THE ASSESSMENT ON THE EFFECTS OF TRUCK OVERLOADING ON

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT; (The Case of Kibaha-Chalinze Road in Pwani)

SWAI, Daudi Tumaini

Department of Building Economics

School of Construction Economics and Management
Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam
June 2015

THE ASSESSMENT ON THE EFFECTS OF TRUCK OVERLOADING ON

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT; (The Case of Kibaha-Chalinze Road in Pwani)

Swai, Daudi Tumaini

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the B.Sc.,
Degree in Civil Engineering of the Ardhi University

Department of Building Economics

School of Construction Economics and Management
Ardhi University
DAR ES SALAAM

June 2015

CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certify that he has read and hereby recommends for acceptance by Ardhi
University the dissertation titled The assessment on the effects of truck overloading on flexible
pavement: The case of Kibaha-Chalinze road in Pwani.

Mr. Denis G Tesha

Dissertation Supervisor
Date

DECLARATION
I, SWAI, DAUDI TUMAINI, declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that it
has not been presented and will not be presented to any other university for a similar or any
degree award.

..
SWAI, DAUDI TUMAINI

SUPERVISORS DECLARATION
This report has been presented as final Dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the award of the B.Sc., Degree in Civil Engineering of the Ardhi University.

MR. DENIS G TESHA

DISSERTATION SUPERVISOR

DR. MAKOBA, N.D

HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF
BUILDING ECONOMICS.
SCHOOL OF CONSTRUCTION
ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
DAR ES SALAAM
4

DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family, especially my father Mr. Rogasian and my
mother Senorina for their support and love to me, my relatives and friends and all who made me
achieve this honor degree.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The completion of this dissertation paper has never been a product of my own struggle but a
struggle of many, in different ways, and therefore I am obliged to express a word of THANK to
them.
First I would like to express my immense thanks to our Almighty God because without him I
could not be here.
Secondly I would like to thank my parents Mr. and Mrs. Rogasian Swai, my sister Jane and her
husband, my brother Dionisius and her wife, Mr. Deluxe Swai and his family for their care,
support, motivation, encouragement and advice since I was born up to now. They have been very
nice to me and they have brought me up until now I can stand on myself. My almighty God bless
them and give them a happy and most successful life and thereafter rejoice with God in heaven,
amen.
Thanks to my supervisor Mr. Denis G Tesha and Dr. Geophrey Mbatta who have been so helpful
to me for their consistent guidance and support throughout my dissertation, especially when I
lost hope and energy in my journey towards becoming a Civil Engineer, they became definite
source of encouragement, expertise and with ever-willing attitude to offer assistance; to them I
extend an overjoyed state of my heart.
Furthermore I would like to thank Eng. Tumaini, the Manager TANROADS in coastal region for
his ultimate support in finding data and other important information towards achieving my goal.
The same appreciation goes to all staffs and workers at TANROADS offices at Pwani region, the
engineers and technicians at laboratory department at Kibaha for their efforts and support
towards the completion of this work.
My classmates receive a special recognition in this work for their supports, challenges,
comments and most their words of encouragement especially when things were out of control,
thank you so much.
It is an obvious thing that I fail to mention all those who made this work possible but their help
will always be honored, thank you all for your love, encouragements and supports.

ABSTRACT
Traffic load is a dominant function on pavement design because the main function of pavement
is to resist traffic load. The ability of a pavement structure in carrying out its function reduces in
line with the increase of traffic load, especially if there are overloaded heavy vehicle passing
through the road. In this dissertation, the effect of overloaded vehicle on the road pavement
service life was analyzed using the AASHTO 1993. Vehicle damage factor (VDF) and Structural
Number (SN) were calculated on normal and overloading conditions. Remaining of pavement
service life due to overloading condition was also presented. So it can be concluded how severe
the effect of overloaded vehicles against pavement service life.
The road section from Kibaha to Chalinze, in Coastal region, is approximately 90 kilometers in
length and is along TANZAM Highway. A large volume of very heavy vehicles traverse this
road. The existing road suffers from an array of serious damage in the form of rutting,
deformation, cracking and waves. In some places, the surface of the road has become so
seriously deformed rendering it hazardous to the road users. Small cars were at a risk of
becoming grounded on raised ridges of the surfacing asphalt and during heavy rainfall, the
channels formed in the wheel paths carry deep water, which is again a safety hazard.
In this thesis it can be seen, that the presence of overloaded vehicles, particularly heavy vehicles
(Buses, MGV, HGV and VHGV according to Pavement and Materials Design Manual, 1999
vehicle classification) resulted in traffic load (W18) value that was 200% greater than that of
standard load condition. The increase of W18 value can affect the pavement service life. For the
direction of Kibaha-Chalinze, the pavement service life reduced by 70% due to overloading
condition, while for the opposite direction, the service life was reduced by 40% caused by the
same factor. In terms of layer thickness, overloading condition also increase the layer thickness
than that of thickness at the load legal limit.
From the results, it can be concluded that overloaded vehicles on the road are very influential to
the reduction in pavement service life. Therefore, it is expected that road users to comply with
existing regulations in the conduct of transportation.
Key words: overload vehicle, damage factor, pavement service life, pavement thickness, truck,
axle load, tyre pressure.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION..........................................................................................................................iii
DECLARATION............................................................................................................................iv
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................xii
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................xiii
LIST OF PLATES.........................................................................................................................xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................xv
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 General Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Background............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Problem Statement.................................................................................................................3
1.4 Main Objective.......................................................................................................................3
1.4.1 Specific Objective...........................................................................................................3
1.5 Research Questions................................................................................................................4
1.6 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................4
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study.........................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................................5
2.1 Background............................................................................................................................5

2.2 AASHTO Road Test...............................................................................................................5

2.2.1 Summary of the Test........................................................................................................5
2.2.2 Results of AASHTO Road Test.......................................................................................7
2.3 Fundamental Equations..........................................................................................................8
2.3.1 Traffic Load, W18 and Growth Rate, Gr..........................................................................8
2.3.2. Road Performance........................................................................................................10
2.3.3 The Relationship between PSI and IRI.........................................................................10
2.3.4 Reliability (R) and Standard Deviation (So)..................................................................12
2.3.5 Subgrade Bearing Capacity MR.....................................................................................13
2.3.6 Structural Number.........................................................................................................14
2.3.7 Determination of Structural Number.............................................................................16
2.4 Single Axle Load Equivalency Factor (LEFs).....................................................................17
CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................19
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................................19
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................19
3.2 Research Design...................................................................................................................19
3.3 Research Process..................................................................................................................20
3.4 Research Approach or Strategy............................................................................................20
3.5 Preparation stage..................................................................................................................22
3.5.1 Data collection...............................................................................................................23
3.5.2 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................23
3.5.3 Evaluation......................................................................................................................23
3.5.4 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................24

CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................25
MAJOR EMPIRICAL DATA AND ANALYSIS...........................................................................25
4.0 Review of Construction Records.........................................................................................25
4.1 Review of the Pavement Structure Information...................................................................25
4.1.1 As-built Information......................................................................................................25
4.1.2 Discussion on the Pavement Structure..........................................................................25
4.1.3 Bitumen Properties........................................................................................................26
4.2 Determination of Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)................................................................26
4.2.1 Calculation of Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)..............................................................27
4.3 Calculation of Traffic Load..................................................................................................30
4.4 Stress on Surface Pavement Caused by Tyre Pressure.........................................................33
4.4.1 Tyre contact stress and Stress-in-Motion (SIM) technology.........................................34
4.5 Characteristic of pavement layers materials........................................................................36
4.6 Reduction of Pavement Service Life...................................................................................36
4.7 Regional or environment factors..........................................................................................39
4.7.1 Failure criterion.............................................................................................................39
4.8 Index of Pavement Thickness (IPT).....................................................................................40
4.8.1 Analysis of Sensitivity...................................................................................................40
4.9 How Vehicle Load Affect Pavement Performance...............................................................42
4.9.1 Pavement Fatigue..........................................................................................................42
4.9.2 Effects of Wheel Loads.................................................................................................43
4.10 Evaluation of Pavement Performance and Causes of the Distresses/Failure.....................44
4.10.1 General........................................................................................................................44
4.10.2 Cracking in the Asphalt Concrete in the Studied Road Section..................................44
4.10.2.1 Base Course..............................................................................................................44
10

4.10.2.2 Subbase Layer..........................................................................................................45

4.11 Traffic Surveys and Analysis..............................................................................................45
4.11.1 Traffic Counts (Heavy Vehicles only).........................................................................46
4.11.2 Estimation of Design traffic loading...........................................................................48
4.11.3 Traffic Load Classification..........................................................................................48
4.12 Proposed Remedial Measures............................................................................................48
CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................................51
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................51
5.1 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................51
5.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................52
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................53
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................55

11

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Lane Distribution Factor (DL)......................................................................9
Table 2.2: Recommendation of Reliability Level for Various Road Classifications................12
Table 2.3: Standard Normal Deviation for Certain Reliability Service...............................13
Table 2.4: Definition of Drainage Quality..................................................................15
Table 2.5: Drainage Coefficient...............................................................................15
Table 4.1 Axle Load Equivalency Factors for Flexible Pavements, Single Axle and pt of 2.0....28
Table 4.2: Total VDF for Each Type of Heavy Vehicle Used in this Study..........................29
Table 4.3: Constant Values for Lane Distribution Factor................................................31
Table 4.4: Traffic load (as designed and overloaded condition)........................................31
Table 4.5: Relationship between Traffic Load and Service Life........................................38
Table 4.6: Heavy vehicle categories.........................................................................46
Table 4.7: Traffic Counts.......................................................................................46
Table 4.8: Summary of axle load survey and equivalency factors.....................................47
Table 4.9: Traffic Growth and Design traffic loading....................................................47
Table 4.10: Summary of Traffic Data (Heavy Vehicles only)...........................................47

LIST OF FIGURES
12

Figure 2.1: Loop 5 and 6 AASHTO Road Test Layout...................................................................6

Figure 2.2: Fourth Power Relationship............................................................................................7
Figure 2.3: AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design Nomography......................................................8
Figure 2.4: Estimation of Structural Layer Coefficient of Dense-Graded Asphalt Concrete Based
on the Elastic (Resilient) Modulus (3)...........................................................................................17
Figure 3.1 Research design and process, showing the clear elaboration on the series of activities
to be performed during the research work.....................................................................................21
Figure 3.2: The summary of instrumentalization, or research methodology, or data collection
matrix, of the research objectives..................................................................................................22
Figure 4.1: Approximate Vertical Profile along the road section..................................................26
Figure 4.2: Comparison of VDF between both directions.............................................................29
Figure 4.3: Traffic load comparison as designed and overloaded condition for both directions...32
Figure 4.4: Tyre inflation pressure and its effect to the surface layer............................................34
Figure 4.5: Service Relationship between Traffic Load and Service Life on Standard and
Overloaded condition (Kibaha Chalinze direction)....................................................................37
Figure 4.6: Relationship between Traffic Load and Service Life on Standard and Overloaded
conditions (Chalinze Kibaha).....................................................................................................37

LIST OF PLATES
13

Plate 4.1 Relationship between tyre inflation pressure and average vertical contact stress.......35
Plate 4.2 Repeated tensions in the surface layer causes cracking..................................................42
Plate 4.3 Wheel load transmitted to subgrade soil.........................................................................43

14

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
TANROADS:

Tanzania Roads Agency

AASHTO:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADT:

Average Daily Traffic

HMA:

Hot Mix Asphalt

ESALs:

Equivalent Single Axle Loads

U.S.A:

United States of America

S/N:

Structural Number

PSI:

Present Serviceability Index

MoW:

Ministry of Work

CBR:

California Bearing Ratio

IRI:

International Roughness Index

PMDM:

Pavement and Materials Design Manual

CRS:

Crushed Stone

CRR:

Crushed Rock

TLC:

Traffic Load Class

JMF:

Job Mix Formulae

VDF:

Vehicle Damage Factor

LEF:

Load Equivalency Factor

DDHV:

Directional Design Hourly Volume

DHV:

Design Hourly Volume

UCS:

Unconfined Compression Strength

SIM:

Stress-in-Motion

DCP:

Direct Cone Penetrometer

FWD:

Falling Weight Deflectometer

15

LS:

Linear Shrinkage

PI:

Plasticity Index

IPT:

Index of Pavement Thickness

BCS:

Bearing Capacity of Soil

BTB:

Bituminous Treated Base

MGV:

Medium Goods Vehicle

HGV:

Heavy Goods Vehicle

VHGV:

Very Heavy goods Vehicle

SAMPDM:

South African Mechanistic Pavement Design Method

VRSPTA:

Vehicle-Road Surface Pressure Transducer Array

16

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Introduction
The condition of many roads in Tanzania, both national, region and district roads are damaged in
their early stages of service life. The main factor causing those early damages is overloading
trucks, since the most significant load applied to a pavement surface comes from a truck. Efforts
to repair the road damages have been done by The United Republic of Tanzania under the
Ministry of Works through TANROAD. However, all efforts to repair the road condition, even
though conducted by using suitable pavement materials and also constructed in the proper way,
have meaningless since the truck loads which was used as criteria for designing pavement
structure, is uncontrolled and overloaded.
My rough data and inquiry, taken at Kibaha Weigh-Bridge Station shows that most of trucks
leaving and arriving to Dar es Salaam were overloaded. The high number of those overloading is
due to absence of local government support. They use weighing bridge not to control truck load,
by reducing the load if excess, but to collect an income, by charging fee to the overload truck and
leave it to proceed with the journey instead of demolish and reduce the load. The absence of
local government or the issue of corruption in weigh-bridge stations has made this problem a
normal issue. They are against the road traffic Act No.30 of 1973, Regulation 2001. The
Regulation clearly defines responsibilities of the Road Authority (Ministry of Works and
TANROADS) in jointly (collaboration) with the Ministry of Home Affairs which monitor the
load carrying capacity of each truck.
Pavements are engineering structures placed on natural soils and designed to withstand the traffic
loading and also the action of the climate with minimal deterioration and in the most economical
way. In Tanzania, majority of pavement structures are classified as either rigid or flexible. A
flexible pavement consists of a surface layer constructed of flexible materials (typically Asphalt
Concrete) over granular base and sub base layers placed on the existing natural soil. Rigid
pavement is a pavement structure that deflects very little under application of load because of the
high stiffness of the Portland cement concrete used to construct the layer. The rigid pavement can
1

further be categorized depending on the types of joints constructed and use of steel reinforcement
(Work, Pavement and Materials Design Manual, 1999).
Each of these pavement types has specific failure mechanism and each failure mechanism is
caused by a specific factors. Examples of such failure mechanism include; fatigue damage and
roughness of rigid and flexible pavement, faulting of rigid pavements and rutting of flexible
pavement. These failure mechanisms are caused by the following factors; heavy vehicle
loadings, climate, drainage, material properties used and inadequate layer thicknesses (W.R,
2003). Among these factors, heavy vehicle loads are the major source of pavement damage. The
magnitude and configuration of vehicular loads together with the environment have a significant
effect on induced tensile stresses within flexible pavement.
Heavy vehicles load on the pavements subjects to high stresses causing damage. However not all
truck have the same damaging effects; the damage on the road pavement depends on speed,
wheel loads, number and location of axles, load distributions, number of wheels, tire types,
infiltration pressure and other factors (Gillespie, 1993).
1.2 Background
Truck overloading is one of the major problems facing Kibaha to Chalinze road. The rapid
increase in number of trucks leaving from Dar es Salaam to other parts of the country and others
arriving while being loaded with cargo have deteriorate the road leaving it uncomfortable to road
users due to overloading. The authority has already implemented a number of strategies to solve
the problem of truck overloading. However, many of these strategies are focusing on
rehabilitating the road either by filling with asphalt, then overlay with another layer of asphalt.
But better results can usually be achieved by grinding off the surface to restore the proper cross
slope, then resurfacing. Or if the ruts were caused by both overloading and deformation of the
sub base below the pavement, the only long-term repair is usually full-depth reconstruction of
the road.
In recent years, several studies have estimated the truck damage by computing the responses
which are stresses, strains and deflections of pavements under heavy vehicles loadings using
mechanistic approaches (Chen, 2002). In response to the need for mechanistic pavement design
and analysis procedures, researches are increasingly using three dimensional finite element
2

analysis techniques to quantify the response of the pavement system to applied axle and
temperature loading (Davids, 2000)
1.3 Problem Statement
Although it is not the only one, truck load is dominant factor responsible for road damage,
because pavement are designed to resist traffic load, especially truck load. The problem which
will be discussed in this dissertation is of overloading trucks in Tanzania specifically trucks
passing along Morogoro Road carrying cargo from the harbor to different parts of the country.
Impacts of truck overload have extreme negative effects to the community and nation in general
since it affects economic, social and environmental factors. For example ruts caused by
overloaded trucks prevent rainwater from flowing to the side of the road into ditches or gutters.
Rainwater trapped in ruts is a common contributing factor to hydroplaning crashes. Severe ruts
can impede steering if a vehicle has difficulty steering out of the rut. This can cause accidents
which incur life of people and damage of property.
To deal with this issue, the section of this road must be redesigned to meet the current demand
and to put strictly measures on trucks which are overloaded. This study will be carried along
Kibaha- Chalinze to investigate the design information of existing road and to take axle load data
and compare them with the designed information hence to come up with a solution of redesign a
new pavement road.
1.4 Main Objective
The main objective of this research/dissertation is to analyze the effect of truck overloading to
the pavement damage.
1.4.1 Specific Objective
To determine the existing information on the studied road section (Kibaha-Chalinze).

To determine the reduction of pavement service life on the Kibaha-Chalinze road

segment due to overloading.

To re-calculate the layer thickness required by the pavement structure to withstand

against overloading condition.

1.5 Research Questions

Based on the previous description, it can be formulated several problems that arise including the
following ones

What is the characteristic of the existing pavement structure?

How does an overloading heavy truck affect the pavement thickness and service life?

What is the difference in pavement service life between the two conditions: road under
standard traffic load and overloading condition?

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study will reveal answers on how the overloaded trucks contribute to pavement damage
along Kibaha-Chalinze road. The study aims to make a thorough investigation along this road
section and discover all parts affected by overloaded trucks. The study will look on the function,
effects and contribution of axle load in designing of pavement layers. Function will include
effect of normal load and overload effect. Effect will include homogeneous layers and
heterogeneous layers of pavement. Axle load will deal with normal vehicles and heavy trucks.
Study will utilize axle load and design information from Kibaha TANROADS Office and data
collected from the laboratory and from field observation to propose countermeasures that are to
be implemented by the government and appropriate sectors to improve road sector in our
country.
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study
In this study, the research scope and limitation will be as follows; the case study investigated in
this research is Kibaha-Chalinze road segment that is one-way two-lane divided (2/1 D) flexible
pavement road. The standard method used in this study is AASHTO 1993. The calculation of
pavement service life is based on ADT of overloaded truck.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Background
The current flexible pavement design methodology which is used in Tanzanian manual
(Pavement and Materials Design) under Ministry of Works is derived from the results of the
American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) Road Test conducted from 1958 to
1960. A fundamental nomograph and design equations were developed from this test including
traffic, serviceability, inputs of soil modulus and the capacity of pavement structural. In order to
arrive to the design thickness for the pavement layers namely subgrade, sub base, base course
and surface course, the flexible pavement design equation or nomoghaph in conjunction with
these inputs mentioned above were used.
2.2 AASHTO Road Test
2.2.1 Summary of the Test
The AASHTO Road Test was conducted in U.S.A near Ottawa, Illinois from the year 1958 to
1960. The primary reason of the road test was to determine the effects of various axle loadings
on pavement behavior (Study of the performance of highway pavement structures of known
thickness under moving loads of known magnitude and frequency, HIGHWAY RESEARCH
BOARD). The test studied both Portland cement concrete and asphaltic concrete pavements, as
well as certain types of short-span bridges. Six two-lane test loops were created for trafficking,
including four large loops and two small loops.
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and base thickness were varied within each test loop to determine the
effects of axle loadings on different pavement cross sections. Individual lanes were subjected to
repeated loadings by a specific type and weight of vehicle. Single and tandem axle vehicles were
used for trafficking. Bias-ply tires were used with pressure of approximately 70 psi which is
equivalent to 1.7633 atm (1 atm = 14.6956 psi). Only 2 million equivalent single axle loads
(ESALs) were applied over the course of the test. One of the key products of the road test was
the concept of load equivalency, which accounts for the effects of the axle loads on pavements in
5

terms of an equivalent single axle load (ESAL). Under this concept, the damage imposed by any
vehicle is based on its axle weights compared with a standard 18,000 lb. axle load which is
equivalent to 8164.66266 kg. (1 lb = 0.453592 kg). The ESAL values for other axles express
their relative effect on pavement structure. If the number and types of vehicles using the road can
be predicted, then engineers can design the road pavement for anticipated a number of 18 kips
which is equivalent to 80067.9888 Newton (1kip = 4448.2216N) equivalent single axle loads (18
kips ESAL). Virtually, all heavy-duty pavements built in U.S.A since the mid 1960s have been
designed using the principles and formulas developed from the Road Test.
The test vehicles ranging in gross weight from 908 kg to 21,773 kg. The improved paving
materials that are used today such as Super pave mixes, stone mastic asphalts, and open graded
friction courses were not available during the road test. Within the pavement cross section, only
one type of HMA, granular base material and sub grade soil were used. The thickest HMA
pavement was 6 inches.

Figure 2.1: Loop 5 and 6 AASHTO Road Test Layout. Source: AASHTO Design Guide (1993)
2.2.2 Results of AASHTO Road Test
The results of the AASHTO Road Test were used to develop the first pavement design guide,
known as the AASHTO Interim Guide for the Design of Rigid and Flexible Pavements. This
design guide was issued in 1961, and has major updates in 1972, 1986 and 1993. The 1993
AASHTO Design Guide is essentially the same as 1986 design guide for the design of new
flexible pavements, and is still used today by many transportation agencies and manuals.
The primary objective for the AASHTO Road Test was to determine the existing relationship
between pavement loading and deterioration. Using replicate cross sections in different test loops
(that were loaded with different axle weights), researches at the road test were able to view the
differences in pavement distresses such as rutting, cracking and slope variance that were caused
by increasing axle loads. The relationship found was an approximate fourth power relationship; a
unit increase in axle weight causes increase damage to the fourth power. To put this relationship

into context, if the axle weight is doubled, it causes approximately sixteen times more damage to
the pavement. The figure below illustrates this phenomenon.

Figur
e 2.2: Fourth Power Relationship. Source: AASHTO Road Test (HRB, 1962)
2.3 Fundamental Equations
In the book, AASHTO Design Guide (1993) which is frequently used by many countries
worldwide for designing of flexible pavement; the design methodology, the subgrade resilient
modulus (MR), applied ESAL (W18), reliability (with its associated normal derivative, Z R),
variability (SO), loss in serviceability (PSI) and structural number (SN) are used in the
nomograph in the figure below and the corresponding equation given to design the thickness of
flexible pavement. (AASHTO, 1993)

Figure 2.3: AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design Nomography. Source: AASHTO Design
Guide (1993)
2.3.1 Traffic Load, W18 and Growth Rate, Gr
Wt is the number of single-axle load applications to cause the reduction of serviceability to the
terminal level (pt) and the standard deviation So, is typically assumed to be 0.49 for flexible
pavements based upon previous research (AASHTO, 1993).
Traffic load that used for determining flexible pavement design thickness in 1993 AASHTO is
the cumulative traffic load during design life. The magnitude of the traffic load for two ways is
obtained by summing the product of three parameters which are average daily traffic, axle load
equivalent factor and annual growth rate for each type of axle load. From AASHTO the
formulation of cumulative traffic load is as follows;
W18 = (ADTi Ei GRi) 365 (i)
GRi

( 1+ gi )1
gi

. (ii)

Where by:
W18 = cumulative standard single axle loads for two ways. ESALs
ADTi = average daily traffic for axle load i
9

Ei = axle load equivalency factor (or vehicle damage factor) for axle load i
GRi = annual growth rate for vehicle i, %
gi = traffic growth for vehicle type i, %
n = service life in years
To obtain traffic on the design lane, the following formulation can be used
W18 = DD DL W18
Where by: W18 = cumulative standard single axle load on design lane, ESAL
DD = direction distribution factor
DL = lane distribution factors
DD is generally taken 0.5. In some special cases, there are exceptions where heavy vehicles tend
to turn on a certain direction. Several studies indicate that the D D varies from 0.3 to 0.7
depending on which direction that considers as major and minor (AASHTO, 1993). The
magnitude of DL is determined based on the number of lanes in one carriageway. See the table
below;
Table 2.1: Lane Distribution Factor (DL)
Number of Lane per Direction
% Standard Axle Load in Design Lane
1
100
2
80 100
3
60 80
4
50 75
2.3.2. Road Performance
Road performance can be defined as the ability of road structure to withstand against traffic load
and environmental effects and denotes as PSI (present serviceability index). In pavement design,
loss of serviceability becomes the main concern, rather than PSI; because it indicates how far the
pavement could survive before rehabilitation work is required to extend its service life. The
equation of change of PSI is given as
PSI = PSItraffic + PSISW, FH (iii)
10

In which
PSItraffic = serviceability loss because of traffic load = po - pt
IPO = 4, 2 (AASHTO road test)
IPt = 2, 5 3, 0 for major highway and pt equals to 2 for minor highway.
PSISW, FH = serviceability loss because of soil swelling (effect of moisture and frost)
PSISW, FH = 0, 00335. VR. PS. (1 e-Qt)
Q = swell rate constant (as a function of moisture supply and soil fabric)
VR = maximum potential heave (as a function of plasticity index, compaction and subgrade
thickness), inch.
PS = swelling probability, %
2.3.3 The Relationship between PSI and IRI
The loss of serviceability (PSI) is the difference between the initial serviceability of the
pavement when opened to traffic and the terminal serviceability that the pavement will reach
before rehabilitation, resurfacing or reconstruction is required. The present serviceability index
(PSI), also known as the present serviceability rating (PSR) is a subjective measure by the road
user of the ride quality, rating from zero (impassable) to five (perfect ride). Studies conducted at
the AASHTO Road Test found that for a newly constructed flexible pavement, the initial
serviceability (po) was approximately 4.2 (AASHTO, 1993)
The value of a terminal serviceability (pt) was ranging between 2.0 and 3.5. The 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide recommends the selection of pt based upon the same traffic levels used for
reliability selection; for low traffic, 2.5, for medium traffic, 3.0 and for high traffic 3.5. To
demonstrate the subjectivity of the measurement, studies from the AASHTO found that an
average of 12% of road users believe that a pavement receiving a rating of 3.0 is unacceptable
for driving while 55% of road users believe that 2.5 is unacceptable.
Due to the subjective nature of serviceability measurements, most current road roughness
measurements are now standardized to the intentional roughness index (IRI). This index provides
11

a measure of the longitudinal wavelengths in the pavement profile in inches per mile or meters
per kilometer. These measurements are taken by inertial profilers, and can be closely replicated
from machine to machine (Sayers and Karamihas, 1998).
The use of this index can remove the subjectivity of assessing the ride quality, and therefore is a
more accurate measurement. However, since the AASHTO flexible pavement design procedure
still requires serviceability levels as inputs, a conversion must be made from IRI to PSI (Hall,
1999).
In 1999, Hall and Munoz developed relationships for relating IRI and PSI for both asphalt and
concrete pavements. They analyzed data from AASHO Road test that included parameters of
slope variance (SV) and PSI, and then developed a correlation between SV and IRI for a broad
range of road roughness levels. Their finding for flexible pavements can be expressed
mathematically as
PSI = 5 0.2937X4 + 1.1771X3 1.4045X2- 1.5803X. (i)
Whereby;
X = log (1 + 1 SV)
SV = 2.2704IRI2

in which all variables are as previously defined.

Based upon the similarity of the (Al-Omari, Relationships between International Roughness
Index and Present Serviceability Rating., 1994) and Holman (1990) equation, it was decided to
focus on those relationships for this study. Since the equation developed by Al-Omari and Darter
(1994) could produce much larger performance database, therefore, this equation was selected to
convert the IRI data to present serviceability values.
2.3.4 Reliability (R) and Standard Deviation (So)
a. Reliability
Reliability concept is an effort to include a degree of certainty into the planning process to ensure
a variety of alternatives will persist over the planned period. Planning reliability factors take into
account possible variations of traffic estimate (w 18) and forecast performance (W18), since both
these factors provide a level of reliability where the section of pavement will persist for a
12

planned period. Table below shows the recommended level of reliability for various road
classifications. It should be noted that a higher level of reliability indicates the road that serves
traffic at most, whereas the lowest level shows the local road (AASHTO, 1993).
Table 2.2: Recommendation of Reliability Level for Various Road Classifications
Recommended Level of Reliability, R (%)
Urban
Rural
Functional classification
Toll road
85 99.9
80 99.9
Arterial road
80 - 99
75 - 95
Collector road
80 - 95
75 - 95
Local road
50 80
50 - 80
Source (AASHTO 1993)

Reliability of performance-design controlled with reliability factor (F R) which is multiplied with

the traffic estimates (w18) over the design life to obtain performance predictions (W 18). For a
given level of reliability, the reliability factor (FR) is a function of the overall standard deviation
(SO), which takes into account the possibility of a variety of traffic estimates (w 18) and
performance estimates (W18) given. In flexible pavement design equation, the level of reliability
accommodated with the parameters of the standard normal deviation (ZR). See the table below.

Table 2.3: Standard Normal Deviation for Certain Reliability Service

Reliability (%)
Normal deviate (ZR)
50

-0.000

60

-0.253

70

-0.524

Reliability (%)

Normal deviate (ZR)

75

-0.674

90

-1.282

80

-0.841

95

-1.645

85

-1.037

98

-2.054

99

-2.327

99.9

-3.090

99.99

-3.750

Source (AASHTO, 1993)

Application of the concept of reliability
should consider the following issues:
13

1. Define the functional classification of roads and determine whether it is urban or

rural road.
2. Select the level of reliability from interval that given in above table.
3. Standard normal deviation of the corresponding reliability will be shown.
b. Overall Standard Deviation (So)
Overall standard deviation is a combination of standard error of traffic prediction and road
performance. This variable measures how far the probability of traffic prediction and road
performance deviate from the design. For instance, it is predicted that the number of traffic is
2.000.000 ESAL for the next 20 year, however, in fact, there are 2.500.000 vehicles in that
period. The larger the deviation is, the higher the value of (S o) will be. For flexible pavement, the
value of (SO) is 0.35 0.40 (AASHTO, 1993).
2.3.5 Subgrade Bearing Capacity MR
The MR of the subgrade soil seen in the equation shown previous has been adjusted to take into
account for seasonal changes, and is termed the effective MR. This is done to take into account
for differences in testing procedures from the road test and the current testing method using
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD). At the road test, Screw driven laboratory devices were
used to determine the soil stiffness. Due to slow response time of such devices, the apparent
stiffness of the soil was very low (around 3,000 psi). With the much more rapid loading of FWD
testing, the moduli are typically around three times higher, and therefore the moduli are divided
by three to arrive at similar numbers to those used at the road test (Dives 2009).
Subgrade bearing capacity can be represented by resilient modulus (M R). It could be measured
according to AASHTO T 274 or based on relationship with other parameters, such as California
Bearing Ratio (CBR).
MR (psi) = 1500 x CBR
MR measurement should be conducted routinely during a year to observe the relative damage on
subgrade due to moisture effect.
2.3.6 Structural Number
All of the flexible pavement design methods up to the year 1993 concentrated on defining the
structural number SN from the equation
14

SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3 (iv)

Where by: m2 and m3

= drainage factor for layer 2 and 3 respectively;

D1, D2, and D3 = thickness (in) of layer 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

a1, a2 and a3

= layer coefficient for layer 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

The layer thickness produced from SN equation does not have a single unique solution, i.e. there
are many combination of layer thickness of the flexible pavement layers. It is necessary to
consider their cost effectiveness along with the construction and maintenance constraints in order
to avoid the possibility of producing an impractical design from a cost effective view (Works,
Standard Specifications for Roads Works, 2000). If the ratio of costs for layer 1 to layer 2 is less
than the corresponding ratio of layer coefficients, then the optimum economical design is one
where the minimum base thickness is used since it is generally impractical and uneconomical to
place surface, base or sub base courses of less than some minimum thickness (AASHTO, 1993)

Drainage condition
The aim of involving this variable in the structural number is to evaluate the capability of the
pavement in removing moisture. The category of quality of drainage corresponding on how long
the moisture could be removed from the pavement, as follows.

Table 2.4: Definition of Drainage Quality

Drainage Quality
Time for Water Disappeared
Excellent
2 hours
Good
1 day
Fair
1 week
Poor
1 month
Very poor
Water will not drain
Source (AASHTO 1993)

15

In the book AASHTO guidelines, it is introduced the principle of drainage coefficient to

accommodate the quality of drainage system that owned by the road pavement. The table below
shows the drainage coefficient value (m) which is a function of drainage quality and percentage
of time in a year pavement structure will be affected by water content that close to saturated.
Table 2.5: Drainage Coefficient
Percentage of time pavement structure is exposed to moisture levels
Quality of drainage
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Source (AASHTO, 1993)

<1%
1.40 1.35
1.35 1.25
1.25 1.15
1.15 1.05
1.05 0.95

approaching saturation *)
1 5%
5 25%
1.35 1.30
1.30 1.20
1.25 1.15
1.15 1.00
1.15 1.05
1.00 0.80
1.05 0.80
0.80 0.60
0.95 0.75
0.75 0.40

>25%
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
It

should be noted that * depends on annual average rainfall and drainage condition at the road
structure.

Coefficient of Relative Strength

This guideline introduces a correlation between relative strength coefficients with mechanistic
value, namely modulus resilient. Based on the type and function of pavement layer material,
estimation of relative strength coefficient is grouped into 5 categories, namely asphalt concrete,
granular base, granular sub base, cement-treated base (CTB) and asphalt-treated base (ATB).
From AASHTO 1993)
Asphalt Concrete Surface Course. Figure below shows the graphic that used to estimate the
relative strength coefficient of Asphalt Concrete Surface Course (a1) that has dense gradation
based on Modulus Elasticity (EAC) at 680F temperature (AASHTO 4123). Although the modulus
of asphalt concrete is higher, stiffer and more resistant against deflection, but it is more
susceptible to fatigue crack (AASHTO 1993).
Granular Base Layer. Relative strength coefficient (a2) can be estimated by using figure given
below

16

Granular Sub base Layer. Relative strength coefficient (a3) can also be estimated by figure below.
Cement-Treated Base (CTB). The figure below will show the graph that can be used to estimate
relative strength coefficient (a2) for cement-treated base.
Asphalt-Treated Base (ATB). Furthermore there will be a table below to contain a graph that can
be used to estimate the relative strength coefficient (a2) for ATB.
2.3.7 Determination of Structural Number
From the figure which was used to show the nomograph to determine the Structural Number, the
nomograph can be used if all the following parameters are available:
1. Traffic estimation in the future (W18) at the end of design life.
2. Level of reliability (R)
3. Standard deviation (SO)
4. Effective resilient modulus of subgrade material (MR)
5. Loss of serviceability (PSI = po pt)
The calculation of pavement thickness in this guideline is based on the relative strength of each
pavement layers, using the appropriate formula.

17

Figure 2.4: Estimation of Structural Layer Coefficient of Dense-Graded Asphalt Concrete Based
on the Elastic (Resilient) Modulus (3). Source: (AASHTO 1993)
2.4 Single Axle Load Equivalency Factor (LEFs)
Using the fourth-power relationship found at the AASHTO Road Test, equations were delivered
to relate axle loading to pavement damage. Replicate cross sections were constructed in different
test loops to apply varying repeated axle loads on the same pavement structure. This allowed the
researches to view the damage caused by heavier axles, and create mathematical relationship
based upon that damage observed. The resulting pavement damage was quantified using single
axle load equivalent factor (LEFs), which are used to find the number of ESALs. An LEF is used
to describe the damage done by an axle per pass relative to the damage done by a standard axle
per mass. This standard axle is typically an 18-kip single axle, as defined in the road test. From
the AASHTO Road Test results, the LEF can be expressed in the following form according to
Huang (2004). The EALF can be expressed in the following way
EALF =

Wt 18
W tx (i)

To arrive at the design ESALs, it is necessary to assume a structural number (SN) and then select
the equivalence factors listed in tables which are found in AASHTO 1993. These tables vary by
three types of axle and three values of terminal serviceability. The use of SN of 5 for the
determination of 18-kip single axle equivalence factors will normally give results that are
sufficiently accurate for design purposes. Even though the final design may be somewhat
different, this assumption will usually result in an over estimation of 18-kip equivalent single
axle when more accurate results are desired and the computed design is appreciably different
(1inch of asphalt concrete) from the assumed value. A new value should be assumed and the
design 18kip ESAL traffic (W18) recomputed. The procedure should be continued until the
assumed and computed values are sufficiently close (AASHTO, 1993).

18

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
In this chapter on research methodology, it will give a brief overview on how the dissertation
will be conducted, by describing various steps that will be basically followed by researcher in
studying the research problem along with the logic behind them. This will as well show the
process through which this this study was conducted and provide a detailed explanation of
techniques and methods that were used in the selection of research design, case study area, data
collection methods, analysis and reporting as well as the studys validity and reliability.
3.1 Introduction
This chapter explains the methodological process and techniques that will be followed in this
study along with the logical behind them. Document review, traffic survey together with analysis
of data and proposal for remedial measures are also pointed out. It represents the systematic and
scientific way of adopting various steps, methods, techniques and tools for solving the research
problem with the logic behind them Carlos, (2004). Given that; research is an original
contribution to the existing stock of knowledge, in the pursuit of truth via diverse help like study,
observation, comparison, etc. (Kothari, 2004), the main focus of this chapter is on the research
design, research strategy, and data collection methods, the tool of analysis, validity and reliability
which will be employed in the entire process.
19

3.2 Research Design

The research design is a programme or plan of action that guide the researcher on how to collect,
organize, analyze and interpret data, and its ultimate conclusion in relation to the research
questions. Decisions regarding to what, where, when, how much and by what means constitute
the central issues of a research design. It is well understood as a logic plan on how to conduct a
research, and it is in this part, where advanced planning methods and techniques for data
collection are given and elaborate. It also provides guidance to the researcher in order to draw
inference concerning causal relation among the variables under investigation. According to
Nachmias & Nachmias, (1996), a research design helps the researcher to come up with solution
in various stages of the research.
This study will adopt a descriptive research in form of a qualitative case study. (Kothari, 2004).
argues that, descriptive research includes surveys and fact-finding enquiries of different kinds,
with the purpose on describing the state of affairs as it exists at present, utilizing survey methods
of all kinds, e.g. comparative, meanwhile qualitative research design is used because, it enables
researchers to obtain accurate and realistic picture of the scenario studied. This qualitative study
aims at exploring the effect of overloading trucks towards the road damage after the pavement
has already been constructed. We know pavements are being constructed to withstand truck load
and provide a structural safe bearing load to the ground. If the pavements are being overloaded
above its bearing capacity, they tend to being destructed.
3.3 Research Process
Research processes consists of series of actions or steps necessary to effectively carry out
research and the desired sequencing of these steps (Kothari, 2004). They are the steps followed
in conducting the study, in which the series of activities performed from the start to the end of
the research explains the research process. Example; starting by reviewing the literature, that
evolve via reading some of the study's related publications from either the library or internet,
where the researcher was able to find research issues, hence formulating research objective and
questions. They constitute all steps from introduction of the research up to the conclusion and
recommendations. In other perspectives, it is aggregation of all necessary process that is
undertaken throughout the study.

20

3.4 Research Approach or Strategy

The selection of a research strategy is very important for it may affect the validity and reliability
of data. According to (Lerise, 1996); a properly selected research strategy has real life practical
value. Therefore, the choice of a method is determined by a number of factors, which include
purpose of the study, the nature on information required and the availability of resources. The
study adopted descriptive qualitative case study due to the nature of the research problem, and
the fact that; it measures the reaction of many people to a limited set of questions, thus

Researchers basis on
practical and
theoretical problems

Research
Research Objectives,
Questions,
-Policies & Regulation,
-Current Literature,
-Experience from other
persons (TANROADS)
-Lessons Learnt,

Step One
Pre-

Literature, Experience from others, Lessons

Learnt, Theories and Conceptual Framework,

-Choosing and Justifying Research

Methodology, -Case Study Selection and
Explanation,
-Defining Units of
Analysis,
-Tools for Data
Step
Two
Field-

Data Collection Methods

-Official Enquiries (TANROADS Offices),
-Exploration and review of construction
documents,
-Face to Face interview with IWBU
-Documentary Review.

21

-------------------- Literature

Important Activities to Each

Major Three Steps Followed

Review (Experiences and Reality) --------------------

facilitating comparison and detailed description of the phenomena concerned.

-Data Analysis and Synthesis of Findings,

Step
Three
PostField
work

Policy & Theoretical

Implications

Conclusion and
Recommendatio

Further
Research
Areas

Figure 3.1 Research design and process, showing the clear elaboration on the series of activities
to be performed during the research work. Source: Author (2015)

No.

Specific Objective

Information
Required

Source of Data

Research
Methods or
Technique

01
.

To determine the
existing information
on the studied road
section (KibahaChalinze).

Relevant information Key Information Literature and

regarding the section. Exploration and
Documentary
Time of construction,
Review,
enquiries from
designed axle load,
Oral
TANROADS
traffic count, roadbed
Officers.
interview/Disc
strength, type and
ussion
Office documents,
grade of fill. Service
Observation,
Internet, etc.
life
Mapping,
Sketching,
Photographing,

02
.

To determine the
reduction of
pavement service
life on the KibahaChalinze road
segment due to
overloading.

03
.

To re-calculate the
layer thickness
required by the
pavement structure
to withstand against
overloading
condition.

Two impacts of
overloaded heavy
vehicles on road
pavement that took
into account in this
study, namely,
reduction of pavement
service life and the
need of structural
capacity improvement
in terms of layer
thickness.
To come up with new
designed pavement
structure to
compensate the
existing pavement in
order to meet the
current demand.

Key Informant,
Literature and
Documentary
Calculations
Review,
Reference books

Discussion
Enquiries and
exploration from Observation,
experienced
personnel.
Library, Internet,
etc.

Calculations
Literature and
Documentary
Reference books
Review,
Library, internet

Discussion
etc.
Observation,
Enquiries and
exploration from

22

Expected Input
or Tools of Data
Collection
Interviewers,
Sketch Books,
Published
Documents,
Notebook,

Sketch Books,
Books
Computer
Published
Documents,
Notebook,

Sketch Books,
Books
Computer
Published
Documents,
Notebook,

The new designed

structure must be
calculated from the
current axle load and
traffic count together
with other relevant
current information

TANROAD
staffs.

Figure 3.2: The summary of instrumentalization, or research methodology, or data collection

matrix, of the research objectives. Source: Author's Own Construct, (2015).

3.5 Preparation stage

Preparatory work includes activities such as literature review of previous related studies in road
and pavement in general, review the theories about design of road pavement especially in
Tanzania under Ministry of Work (MoW) and develop a methodology of the research.

3.5.1 Data collection

At this stage, all data related to this research will be collected. These include the following data

Traffic volume count.

Vehicle weight that overloading was occurred especially trucks (axle load of
trucks).
Design information of existing road from TANROAD (This includes traffic
load class, soil bearing capacity pavement layer thickness etc.).
Soil strength in terms of California Bearing Ratio (CBR).
Other possible information of the road which will be suitable and helpful.
Current government plan on the existing road whether they want to upgrade
it to dual carriage or make rehabilitation or not.
International Roughness Index. (IRI)

23

3.5.2 Data Analysis

The secondary data obtained will be analyzed on the basis of literature review and theories that
have been studied. These include the following:
Existing physical conditions. To know and understand the current physical
condition, such as CBR and ADT obtained from Kibaha TANROAD Office.
Design condition. Calculation of layer thickness using existing data will be
done in order to know the difference between thickness of existing and design
layers in Kibaha-Chalinze Road section.
3.5.3 Evaluation
The purpose of this stage is to evaluate the results obtained, by following the procedures below;
i.

Determine of the thickness differences between normal and overloaded

conditions.

ii.

Determine the reduction of pavement service life for normal and

overloaded conditions to know the rest of service life of KibahaChalinze road section.

3.5.4 Conclusion
In this stage, conclusion from the results of evaluation can be drawn, to be followed up properly
by the ministry required and institutions.

24

CHAPTER FOUR
MAJOR EMPIRICAL DATA AND ANALYSIS
4.0 Review of Construction Records
The first task in this case was to review available project records including interview of
personnel who were involved in one way or another in the supervision of maintenance works,
especially asphalt overlays. The essential documents reviewed were previous investigation
reports and overlay job mix formulae.
4.1 Review of the Pavement Structure Information
4.1.1 As-built Information
The existing pavement was constructed in the year 1992/93, ((141), 2014) this means that more
than 20 years ago. The designed pavement structure virtually consisted of 50mm asphalt wearing
course, 100mm asphalt binder course, 150mm crushed stone base and 200mm selected natural
gravel sub base course. The typical pavement structure is summarized below:

Wearing course: 50mm Asphalt Concrete

Binder course: 100mm Asphalt Concrete
Base: 150mm Crushed Stone (CRS)
Sub base: 200mm G45
Subgrade: Improved as appropriate

4.1.2 Discussion on the Pavement Structure

It may be noted that the Pavement and Materials Design Manual (PMDM), 1999 was yet to be
prepared during the design and construction of the existing road in 1990s. According to PMDM,
this pavement structure (in terms of structural number SN) is equivalent to a structure designed
25

to carry traffic load class TLC-20 Heavy for 20 years. Since 20 years have elapsed already, this
pavement structure may not have adequate residual life to carry the current traffic loading for
appreciable period of time.

4.1.3 Bitumen Properties

Review of the Job Mix Formulae (JMF) reveals that straight run bitumen type 60/70 had been
used as binder. This type of binder seems to be generally acceptable. However, in the road
section, though mainly falling into flat to rolling terrain (Figure 4.1) carries heavy and huge
traffic volumes. This situation slows down traffic speeds to a level similar to slow moving lanes,
normally classified as severely loaded areas (Works, 2000). The PMDM (1999) specifies
relatively harder binder type viz 40/50 or modified binders to be adopted in asphalt mixes for use
on severely loaded areas.

Elevation vs Chainage
300
250
200

Altitude in (m)

150

ALTITUDE

100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

Chainage in (Km)
Figure 4.1: Approximate Vertical Profile along the road section. Source: Author (2015)

4.2 Determination of Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)

VDF or axle load equivalency factor (LEF or E) of each heavy vehicle was determined using
1993 AASHTO Design Guide procedure, as follows.

26

1. The axle load unit was converted from kilogram to kips and the type of the axle load was
determined whether it is single, tandem or triple axles.
2. VDF or E was determined by correlating the axle load (see the first column of Tables
4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 for single, tandem and triple axles, respectively) and its corresponding
VDF value (see the rest columns of the tables). The selected VDF was the value under
pavement structural number (SN) equals to 5, as recommended by 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide. In this study, all axle load equivalency factor tables were associated with
terminal serviceability (pt) equals to 2.
3. The VDF of front and rear axles for every type of heavy vehicle were calculated based
upon the configuration specification defined by PMDM (1999).
4. The VDF for each heavy vehicle was determined by summing its corresponding front
and rear axles. Then, the total VDF for each type of heavy vehicle could be calculated.
The results for VDF for each type of heavy vehicle are shown in Table 4.4.
4.2.1 Calculation of Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)
In this section, the calculation of VDF for single axle truck is presented. In this study, the
calculation of VDF was performed based on axle load equivalency factor (LEF) tables with p t =
2, i.e. Tables 4.1 - 4.3. The detail calculation is as follows
- Axle load on the front: 7,850 kg
- Axle load on the rear: 10,600kg
To enable using the axle load in 1994 AASHTO axle load equivalency factor (LEF) tables (see
Tables 4.1 - 4.3), it is necessary to change the unit of the axle load parameter, from kg to kips, by
multiplying the value of axle load (in kg) with a constant 0.002206. This result in 17.3171 and
23.3836 kips for front and rear axle loads, respectively. Since there is only one type of axle load
in this calculation, that is, single axle load, therefore only Table 4.1 was used. In this table, it not
possible to find axle load equals to 17.3171 and 23.3836 kips in the first column; therefore an
interpolation is required by interpolating the axle load values between 17.3171 and 23.3836 kips,
and its corresponding LEF values (under structural number SN = 5) 1.00 and 3.40 ESAL,
respectively. The following interpolation equation was used in this study.

(ESAL) = (X-X )/(X -X )*(Y -Y ) +Y

2

.. (D1)

Where:
27

X1= the first axle load value (kips)

X2= the second axle load value (kips)
Y1= the LEF that corresponding with the first axle load value (ESAL)
Y2= the LEF that corresponding with the second axle load value (ESAL)
X= the axle load value under consideration (kips)
Using Equation (D1), the LEF that corresponding with axle load equals to 17.3171 kips is as
follows.

= (17.3171 - 18) / (16 - 18) (0.603 1.00) + 1.00 = 0.86444435 ESAL .... (i)
Using the same equation, the LEF that corresponding with axle load equals to 23.3826 kips is
3.07639 ESAL. The VDF for single axle truck is 0.86444435 + 3.07639 = 3.9408 ESAL (ii)
Table 4.1 Axle Load Equivalency Factors for Flexible Pavements, Single Axle and pt of 2.0
Axle Load
(kips)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48

1
0.0002
0.002
0.009
0.030
0.075
0.165
0.325
0.589
1.00
1.61
2.49
3.71
5.36
7.54
10.4
14.0
18.5
24.2
31.1
39.6
49.7
61.8
76.1
92.9

Pavement Structural Number (SN)

3
4
5

0.0002
0.003
0.012
0.035
0.085
0.117
0.338
0.598
1.00
1.59
2.44
3.62
5.21
7.31
10.0
13.5
17.9
23.3
29.9
38.0
47.7
59.3
73.0
89.1

0.002
0.002
0.011
0.036
0.090
0.189
0.354
0.613
1.00
1.56
2.35
3.43
4.88
6.78
9.2
12.4
16.3
21.2
27.1
34.3
43.0
53.4
65.6
80.0
28

0.0002
0.002
0.010
0.033
0.085
0.183
0.350
0.612
1.00
1.55
2.31
3.33
4.68
6.42
8.6
11.5
15.0
19.3
24.6
30.9
38.6
47.6
58.3
70.9

0.0002
0.002
0.009
0.031
0.079
0.174
0.338
0.603
1.00
1.57
2.35
3.40
4.77
6.52
8.7
11.5
14.9
19.0
24.0
30.0
37.2
45.7
55.7
67.3

6
0.0002
0.002
0.009
0.029
0.076
0.168
0.331
0.596
1.00
1.59
2.41
3.51
4.96
6.83
9.2
12.1
15.6
19.9
25.1
31.2
38.5
47.1
57.0
68.6

50
113
Source: AASHTO (1993)

108

97

86

81

82

Table 4.2: Total VDF for Each Type of Heavy Vehicle Used in this Study
VDF for Heavy Vehicles only
Buses
MGV
HGV
Direction
Kibaha - Chalinze
Chalinze Kibaha
Source: Author 2015

15.36
13.15

20.91
12.432

VHGV

32.01
20.57

34.3
18.18

VDF vs Vehicle Category

40
35
30
25

VDF

20

Kibaha - Chalinze

15

Chalinze - Kibaha

10
5
0
Buses

MGV

HGV

VHGV

Vehicle Category (Heavy only)

Figure 4.2: Comparison of VDF between both directions. Source: Author (2015)
As seen in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.2 above, the total VDF of Kibaha Chalinze direction is
higher than the opposite direction. The deviation of VDF is mainly contributed by VDF of Very
Heavy Goods Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Medium Goods Vehicles. This is due to the
fact that most of vehicles travelling from Dar es Salaam towards Chalinze are overloaded with
cargo to different parts of the country and nearby countries such as Congo, Zambia, Malawi and
Democratic Republic of Congo. On the other hand, vehicles arriving to Dar es Salaam via
Chalinze are less overloaded due to the fact that no much cargo is transported to Dar es Salaam
only few crops, timber charcoal and passengers. The VDF for Buses for both direction i.e.,
29

Chalinze to Kibaha and Kibaha to Chalinze are almost the same since the number of passengers
arriving and leaving in Dar es Salaam is almost equal.
4.3 Calculation of Traffic Load
The calculation of traffic load W18 in equivalent standard axle load (ESAL) should be based on
the actual VDF and ADT. AASHTO Design Guide gives the following formula to determine the
traffic load for design lane (W18).
W18 = ( ADTi Ei GRi ) 365
W18 = DD DL W18
Where:
ADTi = average daily traffic for axle load i;
Ei
GRi

= axle load equivalency factor or vehicle damage factor (VDF) for axle load i;
= annual growth rate (depends on traffic growth rate e.g. in percent; and service life, n)

axle load i;
DD

= direction distribution factor;

DL

=lane distribution factor;

W18

=cumulative standard axle load for two directional 18-kip ESAL units predicted for a

specified section of highway during the analysis period (from the planning group), (NCHRP,
2004).
Road section Kibaha Chalinze or Chalinze Kibaha is a two-lane one-direction divided (2/1)
road, therefore in this case, DD and DL equal to 1 and 1 respectively. The traffic load on Kibaha
Chalinze or Chalinze Kibaha road section was assumed to increase 8% per annum and the road
could serve traffic load for the next 10 years. Based on this assumption, the traffic load W18 on
Kibaha Chalinze and Chalinze Kibaha in two conditions i.e. standard (as designed) and
overloaded conditions, are as depicted below in the following table.
The below calculation is an example showing the calculation of Traffic Load for Kibaha
Chalinze road section under normal condition (standard condition as designed) for Buses. This
calculation will be done the same for other type of vehicles i.e. MGV, HGV and VHGV in both
conditions i.e. standard and overloaded. The full data for standard load trucks and overloaded
trucks are attached in the appendices.

30

Table 4.3: Constant Values for Lane Distribution Factor

Total Number of Lanes, both Direction
Lane Distribution Factor
2
1.0
4
0.9
6
0.6
6+
0.5
Source: National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 573
The directional design hourly volume (DDHV) is the one-way volume in the predominant
direction of travel in the design hour, expressed as a percentage of the two-way DHV. For rural
and suburban roads, the direction distribution factors (D D) ranges from 55 to 80 percent. A factor
of approximately 50% is used for urban highways. Keep in mind that the directional distribution
can change during the day. For example, traffic volume heading into the central business district
is usually higher than outbound traffic in the morning, but the reverse is true during the afternoon
peak hour (Holman, 1990). In our calculation we will assume direction distribution factor to be
1due to the fact that DD for Buses and VHGV during the morning an peak hours is 100%.
W18 = ( ADTi Ei GRi ) 365 (iii)
= 318 15.36 0.08 365
= 142626.816 for buses only
Summation of all type of vehicle for normal loading = 29,542,213.546 ESAL 29.542 million
ESAL
Table 4.4: Traffic load (as designed and overloaded condition)
W18 (in million ESAL)
As Designed
Overloaded
Direction
Kibaha Chalinze
29.542
110.850
Chalinze Kibaha
30.715
50.380
Table 4.6 above shows that there is no difference on traffic load for both directions in standard
condition, but in overloaded condition, traffic load of Kibaha Chalinze direction is 2.5 higher
than opposite direction. This is because the significant deviations of the VDF in Kibaha
Chalinze direction, although the ADT of Kibaha Chalinze was lower than the opposite
direction. Many small cars are arriving to this direction.
31

120
100
80
60

W18 (Iin million ESAL)

Kibaha - Chalinze

40

Chalinze - Kibaha

20
0
As Designed
Condition of Loading

Figure 4.3: Traffic load comparison as designed and overloaded condition for both directions.
Source: Author (2015)
Traffic load is a dominant function because the function of the pavement is to directly resist the
traffic load. The mention of traffic load covers traffic volume or frequency of the traffic, and
weight of vehicle as well as intensity of the vehicle. Traffic volume accumulatively shows the
number of repetition of the load and function the time (service life). Intensity of the weight of
vehicle is depending on weight of axle load, axle configuration and wheel configuration. In the
Empirical method, the method to calculate flexible pavement thickness use by DGH, (SKBI
2.3.26) AASHTO 1993, traffic load is expressed as Equivalent Design Wheel Path in this
dissertation denote as accumulatively during premeditated service life, and expressed as
cumulative of accumulatively (LER) denoted as N where;
N = 365 LER (1 + g) n / I .. (i)
LER = ((ADToi Ei DDi DLi ) + (ADTni Ei DDi DLi))/2 . (ii)
Whereby the terms in the above equations are as defined below;
N = Cumulative Equivalent Design Wheel Path during the service life period
LER = Equivalent Design Wheel Path
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
E = Equivalent of Axle Number which is given as E = (BS/8.16)2
32

DD = Coefficient of Directional Distribution factor

DL = Coefficient of Lane Distribution factor
g = Traffic Growth Rate/Factor per Annum
Subscription o = Initial of design life
Subscription n = End of design life
Subscription i = Type of vehicle
= 1for single axle, 0.086 for dual axle and 0.053 for triple axle
BS = Standard axle load, equal to 8160kg
From the equation (1) and (2) above, could be understood that the higher of traffic volume, the
higher level of road damage will be, or the higher axle load, the higher level of road damage will
be.
4.4 Stress on Surface Pavement Caused by Tyre Pressure
Tyre pressure is remarkably influence the stress to the surface layer of pavement under tyre
contact area. The higher of tyre pressure, the higher the stress on surface layer of the pavement.
The relation between tyre pressure and the stress in surface pavement is expressed as the relation
between Marshall Stability (MS) of the surface layer material and Unconfined Compression
Strength (UCS) which based the findings in the study (Indra Surya B.M., 1999) is as follows;
UCSAC = 0.0084 MS (Kg) for Asphaltic Concrete
UCSHRS = 0.0091 MS (Kg) for Hot Rolled Asphalt
UCSATB = 0.0088 MS (Kg) for Asphalt Treated Base
The relationship between Marshall Stability (MS) and tyre pressure (p o) is that: MS (Kg) = 10p o
(psi), with assumption that the strain strength factor (SF) is determination factor. From the
studied road section, it is very clear that tyre pressure is predominant since most of the trucks are
overloaded and the introduction of super single tyres, coupled with traffic loading proliferation
appears to induce stress on the pavement structure which causes deterioration and failure of the
pavement either by rutting or cracks and raveling. The figure below shows the relationship
between tyre pressure and the stress it induce to the surface. Tyre pressures have a significant
effect on the stress in the pavement. This is particularly relevant on the upper layers (i.e.
surfacing and base). Tyre pressures on truck tyres have increased from around 555 kPa in 1960s
to approximately 750 kPa in 1995 (Zaghloul, 1994) and (De Beer M., 1998) The primary reason
for the recent increase in tyre inflation pressures is improvements in tyre construction technology
33

and the incorporation of heavier sidewall gauges and thicker and stronger ply cord, all resulting
in a higher safe operating pressure and increased load carrying capacity. Current design methods
are generally based on a design tyre inflation pressure of 520 kPa; although certain mechanisticempirical design methods have subsequently been verified for applicability utilizing inflation
pressures of 700 kPa.

Effect of tyre pressure to the surface

1200
1000
800

Stress to the Surface (kPa)

600

Linear relationship

400
200
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Tyre pressure (kN/m square)

Figure 4.4: Tyre inflation pressure and its effect to the surface layer. Source: Author (2015)

4.4.1 Tyre contact stress and Stress-in-Motion (SIM) technology

Significant work in the relationship between tyre inflation pressure and vertical contact stress has
been undertaken world-wide and particularly in South Africa. The Stress-in-Motion (SIM)
technology developed by (De Beer M., 1998) is one of the most notable achievements in the
quantification of actual contact stress exerted on pavements. SIM technology was developed,
using the Vehicle-Road Surface Pressure Transducer Array (VRSPTA) developed during the late
1990s in South Africa. The most advanced SIM model (designated Mk III) measures the 3Dtyre-pavement contact stresses of all the tyres of slow moving (5 km/h) trucks. In South Africa
the SIM device is typically installed at a weighbridge station with static scales (De Beer M.,
1998). Plate 4.1 below indicates that there is a direct relationship between tyre inflation pressure
and vertical contact stress measured using the SIM. The results indicate that, on average, the
34

vertical contact stress is related to the tyre inflation pressure. Increased tyre/pavement contact
stresses potentially accelerate deterioration of the surfacing and base layers of most of the
flexible pavements as contained in the catalogue designs formulated from the South African
Mechanistic Pavement Design Method (SAMPDM). This argument has been used to explain
some of the severe surfacing distresses noted on many pavements in South Africa today. Tyre
contact stresses (and related tyre inflation pressures) affect the surfacing and the base layers in
the pavement. Experience in South Africa has shown that the high quality crushed stone (G1) and
the bituminous stabilized bases (BTB) can withstand the high tyre pressures. However, thin
surfacings significantly affected by increased tyre inflation pressure (De Beer M. K. L., 1999).

Plate 4.1 Relationship between tyre inflation pressure and average vertical contact stress.
Source: SAMPDM (1996)

4.5 Characteristic of pavement layers materials

Characteristic of pavement layers materials (strength, stiffness, elasticity) extremely influential
to the performance of pavement layers to response the traffic load. The higher quality of the
materials, the higher the ability to response the load will be. The ability of pavement layers
materials to response traffic load is expressed by Coefficient of Relative Strength a i = f (MS) for

35

surface layer, and ai = f (CBR) for base and sub-base layer. Bandung Institute of Technology has
developed the equation to calculate the coefficient of relative strength for each layer or materials
as follows:

a1 = -3.72 10-0.8MS2 + 3.04 10-0.4MS + 0.20 for asphaltic concrete layer .(i)
a2 = -1.43 10-0.2 (log CBR)2 1.00 10-0.1 (log CBR) + 0.15 for base layer .(ii)
a3 = -7.40 10-0.3 (log CBR)2 9.68 10-0.3 (log CBR) + 0.08 for sub-base layer (iii)

Improperly of pavement structure construction often cause the layer thickness are not fulfill the
thickness as required in the design specification. The thickness of one layer unquestionably will
influence performance of entirely pavement structure. The thicker of the pavement layer over the
design requirement, the higher the performance of the pavement to response traffic loading will
be. Layer thickness is expressed in D 1, D2, and D3 for surface, base, and sub-base layer
respectively. The effect of change in the layer thickness is similar to the effect of change in the
quality of the pavement materials. Change of the properties of road-bed soil is extremely
affecting the performance of pavement structure. The smaller of ability or the smaller of bearing
capacity of existing road-bed soil, the weaker ability of pavement to response traffic loading, and
on the contrary. The strength or bearing capacity of road-bed soil is expressed in CBR value or in
bearing capacity of soil (BCS).
4.6 Reduction of Pavement Service Life
Two impacts of overloaded heavy vehicles on road pavement that took into account in this study,
namely, reduction of pavement service life and the need of structural capacity improvement in
terms of layer thickness. The reduction of service life could be indicated by the deviation of the
pavement service life due to different magnitude of traffic load that have to withstand by the
pavement structure. To calculate the reduction of service life, a relationship between traffic load
and service life is able to be developed by using the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide equation as
follows.
W18 = w18 ((1 + g) n 1) g
In which W18 is the predicted traffic load (in ESAL); w 18 is the traffic load in basic year (in
ESAL); the other parameter is as previously defined. The traffic loads in basic year for both
conditions (standard and overloaded) are as shown in Table 4.5. These values and Equation

36

above were used to plot predicted traffic load curves in Figures below for both Kibaha
Chalinze and Chalinze Kibaha directions respectively.
Kibaha - Chalinze
S e rvice life Re du ction

4000
Standard

3000
W18(in millions)

f(x) = 4.29x^2 + 55.83x + 59.04

R = 1

2000

Polynomial (
Standard)
Overloaded

1000
0
0

f(x) = 1.04x^2 + 14.26x + 19.73

R = 1
5
10
15
20
25

Polynomial
( Overloaded)

Road service life (years)

Figure 4.5: Service Relationship between Traffic Load and Service Life on Standard and
Overloaded condition (Kibaha Chalinze direction)
Chalinze - Kibaha

1400
1200
1000
Standard 800
W18 (in millions)

600

f(x) = 1.84x^2 + 24.34x + 29.8

R = 1
Polynomial (

Standard)

Overloaded

f(x) = 1.11x^2 + 15.12x + 20.31

R = 1

400
Polynomial (

200
Overloaded)
0
1 2 3 4

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Road service life (years)

F
igure 4.6: Relationship between Traffic Load and Service Life on Standard and Overloaded
conditions (Chalinze Kibaha)

37

As shown in the above figures we can see the curves with the following equations depicted
below;

y = 1.0441X2 + 14.259X + 19.73 for standard condition,(i)

y = 4.2907X2 + 55.826X + 59.044 for overloaded condition both of these equations

expressing the Kibaha Chalinze direction.

y = 1.0106 X2 +15.115X + 20.315 for standard condition,.(ii)
y = 1.841X2 + 24.341X + 29.804 for overloaded condition both of these equations
expressing the Chalinze Kibaha direction.

Using the equations, the reduction of service life due to overloaded condition can be determined,
as shown in the below table.

No. of
Years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Table 4.5: Relationship between Traffic Load and Service Life

Traffic Load of Kibaha Chalinze
Traffic Load of Chalinze Kibaha
(million ESAL)
Standard
overloaded
29.542
110.850
50.254
172.678
72.211
261.409
95.484
355.463
120.154
454.161
146.305
560.841
174.024
672.861
203.406
791.603
234.552
917.469
267.566
1050.887
302.561
1192.311
339.656
1342.219
378.976
1501.122
420.655
1669.560
464.836
1848.103
511.667
2037.360
561.308
2237.971
613.927
2450.619
669.704
2676.027
728.827
2914.958

(million ESAL)
Standard
Overloaded
30.715
50.380
52.671
80.184
75.945
118.465
100.616
159.043
126.767
202.056
154.487
247.649
183.870
295.978
215.016
347.207
248.031
401.509
283.027
459.070
320.123
520.084
359.444
584.759
401.125
653.314
445.306
725.983
492.138
803.012
541.781
884.663
594.402
971.213
650.180
1062.956
709.304
1160.203
771.977
1263.285

For example, the standard traffic load of Kibaha Chalinze in 10 years is 267,566,000 ESAL,
but this number in overloaded condition is reached in 3.077 years. This means that there is about
38

7 years reduction of service life because of overloaded heavy vehicles. In the same manner, the
standard traffic load of Chalinze Kibaha in 10 years will be reached in overloaded condition
after 6.573 years, so that the reduction of service life due to overloading is about 4 years. It
means that the overloaded condition could reduce the service life about 4 times and 2 times for
Kibaha Chalinze and Chalinze Kibaha directions, respectively.
4.7 Regional or environment factors
Condition of road-bed soil is extremely influence by environment condition that specifically is
influenced by change in water content. Such as the graph in relation between water content and
density, the highest or the lowest of water content from the optimum condition, the smaller of the
bearing capacity. This condition is not only occurring in road-bed soil but also in base and subbase layer.
4.7.1 Failure criterion
Parameter of failure criterion use in this dissertation is permanent deformation or rutting. Rutting
is the signal of pavement failure as a result of excessive of the fatigue strain on asphalt surface
pavement or because of excessive of vertical compressive stress on the top of base, sub-base, and
of roadbed soil layer. Beside expressed in fatigue strain () and vertical compressive stress () as
mentioned above, rutting is also expressed in parameter of Present Serviceability Index (PSI) that
a function the level of road deterioration in form level of cracking, pothole, and the depth of the
path of permanent deformation. Equation for calculating of PSI according to ASSHTO is as
follows;
PSI = 5.03 1.91 log10 (1 + SV) 1.38 RD2 0.01 (C + P)0.5 .(i)
Whereby;
PSI = Present Serviceability Index;
SV = Slope of Variance, a measure of longitudinal roughness;
C + P = Area of class 2 and class 3 cracking * plus patching;
* = Cracks of 1 to 3 mm width, and more than 3 mm width, respectively;
RD = Average rut depth, in inches.

39

4.8 Index of Pavement Thickness (IPT)

Index of pavement thickness (IPT) is dependent variable to determine the pavement layers
thickness and to show the performance of the layer of pavement structure that is affected by that
independent variable namely traffic and it load intensity, quality and thickness of pavement
layers, roadbed soil environment factor, as well as fatigue criterion. Those relations
mathematically can be expressed as follows:
log (LER 365) 9.36 log (IPT / 2.54 +1.0) 0.20 + Constant K ..(ii)
4.8.1 Analysis of Sensitivity
Besides using the above equation, the level of road damage can also be approached by function
and relation of variables that can be expressed as follows:
fk = f (AE, Vol, psi / MS, ai Di, BCS,FR) .(iii)
where:
fK = level of road damage
AE = rate of equivalent (level of damage cause by axle load)
Vol. = traffic volume
psi = tyre pressure
MS = Marshall Stability (level of quality of asphalt surface layer)
ai = rate of relative strength (quality of pavement layer materials)
Di = thickness of pavement layers
BCS = bearing capacity of soil.
Modeling of road damage is very difficult to be conducted here, since there are not enough data
and there is no sufficiently observation of empiric-historic to the pavement. Therefore, one can
be conducted is using analysis of sensitivity to measure the percentage contribution of each
variable to the pavement damage. This analysis is carried out by using nine variables. The
percentage contribution of those nine variables to the road damage can be determined from the
analysis. Those nine variables are:
a. Quality and thickness of surface pavement, denote as relative of layer strength a, and
determine the percentage contribution of surface pavement to damage.
40

b. Quality and thickness of base layer denote as relative layer strength a 2, and determine the
percentage contribution of base layer to damage.
c. Quality and thickness of sub-base layer denote as relative layer strength a3, and determine
the percentage contribution of sub-base layer to damage.
d. Overloading of single axle truck denote as single axle load structural number N st, and
determine the percentage contribution of single axle to damage.
e. Overloading of dual axle truck denote as dual axle load structural number N sg, and
determine the percentage contribution of dual axle to damage.
f. Overloading of triple axle truck denote as triple axle load structural number Ntr, and
determine the percentage contribution of triple axle to damage.
g. Overstress of tyre pressure denote as psi, and determine the percentage contribution of
tyre pressure to damage.
h. Reduction of bearing capacity of roadbed soil denotes as BCS, and determines the
percentage contribution of roadbed soil to damage.
i. Regional/Environment factor denote as FR, and determine the percentage contribution of
regional/environment factor to damage.
Pavement structure damage as mentioned is caused by overloading, high tyre pressure, quality of
pavement materials, pavement layer thickness, bearing capacity of subgrade soil, environment
factor, and failure criterion use in designing of pavement structure. Those factors affect
performance of the layer of pavement structure that measure by index of pavement thickness
(IPT). The level or percentage of those factors to damage the pavement is determined by analysis
of sensitivity.

4.9 How Vehicle Load Affect Pavement Performance

Why keep road in a good condition? The economy of any area depends on shipping and
receiving products and materials; trucks are most common form of transport. The condition of
area roads directly affects the speed, efficiency and ultimately the costs of transportation.
Considering the huge costs of maintaining and rebuilding roads, local governments have great
incentive to protect pavements. Three elements work to cause road deterioration; traffic loads,
the environment and aging. While we have little or no control over the environment and aging,
we can control traffic loads.in this context, I am going to describe pavement fatigue and discuss
how wheel loads, number of truck axles, number of truck tyres, quality of subgrade, pavement
thickness and changing seasons contribute to pavement fatigue.
41

4.9.1 Pavement Fatigue

Fatigue as it was observed in the studied area is a progressive damage from many applications of
a load. Pavement usually breaks up from fatigue failure. Example; bend a metal rod once, it
wont break. Bend it many times and eventually it will break. How far the rod is bent is also
important. It will take many more slight bends before it breaks than large ones. Roads also bend
under vehicle loads. As the pavement bends, its various layers are affected differently. Like the
metal rod, the upper portion is compressed while the lower section stretches. As bending causes
fatigue, the pavement surfacing cracks allowing moisture into the pavement base and subgrade.
This results in greater bending, further cracking and finally failure. Fatigue damage depends on
the weight and arrangement of axle loads, the thickness of the pavement and the strength of the
soil beneath (the subgrade)

Plate 4.2 Repeated tensions in the surface layer causes cracking. Source: (Author 2015)
4.9.2 Effects of Wheel Loads
There are several basic vehicle wheel arrangements that are single wheel, dual wheel, single axle
and tandem axle. The maximum legal single axle load is 9,000kg and the maximum tandem load
is 15,400kg (Rahim, 2000) and (Sayers, 1998). Load per wheel equal the axle load divided by the
number of wheels. Pavement fatigue is measured by the number and weight of axle loads needed
to make the pavement unusable. As each axle load is increased, the road can withstand fewer
trips before it breaks up. If axle loads are decreased, the pavement will carry more vehicles
before failing. The lower the wheel load, the less the pavement bends and consequently, the
lower it lasts. Trucks are the primary concern because of their great weight. Pavement damage
increases rapidly with higher axle load, and actually increases faster than the loads increase. One
42

nine-ton axle load for example causes about ten times more damage than a five-ton axle load
(Al-Omari, 1994). Information on the relative effects of axle loads and wheel arrangements on
different pavement structures comes from AASHTO Road Test conducted in Ottawa.
These tests as discussed in Literature Review developed the damage unit, a simple method for
measuring pavement damage based on the relationship between axle load and road damage.
9000kg (9tons) yield one unit of damage in one pass (AASHTO 1993). If a truck with a standard
axle weight of 18,000lbs makes 100 passes over a pavement, 100 units of pavement life are used
up per axle. However, as the figure below shows, pavement damage increases faster than axle
loads. A semi-trailer with five tons front steering axle and two single nine-tons load axles
carrying a 16,000lb pay load would use up 2.1 damage units.

Plate 4.3: Wheel load transmitted to subgrade soil. Source: Author (2015)
4.10 Evaluation of Pavement Performance and Causes of the Distresses/Failure
4.10.1 General
Insitu survey and enquires from authorized responsible personnel was conducted at the studied
area in order to investigate the performance characteristics of different pavement layers and the
pavement as a whole. From the investigation, it was observed that the causes of the failure are
attributed to a spectrum of factors, the major causes being:a. Traffic loading proliferation, resulting in slow moving traffic. It may be noted from the
results of traffic surveys that the studied road section is on the most heavily trafficked
road section in the country with about 13,000 15,000 vehicles per day.
b. Advanced age of the pavement (design period had already expired).
c. Use of inappropriate asphalt mixes (Improper Asphalt Mix Design) resulting into low air
voids content, and low voids in the mineral aggregate.
43

d. Inadequate quality control during production and construction of asphalt.

e. Limitation of the mix design method (Marshall) in Tanzania as a result of climate change
(abnormal high pavement temperatures, over 600C).
f. Use of continuously graded aggregate (in AC 20, AC14 mixes on heavily loaded roads),
which do not provide stone-to-stone contact/interlock required for a rut resistant mix.
g. Presence of insitu expansive soils causing movements in the road embankment.

4.10.2 Cracking in the Asphalt Concrete in the Studied Road Section

The majority of cracks observed along the studied road section were alligator cracks and
reflection cracks (from old overlays/asphalt layers). The cracks indicate fatigue failure of the
asphalt layer caused by the repeated traffic loadings. Water ingress through the cracks formed
exacerbates deterioration. This type of cracking usually begins as a single longitudinal crack in
the wheel paths and is normally caused by aging of the asphalt. Edge cracking and longitudinal
cracking along the shoulders was also observed along the road.
4.10.2.1 Base Course
The base course material was tested for grading, atterberg limits, TFV, FWD-Dynamic Modulus
and Compaction. The material was found to be marginally satisfactorily with little deviation
from specifications. There was no notable deformation on the surface of the base course layer at
the tested points, suggesting most deformation being in the asphalt layer only.
4.10.2.2 Subbase Layer
Sieve analysis test results on the subbase material indicated that the material had adequate
Grading Modulus, about 2.0, to comply with the minimum of 1.5, therefore satisfactory. Liquid
limit results were found to be within the specifications (i.e., less than 40%, which is the specified
maximum value). However some locations both the PI and LS were found to exceed maximum
specified values of 14% and 7% respectively for G45 subbase. Despite these shortfalls, there was
no evidence of deformation in the subbase.
4.10.2.3 Subgrade Layer
From the results, laboratory CBR values (soaked in 4-days) of the G15 layer ranged between 3%
and 63% with the majority (83%) of the tested points complying with the specifications. CBRswell at the majority of the tested locations was found to meet the requirements i.e., less than
1.5% except at around KM 40+200 where high swell of 4.28% was obtained. For the lower
44

subgrade/fill, the tested samples were marginally acceptable, with acceptable swell (less than the
specified maximum 2%). Results of PI for both G15 and G7 were found to comply with the
specifications (i.e., less than 25% for G15 and less than 30% for G7), therefore satisfactory.
4.10.2.4 Existing Insitu Soils
On many locations, the existing insitu soils were made of expansive black clays which are
known of their excessive volumetric changes as a result of repeated cycles of swelling and
shrinking causing longitudinal cracks as well as excessive subgrade movements. Excessive
subgrade movements may lead into waves.
4.10.2.5 Total Pavement Strength
Results from FWD tests indicated deficiency on several locations where residual life is
negligible. DCP results indicated 10%-ile structural number along the entire section to be only
2.78. These values are too low for such a heavily loaded pavement, suggesting immediate major
corrective measures. A plot of rut depth against deflection indicates very poor correlation of
about 0.0367, implying that most of the distresses are confined in the asphalt layers.
4.11 Traffic Surveys and Analysis
In order to estimate the present and future traffic loading, traffic count surveys were carried out
at Mlandizi along the studied road section. Data from the traffic counts together with typical
vehicle equivalency factors for heavy vehicle traffic determined recently in Dar es Salaam were
adopted. A summary of the traffic data is presented below.
4.11.1 Traffic Counts (Heavy Vehicles only)
During the survey, traffic counts, categorization and identification of axle configuration were
conducted for all heavy vehicle categories which are Busses, MGV, HGV and VHGV.
Classification of heavy vehicles (also termed as commercial vehicles) is as shown on Table 4.2
below.

Table 4.6: Heavy vehicle categories

Medium Goods Vehicles-MGV

-2 axles, including steering axle, and

Heavy Goods Vehicles-HGV

-3 tones empty weigh or more

-3 axles, including steering axle, and

Very Heavy Goods Vehicles-VHGV

-3 tones empty weigh or more

-4 or more axles, including steering axle, and
-3 tones empty weigh or more
Seating capacity of 40 passengers or more

Busses
Source: MoW PMDM (1999)
45

The counting was carried out in a manner that resulted in a grouping of vehicle types into the 4
categories shown in the above table. The table below shows a summary of traffic count and
equivalent standard axle per day.
Table 4.7: Traffic Counts
KIBAHA - CHALINZE
Vehicle category/counts
MGV
HGV
VHGV
Buses
115
132
523
241
116
115
453
386
95
109
632
251
102
134
634
262

CHALINZE - KIBAHA
Vehicle category/counts
MGV
HGV
VHGV
115
164
523
75
189
567
59
94
601
67
77
589

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4

Buses
393
321
309
360

Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8

308
278
362
312

107
91
120
98

151
128
148
123

489
754
709
743

239
255
353
333

106
123
138
93

143
167
93
129

517
567
714
698

TOTAL

2544

864

1040

4928

2320

776

1056

4776

Daily
318
108
130
616
290
97
132
597
From the above table showing ADT for heavy vehicles, it can be seen that there is relatively no
much deviation of ADT for heavy vehicles for both directions.

Vehicle

Table 4.8: Summary of axle load survey and equivalency factors.

KIBAHA CHALINZE
CHALINZE - KIBAHA
Wt. VEF Total
E80
E8013ton
Wt.
VEF Total
E80
E8013ton

category
Buses
17.8
MGV
11.3
HGV
32.3
VHGVSEMI 41.4
TOTAL

Daily counts
VEF
E80/day
Total E80/day

1.354
1.146
2.303
3.245

2544
864
1040
4928
9376

3445
990
2395
15991
a=22821

0
457
986
1156
b=2599

16.9
11.5
31.6
39.6

1.304
1.098
2.123
2.987

2320
776
1056
4776
8928

3025
853
2242
14267
a=20387

0
423
876
1211
b=2510

Table 4.9: Traffic Growth and Design traffic loading

KIBAHA CHALINZE
CHALINZE - KIBAHA
Buses
MGV
HGV
VHGV
Buses
MGV
HGV
VHGV
318
108
130
616
290
97
132
597
1.354
1.146
2.303
3.245
1.304
1.098
2.123
2.987
430.57 123.768
299.39
1998.92
378.16
106.506 280.23 1783.23
2852.65
2548.141

46

Table 4.10: Summary of Traffic Data (Heavy Vehicles only)

Busses
MGV
HGV
Average Daily
318
108
130
Counts
VEF
E80/day
Total E80/day

1.354
431

1.146
123

2.303
299

VHGV
616
3.245
1999

2,853

4.11.2 Estimation of Design traffic loading

Design traffic loading was estimated based on Cumulative number of equivalent standard axles,
E80, given by the following equation;
E80 = 365 t1 ((1+r)n -1)
r
where by: t1 = average daily number of standard axles in the year of traffic survey
r = annual growth rate
n = calculated period in years
Assuming a traffic growth rate of 8.0% and a design period of 20 years specified in the
Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual (PMDM) 1999, the cumulative number of
equivalent standard axles is determined as:
E80 = 365 2853 ((1 + 0.08)20 1)
0.08
= 47,649,304.70
= 48 million.
4.11.3 Traffic Load Classification
The cumulative number of standard axle was found to be 48 million, and therefore, according to
PMDM (1999), the design traffic load is classified as Traffic Load Class 50-Heavy (TLC 50H).
Assuming presence of more than 50% of axles loaded over 13 tones. It may be noted, from Table
4.3 that the proportion of very heavy vehicles in the surveys is 1999, which is equivalent to 70%
of the total heavy vehicle.

47

4.12 Proposed Remedial Measures

Based on the findings from the calculations made and the extent of defects occurring along the
road section, I could propose the following measures in order to enable the institution
responsible to make a choice based on the available resources. The following measures can be
taken as I have evaluated.
1. The prevailing distresses along the road section were mainly permanent deformation
(rutting and shoving) and cracks. The cheapest short term measure, which has also been
the practice in the previous overlays, would consist of the following: Milling of the deformed/distressed existing bituminous surfacing down below the
bottom of channels formed in the wheel paths, or filling the ruts by regulating asphalt
layer, followed by a uniform layer of overlay, but this is strictly not recommended
because of the technical difficulties of compacting the asphalt in the ruts. The roller
will simply bridge over crests of the ruts, leaving the layer partially compacted and

the ruts quickly recur since the filled portions would still be along the wheel parts.
Provide a new 50mm rut resistant asphalt wearing course, preferably a Stone Mastic

Asphalt (SMA)
2. The existing asphalt layer is made of multi layers of old binder course, old wearing
course and one or more overlays making a total thickness of up to 250mm. however, due
to the fact that the asphalt layers have been seriously distressed in terms of rutting and
cracking, and that the road base is currently in fair good condition, considerable long
term cost saving would be realized if the asphalt layer is removed by milling and replaced
before structural damages occur in the lower layers. The proposed medium term measure
therefore would consist of the following activities
Removing the existing asphalt layers by milling.
Providing a new 175mm bituminous base course or 150mm bituminous treated

base (BTB) as a minimum.

Constructing a new 50mm asphalt wearing course made of a high resistant mix,
preferably Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA).

Design check is as follows

SNrequired for TLC 50 (PMDM, 1999) for the following pavement structure
Surfacing = 50mm AC; Base course = 200 DBM-40; and Subbase = 250mm CM
48

= (0.450+0.32000.11250)/25.4 = 4.23
SNexisting (excluding the asphalt layer which will be removed)
= (0.14200+0.1150)/25.4 = 1.69
SNdiff = 4.23 1.69 = 2.54
Try: 50mm asphalt wearing course + 175mm DBM-40 base course
SN = (0.450+0.3175)/25.4 = 2.85 (>2.54,OK)
3. This option involves removal of the existing asphalt layer and reprocesses the remaining
layers to subbase in the new pavement. The construction procedure will be as follows: Removal of the existing asphalt layers.
Removal and stockpiling the existing granular base course layer for re-use.
Removal and stockpiling the existing natural gravel subbase layer for re-use.
Mix properly the stockpiling granular and natural gravel materials and treat with
cement to form lower and upper cement treated subbase C1 constituent in two

layers of 125mm thickness each.

Construct a new layer of 175mm thickness of granular material (CRR) to absorb

foreseeable shrinkage cracks in the C1 layer.

Construct 200mm DBM-40 bituminous base course, OR 150mm bitumen treated
base (BTB), OR 150mm asphalt concrete using modified bitumen, OR high
modulus asphalt (HiMA) using 15/25 pen grade bitumen (conforming to EN

13924) and EVA modifier.

Construct 50mm rut resistant Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) wearing course.
A summary is presented here below:-

Wearing course: 50mm SMA (with modified 60/70 binder)

Base course: 200mm DBM-40 or 150 BTB; or 150mm using modified bitumen or
150mm HiMA
Granular layer: 175mm CRR
Subbase: 125mm C1 + 125mm C1

49

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusions
From the analysis of this study on The assessment on the effects of truck overloading on
flexible pavement it can be concluded that:
The average daily traffic (ADT) of heavy vehicles for Kibaha to Chalinze and Chalinze to
Kibaha are 1172 and 1116 vehicles/day, respectively. It means that the ADT for Kibaha to
Chalinze is more than the opposite direction.
The average of vehicle damage factor VDF for Kibaha to Chalinze is greater than the other. It
means that the heavy vehicles on this direction i.e., Kibaha to Chalinze bring heavier goods than
that of opposite direction.
From the comparison of service life loss between both directions, it is very clear that the
pavement layers of Kibaha to Chalinze direction needs more overlay thickness than that of
opposite direction.
The existing road suffers from an array of serious damages mainly in the form of rutting,
cracking and waves, covering about 85% of the road length.
The old asphalt layer suffers from among other distresses, fatigue cracking due to binder ageing
(brightness) and increased traffic loading over the past 20 years or so.
The constructed overlays suffers premature failures (rutting, shoving and reflection cracking) due
to mainly use of inappropriate mix designs that do not take into account the effect of secondary
compaction by traffic in service (too low air voids, too low voids in the mineral aggregate and
inadequate quality control). It may be noted that some overlaid sections developed ruts.
Traffic loading had significantly increased over the past few years mainly due to the closure of
the railways. Introducing of super single tyres, coupled with traffic loading proliferation appears
to exacerbate deteriorations of pavements across the country.

50

Different options of remedial measures have been proposed varying from strengthening (overlay)
to partial reconstruction depending on the extent, type of the prevailing defects and available
resources.
5.2 Recommendations
From the conclusions mentioned above, there is a given suggestion to be considered or perhaps
to be followed by some improvements, namely they are:It need a good coordination by the Ministry of Infrastructure in collaboration with Tanzania Road
Agency regarding the data archiving project, both designing and implementation, so that if one
day data needed, can be reused in the best way.
To prevent early damage of pavement structure, some efforts are needed to be conducted, such as
anticipation occurring of early damage on pavement structure caused by overloading truck,
especially single axle truck, is needed.
Strict on quality control during construction period to insure that all specifications are met the
requirement is required and is very important.
Strict control on overloading truck by controlling limited truck load is required. Regulation to
call for using multi-axle truck instead of single-axle truck is needed to be considered
It is necessary to evaluate the condition of the designing with reality at the beginning of the
design life.
The use of primary data, instead of secondary data, in calculation is more recommended.
The options given in this report should take into consideration the road geometric design, i.e.,
finished road levels, width, side drainage structure etc.
It is strongly recommended that the remedial measures proposed in this report be implemented as
soon as possible to salvage this investment and avoid further deterioration that could led to more
expensive interventions of reconstructing the whole road pavement.
Strictly measures to be taken to the overloaded vehicles, not only to impose fees to them but also
to unload the cargo before proceeding with the journey.

51

REFERENCES
221, C. R. (2014). Investigation of Pavement Failures along Mlandizi Chalinze Road (44KM).
Kibaha Pwani: Central Material Laboratory (Kibaha TANROADS Office).
AASHTO. (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Washington, D.C: AASHTO (1993.
Al-Omari, B. a. (1994). Relationship between International Roughness Index and Present
Serviceability Rating. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Record
1435,Transportation Research Board.
Al-Omari, B. a. (1994). Relationships between International Roughness Index and Present
Serviceability Rating. Washington, D.C. : Transportation Research Record 1435,
Transportation, Research Board.
Chen, H. D. (2002). Mid-Panel Cracking of Portland Cement Concrete Pavements in Indiana.
Indiana: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2001/14.
Davids, W. (2000). Foundation Modeling for Jointed Concrete Pavement. Washington D.C:
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
De Beer M. (1998). Development of the Vehicle - Road Surface Pressure Transducer Array Mark
III Stress - In - Motion (SIM) system. Pretoria, South Africa.: CR-98/047. CSIR,
Transportek,.
De Beer M., K. L. (1999). Towards improved mechanistic design in thin asphalt layer surfacings
based on actual tyre/pavement contact Stress-In-Motion (SIM) data in South Africa.
Johhannersburg: Transportek.
Gillespie, T. K. (1993). Effect of Heavy Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and
Performance. Washington D.C 150: National Cooperative Highway Research ,
Transportation Research Board.
Hall, K. a. (1999). Estimation of Present Serviceability Index from International Roughness
Index. Washington, D.C. : Transportation Research Record 1655, Transportation
Research Board,.
Holman, F. (1990). Guidelines for Flexible Pavement Design in Alabama. Alabama: Alabama
Department of Transportation.
Indra Surya B.M. (1999). Second Symposium of Forum Study for Pavement and Transportation
(FSTPT). Bandung: Suyer Publishers.
Kothari, C. (2004). Research Methodology; Methods and Techniques (Second Revised Edition).
New Delhi ISBN (13): New Age International (P) LTD, Daryagani.

52

Lerise, F. (1996). Planning at the Edge of the River; Land and Water Use Management in
Chekereni Moshi District, Tanzania. Royal Danish Academy, Copenhagen: Unpublished .
NCHRP. (2004). Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement
Structures. Washington D.C.: Final Report for Project 1-37A, Part 1, 2 & 3, Chapter 4.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council.
Rahim. (2000). Analysis of Road Damage Due to Overloading on the Causeway in Eastern
Sumatra. Gajahmada University (UGM), Yogyakarta: Riau Province. Thesis S2, Master
System and Transportation Engineering.
Sayers, M. a. (1998). The Little Book of Profilijng: Basic Information About Measuring and
Interpreting Road Profiles. Michigan States: University of Michigan.
W.R, H. (2003). Use Performance Management System Data for Monitoring Performance:
Example with Superpave. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Record.
Work, M. o. (1999). Pavement and Materials Design Manual. Dar es Salaam: The United
Republic of Tanzania.
Work, M. o. (1999). Pavement and Materials Design Manual. Dar es Salaam: Allcopy AS Oslo.
Works, T. M. (2000). Standard Specifications for Roads Works. Dar es Salaam: The United
Republic of Tanzania.
Works, T. M. (2000). tandard Specifications for Road Works. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: TMP The
United Republic of Tanzania.
Zaghloul, S. a. (1994). Guidelines for Permitting Overloads Part 1: Effect of Overloaded
Vehicles on the Indiana Highway Network. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
USA.: FHWA/IN/JHRP-93-5.

53

APPENDICES

54

Asphalt Concrete Overlays Schedule (Maintenance Activities) Source (TANDOADS KIBAHACML, 2014)
Kibaha-Chalinze Road Section (approx 95 km)
Road condition on the overlaid section along Kibaha-Mlandizi-Chalinze Road Section
S/N

CHAINAGE
(KM)

1.0

14+98515+985

2.0

CONTRACTOR

FY

CURRENT ROAD
CONDITION

ESTIM Construction
company

2005/2006

ruts, cracks, patches

Vigwaza petrol
station

35+60036+600

ESTIM Construction
company

2005/2006

Developed plastic
failure (severe rut)

Pingo area before

Pingo primary sch

3.0

6+700- 7+300

ESTIM Construction
company

2006/2007

ruts, cracks

4.0

8+8009+772

ESTIM Construction
company

2006/2007

ruts, cracks, patches

5.0

7+3008+800

ESTIM Construction
company

2007/2008

ruts, cracks, patches

6.0

9+72211+550

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2008/2009

ruts, cracks, milling

7.0

36+75039+170

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2008/2009

ruts, cracks, patches,

potholes

8.0

11+55014+985

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2009/2010

ruts, cracks, patches,

potholes

Vigwaza village
towards Ruvu runch

9.0

0+9003+400

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2010/2011

Developed
plastic
failure (severe rut)

Mlandizi police to JKT

Social hall

10.0

41+30043+300

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2011/2012

Ruts, cracks, except

near road humps very
new overlay (july)

Chalinze
kwa
Mwarabu area

11.0

16+02518+025

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2013/2014

OK

12.0

6+1006+850

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2013/2014

OK

13.0

14+00014+250

Hari Signs and Sons

Ltd

2013/2014

OK near road
hump

REMARKS

Ruvu overhead Bridge

Opposite Camel
filling station
Vigwaza area
Ruvu Rutch
kilimani
Pingo area after Pingo
primary school

Vigwaza weigh bridge

area
Ruvu Bridge area
Vigwaza road hump
approach

The chainages are measured from Mlandizi Jct to Bagamoyo and Maneromango

55

Axle Load Equivalency Factors for Flexible Pavements, Tandem Axles and p t of 2.0
Axle Load
Pavement Structural Number (SN)
(kips)
1
2
3
4
5

2
4

.0000
.0003

.0000
.0003

.0000
.0003

.0000
.0002

.0000
.0002

.0000
.0002

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30

.003
.007
.013
.024
.041
.066
.103
.156
.227
.322
.447
.607

.003
.008
.016
.029
.048
.077
.117
.171
.224
.340
.465
.623

.003
.008
.016
.029
.050
.081
.124
.183
.260
.360
.487
.646

.003
.007
.014
.026
.046
.075
.117
.174
.252
.353
.481
.643

.003
.006
.013
.024
.042
.069
.109
.164
.239
.338
.466
.627

.002
.006
.012
.023
.040
.066
.105
.158
.231
.329
.455
.617

32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86

.810
1.06
1.38
1.76
2.22
2.77
3.42
4.20
5.10
6.15
7.37
8.77
10.4
12.2
14.3
16.6
19.3
22.2
25.5
29.2
33.3
37.8
42.8
48.4
54.4
61.1
68.4
76.3

.823
1.07
1.38
1.75
2.19
2.73
3.36
4.11
4.98
5.99
7.16
8.51
10.1
11.8
13.8
16.0
18.6
21.4
24.6
28.1
32.0
36.4
41.2
46.5
52.3
58.7
65.7
73.3

.843
1.08
1.38
1.73
2.15
2.64
3.23
3.92
4.72
5.64
6.71
7.93
930
10.9
12.7
14.7
17.0
19.6
22.4
25.6
29.1
33.0
37.3
42.0
47.2
52.9
59.2
66.0

.842
1.08
1.38
1.72
2.13
2.62
3.18
3.83
4.58
5.44
6.43
7.55
8.80
10.3
11.9
13.7
15.8
18.0
20.6
23.4
26.5
30.0
33.8
38.0
42.5
47.6
53.0
59.0

.829
1.08
1.38
1.73
2.16
2.66
3.24
3.91
4.68
5.56
6.56
7.69
9.00
10.4
12.0
13.8
15.8
18.0
20.5
23.2
26.2
29.4
33.1
37.0
41.3
46.0
51.2
56.8

.819
1.07
1.38
1.74
2.18
2.70
3.31
4.02
4.83
5.77
6.83
8.03
9.40
10.9
12.6
14.5
16.6
18.9
21.5
24.3
27.4
30.8
34.5
38.6
43.0
47.8
53.0
58.6

56

Axle Load Equivalency Factors for Flexible Pavements, Triple Axles and p t of 2.0
Axle Load
Pavement Structural Number (SN)
(kips)
1
2
3
4
5
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90

.0000
.0001
.0004
.0009
.002
.004
.006
.010
.016
.024
.034
.049
.068
.093
.125
.164
.213
.273
.346
.434
.538
.662
.807
.976
1.17
1.40
1.66
1.95
2.29
2.67
3.10
3.59
4.13
4.73
5.40
6.15
6.97
7.88
8.88
9.98
11.2
12.5
13.9
15.5
17.2

.0000
.0001
.0004
.0010
.002
.004
.007
.012
.019
.029
.042
.058
.080
.107
.140
.182
.233
.294
.368
.456
.560
.682
.825
.992
1.18
1.40
1.66
1.95
2.27
2.64
3.06
3.53
4.05
4.63
5.28
6.00
6.79
7.67
8.63
9.69
10.8
12.1
13.5
15.0
16.6

.0000
.0001
.0003
.0009
.002
.004
.007
.012
.019
.029
.042
.060
.083
.113
.149
.194
.248
.313
.390
.481
.587
.710
.852
1.015
1.20
1.42
1.66
1.93
2.24
2.59
2.98
3.41
3.89
4.43
5.03
5.68
6.41
7.21
8.09
9.05
10.1
11.2
12.5
13.8
15.3
57

.0000
.0001
.0003
.0008
.002
.003
.006
.010
.017
.026
.038
.055
.077
.105
.140
.184
.238
.303
.381
.473
.580
.705
.849
1.014
1.20
1.42
1.66
1.93
2.23
2.57
2.95
3.37
3.83
4.34
4.90
5.52
6.20
6.94
7.75
8.63
9.60
10.6
11.8
13.0
14.3

.0000
.0001
.0003
.0007
.002
.003
.006
.009
.015
.024
.035
.051
.071
.098
.131
.173
.225
.288
.364
.454
.561
.686
.831
.999
1.19
1.41
1.66
1.94
2.24
2.60
2.99
3.42
3.90
4.42
5.00
5.63
6.33
7.08
7.90
8.79
9.80
10.8
11.9
13.2
14.5

6
.0000
.0001
.0003
.0007
.001
.003
.005
.009
.015
.023
.034
.048
.068
.094
.126
.167
.217
.279
.353
.443
.548
.673
.818
.987
1.18
1.40
1.66
1.94
2.27
2.63
3.04
3.49
3.99
4.54
5.15
5.82
6.56
7.36
8.23
9.18
10.2
11.3
12.5
13.8
15.2

AXLE LOADS OF HEAVY VEHICLES