one direction than in the other due to some special reason, a directional distribution of 0.5 is assumed. The lane distribution factor varies with the number of lanes and the ADT and can be obtained from Figure 6 .8 or Tables 6 .15 and 6.16, although these tables do not consider ADT as a factor .

When the design is based on the equivalent 18-kip (80-kN) single-axle load, the use of a truck factor is very convenient . The method for computing truck factors based on the number of axles and trucks weighed, number of trucks counted, and the AASHTO equivalent factors is illustrated.
****PRE-MIDTERM EXAM IS SCHEDULED THIS THURSDAY*****

Traffic Load & Volume Chapter

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Traffic Load & Volume Chapter

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Chapter 6 Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

EQUIVALENT SINGLE-WHEEL LOAD Equal Vertical Stress Criterion

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

Traffic Loading and Volume

PRE-MIDTERM EXAM IS SCHEDULED THIS THURSDAY*