Preliminary Methodology For Estimating Cost

AP-R402-12
AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT

Preliminary Methodology for Estimating
Cost Implications of Incremental Loads
on Road Pavements

Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost
Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements

Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads
on Road Pavements

Published March 2012

Austroads Ltd 2012

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.

Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads
on Road Pavements

ISBN 978-1-921991-20-2

Austroads Project No. AT1394

Austroads Publication No. APR402-12

Project Manager
Matthew Clarke, National Transport Commission

Prepared by
Thorolf Thoreson, Dr Tim Martin, Dr Rayya Hassain, Dr Matt Byrne,
Will Hore-Lacy and Geoff J ameson
ARRB Group

Published by Austroads Ltd
Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au

Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.

Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost
Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements

Sydney 2012

About Austroads
Austroads purpose is to:
promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport
issues
promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
promote consistency in road and road agency operations.

Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local
Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting
of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
member organisations:
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Lands and Planning Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.

The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector.

Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements

Aust r oads 2012
i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Pavement Life-cycle Maintenance Activities .......................................................................... 2
1.3 Effects of Increasing Traffic Loading on Pavement Maintenance Costs ................................. 3
1.4 Marginal Costs of Road Damage ........................................................................................... 4
2 APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING LOAD-WEAR-COST
RELATIONSHIPS .................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Approach for Developing LWC Relationships......................................................................... 6
2.2 Assumptions for Determining the Components of Road Wear Cost ....................................... 9
3 LIFE-CYCLE COSTING ANALYSIS TOOL ......................................................................... 12
3.1 FAMLIT Modelling Framework ............................................................................................. 12
3.2 Calibration of FAMLIT Models .............................................................................................. 13
4 ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS .......................................................................................... 14
4.1 Network Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Loading Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Traffic Loading for Flexible Pavements .................................................................. 20
4.2.2 Traffic Loading for Concrete Pavements ................................................................ 21
4.3 FAMLIT Analysis Parameters .............................................................................................. 21
5 LOAD-WEAR-COST (LWC) RELATIONSHIPS FOR ALL PAVEMENT TYPES ................. 22
5.1 Determining LWC Relationships for the Pavement Types .................................................... 22
5.2 Developing SRMC Relationships (Phase 1) ......................................................................... 22
5.3 Developing LWC Relationships with Axle Group Loads (Phase 2) ....................................... 36
5.3.1 Influence of Deterioration Models on EAUC Estimates ........................................... 36
5.3.2 Influence of Different Axle Groups on EAUC Estimates .......................................... 38
5.3.3 Variations in EAUC and Axle Load Relationships by Pavement Type .................... 40
5.3.4 Variations in EAUC by Road Hierarchy .................................................................. 41
5.4 Developing LWC Relationships with SARs (Phase 2) .......................................................... 41
5.4.1 EAUC and SAR Relationships for Alternative Pavement Deterioration Models....... 42
5.4.2 EAUC and SAR Relationships for Different Axle Groups ........................................ 44
5.4.3 Variations in EAUC and SAR Relationships by Road Type .................................... 45
5.5 Developing Marginal Cost Relationships (Phase 2) ............................................................. 47
5.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 47
5.5.2 Marginal Cost Estimates ........................................................................................ 47
6 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE INPUTS TO THE FAMLIT
ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 77
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 77
6.2 Parametric Factorial ............................................................................................................. 77
6.3 Parametric Study Outputs .................................................................................................... 78
6.4 Summary of Sensitivity Testing ............................................................................................ 81

7 INFLUENCE OF TYRE TYPE WIDTH AND OTHER EFFECTS ON LWC ........................... 82
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 82

Aust r oads 2012
ii
7.2 Current State of Practice ...................................................................................................... 82
7.3 Predicted Influence on LWC ................................................................................................ 82
8 DISCUSSION OF LWC AND SRMC RELATIONSHIPS (PHASE 1) ................................... 83
8.1 The LWC Relationships ....................................................................................................... 83
8.2 The MC Relationships .......................................................................................................... 83
8.2.1 MC Using Average c/SAR-km of Axle Groups on Each Road Type ........................ 83
8.2.2 MC Using c/tonne-km for Each Axle Group ............................................................ 85
8.3 Factors Influencing the MC Estimates .................................................................................. 87
9 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 88
9.1 Phase 1 Summary ............................................................................................................ 88
9.1.1 MC Estimation ........................................................................................................ 88
9.1.2 MC Estimation Outcomes ....................................................................................... 88
9.2 Phase 2 Summary ............................................................................................................ 89
9.2.1 Parametric Study of Factors Impacting on Estimation of MC .................................. 89
9.2.2 LWC Relationships General ................................................................................ 90
9.2.3 LWC Relationships of Three Additional Axle Groups .............................................. 90
9.2.4 Impact of Deterioration Modelling on LWC Relationships ....................................... 90
9.2.5 Marginal Costs of Road Wear Estimation ............................................................... 91
9.3 Future Work ......................................................................................................................... 92
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 94
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE CATEGORIES ............................................................... 99
APPENDIX B DETERMINING EQUIVALENT ANNUAL UNIFORM COSTS ................ 102
APPENDIX C APPROACHES TO DETERMINE LOAD-WEAR MODELS.................... 104
APPENDIX D TOOLS FOR PAVEMENT LIFE-CYCLE COSTING ANALYSIS ............ 106
APPENDIX E CALIBRATION OF FAMLIT STRUCTURAL MODEL ............................ 109
APPENDIX F CALIBRATION OF FAMLIT ROUGHNESS MODELS ........................... 115
APPENDIX G PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................. 126
APPENDIX H DEVELOPMENT OF NETWORK AND LOADING SCENARIOS ........... 140
APPENDIX I HEAVY VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS AND PAVEMENT WEAR ....... 147
APPENDIX J IMPACTS OF DYNAMIC WHEEL LOADING ......................................... 160
APPENDIX K FAMLIT MODELLING PARAMETERS .................................................. 166
APPENDIX L FAMLIT OUTPUT ................................................................................... 168
APPENDIX M RESULTS FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENTS .......................................... 178
APPENDIX N PARAMETRIC STUDY OUTPUTS FROM FAMLIT................................ 179
APPENDIX O EXTENDED INVESTIGATION OF LWC RELATIONSHIPS (PHASE
2) ............................................................................................................ 195


Aust r oads 2012
iii
TABLES
Table 1.1: Cost categories and rules ......................................................................................... 5
Table 4.1: TMI climate classification ....................................................................................... 15
Table 4.2: Details of TMI values and dummy variable used for modelling ............................... 15
Table 4.3: Axle group loading combinations used in the analysis ............................................ 19
Table 5.1: EAUC relationships with axle mass and values of the different pavement
and road type and axle groups for all loading scenarios (Phase 1) ......................... 24
Table 5.2: SRMC relationships with axle mass and SAR values of the different
pavement and road types and axle groups for all loading scenarios
(Phase 1) ............................................................................................................... 27
Table 5.3: SRMC estimates per axle group pass for axle load increments on each
road type (Phase 1) ................................................................................................ 29
Table 5.4: EAUC relationships with axle mass and SAR values for axle groups
(strength/roughness models Phase 2) ................................................................. 52
Table 5.5: EAUC relationships with axle mass and SAR values for axle groups
(rutting/roughness model Phase 2 ....................................................................... 61
Table 5.6: Estimated marginal costs for SAST axle groups (Phase 2) .................................... 69
Table 5.7: Estimated marginal costs for SADT axle groups (Phase 2) .................................... 70
Table 5.8: Estimated marginal costs for TADT axle groups (Phase 2) .................................... 71
Table 5.9: Estimated marginal costs for TRDT axle groups (Phase 2) .................................... 73
Table 5.10: Estimated marginal costs for QADT axle groups (Phase 2) .................................... 75
Table 6.1: Parametric test factorial factors modified and range of modification ....................... 77
Table 6.2: Summary of sensitivity testing for SRMC ................................................................ 81

FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Impact of increasing axle load on rehabilitation intervention timing........................... 4
Figure 4.1: Initial network matrix Development of the Pavement Network ................................ 16
Figure 5.1: $EAUC/lane-km vs. SAR-km for rural arterials (GN) for TMI =50 .......................... 33
Figure 5.2: $EAUC/lane-km vs. SAR-km for urban arterials (AC) for TMI =80 ......................... 33
Figure 5.3: $EAUC/lane-km vs. SAR-km for urban freeways (CS) for TMI =80 ....................... 33
Figure 5.4: $EAUC/lane-km vs. axle group load (tonne-km) for rural arterials (GN)
for TMI =50............................................................................................................ 34
Figure 5.5: $EAUC/lane-km vs. axle group load (tonne-km) for urban arterials (AC)
for TMI =80............................................................................................................ 34
Figure 5.6: $EAUC/lane-km vs. axle group load (tonne-km) for urban freeways (CS)
for TMI =80............................................................................................................ 34
Figure 5.7: SRMC (c/tonne-km per axle group pass) vs. axle group load for rural
arterials (GN) for TMI =50 ..................................................................................... 35
Figure 5.8: SRMC (c/tonne-km per axle group pass) vs. axle group load for urban
arterials (AC) for TMI =80 ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 5.9: SRMC (c/tonne-km per axle group pass) vs. axle group load for urban
freeways (CS) for TMI =80 .................................................................................... 35
Figure 5.10: Comparison of EAUC vs. axle group load for two pavement deterioration
models (GN AC and CS pavements mid range TMI values TADT axle
groups) ................................................................................................................... 37

Aust r oads 2012
iv
Figure 5.11: Comparison of EAUC vs. axle group load for all axle groups (rural
arterial roads strength/roughness and rutting/roughness deterioration
models) .................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 5.12: EAUC vs. axle group loads variations for pavement types on arterial
roads mid range TMI values ................................................................................... 40
Figure 5.13: Variation in EAUC vs. axle group load by road hierarchy (SADT axle
groups on GN pavements) ..................................................................................... 41
Figure 5.14: EAUC vs. SARs comparison of pavement deterioration model outcomes
for GN AC and CS pavements mid range TMI values TADT axle groups ............... 43
Figure 5.15: EAUC vs. SARs for different axle groups (urban arterial GN
strength/roughness deterioration model) ................................................................ 44
Figure 5.16: EAUC vs. SAR for different axle groups (urban arterial GN pavement
rutting/roughness deterioration model) ................................................................... 44
Figure 5.17: EAUC vs. SAR relationships for rural GN pavements
(strength/roughness model TADT axle group) ........................................................ 45
Figure 5.18: EAUC vs. SAR relationships for rural GN pavements (rutting/roughness
model TADT axle group) ........................................................................................ 46
Figure 5.19: Variation between alternative marginal road wear cost estimates (rural
GN road categories mid range TMI values TADT axle group) ................................ 48
Figure 5.20: Variation of marginal road wear cost with load by axle group (rural GN
road categories mid range TMI values) .................................................................. 49
Figure 5.21: Variation in marginal road wear costs by pavement type and axle group
(GN AC and CS pavements rural arterial roads mid range TMI value) ................... 50
Figure 5.22: Marginal road wear costs per SAR km estimates for rutting/roughness
and strength/roughness models (all axle groups combined) ................................... 51
Figure 6.1: Effect of varying pavement and traffic characteristics on $EAUC/lane-km
for TRDT axle group load on in-service rural arterial GN pavements (TMI
=0) ........................................................................................................................ 79
Figure 6.2: Effect of varying pavement and traffic characteristics on variation in
EAUC/lane-km for SADT axle group on in-service urban freeway CS
pavement (TMI value =20) .................................................................................... 80
Figure 8.1: MC estimates using average c/SAR-km for road types ........................................... 85
Figure 8.2: SRMC vs. axle group load for TADT group ............................................................ 86
Figure 8.3: SRMC vs. axle group load for TRDT group ............................................................ 86


Aust r oads 2012
v
SUMMARY
Background
Improvements to road freight productivity have arisen mainly by increasing freight vehicle
payloads. The higher axle group loads associated with increased payloads can, in some cases,
significantly increase the marginal cost of road wear. Plans to permit operation of larger heavier
freight vehicles make this an important issue. Through the use of a well informed pricing system,
based on the estimated marginal road wear cost, road freight operators should improve their freight
productivity while road agencies would be appropriately compensated for the road wear costs.
Prices, costs and revenues based on marginal road wear costs would also provide signals for
effective management of their road networks in regard to the availability of targeted funds for
maintaining road freight routes.
Scope of Study
This report documents the following work undertaken by ARRB:
The development of a preliminary set of load-wear-cost (LWC) relationships as a basis for
estimating the short-run marginal road wear cost (SRMC) and long-run marginal road wear
cost (LRMC) for the main road types comprising Australias sealed road network.
The LWC relationships were based on a pavement life-cycle costing analysis of each sealed
road type using the Freight Axe Mass Limits Investigation Tool (FAMLIT) for three main
pavement types (sealed unbound granular, GN, asphalt, AC, and cement stabilised, CS)
considering six typical axle groups (single axle single tyres, SAST, single axle dual tyres,
SADT, tandem axle single tyre, TAST, tandem axle dual tyre, TADT, triaxle dual tyres, TRDT,
and quad axle dual tyres, QADT) loaded in 0.25 tonne load increments from the axle group
tare weight up to well beyond the general mass limits (GML).
The SRMC was defined as the cost of maintaining a road within defined roughness limits
without strengthening the pavement beyond its initial design strength, while the LRMC was
defined as the cost of maintaining a road within defined roughness limits allowing pavement
strengthening beyond its initial design strength to occur during its life-cycle.
A sensitivity analysis of the estimates of SRMC due to changes in pavement strength,
pavement deterioration, axle loads and assumptions regarding vehicle kilometres travelled
(VKT).
Incorporate two types of pavement deterioration model into FAMLIT; (i) using a
strength/roughness deterioration (SRD) model combination, and (ii) using a
rutting/roughness deterioration (RRD) model combination, to test their impact on the
estimation of SRMC and LRMC.
Outcomes
LWC relationships
The LWC relationships resulting from a 50 year pavement life-cycle analysis were developed for
each road and pavement type and the six axle groups expressed in terms of equivalent annual
uniform costs (EAUC) of maintenance and rehabilitation works versus axle group load (tonne-km)
and also expressed in terms of EAUC versus standard axle repetitions (SAR-km).

Aust r oads 2012
vi
Sensitivity analysis
Of the inputs to the sensitivity study, reductions and increases in pavement strength had the
greatest impact on the estimated SRMC of road wear because it had the most influence on the rate
of pavement deterioration. The next most sensitive input was the level of traffic, while the least
sensitive input was the calibrated rate of pavement deterioration.
SRMC and LRMC estimates using RRD and SRD models
Generally the SRMC and LRMC estimates for all the road and pavement types were much higher
using the RRD models than those estimated using the SRD models. This is because the RRD
models reflect an increase in maintenance expenditure with increased axle load.
SRMC and LRMC estimates
The variations in marginal road wear costs by road and pavement type were better expressed by
the LWC relationships based on the EAUC versus SAR-km rather than the EAUC versus axle
group load tonne-km. This is because the different axle group loads on each road type are
transformed into the SAR variable by means of their conversion to equivalent standard axle loads.
Generally the estimates of SRMC and LRMC were similar because the original definition of SRMC
could not be applied because a practical minimum thickness of overlay/resheet rehabilitation works
was needed to achieve a satisfactory reset value of roughness. The unintended result of applying
a minimum overlay/resheet thickness was an increase in pavement strength beyond its initial
design value.
Generally the estimates of LRMC increase as the traffic on the road type decreases. This reflects
the fact that road types with high levels of traffic are built to withstand and endure higher loads
better than the road types with lower levels of traffic. Figure 1 shows this variation across the
various road and pavement types.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rural Freeway GN
Rural Arterial GN (N)
Rural Arterial GN (S)
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Arterial GN
Urban Collector GN
Urban Access GN
Rural Arterial AC (N)
Rural Arterial AC (S)
Urban Freeway AC
Urban Arterial AC (N)
Urban Arterial AC (S)
Urban Collector AC
Rural Arterial CS
Urban Freeway CS
Urban Arterial CS
cents/SAR km
Rutting/roughness model
Strength model

Figure 1: LRMC per SAR kmestimates for rutting/roughness and strength/roughness models (all axle groups combined)

Aust r oads 2012
vii
Phase 2 did not complete the process of estimating incremental or marginal pavement load wear
cost relationships in terms of pavement categories, maintenance and rehabilitation options, and the
development of clearly distinguishable short run and long run cost estimation procedures. These
issues will be addressed in Phase 3 of the project.
The Phase 2 report describes a collection of procedures which constituted the multi stage process
through which the project evolved. The resulting model should be regarded as a beta prototype
and as such is currently unsuited for second or third party use without finalisation and integration,
documentation, verification, and an accompanying description of capabilities and limitations. Cross
platform comparison with alternative estimation methods and models is also warranted.

Aust r oads 2012
viii
TECHNICAL SUMMARY
Scope of Study
This report documents the following work and outcomes of Phases 1 and 2 of the project.
Phase 1
The data models and assumptions used in developing pavement load-wear-cost (LWC)
relationships based on a consistent national level life-cycle costing transparent approach with
the Freight Axle Mass Limits Investigation Tool (FAMLIT) are presented which were then
used in estimating the road wear cost of incremental load increases on road pavements
based on available knowledge existing tools models and processes.
A preliminary set of LWC relationships is presented as a basis for estimating the short-run
marginal road wear cost (SRMC) for representative samples of Australias sealed road types
(sealed unbound granular, GN, asphalt, AC, and cement stabilised, CS) and three typical
axle groups (single axle with dual tyres, SADT, tandem axle with dual tyres, TADT, and
triaxle with dual tyres, TRDT) for axle group loads ranging from their General Mass Limits
(GML) to well above GML. The SRMC is defined here as the marginal cost of road wear with
increasing axle load without increasing pavement strength above the initial design value.
Phase 2
A sensitivity analysis of the above estimates of SRMC to changes in pavement strength
pavement deterioration network axle loads and the assumptions regarding vehicle kilometres
travelled (VKT) is presented.
Develop marginal road wear cost estimates using a FAMLIT model refined to account for
increases in surface treatments and routine maintenance costs with increased axle loads the
physical limits to distress that limit road wear and the influence of tyre type width and size for
typical axle groups with loads ranging from tare weight to loads well in excess of the existing
GML.
Incorporate recently developed pavement deterioration models into the above refined
FAMLIT model to develop marginal road wear cost estimates for comparison with the
estimates of marginal road wear cost from Phase 1.
Develop a basis for estimating the long-run marginal road wear cost (LRMC) defined here as
the marginal cost of road wear with increasing axle load allowing increases in pavement
strength above the original design value. The estimates of LRMC were based on using the
refined FAMLIT model for three additional axle groups; the single axle with single tyres,
SAST, the tandem axle with single tyres, TAST, and the quad axle with dual tyres, QADT, as
well as those used in Phase 1 with loads ranging from tare weight to in excess of GML.
Outcomes
Phase 1 Summary
SRMC estimation
SRMC estimates were developed from the first derivative of the LWC relationships based on
estimates of equivalent annual uniform road wear cost (EAUC) versus single axle repetitions
kilometres (SAR-km) and estimates of EAUC versus tonne-km using regression analyses which
varied depending on which LWC relationship was used. While climate affected the LWC with

Aust r oads 2012
ix
wetter climates causing increased EAUC climate was not used in the estimation of SRMC because
its impact did not increase the total EAUC with increased axle loads.
Generally the lowest SRMC was found for highly trafficked urban freeways and arterial roads while
the highest SRMC was found for the lightly trafficked rural access and collector roads. The
estimated SRMC was lower where the pavement was designed for high heavy vehicles traffic and
increased traffic load resulted in relatively low road wear because of the high strength pavements.
This is in contrast to lower trafficked roads where the estimated SRMC was high as the pavements
were designed for low heavy vehicle traffic and increased traffic load resulted in relatively high road
wear because of the lower strength pavements.
For all road types the TRDT axle group was found to consistently have the lowest SRMC while the
TADT and SADT axle groups consistently had higher estimates of SRMC. The SRMC estimates
also are generally higher for the CS type pavements relative to GN and AC pavements mainly due
to the impact of the higher damage exponent of CS pavements.
It is important to note that these estimates of SRMC are highly dependent upon the assumptions
input parameters and models used by this study. Other issues ignored by this study such as the
dynamic loading of pavements and the influence of heavy vehicle suspension type are also
expected to have influence at least at a project level on the estimated SRMC.
SRMC estimation outcomes
The SRMC in terms of c/tonne-km for the various axle groups based on the EAUC versus
tonne-km LWC relationship could provide a useful basis for setting the pricing of incremental load
increases on axle groups because it is transparent in cost terms and it can be applied directly to
the various axle groups in the traffic stream. On the other hand, the SRMC, in terms of c/SAR-km
for each of the sealed road types, based on the EAUC versus SAR-km LWC relationship is useful
for assessing the costs of incremental load increases across the various sealed road types.
Figure 2 summarises the SRMC estimates based on SAR-km for Phase 1.

Aust r oads 2012
x
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(% of network)
Rural Freeway GN (4.5%)
Rural Arterial GN (24.0%)
Urban Freeway CS (0.05%)
Urban Arterial CS (0.6%)
Rural Arterial CS (0.6%)
Rural Arterial GN (N) (0.8%)
Rural Collector GN (1.0%)
Rural Access GN (36.0%)
Rural Arterial AC (N) (0.05%)
Urban Freeway AC (0.2%)
Urban Arterial AC (N) (0.1%)
Urban Collector AC (6.5%)
Rural Arterial AC (S) (0.75%)
Urban Arterial AC (S) (3.5%)
Urban Arterial GN (1.35%)
Urban Collector GN (4.0%)
Urban Access GN (16.0%)
R
o
a
d

T
y
p
e
c/SAR-km
average c/SAR-km

Figure 2: SRMC estimates using average c/SAR-kmfor road types and combined axle groups
Phase 2 Summary
Parametric study of factors impacting on estimation of SRMC
A parametric study was undertaken to quantify the impact on the estimation of SRMC based on the
LWC relationships of Phase 1 of varying the following non-axle mass input variables to FAMLIT:
traffic levels; rates of pavement deterioration; and pavement strength used to represent the road
network.
The parametric study showed that of these inputs reductions and increases in pavement strength
had the greatest impact on the estimated SRMC of road wear because it has the most influence on
the rate of pavement deterioration. The next most sensitive parameter was the level of traffic while
the least sensitive parameter in this context was the rate of pavement deterioration which was
adjusted by calibration factors to be greater or lower than the observed deterioration.
The above result may have significant implications for the adoption of estimates of the SRMC of
road wear as the basis of pricing for heavy vehicles on specific road types. This follows because
the pavement strength along defined routes can be highly variable as it depends to an appreciable
extent on the varying strength of the underlying subgrade. However given that prices based on
SRMC would likely to be averaged over broad road classifications the variability of pavement
strength within a given road classification may not affect the accuracy of the SRMC estimates.
Review of data from field measurement of pavement strength along defined routes may be useful
in this regard.

Aust r oads 2012
xi
LWC relationships
In developing the LWC relationships in Phase 2 the axle loads were applied in 0.25 tonne
increments to improve the statistical assessment of outcomes. The Phase 2 approach was similar
to that used for Phase 1 with some minor modifications. Phase 2 retained the starting point for
comparisons which involved modelling freight traffic in terms of numbers of axle groups at GML;
comprising a base case and developed LWC relationships by altering axle loads for individual axle
groups one at a time while holding all other axle groups at their base case state of GML. Two sets
of equations were used to capture the LWC relationships one relating the costs to loading in
tonnes the other quantified in terms of equivalent single axle-load repetitions (SARs).
LWC relationships general
Phase 2 resulted in changes to the parameter values of the Phase 1 estimated LWC relationships
and minor changes to equation format. The LWC relationship parameter values were revised as a
result of axle loads increasing from the tare weight to in excess of GML. The offset value used in
individual LWC equations was modified to align it with the tare weight which caused all other
parameter values to be altered accordingly. The use of a tare weight starting point provided a
different starting point for each axle group type. In Phase 2 minor changes were involved in the
modelling of the environmental terms shared by the two sets of equations. In Phase 2 modelling of
environmental impacts was improved by modelling pavement costs as a power function of
environmental terms.
LWC relationships of three additional axle groups
The LWC relationship for the SAST axle group was found by increasing the load increments on the
SAST axle group from tare weight to above GML while all other axle groups loads remained at
GML. This was the same process used for the three axle groups in Phase 1. However the other
two additional axle groups TAST and QADT were characterised by very low numbers of
observations this being especially so for the latter group. This was addressed by leaving
observation numbers associated with TAST groups unchanged on the basis that modelling
procedures would still be sensitive to whatever variation occurred in response to varying assumed
axle loads. For QADT groups numbers were considered too small for modelling. Consequently a
substitution in traffic stream numbers with the TRDT axle group was implemented. This had the
drawback of making the LWC estimates between QADT axle group, and LWC estimates of other
axle groups non-comparable, as it altered the base case, but with the trade-off of being able to
estimate a statistically robust model.
LWC functions estimated for the three additional axle groups were found to fit in the expected rank
order relative to axle groups for which estimates had been made. LWC relationships for SADT
axle groups were found to be the most sensitive of all the axle groups to unit load increases above
reference load while the LWC relationships for QADT axle groups were the least sensitive. The
LWC functions for TAST axle groups in general fell between the LWC functions for SAST and
TADT fully laden axles though estimates at very low and high axle masses proved unexpectedly
insensitive to mass changes. This was found to be due to difficulties in modelling cost functions
associated with very small counts of the TAST axle groups across all pavements and road types.
However in general the pattern relativities in LWC estimates between axle groups are sufficiently
systematic and stable across all pavement types and road categories that they tend to confirm the
LWC relationships estimated.
The LWC of axle groups with super single tyres was not modelled. On the basis of a technical
review there is no certainty about predicting the changes in road wear as a result of using these
tyres. This uncertainty is a result of the limited experimental accelerated load testing work.

Aust r oads 2012
xii
Impact of deterioration modelling on LWC relationships
The strength/roughness and rutting/roughness deterioration models used to estimate the LWC
relationships yielded slightly different cost estimates and patterns of sensitivity to axle load
increases. The strength/roughness model predicted roughness deterioration using an annually
varying value of pavement strength while the rutting/roughness model predicted the rutting related
to increased maintenance expenditure with increased traffic load which was used to predict
roughness deterioration using the initial value of pavement strength. Differences were found to be
more pronounced across pavement types and within pavement type by traffic level. For GN
pavements the strength/roughness model based LWC estimates tended to be higher than those
generated by the rutting/roughness model. For AC pavements a similar pattern was evident
except for urban freeways where LWC estimates were higher for the rutting/roughness model than
for the strength/roughness model. Also for AC pavements sensitivity to increased load was higher
for the rutting/roughness model estimates particularly for loads above the reference load used to
compute SARs.
The above indicates that marginal costs would in general be higher using the rutting/roughness
model although there was variability across results associated with individual axle groups. For CS
pavements LWC estimates and sensitivity to increased axle loads were higher for urban freeways
and arterial roads for the rutting/roughness model. For rural arterials which carried less traffic than
their urban equivalents the EAUC values and sensitivities to increased loads were similar. This
pattern of variation across pavement types and road types suggests that using the
rutting/roughness model yields either higher or more load sensitive LWC relationships where
higher traffic levels combine with pavement types which are more sensitive to load than GN
pavements. The rutting/roughness model reflects the reality of pavement maintenance practice
where maintenance expenditure increases with increased traffic load.
Despite variations in LWC estimates yielded by the two deterioration models common patterns of
cost response to load emerge from analysis of results which build upon and extend the results of
Phase 1. A common cost response pattern which applied across all axle groups pavement types
and road types was the minimal response of LWC values to axle load increases at very low axle
loads. It is interesting to note that the LWC values at low loads estimated by the rutting/roughness
model are less than their strength/roughness model equivalents. A further common pattern which
emerges is for GN pavements to return slightly higher LWC values than AC and CS pavements at
loads up to and including GML even where road type and corresponding traffic levels and
compositions are the same. Similarly within pavement types for given axle groups and loads up to
and including GML LWC values increase across the road hierarchy. That is access roads have
shown the lowest costs feeder roads the next lowest followed by arterial and freeways.
Common patterns of sensitivity of LWC values to load increase to those found in Phase 1 were
also replicated in Phase 2. LWC values were observed to fall per equivalent unit load increase
when axle groups with more axles and tyres were substituted for axle groups with fewer axles or
tyres non-granular pavements were observed to be more sensitive to load increases than granular
while lower category roads such as feeder and access roads displayed higher sensitivity of LWC
values to load increases than higher category roads such as freeways and arterials.
Marginal costs of road wear estimation
A key issue in the analysis of LWC relationships is the estimation of marginal axle load costs.
Marginal axle load costs per axle pass of an axle group were calculated by dividing the annual
marginal axle costs by the numbers of axle passes per year. This approach was used to reduce
the impact of variations is traffic, and is equivalent to marginal cost per tonne-km, as the analysis

Aust r oads 2012
xiii
sections were one kilometre in length. The marginal cost per SAR-km was also estimated as for
Phase 1.
The current FAMLIT model structure and operation prevented a clear distinction between SRMC
and LRMC estimates. LRMC estimates were based on providing additional structural capacity in
excess of the initial design value during pavement rehabilitation works when required by increased
axle loads. The timing of this additional capacity driven work could neither be made optimally nor
consistently with FAMLIT and therefore the LRMC estimates did not have a consistent basis. In
addition, the SRMC estimates of Phase 1, despite having the aim of not increasing pavement
strength above the initial design strength value, did in fact achieve increased pavement strength by
virtue of using the minimum practical rehabilitation treatment thicknesses rather than the lower
thicknesses that were required to restore pavement strength to its initial design value.
The marginal cost (c/tonne-km) per axle pass estimates when plotted out are similar to that for
LWC relationships, as marginal costs tend to increase minimally up to the point where axles are
significantly loaded (reference load or fully legally laden), rising at an increasing rate thereafter.
This is common across all axle groups except for the TAST axle groups where a more linear
relationship is evident. Different estimates of marginal costs per axle pass tend to be associated
with the two different deterioration models used to estimate LWC relationships. For freeways
irrespective of pavement type for all AC road types and for CS pavements in urban areas the
rutting/roughness model gave higher estimates of LWC functions than the strength/roughness
model. For GN pavements other than freeways and rural CS pavements the reverse was true.
This suggests that rutting/roughness model is associated with higher marginal road wear costs
where either traffic levels are high and or the pavement types are sensitive to loading.
In terms of differences between axle groups the same patterns and rank orders observed for the
LWC functions also applied to marginal axle load costs. As axle numbers and associated tyres per
axle increased marginal costs for equivalent axle mass increments fell with QADT axles returning
the lowest marginal axle load costs.
Variations in marginal axle costs by road type are better illustrated by marginal cost relationships
using SAR-km as the explanatory variable as shown in Figure 3. This is achieved because the
different axle group loads on each road type are transformed into the SAR variable by means of
the reference load for each axle group that aims to give equal wear for each axle group relative to
the standard single axle. These relationships showed that irrespective of the approach the highest
marginal costs were experienced by rural access rural collector and urban access GN pavements.
Overall Phase 2 indicated that the lowest marginal costs for axles laden above reference loads
were achievable by multiple axle groups operating over major road categories such as freeways
and arterials. Conversely highest marginal costs were generated by single axle groups operating
over access and collector roads. These results are consistent with those from Phase 1 for a
narrower range of axle types over a narrower range of axle load increases.
Table 1 summarises and compares the marginal cost estimates based on axle group pass for the
three main axle groups common to both Phases 1 and 2. Marginal cost estimates based on SAR-
km are also included.

Aust r oads 2012
xiv
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rural Freeway GN
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Arterial GN
Urban Collector GN
Urban Access GN
Urban Freeway AC
Urban Collector AC
Rural Arterial CS
Urban Freeway CS
Urban Arterial CS
cents/SAR km
Strength model

Figure 3: Marginal road wear costs per SAR kmestimates for rutting/roughness and strength/roughness models
(all axle groups combined)

Aust r oads 2012
xv
Table 1: Marginal cost estimates per axle group pass and per SAR kilometre
MC estimates by road type and deterioration model
Road type Deterioration model type Marginal cost
(cents per tonne km)
(1)

Marginal cost
(cents per SAR km)
SADT TADT TRDT SADT TADT TRDT
Rural Freeway GN
Strength/roughness model 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.6 0.7 0.6
Rutting/roughness model 0.48 0.39 0.20 0.8 0.8 0.8
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Arterial GN
Urban Collector GN
Urban Access GN
Urban Freeway AC
Urban Collector AC
Urban Freeway CS
Urban Arterial CS
Rural Arterial CS
1 Estimates computed at GML loading, (S) denotes in service pavement (N) denotes new pavement.

Aust r oads 2012
xvi
Future Work
In terms of future work the following has been identified:
Improve the LWC and MC estimates for TAST axle groups. This could be achieved by
synthetically increasing assumed traffic proportions for this axle group emulating
arrangements used to calculate load-wear-costs for QADT axle groups.
More experimental work on the road wear impacts of wide single tyres relative to single dual
tyres taking into consideration the factors not examined so far such as speed suspension
type and a range of surface conditions.
The impact of local cost rates for maintenance and rehabilitation works on the estimates of
EAUC for local access roads which may increase or decrease MC estimates depending the
change in local cost rates.
Confirm that the most appropriate deterioration model in this context of estimating LWC and
MC relationships is the rutting/roughness model because it has more certainty regarding its
prediction of future conditions and is a reasonable simulation of increased maintenance cost
with increased axle load.
cost relationships in terms of pavement categories maintenance and rehabilitation options and the
issues will be addressed in Phase 3 of the Project.
The Phase 2 report describes a collection of procedures which constituted the multi-stage process
and as such is currently unsuited for second or third party use without finalisation and integration
documentation verification and an accompanying description of capabilities and limitations. Cross


Aust r oads 2012
1
1 INTRODUCTION
In April 2007 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) endorsed a phased pricing reform for
heavy vehicles. COAG noted that pricing reforms need to go together with productivity enhancing
reforms that include higher axle mass limits for heavy vehicles and the introduction of more
efficient vehicles onto the national network. The introduction of pricing reforms should encourage
the road freight industry to operate on suitable road routes and match heavy vehicles to the
capacity of roads and bridges on those routes. If industry operates heavy vehicles carrying heavier
loads safely on suitable routes then they should pay for any additional road wear associated with
their use under an incremental pricing framework.
In addition in the case of improved vehicle access if the industry operates heavy vehicles carrying
heavier loads safely on suitable routes then they should pay for any additional road wear
associated with their use under an incremental pricing framework. The role of road agencies is to
improve productivity and transport efficiency through the optimal use of the structural and
functional capacity of their road networks. This can be achieved by a program of targeted
maintenance works and infrastructure improvements built on the existing capacity of their
networks. Before road agencies can consider proposals for increased access for high productivity
vehicles they need robust practical approaches and tools that assess the current capacity of each
route on their network and estimate the cost consequences of using heavier and more efficient
heavy vehicles. A transparent and fair pricing system can be used to regulate network access and
reimburse the road agencies for any additional costs incurred. However this cannot occur until
more reliable load-wear-cost relationships are developed so that all stakeholders gain a better
understanding of all the consequences of increasing axle loads on the existing road infrastructure.
In support of the COAG reforms Austroads and the National Transport Commission (NTC) initiated
and sponsored Project AT1394. This report addresses the first and second phases of
Austroads/NTC Project AT1394 with the estimation of load-wear-cost (LWC) relationships for road
pavements. These relationships can aid decision making regarding pricing policies and
incremental and mass-distance-location costs. The relationships can indicate the incremental cost
variations in pavement wear (or short-run marginal costs) under different axle loads on different
pavement types with varying structural capacities operating in different climatic regions. By
categorising the pavement network in terms of road categories or road types a short-run marginal
cost model can be developed for each road type.
The impacts of incremental loads on bridges are not considered in this project as they are being
dealt with elsewhere.
1.1 Project Scope
This report documents the following work undertaken in Phases 1 and 2 of the project.
Phase 1
The data models and assumptions used in developing pavement LWC relationships based
on a consistent national level life-cycle costing transparent approach using the Freight Axle
Mass Limits Investigation Tool (FAMLIT) are presented which were then used to estimate the
wear cost of incremental load increases on road pavements based on available knowledge
existing tools models and processes.
A preliminary set of LWC relationships is presented as a basis for estimating the short-run
marginal road wear cost (SRMC) for a range of sealed road types and three typical axle

Aust r oads 2012
2
groups for axle group loads ranging from their General Mass Limits (GML) to well beyond
GML.
Phase 2
A sensitivity analysis of the above estimates of marginal road wear cost to changes in
pavement strength, pavement strength deterioration, network axle loads and the
assumptions regarding vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) is presented.
Develop SRMC and long-run marginal road wear cost (LRMC) estimates using a FAMLIT
model refined to account for changes to surface treatment and routine maintenance costs
with increased axle loads the physical limits to distress that limit road wear and the influence
of tyre type width and size for typical axle groups with loads ranging from tare weight to loads
well in excess of the existing GML.
Incorporate recently developed pavement deterioration models into the above refined
FAMLIT model to develop marginal road wear cost estimates for comparison with the
estimates of marginal road wear cost from Phase1.
Develop a basis for estimating the long-run marginal road wear cost (LRMC) using the
refined FAMLIT model for six typical axle groups with loads ranging from tare weight to in
excess of GML.
Under a life-cycle costing analysis pavement related maintenance and rehabilitation costs
represent the life-cycle maintenance and repair costs or road wear costs to be borne by current
heavy vehicle users (Hirshhorn 2002).
The life-cycle costing analysis assumptions and models used for the analysis and the results are
described in the body of the report while all associated analysis details supporting reviews and
processes are documented in the appendices. The appendices include a review of recent
research findings for determining pavement wear and the feasibility of considering all the
contributing factors to pavement wear. The appendices also include a review of approaches for
developing long-term pavement performance models and an assessment of current pavement life-
cycle costing analysis tools.
1.2 Pavement Life-cycle Maintenance Activities
The continual loading of pavements by heavy vehicles can cause various forms of pavement
distress which occur on the surface and within the pavement structure. Distress is observed as
surface defects vertical deformation (rutting) cracking and loss of surfacing all of which lead to
increased surface deterioration and ultimate failure due to inadequate structural capacity.
The deterioration of pavements can be controlled over their life-cycle through maintenance
intervention. These maintenance activities are briefly described below (Austroads 2006a).
Routine maintenance comprises those activities which cannot be deferred as public safety
is the highest priority. These activities include minor repairs to damaged pavements to
eliminate safety hazards and minimise the deterioration of the asset. For example these
activities include fixing potholes crack sealing shoulder grading drain clearing and removing
obstacles from the road.

Aust r oads 2012
3
Periodic maintenance comprises those activities needed to restore/preserve the functional
integrity of the pavement to meet performance targets. These activities are designed to
reduce future deterioration by timely surface treatment interventions that defer the need for
costly rehabilitation while also ensuring that general safety levels are maintained. These
activities include periodic road preservation maintenance activities such as resealing and
surface correction, surface patching, restoration of skid resistance using slurry seals, surface
enrichment treatments, sprayed seals and thin asphalt (AC) surfacing <25 mm.
Rehabilitation involves those activities related to restoring the structural and functional
integrity of pavements and activities that can bring additional community benefits such as
restoring road surface ride quality to minimise road user costs. Examples of rehabilitation
treatments include resheeting over sealed granular pavements asphalt overlays for asphalt
pavements and major patching. Asphalt pavement rehabilitation may also involve milling and
resurfacing of the existing asphalt pavement to mitigate the effects of poor ride rutting
cracking and other distresses.
Concrete pavement rehabilitation can involve concrete pavement restoration with an
asphalt overlay over an existing or fractured concrete pavement and bonded or unbonded
concrete overlays. The rehabilitation is performed to correct for poor ride joint faulting slab
cracking high-severity joint and crack spalling and other distresses.
Reconstruction includes full-width and full-length reconstruction of the pavement and
shoulders usually on the existing alignment including restoration of all drainage structures.
1.3 Effects of Increasing Traffic Loading on Pavement Maintenance
Costs
Increasing traffic loading increases the rate of pavement deterioration and affects agency costs
over the life-cycle of a pavement in the following ways (FHWA 1995):
For new pavements increased traffic loading requires thicker pavements leading to increased
construction cost. For some pavements such as concrete a given percentage increase in
traffic loadings can be accommodated by a smaller increase in pavement thickness and cost.
For in-service pavements, increases in traffic loading affect pavement maintenance and
rehabilitation costs as follows:
Reduce the time interval to the next rehabilitation intervention. Figure 1.1
schematically shows for road roughness only how rehabilitation intervention for a
specific pavement section is triggered three years earlier when axle loads permitted
under GML are increased by 10%. Considering the time value of money, increased
traffic loading moves rehabilitation expenditure nearer to the present and increases its
real cost.
Increase the thickness of the asphalt overlay or granular resheeting. This assumes
resealing operations continue as per normal practice.
The frequency of resealing may increase and an increase in the reseal quality may be
needed depending on the performance of the pavement wearing surface and the road
agencys maintenance practices.
If the funds required to rehabilitate pavements earlier were not available, the increase
in traffic loading leads to the following:
more frequent resealing or higher quality reseals would be used to reduce
increases in routine maintenance costs due to the higher rate of surface
deterioration

Aust r oads 2012
4
higher quality reseals or alterative surfacings (e.g. asphalt) would be used in
locations (intersections, grades and curves) where higher axle loads cause
increased surface wear
increases in road user costs (RUC) and discomfort due to increases in pavement
roughness which increase vehicle operating costs and travel time, and cause
additional delay costs due to more frequent repair works
more extensive and costly rehabilitation works.

Figure 1.1: Impact of increasing axle load on rehabilitation intervention timing
1.4 Marginal Costs of Road Damage
Economic theory when applied to road costs makes a clear distinction between SRMC and LRMC
as noted below:
SRMC is the additional cost associated with an additional vehicle using the road at the
current level of infrastructure provision (Productivity Commission 2006). These costs include
the road wear caused by road use which is a function of the mass of the vehicle and distance
travelled. The rehabilitation costs associated with maintaining pavements to required steady
state conditions are included in the road wear costs. The costs associated with expanding
network capacity or improving road capability (i.e. strengthening beyond the current design
level) are excluded from this definition because the network capacity is fixed in the short-
term.
LRMC include the costs of expanding road capacity to accommodate additional vehicles and
higher axle masses.
Under the current heavy vehicle charging regime SRMC are the road wear costs on the road
network from road use as well as the ongoing service and operating costs (Productivity
Commission 2006). In terms of the current pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) costs to be recovered
marginal costs can be defined as the attributable costs in Table 1.1. The SRMC for pavements

Aust r oads 2012
5
can be further narrowed to expenditure categories A, B1, B2, D and F1 (National Transport
Commission 2007a). The definitions of these categories are shown in Appendix A.
Table 1.1: Cost categories and rules
Expenditure category Attributable Non-
attributable
VKT
(1)
PCU
(2)

km
ESA
(3)
km
AGM
(4)
km
VKT
A Servicing and operating expenses 100 0 0 0 0
B1 Routine maintenance 0 38 0 38 24
B2 Periodic maintenance of sealed roads 0 10 0 60 30
C Bridge maintenance and rehabilitation 0 0 0 33 67
D Road rehabilitation 0 0 45 0 55
E Low cost safety/traffic improvements 80 20 0 0 0
F1 Pavement components 0 0 45 0 55
F2 Bridges 0 15 0 0 85
F3 Land acquisition, earthworks, other extension/improvement expenditure 0 10 0 0 90
1 VKT = vehicle kilometres travelled.
2 PCU = passenger car units.
3 ESA = equivalent standard axles.
4 AGM = Average gross mass.
Source: National Transport Commission (2007b).

According to the definitions of maintenance activities (see Section 1.1) routine maintenance
activities fall under cost category B1 and partly under cost category A. Periodic maintenance
activities fall under cost category B2. Rehabilitation and reconstruction activities fall under cost
category D. In most marginal cost analyses pavement reconstruction is not included in the
determination of SRMC (Bruzelius 2004; Hirshhorn 2002; FHWA 1995). Pavement rehabilitation
and reconstruction activities result in restoring and in some cases improving the structural capacity
of the pavement as the overlay and the new pavement are designed for an increased traffic
loading. Under the no traffic growth scenario (assumed in this study) rehabilitation only results in
restoring the current design structural capacity of the pavement i.e. rehabilitation can be
considered in determining SRMC when axle loads cause a significant decline in pavement strength
as rehabilitation is the most efficient way to restore the pavement to its original strength.
In a life-cycle costing approach the estimation of short-run marginal pavement costs involves an
estimation of the present value of the increased maintenance and rehabilitation costs and
reconstruction costs caused by a vehicle trip.


Aust r oads 2012
6
2 APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING
LOAD-WEAR-COST RELATIONSHIPS
This project aims to quantify the impacts of axle load increments on pavement wear and
associated agency road wear costs. For Phase 1 of the project three axle group types were
considered with axle loads varying from the current GML up to a nominated maximum. The
impacts of load changes were estimated and the results reported separately for each axle group.
The Phase 1 axle groups considered were the following:
single axle with dual tyres (SADT)
tandem axle with dual tyres (TADT)
triaxle with dual tyres (TRDT).
For Phase 2 of the project an additional three axle group types were considered with the axle loads
varying from the tare weight of the axle group to loads well in excess of the current GML. The
Phase 2 axle groups considered were the following:
single axle with dual tyres (SADT)
tandem axle with dual tyres (TADT)
triaxle with dual tyres (TRDT)
single axle with single tyres (SAST)
tandem axle with single tyres (TAST)
quad axle with dual tyres (QADT).
This section outlines the approach used to develop the load-wear-cost (LWC) relationships and
summarises the assumptions made in determining the road wear costs due to heavy vehicle
loading. Details of the assessment process and parameters are provided in Section 4.
2.1 Approach for Developing LWC Relationships
The approach used to develop the LWC relationships for the six different axle groups involved the
following tasks:
1 A road network, using simulated data, to represent all sealed pavement types categorised in
terms of structural capacity in different operating locations and climates in Australia, was
developed as follows:
The pavements were categorised in terms of design traffic levels (represented by road
types) operating in urban and rural locations under typical climates. They were used to
develop an initial network matrix of new pavements. The new pavements were
designed using Austroads (2004). Thereafter each road type/pavement type/operating
location combination is referred to as pavement category.
The existing in-service pavements of each pavement type are at different points of their
life-cycle so each pavement type was assumed to include sections covering a typical
range of pavement ages. The condition parameters (roughness and strength) for these
pavements were predicted by applying road deterioration (RD) and works effects (WE)
models to a newly constructed pavement to respectively predict deteriorating
conditions under maintenance treatments and to predict conditions immediately after
rehabilitation treatments.

Aust r oads 2012
7
Each pavement section was assumed to be one lane wide, with typical width, and one
kilometre long so agency costs could be calculated in terms of $/lane-km.
2 For each pavement type, the annual traffic loading resulting from a series of loading
scenarios for each axle group was treated as follows:
The annual traffic loading (YSAR) was estimated in terms of standard axle repetitions
(SAR).
The axle load increments were applied to one axle group at a time with the other axle
groups being assumed to be fully loaded to the maximum load permitted under GML,
although this does not reflect the reality of how pavement categories are likely to
experience axle load increments exactly in practice. This approach was consistent and
allowed separate examination of the impact of axle load increments on each axle group
in a way that should produce logical and sensible results.
3 Life-cycle cost analyses were undertaken to determine the road wear life-cycle cost profiles
under each loading scenario. They were determined for all the sections within each
pavement category in different climate zones.
4 The road wear life-cycle costs of each section under each loading scenario were converted
to equivalent annual uniform costs (EAUC $/lane-km) of maintenance (see Appendix B).
Using the EAUC instead of the present value of road wear life-cycle cost in calculating the
marginal road wear cost avoids the problem of discounting the costs but not discounting the
traffic loading to ensure full recovery of road wear costs (FHWA 1984).
The annualising period used for determining EAUC was assumed to be the full life-
cycle cost analysis period of 50 years commencing at the start analysis year (assumed
2009). The 50 year analysis period allowed at least one rehabilitation to occur to
contribute to the road wear cost.
For each pavement type the EAUC of each loading scenario was weighted and
averaged over the relevant age distribution derived from state road authority (SRA)
pavement age data on in-service pavements except for newly constructed pavements.
5 For each axle group pavement and road type the marginal cost (MC being either the SRMC
or the LRMC) of road wear associated with increased axle load was based on estimating the
LWC relationship derived from a regression analysis with each data point being an EAUC
estimate for each with axle load increment increase expressed in terms of both tonne-km and
SAR-km. The details of these approaches are outlined below.
In Phase 1 the MC of road wear was determined for each climate/axle
group/pavement/road type combination. The LWC relationship expressed in terms of
EAUC estimates with axle load was derived by a non-linear least squares regression
analysis of these data points as discussed above. The MC
ann
was based on the first
derivative of the LWC relationship as shown below (Equation 1 to Equation 3):
EAUC = a0 +a1 TMI +a2 (axle mass offset)
a3
1
MC
ann
= d(EAUC)/d(axle mass) =a2 a3 (axle mass
offset)
(a3 - 1)

2
MC
axle
= MC
ann
/axle group-km 3
where
MC
ann
= annual marginal cost in cents/tonne-km
(c/tonne-km)


Aust r oads 2012
8
MC
axle
= marginal cost in cents/tonne-km (c/tonne-km) per
axle pass

a0, a1, a2 and a3 = regression coefficients
axle mass = total load on axle group (tonne)
axle group-km = number axle passes per km per year for a given
axle group

TMI = Thornthwaite Moisture Index (Thornthwaite 1948)
measure of climate

offset = is the axle group tare weight less one tonne
before incremental axle loads increased.

The MC of road wear with increased axle loading was also based on the LWC
relationship, expressed in terms of EAUC estimates with SAR-km, by a non-linear least
squares regression analysis of these data points as discussed above. The MC
ann
was
based on the first derivative of the LWC relationship as shown below (Equation 4 and
Equation 5):
EAUC = a0
I
+a1
I
TMI +a2
I
(SAR-km offset) 4
MC
ann
= d(EAUC)/d(SAR-km) =a2
I
5
where
MC
ann
= annual marginal cost in cents/SAR-km (c/SAR-
km)

a0
I
, a1
I
, a2
I
and a3
I
= regression coefficients
SAR-km = annual pavement wear per lane-km in standard
axle repetitions (SAR)

offset = approximates reference base SAR-km before
incremental axle loads increased.

Equations 1 and 4 for some specific road types used dummy variables (0 or 1) for TMI
because the impact of TMI was minimal in these cases.
In Phase 2 as for Phase 1, the MC of road wear was determined for each climate/axle
group/pavement type combination. The MC
ann
was based on the first derivative of the
EAUC relationship with axle load as follows (Equation 6 to Equation 8):
EAUC = a0 +(TMI +TMIOFFSET)
a1
+a2 (axle mass
offset)
a3

6
MC
ann
= d(EAUC)/d(axle mass) =a2 a3 (axle mass
offset)
(a3 - 1)

7
MC
axle
= MC
ann
/axle group-km. 8

Aust r oads 2012
9
The MC was again also based on the first derivative of the EAUC relationship using
SARs as shown below (Equation 9 and Equation 10):
EAUC = a0
I
+(TMI +TMIOFFSET)
a1
l
+a2
I
(SAR-km
offset).
9
MC
ann
= d(EAUC)/d(SAR-km) =a2
I
. 10
Compared with the Phase 1 model forms the key differences in the Phase 2 model
forms are as follows:
1 In Equations 6 and 9 the environmental impacts are represented by the value of
the TMI plus an environmental offset raised to a power estimated via modelling.
The environmental term offset (TTOFFSET) is estimated as the absolute value of
the minimum TMI value used for each road group investigated plus one. Thus
where the range of values is 50, 0, -50, the offset is +51. Consequently the
evaluated values in the brackets become -50 +51 =1; 0 +51 =51; and, 50 +51
=101. This adjustment was necessary to provide a consistent ascending
sequence of values avoiding raising a value of zero to a power. In cases where
the environmental terms were best represented by a dummy variable the
previous linear format was retained.
2 Axle load and SAR-km offset components remained the same as those used in
Phase 1, representing the value of 1 tonne below the minimum mass for which
estimates are calculated. However, as tare weight replaced GML as the lower
axle load limit, this meant these offset values were revised downwards.
Consequently, parameter values subsequently computed from modelling are not
directly comparable with those from Phase 1.
In cases where a dummy variable was used to quantify the impacts of the
environmental variable (TMI) the model forms of Equations 1 and 4 were used as the
basis for estimating EAUC. Equation forms where dummy variables are used are set
out in Equations 11 and 12 below. As noted above, all the EAUC relationships
reported in this report where dummy variables are used they take the values of either
zero or unity.
EAUC = a0 +a1TTDummy +a2 (axle mass axle
mass offset)
a3
.
11
EAUC = a0 +a1 TTDummy +a2 (SAR-km SAR-km
offset).
12
In Phase 2 the estimates of the LRMC, similar to the SRMC estimates, were based on
the first derivative of the separate EAUC relationships with axle group load and SARs
under long-run conditions.
2.2 Assumptions for Determining the Components of Road Wear
Cost
The road wear maintenance cost is comprised of routine maintenance costs, periodic maintenance
cost (resealing/resurfacing) and rehabilitation/reconstruction costs. The following assumptions
were used in determining road wear costs for developing the LWC relationships:
No traffic growth was considered during the life-cycle costing analyses of road wear, that is,
no change in the number of axle passes per year for each axle group or number of heavy
vehicles in total.

Aust r oads 2012
10
Pavement strengthening was an option that could occur due to pavement rehabilitation
resulting in the pavement being restored to either its original design strength, under SRMC,
or the pavement strength increased beyond its original design strength, under LRMC.
Road wear was due to the combined effects of load wear (heavy vehicles) and non-load
wear (the environment).
In considering the intended application of the LWC relationships, there was no need to
separate the load and non-load-related wear. Therefore although the total road wear costs
were reported, it can be argued that only the load wear heavy vehicle cost portion was
included in the MC to heavy vehicle road users because the non-load-related road wear cost
was a constant value at any given time.
Road user costs (RUC) were not considered. Increases in RUC due to increased roughness
are referred to as a road damage externality as most empirical road wear cost studies ignore
the road damage externality and focus only on the road wear costs due to road use
(Newbery et al. 1988).
The life-cycle costing analyses of road wear were conducted under an unconstrained budget,
that is, the road wear costs of all loading scenarios assumed that adequate funds were
available to perform maintenance and rehabilitation works when needed. This resulted in
minimal variations in average annual roughness despite axle load increases, indicating that
variations in discounted RUC would have been minimal.
However, if the life-cycle costing analyses of road wear were conducted under a highly
constrained budget in the context of increased axle loads, the discounted RUC would be
significant because the RUC increase with increased road wear that is not reduced by
maintenance and rehabilitation works.
Based on an international survey on measuring the marginal cost of road use (Bruzelius
2004), the estimated MC based on maintenance actions (routine and periodic maintenance
activities and rehabilitation) for road wear are either rule-based or condition responsive.
Under Phase 1 considering the intended application of the LWC relationships in this context
the costs of routine and periodic maintenance activities were kept constant with increasing
load increments over the analysis period for all loading scenarios.
This means that in Phase 1 there was no change to routine maintenance costs and that the
resurfacing and resealing programs of the periodic maintenance costs were not expanded as
a result of increased axle loads. However as a result pavement deterioration increased with
increased axle loads and rehabilitation occurred earlier. Consequently the primary impact of
increased axle loads was the earlier timing and the extent of the rehabilitation works
assuming the same condition levels for rehabilitation intervention were retained.
The above approach was appropriate considering that the detailed distress models for
initiating routine and periodic maintenance activities did not fully quantify the impact of
increased axle loads on maintenance costs in Phase 1. In addition the assumptions used for
triggering maintenance intervention may not always closely match the current or future
maintenance practices of the various road agencies as these practices are subject to change
due to budget constraints advances in technology and knowledge.
Under Phase 2 the periodic maintenance costs were increased with increasing axle loads.
Anecdotal and observational evidence indicates that increased axle load increases routine
maintenance cost and also increases periodic maintenance cost due to either the increased
frequency of resealing/resurfacing or the use of higher quality reseals/resurfacing to cope
with the increased axle loads, particularly in areas of high surface stress such as
intersections, curves and grades.

Aust r oads 2012
11
The annual pavement maintenance expenditure ($/lane-km) me was found to be related to
road use (Byrne & Martin 2008). This was based on an extensive analysis of
pavement-related maintenance expenditure versus heavy vehicle road use over a three to
five year period on AusLink road segments of the National Highway as follows (Equation 13):
me = +0.00309 ESA/lane/year 13
where
= constant routine maintenance expenditure (this constant increased with
increased traffic load range i.e., = 500 to 1000 depending on road type).
Equation 13 quantified the impact of increased axle group loads on the pavement maintenance
expenditure.

Aust r oads 2012
12
3 LIFE-CYCLE COSTING ANALYSIS TOOL
The use of a life-cycle costing analysis approach depends on the availability of appropriate and
reliable road deterioration (RD) and works effects (WE) models. These models are used to
estimate the road wear costs associated with load and non-load-related pavement wear in a
pavement life-cycle costing analysis.
The RD and WE models used in the Australian context of pavement life-cycle costing analyses are
mainly deterministic-empirical models (see Appendix C for definitions). These models are
incorporated in the following pavement life-cycle costing analysis tools:
HDM-4 (PIARC 1999)
PLATO (Pavement Life Cycle Analysis and Treatment Optimisation) (Roberts et al. 2003)
ARRB PLCC (Pavement Life Cycle Costing) model (Linard et al. 1996)
FAMLIT (Freight Axle Mass Limits Investigation Tool) (Hassan et al. 2008).
All the models used in these tools usually predict annual incremental changes in pavement
condition with the previous years estimates being used as the current years input. The advantage
of an incremental annual approach is that it aids the use of maintenance intervention modelling.
The above tools were reviewed in terms of their applications pavement distresses predicted
interaction between the models and applicability to different pavement/road types. Also reviewed
were the input data requirements maintenance intervention criteria possible outputs and whether
WE RUC models and optimisation were included in each tool (see Appendix D).
Based on the review findings FAMLIT was selected to develop the LWC relationships. The
modelling framework and limited input data required by FAMLIT made it suitable for a strategic
level analysis required for this study. In addition, FAMLIT was meant to be available to all
Austroads members in J uly 2008 at no cost, hence under the proposed direct pricing system, all
road agencies would be able to replicate the approach of this study in developing LWC
relationships suitable for their network characteristics and usage and maintenance practice. By
using the same modelling logic adopted in FAMLIT the objective of national consistency would be
achieved.
3.1 FAMLIT Modelling Framework
FAMLIT is a sealed pavement life-cycle costing analysis tool developed under Austroads project
AT1165 (Hassan et al. 2008). FAMLIT assists asset managers to assess the wear and cost
implications of changing the heavy vehicle fleet and axle mass limits at route and network levels.
The outputs can be used to conduct comparative analyses or an economic evaluation of different
loading scenarios. FAMLIT is a decision support tool for asset managers to assess the
consequences of heavy vehicle access at a route or network level and to optimise the use of their
road networks.
The modelling framework for FAMLIT is based on pavement life-cycle costing analysis. The
modelling in Phase 1 uses a simplified aggregate roughness deterioration model in conjunction
with time-based models to predict future road roughness under different traffic loading scenarios
and climatic effects (Appendix F.1). Phase 1 also uses a pavement structural deterioration model
described in Appendix E, that predicts the annual change in pavement strength due to traffic and
environment which is an input to the roughness model (Hassan et al. 2008).

Aust r oads 2012
13
The modelling in Phase 2 used a roughness deterioration model (Martin & Choummanivong 2009),
termed the rutting/roughness model, that allowed the simulation of increased annual maintenance
expenditure with increased axle loads through the prediction of future rutting (Appendix F.2) to
consequently predict future road roughness. As in Phase 1 this model predicted future roughness
conditions under the different loading scenarios and climatic effects on the various road types.
The life-cycle costing analysis in FAMLIT involves the following steps (Hassan et al.2008):
The numbers of each vehicle type on each road section are tracked over the life-cycle
analysis period and factored up from year to year by the nominal traffic growth rate (not used
in this case).
The road deterioration models then use the traffic composition details and the calculated
traffic levels to estimate the annual traffic loading on the pavement defined in terms of SARs.
Coupled with the traffic loading the deterioration models use the section characteristics and
the model calibration factors to estimate the annual change in pavement strength and
roughness.
Using this information the system evaluates on a year-by-year basis whether works should
be triggered as a result of meeting the intervention criteria which is a specified roughness
intervention level and/or a specified remaining structural life which is used to identify the
need for pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Following rehabilitation works the surface and structural conditions are reset with new
condition values and the pavement age is reset to zero. Road deterioration prediction then
recommences from this point in the same manner as before.
The road agency costs for each maintenance treatment type are incurred annually and at a
specific point in time for pavement rehabilitation.
3.2 Calibration of FAMLIT Models
Long-term pavement performance (LTPP) data collected annually under Austroads Project AT1064
and performance data provided by the different state road authorities (SRAs) were used in
calibrating FAMLIT structural deterioration and roughness progression models to match observed
performance on the various road types under local conditions. The calibration process and
resulting calibration factors for the structural deterioration model and the roughness deterioration
model are described in Appendix E and Appendix F respectively for Phase 1. For Phase 1 these
models are subsequently referred to as structural/roughness models.
Calibration of the Phase 2 roughness deterioration models based on rutting and other forms of
distress is discussed in Appendix F.2. For Phase 2 these models are subsequently referred to as
rutting/roughness models.
The required condition data to calibrate the RD and WE models for local roads was not available
hence the results for local roads are considered to be less reliable than those for arterial roads and
freeways.

Aust r oads 2012
14
4 ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS
This section is a summary of the assessment parameters used in developing the following: (1) the
pavement network matrix for simulated data; (2) the loading scenarios and input data; and (3) the
maintenance strategies and maintenance standards required for conducting the life-cycle costing
analysis in FAMLIT. The details for the development of each assessment parameter are provided
in a number of appendices noted in the following sections.
4.1 Network Matrix
The network, which was composed of four sub-networks (1 to 4) comprising 17 road types,
included pavements with different structural capacities, covering common sealed pavement types,
and operated in different locations (rural and urban) and climates. The matrix of pavement
categories and climates is presented in Figure 4.1. The types of pavements that were considered
and the approach for network categorisation are described below.
The sealed pavement types considered were the following:
granular with sprayed seal (GN)
bituminous (AC)
cement stabilised (CS)
concrete (Con) pavements.
Concrete pavements were excluded from the FAMLIT analysis because their deterioration
could not be reliably predicted on a continuous basis to demonstrate continuous increases in
EAUC with increasing traffic load.
For most pavement types the following four road functional class or road types were
considered: freeways arterials collectors and local access roads.
Two operating locations were considered: urban and rural to account for the variation in
maintenance unit costs between the two locations.
Each pavement category (pavement type/road category/operating locations combination)
was assumed to operate in three different climatic regions (except for concrete). The climate
was represented by the TMI. The TMI is an index that indicates the relative wetness or
dryness of a particular soil-climate system. It categorises climate by balancing the rainfall
potential evapotranspiration and water holding capacity of the soil. High positive TMI values
indicate humid or wet zones with low annual change of soil moisture or soil suction while high
negative TMI values indicate dry arid zones (Nelson & Miller 1992). The TMI climate
classification used was adopted from AS2870 (Standards Australia 1996) and is shown in
Table 4.1 (Standards Australia 1996).
Each pavement type was assumed to include new and in-service pavements that is a typical
pavement age distribution of pavements at different points of their life-cycles.

Aust r oads 2012
15
Table 4.1: TMI climate classification
Climate zones TMI
Alpine/wet coastal > + 40
Wet temperate + 10 to + 40
Temperate + 10 to - 5
Dry temperate - 5 to - 25
Semi-arid < - 25

Table 4.2 summarises the roads, pavement types and climate values used in the FAMLIT
analyses and includes the TMI and TMI dummy variables used in the LWC relationships in
terms of EAUC in Equations 1, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 12.
As noted in Section 2.1, the TMI dummy variables of 1 and 0 are only used for specific road
types as defined by Equations 11 and 12.
Table 4.2: Details of TMI values and dummy variable used for modelling
Road
number
Road name TMI and TMI dummy variable values
Low Mid High
1 Rural Freeway GN 50 0 -50
2 Rural Arterial GN (S) 50 0 -50
3 Urban Freeway CS 80 20 -20
4 Urban Arterial CS 80 20 -20
5 Rural Arterial AC (S) 50 0 -50
6 Urban Arterial AC (S) 80 20 -20
7 Urban Arterial GN 1 1 0
8 Urban Collector GN 80 20 -20
9 Urban Access GN 80 20 -20
10 Rural Arterial AC (N) 1 1 0
11 Urban Freeway AC 80 20 -20
12 Urban Arterial AC (N) 80 20 -20
13 Urban Collector AC 80 20 -20
14 Rural Arterial CS 50 0 -50
15 Rural Arterial GN (N) 1 1 0
16 Rural Collector GN 50 0 -50
17 Rural Access GN 50 0 -50
Notes: GN = granular, AC = asphaltic concrete, CS = cement stabilised, (S) = in service, (N) = new.

PreliminaryMethodologyfor EstimatingCostImplications of Incremental Loads onRoadPavements

Aust r oads 2012
16

Figure4.1: Initial network matrix Development of thePavement Network
Urban
Arterial Collector Fwy
GN CS AC GN AC CS AC
TMI +20
TMI +80
TMI -20

TMI+20
TMI +80

TMI -20

TMI+20
TMI -20
TMI+20
TMI +80

TMI -20
TMI+20
Concrete
TMI +80
Access
TMI+20
TMI +80

TMI -20
Concrete
TMI +80
GN AC
TMI+20 TMI+20
TMI +80
TMI -20
TMI+20
TMI -20
TMI +80
TMI -20
TMI +80
TMI -20
TMI +80 TMI +80
Rural
Arterial Collector Fwy
GN CS GN GN
TMI +50
TMI - 50
TMI 0
TMI +50

TMI - 50
TMI 0

Access
Concrete
TMI +80

TMI - 20

TMI 0

TMI +50

TMI - 50

TMI 0

TMI +20
GN
TMI +80
TMI - 20
TMI 0
AC
TMI +50

TMI - 50

TMI 0


Aust r oads 2012
17
The pavement/network characteristics required for running the FAMLIT life-cycle cost analysis
were as follows:
pavement and road type
composition of heavy vehicle (HV) fleet, that is, types of heavy vehicles, with various axle
groups, making up the fleet
traffic volume by vehicle type, in terms of annual average daily traffic (AADT), year of traffic
data and lane distribution factor, that is, percentage of HV traffic carried by each lane
pavement wear caused by each HV on each pavement type, in terms of standard axle
repetitions (SAR)
section length (one kilometre) and lane width (in metres)
initial roughness, in terms of the International Roughness Index (IRI, m/km)
initial structural capacity (strength) in terms of the adjusted structural number (SNP), the sum
of the structural numbers (SN) of the different pavement layers and the subgrade contribution
(SNsg)
pavement age (years since construction/rehabilitation) and age (years) of the seal or
surfacing.
Because pavement strength data was not available for any of the pavement categories at a
network level the characteristics of the pavement network were estimated as follows. New
pavements were designed for all the pavement categories and climates in the network matrix
(Figure 4.1). Life-cycle costing analyses were performed on these new pavements to predict the
characteristics of in-service pavements (with a distribution of ages) for each pavement category
and climate.
The assumptions made for developing the new and in-service pavements are noted below.
New pavements were designed assuming a subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR a
measure of bearing capacity) of 5%. For a new pavement the pavement thickness is
designed to carry the expected traffic loading over the nominated design period for the types
of materials that make up the pavement layers. Knowing the thicknesses of the pavement
layers their material types and the subgrade CBR allows the initial pavement SNP to be
estimated. This approach may or may not represent the typical value of SNP in the network.
Further future work on the assessment of a typical value of SNP may be undertaken.
The parameters and assumptions used in designing the flexible and concrete pavements and
the estimation of their SNP values are described in Appendix H. Appendix H includes the
development of representative fleet compositions and the distributions and volumes for the
different road categories. The pavements were designed using the design procedures
described in Austroads (2004) and used the relevant load equivalencies and damage
exponents (i.e. 4 for GN 5 for AC and 12 for CS).
The initial surface roughness of a new pavement was assumed to match that specified for
new pavement construction.
For in-service pavements a set of pavements with different ages structural capacities and
surface roughness was developed by using the deterioration models in FAMLIT on new
pavements. The life-cycle analysis was for a period of 50 years. This analysis allowed for
the impact of maintenance and rehabilitation works over the life of the pavement.
For each pavement category the values of roughness SNP and ages of seal/surfacing at
periods of 10, 20, 30 and 40 years were extracted from a deterioration analysis of the new

Aust r oads 2012
18
pavement. These values were then used as the condition values in the start of analysis year
(2009) for in-service pavements with different pavement ages. The annual traffic volumes for
the in-service pavements under each pavement category are the same as the new
pavements due to the no traffic growth assumption.
The development of the in-service pavement network is described in Appendix I together with the
age distributions assumed for the different pavement categories.
4.2 Loading Scenarios
The assumptions made in developing the loading scenarios are described below.
For the base case loading axle group loads were the maximum loads currently permitted
under the GML regulatory framework. All the other loading scenarios involved: (i) increasing
each separate axle group load from its GML value to well beyond its GML (Phase 1); and (ii)
increasing each separate axle group load from its tare value to well beyond its GML
(Phase 2).
No change in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) between the base case and all the loading
scenarios was assumed as the annual number of vehicles on the road network remained the
same with only increases to their axle group loads.
The loading scenarios considered up to six axle groups starting at the tare weight and well
beyond GML in 0.25 tonne load increments. For Phase 1 this resulted in 108 loading
combinations including a common base case assuming incremental load changes applied to
SADT TADT and TRDT as shown in Table 4.3. For Phase 2 this resulted in 440 loading
combinations including a common base case assuming incremental load changes applied to
SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT and QADT as shown in Table 4.3.
The loading scenarios did not take into consideration vehicle stability and assumed that the
fleet vehicles operated safely under these loads.
In Phase 2 the load increments were selected to be 0.25 tonne to cause sufficient impact to
always cause increases in road wear cost with increases in axle group load and to generate
a sufficient number of road wear cost estimates for the independent variables in the LWC
relationship to be statistically significant. In some instances less than statistically significant
independent variables were accepted in the LWC relationships because they provided a
better representation of the EAUC (Appendix O).
In Phase 2 each loading combination allowed for only one axle group to increase by a 0.25
tonne increment at a time while all other axle groups were held at the constant GML. This
isolated incremental loading approach allowed the separate examination of the road wear
cost of each incremental axle group load increase. Although this approach was a
simplification of how incremental increases in loads on axle groups would occur in reality it
allowed separate assessment of which axle group had the greatest road wear cost with
incremental increases in axle load.
In Phase 2 both the TAST and QADT axle groups are a very small proportion of the total
road freight vehicle traffic where incremental increases in axle loads would be expected to
cause very small changes in the EAUC. This was addressed for the QADT axle group by
temporarily swapping its traffic proportions with the more numerous TRDT axle group
because the QADT axle group is seen as a likely replacement for the TRDT axle group in the
longer term. However the traffic proportions for the TAST axle group were left unchanged.

Aust r oads 2012
19
As this analysis has assumed the distribution of load on the different axles groups for each
pavement and road type it was therefore possible to make the above separate assessment
of the road wear cost of each axle group with incremental load increases.
Table 4.3: Axle group loading combinations used in the analysis
Loading
scenario
SAST
(tonne)
SADT
(tonne)
TAST
(tonne)
TADT
(tonne)
TRDT
(tonne)
QADT
(tonne)
Reference load
(1)
5.4 8.15 9.17 13.76 18.45 22.53
Increment 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Axle load offset
(2)
2 3 5 5.5 9 9.75
Tare 3 4 6 6.5 10 10.75
4 5 7 7.5 11 11
5 6 8 8.5 12 12
Base GML 6 7 9 9.5 13 13
7 8 10 10.5 14 14
Base GML 8 9 11 11.5 15 15
9 10 12 12.5 16 16
10 11 13 13.5 17 17
11 12 14 14.5 18 18
Max. 12 13 15 15.5 19 19
Base GML 6 14 16 16.5 20 24
Max. 6 15 17 17.5 21 25
6 9 18 18.5 22 26
6 9 19 19.5 23 27
Max. 6 9 20 20.5 24 28
6 9 11 21.5 25 29
6 9 11 22.5 26 30
6 9 11 23.5 27 31
6 9 11 24.5 28 32
Max. 6 9 11 26.5 29 33
6 9 11 16.5 30 34
6 9 11 16.5 31 35
6 9 11 16.5 32 36
6 9 11 16.5 33 37
6 9 11 16.5 34 38
Max. 6 9 11 16.5 35 39
6 9 11 16.5 20 40
6 9 11 16.5 20 41
6 9 11 16.5 20 42
6 9 11 16.5 20 43
6 9 11 16.5 20 44
Max. 6 9 11 16.5 20 45
1 Reference load is the axle group load that causes the same amount of road wear as the standard axle (SADT) of 8 tonne.
2 Axle load offset is the axle group tare weight less 1 tonne (see Equation 1).


Aust r oads 2012
20
4.2.1 Traffic Loading for Flexible Pavements
In FAMLIT the annual traffic loading (YSAR) assuming no traffic growth (i.e., no change to the
number of heavy vehicles), was calculated using the following formula (Equation 14):
YSAR = {(AADTHV1 SARHV1) +(AADTHV2 SARHV2) +(AADTHV3
SARHV3) +(AADTHV4 SARHV4) +(AADTHV5 SARHV5) +.. +
(AADTHVn SARHVn) }365
14
where
AADTHV1 = traffic (number of vehicles/day) for each of the specified heavy vehicle
(HV1) types (per lane), etc.

SARHV1 = standard axle repetitions for each of the specified heavy vehicle types
(HV1), vary by pavement type, etc.

The annual traffic volumes of each HV for each pavement category were the same as those used
in the design of the pavement (Appendix H).
The above SARHV estimates were based on the fully laden (i.e., to GML) values for each HV type.
This required conversion of the known loading on each axle group for each road type to an
equivalent (in terms of SARs) of a fully loaded axle group by reducing the numbers of each axle
group using a traffic multiplier. The traffic multipliers are shown in Table H 6 in Appendix H for
three road types as an example.
Recent Austroads studies on the load equivalency
1
and damage exponents for different pavement
types (Appendix J ) recommend the following damage exponents in estimating SAR to assess the
road wear impacts of different axle group loads on the different pavement types:
Granular pavements with a sprayed seal (GN) used SAR4, that is, a damage exponent of 4.
Asphalt pavements (AC) used SAR5, that is, a damage exponent of 5.
Cement stabilised pavements (CS) used SAR12, that is, a damage exponent of 12 which
was confirmed by recent experimental fatigue testing.
Concrete pavements (Con) used SAR12.
The above exponents were also confirmed by a review of recent international research findings on
the impacts of heavy vehicle characteristics on road wear (Appendix I). Considering these
findings, the road wear caused by a vehicle or axle group was determined using the procedure
documented in Austroads (2004). The impacts of tyre configuration on road wear (Section 7) were
ignored due to the limits of current understanding and because the distributions of heavy vehicle
tyre types on the different road types were not known (Appendix I).
Appendix J considered current research on the impact of the dynamic nature of wheel loads on
estimating road wear. Considering this research and the fact that the Austroads sponsored work
on Project AT1212 Measuring Heavy Vehicle Wheel Loads Dynamically was incomplete, the
impacts of the suspension system and dynamic wheel loads were ignored in estimating road wear.

1
Load equivalency is the axle group reference load that gives the same road wear as the standard axle (SADT) load of 8
tonnes.

Aust r oads 2012
21
4.2.2 Traffic Loading for Concrete Pavements
Since FAMLIT does not include models for concrete pavements, it was assumed that these
pavements perform the same way as CS pavements, but with SAR12 as the relevant damage
exponent. The use of SAR12 was supported by recent research by Austroads (2006b).
For each loading scenario, the traffic loading was determined using the relevant annual numbers of
each heavy vehicle axle group type (HVAG) and the SAR12 value of the axle group. The latter
was determined using the maximum loads permitted under GML. The annual numbers of HVAG
for each loading scenario were determined using suitable traffic multipliers. The process for
determining these traffic multipliers and associated loadings is shown in Appendix H.
4.3 FAMLIT Anal ysis Parameters
The analysis parameters used in FAMLIT for the pavement life-cycle costing analyses include the
following: analysis period; real discount rate; maintenance strategies and intervention criteria
relevant for each pavement category; maintenance works unit costs; and, assumptions for works
effects. The maintenance strategies and intervention criteria used in the assessment are
summarised in Appendix K.
An analysis period of 50 years was used for all network sections to capture at least one
rehabilitation and/or reconstruction activity for each section, and to recognise that these sections
include pavements of different ages at different points in their life-cycles. A real discount rate of
5% was used to estimate the present value of the time distribution of the life-cycle road agency
costs of routine and periodic maintenance, rehabilitation and/or reconstruction for each pavement
and road type. To simplify the analysis, the same maintenance strategies, intervention criteria and
works unit costs were applied to the same pavement category operating in different climates, that
is, the works unit costs were not varied due to climatic effects.

Aust r oads 2012
22
5 LOAD-WEAR-COST (LWC) RELATIONSHIPS FOR ALL
PAVEMENT TYPES
5.1 Determining LWC Relationships for the Pavement Types
A FAMLIT life-cycle cost analysis was run for each section for all pavement and road types under
each of the loading scenarios. For each section and scenario, the EAUC of maintenance was
determined by annualising the agency road wear costs over the full analysis period, as shown in
Appendix B.
The weighted average EAUC for each pavement category and each climatic region was then
determined using the nominated age distribution (Table I 4). The nominated age distribution of in-
service pavements had average pavement ages of 10, 20, 30 and 40 years and new pavements
(pavement age =0).
The weighted average EAUC for each scenario and the corresponding annual traffic loading
(YSAR) were used to build LWC relationships between the weighted EAUC and axle load
(tonne-km) and the weighted EAUC and SAR (SAR-km), as noted in Section 2. For each axle
group type, the weighted EAUC of each loading scenario was calculated relative to the base
loading scenario. Examples of the outcomes of the weighted EAUC estimates from FAMLIT
against axle load and SAR of each loading scenario are shown in Appendix L for road sub-network
number one for Phase 1.
The LWC relationships based on the weighted EAUC and axle load (tonne-km) and the weighted
EAUC and SAR-km were found for the increased axle loading on each axle group using regression
analyses with the weighted EAUC as the dependent variable and the axle mass (and SAR-km) and
TMI as the independent variables as shown by Equations 1 and 3. Presented in Table 5.1 are the
EAUC and axle load and the EAUC and SAR Equations 1 and 3 with their parameter values and
corresponding goodness of fit estimates (r
2
) to the data output from FAMLIT. These EAUC
equations for increased axle group loadings for up to the six axle groups are for all in-service (S)
and new pavement (N) categories that cover the climate ranges shown in Figure 4.1.
5.2 Developing SRMC Relationships (Phase 1)
For each road type covering its nominated climatic regions, the SRMC relationships were derived
from the LWC relationships, using Equations 2 and 4, as shown in Section 2.1, except for the
concrete pavements. The SRMC estimation approach to concrete pavements was restricted to
urban and rural arterials and urban freeways with a fixed climate value and pavement age.
Appendix M shows the changes in EAUC, EAUC, with the incremental axle mass increases on
the axle groups for concrete pavements. No LWC relationships for concrete pavements were
developed because the life-cycle costing analysis undertaken for these pavements showed that for
all of the three axle groups considered only minor changes in the estimated EAUC values occurred
with increased axle group load (see Table M 1, Appendix M).
Presented in Table 5.2 are the two SRMC relationships for each road type, one SRMC relationship
in terms of total c/tonne-km for each axle group on each road type, and the other SRMC
relationship in terms of c/SAR-km for each axle group on each road type. Table 5.2 shows that
generally the SRMC relationship based on c/SAR-km does not change appreciably with each axle
group so that an average of the SRMC (c/SAR-km) relationships of all axle groups on each road
type can be adopted without significant loss in accuracy of SRMC estimation for this type of study.
Road types rural collector (GN) and urban collector (AC) show the greatest variation in SRMC
(c/SAR-km) estimates because these road types are relatively lightly loaded and changes in the

Aust r oads 2012
23
EAUV values did not occur gradually. Use of a constant SRMC (c/SAR-km) for a given road type
irrespective of axle group is as expected because of the axle load equivalency nature of the
reference load for each axle group that aims to give equal road wear for each axle group relative to
the standard axle.
Table 5.3 shows the SRMC estimates, in terms of c/tonne-km per axle group pass, for the axle
load increments on each axle group for each road type. These SRMC estimates were based on
the SRMC relationships shown in Table 5.2 for each axle group and load increment for each road
type divided by the annual number of axle group passes for each axle group on the road type.
Table 5.3 clearly shows that for each road type and axle group, the SRMC (c/tonne-km per axle
group pass) increases significantly with increasing load increments.
Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 show a plot of the estimated $EAUC/lane-km for each axle
group against the SAR-km of axle groups undergoing incremental increases in their axle loads
from the GML values for the rural arterial (GN) roads, urban arterial (AC) roads and urban (CS)
freeways for a given climate. These figures show that the average c/SAR-km relationship adopted
for each road type is a reasonable approximation. The conversion of axle group loading, tonne-
km, to SAR-km reduces a non-linear exponential relationship to an essentially linear relationship
for all ranges of axle group loading.
Figure 5.4, Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 show a plot of the estimated $EAUC/lane-km for each axle
group against the axle groups undergoing incremental increases in their axle loads (tonne-km)
from the GML values for the rural arterial (GN) roads, urban arterial (AC) roads and urban
freeways (CS) for a given climate. These figures show a strong non-linear relationship of the
estimated $EAUC/lane-km with the tonne-km for each axle group with increasing load increments.
These figures also show that the TADT axle group has the highest SRMC compared to the other
axle groups considered in Phase 1.
Figure 5.7, Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 show a plot of the estimated SRMC, in terms of c/tonne-km
for each axle group pass, against the tonne-km of those axle groups undergoing incremental
increases in their axle loads from the GML values for the rural arterial (GN) roads, urban arterial
(AC) roads and urban freeways (CS) for a given climate. These figures consistently show much
higher increases in SRMC for the SADT and TADT axle groups relative to the TRDT axle group.
These figures also show that the urban freeway (CS) has a much higher SRMC than the urban
arterial (AC) due to the effect of the higher damage exponent of the CS pavement.


Aust r oads 2012
24
Table5.1: EAUC relationships with axlemass and values of thedifferent pavement and road typeand axlegroups for all loadingscenarios (Phase1)
Network
no.
Roadtype CAADT
(HV/day)
Base
SAR
Axle
group
EAUC =a0+a1Thornthwaite+a2(axlemass - offset)
a3
EAUC =a0
I
+a1
I
Thornthwaite+a2
I
(SAR-km- offset)
a0 a1 a2 a3 r
2
Offset a0
I
a1
I
a2
I
r
2
Offset
1 Rural Freeway GN 405.5 766 159 SADT 15 692 87.02 38.87 2.33 0.95 8 15 157 87.02 0.007 0.95 700 000
TADT 15 563 104.26 157.91 1.76 0.95 15.5 15 208 104.26 0.007 0.95 700 000
TRDT 15 682 97.15 40.34 1.90 0.95 19 15 157 97.15 0.007 0.95 700 000
1 Rural Arterial GN(S) 66.7 120 811 SADT 13 282 74.73 159.96 1.54 0.78 8 12 647 74.73 0.044 0.78 100 000
TADT 13 622 92.02 78.52 2.06 0.86 15.5 12 393 91.87 0.042 0.86 100 000
TRDT 13 345 83.37 65.28 1.68 0.83 19 12 685 83.37 0.038 0.83 100 000
1 Urban Freeway CS 704 2 005 804 SADT 3 615 51.01 10.90 3.91 0.97 8 3 019 51.18 0.002 0.96 2 000 000
TADT 3 767 68.75 26.53 3.36 0.98 15.5 2 244 68.00 0.002 0.97 2 000 000
TRDT 3 251 61.70 8.64 2.95 0.95 19 3 081 58.53 0.002 0.96 2 000 000
1 Urban Arterial CS 213 541 749 SADT 2 880 32.68 8.21 4.19 0.97 8 1 833 33.55 0.006 0.95 500 000
TADT 2 130 49.52 45.25 2.85 0.98 15.5 1 650 50.03 0.005 0.98 500 000
TRDT 2 657 41.95 0.61 3.72 0.98 19 2 026 41.79 0.005 0.97 500 000
4 Rural Arterial CS 66.7 208 950 SADT 6 713 58.38 23.93 3.56 0.95 8 6 196 58.08 0.028 0.95 200 000
TADT 6 198 63.17 188.02 2.73 0.95 15.5 5 388 63.17 0.033 0.94 200 000
TRDT 6 817 58.44 21.49 3.08 0.95 19 5 733 58.33 0.043 0.93 200 000
4 Rural Arterial GN
(N)1
66.7 120 811 SADT1 7 153 4 871.8 11.94 2.45 0.99 8 7 082 4 871.84 0.021 0.99 120 000
TADT1 6 388 5 486.1 87.53 1.78 0.98 15.5 6 393 5 486.08 0.023 0.98 120 000
TRDT1 6 816 5 362.2 19.04 1.96 0.98 19 6 714 5 362.23 0.024 0.98 120 000
4 Rural Collector GN2 6.22 9 485 SADT2 3 904 9 352.2 6.25 3.10 0.98 8 3 542 9 352.55 0.302 0.98 9 000
TADT2 3 463 9 518.4 41.20 2.27 0.98 15.5 2 718 9 518.36 0.509 0.98 9 000
TRDT2 3 767 9 412.3 3.58 2.53 0.98 19 3 353 9 333.29 0.442 0.98 9 000

Aust r oads 2012
25
Network
no.
Roadtype CAADT
(HV/day)
Base
SAR
Axle
group
a3
EAUC =a0
I
+a1
I
Thornthwaite+a2
I
(SAR-km- offset)
a0 a1 a2 a3 r
2
Offset a0
I
a1
I
a2
I
r
2
Offset
4 Rural Access GN2 1.594 2 190 SADT2 2 750 3 933.0 7.70 3.23 0.92 8 2 070 3 933.71 1.623 0.91 2 000
TADT2 2 395 4 321.6 35.77 2.24 0.96 15.5 1 628 4 321.60 1.984 0.95 2 000
TRDT2 2 864 3 447.3 4.07 2.17 0.90 19 2 508 3 458.80 1.505 0.90 2 000
3 Rural Arterial AC(N) 66.7 135 954 SADT 8 601 50.56 1.05 3.49 0.79 8 8 499 50.56 0.007 0.79 130 000
TADT 8 477 43.07 9.83 2.64 0.84 15.5 8 137 42.68 0.011 0.84 130 000
TRDT 8 516 46.78 3.12 2.58 0.83 19 8 315 46.65 0.009 0.83 130 000
3 Urban Freeway AC 704 1 316 827 SADT 8 220 54.14 63.77 1.67 0.98 8 8 342 53.94 0.001 0.98 1 300 000
TADT 8 307 56.70 27.61 2.15 0.98 15.5 8 253 56.65 0.001 0.98 1 300 000
TRDT 8 378 54.12 6.34 2.18 0.98 19 8 344 54.05 0.001 0.98 1 300 000
3 Urban Arterial AC
(N)
213 359 513 SADT 5 390 31.00 6.93 2.62 1.00 8 5 309 31.35 0.002 0.99 330 000
TADT 5 229 33.12 5.38 2.66 0.98 15.5 5 000 33.03 0.003 0.97 330 000
TRDT 5 396 30.87 1.60 2.26 1.00 19 5 333 30.87 0.002 1.00 330 000
3 Urban Collector AC 52 82 040 SADT 6 154 26.46 0.02 6.34 0.84 8 5 394 25.98 0.034 0.74 80 000
TADT 6 123 19.27 1.54 3.76 0.90 15.5 4 781 18.94 0.050 0.84 80 000
TRDT 5 943 32.94 0.15 2.79 0.98 19 5 912 32.96 0.008 0.98 80 000
2 Rural Art AC(S) 66.7 135 954 SADT 6 805 60.49 12.38 2.33 0.98 8 6 754 60.47 0.009 0.99 130 000
TADT 6 737 59.37 8.41 2.82 0.97 15.5 6 192 59.37 0.015 0.95 130 000
TRDT 6 710 59.95 4.97 2.52 0.97 19 6 449 61.09 0.013 0.97 130 000
2 Urban Art AC(S) 213 359 513 SADT 5 164 23.58 29.95 2.23 0.93 8 5 086 23.58 0.004 0.93 330 000
TADT 5 205 26.10 17.91 2.28 0.95 15.5 4 977 26.09 0.004 0.95 330 000
TRDT 5 165 23.26 6.53 2.04 0.91 19 5 061 23.27 0.004 0.91 330 000

Aust r oads 2012
26
Network
no.
Roadtype CAADT
(HV/day)
Base
SAR
Axle
group
a3
EAUC =a0
I
+a1
I
Thornthwaite+a2
I
(SAR-km- offset)
a0 a1 a2 a3 r
2
Offset a0
I
a1
I
a2
I
r
2
Offset
2 Urban Art GN 213 314 721 SADT 10 906 71.14 149.62 1.87 0.93 8 10 987 71.14 0.017 0.93 310 000
TADT 10 827 77.43 147.77 1.72 0.94 15.5 10 872 77.43 0.016 0.94 310 000
TRDT 11 113 68.28 28.64 1.80 0.92 19 11 037 68.28 0.017 0.92 310 000
2 Urban Collector GN 52 71 489 SADT 8 592 97.16 102.28 2.19 0.96 8 8 364 97.16 0.091 0.96 70 000
TADT 8 316 105.20 133.09 1.82 0.96 15.5 8 160 105.20 0.090 0.96 70 000
TRDT 9 166 77.63 11.57 1.79 0.99 19 9 044 77.69 0.074 0.99 70 000
2 Urban Access GN 2.595 3 285 SADT 3 129 82.84 383.01 1.68 0.99 8 3 266 82.84 1.605 0.99 3 000
TADT 3 452 82.66 84.04 1.78 0.98 15.5 2 966 82.66 1.802 0.98 3 000
TRDT 3 730 72.93 7.91 1.91 0.96 19 3 169 73.01 1.886 0.96 3 000
Note:
Dummy variable parameters Thornthwaite Index 50 and 0 = 1; Thornthwaite Index -50 = 0 in EAUCequations.
Dummy variable parameters Thornthwaite Index 80 = 1; Thornthwaite Index -20 and 20 = 0 in EAUCequations.

Aust r oads 2012
27
Table5.2: SRMC relationships with axlemass and SAR values of thedifferent pavement and road types and axlegroups for all loading scenarios (Phase1)
Network
no.
Roadtype CAADT
(HV/day)
Base
SAR
Axle
group
a2 a3 Offset SRMC (c/tonne-km) a2I Offset SRMC
(c/SAR-km)
AverageSRMC
(c/SAR-km)
1 Rural Freeway GN 405.5 766 159 SADT 38.87 2.33 8 9 056*(axle 8)1.33 0.007 700 000 0.7
TADT 157.91 1.76 15.5 27 792*(axle 15.5)0.76 0.007 700 000 0.7 0.7
TRDT 40.34 1.90 19 7 665*(axle 19)0.90 0.007 700 000 0.7
1 Rural Arterial GN(S) 66.7 120 811 SADT 159.96 1.54 8 24 634*(axle 8)0.54 0.044 100 000 4.4
TADT 78.52 2.06 15.5 16 175*(axle 15.5)1.06 0.042 100 000 4.2 4.1
TRDT 65.28 1.68 19 10 967*(axle 19)0.68 0.038 100 000 3.8
1 Urban Freeway CS 704 2 005 804 SADT 10.90 3.91 8 4 262*(axle 8)2.91 0.002 2 000 000 0.2
TADT 26.53 3.36 15.5 8 914*(axle 15.5)2.36 0.002 2 000 000 0..2 0.2
TRDT 8.64 2.95 19 2 549*(axle 19)1.95 0.002 2 000 000 0.2
1 Urban Arterial CS 213 541 749 SADT 8.21 4.19 8 3 440*(axle 8)3.19 0.006 500 000 0.6
TADT 45.25 2.85 15.5 12 896*(axle 15.5)1.85 0.005 500 000 0.5 0.5
TRDT 0.61 3.72 19 227*(axle 19)2.72 0.005 500 000 0.5
4 Rural Arterial CS 66.7 208 950 SADT 23.93 3.56 8 8 519*(axle 8)2.56 0.028 200 000 2.8
TADT 188.02 2.73 15.5 51 329*(axle 15.5)1.73 0.033 200 000 3.3 3.5
TRDT 21.49 3.08 19 6 619*(axle 19)2.08 0.043 200 000 4.3
4 Rural Arterial GN(N) 66.7 120 811 SADT 11.94 2.45 8 2 925*(axle 8)1.45 0.021 120 000 2.1
TADT 87.53 1.78 15.5 15 580*(axle 15.5)0.78 0.023 120 000 2.3 2.3
TRDT 19.04 1.96 19 3 732*(axle 19)0.96 0.024 120 000 2.4
4 Rural Collector GN 6.22 9 485 SADT 6.25 3.10 8 1 938*(axle 8)2.10 0.302 9 000 30.2
TADT 41.20 2.27 15.5 9 352*(axle 15.5)1.27 0.509 9 000 50.9 41.7
TRDT 3.58 2.53 19 906*(axle 19)1.53 0.442 9 000 44.2
4 Rural Access GN 1.594 2 190 SADT 7.70 3.23 8 2487*(axle 8)2.23 1.623 2 000 162.3
TADT 35.77 2.24 15.5 8 013*(axle 15.5)1.24 1.984 2 000 198.4 170.4
TRDT 4.07 2.17 19 883*(axle 19)1.17 1.505 2 000 150.5
3 Rural Arterial AC(N) 66.7 135 954 SADT 1.05 3.49 8 366*(axle 8)2.49 0.007 130 000 0.7
TADT 9.83 2.64 15.5 2 595*(axle 15.5)1.64 0.011 130 000 1.1 0.9
TRDT 3.12 2.58 19 805*(axle 19)1.58 0.009 130 000 0.9

Aust r oads 2012
28
Network
no.
Roadtype CAADT
(HV/day)
Base
SAR
Axle
group
a2 a3 Offset SRMC (c/tonne-km) a2I Offset SRMC
(c/SAR-km)
AverageSRMC
(c/SAR-km)
3 Urban Freeway AC 704 1 316 827 SADT 63.77 1.67 8 10 650*(axle 8)0.67 0.001 1 300 000 0.1
TADT 27.61 2.15 15.5 5 936*(axle 15.5)1.15 0.001 1 300 000 0.1 0.1
TRDT 6.34 2.18 19 1 382*(axle 19)1.18 0.001 1 300 000 0.1
3 Urban Arterial AC(N) 213 359 513 SADT 6.93 2.62 8 1 816*(axle 8)1.62 0.002 330 000 0.2
TADT 5.38 2.66 15.5 1 431*(axle 15.5)1.66 0.003 330 000 0.3 0.2
TRDT 1.60 2.26 19 362*(axle 19)1.26 0.002 330 000 0.2
Urban Collector AC 52 82 040 SADT 0.02 6.34 8 13*(axle 8)5.34 0.034 80 000 3.4
TADT 1.54 3.76 15.5 579*(axle 15.5)2.67 0.050 80 000 5.0 3.1
TRDT 0.15 2.79 19 42*(axle 19)1.79 0.008 80 000 0.8
2 Rural Art AC(S) 66.7 135 954 SADT 12.38 2.33 8 2 885*(axle 8)1.33 0.009 130 000 0.9
TADT 8.41 2.82 15.5 2 372*(axle 15.5)1.82 0.015 130 000 1.5 1.2
TRDT 4.97 2.52 19 1 252*(axle 19)1.52 0.013 130 000 1.3
2 Urban Art AC(S) 213 359 513 SADT 29.95 2.23 8 6 679*(axle 8)1.23 0.004 330 000 0.4
TADT 17.91 2.28 15.5 4 083*(axle 15.5)1.28 0.004 330 000 0.4 0.4
TRDT 6.53 2.04 19 1 332*(axle 19)1.04 0.004 330 000 0.4
2 Urban Art GN 213 314 721 SADT 149.62 1.87 8 27 979*(axle 8)0.87 0.017 310 000 1.7
TADT 147.77 1.72 15.5 25 416*(axle 15.5)0.72 0.016 310 000 1.6 1.7
TRDT 28.64 1.80 19 5 155*(axle 19)0.80 0.017 310 000 1.7
2 Urban Collector GN 52 71 489 SADT 102.28 2.19 8 22 399*(axle 8)1.19 0.091 70 000 9.1
TADT 133.09 1.82 15.5 24 222*(axle 15.5)0.82 0.090 70 000 9.0 8.5
TRDT 11.57 1.79 19 2 071*(axle 19)0.79 0.074 70 000 7.4
2 Urban Access GN 2.595 3 285 SADT 383.01 1.68 8 64 346*(axle 8)0.68 1.605 3 000 160.5
TADT 84.04 1.78 15.5 14 959*(axle 15.5)0.78 1.802 3 000 180.2 176.4
TRDT 7.91 1.91 19 1 511*(axle 19)0.91 1.886 3 000 188.6
TRDT 7.91 1.91 19 1 511*(axle 19)0.91 1.886 3 000 188.6


Aust r oads 2012
29
Table5.3: SRMC estimates per axlegrouppass for axleloadincrements oneachroadtype(Phase1)
Roadtype Axlegroup Axleload
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
Rural Fwy GN SADT 9.0 51 803 0.17 Urban Art CS SADT 9.0 40 039 0.09
10.0 51 803 0.44 10.0 40 039 0.78
11.0 51 803 0.75 11.0 40 039 2.86
12.0 51 803 1.10 12.0 40 039 7.16
13.0 51 803 1.49 13.0 40 039 14.58
TADT 16.5 141 495 0.20 TADT 16.5 47 347 0.27
17.5 141 495 0.33 17.5 47 347 0.98
18.5 141 495 0.45 18.5 47 347 2.08
19.5 141 495 0.56 19.5 47 347 3.54
20.5 141 495 0.67 20.5 47 347 5.35
TRDT 20.0 106 417 0.07 TRDT 20.0 22 002 0.01
21.0 106 417 0.13 21.0 22 002 0.07
22.0 106 417 0.19 22.0 22 002 0.20
23.0 106 417 0.25 23.0 22 002 0.45
24.0 106 417 0.31 24.0 22 002 0.82
Rural Art GN(S) SADT 9.0 8 083 3.05 Rural Art CS SADT 9.0 8 083 1.05
10.0 8 083 4.43 10.0 8 083 6.22
11.0 8 083 5.52 11.0 8 083 17.55
12.0 8 083 6.44 12.0 8 083 36.65
13.0 8 083 7.27 13.0 8 083 64.89
TADT 16.5 22 958 0.70 TADT 16.5 22 958 2.24
17.5 22 958 1.47 17.5 22 958 7.42
18.5 22 958 2.26 18.5 22 958 14.96
19.5 22 958 3.06 19.5 22 958 24.60
20.5 22 958 3.88 20.5 22 958 36.20
TRDT 20.0 16 068 0.68 TRDT 20.0 16 068 0.41
21.0 16 068 1.09 21.0 16 068 1.74
22.0 16 068 1.44 22.0 16 068 4.05
23.0 16 068 1.75 23.0 16 068 7.36
24.0 16 068 2.04 24.0 16 068 11.71
Urban Fwy CS SADT 9.0 98 930 0.04 Rural Art GN(N) SADT 9.0 8 083 0.36
10.0 98 930 0.32 10.0 8 083 0.99
11.0 98 930 1.05 11.0 8 083 1.78
12.0 98 930 2.43 12.0 8 083 2.70

Aust r oads 2012
30
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
13.0 98 930 4.66 13.0 8 083 3.73
TADT 16.5 210 964 0.04 TADT 16.5 22 958 0.68
17.5 210 964 0.22 17.5 22 958 1.17
18.5 210 964 0.56 18.5 22 958 1.60
19.5 210 964 1.11 19.5 22 958 2.00
20.5 210 964 1.89 20.5 22 958 2.38
TRDT 20.0 115 375 0.02 TRDT 20.0 16 068 0.23
21.0 115 375 0.09 21.0 16 068 0.45
22.0 115 375 0.19 22.0 16 068 0.67
23.0 115 375 0.33 23.0 16 068 0.88
24.0 115 375 0.51 24.0 16 068 1.09
Rural Coll GN SADT 9.0 976 1.99 Urban Fwy AC SADT 9.0 98 930 0.11
10.0 976 8.51 10.0 98 930 0.17
11.0 976 19.94 11.0 98 930 0.22
12.0 976 36.49 12.0 98 930 0.27
13.0 976 58.30 13.0 98 930 0.32
TADT 16.5 1 620 5.77 TADT 16.5 210 964 0.03
17.5 1 620 13.92 17.5 210 964 0.06
18.5 1 620 23.30 18.5 210 964 0.10
19.5 1 620 33.58 19.5 210 964 0.14
20.5 1 620 44.58 20.5 210 964 0.18
TRDT 20.0 776 1.17 TRDT 20.0 115 375 0.01
21.0 776 3.37 21.0 115 375 0.03
22.0 776 6.27 22.0 115 375 0.04
23.0 776 9.73 23.0 115 375 0.06
24.0 776 13.69 24.0 115 375 0.08
Rural Acc GN SADT 9.0 288 8.64 Urban Art AC(N) SADT 9.0 40 039 0.05
10.0 288 40.51 10.0 40 039 0.14
11.0 288 100.06 11.0 40 039 0.27
12.0 288 190.06 12.0 40 039 0.43
13.0 288 312.60 13.0 40 039 0.62
TADT 16.5 340 23.54 TADT 16.5 47 347 0.03
17.5 340 55.61 17.5 47 347 0.10
18.5 340 91.94 18.5 47 347 0.19
19.5 340 131.34 19.5 47 347 0.30

Aust r oads 2012
31
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
20.5 340 173.21 20.5 47 347 0.44
TRDT 20.0 99 8.93 TRDT 20.0 22 002 0.02
21.0 99 20.09 21.0 22 002 0.04
22.0 99 32.28 22.0 22 002 0.07
23.0 99 45.20 23.0 22 002 0.09
24.0 99 58.68 24.0 22 002 0.13
Rural Art AC(N) SADT 9.0 8 083 0.05 Urban Coll AC SADT 9.0 10 534 0.00
10.0 8 083 0.25 10.0 10 534 0.05
11.0 8 083 0.70 11.0 10 534 0.44
12.0 8 083 1.43 12.0 10 534 2.02
13.0 8 083 2.49 13.0 10 534 6.67
TADT 16.5 22 958 0.11 TADT 16.5 10 154 0.06
17.5 22 958 0.35 17.5 10 154 0.39
18.5 22 958 0.68 18.5 10 154 1.18
19.5 22 958 1.10 19.5 10 154 2.62
20.5 22 958 1.58 20.5 10 154 4.84
TRDT 20.0 16 068 0.05 TRDT 20.0 1 993 0.02
21.0 16 068 0.15 21.0 1 993 0.07
22.0 16 068 0.28 22.0 1 993 0.15
23.0 16 068 0.45 23.0 1 993 0.25
24.0 16 068 0.64 24.0 1 993 0.38
Rural Art AC(S) SADT 9.0 8 083 0.36 Urban Coll GN SADT 9.0 10 534 2.13
10.0 8 083 0.90 10.0 10 534 4.85
11.0 8 083 1.54 11.0 10 534 7.86
12.0 8 083 2.26 12.0 10 534 11.07
13.0 8 083 3.04 13.0 10 534 14.43
TADT 16.5 22 958 0.10 TADT 16.5 10 154 2.39
17.5 22 958 0.36 17.5 10 154 4.21
18.5 22 958 0.76 18.5 10 154 5.87
19.5 22 958 1.29 19.5 10 154 7.43
20.5 22 958 1.93 20.5 10 154 8.93
TRDT 20.0 16 068 0.08 TRDT 20.0 1 993 1.04
21.0 16 068 0.22 21.0 1 993 1.80
22.0 16 068 0.41 22.0 1 993 2.48
23.0 16 068 0.64 23.0 1 993 3.11

Aust r oads 2012
32
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
(tonne)
Annual axle
passes (no.)
SRMC
(c/tonne-km)
24.0 16 068 0.90 24.0 1 993 3.71
Urban Art AC(S) SADT 9.0 40 039 0.17 Urban Acc GN SADT 9.0 720 89.39
10.0 40 039 0.39 10.0 720 143.21
11.0 40 039 0.64 11.0 720 188.68
12.0 40 039 0.92 12.0 720 229.44
13.0 40 039 1.21 13.0 720 267.04
TADT 16.5 47 347 0.09 TADT 16.5 284 52.64
17.5 47 347 0.21 17.5 284 90.40
18.5 47 347 0.35 18.5 284 124.02
19.5 47 347 0.51 19.5 284 155.22
20.5 47 347 0.68 20.5 284 184.73
TRDT 20.0 22 002 0.06 TRDT 20.0 76 19.94
21.0 22 002 0.12 21.0 76 37.47
22.0 22 002 0.19 22.0 76 54.19
23.0 22 002 0.26 23.0 76 70.41
24.0 22 002 0.32 24.0 76 86.26
Urban Art GN SADT 9.0
40 039 0.70

10.0
40 039 1.28

11.0
40 039 1.82

12.0
40 039 2.33

13.0
40 039 2.83

TADT 16.5
47 347 0.54

17.5
47 347 0.88

18.5
47 347 1.18

19.5
47 347 1.46

20.5
47 347 1.71

TRDT 20.0
22 002 0.23

21.0
22 002 0.41

22.0
22 002 0.56

23.0
22 002 0.71

24.0
22 002 0.85


Aust r oads 2012
33
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
SAR (SAR-km)
$
E
A
U
C
/
l
a
n
e
-
k
m
SADT data
TADT data
TRDT data
Average SRMC 4.1c/SAR-km
Rural Arterial GN TMI =50

Figure 5.1: $EAUC/lane-kmvs. SAR-kmfor rural arterials (GN) for TMI =50
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000
SAR (SAR-km)
$
E
A
U
C
/
l
a
n
e
-
k
m
SADT data
TADT data
TRDT data
Urban Arterial AC TMI =80

Figure 5.2: $EAUC/lane-kmvs. SAR-kmfor urban arterials (AC) for TMI =80
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000
SAR (SAR-km)
$
E
A
U
C
/
l
a
n
e
-
k
m
SADT data
TADT data
TRDT data
Urban Freeway CS TMI =80

Figure 5.3: $EAUC/lane-kmvs. SAR-kmfor urban freeways (CS) for TMI =80

Aust r oads 2012
34
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Axle group load (tonne-km)
$
E
A
U
C
/
l
a
n
e
-
k
m
SADT data
TADT data
TRDT data
Equation (2.1) for SADT
Equation (2.1) for TADT
Equation (2.1) for TRDT
Rural Arterial GN TMI =50

Figure 5.4: $EAUC/lane-kmvs. axle group load (tonne-km) for rural arterials (GN) for TMI =50
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
$
E
A
U
C
/
l
a
n
e
-
k
m
SADT data
TADT data
TRDT data
Urban Arterial AC TMI =80

Figure 5.5: $EAUC/lane-kmvs. axle group load (tonne-km) for urban arterials (AC) for TMI =80
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
$
E
A
U
C
/
l
a
n
e
-
k
m
SADT data
TADT data
TRDT data
Urban Freeway CS TMI =80

Figure 5.6: $EAUC/lane-kmvs. axle group load (tonne-km) for urban freeways (CS) for TMI =80

Aust r oads 2012
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axle group load (tonne)
S
R
M
C

(
c
/
t
o
n
n
e
-
k
m
/
a
x
l
e

g
r
o
u
p
)
SADT
TADT
TRDT
Rural Arterial GN (S) TMI =50

Figure 5.7: SRMC (c/tonne-kmper axle group pass) vs. axle group load for rural arterials (GN) for TMI =50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
S
R
M
C

(
c
/
t
o
n
n
e
-
k
m
/
a
x
l
e

g
r
o
u
p
)
SADT
TADT
TRDT

Figure 5.8: SRMC (c/tonne-kmper axle group pass) vs. axle group load for urban arterials (AC) for TMI =80
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
S
R
M
C

(
c
/
t
o
n
n
e
-
k
m
/
a
x
l
e

g
r
o
u
p
)
SADT
TADT
TRDT
Urban Freeway CS

Figure 5.9: SRMC (c/tonne-kmper axle group pass) vs. axle group load for urban freeways (CS) for TMI =80

Aust r oads 2012
36
5.3 Developing LWC Relationships with Axle Group Loads (Phase 2)
The outcomes of the estimation of the LWC relationships for all the road types considered in terms
of EAUC using axle group loads (Equation 1) and SARs (Equation 4) are summarised in Table 5.8
and Table 5.9. Table 5.8 shows the EAUC relationships based on the structural/roughness models
also used in Phase 1 and Table 5.9 shows the EAUC relationships based on the rutting/roughness
models used in Phase 2. Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 allow comparison of the different estimates of
EAUC due to:
the impact of the two different roughness deterioration models used
the influence of the different axle groups
the influence of the different pavement types.
5.3.1 Influence of Deterioration Models on EAUC Estimates
The EAUC to axle group load relationships given by the two pavement deterioration models share
similarities as well as differences across pavement and road types. This is shown in Figure 5.10
where the EAUC axle group load relationships for the TADT axle group are plotted using the two
different deterioration models for three pavement types (GN AC and CS) for the freeway and
arterial road types.
The estimated EAUC values are broadly similar and the EAUC relationships using the two different
deterioration models are relatively insensitive to axle load changes below the reference load (13.8
tonne) for the TADT axle group which is expected. With the exception of the CS pavements EAUC
values tend to be higher for the strength/roughness deterioration models up to reference load.
Sensitivity of EAUC values to increasing axle load however vary between the two deterioration
models. With the exception of the urban arterial (GN pavements), the EAUC estimates based on
the rutting/roughness deterioration model tend to be more sensitive to increasing axle load above
the reference load than the EAUC estimates based on the strength/roughness deterioration model.
This sensitivity is sufficiently strong to result in EAUC estimates based on the rutting/roughness
deterioration model to exceed the EAUC estimates based on the strength/roughness deterioration
model at higher axle loads for the AC and CS pavements. These observations can be shown to
broadly apply to other axle groups and road types.
The rutting/roughness deterioration model tends to predict higher maintenance costs at higher axle
loads to simulate the consequences of higher axle loads on these costs due to increased local
surface distress.

Aust r oads 2012
37
Rural Freeway GN Tandem axl e dual tyre
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
6 11 16 21 26
Axle Group Mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Strengthmodel

Urban Arteri al GN Tandem axl e dual tyre
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
6 11 16 21 26
Axle Group Mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Strengthmodel

Urban Freewy AC Tandem axl e dual tyre
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
6 11 16 21 26
Axle Group Mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Strengthmodel

Urban Arteri al AC (S) Tandem axl e dual tyre
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
6 11 16 21 26
Axle Group Mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Strengthmodel

Urban Freeway CS Tandem axl e dual tyre
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
6 11 16 21 26
Axle Group Mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Strengthmodel

Urban Arteri al CS Tandem axl e dual tyre
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
6 11 16 21 26
Axle Group Mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Strengthmodel

Figure 5.10: Comparison of EAUC vs. axle group load for two pavement deterioration models (GN AC and CS pavements
mid range TMI values TADT axle groups)


Aust r oads 2012
38
5.3.2 Influence of Different Axle Groups on EAUC Estimates
In order to show the variation of the EAUC axle group load relationships for the different axle
groups the EAUC relationships were derived for all six axle groups for rural arterial roads for each
of the pavement types and for both deterioration models as shown in Figure 5.11. In order to allow
axle group comparisons the axle load was measured in terms of payload that is the load in excess
of the tare weight; despite this adjustment the fact that different axle groups have different starting
masses can still cause some vertical displacement of the plotted EAUC relationships in relation to
the vertical axis. This can vary between road types depending on the relative importance of the
axle group being considered in terms of its portion of the heavy vehicle traffic composition.
Figure 5.11 shows that with the exception of the TAST axle group the EAUC axle group load
relationships for each axle group are as expected. The SAST axle group displays the greatest
sensitivity to increasing payloads while QADT axle group displays the least with other axle groups
falling within the hierarchy as expected. Subsequent investigation indicated that an insensitive or
almost constant relationship for the TAST axle group occurred because this group comprised such
a small proportion of heavy vehicle traffic so that increases in axle loads for this group had minimal
impact on the estimated EAUC.
Results for CS pavements showed some sensitivity to increased load but this was in response to
the high exponent used in estimating SARs. These aberrations should also have occurred for
QADT axle group given that numbers of vehicles equipped with such axles are currently very
small. However as previously noted a temporary swap of vehicle numbers with the vehicles using
TRDT axle groups was used for this.

Aust r oads 2012
39
Rural Arterial GN (S) Strength model
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
17000
19000
21000
23000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Payload (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural Arterial GN (S) Rutting/roughness model
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
17000
19000
21000
23000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Payload (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural Arterial AC (S) Strength model
2000
7000
12000
17000
22000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Payload (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural Arterial AC (S) Rutting/roughness model
2000
7000
12000
17000
22000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Payload (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural Arterial CS Strength model
2000
7000
12000
17000
22000
27000
32000
37000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Payload (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural arterial CS Rutting/roughness model
2000
7000
12000
17000
22000
27000
32000
37000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Payload (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Figure 5.11: Comparison of EAUC vs. axle group load for all axle groups (rural arterial roads strength/roughness and
rutting/roughness deterioration models)
Figure 5.11 also shows that the EAUC based on the rutting/roughness model for payloads up to
those associated with reference loads tend to be lower for than equivalent estimates EAUC
generated by strength/roughness model. The sensitivity of the estimated EAUC can also be
affected by pavement type as shown for the CS pavement modelled in Figure 5.11.

Aust r oads 2012
40
5.3.3 Variations in EAUC and Axle Load Relationships by Pavement Type
The variations in the estimated EAUC and axle group load relationships due to pavement type
were investigated from previously derived relationships for GN AC and CS rural arterial
pavements. The relationships derived for these pavement types were calculated for the three
dominant heavy vehicle axle groups SADT TADT and TRDT to determine typical trends. Separate
estimates for this factorial were derived using both strength/roughness and rutting/roughness
deterioration models. The results are shown in Figure 5.12.
Single Axle Dual Tyr e - St r engt h model
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axle Gr oup Mass (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Arterial CS

Single Axle Dual Tyr e - Rut t ing/r oughness model
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Arterial CS

Tandem Axle Dual Tyr e - St r engt h model
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
6 11 16 21 26
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Arterial CS

Tandem Axle Dual Tyr e - Rut t ing/r oughness model
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
6 11 16 21 26
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Arterial CS

Tr i Axle Dual Tyr e - St r engt h model
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
9 14 19 24 29 34
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Arterial CS

Tr i Axle Dual Tyr e - Rut t ing/r oughness model
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
9 14 19 24 29 34
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Arterial CS

Figure 5.12: EAUC vs. axle group loads variations for pavement types on arterial roads mid range TMI values

Aust r oads 2012
41
In Figure 5.12 it can be seen that common patterns in pavement type effects recur across axle load
groups. For axle loads up to reference load as in previous figures axle load increments are
associated with small increases in EAUC. While EAUC estimates for AC and CS pavements are
similar to that point costs for GN pavements in aggregate are higher. When axle masses increase
up to and beyond GML EAUC increases are much higher for CS pavements compared with GN
and AC pavements which display similar sensitivity to load increases. The same general patterns
recur for EAUC estimates generated by strength/roughness and rutting/roughness deterioration
models although the latter tend to be lower in terms of aggregate cost.
5.3.4 Variations in EAUC by Road Hierarchy
In investigating the impacts of road hierarchy and associated variations in durability associated
with design on EAUC axle group load relationships estimates of these relationships were made for
the full range of GN pavement types considered in the analysis. Results for SADT axle groups the
group most commonly encountered across the road types considered are plotted in Figure 5.13.
Results are replicated using strength/roughness and rutting/roughness deterioration models.
Strength model
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Axl e mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Freewy GN
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Axle mass (t )
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Fwy GN
Rural Art GN (N)
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN

Figure 5.13: Variation in EAUC vs. axle group load by road hierarchy (SADT axle groups on GN pavements)
Examination of EAUC estimates indicates that for most of the axle load range considered the
EAUCs are higher for rural freeways than for other road categories. However sensitivity to
increased axle loads becomes more pronounced for roads lower down in the road type hierarchy.
For EAUC relationships based on a strength/roughness deterioration model, once masses exceed
11 tonnes, the EAUC increases most rapidly for access and then collector roads in response to
increased axle loading, than is the case for freeways and arterials. When a rutting/roughness
deterioration model is used these increases in EAUC occur at a slightly higher axle load. The
tendency for the EAUC for minor roads to become more sensitive to increased loads than major
road types has important implications for the estimation of marginal costs as opposed to EAUC
values.
5.4 Developing LWC Relationships with SARs (Phase 2)
In Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 EAUC relationships are presented in terms of variations in SARs as well
as axle group load. In both Phases 1 and 2 the link between axle load variation and the resulting
EAUC is made indirectly however additional information and insight is provided using the SAR
relationship. In particular direct comparisons between different axle groups are facilitated and

Aust r oads 2012
42
issues associated with differing tare weight starting points for different axle groups are resolved. In
the following section the SAR based EAUC relationships are reviewed in order to:
further illuminate differences in LWC relationships generated by the two pavement
deterioration modelling approaches
achieve better reconciliation between costs associated with different axle groups using a
common scale
better describe variations in road wear costs associated with road functional category and
pavement type.
5.4.1 EAUC and SAR Relationships for Alternative Pavement Deterioration Models
In Figure 5.14 estimated variations in EAUC to SARs relationships using both the
strength/roughness and rutting/roughness deterioration models are set out for GN AC and CS
pavements for selected freeway and urban road types. This presentation mirrors that used in
Figure 5.13 where the explanatory variable was axle group load. In fact the same relationships are
reproduced insofar as the EAUC estimates are more sensitive to increasing load for all road and
pavement type combinations using the strength/roughness and rutting/roughness deterioration
models except for urban arterial roads. The same pattern of EAUC values is also shown with the
EAUC being higher when using the rutting/roughness deterioration model for urban CS roads and
urban AC arterials.

Aust r oads 2012
43

Figure 5.14: EAUC vs. SARs comparison of pavement deterioration model outcomes for GN AC and CS pavements mid
range TMI values TADT axle groups
A limitation associated with material presented in Figure 5.14 compared with Figure 5.13 is that
Figure 5.14 shows EAUC versus SAR values as determined by the axle group reference loads are
a linear relationship and are not influenced by the GML limits. A further point that should be noted
is that because the SAR measure captures both the different exponents used for estimating axle
load impacts on different pavement types and the variations in traffic levels associated with

Aust r oads 2012
44
different road types, the measurement scales associated with the SAR axis vary appreciably.
Consequently care should be taken when comparing load pavement wear outcomes.
5.4.2 EAUC and SAR Relationships for Different Axle Groups
In Figure 5.15 the EAUC to SAR relationship was derived using a strength/roughness model for
each of the six axle groups and plotted on a single graph for urban GN pavements. In Figure 5.16
this procedure is repeated using a rutting/roughness model. Examination of the two figures shows
that they display similar results varying slightly in order of magnitude and sensitivity to changes in
axle loadings.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
SARS
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST SADT
TAST TADT
TRDT QADT

Figure 5.15: EAUC vs. SARs for different axle groups (urban arterial GN strength/roughness deterioration model)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
SARS
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
SAST SADT
TAST TADT
TRDT QADT

Figure 5.16: EAUC vs. SAR for different axle groups (urban arterial GN pavement rutting/roughness deterioration model)

Aust r oads 2012
45
In both figures the combined EAUC to SAR relationship is approximately linear as expected from
first principles. Both figures show that some axle groups are associated with a wide range of SARs
and associated pavement wear cost outcomes the SAST SADT and TADT axle groups being
cases in point.
The remaining axle groups tend to be characterised by narrower SAR ranges and consequently a
narrower ranges of costs. Two factors combine to cause these outcomes as follows: the relative
numbers of vehicles in the traffic stream fitted with the axle groups and variations in reference
loads as shown in Table 4.3, which affect generation of SARS and the sensitivity of this measure to
changes in axle group load. The first axle group SAST has the wider spread of SARs due to a
combination of large relative numbers in the traffic stream combined with relatively small reference
loads. For the second axle group SADT either relative numbers are small and/or reference loads
are larger. Variations in spreads of outcomes for axle load increases between axle mass groups
indicate differential effects which are likely to have implications for pavement maintenance
budgets.
A further observation from a comparison of Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16 is that the EAUC is
estimated to be lower using the rutting/roughness models compared to using the
strength/roughness models. Sensitivity of costs to increasing SARs is also lower for
rutting/roughness based estimates for this road type.
5.4.3 Variations in EAUC and SAR Relationships by Road Type
In Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.18 variations in the EAUC for the TADT axle group are plotted out for
the full range of rural GN pavements and road types in Phase 2 for the two pavement deterioration
models used. These figures demonstrate how variations in road design can affect the EAUC and
how road types have been matched to road use. Truncation of coverage of SARs and associated
costs were used for the freeway category to more clearly demonstrate relationship for the access
and collector roads. Costs for freeways increase with SARs to levels in excess of those plotted out
for arterials.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
SARS
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Freeway GN
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN

Figure 5.17: EAUC vs. SAR relationships for rural GN pavements (strength/roughness model TADT axle group)

Aust r oads 2012
46
Apart from demonstrating that, for Phase 2 at least, the SAR ranges tend to be associated with
particular road types, the EAUC to SAR relationships presented indicate that while the EAUC
increases as the road hierarchy is ascended, sensitivity of costs to additional SAR loading
decreases. This implies that marginal load-wear-costs associated with equivalent axle load
increments decrease when moving up the road hierarchy that is the lightly trafficked roads that are
lowest in the road hierarchy have the highest marginal wear costs and the highly trafficked roads
that are highest in the road hierarchy have the lowest marginal wear costs. A further feature
common to both figures is that in-service rural arterial pavements tend to have lower costs but
higher sensitivity to load increases than newly constructed variants. This seems likely to be due to
the latter being designed to higher load design standards with a pavement strength that causes a
lower rate of deterioration while in-service pavements have a pavement strength based on lower
design requirements which causes deterioration at a higher rate relative to that of newly
constructed pavements.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
SARS
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Rural Freeway GN
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN

Figure 5.18: EAUC vs. SAR relationships for rural GN pavements (rutting/roughness model TADT axle group)
While the same broad patterns of variation of EAUC with increasing axle load applies to both
figures there are some differences. In general EAUC estimates derived from the rutting/roughness
model are less than the strength/roughness model equivalent and the difference in EAUC between
new (N) and in service (S) rural arterial pavements is less. Some variation of sensitivity of EAUC
to axle load increases between the models is suggested with the rutting/roughness models
showing lower sensitivity for low hierarchy road types. The lower initial EAUC values using the
rutting/roughness models are due to the initial settings of the rutting model (see Equations 13 and
A 5) which is a direct function of maintenance expenditure which was calibrated to match estimates
of actual maintenance expenditure for observed rut deterioration rates.

Aust r oads 2012
47
5.5 Developing Marginal Cost Relationships (Phase 2)
5.5.1 Introduction
A key issue in the analysis of the LWC relationships is the estimation of marginal road wear costs
which is the additional cost associated with an incremental increase in load on an axle group.
Using the LWC relationships (Equation 6) which express the EAUC as a function of an
environmental or non-load term and an axle group load term the annual marginal costs (MC
ann
) can
be estimated by the first derivative of the LWC relationship (Equation 7). However as this estimate
is directly affected by the annual number of passes of the axle group which vary with road type an
improved measure of marginal cost can be obtained by dividing the annual marginal cost by annual
number of passes of the axle group to obtain an estimate of the marginal cost per axle pass which
as each segment is one kilometre in length becomes the marginal cost per tonne kilometre per
axle group pass (Equation 8).
The development of a basis for estimating the LRMC using the refined FAMLIT model for six
typical axle groups with loads ranging from tare weight to in excess of GML was undertaken by
variation in the road wear maintenance strategies. The current limitations of the FAMLIT model
are such that a clear distinction between SRMC and LRMC estimates could not be made. LRMC
estimates were based on providing additional structural capacity during pavement rehabilitation
works although optimal
2
timing of this additional capacity driven work under the current limitations
of FAMLIT could not be made and therefore the LRMC estimates did not have a consistent basis.
5.5.2 Marginal Cost Estimates
As could be expected from the Phase 1 EAUC to axle group load relationships, the marginal road
wear cost not only varies by axle load within each axle group and between pavement types and
road types, but also between the two deterioration models used to estimate road deterioration. In
Table 5.6 to Table 5.10, estimates of the marginal axle load road wear costs are set out for each of
the six axle groups for each of the road types investigated.
Differences in marginal costs estimated by the two deterioration models are shown in Figure 5.19
where the EAUC is graphed against axle mass for four different road types of rural GN pavements.
Figure 5.19 shows that for each road type other than rural GN freeways the slope of the EAUC
against axle mass curve (marginal cost) for the strength/roughness model based estimates exceed
the slope of the EAUC against axle mass curve for the rutting/roughness model based estimates.
Figure 5.19 also shows that marginal costs increase with loading and the magnitude of this
increase becomes larger as the road hierarchy decreases. To ascertain the latter trend it should
be noted that the range of the vertical scale increases as the road hierarchy decreases.

2
Optimal timing such that the total life-cycle costs (sum of agency and road user costs) is the minimum possible.

Aust r oads 2012
48
Rural Freeway GN
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
6 11 16 21 26 31
Axle mass
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
Strength model

Rural arterial GN (N)
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
6 11 16 21 26 31
Axle mass
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
Strength model

Rural collector GN
0.000
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
90.000
6 11 16 21 26 31
Axle mass
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
Strength model

Rural access GN
0.000
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
300.000
350.000
6 11 16 21 26 31
Axle mass
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
Strength model

Figure 5.19: Variation between alternative marginal road wear cost estimates (rural GN road categories mid range TMI
values TADT axle group)
Similar relative marginal road wear cost relationships between axle groups previously noted for the
EAUC estimates apply to marginal costs as can be seen in Figure 5.20.
Rural Freeway GN - Strength model
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axle mass in excess of t ar e (t )
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT

Rural Freeway GN - Rutti ng/roughness model
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT


Aust r oads 2012
49
Rural Arteri al GN (N) - Strength model
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural Arteri al GN (N) - Rutti ng/roughness model
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural Col l ector GN - Strength model
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT

Rural Col l ector GN - Rutti ng/roughness model
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT

Rural Access GN - Strength model
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Rural Access GN Rutti ng/roughness model
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Figure 5.20: Variation of marginal road wear cost with load by axle group (rural GN road categories mid range TMI values)
With the exception of the TAST axle group marginal road wear costs reduce as numbers of axles
and associated tyres associated with each axle group increase and so does the magnitude of the
marginal cost increase associated with each load increment. SAST marginal road wear cost
relationships vary by road type and seldom occupy their expected position relative to the SADT
and TADT groups and display a functional form varying between constant and a linear rate of
increase.

Aust r oads 2012
50
As was the case for estimates of the EAUC relationships marginal costs also vary by pavement
type and axle group as can be seen in the relationships plotted out in Figure 5.21 for rural arterial
roads.
Si ngl e axl e si ngl e tyre
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Axle mass in excess of tare (t)
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)
Rural Art AC (S)-Rutting/roughness
Rural Art AC (S)-Strength
Rural Art CS-Rutting/roughness
Rural Art CS-Strength
Rural Art GN(N)-Rutting/roughness
Rural Art GN(N)-Strength

Si ngl e axl e dual tyre
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)

Tandem axl e si ngl e tyre
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)

Tandem axl e dual tyre
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)

Tri axl e dual tyre
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)

Quad axl e si ngl e tyre
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25
E
A
U
C

(
c
e
n
t
s
)

Figure 5.21: Variation in marginal road wear costs by pavement type and axle group (GN AC and CS pavements rural
arterial roads mid range TMI value)
Examination of the results in Figure 5.21 indicates that marginal costs are highest across all axle
groups for CS pavements and that marginal costs increases in response to additional load are
lower for multiple axle tyre combinations across all pavement types. However at the same time no

Aust r oads 2012
51
consistent ranking pattern of sensitivity to increased group load emerges either between GN and
AC pavements or between the alternative methods for modelling pavement deterioration.
Marginal cost estimates can also be estimated in terms of SARs as well as for axle group loads
measured in tonnes. In Figure 5.22 marginal costs are presented in EAUC cents per km per SAR-
km and calculated for all road types for both the deterioration model approaches used in Phase 2.
These marginal cost relationships were derived from material contained in Table 5.8 and Table 5.9.
Examination of Figure 5.22 shows that the highest marginal costs in cents per SAR-km are
recorded for minor roads such as access and collector roads while lowest marginal costs are
recorded for major roads such as freeways are arterials. The two approaches to deterioration
modelling while conforming with the minor/major road pattern also yield differing results depending
on pavement type. For GN pavements marginal SAR-km cost estimates used by the
strength/roughness model approach are higher than those generated by the rutting/roughness
model for all but freeway level roads. For CS and AC pavements the reverse is true.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rural Freeway GN
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Arterial GN
Urban Collector GN
Urban Access GN
Urban Freeway AC
Urban Collector AC
Rural Arterial CS
Urban Freeway CS
Urban Arterial CS
cents/SAR km
Strength model

Figure 5.22: Marginal road wear costs per SAR kmestimates for rutting/roughness and strength/roughness models (all
axle groups combined)
Differences between marginal SAR-km cost estimates yielded by the two modelling approaches
with the exception of rural and urban access GN pavements are not large in absolute terms
although in percentage terms difference are greater and vary with pavement type. For GN
pavements the maximum percentage difference between estimates is 34% for urban access GN
roads while for AC roads differences only one road returned a difference below 22% while for CS
pavements only one road returned a difference of less than 49%.


Aust r oads 2012
52
Table5.4: EAUC relationships with axlemass and SAR values for axlegroups (strength/roughness models Phase2)
Network Roadtype CAADT
(HV/day)
Axle
group
Axlemass equation SAR equation No. of
observations a0 a1 a2 a3 r
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
GN1 Urban Arterial GN 213 SAST 6 644 7 549.32 5.525 3.80 0.946 2 5 520 7 549.31 0.0189 0.944 200 000 110
t 12.23 14.62 2.06 17.69 11.25 14.31 39.99
SADT 8 441 5 666.22 2.857 3.09 0.921 3 8 272 5 666.22 0.0168 0.921 260 000 134
t 42.82 32.21 1.21 9.18 49.82 32.34 22.02
TAST 9 233 5 341.47 0.448114 2.96 0.901 5 9 041 5 341.48 0.0197 0.901 300 000 170
t 59.04 38.47 0.32 2.51 61.69 38.58 6.01
TADT 7 693 5 732.25 0.987960 3.04 0.928 5.5 7 462 5 732.26 0.0164 0.928 210 000 242
t 45.33 37.11 1.92 17.52 51.49 37.16 41.43
TRDT 8 834 5 588.15 0.345504 2.92 0.913 9 8 659 5 588.15 0.0169 0.913 280 000 305
t 71.34 50.01 1.15 10.79 81.28 50.06 25.70
QADT 8 933 5 550.19 0.106783 2.96 0.913 9.75 8 839 5 550.19 0.0169 0.913 290 000 413
t 87.95 59.82 1.09 11.34 101.35 59.85 26.74
All axles 6 979 5 736.95 0.0183 0.935 200 000 1 380
t 108.57 82.93 113.12
GN1 Urban Collector GN 52 SAST 5 439 2.00 22.742 3.25 0.942 2 4 617 2.00 0.0958 0.941 40 000 110
t 9.52 151.61 2.14 15.48 10.20 151.49 36.90
SADT 7 814 1.93 0.281329 4.14 0.874 3.00 7 866 1.93 0.0869 0.870 65 000 134
t 31.67 221.73 0.74 7.52 38.19 219.37 16.82
TAST 8 621 1.91 0.042025 3.98 0.890 5 7 868 1.91 0.0705 0.890 60 000 170
t 57.09 318.81 0.29 3.04 38.42 319.04 6.87
TADT 7 137 1.94 0.079031 3.95 0.882 6.5 6 502 1.94 0.0920 0.877 50 000 242
t 32.88 258.38 1.15 13.56 33.10 253.66 30.09
TRDT 8 631 1.91 0.007571 3.80 0.891 9 8 280 1.91 0.0674 0.891 65 000 305
t 78.60 431.99 0.30 3.63 69.61 432.12 8.25
QADT 8 591 1.91 0.000887 4.16 0.887 9.75 7 831 1.91 0.0730 0.887 60 000 413
t 90.23 489.44 0.37 5.46 62.86 488.62 12.16
All axles 5 591 1.92 0.0916 0.918 40 000 1 380
t 78.92 660.39 99.53

Aust r oads 2012
53
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
GN1 Urban Access GN 2.595 SAST 2 176 1.79 40.029 2.48 0.983 2 2 503 1.79 0.5481 0.970 1 500 110
t 17.38 278.87 4.95 28.15 22.27 210.65 53.67
SADT 2 715 1.79 0.452645 3.77 0.974 3.00 2 232 1.79 0.7396 0.971 2 000 134
t 44.02 438.26 2.20 20.26 37.18 412.55 43.82
TAST 3 122 1.77 0.104696 2.47 0.996 5 3 014 1.77 0.4116 0.996 3 000 170
t 173.25 1646.74 0.20 1.31 71.06 1650.95 3.27
TADT 2 897 1.78 0.003399 4.50 0.971 6.5 2 225 1.78 0.7222 0.966 2 000 242
t 80.90 670.03 1.33 17.85 49.00 617.17 36.27
TRDT 3 083 1.78 0.001319 3.99 0.991 9 2 946 1.78 0.5673 0.991 3 000 305
t 196.73 1514.45 0.64 8.13 160.61 1500.14 18.09
QADT 3 067 1.78 0.000471 4.01 0.989 9.75 2 925 1.78 0.5927 0.989 3 000 413
t 207.54 1614.79 0.78 11.00 179.17 1598.34 24.41
All axles 2 088 1.78 0.5977 0.973 1 500 1 380
t 129.62 1388.24 149.77
GN2 Rural Freeway GN 405.5 SAST 9 961 2.00 17.472 3.10 0.963 2 9 977 2.00 0.0063 0.963 550 000 110
t 31.02 276.46 2.58 18.20 40.45 276.76 43.82
SADT 11 961 1.95 0.396883 3.70 0.982 3 11 785 1.95 0.0062 0.982 680 000 134
t 143.13 728.73 1.25 11.31 162.19 723.85 25.93
TAST 12 541 1.93 0.295636 2.20 0.995 5 12 534 1.93 0.0036 0.995 760 000 170
t 273.29 1 596.45 0.13 0.75 364.10 1 600.99 1.91
TADT 10 040 1.96 1.926737 2.88 0.966 5.5 10 046 1.96 0.0066 0.966 480 000 242
t 75.56 530.04 2.83 24.48 96.99 531.28 58.54
TRDT 11 314 1.96 0.537680 2.97 0.972 9 11 105 1.96 0.0065 0.971 620 000 305
t 124.38 765.81 2.54 24.22 150.02 766.31 57.45
QADT 12 153 1.95 0.009712 3.56 0.985 9.75 12 037 1.95 0.0060 0.984 720 000 413
t 291.14 1 424.33 1.41 17.64 329.48 1 415.26 40.12
All axles 10 305 1.96 0.0064 0.969 550 000 1 380
t 270.67 1 463.24 133.96

Aust r oads 2012
54
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
GN2 Rural Arterial GN(S) 66.7 SAST 7 325 2.00 3.441 3.91 0.960 2 6 140 2.00 0.0469 0.956 80 000 110
t 21.16 229.25 2.19 19.40 19.67 219.67 42.74
SADT 8 912 1.94 1.843918 2.99 0.946 3 8 464 1.94 0.0407 0.946 100 000 134
t 58.62 421.13 0.75 5.50 60.95 422.34 13.25
TAST 9 509 1.93 0.916357 1.82 0.933 5 9 359 1.93 0.0160 0.933 110 000 170
t 51.14 437.70 0.04 0.22 27.34 439.00 0.60
TADT 7 392 1.96 0.560177 3.29 0.947 5.5 6 966 1.96 0.0405 0.947 70 000 242
t 47.71 424.04 2.03 20.07 53.51 425.29 46.96
TRDT 8 439 1.95 0.683580 2.86 0.948 9 8 156 1.95 0.0382 0.948 95 000 305
t 71.25 572.34 1.82 16.78 84.24 572.86 40.08
QADT 8 948 1.94 0.152462 2.81 0.946 9.75 8 802 1.94 0.0413 0.946 110 000 413
t 104.61 740.68 1.04 10.30 124.26 740.80 24.49
All axles 6 862 1.95 0.0436 0.946 80 000 1 380
t 128.60 1031.14 107.36
GN2 Rural Arterial GN(N) 66.7 SAST 6 080 6 368.35 6.964 3.37 0.969 2 5 722 6 368.35 0.0280 0.969 80 000 110
t 27.16 31.23 2.72 20.80 30.12 31.36 49.43
SADT 7 391 5 223.47 0.242481 3.66 0.993 3.00 7 027 5 223.47 0.0271 0.993 100 000 134
t 178.12 132.84 1.61 14.39 166.34 130.93 32.80
TAST 7 691 5 012.42 2.387270 1.51 1.000 5 7 710 5 012.42 0.0173 1.000 120 000 170
t 723.22 821.85 1.18 4.96 1279.57 791.84 13.61
TADT 6 297 5 546.57 0.476103 3.22 0.974 5.5 6 032 5 546.57 0.0279 0.974 70 000 242
t 73.07 69.33 2.91 28.11 80.08 69.18 65.62
TRDT 6 931 5 526.05 0.313606 3.01 0.981 9 6 677 5 526.05 0.0282 0.981 95 000 305
t 119.95 104.78 2.90 28.05 132.18 104.61 66.22
QADT 7 420 5 267.04 0.012343 3.41 0.992 9.75 7 258 5 267.04 0.0275 0.992 110 000 413
t 295.04 219.21 2.10 25.15 309.81 216.69 57.27
All axles 6 039 5 426.47 0.0281 0.980 80 000 1 380
t 229.65 198.79 162.99

Aust r oads 2012
55
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
GN2 Rural Collector GN 6.22 SAST 1 726 1.98 6.728 3.41 0.967 2 1 424 1.98 0.3166 0.966 6 000 110
t 7.41 318.28 2.44 18.85 7.49 315.77 44.11
SADT 2 830 1.94 0.015143 4.85 0.981 3.00 2 617 1.94 0.2411 0.980 8 000 134
t 38.51 741.48 0.65 7.69 35.99 719.73 16.40
TAST 3 051 1.93 10.0 1.13 0.996 5 2 959 1.93 0.3341 0.996 9 000 170
t 38.56 1799.44 0.34 1.12 46.63 1785.67 3.35
TADT 2 471 1.95 0.011242 4.37 0.957 5.5 2 066 1.95 0.2880 0.953 6 000 242
t 26.11 587.41 1.20 15.71 22.35 557.06 33.06
TRDT 2 848 1.95 0.001232 4.47 0.981 9 2 563 1.95 0.2455 0.980 8 000 305
t 58.63 1129.83 0.81 11.65 51.41 1096.36 24.92
QADT 2 966 1.94 0.010747 3.21 0.992 9.75 2 942 1.94 0.1889 0.992 9 000 413
t 101.30 2017.57 0.75 8.43 120.20 2022.46 19.67
All axles 1 839 1.94 0.3079 0.973 6 000 1 380
t 64.22 1760.18 110.72
GN2 Rural Access GN 1.594 SAST 2 079 1.74 6.644 3.28 0.974 2 1 841 1.74 0.9199 0.973 1 200 110
t 15.79 167.55 3.41 25.37 17.00 164.05 59.01
SADT 2 750 1.67 0.001838 5.73 0.933 3.00 2 290 1.67 0.8292 0.908 1 500 134
t 56.82 265.83 0.86 12.01 36.59 228.36 21.84
TAST 3 003 1.63 0.154435 1.75 0.957 5 2 980 1.63 0.1418 0.957 2 000 170
t 78.79 466.08 0.03 0.16 40.72 467.47 0.43
TADT 2 649 1.68 0.000653 5.18 0.944 5.5 2 100 1.68 0.8773 0.912 1 200 242
t 61.52 320.35 1.43 22.20 37.71 256.95 38.13
TRDT 2 888 1.65 0.000099 4.83 0.916 9 2 718 1.65 0.4778 0.914 1 800 305
t 106.49 439.75 0.34 5.26 80.28 435.21 11.24
QADT 2 867 1.66 0.000002 5.71 0.913 9.75 2 705 1.66 0.5768 0.908 1 900 413
t 119.34 493.56 0.43 8.68 98.17 479.32 17.70
All axles 1 920 1.67 0.9265 0.941 1 200 1 380
t 98.27 633.60 125.01

Aust r oads 2012
56
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
AC1 Rural Arterial AC(N) 66.7 SAST 5 765 4 065.96 0.048 5.50 0.980 2 5 118 4 065.96 0.0116 0.966 90 000 110
t 45.62 30.88 2.39 29.77 32.78 23.62 49.86
SADT 5 326 4 913.86 0.000023 7.02 0.998 3.00 5 252 4 913.86 0.0053 0.998 120 000 134
t 332.15 281.73 0.72 12.45 279.15 243.16 22.46
TAST 4 993 4 900.00 0.000467 5.21 0.983 5 5 200 4 988.67 0.0081 0.999 130 000 170
t 103.27 97.37 0.23 3.13 347.53 401.98 6.91
TADT 5 323 4 626.95 0.000554 5.25 0.990 5.5 5 112 4 626.95 0.0081 0.985 80 000 242
t 157.20 130.42 2.18 34.24 132.42 108.81 62.29
TRDT 5 393 4 720.20 0.000688 4.76 0.992 9 5 176 4 720.20 0.0079 0.989 100 000 305
t 209.53 177.54 2.34 35.76 180.00 151.74 67.27
QADT 5 324 4 918.09 0.000001 5.89 0.998 9.75 5 228 4 919.01 0.0059 0.997 120 000 413
t 494.60 426.23 1.16 23.91 406.06 359.23 42.38
All axles 4 785 4 754.46 0.0100 0.975 90 000 1 380
t 217.34 194.00 128.33
AC1 Urban Freeway AC 704 SAST 7 403 1.88 0.024 5.94 0.989 2 6 494 1.88 0.0015 0.968 900 000 110
t 72.24 365.57 3.05 41.02 39.59 213.04 51.76
SADT 7 669 1.85 0.065214 4.10 0.990 3.00 7 642 1.85 0.0009 0.990 1 170 000 134
t 206.14 959.20 1.07 10.77 243.92 963.38 24.65
TAST 7 811 1.84 0.573341 2.42 0.989 5 7 758 1.84 0.0008 0.989 1 200 000 170
t 185.32 1050.23 0.42 2.71 215.89 1048.60 6.67
TADT 7 372 1.85 0.024385 4.03 0.990 5.5 7 305 1.85 0.0010 0.990 810 000 242
t 230.21 1106.42 2.97 35.82 268.18 1108.51 81.33
TRDT 7 653 1.85 0.014818 3.73 0.991 9 7 606 1.85 0.0009 0.991 1 130 000 305
t 313.71 1475.43 2.20 26.35 368.52 1475.16 60.28
QADT 7 794 1.85 0.010609 3.10 0.989 9.75 7 741 1.85 0.0008 0.989 1 200 000 413
t 345.32 1663.77 0.65 7.07 387.10 1663.27 16.52
All axles 7 014 1.85 0.0013 0.969 900 000 1 380
t 331.77 1377.81 134.92

Aust r oads 2012
57
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
AC1 Urban Arterial AC(N) 213 SAST 4 589 1.75 0.064 5.51 0.988 2 3 808 1.75 0.0048 0.970 230 000 110
t 44.04 191.27 3.31 41.31 25.07 120.27 56.81
SADT 5 034 1.72 0.013808 4.58 0.946 3.00 4 992 1.72 0.0017 0.945 300 000 134
t 106.59 367.49 0.50 5.62 119.26 367.90 12.61
TAST 5 126 1.71 0.002136 4.21 0.941 5 5 119 1.71 0.0012 0.941 350 000 170
t 121.86 409.18 0.09 1.01 137.79 410.37 2.29
TADT 4 936 1.72 0.000005 6.67 0.954 5.5 4 748 1.72 0.0024 0.941 240 000 242
t 143.36 466.03 0.91 18.19 125.04 412.43 33.95
TRDT 5 063 1.72 0.002745 3.89 0.945 9 5 034 1.72 0.0016 0.945 320 000 305
t 161.58 565.10 0.50 6.27 184.23 565.93 14.29
QADT 5 086 1.72 0.000208 4.26 0.945 9.75 5 060 1.72 0.0016 0.945 330 000 413
t 195.21 655.87 0.44 6.58 218.13 656.26 14.75
All axles 4 320 1.72 0.0042 0.923 230 000 1 380
t 171.68 583.21 106.03
AC1 Urban Collector AC 52 SAST 4 526 1.78 5.291 3.66 0.983 2 4 712 1.78 0.0260 0.979 50 000 110
t 25.07 144.39 3.98 33.07 29.72 130.86 69.66
SADT 5 464 1.74 0.000025 7.63 0.977 3.00 5 021 1.74 0.0211 0.948 60 000 134
t 154.73 475.06 1.15 21.49 89.10 316.77 29.56
TAST 5 540 1.74 0.009405 4.04 0.992 5 5 448 1.74 0.0088 0.992 70 000 170
t 331.77 1195.50 0.67 7.26 313.61 1200.75 16.60
TADT 5 330 1.74 0.000008 6.81 0.977 5.5 4 727 1.74 0.0260 0.933 50 000 242
t 140.76 462.94 1.90 38.78 72.67 272.02 47.47
TRDT 5 532 1.74 0.003216 3.60 0.992 9 5 450 1.74 0.0084 0.992 70 000 305
t 434.01 1606.27 0.63 7.30 400.87 1612.55 16.89
QADT 5 538 1.74 0.000170 4.22 0.992 9.75 5 445 1.74 0.0090 0.992 70 000 413
t 535.50 1857.88 0.80 11.88 499.01 1863.11 26.77
All axles 4 576 1.74 0.0262 0.970 50 000 1 380
t 226.39 804.39 188.01

Aust r oads 2012
58
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
AC2 Rural Arterial AC(S) 66.7 SAST 3 765 1.89 0.572 4.43 0.990 2 3 433 1.89 0.0123 0.989 90 000 110
t 40.83 470.32 3.84 38.52 40.85 447.81 82.97
SADT 4 188 1.88 0.265097 3.42 0.986 3.00 4 159 1.88 0.0093 0.986 120 000 134
t 79.86 835.50 0.75 6.27 96.50 837.38 14.72
TAST 4 270 1.88 0.011593 3.80 0.992 5 4 169 1.88 0.0190 0.992 130 000 170
t 132.49 1282.06 0.25 2.49 107.30 1285.22 5.72
TADT 3 763 1.88 0.007371 4.49 0.985 5.5 3 572 1.88 0.0110 0.984 80 000 242
t 85.21 914.71 2.31 31.10 87.53 886.05 67.28
TRDT 4 018 1.89 0.004407 4.28 0.984 9 3 772 1.89 0.0109 0.983 100 000 305
t 103.25 1051.20 2.07 28.39 104.08 1028.71 62.36
QADT 4 225 1.88 0.004419 3.58 0.985 9.75 4 150 1.88 0.0093 0.985 120 000 413
t 145.37 1435.62 0.99 12.39 161.88 1437.56 28.43
All axles 3 539 1.88 0.0116 0.985 90 000 1 380
t 217.93 2165.81 170.04
AC2 Urban Arterial AC(S) 213 SAST 4 313 1.72 0.614 4.48 0.990 2 3 986 1.72 0.0045 0.988 230 000 110
t 46.65 193.03 4.42 44.82 46.11 177.57 93.12
SADT 4 761 1.67 0.135913 3.95 0.970 3.00 4 718 1.67 0.0036 0.970 300 000 134
t 138.92 410.55 1.76 16.94 163.20 410.39 38.78
TAST 4 951 1.66 0.003043 4.43 0.976 5 4 929 1.66 0.0031 0.976 350 000 170
t 247.60 637.43 0.46 5.37 273.31 636.93 12.01
TADT 4 572 1.67 0.019166 4.07 0.973 5.5 4 499 1.67 0.0037 0.973 240 000 242
t 147.93 444.61 2.70 32.86 169.03 443.70 74.20
TRDT 4 816 1.67 0.013711 3.65 0.970 9 4 764 1.67 0.0037 0.970 320 000 305
t 229.48 668.62 1.86 21.77 266.01 668.81 49.99
QADT 4 861 1.67 0.001162 4.01 0.973 9.75 4 813 1.67 0.0037 0.973 330 000 413
t 303.48 844.22 1.79 25.09 341.92 840.26 56.38
All axles 4 292 1.67 0.0043 0.980 230 000 1 380
t 357.41 947.45 228.13

Aust r oads 2012
59
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
CS1 Urban Freeway CS 704 SAST 5 000 1.92 1.740 4.96 0.971 2 5 025 2.01 0.0012 0.950 1 430 000 114
t 3.91 36.96 2.35 26.38 3.60 46.51 45.73
SADT 3 722 1.82 0.000006 8.84 0.970 3.00 3 120 1.82 0.0017 0.950 1 710 000 138
t 29.78 202.75 1.35 29.28 19.92 152.58 47.27
TAST 3 967 1.79 0.000587 6.00 0.951 5 3 926 1.79 0.0013 0.950 1 960 000 174
t 58.03 335.62 1.17 18.66 63.85 335.92 40.67
TADT 2 200 1.86 0.000220 6.46 0.986 5.5 1 558 1.86 0.0019 0.984 1 000 000 246
t 9.28 139.96 3.05 59.09 6.91 134.17 122.43
TRDT 3 333 1.85 0.000005 7.00 0.982 9 2 453 1.85 0.0020 0.969 1 680 000 306
t 27.84 247.76 2.56 57.67 16.81 190.62 94.64
QADT 3 892 1.79 0.000004 6.00 0.948 9.75 3 874 1.79 0.0013 0.949 1 950 000 417
t 77.26 460.93 1.47 30.92 85.86 463.47 67.53
All axles 3 203 1.85 0.0013 0.929 1 000 000 1 395
t 18.03 146.71 133.64
CS1 Urban Arterial CS 213 SAST 4 900 1.68 2.656 4.62 0.976 2 4 943 1.89 0.0028 0.939 360 000 114
t 5.65 16.02 2.70 28.28 4.45 30.60 41.21
SADT 2 596 1.74 0.000122 7.67 0.975 3.00 1 664 1.74 0.0050 0.967 360 000 138
t 21.13 139.53 1.75 32.81 12.17 120.76 60.70
TAST 2 882 1.71 0.000522 6.00 0.950 5 2 817 1.71 0.0038 0.948 520 000 174
t 52.54 274.86 1.30 20.77 55.85 270.95 44.54
TADT 2 151 1.74 0.000166 6.37 0.984 5.5 1 272 1.76 0.0049 0.984 240 000 246
t 15.22 126.48 2.94 56.12 9.61 132.28 119.65
TRDT 2 910 1.73 0.0000004 7.57 0.974 9 1 848 1.74 0.0049 0.962 400 000 306
41.94 237.50 1.93 47.01 22.58 207.47 83.33
QADT 2 385 1.74 0.000011 5.96 0.962 9.75 2 374 1.75 0.0050 0.964 512 000 417
t 30.58 232.43 2.17 45.42 34.89 240.11 101.56
All axles 2 778 1.76 0.0031 0.920 240 000 1 395
t 21.28 126.50 125.36

Aust r oads 2012
60
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
CS1 Rural Arterial CS 66.7 SAST 2 458 2.24 2.006 5.53 0.966 2 2 459 2.30 0.0501 0.959 153 000 114
t 0.44 42.81 1.97 24.65 0.47 52.49 50.81
SADT 3 673 1.95 0.000873 7.37 0.972 3.00 1 390 1.95 0.0838 0.966 180 000 138
t 7.92 109.45 1.73 31.22 2.87 99.37 60.84
TAST 5 650 1.77 0.000106 6.00 0.959 5 5 641 1.77 0.0065 0.958 153 000 174
t 138.16 502.25 0.36 5.83 151.83 502.52 12.68
TADT 2 000 2.01 0.024454 5.33 0.981 5.5 1 300 2.07 0.0662 0.973 100 000 246
1.84 68.50 3.11 49.70 1.15 75.84 93.26
TRDT 2 000 2.02 0.006823 5.28 0.982 9 1 300 2.02 0.0772 0.978 160 000 306
2.87 110.42 3.38 57.30 1.90 102.38 114.03
QADT 1 967 1.99 0.000060 6.00 0.978 9.75 1 782 1.99 0.0868 0.978 198 000 417
t 5.53 175.67 2.90 61.09 5.60 177.59 134.08
All axles 6 348 2.05 0.0552 0.942 100 000 1 395
t 9.30 108.11 149.60

Aust r oads 2012
61
Table5.5: EAUC relationships with axlemass and SAR values for axlegroups (rutting/roughness model Phase2
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
GN1 Urban Arterial GN 213 SAST 3 411 8 994.46 0.123 5.40 0.943 2 1 386 8 994.43 0.0154 0.909 200 000 110
t 7.59 19.27 1.39 16.98 2.53 15.28 29.11
SADT 4 334 7 767.68 0.661949 3.36 0.884 3.00 4 223 7 767.68 0.0074 0.884 260 000 134
t 15.84 30.84 0.35 2.89 17.76 30.96 6.81
TAST 4 604 7 804.79 0.000355 5.27 0.889 5 4 498 7 804.79 0.0072 0.889 300 000 170
t 22.53 36.62 0.05 0.67 20.00 36.72 1.43
TADT 4 081 7 806.28 0.077383 3.64 0.883 5.5 3 847 7 806.28 0.0077 0.883 210 000 242
t 20.01 39.70 0.61 6.68 20.83 39.70 15.30
TRDT 4 437 7 748.79 0.254601 2.75 0.886 9 4 381 7 748.79 0.0073 0.886 280 000 305
t 24.11 47.74 0.36 3.17 28.32 47.82 7.62
QADT 4 467 7 743.18 0.136412 2.65 0.887 9.75 4 459 7 743.18 0.0071 0.887 290 000 413
t 28.40 56.17 0.34 3.17 34.43 56.23 7.62
All axles 2 802 7 866.21 0.0132 0.882 200 000 1 380
t 31.51 82.19 59.21
GN1 Urban Collector GN 52 SAST 4 777 2.03 5.169 3.86 0.946 2 3 297 2.03 0.0834 0.940 40 000 104
t 10.25 197.43 1.84 15.77 7.87 188.71 34.73
SADT 6 432 1.97 0.000257 6.83 0.941 3.00 6 237 1.97 0.0542 0.927 65 000 134
t 42.83 390.79 0.44 7.41 39.71 354.96 13.73
TAST 6 647 1.96 0.000254 5.49 0.968 5 6 383 1.96 0.0229 0.968 60 000 170
t 73.54 645.34 0.11 1.59 47.11 645.69 3.37
TADT 6 182 1.98 0.000086 6.12 0.934 5.5 5 382 1.98 0.0640 0.909 50 000 242
t 45.03 453.29 0.78 14.40 33.21 385.63 25.31
TRDT 6 653 1.96 0.000008 5.58 0.969 9 6 526 1.96 0.0207 0.969 65 000 305
t 102.80 884.10 0.10 1.81 82.95 883.87 3.82
QADT 6 639 1.97 0.000001 5.88 0.967 9.75 6 360 1.97 0.0245 0.967 60 000 413
t 116.69 997.73 0.14 2.98 77.76 995.04 6.22
All axles 3 891 1.98 0.0785 0.939 40 000 1 380
t 63.55 988.66 98.50

Aust r oads 2012
62
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
GN1 Urban Access GN 2.595 SAST 2 157 2.00 3.773 3.38 0.977 2 1 881 2.00 0.3976 0.977 1 500 110
t 13.57 547.70 1.86 14.22 14.47 543.55 33.34
SADT 2 099 2.02 0.000993 5.98 0.984 3.00 1 757 2.02 0.3471 0.982 2 000 134
t 22.62 824.80 0.41 5.95 17.00 784.94 11.83
TAST 2 018 2.03 1.949316 0.11 0.984 5 2 019 2.03 0.0036 0.984 3 000 170
t 0.13 959.41 0.00 0.00 7.30 962.28 0.00
TADT 2 044 2.03 0.0000000 8.38 0.984 5.5 1 797 2.03 0.2185 0.984 2 000 242
t 32.54 1156.89 0.12 3.03 20.97 1141.59 5.77
TRDT 2 020 2.03 0.035580 0.01 0.984 9 2 007 2.03 0.0283 0.984 3 000 305
t 0.05 1288.39 0.00 0.00 25.62 1294.01 0.21
QADT 1 200 2.03 30.23 1.00 0.979 9.75 2 001 2.03 0.0391 0.984 3 000 413
t 0.00 1507.47 0.00 0.00 31.75 1509.53 0.41
All axles 1 326 2.02 0.3962 0.982 1 500 1 380
t 42.59 2539.25 50.80
GN2 Rural Freeway GN 405.5 SAST 8 305 2.02 17.628 3.11 0.961 2 8 310 2.02 0.0065 0.960 550 000 110
t 24.02 273.86 2.46 17.42 31.27 274.29 41.93
SADT 9 725 1.86 0.873985 3.46 0.984 3.00 9 550 1.86 0.0077 0.984 680 000 134
t 165.19 673.26 2.40 20.31 191.10 667.48 47.06
TAST 10 907 1.95 0.303862 2.18 0.991 5 10 901 1.95 0.0035 0.991 760 000 170
t 165.52 1215.25 0.09 0.51 221.8 1218.79 1.31
TADT 8 310 1.86 0.703755 3.28 0.995 5.5 8 019 1.86 0.0080 0.994 480 000 242
t 182.95 874.96 8.49 83.47 200.51 823.83 183.30
TRDT 9 320 1.86 0.493924 3.07 0.994 9 9 007 1.86 0.0081 0.993 620 000 305
t 252.12 1094.47 7.52 74.11 288.77 1073.33 171.32
QADT 10 551 1.96 0.007338 3.66 0.986 9.75 10 418 1.96 0.0064 0.985 720 000 413
t 250.42 1494.32 1.44 18.45 278.57 1477.75 41.57
All axles 8 426 1.92 0.0071 0.923 550 000 1 380
t 141.03 776.39 94.78
GN2 Rural Arterial GN(S) 66.7 SAST 5 672 2.01 3.777 3.88 0.960 2 4 486 2.01 0.0481 0.956 80 000 110
t 15.73 231.72 2.18 19.12 13.90 223.10 42.39
SADT 3 448 2.02 0.140550 3.47 0.979 3.00 3 322 2.02 0.0098 0.979 100 000 134
t 28.11 742.11 0.19 1.57 27.70 744.85 3.68
TAST 7 950 1.93 5.778826 1.25 0.945 5 7 782 1.93 0.0201 0.945 110 000 170
t 31.00 489.40 0.07 0.26 24.27 490.76 0.81

Aust r oads 2012
63
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
TADT 3 250 2.02 0.000014 6.58 0.967 5.5 2 667 2.02 0.0177 0.958 70 000 242
t 32.75 753.00 0.64 12.68 23.19 667.57 23.18
TRDT 3 482 2.02 0.000049 5.52 0.973 9 3 168 2.02 0.0135 0.971 95 000 305
t 44.65 978.45 0.46 8.09 38.74 952.03 16.72
QADT 7 394 1.95 0.207326 2.73 0.957 9.75 7 263 1.95 0.0419 0.957 110 000 413
t 93.16 843.08 1.18 11.35 111.97 842.29 27.07
All axles 3 689 1.99 0.0344 0.786 80 000 1 380
t 30.82 565.77 37.67
GN2 Rural Arterial GN(N) 66.7 SAST 4 405 6 584.98 6.916 3.38 0.965 2 4 021 6 584.99 0.0289 0.965 80 000 110
t 17.71 29.00 2.52 19.33 19.01 29.13 45.88
SADT 2 889 6 867.60 0.036930 4.04 0.988 3.00 2 738 6 867.60 0.0105 0.988 100 000 134
t 42.75 104.10 0.34 3.39 39.22 104.20 7.70
TAST 6 038 5 278.57 1.128157 1.82 0.999 5 6 050 5 278.57 0.0198 0.999 120 000 170
t 276.01 357.26 0.50 2.49 429.37 356.57 6.66
TADT 2 492 7 057.67 0.278578 3.01 0.987 5.5 2 437 7 057.67 0.0086 0.987 70 000 242
t 41.43 129.38 1.40 12.65 47.61 129.52 29.97
TRDT 2 698 7 047.65 0.191718 2.81 0.988 9 2 637 7 047.65 0.0090 0.988 95 000 305
t 53.55 157.33 1.15 10.38 61.57 157.34 24.85
QADT 5 777 5 495.59 0.014841 3.36 0.992 9.75 5 617 5 495.59 0.0279 0.992 110 000 413
t 221.81 221.76 2.09 24.70 233.41 220.09 56.61
All axles 3 271 6 309.76 0.0205 0.813 80 000 1 380
t 37.04 68.84 35.50
GN2 Rural Collector GN 6.22 SAST 411 1.98 7.289 3.38 0.968 2 122 1.98 0.3241 0.967 6 000 110
t 1.74 322.78 2.49 19.06 0.64 320.27 44.68
SADT 1 547 2.03 0.001763 5.53 0.998 3.00 1 397 2.03 0.1478 0.998 8 000 134
t 50.84 2676.05 0.83 11.19 41.90 2429.98 21.83
TAST 1 782 1.94 10.0 1.11 0.997 5 1 697 1.94 0.3134 0.997 9 000 169
t 23.70 1998.88 0.34 1.12 28.83 1983.72 3.39
TADT 1 304 2.02 0.003468 4.67 0.993 5.5 966 2.02 0.2159 0.991 6 000 242
t 27.20 1704.85 1.64 22.96 18.74 1495.20 44.22
TRDT 1 564 2.03 0.000068 5.23 0.998 9 1 364 2.03 0.1521 0.998 8 000 305
t 76.51 3972.72 1.00 16.85 58.16 3593.54 32.69
QADT 1 698 1.94 0.008662 3.28 0.993 9.75 1 670 1.94 0.1904 0.993 9 000 413
t 61.48 2174.04 0.78 8.96 71.80 2178.04 20.86

Aust r oads 2012
64
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
All axles 550 1.99 0.2906 0.941 6 000 1 379
t 10.85 1264.80 58.85
GN2 Rural Access GN 1.594 SAST 650 1.75 6.961 3.28 0.976 2 410 1.75 0.9476 0.974 1 200 110
t 4.94 176.51 3.51 26.12 3.79 172.67 60.72
SADT 604 1.91 0.000002 8.26 0.979 3.00 334 1.91 0.4301 0.975 1 500 134
t 10.27 694.17 0.25 5.15 4.41 645.14 9.26
TAST 1 597 1.64 0.204126 1.62 0.967 5 1 575 1.64 0.1292 0.967 2 000 170
t 41.72 545.37 0.03 0.15 23.07 546.99 0.42
TADT 613 1.91 0.000003 6.80 0.978 5.5 211 1.91 0.5566 0.969 1 200 242
t 13.08 880.18 0.63 12.82 3.46 744.69 21.85
TRDT 547 1.92 0.000002 5.53 0.983 9 519 1.92 0.0751 0.983 1 800 305
t 14.64 1201.16 0.03 0.58 10.84 1202.93 1.24
QADT 1 461 1.67 0.000001 5.74 0.927 9.75 1 296 1.67 0.5869 0.922 1 900 413
t 62.80 548.18 0.45 9.11 48.33 530.48 18.49
All axles 200 1.82 0.8434 0.799 1 380
t 3.74 512.49 41.13
AC1 Rural Arterial AC(N) 66.7 SAST 2 361 2 346.51 0.063 5.52 0.981 2 1 471 2 346.51 0.0158 0.963 90 000 110
t 18.88 14.37 2.63 32.83 9.33 10.41 52.02
SADT 2 245 3 177.38 0.005015 4.97 0.908 3.00 2 170 3 177.38 0.0076 0.908 120 000 134
t 31.75 35.29 0.27 3.31 33.06 35.35 7.33
TAST 2 306 3 176.37 0.000000 9.99 0.897 5 2 267 3 176.35 0.0054 0.897 130 000 170
t 41.43 38.13 0.01 0.28 25.80 38.26 0.68
TADT 2 201 2 751.39 0.000166 5.75 0.934 5.5 1 871 2 751.39 0.0108 0.918 80 000 242
t 38.34 35.55 1.23 21.16 30.91 31.85 40.79
TRDT 2 310 2 869.88 0.000345 5.06 0.927 9 1 999 2 869.88 0.0103 0.917 100 000 305
t 46.97 44.53 1.19 19.37 40.56 42.03 39.94
QADT 2 271 3 155.98 0.000059 4.77 0.908 9.75 2 163 3 155.98 0.0080 0.908 120 000 413
t 57.35 61.80 0.41 6.95 56.99 61.71 15.30
All axles 1 469 2 960.81 0.0135 0.917 1 380
t 50.85 70.57 101.13

Aust r oads 2012
65
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
AC1 Urban Freeway AC 704 SAST 6 275 1.75 5.567 4.18 0.999 2 5 499 1.75 0.0064 0.999 900 000 110
t 61.93 206.72 20.34 192.39 62.03 198.13 420.84
SADT 7 401 1.77 0.569257 3.98 0.991 3.00 7 271 1.77 0.0061 0.991 1 170 000 134
t 134.79 433.73 4.92 47.91 160.70 440.87 111.45
TAST 8 078 1.77 0.121941 3.72 0.971 5 7 497 1.77 0.0059 0.971 1 200 000 170
t 180.70 551.18 1.55 15.38 158.79 552.59 35.48
TADT 5 454 1.76 0.222175 3.92 0.998 5.5 5 137 1.76 0.0062 0.998 810 000 242
t 122.19 488.06 14.39 168.71 137.57 493.15 387.71
TRDT 7 252 1.77 0.122186 3.66 0.996 9 6 987 1.77 0.0062 0.996 1 130 000 305
t 194.87 646.80 9.76 114.60 229.77 665.65 270.67
QADT 8 001 1.77 0.005168 3.86 0.978 9.75 7 490 1.77 0.0059 0.978 1 200 000 413
t 288.43 858.98 2.83 38.31 280.64 860.18 87.10
All axles 4 923 1.77 0.0064 0.998 900 000 1 380
t 311.07 1198.03 885.69
AC1 Urban Arterial AC(N) 213 SAST 1 088 1.66 0.639 4.74 0.993 2 244 1.66 0.0085 0.988 230 000 110
t 7.62 87.37 5.08 54.53 1.47 65.89 92.07
SADT 1 943 1.53 0.038399 4.56 0.987 3.00 1 834 1.53 0.0046 0.985 300 000 134
t 107.08 360.60 3.54 39.39 103.62 328.56 80.53
TAST 2 117 1.52 0.033060 3.63 0.998 5 2 103 1.52 0.0041 0.998 350 000 170
t 622.19 1922.79 4.47 43.25 747.71 1958.07 101.73
TADT 1 726 1.56 0.000160 5.83 0.985 5.5 1 348 1.56 0.0059 0.959 240 000 242
t 60.59 242.65 3.14 54.94 30.30 147.65 71.85
TRDT 2 033 1.52 0.006762 3.91 0.994 9 1 954 1.52 0.0043 0.994 320 000 305
t 303.69 962.89 6.22 77.98 323.64 936.69 172.46
QADT 2 063 1.52 0.001259 4.02 0.996 9.75 2 006 1.52 0.0042 0.996 330 000 413
t 512.29 1560.93 8.14 114.82 560.71 1541.86 256.15
All axles 805 1.54 0.0079 0.960 230 000 1 380
t 28.78 208.45 179.63
AC1 Urban Collector AC 52 SAST 28 1.77 14.511 3.31 0.988 2 742 1.77 0.0319 0.978 50 000 110
t 0.14 137.57 5.23 39.29 3.76 101.77 68.62
SADT 1 083 1.73 0.006129 5.61 0.979 3.00 441 1.73 0.0380 0.961 60 000 134
t 22.85 362.97 2.14 29.33 6.86 266.95 46.79
TAST 1 323 1.71 0.000036 6.57 0.987 5 955 1.71 0.0276 0.977 70 000 170
t 70.99 822.20 1.11 19.46 33.30 636.77 31.58

Aust r oads 2012
66
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
TADT 893 1.74 0.001632 5.17 0.982 5.5 216 1.74 0.0391 0.966 50 000 242
t 18.86 384.33 3.06 47.46 3.48 278.02 74.92
TRDT 1 321 1.71 0.000002 6.18 0.991 9 1 042 1.71 0.0228 0.987 70 000 305
t 122.34 1416.25 1.10 21.89 65.34 1196.84 39.00
QADT 1 320 1.71 0.000000 6.82 0.987 9.75 960 1.71 0.0278 0.978 70 000 413
t 116.11 1325.35 1.34 32.22 53.80 1002.43 50.67
All axles 246 1.72 0.0338 0.972 50 000 1 380
t 10.19 612.50 203.27
AC2 Rural Arterial AC(S) 66.7 SAST 1 690 1.85 0.070 5.42 0.996 2 934 1.85 0.0140 0.982 90 000 110
t 30.05 569.04 5.69 69.87 8.31 262.34 70.67
SADT 1 671 1.86 0.003726 5.02 0.997 3.00 1 607 1.86 0.0064 0.997 120 000 134
t 91.92 1961.68 0.95 11.65 91.58 1915.77 25.15
TAST 1 697 1.86 0.004022 3.66 0.997 5 1 673 1.86 0.0046 0.997 130 000 170
t 92.36 2147.20 0.11 1.06 76.66 2153.62 2.44
TADT 1 655 1.85 0.000082 5.96 0.989 5.5 1 339 1.85 0.0098 0.978 80 000 242
t 55.12 1049.18 2.24 39.94 32.22 728.15 59.30
TRDT 1 742 1.85 0.000227 5.16 0.990 9 1 454 1.85 0.0093 0.985 100 000 305
t 70.36 1322.84 2.27 37.62 49.41 1067.58 66.08
QADT 1 694 1.86 0.000030 4.92 0.997 9.75 1 599 1.86 0.0068 0.997 120 000 413
t 165.26 3412.97 1.42 24.46 154.39 3278.80 51.61
All axles 974 1.86 0.0120 0.974 90 000 1 380
t 47.96 1524.60 140.73
AC2 Urban Arterial AC(S) 213 SAST 2 568 1.75 0.432 4.85 0.996 2 1 763 1.75 0.0074 0.990 230 000 110
t 29.57 238.13 7.00 76.79 13.95 144.46 103.99
SADT 2965 1.73 0.131936 4.08 0.933 3.00 2 893 1.73 0.0049 0.933 300 000 134
t 42.92 282.12 1.12 11.19 49.26 283.02 25.59
TAST 3 195 1.73 0.012798 4.04 0.893 5 3 169 1.73 0.0047 0.893 350 000 170
t 51.67 302.43 0.25 2.66 58.86 303.27 6.06
TADT 2 745 1.74 0.006218 4.57 0.963 5.5 2 554 1.74 0.0053 0.960 240 000 242
t 55.52 376.51 2.12 29.06 55.86 362.56 62.33
TRDT 3 062 1.73 0.016254 3.67 0.922 9 2 994 1.73 0.0048 0.922 320 000 305
t 66.86 426.31 1.09 12.82 76.57 427.11 29.47
QADT 3 098 1.73 0.002540 3.86 0.917 9.75 3 045 1.73 0.0048 0.917 330 000 413
t 80.39 493.73 1.00 13.60 91.69 494.42 30.91

Aust r oads 2012
67
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
All axles 2 123 1.73 0.0069 0.964 230 000 1380
t 86.55 638.29 176.78
CS1 Urban Freeway CS 704 SAST 3 889 1.87 17.78 4.43 0.996 2 7 489 2.15 0.0037 0.959 1 430 000 114
t 2.56 25.69 7.00 70.14 2.02 35.12 53.03
SADT 11 929 1.88 0.035735 5.88 0.998 3 11 480 1.88 0.0070 0.998 1 710 000 138
t 102.59 326.98 9.20 132.21 92.26 272.44 241.49
TAST 10 225 1.72 0.003598 6.00 0.953 5 9 981 1.72 0.0079 0.951 1 960 000 174
t 34.97 55.36 1.68 26.86 37.17 54.32 57.35
TADT 6 026 1.84 0.062118 4.95 0.997 5.5 9 548 1.84 0.0058 0.986 1 000 000 246
t 18.91 99.56 9.24 136.86 15.10 42.93 130.05
TRDT 12 036 1.87 0.003804 5.31 0.999 9 11 815 1.87 0.0067 0.997 1 680 000 306
t 109.55 323.20 13.00 221.66 86.06 228.62 344.25
QADT 10 188 1.71 0.000026 6.00 0.966 9.75 10 077 1.71 0.0078 0.966 1 950 000 417
t 55.39 80.15 2.36 49.82 61.00 80.72 108.59
All axles 13 927 1.81 0.0040 0.926 1 000 000 1 395
t 25.55 40.02 131.82
CS1 Urban Arterial CS 213 SAST 3 000 1.41 3.33 4.85 0.990 2 6 748 1.79 0.0057 0.964 360 000 114
t 2.67 3.03 4.17 45.67 3.91 11.72 54.40
SADT 2 453 1.83 0.000086 8.00 0.995 3 1 000 1.82 0.0080 0.983 360 000 138
t 29.30 323.16 3.92 76.90 6.44 163.90 85.12
TAST 3 771 1.42 0.000737 6.00 0.908 5 3 680 1.42 0.0053 0.905 520 000 174
t 42.78 37.87 1.16 18.60 45.26 37.36 39.90
TADT 2 443 1.80 0.000050 6.95 0.996 5.5 1 000 1.79 0.0082 0.993 240 000 246
t 19.66 186.56 5.15 107.47 6.81 140.79 181.84
TRDT 2 955 1.82 0.000000 7.76 0.993 9 1 121 1.83 0.0078 0.981 400 000 306
51.66 442.25 3.62 90.30 12.25 292.81 118.61
QADT 2 902 1.60 0.000015 6.00 0.949 9.75 2 868 1.60 0.0073 0.951 512 000 417
t 22.16 65.26 1.90 40.03 24.88 66.86 89.15
All axles 2 124 1.75 0.0061 0.959 240 000 1 395
t 11.83 88.61 179.07

Aust r oads 2012
68
(HV/day)
Axle
group
2
Offset a0 a1 a2 r
2
Offset
CS1 Rural Arterial CS 66.7 SAST 12 000 2.15 1.21 5.77 0.964 2 11 000 2.22 0.0521 0.960 153 000 114
t 1.99 24.42 1.83 23.94 2.00 33.59 50.78
SADT 1 000 1.89 0.00 8.00 0.960 3.00 1 000 1.80 0.0686 0.915 180 000 138
t 2.05 74.89 1.31 25.65 1.45 31.99 35.34
TAST 3 634 1.80 0.000431 6.00 0.847 5 3 597 1.80 0.0265 0.845 153 000 174
t 30.81 209.63 0.51 8.21 33.48 209.10 17.79
TADT 2 000 1.92 0.003574 5.99 0.979 5.5 2 993 1.87 0.0685 0.975 100 000 246
1.68 38.35 2.64 47.41 2.54 26.50 93.54
TRDT 2 000 1.93 0.000415 6.15 0.979 9 1 300 1.84 0.0770 0.973 160 000 306
2.68 61.58 2.71 53.48 1.67 34.67 101.27
QADT 3 500 1.80 0.000054 6.00 0.948 9.75 2 000 1.86 0.0791 0.956 198 000 417
t 6.76 47.40 1.81 38.12 4.65 70.67 91.17
All axles 1 737 2.04 0.0580 0.950 100 000 1 395
t 2.62 104.02 161.77


Aust r oads 2012
69
Table 5.6: Estimated marginal costs for SAST axle groups (Phase 2)
Road type Deterioration
model type
Mass increment above or belowbase case (6tonne)
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6
Rural Freeway GN
Strength/roughness 0.037 0.158 0.371 0.680 1.086 1.592 2.201 2.914 3.731 4.655
Rutting/roughness 0.037 0.162 0.380 0.697 1.117 1.641 2.272 3.011 3.860 4.822
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Arterial GN Strength/roughness 0.004 0.041 0.168 0.455 0.989 1.864 3.186 5.067 7.630 11.005
Urban Collector GN Strength/roughness 0.028 0.196 0.608 1.360 2.538 4.228 6.508 9.455 13.146 17.653
Urban Access GN Strength/roughness 0.417 1.987 4.952 9.468 15.653 23.603 33.402 45.125 58.838 74.599
Rural Arterial AC (S) Strength/roughness 10.599 29.626 54.051 82.810 115.290 151.081 189.884 231.465 275.639 322.252
Rural Arterial AC (N) Strength/roughness 0.001 0.025 0.155 0.565 1.543 3.506 7.019 12.804 21.759 34.967
Urban Freeway AC Strength/roughness 0.000 0.002 0.013 0.055 0.165 0.405 0.867 1.678 3.003 5.053
Urban Arterial AC (S) Strength/roughness 0.000 0.011 0.067 0.245 0.671 1.528 3.064 5.597 9.524 15.321
Urban Arterial AC (N) Strength/roughness 0.109 0.693 2.040 4.390 7.955 12.930 19.497 27.827 38.084 50.426
Urban Collector AC Strength/roughness 0.046 1.066 6.684 24.584 67.512 154.115 309.687 566.841 966.132 1556.636
Urban Freeway CS Strength/roughness 0.098 0.504 1.316 2.599 4.407 6.784 9.770 13.401 17.708 22.722
Urban Arterial CS Strength/roughness 1.021 5.415 14.371 28.721 49.144 76.220 110.461 152.335 202.268 260.656
Rural Arterial CS

Aust r oads 2012
70
Table 5.7: Estimated marginal costs for SADT axle groups (Phase 2)
Road type Deterioration model
type
Mass increment above or belowbase case (9tonne)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6
Rural Freeway GN
Strength/roughness 0.003 0.018 0.055 0.119 0.218 0.356 0.539 0.773 1.062 1.411 1.825 2.308
Rutting/roughness 0.006 0.032 0.087 0.177 0.307 0.481 0.704 0.978 1.306 1.693 2.141 2.653
Rural Arterial GN
(S)
Rural Arterial GN
(N)
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Arterial GN
Urban Collector
GN
Urban Access GN
Rural Arterial AC
(S)
Rural Arterial AC
(N)
Urban Freeway
AC
Urban Arterial AC
(S)
Urban Arterial AC
(N)
Urban Collector
AC
Urban Freeway
CS
Urban Arterial
CS
Rural Arterial
CS

Aust r oads 2012
71
Table5.8: Estimated marginal costs for TADT axlegroups (Phase2)
Roadtype Deterioration
model type
Mass incrementaboveor belowbasecase(16.5tonne)
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10
Rural Freeway GN
Strength/roughness 0.004 0.014 0.031 0.053 0.081 0.115 0.153 0.197 0.209 0.246 0.358 0.422 0.491 0.564 0.643 0.726 0.813 0.906 1.003 1.105 1.211
Rutting/roughness 0.002 0.008 0.020 0.038 0.064 0.097 0.138 0.187 0.201 0.245 0.387 0.471 0.566 0.670 0.784 0.908 1.043 1.188 1.344 1.511 1.688
Rural Arterial GN(S)
Rural Arterial GN(N)
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Arterial GN
Urban Collector GN
Urban Access GN
Rural Arterial AC(S)
Rural Arterial AC(N)
Urban Freeway AC

Aust r oads 2012
72
model type
Mass incrementaboveor belowbasecase(16.5tonne)
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10
Urban Arterial AC(S)
Urban Arterial AC(N)
Urban Collector AC
Urban Freeway CS
Urban Arterial CS
Rural Arterial CS


Aust r oads 2012
73
Table5.9: Estimated marginal costs for TRDT axlegroups (Phase2)
model type
Mass incrementaboveor belowbasecase(20tonne)
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15
Rural Freeway
GN
Strength/roughness 0.002 0.006 0.013 0.023 0.036 0.052 0.070 0.091 0.115 0.142 0.171 0.203 0.238 0.275 0.315 0.358 0.403 0.452 0.502 0.556 0.612 0.671 0.733 0.797 0.864 0.933
Rutting/roughness 0.001 0.006 0.014 0.025 0.040 0.058 0.080 0.105 0.135 0.167 0.204 0.244 0.288 0.336 0.387 0.443 0.502 0.565 0.632 0.702 0.777 0.856 0.938 1.025 1.115 1.209
Rural Arterial
GN(S)
Rural Arterial
GN(N)
Rural Collector
GN
Rural Access
GN
Urban Arterial
GN
Urban
Collector GN
Urban Access
GN
Rural Arterial
AC(S)
Rural Arterial
AC(N)
Urban Freeway
AC
Urban Arterial
AC(S)
Urban Arterial
AC(N)
Urban
Collector AC

Aust r oads 2012
74
model type
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15
Urban Freeway
CS
Urban Arterial
CS
Rural Arterial
CS

123.973 149.939 179.881 214.204 253.336

131.944 165.919 206.618 255.006 312.139


Aust r oads 2012
75
Table5.10: Estimated marginal costs for QADT axlegroups (Phase2)
model type
-13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12
Rural Freeway
GN
Rural Arterial
GN(S)
Rural Arterial
GN(N)
Rural Collector
GN
Rural Access
GN
Urban Arterial
GN
Urban
Collector GN
Urban Access
GN
Rural Arterial
AC(S)
Rural Arterial
AC(N)
Urban Freeway
AC
Urban Arterial
AC(S)
Urban Arterial
AC(N)
Urban
Collector AC

Aust r oads 2012
76
model type
-13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12
Urban Freeway
CS
Urban Arterial
CS
Rural Arterial
CS


Aust r oads 2012
77
6 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE
INPUTS TO THE FAMLIT ANALYSIS
6.1 Introduction
As part of Phase 2 a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the estimated LWC relationships from
Phase 1 which were used in estimating the SRMC of road wear to changes in the following key
analysis inputs:
1 pavement strength (as represented by SN)
2 rates of roughness deterioration (as altered by calibration factors Kgs and Kgm)
3 levels of traffic (annual average daily traffic AADT).
The sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the influence of the above inputs on the
estimation of the SRMC of road wear for the scope of the work undertaken in Phase 1.
Items (1) and (2) involved varying the inputs affecting pavement wear and thus cost responses to
given levels of axle group loading. In contrast item (3) involved varying pavement loadings via
traffic underpinning pavement wear relationships being unchanged from the original study. In the
process of implementing these parametric tests minor changes and improvements to FAMLIT and
its calibration to observed deterioration were made in response to small inconsistencies detected in
the FAMLIT model outputs. These inconsistencies involved clarifying the definitions of various
works effects options (e.g., use of rehabilitation rather than reconstruction) and the use of realistic
condition resets after works effects to ensure appropriate simulation of typical maintenance
operations.
To maintain consistency between original and parametric study outputs previously estimated LWC
relationships were re-estimated using the revised FAMLIT model and re-tuned user supplied input
parameter values. Resulting outputs are referred to as base case estimates in the following
documentation. Base case estimates provide the frame of reference for assessing the impact of
changing selected parameter values. In general revised base case estimates vary minimally from
the LWC relationships as previously derived and presented in Phase 1 of this report.
6.2 Parametric Factorial
Five individual parametric tests associated with the three key analysis inputs were developed.
These comprised one test related to the rate of roughness deterioration and two tests each for
pavement design strength and traffic levels. These tests and input variations associated with each
are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Parametric test factorial factors modified and range of modification
Input parameter/test Factor modified
(in FAMLIT)
Range of modification
Roughness deterioration (reduced from base) Kgs & Kgm
(1)
Kgs & Kgm altered below and above base case except when
Kgs = 0.77 which was compared with Kgs = 0.5
Pavement strength SN 30%
Traffic level AADT 15%
1 Base case values for Kgs & Kgm varied between 0.77 and 1.66 depending on pavement type road type and initial pavement age.


Aust r oads 2012
78
The input parameters in Table 6.1 were used at their extreme limits when input to FAMLIT. No
other partial variations of these input parameters were undertaken in the parametric testing.
Parameter levels associated with each of the tests were input into FAMLIT one at a time and
EAUC estimates derived for each of the road types used. All other factors were left unchanged
including axle group load ranges and TMI values. LWC relationships based on axle load were then
fitted to resulting road cost data with the same equation structure used as shown in Equation 1.
The parameters in the LWC relationships were then used to derive the SRMC of road wear using
Equation 2 for specific axle loads. For the base case and each parametric test on each road type
and axle group several axle loads in the load range were used to estimate an average SRMC of
road wear.
LWC relationship parameters estimated for each parametric test and the base case cross
tabulated by road type and axle group are set out in Table N 1 in Appendix N.
6.3 Parametric Study Outputs
The material presented in Table N 1 in Appendix N can be used to evaluate whether the results of
the parametric tests support the road wear cost analysis undertaken in this study. When the
parametric test results are compared with base case estimates the FAMLIT estimates of EAUC
behave generally (75%) as expected in terms of relative magnitude and consistency. The column
headed SRMC
test
/SRMC
base
in Table N 1 quantifies the relativity of each parametric test compared
with the base case of each road type and axle group using the average SRMC SRMCaverage as
shown in Table N 1.
Changed input parameter values which could be expected to be associated with higher EAUC
estimates such as weaker initial pavement strength and higher traffic levels generate expected
increases in EAUC values. Similarly input parameter changes expected to generate lower EAUC
values such as lower rates of roughness deterioration higher initial pavement strengths and lower
traffic levels are associated with lower EAUC values. These relative rankings of the LWC
relationships from the base case LWC relationships can be seen to apply across all pavement
types and axle groups considered. An example of the relative impacts of parametric tests
compared with base case estimates is shown in Figure 6.1 for the in service rural GN arterial road
type considered in this study. In this figure EAUC values vary not only by the input parameters, but
also reflect the response of costs to variations in axle group load, with the sensitivity of response
being affected by the particular input parameter being considered.

Aust r oads 2012
79
2000
7000
12000
17000
22000
27000
32000
37000
15 17 19 21 23 25
axle mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Base
Rough Progression
Strength (low)
Strength (high)
Traffic (low)
Traffic (high)

Figure 6.1: Effect of varying pavement and traffic characteristics on $EAUC/lane-kmfor TRDT axle group load on
in-service rural arterial GN pavements (TMI =0)
Further examination of data plotted in Figure 6.1 indicates that varying the input parameter values
up and down by equivalent magnitudes can have either symmetric or asymmetric effects
depending on the parameter being varied. For example, while traffic variation up and down has
roughly symmetric effects, variations to initial pavement strength do not, with weaker pavements
having a greater absolute effect on EAUC value increases, than stronger pavements have on
lowering EAUC values. Both symmetric and asymmetric effects for this road type were expected
from first principles. In fact for all pavement and axle group types lower pavement strengths had
marked effects on EAUC values with higher pavement strengths having a variable effect
depending on the initial balance between pavement strength and the level and composition of
traffic. A varying pattern of the effect of the parametric tests is shown in Figure 6.2 where
parametric test results for EAUC values for a CS urban freeway are compared with base case
EAUC estimates.

Aust r oads 2012
80
2000
12000
22000
32000
42000
52000
62000
72000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
axle mass (t)
E
A
U
C

(
$
)
Base
Rough Progression
Strength (low)
Strength (high)
Traffic (low)
Traffic (high)

Figure 6.2: Effect of varying pavement and traffic characteristics on variation in EAUC/lane-kmfor SADT axle group on
in-service urban freeway CS pavement (TMI value =20)
For the pavement type modelled in Figure 6.2, response to equivalent increases and decreases in
pavement strength is less asymmetric particularly at higher axle loads. This was expected due to
the very high SAR values generated by axle load increases for this particular type of pavement.
However reflecting the same mechanism the effect of equivalent traffic level up and down traffic
levels becomes more asymmetric. The ability of FAMLIT to model the differential impacts of
similar changes in different contexts as substantiated by parametric tests provides useful support
for the FAMLIT model. A further feature shown in Figure 6.2 compared with Figure 6.1 is that there
is an apparent change in the relative impact of common parametric tests between road types. In
particular increased pavement strength is shown to have a greater impact on reducing pavement
costs than reducing the rate of roughness deterioration. This means that increased pavement
strength under a given traffic load reduced pavement deterioration more than reducing the
calibration coefficients Kgs and Kgm to the limits shown in Table 6.1. Reducing pavement
deterioration is likely to have an asymmetrical effect on the estimated EAUC because of the
influence of discounting where lower deterioration extends rehabilitation further into the future and
increased deterioration brings rehabilitation closer to the present.
Similar results to those plotted out in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2 were obtained for other pavement
types over a full range of axle group types and loading ranges. Parametric tests returned LWC
relationships which varied in the expected direction and magnitude from base case estimates.
These LWC relationships systematically increased in response to progressive axle loading and
variations in the relative impacts of different parametric tests between pavement types were
explainable from first principles. Consequently it was concluded that the series of parametric tests
implemented supported the robustness and validity of pavement load wear estimates generated by
FAMLIT.

Aust r oads 2012
81
6.4 Summary of Sensitivity Testing
Table 6.2 summarises the outputs of the sensitivity testing shown in Table N 1 in Appendix N. As
outlined in Section 6.3, the relativities of each parametric test compared with the base case of each
road type and axle group were quantified in terms of SRMC
test
/SRMC
base
as shown in Table N 1
based on the SRMC
average
over a range of axle group loads.
Table 6.2: Summary of sensitivity testing for SRMC
Input parameter/test Quantified relativity
SRMCtest/SRMCbase
Roughness deterioration low relative to base 0.52 1.0
Pavement strength low relative to base (30%) 1.13 6.56
Pavement strength high relative to base (+30%) 0.07 0.96
Traffic level low relative to base (15%) 0.38 1.0
Traffic level high relative to base (+15%) 1.02 1.91

Table 6.2 clearly shows that reductions and increases in pavement strength have the greatest
impact on the estimated SRMC of road wear. The next most sensitive parameter was the level of
traffic while the least sensitive parameter was the rate of pavement deterioration in this context.
The outcomes in Table 6.2 achieved by using FAMLIT in the parametric study have further
confirmed the robustness of the base estimates of the LWC relationships and the underlying road
wear predictions derived from FAMLIT.
The above result has significant impact for the adoption of estimates of the SRMC of road wear as
the basis of pricing for heavy vehicles on specific road types. This is because the pavement
strength along defined routes can be highly variable as it depends to some extent on the varying
strength of the underlying subgrade. In addition field measurement of pavement strength along
defined routes is not routinely undertaken because it is a relatively costly exercise.

Aust r oads 2012
82
7 INFLUENCE OF TYRE TYPE WIDTH AND OTHER
EFFECTS ON LWC
7.1 Introduction
The impact of heavy vehicle tyre type and other salient features of tyres on road wear is of
significant interest because of their potential to either increase or decrease pavement wear under a
given heavy vehicle configuration and payload. Appendix I summarises what is currently
documented and understood about tyre features such as tyre width tyre inflation pressure and tyre
profile.
The most important consideration in relation to the impact of tyre type on road wear is the contact
pressure of the tyre which is a function of the tyre tread width (Cebon 1999). A recent Austroads
experimental study (Austroads 2008c), using a single axle configuration under accelerated load
testing with the accelerated loading facility (ALF), compared road wear, as measured by rut depth,
between a typical dual tyre arrangement (SADT, 11R22.5) with a contact width of 380 mm and a
wide single tyre (SAST, 445/65R22.5) with a contact width of 332 mm. The ALF experiments on
these two different tyre types showed similar road wear performance (rut depth increase with
loading cycles) under these limited conditions on sealed unbound granular test pavements.
7.2 Current State of Practice
It is understood that current industry practice is to consider that wide single tyres with an overall
width of 445 mm produce the equivalent road wear of a typical dual tyre arrangement (11R22.5).
However it should be noted that this practice is based on the relatively limited experimental
accelerated load testing work which did not consider the wide range of pavement types pavement
conditions and axle group arrangements occurring in practice. There may be other wear factors
associated with these tyres that need to be investigated that were not considered by these limited
comparative experiments that are significant under normal in-service conditions.
However, because of initial purchase and maintenance cost reasons, it is highly likely that the
industry would prefer to use narrower wide single tyres (overall width less than 445 mm) because
these tyres are cheaper than the wider wide single tyres (overall width equal to or greater than
445 mm) and the typical dual tyre arrangement. This understandable preference for a narrower
wide single tyre could have increased road wear cost implications if the take-up of the narrower
wide single tyres became significant.
7.3 Predicted Influence on LWC
The impact of increased use of wide single tyres has the potential to cause increases in road wear
and road wear costs. On the other hand if wide single tyres have sufficient contact width to reduce
the surface stresses on the pavement there may be no increase in road wear and road wear cost.
However at this stage there is no reliable means of predicting any potential increases in road wear
and costs or if the impacts on road wear and cost are likely to be benign. This uncertainty is a
result of the limited experimental accelerated load testing work.


Aust r oads 2012
83
8 DISCUSSION OF LWC AND SRMC RELATIONSHIPS
(PHASE 1)
8.1 The LWC Relationships
LWC relationships in the form of EAUC ($/lane-km) of maintenance versus SAR-km and EAUC
($/lane-km) of maintenance versus tonne-km were developed for most of the road types and
pavements existing in the sealed road network. Both of these LWC relationships were found to be
a function of the climate (TMI) and alternatively tonne-km for each axle group on each road type or
SAR-km on each road type depending on the LWC relationship. These relationships were derived
separately by a regression analysis of the estimated EAUC of maintenance against SAR-km and
EAUC against tonne-km for increasing load increments on axle groups. Due to the nature of
Phase 1 both types of the LWC relationships were able to fit the EAUC data estimated from the
FAMLIT life-cycle costing analysis for axle load increments reasonably well as shown by Figure 5.1
to Figure 5.6.
In the development of the LWC relationships by regression analysis of the EAUC against SAR-km
and tonne-km data all the LWC relationships fitted all the data well (i.e.: r
2
>0.74). However the
LWC relationships were made to more closely fit the data at the lower range of axle load
increments (Figure 5.4 to Figure 5.6) where these load increments are more likely to be put into
practice.
The LWC relationship in the form of EAUC versus tonne-km provides a transparent distinction
between road wear costs of the axle groups with increasing load increments on each axle group.
On the basis of comparison the LWC of the TADT axle group is highly sensitive to increments in
loading compared to the SADT and TRDT axle groups. Figure 5.4 to Figure 5.6 show that the
slope of the LWC relationship for the TADT axle group is always greater than the slope for the
SADT and TRDT axle group LWC relationships. On the other hand the LWC relationship in the
form of EAUC ($/lane-km) versus SAR-km is virtually a linear relationship which apparently
appears to be unique for each road type allowing comparisons of the road wear costs on each road
type as the slope of each LWC cost relationship is a measure of the SRMC as shown by
Equation 4 in Section 2.1 (Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.3).
No LWC relationships were developed for concrete pavements because of the limited extent of the
analysis undertaken for these pavements as noted in Section 5.2.
The SAR based LWC relationship is the conversion of the axle group loading to SAR which makes
the EAUC versus SAR-km LWC relationship a linear one. This is further discussed in
Section 8.2.1.
8.2 The MC Relationships
The MC relationships were based on the first derivative of the LWC relationships in the forms of
EAUC ($/lane-km) of maintenance versus tonne-km and EAUC ($/lane-km) of maintenance versus
SAR-km as shown by Equations 2 and 4 in Section 2. In no cases of SRMC estimation was the
climate a relevant variable because its impact did not increase the EAUC with increased axle loads
although it was a factor in the estimation of the magnitude of the EAUC.
8.2.1 MC Using Average c/SAR-km of Axle Groups on Each Road Type
In the case of the LWC relationship in the EAUC ($/lane-km) versus SAR-km form, the MC, in
terms of c/SAR-km, is a constant value as it is the slope of the LWC relationship in this form. As

Aust r oads 2012
84
shown in Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.3, the average of the MC (c/SAR-km) relationships across all axle
groups on each road type is a reasonable approximation for MC on each road type even though
there can be minor differences in the constant values used to describe the MC for each axle group
(Table 5.2). This appears to be an artefact of the equation estimation by regression process and
any differences are seldom statistically significant.
In the conversion of tonne-km axle group loading to SAR-km the non-linear exponential MC versus
tonne-km relationship for each axle group loading becomes a constant MC versus SAR-km
relationship for all ranges of axle group loading for each particular pavement and road type. This
conversion is dependent upon how well the different reference loads used for each axle group
translate to equal road wear in estimating SAR (axle group load equivalency). The original basis
for these reference loads (Scala & Potter 1981) assumed that an equal vertical deflection of each
different axle group under the reference loads would result in equal road wear. In other words the
same deflection under the different reference load for each axle group was expected to produce
equal road wear. In this study road wear was represented by the road roughness that initiated
rehabilitation works which is not the same as the road wear measured by vertical deflection.
Consequently the MC estimates based on the average MC (c/SAR-km) of the axle group
relationships for each road and pavement type depends on these assumptions about axle group
load equivalency as shown in Table 4.3 and discussed above. For example, a rural arterial (GN)
has estimates for MC of 4.4 c/SAR-km for the SADT axle group, 4.2 c/SAR-km for the TADT axle
group and 3.8 c/SAR-km for the TADT axle group (Table 5.2) which is represented by an average
MC of 4.1 c/SAR-km across all axle groups. These average MC estimates are not in a form that
shows the direct cost consequences of an increase in axle load on each axle group.
The MC estimates for each road type based on the average MC (c/SAR-km) of the axle group
relationships are summarised in Figure 8.1. The highest MC estimates were found for the rural
access (local) and collector roads while the lowest MC estimates were found for urban freeways
and arterials. These differences in MC are mainly due to the pavement strength designed to match
the different levels of heavy vehicle traffic on these roads as they are the source of SAR-km. The
lightly trafficked rural access and collector roads have relatively low pavement strength designed to
match the low values of SAR-km to give high increases in MC with increased SAR-km while
heavily trafficked urban freeways and arterial roads the relatively high pavement strength designed
to match the high values of SAR-km give low increases in MC with increased SAR-km.
The significantly higher MC estimates for the lightly trafficked roads are also due to the simplified
process in FAMLIT to estimate the EAUC under increased axle group loads. The same cost rates
for rehabilitation and maintenance works were used regardless of the levels of traffic
disproportionately increasing the EAUC estimates for the lightly trafficked roads. The cost rates for
rehabilitation and maintenance works for lightly trafficked roads could be either higher or lower
than those for heavily trafficked roads depending on access to suitable materials and the generally
lower design standards. In addition the pavement ages assigned to the lightly trafficked roads
were higher than those for the heavily trafficked roads and the assumed pavement strength for the
lightly trafficked roads made these roads susceptible to increased road wear and cost.

Aust r oads 2012
85
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Rural Freeway GN
Rural Arterial GN
Urban Freeway CS
Urban Arterial CS
Rural Arterial CS
Rural Collector GN
Rural Access GN
Urban Freeway AC
Urban Arterial AC
Urban Collector AC
Rural Art AC (S)
Urban Art AC (S)
Urban Art GN
Urban Collector GN
Urban Access GN
R
o
a
d

T
y
p
e
c/SAR-km
average c/SAR-km

Figure 8.1: MC estimates using average c/SAR-kmfor road types
8.2.2 MC Using c/tonne-km for Each Axle Group
In the case of the EAUC ($/lane-km) versus tonne-km LWC relationship, the MC estimate based
on c/tonne-km per axle group pass, is a varying value that increases with the load increases on
each axle group as shown by the examples of Figure 5.7 to Figure 5.9. These MC estimates also
show that the TRDT axle group has the lowest SRMC while the SRMC on the TADT and SADT
axle groups are always higher relative to the TRDT as shown in Table 5.3 for all road types.
Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3 show the full range of the SRMC for all the road types for the axle groups
TADT and TRDT respectively. As for the MC based on the average c/SAR-km the highest MC
estimates were found for the urban and rural access and collector roads while the lowest MC
estimates were found for urban freeways and arterials. However the distinction between the
different MC estimates for the different axle groups is very apparent in Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3.
This is a feature of the MC estimates being based on the EAUC ($/lane-km) versus tonne-km LWC
relationship.

Aust r oads 2012
86

Figure 8.2: SRMC vs. axle group load for TADT group

Figure 8.3: SRMC vs. axle group load for TRDT group

Aust r oads 2012
87
The MC estimates based on c/tonne-km per axle group pass also are generally higher for the CS
type pavements relative to GN and AC pavements mainly due to the impact of the higher damage
exponent of CS pavements.
As a result of the varying estimates of MC of the axle groups on the various road types in the
sealed road network, it may be possible to use these estimates to rationally allow defined
increases in axle load to specific axle groups, road and pavement types. Other axle groups and
roads can be excluded from axle load increases on the basis of their high MC. A determination of
how sensitive the estimates of MC were to the assumptions and models was undertaken as part of
Phase 2.
8.3 Factors Influencing the MC Estimates
The MC based on the LWC relationships using either EAUC ($/lane-km) versus tonne-km or EAUC
($/lane-km) versus SAR-km are dependent on the following factors that impact on the estimate of
the EAUC for each road type and the MC for each axle group as follows:
The pavement age of the road type. This is because new pavements require rehabilitation
further into the future than older pavements while older pavements have a higher EAUC
value for the same axle load increases. In Table 5.3, the MC of new rural arterial roads is
estimated to be less than 50% that of typical in-service rural arterial roads.
The pavement roughness deterioration model predictions. Under increased axle loads for
pavements of a given strength and roughness condition the strength/roughness deterioration
models predictions of increased roughness may or may not be reliable as the prediction of
structural deterioration is relatively uncertain. The strength/roughness deterioration model is
also dependent upon the estimated value of pavement/subgrade strength SNP for each road
type which was assigned as discussed in Section 4.3.
The existing heavy traffic load and its composition. The EAUC estimated for each road type
is ultimately proportional to the various axle group loads annually passing along the road,
although lightly trafficked roads lower in the hierarchy are highly sensitive to increased axle
group loads so that they always have a higher MC than highly trafficked roads.
Other factors also can influence the MC estimates such as: the cost rates for rehabilitation works;
the potential increase in maintenance costs due to increased axle loads from increased surface
wear; and earlier than planned rehabilitation/reconstruction due to reduced structural capacity of
the pavement. The latter aspect of pavement performance can be modelled within FAMLIT but
was not used in this study because this study was focused on estimation of MC rather than LRMC
where the structural capacity of the pavement is a major factor in estimating the EAUC for each
road type.
Other issues such as the dynamic loading of pavements and the influence of heavy vehicle
suspension type are also expected to have influence at least at a project level on the estimated
SRMC.

Aust r oads 2012
88
9 SUMMARY
9.1 Phase 1 Summary
LWC relationships based on estimates of EAUC versus SAR-km and estimates of EAUC versus
tonne-km were developed by regression analyses for all sealed road types in the road network
except concrete roads. Both forms of these LWC relationships were a function of climate (TMI)
and either SAR-km or tonne-km on each road and pavement type.
9.1.1 MC Estimation
MC estimates were developed from the first derivative of the above LWC relationships which
varied depending on which LWC relationship was used. While climate affected the LWC with
wetter climates causing increased EAUC climate did not influence the estimation of MC because
its impact was assumed not to increase the total EAUC with increased axle loads as shown in
Equations 1 and 4.
Where the MC was based on EAUC versus SAR-km the MC varied from a minimum average value
of 0.1 c/SAR-km (highly trafficked urban AC freeways) to a maximum average value of 176.4
c/SAR-km (lightly trafficked urban GN access roads). Where the MC was based on EAUC versus
tonne-km for load increments on the axle groups the SRMC varied from a minimum value of 0.01
c/tonne-km per axle pass for the TRDT axle group (highly trafficked urban AC freeways and urban
CS freeways) to a maximum value of 312.6 c/tonne-km per axle pass for the SADT axle group
(lightly trafficked rural GN access roads).
Generally the lowest MC was found for highly trafficked urban freeways and arterial roads while the
highest MC was found for the lightly trafficked rural access and collector roads. In other words the
estimated MC will always be lower where the pavement has been designed for heavy traffic and is
less sensitive to increased axle group loads while the MC will always be higher when the pavement
has been designed for light traffic and is sensitive to increased axle group loads.
For all road types the TRDT axle group was found to consistently have the lowest MC while the
TADT and SADT axle groups consistently had higher estimates of MC.
The MC estimates also are generally higher for the CS type pavements relative to GN and AC
pavements mainly due to the impact of the higher damage exponent of CS pavements.
It is important to note that these estimates of MC are highly dependent upon the assumptions input
parameters and models used by this study. Other issues ignored by this study such as the
dynamic loading of pavements and the influence of heavy vehicle suspension type are also
expected to have influence at least at a project level on the estimated MC.
9.1.2 MC Estimation Outcomes
The MC, in terms of c/tonne-km for the various axle groups, based on the EAUC versus tonne-km
LWC relationship provides a useful basis for setting the pricing of incremental load increases on
axle groups because it is transparent in cost terms and it can be applied directly to the various axle
groups in the traffic stream. On the other hand, the MC, in terms of c/SAR-km for each of the
sealed road types, based on the EAUC versus SAR-km LWC relationship is useful for assessing
the costs of incremental load increases across the various sealed road types.

Aust r oads 2012
89
As a result of the varying estimates of MC of the axle groups on the various road types in the
sealed road network, it may be possible to use these estimates to rationally allow defined
increases in axle load to specific axle groups, road and pavement types.
9.2 Phase 2 Summary
The Phase 2 results are an extension to the Phase 1 investigations into LWC relationships
associated with variations in loading of individual axle groups on different road types and
pavements. In developing the LWC relationships the axle loads were applied in 0.25 tonne
increments to improve the statistical significance of the outcomes. The extension comprised;
consideration of the impacts of three additional axle groups evaluation of LWC relationships for
axle loads below as well as above the current GML quantification of an alternative approach for
deterioration modelling of the impacts of variable loading refining modelling of increased
maintenance activities and costs in response to increased axle loads and investigation of both
SRMC and LRMC for the MC of road wear.
The Phase 2 approach was similar to that used for Phase 1 with some minor modifications. As
with Phase 1, Phase 2 retained the starting point for comparisons which involved modelling freight
traffic in terms of numbers of axle groups at GML, comprising a base case, and developed LWC
relationships by altering axle loads for individual axle groups one at a time, while holding all other
axle groups at their base case state of GML. As with Phase 1 two sets of equations were used to
capture the LWC relationships one relating the EAUC response to load increases in tonnes the
other quantified in terms of equivalent single axle-load repetitions (SARs).
The two sets of LWC equations are complementary the latter provides a readily understandable
relationship and is affected by traffic load road type and the sensitivity of pavement type to
increased load. The former incorporates these additional factors but is harder to use when making
inter-pavement type comparisons. Both approaches allow separation of load from non-load
environmental components. Other attributes in common are the use of a 50 year analysis period
and the use of the EAUC measure to compare discounted cost streams for pavement costs. As
with previous work traffic is restricted to freight vehicles with axle groups capable of causing road
wear and the estimated costs are restricted to agency whole of life pavement costs.
9.2.1 Parametric Study of Factors Impacting on Estimation of MC
Further work was undertaken by means of a parametric study to quantify the impact on the
estimation of MC based on the LWC relationships from Phase 1 of varying the following non-axle
mass input variables to FAMLIT: traffic levels; rates of pavement deterioration; and pavement
strength used to represent the road network.
The parametric study showed that of these inputs reductions and increases in pavement strength
had the greatest impact on the estimated MC of road wear. The next most sensitive parameter
was the level of traffic while the least sensitive parameter in this context was the rate of pavement
deterioration.
The above result may have significant implications for the adoption of estimates of the SRMC of
road wear as the basis of pricing for heavy vehicles on specific road types. This follows because
the pavement strength along defined routes can be highly variable as it depends to an appreciable
extent on the varying strength of the underlying subgrade. However given that prices based on
SRMC would likely to be averaged over broad road classifications the variability of pavement
strength within a given road classification may not affect the accuracy of the SRMC estimates.
Review of data from field measurement of pavement strength along defined routes may be useful
in this regard.

Aust r oads 2012
90
9.2.2 LWC Relationships General
Phase 2 resulted in changes to the parameter values of the Phase 1 estimated LWC relationships
as well as minor changes to equation format. No major changes to equation format were required
despite LWC being relatively insensitive to load increases in the lower ranges which is reversed in
the higher load ranges. Parameter values were revised as a result of axle loads lower than the
Phase 1 base case. The lower boundary for axle loads for each axle group with Phase 2 was the
tare weight. Because of this, the offset value used in individual LWC equations was modified to
align it with tare weight, the computational impact of which was that all other parameter values
altered accordingly. A notable outcome of the Phase 2 approach was that the use of a tare weight
starting point provided a different starting point for each axle group type. Previously all LWC
relationships shared a common starting point when all axles were at GML. Only axle loads above
and including GML were considered in Phase 1. Another cause of limited comparability between
Phase 2 and Phase 1 were the minor changes involved in the modelling of the environmental
terms shared by both equation types. In Phase 1 the LWC relationships were modelled as a linear
function of environmental terms while in Phase 2 modelling of environmental impacts was
improved by modelling pavement costs as a power function of environmental terms.
9.2.3 LWC Relationships of Three Additional Axle Groups
Two of the three additional axle groups added to the analysis presented some analytic problems.
The SAST axle group presented no issues as this is the most common of freight vehicle axle
groups. However the other two additional axle groups TAST and QADT were characterised by
very low numbers of observations which was especially so for the latter group. These issues were
addressed by leaving observation numbers associated with TAST groups unchanged on the basis
that modelling procedures would still be sensitive to whatever variation occurred in response to
varying assumed axle loads. For QADT groups numbers were considered too small for modelling.
Consequently for modelling purposes a substitution in traffic stream numbers with the nearest axle
group comparable in load and configuration the TRDT was implemented. This had the drawback
of making the LWC estimates between QADT axle group, and LWC estimates of other axle groups
non-comparable, as it altered the base case, but with the trade-off of being able to estimate a
statistically robust model.
LWC functions estimated for the three additional axle groups were found to fit in the expected rank
order relative to axle groups for which estimates had been made. LWC relationships for SADT
axle groups were found to be the most sensitive of all the axle groups to unit load increases above
reference load while the LWC relationships for QADT axle groups were the least sensitive. The
LWC functions for TAST axle groups in general fell between the LWC functions for SAST and
TADT fully laden axles although estimates at very low and high axle loads were insensitive to load
increases. Further analysis indicated that this was due to difficulties in modelling cost functions
associated with very small counts associated with this vehicle type across all types of pavements
and road types. Very small counts meant that even quite large per axle load increases would lead
to minimal overall increases in SARs with minimal pavement deterioration and resultant pavement
costs. However setting aside issues associated with TAST LWC functions the pattern relativities in
LWC estimates between axle groups are sufficiently systematic and stable across all pavement
types and road types that they tend to confirm the LWC relationships estimated.
9.2.4 Impact of Deterioration Modelling on LWC Relationships
The two different deterioration models used to estimate the LWC relationships yielded different but
not radically different cost estimates and patterns of sensitivity to axle load increases. Differences
were found to be more pronounced across pavement types and within pavement type by traffic
level. For GN pavements the strength/roughness model based LWC estimates tended to be higher

Aust r oads 2012
91
than those generated by the rutting/roughness model. For AC pavements a similar pattern was
evident except for urban freeways where LWC estimates were higher for the rutting/roughness
model than for the strength/roughness model. Also for AC pavements it should be noted that
sensitivity to increased load was higher for the rutting/roughness model estimates particularly for
loads above the reference load used to compute SARs. This indicates that marginal costs would in
general be higher using the rutting/roughness model though variability across results associated
with individual axle groups was noted. For CS pavements LWC functions and sensitivity to
increased axle loads were higher for urban freeways and arterial roads for the rutting/roughness
model. For rural arterials which carried less traffic than their urban equivalents the LWC functions
and sensitivities to increased loads were similar. This pattern of variation across pavement types
and road types suggests that using the rutting/roughness model yields either higher or more load
sensitive LWC relationships where higher traffic levels combine with pavement types which are
more sensitive to load than GN pavements.
Despite variations in LWC estimates yielded by the two deterioration models common patterns of
cost response to load emerge from analysis of results which build upon and extend the results of
Phase 1. Agreement was more marked for strength/roughness models which were used for both
Phases 1 and 2. A common cost response pattern which applied across all axle groups pavement
types and road categories was the minimal response of LWC functions to axle load increases at
very low axle loads. This was expected from first principles as minimal SARs and hence pavement
deterioration is generated at such loads. It is interesting to note that the LWC functions at low
loads estimated by the rutting/roughness model are less than their strength/roughness model
equivalents. A further common pattern which emerges is for GN pavements to return slightly
higher LWC functions than AC and CS pavements at loads up to and including GML even where
road type and corresponding traffic levels and compositions are the same. Similarly within
pavement types for given axle groups and loads up to and including GML, LWC functions increase
as the road hierarchy is transited. That is access roads have shown the lowest EAUC values
feeder roads the next lowest followed by arterial and freeways. This sequence however reflects
and tends to be a proxy for increasing traffic levels.
Common patterns of sensitivity of LWC functions to load increases to those found in Phase 1 were
also replicated in Phase 2. LWC functions were observed to fall per equivalent unit load increase
when axle groups with more axles and tyres were substituted for axle groups with fewer axles or
tyres non-granular pavements were observed to be more sensitive to load increases than granular
while lower road types such as feeder and access roads displayed higher sensitivity of LWC
functions to load increases than higher category roads such as freeways and arterials.
9.2.5 Marginal Costs of Road Wear Estimation
A key issue in the analysis of LWC relationships is the estimation of marginal axle mass costs
which are the additional cost associated with an increment in axle load. Two measures were used
to analyse marginal costs. Marginal axle mass costs per axle pass were calculated by dividing
marginal axle costs per annum by numbers of axle passes per year. This measure was used to
reduce the impact of variations is traffic, and is equivalent to marginal cost per tonne kilometre,
given that analysis sections were one kilometre in length. The second measure used was the
marginal cost per SAR kilometre. From the Phase 1 estimation of LWC functions marginal load-
wear-cost could be expected to vary by axle mass within each axle group between pavement types
and road types and also between the two approaches used to estimate road deterioration and
resulting LWC values.
The current limitations of the FAMLIT model prevented a clear distinction between SRMC and
LRMC estimates. LRMC estimates were based on providing additional structural capacity during

Aust r oads 2012
92
pavement rehabilitation works although the optimal timing this additional capacity driven work
could not be made with FAMLIT and therefore the LRMC estimates did not have a consistent basis
nor were they rationally related to the SRMC estimates of Phase 1.
Marginal cost per axle pass estimates when plotted out display a shape similar to that for LWC
relationships, as the marginal costs tend to increase minimally up to the point where axles are
significantly loaded (above reference load), rising at an increasing rate thereafter. This shape is
common across all axle groups except for the TAST axle groups where a linear relationship is
appropriate. The latter is considered to reflect computational limitations rather than an underlying
relationship. Different estimates of marginal costs per axle pass tend to be associated with the two
different deterioration models used to estimate LWC values. For freeways irrespective of
pavement type for all AC road types and for CS pavements in urban areas the rutting/roughness
deterioration model gives higher estimates of LWC values than the strength/roughness model. For
GN pavements other than freeways and rural CS pavements the reverse is true. This suggests
that the rutting/roughness model is associated with higher marginal road wear costs where either
traffic levels are high and or pavement types are sensitive to loading.
In terms of differences between axle group combinations the same patterns and rank orders
observed for the LWC functions also applied to marginal axle load costs. As axle numbers and
associated tyres per axle increased marginal costs for equivalent axle mass increments fell with
quad axle dual tyre combinations returning the lowest marginal axle mass costs. Variations in
marginal axle costs by road type are better illustrated by marginal cost relationships computed
using SAR-km as the explanatory variable. These relationships showed that irrespective of the
approach the highest marginal costs were experienced by rural access rural collector and urban
access granular pavements. Overall Phase 2 indicated that the lowest marginal costs for axles
laden above reference loads were achievable by multiple axle tyre groups operating over major
road categories such as freeways and arterials. Conversely highest marginal costs were
generated by single axle groups operating over access and collector roads. These results are
consistent with those from Phase 1 for a narrower range of axle types over a narrower range of
axle load increases.
On the basis of a review of wide single tyres there is no reliable means of predicting any potential
increases in road wear and costs or if the impacts on road wear and cost are likely to be benign.
This uncertainty is a result of the limited experimental accelerated load testing work.
9.3 Future Work
In terms of future work the following has been identified:
Improve the LWC and MC estimates for TAST axle groups. This could be achieved by
synthetically increasing assumed traffic proportions for this axle group emulating
arrangements used to calculate load-wear-costs for QADT axle groups.
More experimental work on the road wear impacts of wide single tyres relative to single dual
tyres taking into consideration the factors not examined so far such as speed suspension
type and a range of surface conditions.
The impact of local cost rates for maintenance and rehabilitation works on the estimates of
EAUC for local access roads which may increase or decrease MC estimates depending the
change in local cost rates.

Aust r oads 2012
93
Confirm that the most appropriate deterioration model in this context of estimating LWC and
MC relationships is the rutting/roughness model because it has more certainty regarding its
prediction of future conditions and is a reasonable simulation of increased maintenance cost
with increased axle load.
cost relationships in terms of pavement categories maintenance and rehabilitation options and the
issues will be addressed in Phase 3 of the Project.
The Phase 2 report describes a collection of procedures which constituted the multi-stage process
and as such is currently unsuited for second or third party use without finalisation and integration
documentation verification and an accompanying description of capabilities and limitations. Cross


Aust r oads 2012
94
REFERENCES
AASHTO 1993 AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials Washington DC USA.
Austroads 2003 Pavement rehabilitation: a guide to the design of rehabilitation treatments for road
pavements AP-G78/04 Austroads Sydney NSW.
Austroads 2004 Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements Austroads Sydney
NSW.
Austroads 2006a Guide to asset management: part 1: introduction to asset management AGAM01/06
Austroads Sydney NSW.
Austroads 2006b, Development of vertical loading performance-based standard for heavy vehicles, Internal
report IR-122/06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006c Pavement design for light traffic: a supplement to Austroads pavement design guide
AP-T36/06 Austroads Sydney NSW.
Austroads 2007a Interim works effects models AP-R300/07 Austroads Sydney NSW.
Austroads 2007b Investigation of the load damage exponent of unbound granular materials under
accelerated loading AP-T73/06 Austroads Sydney NSW.
Austroads 2008a Assessment of remaining service life of pavements by AP-R332/08 Austroads Sydney
NSW.
Austroads 2008b Fatigue performance of cemented materials under accelerated loading: influence of vertical
loading on the performance of unbound and cemented materials AP-T102/08 Austroads Sydney NSW.
Austroads 2008c Relative pavement wear of an unbound granular pavement due to dual tyres and single
tyres AP-T104/08 Austroads Sydney NSW.
Austroads 2009, High productivity vehicles and pavement economic impacts: network level assessment
approach, AP-T116/09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Bell CA Randhawa SU & Xu ZK 1992 Impact of high-pressure tires and single-tired axles in Oregon
Transportation Research Record no.1540, pp.132-141.
Berry, J 1990, Proposal for a Council directive, COM(90) 486, Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels, Belgium.
Bruzelius, N 2004, Measuring the marginal costs of road use: an international survey, Swedish National
Road Transport Research Institute, Linkoeping, Sweden.
Byrne, M 2007, A data mining investigation into pavement roughness using minimum message length
inference, PhD Thesis, Monash University, Vic.
Byrne M & Martin T 2008, Establishment of a new pavement maintenance database Stage 1 analysis
ARRB Draft Contract Report for NTC Austroads Project AS1337 ARRB Transport Research Ltd
Vermont South Victoria Australia.

Aust r oads 2012
95
Cebon D 1993 Interaction between heavy vehicles and roads special publication SP-951 Society of
Automotive Engineers Warrendale PA USA.
Cebon D 1999 Handbook of vehicle- road interaction Swets and Zeitlinger Lisse Netherlands.
Chatti K & El Mohtar CS 2004 The effect of different axle configurations on the fatigue life of an asphalt
concrete mixture Transportation Research Record no.1891 pp. 121-30.
Cole, D &, Cebon, D 1992, Spatial repeatability of dynamic tyre forces generated by heavy vehicles,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering,
vol. 206, no. 1, pp. 17-27.
Cole, DJ , Collop, AC, Potter, TEC & Cebon, D 1996, Spatial repeatability of measured dynamic tyre forces,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering,
vol. 210, no. 3, pp. 185-97.
Collop, AC & Cebon, D 2002, The benefits of road-friendly suspensions, International conference on
asphalt pavements, 9th, 2002, Copenhagen, Denmark, The Danish Road Directorate, Ministry of
Transport, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 3:3-2.
Collop, AC, Cebon, D & Cole, DJ 1996, Effects of spatial repeatability on long-term flexible pavement
performance, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Science, vol. 210, no. 2, pp. 97-110.
COST 2001 COST 334: effects of wide single tyres and dual tyres: final report of the action version 29
November 2001 Task group 3 final report European Commission Directorate General Transport
Luxembourg.
Costanzi, M & Cebon, D 2006, Simulation of damage evolution in a spray sealed road, International
symposium on heavy vehicle weights and dimensions, 9
th
, State College, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania
State University, State College, PA, USA, 11 pp.
Council of the European Communities 1992 Council directive 92/7/EEC Council of the European
Communities Brussels Belgium.
De Pont, J & Pidwerbesky, B 2000, Influences of vehicle loading on pavement wear, research report no. 163,
Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Department of Transport 1988 National speed survey: 1987 Department of Transport London UK.
Federal Highway Administration 1984 Allocation of life cycle highway pavement costs FHWA/RD-83/030
FHWA US Department of Transportation Washington DC USA.
Federal Highway Administration 1995, Comprehensive truck size and weight (TS&W) study: phase1:
synthesis: pavements and truck size and weight regulations, working paper 3, FHWA, Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, USA, viewed 11 Mar 2010
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/TSWwp3.pdf>.
Fekpe, ESK 1999, Cost allocation implications of dynamic wheel loading, heavy vehicle systems,
International Journal of Vehicle Design, vol. 6, nos. 1-4, pp. 162-75.
Gillespie, TD & Karamihas, SM 1992, Truck factors affecting dynamic loads and road damage, in D Cebon
& CGB Mitchell (eds), Heavy vehicles and roads: technology, safety and policy, (International

Aust r oads 2012
96
symposium on heavy vehicle weights and dimensions, 3rd, 1992, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge), Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 102-8.
Gillespie TD, Karamihas, SM, Sayers, MW, Nasim MA, Hansen W, Ehsan, N & Cebon, D 1993, Effects of
heavy-vehicle characteristics on pavement response and performance, NCHRP report 353,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Gyenes, L & Mitchell, CGB 1992, The spatial repeatability of dynamic pavement loads caused by heavy
goods vehicles, in D Cebon & CGB Mitchell (eds), Heavy vehicles and roads: technology, safety and
policy, (International symposium on heavy vehicle weights and dimensions, 3rd, 1992, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge), Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 95-101.
Hassan R Michel N & Roberts J 2008 Freight Axle Mass Limit Investigation Tool (FAMLIT) - Modelling
Framework and Application of Outputs Austroads Project Report AT1165 ARRB Vermont South,
Victoria.
Hirshhorn R 2002 The estimation of road wear and capital costs report TP14481 Transport Canada Montreal
Quebec Canada viewed 11 Mar 2010
<http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/Report/FullCostInvestigation/Road/tp14481/tp14481.pdf>.
Hodges, J W, Rolt, J & J ones, TE 1975, The Kenya road transport cost study: research on road deterioration,
laboratory report no. 673, Transport and Road Research Laboratory: Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK.
Ilves, GJ & Majidzadeh, K 1992, An evaluation of damage caused by heavy loads in Ohio, in D Cebon &
CGB Mitchell (eds), Heavy vehicles and roads: technology, safety and policy, (International
symposium on heavy vehicle weights and dimensions, 3rd, 1992, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge), Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 78-85.
J ameson GW 2006 Influence of multiple axle loads on pavement performance: inception report project
report ARRB Group Vermont South Vic.
Linard, K, Martin, T & Thoresen, T 1996, Task 2: a pavement life-cycle costing optimisation procedure,
TASK 3:, pavement life-cycle costing optimisation computer package, draft contract report CR TE
821, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Martin TC 1996 A review of existing pavement performance relationships report ARR282 ARRB Transport
Research Vermont South Vic.
Martin TC 2003 Improved HDM-4 model calibration factors and application guidelines for sealed roads in
Victoria contract report RC2664 ARRB Transport Research Vermont South Vic.
Martin, T & Choummanivong, L 2009, Interim network level functional road deterioration models, contract
report REAT1064, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic. .
Michel N & Toole T 2005 Freight analysis and maintenance costs estimation tool: part 1:- overview draft
report VC71393 ARRB Group Vermont South Vic.
Mitchell, CGB 1987, The effect of the design of goods vehicle suspensions on loads on roads and bridges,
Symposium on heavy goods vehicle suspension characteristics, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory,
Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic, pp. 99-118.
Mitchell, CGB & Gyenes, L 1989, Dynamic pavement loads measured for a variety of truck suspensions,
International conference on heavy vehicle weights and dimensions, 2
nd
, Kelowna, British Columbia,
Roads and Transport Association of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, vol. 1, 20 pp.

Aust r oads 2012
97
Morosiuk, G, Riley, M & Odoki, J B 2001, HDM-4 modelling road deterioration and works effects, review draft
version 1.1, vol.6, World Road Association (PIARC), Paris, France & The World Bank, Washington
DC, USA.
Nelson J D & Miller DJ 1992, Expansive soils: problems and practice in foundation and pavement
engineering J ohn Wiley & Sons New York USA.
Newbery, DM, Hughes, GA, Paterson, WDO & Bennathan, E 1988, Road transportation in developing
countries: the design of user charges and taxes for Tunisia, World Bank discussion papers, World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
National Road Transport Commission 1996 Mass limits review: a study of the feasibility and net benefits of
increasing mass limits for vehicles fitted with road friendly suspension systems: technical supplement
no 2: road and bridge impacts NRTC Melbourne Vic.
National Transport Commission 2007a, NTC expenditure reporting categories NTC Melbourne Vic.
National Transport Commission 2007b Estimation of vehicle kilometres travelled on arterial and local roads
information paper (update) NTC Melbourne Vic.
OECD 1998 Dynamic interaction between vehicles and infrastructure experiment (DIVINE): technical report
report no. DSTI/DOT/RTR/IR6(98)1/FINAL Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Paris France.
Paterson, WDO & Attoh-Okine, B 1992, Summary models of paved road deterioration based on HDM-III,
Transportation Research Record, no. 1344, pp. 99-105.
PIARC 1999 HDM-4: highway development and management documentation PIARC (World Road
Association) Paris France.
Productivity Commission 2006, Road and rail freight infrastructure pricing, inquiry report no. 41, Productivity
Commission, Canberra, ACT.
Roberts, J , Roper, R & Loizos, A 2003, PLATO: a new engine for the implementation of HDM technology for
road infrastructure management analysis, Combined ARRB conference, 21st, 2003, and Road
Engineering Association of Asia and Australasia (REAAA) conference, 11th, Cairns, Queensland,
ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic, 21 pp.
Salama, HK, Chatti, K & Lyles, RW 2006, Effect of heavy multiple axle trucks on flexible pavement damage
using in-service pavement performance data, Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 132, no. 10,
pp.763-70.
Scala AJ & Potter DW 1981 A method to predict load equivalence factors for specialised vehicles report no.
ARR 114 Australian Road Research Board Vermont South Vic.
Shahin MY 1994 Pavement management for airports roads and parking lots Chapman and Hall New York
USA.
Standards Australia 1996 Residential slabs and footings: construction AS 2870 SA Sydney NSW.
Sweatman PF 1983 A study of dynamic wheel forces in axle group suspensions of heavy vehicles report no.
SR 27 Australian Road Research Board Vermont South Vic.

Aust r oads 2012
98
Thornthwaite CW 1948 An approach toward a rational classification of climate Geographical Review vol.38
no.1 pp.55-94.
Vuong B 2002 Estimates of equivalent load for a quad axle contract report RC2776 ARRB Transport
Research Vermont South Vic.
Vuong B 2007 Study of pavement impact on quad axle group contract report RC73691 ARRB Group
Vermont South Vic.
Watanatada, T, Harral, CG, Paterson, WDO, Dhareswar, AM, Bhandari, A & Tsunokawa, K 1987, The
highway design and maintenance standards model: volume 1: description of the HDM-III model, J ohn
Hopkins University Press for World Bank, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Yeo R Koh SL Hore-Lacy W & Uebergang T 2007 The relative damaging effects of quad axles and triaxles
report no. ARR 369 ARRB Group Vermont South Vic.


Aust r oads 2012
99
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE CATEGORIES
The definitions of maintenance cost categories detailed below are based on the definitions
developed by the National Transport Commission (2007a). These definitions were used in
assessing the maintenance costs included in the estimation of road wear costs.
A.1 Servicing and Operating Expenses (Category A)
These are all the expenditure associated with servicing and operating and monitoring the road
system excluding expenditures on pavements shoulders and bridges. Examples of these
expenditures are as follows:
maintenance, repairs and operating charges for street lighting
maintenance, repairs and operating charges for traffic signals
cleaning, maintenance and repairs to drains
servicing of roadside rest areas
roadside and median maintenance, including grass mowing and litter collection
pavement sweeping
snow clearing
maintenance and cleaning of roadside furniture, including signs
repainting pavement markings
traffic monitoring and recording
pavement condition monitoring and recording
surveillance and provision of emergency services on major roads and bridges
administration and supervision costs associated with above types of works.
A.2 Routine Maintenance of Pavement and Shoulders (Category B1)
All routine costs are those incurred in maintaining the roadway and shoulders excluding periodic
costs on sealed roads at a frequency of more than one year. Examples of these costs are as
follows:
pothole repairs/minor patching less than 500 m
2

crack sealing
edge repairs
shoulder grading
resheeting of unsealed roads and shoulders
administration and supervision costs associated with the above types of works.
The NAASRA criteria for minor patching <500 m
2
and major patching >500 m
2
have been used to
introduce greater consistency in the reporting of pavement maintenance (B1) and pavement
rehabilitation (category D) expenditure. Minor patching work is included under category B1 while
major patching is included under category D (see Table 1.1 for all broad cost categories).

Aust r oads 2012
100
A.3 Periodic Surface Maintenance of Sealed Roads (Category B2)
Periodic costs are those incurred maintaining sealed roadways and shoulders at a frequency of
more than one year. Examples of these costs are as follows:
maintenance reseals/enrichments
thin asphalt overlays (less than 25 mm)
asphalt retreatment and regulation
Any costs associated with the provision of materials and preparation for the above work should be
included in this category.
A.4 Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation (Category C)
These are the costs associated with the maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges and culverts.
Examples of these costs are as follows:
bridge maintenance, including painting
bridge repairs, including replacement of bridge railings and decking
A.5 Road Rehabilitation (Category D)
These are the costs associated with reinstating failed pavements to existing standards to improve
ride quality and/or correct pavement shape including the provision of a wearing course. These
costs will normally improve the riding quality of pavements without improving the design standard.
Examples of these costs are as follows:
major patching in excess of 500 m
2

resheeting of sealed roads
reconstruction of failed pavements
asphalt overlays over 25 mm
administrative and supervision costs associated with the above types of works.
Also see the note under category B1. Where an improvement in the design standard was made in
conjunction with rehabilitating a pavement e.g. pavement widening and reconstructing an existing
pavement only the cost associated with rehabilitating the pavement to the existing standard should
be included in this category. The cost of the improvement component should be included under
category F1.
A.6 Low Cost Safety/Traffic Improvements (Category E)
These are the costs associated with minor improvements primarily undertaken to improve road
safety or traffic flow. Examples of these costs are as follows:
installation or relocation of road furniture
provision of new painted road markings
installation of new traffic signals, including provision of new traffic signal linking systems

Aust r oads 2012
101
installation of new pedestrian crossings
installation of new raised pavement markers
installation of rail crossing boom barriers
installation of new street lighting
junction improvements
blackspot safety improvements
Expenditures in this category relate to isolated minor works not part of a wider road improvement
project. Where safety or traffic improvement expenditure is made as part of a wider road
improvement project it should be included under category F.
A.7 Pavement Components (Category F)
Pavement costs are those associated with improving the design standard of an existing roadway or
the provision of new roadways. Examples of these costs are as follows:
the pavement component of
pavement widenings
road realignments
new auxiliary lanes
road duplications
sealing of unsealed roads
new routes
administration and supervision costs associated with providing pavements.
Any costs associated with the provision and placement of pavement materials for the above work
should be included in this category. The pavement expenditure associated with the improvement
component of projects comprising both improvement and rehabilitation of existing pavements
should be included in this category.

Aust r oads 2012
102
APPENDIX B DETERMINING EQUIVALENT ANNUAL
UNIFORM COSTS
B.1 EAUC Estimation
Figure B 1 shows the life-cycle cost profile of a pavement over an analysis period of 50 years. It
includes fixed annual maintenance expenditure and a rehabilitation cost at year 12.
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
147
1
0
1
3
1
6
1
9
2
2
2
5
2
8
3
1
3
4
3
7
4
0
4
3
4
6
4
9
Year
A
g
e
n
c
y

c
o
s
t
,

$
b
Rehabilitation cost
Maintenance Costs

Figure B 1: Life-cycle agency cost profile for a road section
These life-cycle costs are discounted to a present value using a real discount rate which can be
converted to equivalent annual uniform costs (EAUC). The present value discounted cost ($PV) of
a one-time future cost ($F) is determined using the following (Equation A 1):

( )
(
+
=
N
i
Fx PV
1
1
$ $

A 1

where
i = discount rate
N = year when the expenditure occurred ranges from 1 to 50 for the example in
Figure B 1.


Aust r oads 2012
103
The total discounted life-cycle cost ($PVLCC) is then determined by summing the present value
discounted costs of all expenditure items over the analysis period. The PVLCC is then converted
to EAUC using the Equation A 2. EAUC spreads the costs of all items to an annual cost over the
analysis period for the agency cost profile (Figure B 2)

( )
(
=
n
i
i x PVLCC
EAUC
1
1
1
) ( ) ($
$

A 2
where
n = number of years in the analysis period e.g. =50.

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
147
1
0
1
3
1
6
1
9
2
2
2
5
2
8
3
1
3
4
3
7
4
0
4
3
4
6
4
9
Year
E
A
U
C

$
B

Figure B 2: Equivalent annual uniformcosts (EAUC)
B.2 Annualising Period for Estimating EAUC under Different Loading
Scenarios
The total discounted life-cycle cost is annualised over the full 50 year analysis period. As noted in
Section 2.1, this allows time for at least one pavement rehabilitation to occur within the analysis
period to contribute to the road wear cost.


Aust r oads 2012
104
APPENDIX C APPROACHES TO DETERMINE
LOAD-WEAR MODELS
The approaches to predicting pavement performance and developing long-term performance
models include the following:
Deterministic approaches predict a single value of the dependent variable from pavement
performance prediction models based on statistical relationships between the dependent and
independent pavement performance variables (Martin 1996). The models are deterministic
in that for any set of independent input variables these are processed through a strict set of
formulae to give unique predicted dependent variable outcomes. Examples of these models
include the following:
Mechanistic models are based on a fundamental and primary response stress strain
deflection etc.
Mechanistic-empirical models are based on theoretical models but are calibrated by
observational data using regression analyses. The calculated strain and stress in the
mechanistic model can be used as input (independent variable) to a regression
(empirical) prediction model. The mechanistic models are adjusted in line with
empirical experience and calibrated against field data.
Empirical models are developed from regression analyses of experimental or observed
data. They should not be used beyond the range of data from which the model was
developed. Examples include detailed surface distress prediction models for rutting or
roughness.
A probabilistic approach to pavement performance recognises that there is uncertainty in the
assessment of pavement condition and that pavements and the variables that influence their
behaviour are inherently non-homogeneous. A probabilistic approach assigns various
probabilities to the future condition of a pavement (Martin 1996) represented by indices such
as Pavement Condition Index (PCI) or Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) (Shahin 1994).
PCI or PCR the dependent variable is usually related empirically to pavement age
(independent variable) using regression analysis. The relationships are developed for
families or groups of pavements with similar climatic functional and pavement characteristics
and maintenance and rehabilitation treatments (Shahin 1994).
Two approaches are discussed here regarding developing load-wear relationships one uses
pavement response and the other uses pavement performance.
C.1 Incremental Mechanistic-empirical Models
The available pavement deterioration models in Australia used in the context of life-cycle analysis
are mainly deterministic based mechanistic-empirical models. Examples of these models include
those used in HDM-4 PLATO FAMLIT and PLCC in addition to specific models used by the
different road authorities. Most of the models used in these tools are incremental with the model
computations applied on an annual basis with last years output being used as the current years
input. The advantage of an incremental annual approach is that it greatly simplifies the application
of maintenance intervention modelling.

Aust r oads 2012
105
C.2 Mechanistic Models
Examples of international models using the mechanistic approach and the output used in costing
include the National Pavement Cost Model (NAPCOM) (FHWA 1995) and the Long-term
Pavement Performance Model (LTPPM) (Collop et al. 1996). The limitation of the LTPPM model is
that it cannot be applied for network level analysis as it uses road surface profile. The NAPCOM
model predicts distresses using a mechanistic approach which can be calibrated using observed
data. This makes it suitable for use in determining lengths of network requiring maintenance or
rehabilitation and then using unit costs to determine total cost.
Another model is being developed by ARRB. It uses finite element analysis and AutoSim which is
expected to be incorporated in Austroads pavement design and rehabilitation guides. Currently the
database for this tool is being developed to cover performance of different pavement types ages
material types and locations. This database will make the prediction of performance of pavements
for any network possible without the need for detailed input data on pavement characteristics. The
user will need limited input such as pavement configuration age climate data etc. The truck
models in AutoSim are also being calibrated with data collected from Austroads Project AT1212.
The new tool will be able to predict pavement performance over time and remaining life (Austroads
2008a) of existing pavement under any combination of fleet vehicles. As it uses a mechanistic
approach it predicts deterioration for primary response modes such as rutting loss of shape and
fatigue cracking in addition to impacts of horizontal forces if the geometry of the road is known. It
allows for static and dynamic wheel loads. This tool will be very useful for predicting strength but
not roughness or other performance indicators which makes it hard to use in predicting costs. It
considers the impacts of the interaction of load and environment but does not look at impacts of
environment alone i.e. unsealed cracks leading to heaving of soil.

Aust r oads 2012
106
APPENDIX D TOOLS FOR PAVEMENT LIFE-CYCLE
COSTING ANALYSIS
The available tools for life-cycle analysis of pavement performance and costing that were reviewed
include:
HDM-4 (PIARC 1999)
PLATO (Pavement Life Cycle Analysis and Treatment Optimisation) (Roberts et al. 2003)
ARRB PLCC (Pavement Life Cycle Costing) model (Linard et al. 1996)
FAMLIT (Freight Axle Mass Limits Investigation Tool) (Hassan et al. 2008).
These tools were reviewed in terms of their applications pavement distress modes modelled
interaction between the models and applicability to different pavement/road types and whether they
are calibrated to local conditions. Also reviewed were the required input data maintenance
intervention criteria possible outputs and whether works effects road user cost models and
optimisation are considered in each tool. A summary of all reviewed parameters is provided in
Table D 1.
PLATO models are built on HDM-4 but were modified by engineering judgement to be more
sensitive to major variables (strength loading and environment). These models also differ from the
HDM-4 models in that they include a structural adequacy model and a structural life index that
triggers rehabilitation works.
A strategic analysis level is believed to be sufficient for the purpose of developing the LWC
relationships which is possible using any of these tools. However the level of detailed input data
for the different distress modes required for HDM-4 and PLATO is not necessary considering the
fact that routine and periodic maintenance activities do not need to be responsive for Phase 1.
However Phase 2 requires the distress models to be responsive to routine and periodic
maintenance activities that increase with increased axle load.
The ARRB PLCC and FAMLIT on the other hand do not require that level of input. The difference
between the two is that in the PLCC the roughness and strength models act independently and are
not interactive whereas in FAMLIT the two models are interactive and are sensitive to the
environment.
FAMLIT has been developed under Austroads Project AT1165 (Hassan et al. 2008). FAMLIT will
be available to all Austroads members at no cost. Considering the importance of national
consistency in the development and application of the LWC relationships FAMLIT is suitable for
this project. The use of FAMLIT will ensure that all road agencies are able to develop LWC
relationships suitable for their network characteristics and usage and maintenance practice based
on the same modelling logic.


Aust r oads 2012
107
TableD1: Features and capabilities of theavailablelife-cyclecost analysis tools
Tool Application Distress modes
modelled
(Interaction)
Inputdata Applicabilityto
commonroadand
pavementtypes
Interventioncriteriafor
differentmaintenance
categories
Outputs Works effects Roaduser
costmodels
and
optimisation
HDM-4
Strategic
network analysis
level: allocation
of resources and
long-term
planning.
Programlevel:
develop works
program.
Project level:
treatment
selection.
Cracking
Ravelling
Rutting
Roughness
Potholing
Edge break
Texture
depth
Skid
resistance
(Yes)
Initial roughness, cracking, ravelled
area, no. of potholes, edge break,
texture depth, mean rut depth, skid
resistance, drainage condition, skid
resistance, pavement type,
maintenance history, road inventory
and geometry, environmental factors,
vehicle and traffic load (in ESA),
strength data (deflection or material
properties and thicknesses).
Maintenance policies intervention
levels for different treatments and unit
costs.
All sealed flexible
pavements
Concrete
pavements
Gravel roads
(Roughness, rutting
and cracking models
for, flexible pavement
are calibrated for
arterial and, local
roads in some states)
Routine: condition
responsive.
Periodic: condition
responsive or
scheduled.
Rehabilitation:
condition
responsive (surface
condition and
roughness).
Strategic: mediumto
long-termbudget
forecasts and network
condition trends.
Works program: a
defined long list of road
projects one year or
multi-year program
under constrained or
unconstrained budget.
Resets to
original or
user
defined
condition
or
predicted.
Yes
PLATO
Same as above Cracking
Ravelling
Rutting
Roughness
Potholing
Edge break
Strength
(Yes)
Same as above except for texture and
skid resistance.
Deflection data include parameters
related to deflection bowl shape.
Sealed flexible
pavements
(No)
Routine: condition
responsive.
Periodic: condition
responsive or
scheduled.
Rehabilitation:
condition
responsive (surface
condition roughness
and structural life
index).
Condition time series
cost time series total
transport cost network
condition (structural life
index surface condition
index) agency and user
costs (annual and total
discounted or not).
Works program
treatment type cost
and timing.
Same as
above
Yes

Aust r oads 2012
108
Tool Application Distress modes
modelled
(Interaction)
Inputdata Applicabilityto
commonroadand
pavementtypes
Interventioncriteriafor
differentmaintenance
categories
Outputs Works effects Roaduser
costmodels
and
optimisation
PLCC
Strategic
network analysis
level
Roughness
and
strength
(No)
Inventory, initial roughness, pavement
age and type, AADT, %CV, average
ESA/CV, growth rate, design traffic
growth rate, design life, routine and
periodic maintenance cost for each
road/pavement, type, unit cost for
rehabilitation.
Sealed flexible
pavements
(Both models are
calibrated for arterial
roads)
Routine and
periodic
maintenance: fixed
annual cost.
Rehabilitation:
granular or asphalt
overlay triggered by
roughness or
strength.
Annual and total
agency and user costs
discounted or not
maximumand average
network roughness.
Same as
above
Yes
FAMLIT
Scenario
analyses for
network and
route levels to
assess cost
implications of
changes in fleet
and axle mass
limits.
Roughness
and
strength
(Yes)
Inventory, seal and pavement age,
fleet composition, AADT, and growth
rates (by vehicle type), SARvalues by
vehicle and pavement type, initial
roughness, initial strength (deflection or
other), climate, geometry, annual
routine maintenance costs,
maintenance intervention levels and
unit costs.
Sealed flexible
pavements
(Can use calibration
factors for HDM-4
roughness model.
Calibration is required
for the strength
model)
Routine
maintenance: fixed
annual cost.
Periodic
maintenance:
scheduled reseal or
resurfacing.
Rehabilitation:
overlay (any) or
reconstruction
triggered by
roughness and/or
strength.
Total and annual
agency and user cost
(discounted or not)
annual or average
network or route
roughness and
strength.
Annual SAR-kmor
tonne-kmor user cost
by vehicle type.
Resets to
original or
user
defined
condition
Yes for RUC
but no
optimiser


Aust r oads 2012
109
APPENDIX E CALIBRATION OF FAMLIT STRUCTURAL
MODEL
E.1 FAMLIT Structural Model (Phase 1)
FAMLIT in Phase 1 uses the structural model used in PLATO (Roberts et al. 2003). The structural
deterioration of a pavement represented by the current value of the adjusted structural number
(SNP) is estimated using the model shown in Figure E 1.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.0000
0 Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Intercept Cal =1
Gradien Cal =1
Curviness Cal =
1

Figure E 1: Generic structural adequacy and deterioration (SNP-CAP-SNP) model
The structural capacity (SNP-CAP) relationships can be adjusted in FAMLIT using the calibration
factors for Intercept Gradient and Curviness to reflect typical structural lives of a pavement
network. These models assume that routine and periodic maintenance are adequately carried out
to minimise deterioration related to environmental conditions. The process adopted in FAMLIT for
determining current SNP at end of first analysis year and subsequent years involves the following
steps:
1 Calculation of the initial SNP from the input data based on SN values for pavement layers
and subgrade (see Appendix G).
2 Use the relevant pavement SNP-CAP-SNP model to determine remaining capacity in
MSARs (million SARs).
3 The current annual traffic loading (YSAR at end of the analysis year) is deducted from the
predicted remaining capacity to get the remaining capacity at the end of the analysis year.
4 Use the SNP-CAP-SNP model to determine the current SNP (at end of the analysis year).
5 The incremental annual SNP loss due to traffic loading (difference between initial (step 1)
and current SNP (step 4)) is adjusted for environmental effects.
6 Estimate the adjusted current SNP. This value is used in calculating roughness at the end of
the first analysis year and as the initial SNP for the following year.

Aust r oads 2012
110
7 Steps 2 to 6 are repeated to determine current SNP at the end of each successive year.
The environmental adjustment factors (see step 5) currently used in FAMLIT are based on
simulated data which has not been verified.
E.2 Calibration of the Structural Deterioration Model
Most of the calibrated structural deterioration (SNP-CAP-SNP) models used in this study are based
on work undertaken for RMS NSW under a separate project (Roberts et al. 2006b). The calibration
factors used for the different pavement types and relevant roughness calibration factors are
summarised in Table E 1.
Table E 1: Calibration factors of SNP-CAP-SNP models and roughness model for different pavement types
SNP-Capacity calibration factors Roughness calibration factors
Kgm=Kgs
3

GN-SS
(1)
or GN thin AC (SAR4)
Intercept Cal0
(2)
1.5 0.7705
Gradient Cal0
(2)
0.5
Curviness Cal
(2)
0 1.6
CS(CS & thick AC) (SAR8)
Intercept Cal0 2 0.8797
Gradient Cal0 0.48
Curviness Cal0 1.78
AC (AC <100 mm /granular) (SAR5)
Intercept Cal0 1.0 0.7706
Gradient Cal0 1.0
Curviness Cal0 1.0
AC- thick(full depth or thick AC>100/GN) (SAR5)
Gradient Cal0 1.3
Curviness Cal0 1
CS-SS(CS with SS) (SAR8)
Gradient Cal0 0.68
Curviness Cal0 3
CS Concrete(SAR12)
Gradient Cal0 0.57
Curviness Cal0 1.48
1 SS = sprayed seal.
2 Intercept Cal0, Gradient Cal0 and Curviness Cal0 = calibration coefficients that define the shape of the SNP-CAP-SNP model., Kgm = Kgs = roughness model
calibration factors (Equation A 3).


Aust r oads 2012
111
The forms of the calibrated models relative to the default SNP-CAP-SNP model for the different
pavement types are presented in Figure E 2 to Figure E 7. The models for bituminous and
cementitious pavements were originally calibrated for traffic loading expressed in SAR4. For this
study, they were recalibrated for SAR5 (for AC pavements), SAR8 (for CS pavements) and SAR12
(for concrete). Due to lack of performance data, the adjustments/calibration of the CS-concrete,
thick AC and CS (CS with thick AC) models were based on engineering judgement.
Pavements with thick AC layers were assumed to deteriorate, structurally, at a lower rate than
pavements with thin AC layers. The structural capacities of CS pavements with a thick AC layer
were also assumed to deteriorate at a lower rate than those with sprayed seal (SS) or thin AC
layers, but with slightly higher deterioration rate than CS pavements simulating performance of
concrete pavements.
GN, SS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
Remaining Capacity (MESAs)
S
N
P
Default SNP from Capacity
Calibrated SNP curve

Figure E 2: Calibrated structural adequacy model for granular pavements with sprayed seal or thin asphalt (<50 mm)
Remaining Capacity (MSARs)

Aust r oads 2012
112
CS- concrete
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
S
N
P

Figure E 3: Calibrated structural adequacy model for CS/concrete pavements
AC
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
S
N
P

Figure E 4: Calibrated structural adequacy model for granular pavements with thin asphalt layers (<100 mm)
(MSARs)

Aust r oads 2012
113
AC- thick
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
S
N
P

Figure E 5: Calibrated structural adequacy model for full depth asphalt pavements and granular pavements with thick
asphalt layers (>100 mm)
CS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.0000 0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000 1000.0000
S
N
P

Figure E 6: Calibrated structural adequacy model for CS pavements with thick asphalt layers (>100 mm)
(MSARs)
(MSARs)



Aust r oads 2012
114
CS-SS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
0.0000 0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000 1000.0000
S
N
P
(MSARs)

Figure E 7: Calibrated structural adequacy model for CS pavements with sprayed seal or thin asphalt


Aust r oads 2012
115
APPENDIX F CALIBRATION OF FAMLIT ROUGHNESS
MODELS
This appendix details the process of calibrating the FAMLIT roughness model using data collected
from NSW and Austroads LTTP sections. The calibration process is divided into two parts. The
first part documents a data collection and cleaning analysis performed separately from FAMLIT.
The first part also documents preparing the data including time series filtering and removing any
apparent maintenance interventions that influence the actual rate of deterioration.
The second part describes the development of an Excel based spreadsheet which allows the
calibration of the multi-parameter FAMLIT roughness model. The final model form and calibration
parameters estimated for alternate pavement types are given at the end of this section.
F.1 Roughness Model (Phase 1)
To calibrate the FAMLIT roughness deterioration model an Excel based spreadsheet was
developed. FAMLIT uses a series of roughness calibration factors Kgm and K
gs
which can be
calibrated for each pavement type.
The roughness progression model for Phase 1 was derived from an HDM-4 aggregate roughness
model Equation A 3 determined by Paterson and Attoh-Okine (1992) and is defined below:

RI
t

=

RI
a
+[ K
gm
m RI
a
] +[ K
gs
EXP
mt
263 ( 1 +SNP
0
)
-5
YSAR ]

A 3
where
RI
t
= roughness at pavement age t (m/km IRI)
RI
a
= roughness at pavement age ( t -1), in m/km IRI
t = pavement age since construction or reconstruction (years)
m = environmental coefficient
SNP
0
= initial adjusted structural number i.e. at pavement age ( t =0 )
YSAR = annual number of standard axle repetitions, in millions for the lane carrying the
highest truck traffic
K
gm
= calibration factor for the environmental component
K
gs
= calibration factor for the structural component of roughness.
The derived roughness Equation A 4 used in FAMLIT predicts absolute roughness at a point in
time. This model was intended to be applied without knowledge of the surface distress and was
considered to be applicable up to moderate levels of distress (e.g. maintained before the area of
cracking exceeds about 30%), that is, before any imminent failure, which is typical of Australian
conditions.

Aust r oads 2012
116
The major change between the two equations is that the strength variable moves from an initial
value in the aggregate form of Equation A 3 , to being defined by a separate incremental model in
Equation A 4. Equation A 3 simplifies to the following model (Michel & Toole 2005) for no surface
cracking and default (=1) values for the calibration coefficients:

RI
t

=

1.04 EXP
mt
[ RI
o
+263 ( 1 +SNC
t
)
-5
NE
t
]

A 4
where
RI
t
= roughness at pavement age t (m/km IRI)
RI
o
= initial roughness (m/km IRI)
NE
t
= cumulative ESA (or cumulative SAR) at age t (millions ESA/lane)
SNC
t
= modified structural number of the pavement age t.
The adjustment from an aggregate to an incremental model was used in the expectation of gaining
an improved prediction of roughness variation by including a more detailed prediction of strength
over the analysis period.
A direct comparison between the two roughness models aggregate and incremental (Figure F 1)
was performed on simulated data to identify whether the adjustment resulted in a similar prediction
of roughness. The adjustment from aggregate to incremental has not changed the overall
roughness prediction as both approaches match closely.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20
Years
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

I
R
I
HDM-4 Agregate
FAMLIT Incremental

Figure F 1: Comparison of incremental and aggregate roughness models

Aust r oads 2012
117
The above simulation checked whether the overall form of the two models predicted similar
roughness progression. If the two model forms were independently calibrated to the same dataset
they would not necessarily have the same degree of correlation. It was originally expected that the
inclusion of more complex strength models in the incremental model of FAMLIT would increase the
overall roughness prediction reliability. However this was found not to be the case.
F.2 Roughness Model (Phase 2)
Phase 2 used a cumulative rutting/roughness prediction model (Martin & Choummanivong 2009),
IRI, based on observational and experimental data collected from Australian pavements, and it
incorporated an independent variable for annual maintenance expenditure, me, which allowed me
to increase with increased traffic load via cumulative rutting, rut, and as predicted by Equation 11.
Equation A 5 defines the rutting/roughness model used by FAMLIT in Phase 2:
IRI = k
r
[ 196.74 STRUC +0.016 crx +0.25 rut +0.972 ENVIR ] A 5
where

IRI = cumulative increase in roughness, IRI (m/km), from the initial roughness, IRI
0
, at
zero pavement age, AGE
0

STRUC =
EXP [ m AGE
i
] MESA AGE
i
[ 1 +( SNC
0
0.0000758 crx B S ) ]
-5

S = nominal maximum size (mm) of seal aggregate
B = factor for estimating the field layer thickness (FLT) of bitumen binder
= 0.6 for single seals
= 0.9 for double seals
crx
= cumulative percentage (%) area of surface cracking (0 to 100%) contribution to
roughness deterioration
rut = cumulative rut depth (mm) after initial densification at AGE
i
=1
=
k (AGE
i
1)
0.617
{0.022 (100 +TI
i
)/SNC
0
+0.594 MESA 0.000102 me}
EXP = e raised to the power
ENVIR
=
m IRI
0
AGE
i

m = environmental coefficient

=
0.0197 +0.000155 TI
i

TI
i
= Thornthwaite Moisture Index for climate pavement conditions at year i
AGE
i
= number of years i since construction or last rehabilitation
MESA = annual traffic load per lane in millions of equivalent standard axles
IRI
0
= initial roughness, IRI (m/km), at zero pavement age (typical range 1.0 to 1.8)
k
r
= calibration coefficient for roughness (default =1.0).
SNC
0
= modified structural number for pavement/subgrade strength (years) at AGE
i
=0
= SNC
i
/{0.9035 [2 EXP(0.0023 TI
i
+0.185 AGE
i
/ DL)]}

Aust r oads 2012
118
SNC
i
= modified structural number pavement/subgrade strength at the time, I, of its
measurement
DL = pavement design life (years)
me = annualised pavement maintenance expenditure ($/lane-km/year, see Equation 11)
k = calibration coefficient for rutting for local conditions (default value =1.0)
crx = cumulative cracking (% total lane area)
= K 6.147 (crxAGE)
0.19
EXP(0.047 TI
i
), (sealed granular pavements)
= K 5.091 (crxAGE )
0.065
EXP(0.02 TI
i
+0.019 AGE
i
), (asphalt pavements)
= 0 (no cracking assumed)
crxAGE = cracking age (elapsed time from the commencement of cracking, years)
K = calibration coefficient for cracking for local conditions (default =1.0).
Equation A 5 is limited to predicting roughness deterioration occurring in the gradual deterioration
phase. The gradual deterioration phase is the normal in-service range for pavement distress which
once exceeded enters the rapid deterioration phase which results in imminent catastrophic failure.
The limit to the gradual deterioration phase is defined as follows (Equation A 6):
rut
max
= 86.347 11.008 IRI A 6
where
rut
max
= mean maximum vertical deformation from the original surface profile (mm)
= R0 +rut
R
0
= defined by HDM-4 model (Morosiuk et al. 2001)

( 0.09 +0.0384 6.5 SNC0
1.6
)

= Krid 51740 (MESA 10
6
)
SNC0
-0.502
100
-2.3

K
rid
= 1.0 (default value for all seals)
IRI = IRI
0
+IRI
all other terms are as defined previously.
Equation A 6 was therefore used as the ultimate limit for the rutting rut and roughness IRI., If the
rut
max
value was exceeded rehabilitation was initiated. Equation A 5 used the initial value of
pavement/subgrade strength SNC0 at zero age throughout the deterioration cycle. The structural
deterioration models shown in Appendix E were not used.
The rutting/roughness model used for Phase 2 was left with the default calibration values (=1.0)
on the basis of inspection of the models predictions for the various road types.
F.3 Data Collection and Filtering (Phase 1)
The first stage of the calibration process was to collect the data and filter the roughness time
series. The primary dataset used for calibration was a combination of observational pavement
performance data (roughness rutting and deflection) collected annually from the Austroads AT1064
Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) project and the NSW rural network. Given that the

Aust r oads 2012
119
data was to be used for calibration a data cleaning procedure was developed to ensure that the
data given to estimate the FAMLIT model parameters was free of errors which may bias the
estimates.
The focus of the data cleaning was on the roughness values only. The data cleaning was able to
smooth the time series roughness data provided in the dataset. This had the advantage of
removing any error bias in the calibrated model and secondly identified any pavement sections that
had significant maintenance interventions. Any sections identified as having a high probability of
maintenance interventions were removed from any further analyses so that calibration was only
carried out for pavement segments that were deteriorating with time.
To perform this cleaning a state of the art method developed by Byrne (2007) called the Minimum
Message Length Roughness Progression Rate (MML RPR) was used. The MML RPR is a pattern
recognition algorithm developed specifically to filter a time series of roughness observations. The
power of MML RPR is that it is able to balance multiple sources of information to identify likely
measurement errors and maintenance interventions that influence the rate of deterioration.
The MML RPR is the only current method of filtering a time series of roughness measurements
with the ability to simultaneously identify noise and maintenance intervention points. It has the
further advantage of making use of multiple sources of information for example extending the
inference over multiple time series e.g. rutting texture etc. to increase the overall accuracy when
selecting the most appropriate pattern to determine rates of deterioration to allow calibration. An
example of the MML RPR inference is shown in Figure F 2. Direct comparison between alternate
criteria on simulated data (Byrne 2007) led to the MML RPR being the preferred criteria to clean
time series roughness data.

Aust r oads 2012
120
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
(a)
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

I
R
I

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
(b)
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

I
R
I

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
(c)
R
u
t
t
i
n
g

m
m

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
(d)
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

I
R
I
Data
Remving Maintenance
Effects
Ignoring Maintenance
Effects

Figure F 2: Comparison of MML RPR inference
Plots (a) and (b) in Figure F 2 describe two different possible patterns to interpret roughness
progression. The plot (a) interpretation implies no maintenance occurring while the plot (b)
interpretation implies that some maintenance has occurred after 2003 to split the time series into
two separate progression rates. It is difficult to decide which pattern is most appropriate given both
seem likely and that the estimated rates of deterioration are relatively similar in this case. However
a power specific to the MML RPR is that it can gather information from alternative time series.
Examination of the rutting series for the same time series for roughness see plot (c) in Figure F 2,
confirms that there was a maintenance intervention after 2003. Although rutting data is not
required for FAMLIT the MML RPR has identified a likely maintenance intervention within the time
series in question. This section was not passed to the calibration tool as it would bias any
parameters estimated. Further sections identified as not experiencing maintenance and therefore
used for calibration have had the noise filtered providing a cleaner dataset for calibration purposes.
It could be argued that given a relatively clean roughness time series the different roughness
progression rates (RPR) for example (a) and (b) in Figure F 2 will have little effect on the
roughness model calibration in FAMLIT. Plot (d) shows that although the two RPR appear very
similar they can quickly diverge over several years. As the roughness model in FAMLIT is
calibrated on these inferred RPR incorrectly identifying the true RPR will have significant
consequences when the calibrated model is used for long-term predictions.

Aust r oads 2012
121
F.4 Calibration Tool (Phase 1)
To calibrate the FAMLIT roughness model Excel was used to estimate the roughness model
calibration factors that best meet the above criteria of basing calibration on the best possible
estimates of deterioration. The approach implemented was to use Solver an Excel application to
search for the calibration factors which minimise the sum of squares for each pavement type
individually.
Solver may have limitations where it finds the local rather than the global minimum for the sum of
least squares for each pavement type. To reduce the risk of this occurring, multiple searches were
trialled. Varying the starting conditions allows for Solver to increase the likelihood of finding the
global maximum.
Before the FAMLIT calibration was performed a simple set of rules were established to remove
outliers. These outliers were defined as pavement links at the end of their structural life or
conversely pavements which show no increase in roughness over time. The specific filtering rules
are described below.
F.4.1 Filtering SNP
The SNP values for the calibration data (from LTPP and NSW) were calculated from the deflection
measurements supplied. The deflection measurements (D
0
) were adjusted for seasonal variations
using the process described in Austroads (2003). The adjusted deflection (D
0adj
) values were then
used to calculate SNP using the following formula (Equation A 7):

SNP =167 / (D
0adj
) 0.57

A 7
where
D
0adj
= maximum deflection (microns) at 700 KPa applied stress adjusted for seasonal
variation.
The filter for strength (SNP) was based purely on removing pavements at the end of their structural
life as these may exhibit sudden rapid roughness progression as they near failure. If the estimated
initial capacity (MSAR) >total sum of MSAR for the period under analysis then the section was
accepted otherwise it was removed from the calibration dataset.
F.4.2 Filtering Roughness (IRI)
There are cases where the MML predicted trend of roughness progression is very low. These
sections are typically characterised with high levels of noise which makes detecting the true
progression pattern difficult. In these cases the MML sets the progression rate close to zero
IRI/year as a reasonable limit. These pavement links were filtered as they did not represent the
typical pavements modelled by FAMLIT.
If change in Log
10
IRI/year >0.02 then the section was accepted otherwise it was removed from
the calibration exercise. This value was selected as it was often the lower bound of typical
roughness progression rates.
A description of the breakdown of data filtering is shown in Table F 1. While the sample size used
for calibration was reduced the data was of higher quality and far more representative of typical
pavement performance. This ensured that the calibrated FAMLIT model was able to describe
typical roughness progression rather than be heavily biased by likely erroneous links.

Aust r oads 2012
122
Table F 1: Comparison of data sample sizes
Pavement type Total links Total roughness
measurements
Filtered roughness
measurements
Asphalt AC 127 334 193
Granular GN 380 1212 554
Cement stabilised CS 89 246 137
Total 596 1792 884

F.4.3 FAMLIT Calibration Frequency Distribution
Frequency descriptions of the data for the variables contained in the roughness calibration are
included in Figure F 3. This was undertaken to ensure the calibration set appeared reasonably
representative of a wide range of likely pavements. Further a check was made to compare the
distributions of the total dataset and filtered calibration set to ensure the pavement segments
filtered were random.
From Figure F 3, it appears that the removal of the low RPR outliers to create the filtered
calibration set does not affect the frequency distribution of the data. This validates the filtering of
pavements with less than 0.02 IRI/year progression rate as not likely to impact the calibration
process.
F.5 Roughness Model Calibration Factors (Phase 1)
The FAMLIT roughness model contains two calibration factors Kgm and K
gs
. Previous work
(Martin 2003) has typically found a suitable simplification of the calibration exercise is to restrict the
two calibration factors to remain constant with no significant loss to model accuracy.
The filtered dataset as presented in Table F 1, with frequency distributions for the included
variables in Figure F 3, was calibrated with the restriction on equal K
gm
and K
gs
values with results
as shown in Table F 2. The cement stabilised pavements (CS) were calibrated for separate SAR8
and SAR12 values to identify the separate calibration factors under this alternative loading.
Table F 2: Calibration of data
Pavement type Kgmand Kgs Sample size N Standard error
Asphalt AC SAR 5 0.7706 193 0.339
Granular GN SAR 4 0.7705 554 0.215
Cement stabilised CS SAR 8 0.9842 117 0.143
Cement stabilised CS SAR 12 0.6541 97 0.148

From the factors presented in Table F 2 as calibrated for FAMLIT there appears to be similar
progression rates for the asphalt and granular pavements. The K
gm
factors match those discussed
in Martin (2003) which identified K
gm
typically ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 for granular pavements on a
stable subgrade.

Aust r oads 2012
123
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0
0
.
6
1
.
2
1
.
8
2
.
43
3
.
6
4
.
2
4
.
8
5
.
46
6
.
6
7
.
2
7
.
8
Roughness (IRI)
Total Dataset
Analysed

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
7
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
8
0
.
1
9
0
.
2
1
Change In IRI/Year
Total Dataset
Analysed

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
0
.
3
0
.
6
0
.
9
1
.
2
1
.
5
1
.
8
2
.
1
2
.
4
2
.
73
3
.
3
3
.
6
3
.
9
YSAR
Total Dataset
Analysed

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
7
5
0
2
5
0
0
3
2
5
0
4
0
0
0
4
7
5
0
5
5
0
0
6
2
5
0
7
0
0
0
7
7
5
0
8
5
0
0
9
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
AADT
Total Dataset
Analysed

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
1
.
53
4
.
56
7
.
59
1
0
.
5
1
2
1
3
.
5
1
5
1
6
.
5
1
8
1
9
.
5
SNP
Total Dataset
Analysed

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
-
9
0
-
8
0
-
7
0
-
6
0
-
5
0
-
4
0
-
3
0
-
2
0
-
1
00
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
TMI
Total Dataset
Analysed

Figure F 3: Frequency distribution of analysed and total data

Aust r oads 2012
124
F.6 Identifyi ng Alternative Road Classes
While the use of alternative calibration factors for different pavement types is common practice,
there is a further option of identifying a series of factors for alternative road classes within a given
pavement type.
To identify whether the dataset showed a significant benefit in model accuracy from this approach
a trial was performed. The decision to allow road class subdivision was not made in terms of any
apparent increase in accuracy as a subdivision always results in higher accuracy. The decision of
allowing subdivision was made on whether there was significant evidence that the road classes
were deteriorating differently.
To identify whether the increase in accuracy brought by subdividing was significant a comparison
between the true and random assignment of road classes was made. If the accuracy of dividing a
pavement type into multiple road classes was not significantly higher than either all data combined
or the random assignment into classes, then the hypothesis fails and the true classes were
insignificant.
A failure of this dataset to identify significant subdivision of classes did not rule out alternative
calibration exercises which decided to subdivide. Rather it simply confirmed that the available
evidence was not significant to subdivide on this calibration dataset.
The existing dataset was exchanged with Victorian data to directly compare calibration factors K
gm

Kgs. The Victorian dataset contained a large number of alternative road classes for granular
pavements. The process used for the LTTP and RMS dataset was repeated for the Victorian
dataset as described in Table F 3. The Victorian calibration factors K
gm
and K
gs
are described in
Table F 4. The first section describes the calibration factors for all granular pavements. These
pavements were then further subdivided into the four road classes (A B C and M) and each
recalibrated subset independently calibrated.
This process was repeated but the third time the four subdivisions were randomly assigned road
classes but given the same overall approximate sample size as the true class subdivision. The
results of the subdivision trial in Table F 4 show there was no significant evidence of road classes
having alternative rates of progression. As the random classes were able to match the true road
classes (0.1664 compared with 0.1661) the reduction in standard error was attributed to a better fit
of noise rather than any significant proof of road classes deteriorating differently. Including road
classes at this stage would cause over-fitting reducing the performance of the model when used to
predict unseen data.
Table F 3: Comparison of Victorian data sample sizes
Pavement type Total links Total roughness
measurements
Filtered roughness
measurements
All granular GN 74 369 345

Granular Class A 14 77 77
Granular Class B 23 112 112
Granular Class C 20 96 96
Granular Class M 17 84 60

Aust r oads 2012
125
Table F 4: Calibration of all and subdivided Victorian data
Granular pavement road classes
Pavement type Kgmand kgs Sample size N Standard error
All granular GN 0.9108 193 0.1704
Total 0.1704
True road class
Granular Class A 0.7087 77 0.1068
Granular Class B 0.8994 112 0.1793
Granular Class C 1.1082 96 0.2184
Granular Class M 0.7365 60 0.1008
Total 0.1661
Randomroad class
Granular Class A 1.3080 73 0.2387
Granular Class B 0.8649 108 0.1331
Granular Class C 0.8246 133 0.1331
Granular Class M 0.8317 31 0.2080
Total 0.1664

Aust r oads 2012
126
APPENDIX G PAVEMENT DESIGN
The assumptions processes and parameters used in designing the pavements for the study are
described in this appendix.
G.1 Selection of a Representative Fleet and Growth Rates
This study was aimed at developing LWC relationships that would be suitable for application at the
national level. To achieve this nationally representative fleet compositions and distributions were
used for the different road categories. Nationally representative traffic growth rates based on the
national freight task and its predicted doubling by 2020 were also used. The development of these
initial parameters was undertaken under Austroads Project AT1165 (Austroads 2009). These
parameters were modified for this study as described in this appendix. These parameters were
used in determining traffic design loading for the pavements considered in this study and for
assessing the impacts of axle load increments.
G.1.1 Selection of Heavy Vehicle Fleet
Table G 1 shows a modified version of the nationally representative heavy vehicle fleet developed
under Austroads Project AT1165 based on traffic loading information provided by the road
authorities for the various road categories (see Appendix G.3.1). The number of vehicle types was
reduced due to the limitation on fleet vehicle types in FAMLIT. This fleet also varied from the
original in that it included buses (R11-bus) and seven axle prime-mover semi-trailers (A124).
However the fleet used covered most common types of heavy vehicle axle groups.
G.1.2 Determining Representative Traffic Volumes
Travel data of heavy vehicles on local and arterial roads collected for a project sponsored by the
National Transport Commission (2007b) was used to develop representative traffic volumes for the
different road categories. The average traffic volumes for each road category were determined
and used in estimating the design traffic for the different pavements.
The road classification (class 1 to 8) used in the NTC travel study is shown in Table G 3 together
with their equivalents of the classification adopted for the current project (freeway, arterial, local
collector and access). Also shown in Table G 3 are the adopted heavy vehicle (HV) annual
average daily traffic (AADT) volumes (both directions) for each of the road categories.
G.1.3 Representative Fleet Distributions
Initially the fleet distribution developed under project AT1165 was used (Austroads 2009). This
distribution was developed using on-road measurement and the distribution of 2004 national gross
tonne kilometre (GTK) and travel by area-of-operation data collected through the survey of motor
vehicle use. This initial distribution was adjusted to produce distributions that satisfied the
following criteria:
proportions of rigid and articulated trucks similar to the averages determined from the data
collected for the NTC project on heavy vehicle travel on local roads (National Transport
Commission 2007b)
axle group distributions that are close to the typical distribution reported in Austroads (2004)
and others provided by road authorities (RAs)
values of axle group (AG) per heavy vehicle (AG/HV) for each road category that are close to
those reported in Austroads (2004) and provided by some RAs.

Aust r oads 2012
127
The final distributions for the eight road categories are shown in Table G 3 together with the
relevant proportions of rigid and articulated vehicles. Table G 4 presents the distribution of the
different axle group types for the eight road categories.
Table G 1: Representative vehicle fleets and distributions by road category and vehicle type
Vehicle
distribution
Rural Fwy Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban Fwy Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
R11 25% 23% 33% 40% 32% 37% 38% 62%
R11-bus 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 10% 15% 11%
R12 7% 15% 24% 28% 23% 15% 24% 12%
R22 1% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 2% 3% 5% 1%
R11T2 2% 1.5% 2% 2% 0.3% 3% 2% 1%
R12T2 1% 3% 2.0% 1.5% 0.2% 2% 1% 1%
R12T12 8% 2% 2% 1% 2.0% 1% 2% 0%
R22T22 1% 1.0% 0.5% 0% 2.0% 1% 1.5% 0%
A112 2% 2% 2% 2% 0.2% 2% 1.0% 2.0%
A122 2% 2% 2% 2% 0.3% 2% 1.0% 2.0%
A124 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0% 0%
A123 22% 22% 15% 17% 10% 20% 11% 8%
B1222 1% 1.0% 1.0% 0% 3.5% 0.3% 0% 0%
B1232 1% 1% 2% 0% 3.5% 0.3% 0% 0%
B1233 14% 11% 9% 0% 13% 4% 0% 0%
A123T23 4% 4.5% 0.4% 0% 1.5% 0% 0% 0%
A123T23T23 4% 4.0% 0% 0% 0.8% 0% 0% 0%
AG/HV 3.1 2.96 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.1
Rigid 40% 49% 67% 75% 69% 64% 82% 86%
Articulated 60% 51% 33% 25% 31% 36% 18% 14%
Table G 2: Assumed design traffic volumes for the different road categories
Road category Design traffic load (DTL), ESA
(HV AADT, two way)
Austroads class
Rural
Rural fwy DTL >1x10
7
(>1400) 1
Rural arterial 1x10
7
> DTL > 1x10
6
(220) 2 & 3
Rural collector 1x10
6
> DTL > 1x10
5
(40) 4 A (local arterial) & 4 B (local collector)
Rural local access 1x10
5
> DTL > 1x10
4
(20) 4 C
Urban
Urban fwy 1x10
8
> DTL > 5x10
7
(2750) 6
Urban arterial 5x10
7
> DTL > 5x10
6
(850) 7
Urban collector 5x10
6
> DTL > 1x10
5
(300) 8 A (local arterial) & 8 B (local collector)
Urban local access 1x10
5
> DTL > 1x10
4
(30) 8 C

Aust r oads 2012
128
Table G 3: Distributions of the different axle group types on each road category
Axle group
distribution
Rural
Fwy
Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban
Fwy
Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
SAST 31.9% 34.8% 39.5% 43.8% 35.9% 39.7% 42% 46%
SADT 13.8% 13.5% 17.8% 22.3% 15.1% 21.7% 26% 36%
TAST 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 1.5% 1.7% 3% 0.5%
TADT 30.8% 31.9% 28.5% 25.9% 30.7% 25.2% 24% 14%
TRDT 23.1% 19.1% 13.7% 7.5% 16.8% 11.7% 5% 4%
QADT 0.06% 0.11% 0.02% 0% 0.07% 0.08% 0% 0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
G.1.4 Growth Rates
Growth rates for the rigid and articulated vehicles developed under AT1165 and presented in
Table G 5 were used. Applying these rates results in doubling the freight task performed by the
selected fleet in 2020. They were applied to the eight road categories using relevant fleet
distributions (Table G 1) and traffic volumes (Table G 3) to determine an average growth rate for
the whole fleet for each road category (Table G 4).
Table G 4: Growth rates by vehicle type for each road category
Vehicle
type
Rural Fwy Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban Fwy Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
Rigid 3.0% 3.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7%
Artic. 4.6% 5.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3%
Average 3.80% 4.46% 2.19% 2.03% 2.43% 2.36% 1.90% 1.89%

G.2 Flexible Pavements
G.2.1 Design Traffic Loading
The design traffic loadings for the different road categories are presented in Table G 5. They were
determined per lane using the nominated HV AADT, design lives, growth rates and average
ESA/HV as shown in Table G 5. A lane distribution factor of 0.5 was used. The ESA/HV values
for light traffic pavements were adopted from Austroads (2004) and those used for arterial
pavements were provided by some RAs.
These ESA/HV values were determined from actual axle load distributions i.e. covering all loading
conditions. The assumption made in this assessment exercise is that all vehicles are fully loaded
to the maximum permitted under GML. Although this study was a simulation the aim was to get
results that closely represent reality. To achieve this heavy vehicle volumes (HV AADT per lane)
required to produce the same calculated design traffic loadings while operating fully laden were
determined.
This involved using the developed fleet distribution for each road category and SAR4 values
calculated for each fleet vehicle assuming each axle group was loaded to the maximum under
GML without consideration for vehicle stability (Table G 8). Through trial and error the equivalent
HV volumes were determined. They are presented in Table G 6 together with the final design

Aust r oads 2012
129
traffic loadings (DTL) for GN (using SAR4) AC (using SAR5) and CS (using SAR12) pavements.
They were calculated as follows (Equation A 8):

DL

=

((AADTHV1 * SARV1) +(AADTHV2 * SARV2) +(AADTHV3 * SARV3)
+(AADTHV4 * SARV4) +(AADTHV5 * SARV5) +(AADTHVn *
SARVn)) * 365* Growth Factor (GF)

A 8
where
AADTHV1-n = traffic volume for each of the specified heavy vehicle (HV) types (per
lane) (Table G 6)

SARV1-n = standard axle repetitions for each of the specified vehicle types
(Table G 7).

Table G 5: Design traffic loadings for each pavement category
HV AADT
per lane
Growth rate
design period
GF ESA/HV DTL
(ESA)
HV AADT per
lane (GML)
DTL GN
(SAR4)
DTL AC
(SAR5)
DTL CS
(SAR12)
Rural Fwy 700 3.8, 40 90.7 3.0 6.9E+07 406 6.9E+07
Rural Arterial
(in-service)
110 4.46, 20 31.2
3.0
3.8E+06 67 3.8E+06 4.3E+06 1.16E+07
Rural Arterial
(new)
110 4.46, 30 60.6
3.0
7.3E+06 67 7.3E+06 8.4E+06
Rural Collector 20 2.19, 20 24.8 1.3 2.4E+05 6 2.4E+05
Rural Access 10 2.03, 20 24.4 0.60 5.3E+04 2 5.3E+04
Urban Fwy 1380 2.43, 40 66.4 2.3 7.7E+07 704 8.8E+07 2.4E+08
Urban Arterial 430 2.36, 30 42.9 2.0 1.4E+07 213 1.4E+07 1.5E+07 4.1E+07
Urban
Collector
150 1.9, 20 24.1
1.30
1.7E+06 52 1.7E+06 2.0E+06
Urban Access 15 1.89, 20 24 0.6 7.9E+04 3 7.9E+04


Aust r oads 2012
130
Table G 6: HV AADT per lane by vehicle type for each pavement category
Rural Fwy Rural
Arterial
Rural
Collector
Rural
Access
Urban Fwy Urban
Arterial
Urban
Collector
Urban
Access
R11 101 15 2 1 225 79 20 2
R11-bus 24 4 0.4 0.1 42 21 8 0.3
R12 28 10 1 0.4 158 31 12 0.3
R22 2 0.3 0.0 0.02 14 6 3 0.03
R11T2 8 1.0 0.1 0.03 2 5 0.8 0.03
R12T2 4 2 0.1 0.02 1.4 4 0.5 0.03
R12T12 32 1.3 0.1 0.02 14 2 0.8 0
R22T22 2 0.7 0 0.00 14 2 0.8 0
A112 8 1.3 0.1 0 1.4 4 0.5 0.1
A122 8 1.3 0.1 0 2 4 0.5 0.1
A124 0.8 0.2 0.0 0 1.4 0.4 0 0
A123 89 15 0.9 0.3 70 43 5 0.2
B1222 2 0.7 0.1 0 25 0.6 0 0
B1232 4 0.7 0.1 0 25 0.6 0 0
B1233 57 7 0.5 0 92 8.5 0 0
A123T23 16 3 0.02 0 11 0 0 0
A123T23T23 17 3 0 0 6 0 0 0
Total 406 67 6 2 704 213 52 3
Table G 7: Vehicle wear for different pavement types base case loading (max GML)
Payload Gross Tare SAR4 SAR5 SAR8 SAR12 Group
1
Group
2
Group
3
Group
4
Group
5
Group
6
Group
7
R11 9.00 15.00 6 3.00 3.33 4.51 6.78 6.00 9.00
R11-bus 5.00 16.00 11 3.78 4.46 7.41 15.01 6.00 10.00
R12 12.90 22.50 9.6 3.59 4.16 6.57 12.30 6.00 16.50
R22 16.50 27.50 11 4.12 4.94 8.50 17.52 11.00 16.50
R11T2 20.10 31.50 11.4 5.07 5.80 8.76 15.54 6.00 9.00 16.50
R12T2 24.30 39.00 14.7 5.65 6.63 10.82 21.06 6.00 16.50 16.50
R12T12 33.00 48.00 15 7.13 8.27 13.01 24.31 6 16.5 9 16.5
R22T22 40.50 60.50 20 8.25 9.88 17.00 35.05 11 16.5 16.5 16.5
A112 20.80 31.50 10.7 5.07 5.80 8.76 15.54 6.00 9.00 16.50
A122 23.70 39.00 15.3 5.65 6.63 10.82 21.06 6.00 16.50 16.50
A124 29.20 46.50 17.3 4.87 5.53 8.23 14.43 6.00 16.50 24.00
A123 26.20 42.50 16.3 4.96 5.66 8.47 14.92 6.00 16.50 20.00
B1222 38.10 55.50 17.4 7.71 9.10 15.07 29.83 6.00 16.50 16.50 16.50
B1232 38.90 59.00 20.1 7.03 8.13 12.72 23.68 6.00 16.50 20.00 16.50
B1233 40.20 62.50 22.3 6.34 7.15 10.37 17.53 6.00 16.50 20.00 20.00
A123T23 51.70 79.00 27.3 8.40 9.62 14.62 26.30 6.00 16.50 20.00 16.50 20.00
A123T23T23 77.80 115.50 37.7 11.84 13.58 20.77 37.67 6.00 16.50 20.00 16.50 20.00 16.50 20.00


Aust r oads 2012
131
G.2.2 Assumptions for Design
The assumptions made in designing the different pavement types for the eight road categories are
set out in Table G 9. A subgrade CBR of 5% was assumed for all pavements.
G.2.3 Calculation of SNP
The adjusted structural number (SNP) for each pavement was calculated considering contributions
from the surfacing base subbase and subgrade. It was calculated using layer thicknesses THxy
and material coefficients axy i.e. the sum of the structural numbers SN of the different layers and
the subgrade as shown below. The formulae for material coefficients used were developed for
in-service pavements (Equations A 9 to A 13).
SNP = SN
sf
+SN
bs
+SN
sb
+SN
sg
. A 9
SN
sf
= (TH
sf
/ 25.4) * a
sf
(sf =surface). A 10
SN
bs
= (TH
bs
/ 25.4) * a
bs
(bs =base). A 11
SN
sb
= (TH
sb
/ 25.4) * a
sb
(sb =subbase). A 12
The subgrade contribution to structural number SNsg (Hodges et al. 1975) is given by:
SN
sg
= 3.51[log
10
(CBR)] - 0.85[log
10
(CBR)]
2
- 1.43 A 13
where
CBR = California Bearing Ratio.

Aust r oads 2012
132
Table G 8: Assumptions used in pavement design
Road category Design loading (SAR) Design assumptions
Granular pavements (SAR4)
Rural Fwy 6.9E+07
Assumptions apply to both new and in-service pavements.
Granular pavements with sprayed seal in all environments with subgrade CBR = 5%
crushed rock (CR) subbase with CBR = 20-50% and a CR base with CBR = 100%.
Use the minimum base thickness from Figure 8.4 of Austroads (2004) and assume that
the subbase layer makes up the remainder of the total thickness.
Local access roads: use Figure 8.5 of Austroads (2006c) the design guide for light
traffic.
Collector roads: design using Figure 8.4 of Austroads (2006c) as the maximum design
traffic loading in design chart 8.5 of Austroads (2006c) is 10
5
.
Rural Art new 7.3E+06
Rural Art in
service
3.8E+06
Rural Collector 2.4E+05
Rural Local Access 5.3E+04
Urban Art 1.4E+07
Urban Collector 1.7E+06
Urban Local Access 7.9E+04
Bituminous pavements
Rural Art 4.3E+06
(in-service, 20 yr design life)

8.4E+06
(new, 30 yr design life)
For in-service pavements asphalt (AC)> 50 mm but <150 mm on CR base and
subbase. Use Figure 8.4 of Austroads (2004) assume AC thickness = 100 mm with
minimum granular base thickness and the rest of the total thickness to be made up by
the granular subbase. Austroads (2004) does not allow an AC thickness <150 mm for
this traffic loading. Use SAR 5.
For new pavements use AC>150 mm and design using Circly (SAR 5).
AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 75km/h AC MPa = 5900 alpine 3400
temperate 1800 semi-arid.
Urban Fwy 8.8E+07
For both new and in-service pavements use full depth AC on 100 mm fine crushed rock
working platform. Design using Circly and SAR 5.
Subgrade modulus = 50 MPa AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 75 km/h
AC MPa = 5900 alpine 3400 temp (dry and wet).
Urban Art 1.5E+07
Same as for rural arterials for speed = 50km/h AC MPa =4600 alpine 2600 temp (dry or
wet).
Urban Collector 1.7E+06 (in-service, SAR4)

2.0E+06 (new, SAR5)
For in-service pavements use AC< 50 mm on CR base (use SAR4 no consideration for
AC fatigue). Use Figure 8.4 Austroads (2004) assume AC = 35 mm min. granular base
thickness and the granular subbase makes up the rest of the total thickness.
For new pavements use AC>40 mm design using Circly and SAR 5.
AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 50 km/h MPa = 4600 alpine 2600
temp (dry or wet).
Urban Local Access 7.9E+04
For both new and in-service pavements use AC< 40 mm on CR base. Design using
Figure 8.5 in design guide for Light traffic and SAR4. Assume AC = 35 mm min.
granular base thickness and the granular subbase makes up the rest of the total
thickness.
AC modulus varies with environment speed = 50 km/h AC MPa = 4600 alpine 2600
temp (dry or wet).
Cementitious pavements (SAR8)
Rural Art 1.16E+07
50 mm AC on cement treated crushed rock (CTCR) base. Design using Circly.
CTCR =2000MPa AC modulus varies with environment for speed = 75 km/h AC MPa =
5900 alpine 3400 temp 1800 semi-arid.
Urban Fwy 2.4E+08
Thick AC base on 2000MPa CTCR subbase no consideration for post cracking.
Thickness of CTCR is limited to a max of 200 mm and AC thickness is determined
using Circly.
AC modulus same as for bituminous pavements.
Urban Art 4.1E+07


Aust r oads 2012
133
Coefficients of the different materials were calculated using the following formulae.
For the granular material a CBR of 100% was assumed for the base a CBR of 50% for the upper
subbase and a CBR of 20% for the lower subbase. The formulae used for calculating material
coefficients for the base and subbase are (Watanatada et al. 1987) (Equations A 14 to A 16):
Base; a
bs
= (29.14 CBR - 0.1977 CBR
2
+0.00045 CBR
3
) 10
-4
. A 14
Subbase; a
sb
= -0.075 +0.184(log
10
CBR) 0.0444(log
10
CBR)
2
. A 15
Asphalt coefficient was calculated using asphalt moduli (E) as shown below (AASHTO 1993):
AC; a
sf
= 0.246+0.412*Log
10
(E/1000). A 16
Material coefficient a
cs
for cement treated crushed rock (CTCR) was determined by designing a
full depth asphalt pavement for the same design traffic loading, calculated as its SNP, which was
then used to back calculate a
cs
for the CTCR layer. This approach has been adopted since there
is no suitable formula for determining a
cs
and the fact that CTCR and AC are similar in initial SN,
but vary in performance.
The calculated SNP values are shown in Table G 10 for GN pavements, Table G 11 for AC
pavements and Table G 13 for CS pavements. These values were calculated taking into account
the variation in asphalt modulus in different locations. However, these values were found to be
different from those predicted from the FAMLIT structural deterioration model. The reason is that
the default strength (SNP-CAP) model in FAMLIT was developed using different design principles
to that in Austroads (2004) and was calibrated for the performance of different types of in-service
pavements. The differences between the calculated and predicted SNP values are small as shown
in the tables. The predicted SNP values were adopted in the analysis. As can be seen from the
tables, the variation due to climatic effects in initial strength for pavements with asphalt layers was
lost by adopting these values.
The CS pavements were designed using design loads in SAR12 and a SAR12 design load was
used for long-term performance so the final SNP values used were determined from the SNP-CAP-
SNC capacity curve calibrated for SAR12. Both the strength and roughness deterioration models
were calibrated for SAR12 for these pavements. Both design loads are presented in Table G 12.
The final predicted SNP was calculated using SAR12 design load.


Aust r oads 2012
134
TableG 9: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values GNpavements
Notes:
Base CBR=100%Subbase-upper CBR= 50%subbase-lower CBR= 20%.
Subgrade SN=0.61.
Road
type
Design
load
AC surfacing Base Subbase-upper Subbase-lower SN Calculated
SNP
Predicted
SNP
(SNP-
CAP
models)
Difference
in
calculated
and
predicted
SNP
SNP
used

SNP-CAP
model (see
Appendix F)
Modulus
MPa
Thickness
mm
Coefficient Thickness
mm
mm
mm
Coefficient
Rural Fwy 6.95E+07 Spray seal 300 0.14 275 0.11 0 0.09 2.83 3.44 5.08 -1.64 5.08 GN-SS
Rural Art-
in service
(20yr DL)
3.77E+06 Spray seal 150 0.14 100 0.11 200 0.09 1.95 2.56 3.12 -0.56 3.12 GN-SS
Rural Art -
new
(30yr DL)
7.32E+06 Spray seal 150 0.14 100 0.11 230 0.09 2.06 2.67 3.44 -0.77 3.44 GN-SS
Rural
Collector
2.35E+05 Spray seal 120 0.14 100 0.11 110 0.09 1.47 2.08 2.29 -0.21 2.29 GN-SS
Rural
Local
Access
5.34E+04 Spray seal 100 0.14 90 0.11 90 0.09 1.25 1.86 2.05 -0.19 2.05 GN-SS
Urban Art 1.35E+07 4 600 35 0.52 200 0.14 140 0.11 135 0.09 2.88 3.49 3.79 -0.29 3.79 GN-SS
2 600 35 0.42 200 0.14 140 0.11 135 0.09 2.74 3.35 3.79 3.79
Urban
Collector
1.72E+06 4 600 35 0.52 150 0.14 100 0.11 135 0.09 2.44 3.05 2.82 0.23 2.82 GN-SS
2 600 35 0.42 150 0.14 100 0.11 135 0.09 2.30 2.91 2.82 2.82
Urban
Local
Access
7.88E+04 4 600 25 0.52 100 0.14 160 0.11 0 0.09 1.75 2.35 2.10 0.26 2.10 GN-SS

Aust r oads 2012
135
TableG 10: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values AC pavements
Roadtype Design
load
AC Base Subbase-upper Subbase-lower SN Calculated
SNP
Predicted
SNP
(SNP-
CAP
models)
Differencein
calculatedand
predictedSNP
SNP
used

SNP-CAP
model
(see
Appendix
F)
AC andGN
moduli
Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff.
Rural Art-in
service
4.31E+06 AC5900,
GN150 MPa
100 0.56 150 0.14 100 0.11 100 0.09 3.82 4.43 3.81 0.62 3.81 AC
AC3400, GN
150MPa
100 0.46 150 0.14 100 0.11 100 0.09 3.43 4.04 3.81 3.81
AC1800,
GN150MPa
100 0.35 150 0.14 100 0.11 100 0.09 2.98 3.59 3.81 3.81
Rural Art-
new
4.31E+06 AC5900,
GN250 MPa
185 0.56 100 0.14 80 0.11 0 0.09 5.00 5.60 5.12 0.49 5.12 AC-thick
8.37E+06 AC3400, GN
280MPa
210 0.46 100 0.14 140 0.11 0 0.09 4.99 5.60 5.11 5.11
AC1800,
GN320 Mpa
250 0.35 100 0.14 90 0.11 0 0.09 4.39 5.00 5.11 5.11
Urban Fwy 8.79E+07 AC5900 100 0.56 170 0.56 0 0.09 100 0.09 6.34 6.95 7.61 -0.66 7.61 AC-thick
AC3400 100 0.46 210 0.46 0 0.09 100 0.09 6.03 6.63 7.61 7.61
Urban Art-
in service
1.54E+07 AC4600, GN
150MPa
100 0.52 150 0.14 130 0.11 140 0.09 3.91 4.52 4.50 0.03 4.50 AC
AC2600, GN
150MPa
100 0.42 150 0.14 130 0.11 140 0.09 3.51 4.12 4.50 4.50
Urban Art-
new
1.54E+07 AC4600,
GN260 MPa
215 0.52 120 0.14 100 0.11 0 0.09 5.48 6.09 6.01 0.07 6.01 AC-thick
AC2600, GN
300MPa
245 0.42 100 0.14 165 0.11 0 0.09 5.28 5.89 6.01 6.01
Urban
Collector-
in-service
1.72E+06 AC4600 40 0.52 150 0.14 100 0.11 130 0.09 2.52 3.13 2.82 0.31 2.82 GN-SS
AC2600 40 0.42 150 0.14 100 0.11 130 0.09 2.36 2.97 2.82 2.82

Aust r oads 2012
136
TableG 11: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values AC pavements
Notes:
Base CBR=100%Subbase-upper CBR= 50%subbase-lower CBR= 20%.
Subgrade SN= 0.61.
Roadtype Design
load
AC Base Subbase-upper Subbase-lower SN Calculated
SNP
Predicted
SNP (SNP-
CAP
models)
Differencein
calculatedand
predictedSNP
SNP
used

SNP-CAP
model (see
Appendix F)
AC and
GN
moduli
Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff. Thickness
mm
Coeff.
Urban
Collector-
new
1.98E+06 AC4600 155 0.52 100 0.14 150 0.11 0 0.09 4.36 4.97 4.66 0.31 4.66 AC-thick
AC2600 180 0.42 100 0.14 100 0.11 0 0.09 3.93 4.54 4.66 4.66
Urban
Local
Access
7.88E+04 AC4600 35 0.52 100 0.14 150 0.11 0 0.09 1.91 2.52 2.10 0.42 2.10 GN-SS
AC2600 35 0.42 100 0.14 150 0.11 0 0.09 1.77 2.38 2.10 2.10

Aust r oads 2012
137
TableG 12: Pavement designs and their calculated and predicted SNP values CS pavements
Notes:
Subgrade SN= 0.61.

Roadtype Design
load
(SAR12)
AC Base Subbase-upper SN Calculated
SNP
Design
load
(SAR8)

Predicted
SNP
(SNP-CAP
models)
Differencein
calculatedand
predictedSNP
SNP
used

SNP-CAP
model (see
Appendix F)
Modulus Thickness Coeff. Thickness Coeff. Thickness Coeff.
Rural Art-in
service
20yr
1.16E+07 AC5900 50 0.43 315 0.25 3.95 4.55 6.52E+06 4.67 -0.12 4.67 CS-SS
1.16E+07 AC3400 50 0.46 325 0.25 4.11 4.72 4.67 4.67
1.16E+07 AC1800 50 0.35 340 0.25 4.04 4.65 4.67 4.67
Urban Fwy 2.38E+08 AC5900 50 0.43 150 0.43 200 0.25 5.35 5.96 1.33E+08 6.81 -0.84 6.81 CS-thick
2.38E+08 AC3400 50 0.46 180 0.46 200 0.25 6.18 6.79 6.81 6.81
Urban Art 4.12E+07 AC4600 50 0.43 130 0.43 200 0.25 5.02 5.62 2.32E+07 4.83 0.79 4.83 CS-thick
4.12E+07 AC2600 50 0.42 155 0.42 200 0.25 5.33 5.94 4.83 4.83

Aust r oads 2012
138
G.3 Concrete Pavements
The changes in wear of concrete pavements due to selected axle group loading scenarios were
calculated on three concrete pavement structures. Concrete pavements are rigid unlike sealed
granular and asphalt pavements that are flexible.
G.3.1 Design Traffic Loading
The daily heavy vehicle axle groups (HVAGs) for each road type were determined using relevant
HV AADT/lane (GML) in Table G 13, corresponding HV fleet distributions and number of axle
groups for each fleet vehicle as shown in Table G 13. The design traffic loadings for the three
concrete pavements are presented in Table G 14.
Table G 13: Daily HVAGs for each vehicle on each road type concrete pavements
Fleet vehicles Axle group
per vehicle
Rural fwy Urban fwy Urban arterial
406HV AADT/lane 704HV AADT/lane 213HV AADT/lane
Fleet
distribution
HVAG Fleet
distribution
HVAG Fleet
distribution
HVAG
R11 2 25% 406*25%*2=203 32% 451 37% 158
R11-bus 2 6% 49 6% 84 10% 43
R12 2 7% 57 23% 317 15% 63
R22 2 1% 4 2% 28 3% 13
R11T2 3 2% 24 0.3% 6 3% 16
R12T2 3 1% 12 0.2% 4 2% 13
R12T12 4 8% 130 2.0% 56 1% 9
R22T22 4 1% 8 2.0% 56 1% 9
A112 3 2% 24 0.2% 4 2% 13
A122 3 2% 24 0.3% 6 2% 13
A124 3 0.2% 2 0.2% 4 0.2% 1
A123 3 22% 268 10% 211 20% 128
B1222 4 1% 8 3.5% 99 0.3% 3
B1232 4 1% 16 3.5% 99 0.3% 3
B1233 4 14% 227 13% 366 4% 34
A123T23 5 4% 81 1.5% 53 0.0% 0
A123T23T23 7 4% 122 0.8% 39 0.0% 0
Total HVAG/day 1260 1885 515
Table G 14: Design parameters for concrete pavements
Road
category
HVAG/day Growth rate, design
period
GF Design HVAG Design parameters
Rural Fwy 1260 3.8%, 40 90.7 1260*365*90.7 =
4.2E+07
PCP, Base = 225 mm, Shoulders, LSF = 1.3,
EffCBR = 75%
Urban Fwy 1885 2.43%, 40 66.4 4.6E+07 CRCP, Base = 180 mm, Shoulders, LSF = 1.2,
EffCBR = 75%
Urban Arterial 515 2.36%, 30 42.9 8.1E+06 PCP, Base = 210 mm, No shoulders, LSF = 1.3,
EffCBR = 75%

Aust r oads 2012
139
G.3.2 Design of Concrete Pavements
The concrete pavements were designed using the Austroads (2004) PDG for subgrade CBR
of 5% and the design traffic loadings shown in Table G 14.
For the rural freeway pavements the Austroads rural freeway traffic load distribution
(Appendix 7.2 of Austroads (2004) was used).
For urban freeways a typical Sydney freeway distribution provided by the Roads and
Maritime Services (RMS) of NSW was used.
For the urban arterial the Austroads (2004) PDG urban traffic load distribution was used
except that all SAST loads above 10 tonne were excluded as they are unrealistically high.
Except for the urban freeway pavement each pavement was assumed to be a plain concrete
pavement (PCP). The urban freeway pavement was designed as a continuously reinforced
concrete.
Each pavement had 150 mm of lean mix concrete as a subbase. Hence the effective
subgrade CBR was 75% in all cases.
The selected designs for the three pavements are presented in Table G 14.
G.3.3 SNP for Concrete Pavements
For all three concrete pavements an arbitrarily high value for SNP of 10 was used.

Aust r oads 2012
140
APPENDIX H DEVELOPMENT OF NETWORK AND
LOADING SCENARIOS
H.1 New Pavements Network
The initial pavement network matrix and assumed characteristics (road category pavement type
initial SNP and roughness lane width (including shoulder) and climate) are shown in Table H 1 for
the rural network and Table H 2 for the urban network. As these tables show each pavement/road
combination was assumed to operate in three different climatic regions i.e. three different TMI
values.
The traffic data year and pavement construction year were assumed to be the same for each
pavement category and assumed to be the year 2008 for all pavements. The lane width was
assumed to vary between road types as shown in the tables. However all pavements were
assumed to be one kilometre long.
Table H 1: Characteristics of initial rural network
Road number Road name Pavement type Lane width, m TMI SN IRI, m/km
RF11 Rural Fwy GN 5 50 4.47 1.44
RF12 Rural Fwy GN 5 0 4.47 1.44
RF13 Rural Fwy GN 5 -50 4.47 1.44
RFC Rural Fwy Concrete 5 20 9.39 1.44
RA11 Rural Art (in-service) GN 5 50 2.51 1.6
RA12 Rural Art (in-service) GN 5 0 2.51 1.6
RA13 Rural Art (in-service) GN 5 -50 2.51 1.6
RAN11 Rural Art (new) GN 5 50 2.83 1.6
RAN12 Rural Art (new) GN 5 0 2.83 1.6
RAN13 Rural Art (new) GN 5 -50 2.83 1.6
RA21 Rural Art (in-service) AC 5 50 3.20 1.6
RA22 Rural Art (in-service) AC 5 0 3.20 1.6
RA23 Rural Art (in-service) AC 5 -50 3.20 1.6
RAN21 Rural Art (new) AC 5 50 4.51 1.6
RAN22 Rural Art (new) AC 5 0 4.51 1.6
RAN23 Rural Art (new) AC 5 -50 4.51 1.6
RA31 Rural Art CS 5 50 4.06 1.6
RA32 Rural Art CS 5 0 4.06 1.6
RA33 Rural Art CS 5 -50 4.06 1.6
RLC110 Rural Collector GN 4 50 1.68 1.8
RLC120 Rural Collector GN 4 0 1.68 1.8
RLC130 Rural Collector GN 4 -50 1.68 1.8
RLA110 Rural Access GN 4 50 1.44 1.8
RLA120 Rural Access GN 4 0 1.44 1.8
RLA130 Rural Access GN 4 -50 1.44 1.8

Aust r oads 2012
141
Table H 2: Characteristics of initial urban network
Road number Road name Pavement type Lane width, m TMI SN IRI, m/km
UF31 Urban Fwy CS 5 80 6.20 1.44
UF32 Urban Fwy CS 5 20 6.20 1.44
UF33 Urban Fwy CS 5 -20 6.20 1.44
UF21 Urban Fwy AC 5 80 7.00 1.44
UF22 Urban Fwy AC 5 20 7.00 1.44
UF23 Urban Fwy AC 5 -20 7.00 1.44
UFCon Urban Fwy Concrete 5 80 9.39 1.44
UACon Urban Arterial Concrete 4 80 9.39 1.6
UA31 Urban Arterial CS 4 80 4.22 1.6
UA32 Urban Arterial CS 4 20 4.22 1.6
UA33 Urban Arterial CS 4 -20 4.22 1.6
UA11 Urban Arterial GN 4 80 3.18 1.6
UA12 Urban Arterial GN 4 20 3.18 1.6
UA13 Urban Arterial GN 4 -20 3.18 1.6
UA21 Urban Art (in-service) AC 4 80 3.89 1.6
UA22 Urban Art (in-service) AC 4 20 3.89 1.6
UA23 Urban Art (in-service) AC 4 -20 3.89 1.6
UAN21 Urban Art (new) AC 4 80 5.40 1.6
UAN22 Urban Art (new) AC 4 20 5.40 1.6
UAN23 Urban Art (new) AC 4 -20 5.40 1.6
ULC21 Urban Collector (new) AC 4 80 4.05 1.7
ULC22 Urban Collector (new) AC 4 20 4.05 1.7
ULC23 Urban Collector (new) AC 4 -20 4.05 1.7
ULC110 Urban Collector GN 4 80 2.21 1.7
ULC120 Urban colLector GN 4 20 2.21 1.7
ULC130 Urban Collector GN 4 -20 2.21 1.7
ULA110 Urban Access GN 4 80 1.49 1.7
ULA120 Urban Access GN 4 20 1.49 1.7
ULA130 Urban Access GN 4 -20 1.49 1.7
H.2 Development of In-service Flexible Pavement Network
The network of in-service pavements was developed by applying life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA)
to the initial network using FAMLIT. The input data included those set out in Table H 1 and
Table H 2. The LCCA was conducted with the application of relevant traffic growth rates
maintenance interventions and works effects to simulate reality. The analyses results were then
used to establish the conditions of each pavement in terms of SNP and roughness at the ages of
10, 20, 30 and 40 years. This resulted in a total of 15 sections for each pavement category (road
category/pavement type combination) as shown in Table H 3 for an urban freeway with full depth

Aust r oads 2012
142
asphalt pavement (UFA). This process was applied to all pavement/categories except for the
concrete pavements due to lack of age distribution data.
Table H 3: Development of UFA (urban freeway with full depth asphalt) sub-network
Road number TMI SN Roughness m/km Traffic data year Year of last reseal Year of last overlay Year of last recon
UF210 80 7.00 1.44 2008 2008 2008 2008
UF211 80 6.95 2.48 2000 2000 2000 2000
UF212 80 7.18 1.93 1990 2008 2008 1990
UF213 80 7.09 3.84 1980 1998 1998 1980
UF214 80 7.30 3.06 1970 2003 2003 1970
UF220 20 7.00 1.44 2008 2008 2008 2008
UF221 20 6.96 2.17 2000 2000 2000 2000
UF222 20 6.90 3.00 1990 2002 1990 1990
UF223 20 7.15 2.65 1980 2002 2002 1980
UF224 20 7.38 2.08 1970 2007 2007 1970
UF230 -20 7.00 1.44 2008 2008 2008 2008
UF231 -20 6.97 1.99 2000 2000 2000 2000
UF232 -20 6.92 2.62 1990 2002 1990 1990
UF233 -20 6.85 3.08 1980 2004 1980 1980
UF234 -20 7.08 2.59 1970 2002 2002 1970

Figure H 1 shows the impacts of climate on the roughness deterioration rate for UFA. It can be
clearly noticed that the rates are higher in wetter environments (TMI 80 and 20) resulting in earlier
rehabilitation interventions. Figure H 2 shows the variation in cost profiles for the same section in
the three climatic regions.

Aust r oads 2012
143
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
5
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
1
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
7
Year
I
R
I
,

m
/
k
mTMI=80
TMI =20
TMI =-20

Figure H 1: Variation in roughness progression rates due to climate
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
5
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
1
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
7
Year
$
,

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

c
o
s
t
TMI =80
TMI =20
TMI =-20
Resurfacing
Reconstruction
Overlay

Figure H 2: Variation in lifecycle agency cost profile due to climate

Aust r oads 2012
144
H.3 Age Distribution for Flexible Pavements
The age distributions of the different flexible pavement categories that were used in determining
the weighted average EAUC for the different scenarios are presented in Table H 4. They were
based on data provided by a number of state road authorities (SRAs). As data on the age
distribution of concrete pavements was not provided the concrete pavement network was assumed
to consist of new pavements only.
H.4 Change in Concrete Pavement Wear Due to Loading Scenarios
For each pavement and axle group the pavement wear impact of a loading scenario was
calculated by:
1 The overall damage (maximum of fatigue and erosion damage) with current traffic load
distributions was calculated.
2 For each axle group load scenario the axle group load was converted to a percentage of the
current prescriptive load. For example for single axle dual tyres (SADT) group the
prescriptive load was 9 tonne. Hence a 10 tonne prescriptive limit would be an increase of
about 11%.
3 For each load scenario these percentage load changes were applied to all the axle groups in
the traffic load distribution (TLD). For example all the SADT axle loads were increased by
11% while not changing the loads in the TLD for the other axle group types.
4 With the modified TLD the overall damage was then recalculated.
5 The change in wear was calculated by subtracting the percentage wear of the modified TLD
(step 4) from the wear with the current TLD (step 1).
6 This change in wear was then converted to a traffic multiplier to apply to the HVAG of loading
in FAMLIT analysis of concrete pavements. The traffic multipliers as explained in
Section 4.2.1 were estimated to reduce the numbers of heavy vehicles so that they were all
fully laden to GML. The traffic multipliers for each of the axle groups for different load
increments are presented in Table H6 together with their daily numbers.
Table H 4: Age distribution for the different pavement categories
Age range (years) <5 5- 15 15- 25 25- 35 >35
Urban
Thin AC over granular base
Arterial 10 20 20 20 30
Local Collector 5 15 20 20 40
Local Access 30 20 30 10 10
Full depth AC or thick AC over granular base
Fwy 20 40 5 10 25
Arterial 30 25 15 10 20
Local Collector 5 15 20 20 40
Thick AC over CS
Fwy 5 90 5 0 0
Arterial 25 70 5 0 0

Aust r oads 2012
145
Age range (years) <5 5- 15 15- 25 25- 35 >35
Rural
Sprayed seal or thin AC over granular base
Fwy 5 5 25 35 30
Arterial 5 35 20 10 30
Local collector 10 35 25 5 25
Local access 20 55 15 5 5
Thick AC over granular base
Arterial 5 5 5 25 60
Thin AC or sprayed seal over CS base
Arterial 5 60 20 5 10

H.4.1 Assessment Loading Scenarios for Concrete Pavements
As FAMLIT does not include models for concrete pavements as there are no appropriate concrete
deterioration models available these pavements were assessed assuming that their performance is
similar to CS pavements. SAR12 values for the six axle group types (SAST SADT TAST TADT
TRDT QADT) presented in Table H 5, were calculated using Austroads (2004) PDG and assuming
maximum loadings permitted under GML. They were used with the corresponding annual numbers
of HVAGs (HVSAST HVSADT HVTAST etc.) from Table H 5 to determine the annual traffic loading
for each scenario. The annual traffic loading is calculated using the following formula:
YSAR = ((HVSAST * SAR12
SAST
) +(HVSADT*SAR12
SADT
) +(HVTAST* SAR12
TAST
) +
(HVTADT * SAR12
TADT
) +(HVTRDT * SAR12
TRDT
) +(HVQADT * SAR12
QADT
)) *
365.
The daily numbers of each axle group (i.e. HVSAST HVSADT etc.) in Table H 5 were determined
using the total daily HVAGs (Table G 13) for each road type and the corresponding axle group
distributions in Table H 3. The variation in SAR12 for SADT between the three road types is
related to the percentages of SADT operating with 9 and 10 (R11-bus) tonnes. Table H 6 presents
the traffic multipliers for each loading scenario and the resulting daily HVAGs for each of the three
axle group types considered for the three road types.
Table H 5: Daily numbers of each axle group type and the three road types
Road
category
SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT QADT
Rural Fwy

SAR12 3.54 4.25 8.76 8.76 2.62 2.12
HVAG/day 401 =
1260*31.9%
174 =
1260*13.8%
4 =
1260*0.3%
388 =
1260*30.8%
292 =
1260*23.1%
0.8 =
1260*0.06%
Urban Fwy SAR12 3.54 4.30 8.76 8.76 2.62 2.12
HVAG/day 676 285 28 578 316 1.4
Urban Arterial

SAR12 3.54 4.56 8.76 8.76 2.62 2.12
HVAG/day 204 112 9 130 60 0.4


Aust r oads 2012
146
TableH6: Traffic multipliers and HVAGs for thedifferent loading scenarios for threeroad types
Scenario Load Multiplier SADT TADT TRDT Load Multiplier SADT TADT TRDT Load Multiplier SADT TADT TRDT
Rural fwy Urbanfwy Urbanarterial
Base 1 174 388 292 1 285 578 316 1 112 130 60
SADT 5.0 0.37 64 388 292 5.0 0.55 157 578 316 5.0 0.84 93 130 60
SADT 8.0 0.58 101 388 292 8.0 0.68 193 578 316 8.0 0.92 102 130 60
SADT 9.5 1.36 236 388 292 9.5 1.97 563 578 316 9.5 1.06 119 130 60
SADT 10.0 1.83 320 388 292 10.0 4.10 1 170 578 316 10.0 1.14 128 130 60
SADT 11.0 3.42 597 388 292 11.0 22.11 6 303 578 316 11.0 1.68 188 130 60
SADT 12.0 5.81 1 013 388 292 12.0 102.05 29 098 578 316 12.0 7.48 836 130 60
TADT 9.0 0.79 174 308 292 15.0 0.87 676 502 316 9.0 0.63 112 82 60
TADT 13.0 0.80 174 310 292 15.5 0.89 676 513 316 13.0 0.71 112 92 60
TADT 15.5 0.89 174 344 292 17.5 1.24 676 720 316 15.0 0.84 112 108 60
TADT 17.5 1.21 174 469 292 18.0 1.47 676 849 316 15.5 0.88 112 114 60
TADT 18.0 1.36 174 528 292 20.0 2.92 676 1 685 316 17.5 1.16 112 150 60
TADT 20.0 2.48 174 960 292 22.0 6.07 676 3 507 316 18.0 1.25 112 163 60
TADT 22.0 4.44 174 1 723 292 24.0 11.53 676 6 664 316 20.0 1.78 112 231 60
TADT 24.0 7.89 174 3 060 292 22.0 2.56 112 332 60
TADT 24.0 3.81 112 494 60
TRDT 18.5 0.99 174 388 290 23.0 1.03 285 578 325 13.0 0.93 112 130 56
TRDT 23.0 1.08 174 388 314 24.5 1.09 285 578 345 21.5 1.04 112 130 63
TRDT 24.5 1.17 174 388 343 26.0 1.23 285 578 390 23.0 1.10 112 130 66
TRDT 26.0 1.35 174 388 393 29.0 1.87 285 578 591 24.5 1.17 112 130 70
TRDT 29.0 1.95 174 388 570 32.0 3.12 285 578 987 26.0 1.27 112 130 77
TRDT 32.0 2.98 174 388 868 29.0 1.58 112 130 95
TRDT 32.0 2.04 112 130 123

Aust r oads 2012
147
APPENDIX I HEAVY VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS AND
PAVEMENT WEAR
I.1 Determining Pavement Wear Due to Heavy Vehicle Axle Loads
Austroads (2004) provides performance models that take into account the damaging effects of
different axle group loads. The PDG is currently used for the design of new pavements throughout
Australia. The PDG uses Standard Axle Repetitions (SAR) as the unit of damage due to a single
pass of a vehicle defined as follows (Equation A 17):

=
=
=
m i
i
LDE
i
SL
i
L SAR
1
) / (

A 17
where
L
i
= load carried by axle group type i (kN)
SL
i
= standard load for axle group type i (see Table I 1) =load which causes
same damage as a static single 80 kN dual wheeled standard axle.

LDE = load damage exponent, varies from 4 to 12 depending on the pavement
distress type

M = number of axle groups for the vehicle.
Table I 1: Axle group loads (standard loads) which cause same damage as the standard axle
Axle group type Load (kN) Load (tonne)
Single axle with single tyres (SAST) 53 5.4
Single axle with dual tyres (SADT) 80 8.16
Tandem axle with single tyres (TAST) 90 9.18
Tandem axle with dual tyres (TADT) 135 13.77
Triaxle with dual tyres (TRDT) 181 18.46
Quad-axle with dual tyres (QADT) 221 22.54
Source: Austroads (2004).

From the field trials conducted by Yeo et al. (2007), it was found that the standard load on the quad
axle group compared to a single axle loaded to 8.2 tonne (or the triaxle loaded to its 18.5 tonne
standard load) is 22.5 tonne. This compared well with the theoretical reference load estimate of
22.5 tonne for the quad axle group reported in Vuong (2002).
The standard loads currently used in Austroads (2004) to convert the wear of any axle group load
to equivalent number of load repetitions of a standard axle have been empirically derived assuming
equal maximum surface deflection under an axle group load causes equal damage. This
assumption is not consistent with the Austroads (2004) mechanistic design procedure in which
maximum strains rather than deflections are used to calculate performance (J ameson 2006).

Aust r oads 2012
148
The above assumption is supported by the findings of the 1960s AASHTO Road Test for tandem
axle groups. However the Road Test did not provide data on triaxle and quad axle loads.
Additionally pavement wear was characterised using the Present Serviceability Index (PSI) which
is a broad performance measure hence the findings are not necessarily applicable to specific
distress modes such as rutting or fatigue. Recent overseas laboratory asphalt fatigue testing
suggests that the current Austroads procedures may overestimate the wear due to axle groups
with two or more axles (J ameson 2006).
Austroads Project TT1219 was initiated in 2007 to address these issues and improve knowledge
about the pavement damage due to axle group types. The project also aimed to investigate
whether differences in dynamic loading of different axle group types need to be taken into account.
Project TT1219 will only consider flexible pavements while for concrete pavements the work being
undertaken concurrently at Michigan University will be monitored (J ameson 2006).
The load wear exponents used in Austroads (2004) that are used to calculate SAR for each
distress mode of flexible pavements are:
SAR4 Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 4, SAR4 is used to
assess the wear to sprayed seal surfaced unbound granular pavements, SAR4 is commonly
called Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA).
SAR5 - Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 5 SAR5 is used to
assess the asphalt fatigue wear to asphalt surfaced pavements.
SAR7 - Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 7 SAR7 is used to
assess the rutting and loss of shape of flexible pavements with bound layers.
SAR12 - Standard Axle Repetitions calculated using a wear exponent of 12 SAR12 is used
to assess the cemented materials fatigue wear of flexible pavements that include bound
cemented materials.
Clearly the Austroads (2004) provides models for most but not all types of pavement wear due to
vertical loading. Other load associated wear types that are not modelled include deformation and
stripping of asphalt polishing and flushing of sprayed seal surfacings.
The results of a recent Austroads Project TT1065 on the effects of increased axle loads on the
wear of thin-surfaced unbound granular pavements and cemented pavement indicate the following:
For thin-surfaced unbound granular pavements, the wear was assessed in terms of
rutting/deformation and roughness (Austroads 2007b)
load-damage exponents (LDE) ranged between two and four (based on surface
deformation) and three to five (based on roughness progression)
overall it was considered that the 4th power law (LDE =4) is adequate for the types of
granular pavements studied and under the test conditions; however this value may be
conservative in some instances and not in others.
For cemented pavements, the performance was assessed in terms of rutting, cracking
(fatigue), deflection (modulus) and strain (Austroads 2008b)
for the materials tested the LDE were found to range between six and eight although
more recent fatigue testing suggests that the LDE should be 12.
Considering the limitations associated with the study i.e. limited types of materials tested in dry
conditions the results will not be implemented until supported by further studies examining a wider
range of material under different environmental conditions.

Aust r oads 2012
149
I.2 Factors Affecting Pavement Wear and Performance
The factors involved in the physical deterioration mechanism of road pavements under repeated
axle loading include pavement design subgrade strength maintenance practice operating speed
vehicle characteristics and the interaction effects of the materials environment road drainage traffic
loading and construction quality.
Available Australian in-service pavement performance models take into consideration the effects of
most of the factors influencing performance over its life cycle. It is important to note however that
none of these models consider the impacts of dynamic wheel loads. Dynamic wheel loads (DWL)
are generated by oscillations of the vehicle and its elements in response to excitations generated
primarily by the vertical displacement inputs to the wheels from the road surface (De Pont &
Pidwerbesky 2000). The magnitude of DWL is a function of vehicle (configuration geometry mass
distribution and properties of the suspensions and tyres) and pavement characteristics and
operating speed see Appendix J for details. They increase with increasing speed and roughness
(Cebon 1999).
Of the vehicle/axle group characteristics that influence pavement performance the relative
damaging effects of axle load and axle group configuration are considered in the determination of
wear caused by a single static vehicle as described in the previous section. The following section
provides a brief review of the effects of a number of heavy vehicle characteristics on pavement
performance (statically and dynamically) followed by a discussion on the feasibility of incorporating
them in wear calculations for this project.
I.2.1 Impacts of Vehicle Characteristics
The high wheel loads of heavy trucks are a major source of pavement damage by causing
permanent deformation which produces rutting and by fatigue (for pavements with bound layers)
which leads to cracking. Gillespie et al. (1993) analysed the effects of various axle and truck
configurations on pavement damage using mechanistic (static or dynamic) analyses and different
performance measures (fatigue and rutting). The study assessed the significance of truck tyre
pavement and environmental factors as determinants of pavement damage. Maximum axle load
and pavement thickness were found to have the primary influences on fatigue damage. Pavement
rutting was found to be influenced by the total vehicle gross weight i.e. the heavier the vehicle the
more pavement rutting impact. Truck properties such as number and location of axles suspension
type and tyre type are important but less significant. High temperatures in flexible pavements and
temperature gradients in rigid pavements adversely affect the damage caused by truck wheel
loads with a fairly strong interaction.
In terms of DWL Cebon (1999) reports that dynamic forces are not important in rutting damage
where gross vehicle weight is the dominant factor but they are important in fatigue damage (e.g.
thin asphalt pavements). For these pavements relatively low levels of dynamic loads can lead to
theoretical damage up to 2.5 times the value for static axle loads.
The following sections describe how the different axle group characteristics impact on pavement
wear. They include load on the individual axles or axle group axle group configuration and axle
spacing within a group tyre factors and suspension type.
Axle load
The results of a recent Austroads Project TT1065 on the effects of increased axle loads (Austroads
2007b) indicate that the wear (rutting) of thin-surfaced unbound granular pavements increases with
increasing axle loads as illustrated in Figure I 1 for one of the test pavements. For cemented

Aust r oads 2012
150
pavements (Austroads 2008b) the performance was assessed in terms of rutting cracking (fatigue)
deflection (modulus) and strain. Figure I 2 shows how the rate of loss in modulus of the cemented
base (due to fatigue cracking) increases with axle loading. The tests were conducted under
controlled environmental conditions and using the Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF) to apply
full-scale loading to the test pavements.
Ilves GJ and Majidzadeh K (1992) used field data to evaluate the damage caused by excessive
loads of heavy vehicles in Ohio USA. The data included traffic mix (number of axles axle
configuration and axle loads) and performance data (rutting cracking roughness faulting) monitored
over two years. Although the study was based on limited data they concluded that for flexible
pavements rutting increases under heavy axle loads faster than does roughness or cracking. For
rigid pavements cracking was found to increase faster than the other distresses.
0
10
20
0 50 100 150 200 250
ALF load cycles (kcycles)
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
u
t
)

(
m
m
)
Rut =Rut
0
+SNP
-6.739
.cycles
1.103
.(wheel load/40)
3.557
40 kN
(SNP 4.98)
60 kN
(SNP 4.74)
80 kN
(SNP 4.63)
0
10
20
0 50 100 150 200 250
ALF load cycles (kcycles)
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
u
t
)

(
m
m
)
Rut =Rut
0
+SNP
-6.739
.cycles
1.103
.(wheel load/40)
3.557
40 kN
(SNP 4.98)
60 kN
(SNP 4.74)
80 kN
(SNP 4.63)

Source: Austroads (2007b).
Figure I 1: Impact of axle mass increase

Figure I 2: Typical test results for the cemented pavements

Aust r oads 2012
151
Axle group configuration
Axle groups such as tandems or triaxles distribute the load along the pavement allowing greater
weights to be carried and resulting in the same or less pavement distress than that occasioned by
a single axle at a lower weight.
A recent study (Yeo et al. 2007) involved heavy vehicle field trials to investigate the relative
pavement damaging effects of quad axle groups and triaxles. The field trial results indicated that
for the same response to load i.e. vertical surface deflection:
the equivalent load on the quad axle dual tyres compared to a single axle dual tyre load of
8.7 tonne was 23.0 tonne
the equivalent load on the quad axle compared to a triaxle group loaded to the legal General
Mass Limit (GML) of 20.0 tonne was 24.4 tonne
the equivalent High Mass Limit (HML) load on the quad axle compared to a triaxle group
loaded to 22.5 tonne was 27 tonne.
Vuong (2007) conducted a theoretical analysis using a truck model and a three dimensional Finite
Element (FE) pavement model to estimate the vehicle maximum vertical and horizontal forces
while executing the same low-speed turn manoeuvre. When simulating six and seven axle prime-
mover semi-trailers with different loads on an asphalt pavement it was found that:
the steer and drive axles produced similar loading/damage for all vehicles
the quad axles and triaxles produced significantly different loads, and therefore different
damage
for the same trailer load the triaxle group was found to produce more damage to the asphalt
layer than the quad axle (about 10 times at 20 tonne and 8.5 times at 22.5 tonne).
Considering the findings of the study Vuong (2007) recommended that consideration should be
also given to calculating the allowable loading of the whole vehicle. Vuong (2007) found that the
tandem drive for the vehicles tested applied high forces to the pavement and hence the overall
wear may be dominated by the wear due to the tandem axle. Reporting the wear associated with
each vehicle type may put the differences in wear between a triaxle and a quad axle in a more
appropriate perspective.
The findings from other studies conducted in the United States are summarised below:
Chatti and El Mohtar (2004) studied the fatigue life of an asphalt mix in the laboratory under
different truck axle configurations using the indirect tensile cyclic load test by applying load
pulses that are equivalent to the passage of an entire axle group or truck. Their results
showed that multiple-axle groups were less damaging in fatigue per tonne as compared to
single axles. Increasing the number of axles carrying the same load resulted in less
damage. This decrease in damage was found to be more significant between single tandem
and tri axles whereas it starts to level off at higher axle numbers.

Aust r oads 2012
152
In a more recent study by Salama et al. (2006) of field data in Michigan was used to
investigate the relative damaging effects of different axle/truck configurations on flexible
pavement damage in terms of cracking, rutting and roughness using weigh station truck
traffic and in-service pavement performance data. The trucks were categorised into two
groups: single-tandem and multiple axle/trucks. The analysis included simple multiple and
stepwise regression. The results indicated that trucks with multiple axles (triaxle or more)
appear to produce more rutting damage than those with only single and tandem axles. On
the other hand trucks with single and tandem axles tend to cause more cracking. However
there was not enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion on whether trucks with different
axle configurations affected pavement roughness differently.
To improve knowledge of the relative damaging effects of the different axle group types on
Australian pavements Austroads has sponsored Project TT1219 Influence of Multiple Axle Loads
on Pavement Performance. The project will involve laboratory testing to assess pavement
response to load under different axle group configurations and supplemented by pavement
performance data using the ALF.
Axle spacing
The spread between two consecutive axles also affects pavement performance. When there is a
substantial spread between two axles in a tandem or tri-axle group each axle in the group tends to
act as a single axle. Conversely the closer the axles in a group are the greater the weight they
may carry without increasing pavement deterioration beyond that occasioned by the same number
of single axles (FHWA 1995). Two axles at more than 1.8 m spacing are not considered a tandem
axle but a double axle and are treated as two single axles (COST 2001). Static analyses have
shown that optimum spacing exists for axles in tandem and triaxle groups that minimise road
damage for given static loading conditions (Cebon 1999).
The current procedure in Austroads (2004) does not take into account the effects of axle spacing.
Simulating or assessing the damaging effects of this factor is complicated by the fact that the
impacts of the interaction between the different axles vary throughout the pavement structure.
However one of the aims of Austroads Project TT1219 is to develop a procedure that allows for
assessing the damaging effects of axle groups with different axle spacings.
Lift axles
Lift axles can improve the maneuverability of trucks with multiple widely spaced axles but if the
axle is not lowered when loaded or it is improperly adjusted pavement damage will increase
(Hirshhorn 2002).
Tyre features
The configuration of tyres as duals singles or wide-base singles affects the distribution of normal
stresses on the pavement surface when operated at rated load. Under a recent Austroads project
the estimated relative performance of different tyre types on unbound granular pavement with thin
bituminous surfacing was verified via full-scale accelerated performance testing. The testing was
conducted using a variety of tyre types at a 40 kN half-axle load applied using the Accelerated
Loading Facility. The study results (Austroads 2008c) indicate that wide single tyres are up to 6
times more damaging than dual tyres see Figure I 3.
The standard and legal loads for different tyre configurations which cause the same pavement
wear (vertical surface deformation) as the standard axle fitted with dual 11R22.5 tyres are

Aust r oads 2012
153
presented in Figure I 2 and Figure I 3, respectively. The results clearly indicate that wider tyres on
the steer axle allow only marginal increase in axle load for the same pavement wear.
These equivalencies were determined based on a tyre inflation pressure of 760 kPa for the single
tyres and 560 kPa for the reference dual tyres. The equivalent axle load results were found to be
similar although slightly higher using the ALF data when 315/80R22.5 reference dual tyres and an
inflation pressure of 760 kPa were tested. Given that the 11R22.5 tyre size is more commonly
used than the ALF 315/80R22.5 tyre size and that the tyre inflation pressure and net contact stress
for the alternative 11R22.5 reference dual tyre set were derived from the standard axle (Austroads
2004) it was recommended that the equivalent loads shown in Table I 2 and Table I 3 be adopted.

Source: Austroads (2008c).
Figure I 3: Damaging effects of different tyre configurations

Table I 2: Standard axle loads for single tyre configurations relative to 11R22.5 reference dual tyres
Designation and tyre
configuration on axle
Tyre Standard axle load (tonne) for different
levels of deformation
Tyre inflation
pressure (kPa)
Contact width
for tyre group
(mm)
Deformation 10 mm 15 mm
Reference dual tyres 11R22.5 8.2 8.2 560 380
Axle with wide single 445/65R22.5 7.3 7.4 760 332
Steer axle single tyres 295/80 R22.5 4.1 5.7 760 230
Source: Austroads (2008).


Aust r oads 2012
154
Table I 3: Axle loads for single tyre configurations relative to the legal axle load on 11R22.5 reference dual tyres
Designation and tyre
configuration
Tyre Axle load (tonne) for different levels of
deformation
Tyre inflation
pressure (kPa)
Contact width
for tyre group
(mm)
Deformation 10 mm 15 mm
Dual tyres at legal axle load 11R22.5 9.0 9.0 560 380
Steer axle single tyres 295/80 R22.5 4.5 6.2 760 230
Source: Austroads (2008c).

It should be noted however that these findings relate to one granular pavement tested at one
moisture condition. While a relationship was developed which provides a means of determining
the equivalent load for different tyre sizes and net contact stresses further validation of this
relationship is warranted for a wider range of tyres and pavement structures under different
conditions (Austroads 2008c).
Wide single tyres were estimated to cause slightly less pavement damage due to dynamic loading
with resultant general pavement wear ratios estimated to be 0.99 for primary roads and 0.97 for
secondary roads (COST 2001).
Singling out is the practice of using only one tyre on axles having hubs for two tyres. In their
study Bell et al. (1992) concluded that:
The partially singled-out tandem axle was found to be particularly damaging when carrying
the same legal load. Analysis of partially singled-out triaxles suggested that the potential
pavement damage is not as severe as with the partially singled-out tandem axle. The
damage caused by these axle configurations is dependent on the load sharing mechanism of
the suspension system.
Regardless of axle type the use of single tyres results in a greater damage potential relative
to a similarly loaded dual-tyred axle.
The singling out of tandem axles i.e. tandem axles with single tyres is less damaging than
comparably loaded single axles with dual tyres. Similarly triaxles with single tyres are less
damaging than similarly loaded tandem axles with dual tyres. As the tyre size increases the
damage potential from triaxles decreases.
For all tyre types inflation pressure in excess of the rated pressure will increase damage (Gillespie
& Karamihas 1992). The damage is influenced by the total contact area between the tyre and the
pavement; more contact between the tyre and pavement results in less damage to the pavement
(Bell et al. 1992). The European study COST 334 (2001) on the impacts of tyre features on
pavement performance confirmed these findings. In this study it was found that the main
influencing factors of pavement wear are width and size of the tyre-pavement contact area and the
ratio of the actual inflation pressure over the recommended inflation pressure for the actual load.
Pavement wear was assessed in terms of asphalt fatigue primary rutting in asphalt secondary
rutting in granular layers and subgrade. Road wear also increases as loads become imbalanced
due to unequal tyre pressure and uneven wear among the tyres of a dual set (Hirshhorn 2002).
Wide single tyres would cause less pavement wear by a factor of 0.94 compared to dual tyres in
situations where the load is not balanced between the dual tyres (COST 2001).

Aust r oads 2012
155
Cebon (1999) reports that variation in tyre contact conditions including the number and type of
tyres on an axle contact area pressure and pressure distribution mainly influence primary
pavement responses just below the surface of flexible pavements particularly for thin wearing
courses. Subgrade rutting and fatigue damage in thicker pavements are largely governed by the
total wheel load.
Suspension systems
The transfer mechanism of axle group loads to the pavement is controlled through the suspension
system. Research indicates that high-quality suspension systems may reduce pavement wear.
The findings of the DIVINE-OECD study indicated that (under certain assumptions if the damping
is properly chosen) air suspension would increase pavement life by 60% for thick pavements and
15% for thin pavements (Hirshhorn 2002).
Road-friendly suspensions (RFS) are defined as air suspensions or other equivalents that meet the
technical specification in Annex II of the Directive 96/53/EC (Hirshhorn 2002). Legislation by the
EC encouraged the use of road-friendly air suspensions by awarding a payload advantage
(Council of the European Communities 1992). However Collop and Cebon (2002) argue that the
approach used by the EC and the OECD study (using the road stress factor approach see
Appendix J ) overestimates the benefits of road-friendly suspensions on thick asphalt (major roads
which are assumed to fail by rutting) and underestimates the potential benefits on thin (minor roads
which fail by fatigue). These underestimates were believed to be due to an estimate of average
road damage due to DWL not correctly accounting for spatial repeatability (see Appendix J ).
In Australia heavy vehicles can operate under the High Mass Limit (HML) regulatory framework on
certain networks if they are equipped with RFS. The road wear reduction factors for HML vehicle
due to the use of RFS are presented in Table I 4 (National Road Transport Commission 1996).
They were estimated using the dynamic road stress factor approach considering the dynamic
loading effects and effects of roughness and speed.
However the road-friendliness of air suspension is dramatically reduced if shock absorbers are not
properly maintained. The results of a recent study sponsored by RMS NSW (Costanzi & Cebon
2006) showed that wear and maintenance costs of sealed granular pavements would increase if
the HML fleet is poorly maintained (see Appendix J for details). Cebon (1999) also reports that the
stiffness and damping properties of each suspension affect the dynamic forces generated by each
other suspension and that reduction in road damage by the whole vehicle is not simply related to
reductions in DWL generated by individual axles. All axles are involved and must be improved.
Table I 4: Road-friendly road wear reduction factors due to dynamic loading
Axle group Tyre fitment Lower-speed zones
road wear reduction
factors
High-speed zones road
wear reduction factors
Single axle Single tyres 1.00 1.00
Dual axle Dual tyres 1.11 1.18
Tandem axle on prime mover Dual tyres 1.17 1.28
Tandem axle on trailer Dual tyres 1.11 1.18
Tandem axle Dual and single tyres 1.11 1.18
Triaxle Dual tyres 1.11 1.18
Source: National Road Transport Commission (1996).


Aust r oads 2012
156
Austroads Project AT1212 aims at improving knowledge regarding the damaging effects of
different suspension types with different conditions on pavements with different roughness levels.
Load sharing
Distributing load uniformly among axles of a group and between tyres (of comparable size) will
reduce road damage (Gillespie & Karamihas 1992). Load transfer between axles which occurs
due to road geometry and roughness braking and accelerating leads to unequal redistribution of
the loads among the tyres. This non-uniform load sharing increases the wear of pavements at
particular points along the road. Depending on the assumptions theoretical road damage may be
increased by a factor of 1.2 to 2.9 for tandem suspensions with typical load sharing error of 20%
(Cebon 1999).
The uniformity of load distribution is influenced by the design of the load-sharing mechanism in the
vehicles suspension (Gyenes & Mitchell 1992). Michell (1987) reported that suspensions with
steel leaf springs do not equalise the loads between the axles of a group but air or fluid
suspensions lead to excellent equalisation. However these results apply to the static condition.
Preliminary findings of Austroads project AT1212 indicate that when the vertical axle loads are
measured dynamically from a step test and on-road test none of the suspension systems tested
including air provide good load-sharing mechanisms.
I.3 Proposed Approach for Determining Wear Caused by a Single
Vehicle
As described earlier the current approach allows consideration only for the axle load and axle
group configuration. In COST (2001) an approach that allows consideration of a number of axle
group characteristics is proposed for determining wear caused by a vehicle. The proposed
procedure is described below followed by a discussion on its adoption in this project.
The overall Vehicle Wear Factor (VWF number of Standard axles) is calculated as the sum of the
Axle Wear Factors (AWF) for each axle group on the vehicle as shown in Equation A 18.

=
n
1
n 2 1
AWF ,... AWF , AWF VWF

A 18
The standard axle has air suspension a reference load a reference dual tyre assembly (with a
reference inflation pressure contact pressure diameter contact width etc.) having equal loads on
both tyres. The AWF is determined as the product of a number of relative ratios or factors and is
estimated as shown below (Equation A 19).
Axle Wear Factor (AWF) =Tyre Configuration Factor (TCF)* Axle Configuration Factor (ACF) *
Suspension Configuration Factor (SCF)* Load Equivalency Factor
(LEF).

Aust r oads 2012
157

n n n n n
LEF SGF ACF TCF AWF =

A 19
where, for the nth axle group on the vehicle;
ACF
n
= expresses the relative pavement wear of an axle load, when
incorporated in a tandem axle or tri-axle configuration, relative to that
same axle load when single

SCF
n
= expresses the relative pavement wear of an axle load with a certain
suspension type, relative to an axle with a reference (air) suspension

TCF
n
= comprises influences of the tyre type (single/wide base/dual) inflation
pressure (or differences from the optimum pressure for a given load)
footprint width footprint length tyre diameter tyre characteristics
regarding dynamic force transmissibility potential load imbalance
(difference in load between the tyres of a dual tyre assembly) and
influences from yet unknown factors.

I.3.1 Axle Configuration and Load Equivalency Factors
The current Austroads (2004) procedure in determining axle group wear (SAR) combines the
factors relating to ACF and LEF. In terms of the standard axle group loads recent Austroads
research findings using the assumption of equal deflection confirm the values of standard loads
provided in Table I 1. These values can be used in this project since the outputs from Austroads
project TT1219 will not be available over the duration of this project (Equation A 20).

LDE
axlegroup
SAR
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
Load Group Axle Standard
Load Group Axle

A 20
The LDE values presented in Appendix J .1 can be used for different pavements and distress
modes and considering the environment conditions they are in. For example LDE 4 can be used
for all granular pavements with a sprayed seal in all environments.
The review has shown that rutting of flexible thick asphalt pavements increases with load so an
LDE of 7 can be used for such pavements in hot environments and an LDE of 5 can be used for
thick asphalt pavements in cold environments. For pavements with thin asphalt layers an LDE of 5
can be used for all environments. For pavements with cement stabilised layers an LDE of 12 can
be used until the findings of recent Austroads research are confirmed and implemented.
I.3.2 Tyre Configuration Factor
Tyre configuration factor (TCF) was the primary study area under COST 334. Relationships to
determine TCF for a range of pavements distress modes and tyre properties were developed. The
final model form included only factors related to pressure ratio tyre contact patch width and tyre
diameter. The contributions of unequal load sharing between dual tyres and dynamic load effects
were ignored as they were found to account for less than 1% of the pavement wear (COST 2001).
The wide range of tyre types considered in the COST study and the relationships developed based
on generic tyre properties would be applicable to Australian asphalt pavements typical of urban
arterial roads (Austroads 2008). TCF values for selected tyre types applying to primary roads
(thick pavements) and secondary roads (medium and thin pavements) are presented in
Table I 5. It has been noted in Austroads (2008c) that the most commonly used wide single tyre in

Aust r oads 2012
158
Australia (385/65R22.5) has a TCF of 5.76 for secondary rutting in medium/thin asphalt pavements
which are represented on Australian urban arterial roads. This indicates that one pass of a wide
single tyre causes the same magnitude of rutting in the granular base or subgrade as that caused
by almost six passes of a dual tyre assembly. This result is based on response measurements
and numerical modelling but clearly matches that of the actual performance measurement using
ALF reported in Austroads (2008) and shown in Figure I 3.
Table I 5: Tyre configuration factors (TCF) for selected tyres
Tyre size Fitment Tyre
width
(mm)
Contact
area
width
(mm)
Total
width
(mm)
Tyre
diameter
(mm)
Primary
road
Secondary roads
Primary
rutting
Weighted
average of
distress*
Primary
rutting
Secondary
rutting
Fatigue
Reference tyre Dual 235 470 570 1059 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
245/70R17.5 Dual 215 430 530 789 1.63 1.39 1.63 1.18 1.47
245/70R19.5 Dual 200 400 500 839 1.71 1.48 1.71 1.37 1.47
11R22.5 Dual 184 368 468 1054 1.52 1.45 1.52 1.63 1.23
315/80R22.5 Dual 247 494 594 1085 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.89
385/65R22.5 Single 285 285 285 1071 2.23 3.64 2.19 5.76 2.25
425/65R22.5 Single 308 308 308 1126 1.86 3.02 1.82 4.72 1.93
445/65R22.5 Single 340 340 340 1155 1.53 2.43 1.50 3.66 1.66
* For secondary roads a weighted TCF was developed based on 20% primary rutting 40% secondary rutting and 40%fatigue.
Note: The TCF values reported assume the tyres were inflated as recommended by the manufacturers that is a tyre inflation pressure ratio of 1.

Granular pavements with sprayed seal and cement stabilised pavements with thin asphalt
surfacing were not considered in the COST 334 study therefore there is doubt as to the
applicability of the TCF factors to these pavement types. Another approach for addressing tyre
configuration effects is that adopted in Austroads (2008c) i.e. load equivalencies for different tyre
configurations. Considering the fact that tyre pressure and contact patch vary considerably in
service the latter approach can be considered sufficient for addressing the tyre configuration
effects.
Austroads (2008c) gives a relationship which gives a means of determining the equivalent load for
different tyre sizes (tyre contact width) and net contact stresses. However this relationship would
require further validation to cover a wide range of tyres and pavement structures under different
conditions (Austroads 2008c).
I.3.3 Suspension Configuration Factor
In terms of suspension configuration i.e. SCF suitable factors need to be developed considering all
common suspension types and their properties. A number of approaches for developing SCF are
possible as described below.
1 Road Stress Factor (RSF) approach that was used in determining road wear reduction
factors for HML vehicles. These values were determined using certain assumptions
regarding the properties of the airbag suspension system. If for example a vehicle has a
poorly maintained suspension then the road wear reduction factors in Table I 4 should be
reduced. However Costanzi and Cebon (2006) criticised this approach as it does not take
into account the effects of spatial repeatability.

Aust r oads 2012
159
2 Fekpe (1999) proposes an approach to correct for the dynamic component of the moving
static load then calculate the vehicle wear using the conventional approaches i.e. using the
power law. The modified/corrected wheel load is the static load multiplied by an adjustment
factor which is determined as a function of travel speed roughness and suspension type (see
Appendix J ). However such an approach does not necessarily consider the spatial
repeatability effect rather it considers DWL as a uniform increase in load. Additionally the
importance of the power should not be underestimated and may result in dramatically over or
underestimating the effects of DWL (Cebon 1999).
Considering the spatial repeatability nature of DWL variability of roughness and speed along a
route and variations in suspension properties in service it is believed that applying the adjustment
through SCF to each vehicle may not be an appropriate approach. It is believed that an
appropriate approach would be to incorporate the impacts of DWL in the roughness progression
model. Cebon (1999) reported that the simulation of DWL using a whole of life pavement
performance model (WLPPM) indicates that DWL and pavement stiffness variations can have a
significant effect on pavement roughness particularly surface roughness. The simulation also
predicts that short wavelength roughness components are smoothed out and long wavelength
components increase in amplitude. These findings agree with the limited experimental evidence
available (Cebon 1999). These findings imply that a roughness measure that detects long
wavelength roughness might be a better measure for pavement deterioration than the current
measure (IRI).
For the current project it is recommended to ignore the impacts of the suspension system and
DWL. The results of Austroads Project AT1212 will help improve knowledge regarding the
performance of different suspension systems in terms of DWL and load sharing. These findings
can then be used in modifying current roughness performance models to quantify or simulate the
additional pavement wear due to DWL.
Considering the limitations associated with Austroads recent studies on the load equivalency and
damage exponents for the different pavement types it is recommended to use the relevant values
and procedure in Austroads (2004). For this project the impacts of tyre configuration can be also
ignored considering the limitations of available relationships and the fact that the distributions of
tyre types on the different road categories are not readily available.


Aust r oads 2012
160
APPENDIX J IMPACTS OF DYNAMIC WHEEL LOADING
J.1 Introduction
Dynamic Wheel Loads (DWL) are generated by oscillations of the vehicle and its elements in
response to excitations generated primarily by the vertical displacement inputs to the wheels from
the road surface (De Pont & Pidwerbesky 2000). The magnitude and variation of DWL are specific
to the vehicle and pavement characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described with vehicle
type suspension system type and effectiveness speed of travel weight and position of payload.
The pavement characteristics are typically described by the longitudinal profile for example
roughness (IRI) (Fekpe 1999).
Separate investigations have found DWL are significant in the deterioration rates of pavements
primarily roughness and rutting. Key findings from the Dynamic Interaction between Vehicles and
Infrastructure Experiment (DIVINE) (OECD 1998) indicate that the interaction of pavement
variability and truck dynamics accelerates local pavement distresses roughness and failure. It was
found that there is little difference between road-friendly and non-road-friendly suspensions on
smooth heavily trafficked roads. A road-friendly suspension has been defined as one whose
operation in the road system will bring about less need for road maintenance for a given level of
axle load (Department of Transport 1988).
The difficulty in interpreting the specific contributions of DWL on pavement deterioration is the lack
of generality. The pavement type surface condition vehicle type vehicle load suspension type
suspension condition etc. will vary the DWL effects. These patterns of loading have been shown
as repeatable (Cole et al. 1996; Cole & Cebon 1992) and this spatial repeatability has a strong
effect on the mechanisms of degradation of road surfaces particularly when the road wear
mechanisms are sensitive to load level (Collop et al. 1996).
J.2 Interpreting Dynamic Wheel Loading Magnitudes
A typical interpretation of DWL is the dynamic load coefficient (DLC) which is defined as
(Sweatman 1983) (Equation A 21):

DLC =Standard deviation of the wheel load
Static wheel load

A 21
Sweatman (1983) demonstrated that the distribution of forces both static and dynamic are
approximately normal thus DLC provides a complete characterisation of the magnitude of dynamic
proportions in comparison to the static loading.
The advantage of DLC is it intrinsically considers not only the suspension type but also the vehicle
speed and pavement roughness. Different researchers provided different estimates of DLC values
for vehicles with different suspensions for example:
The DLC may range from 0.02 for a vehicle with a soft well-damped suspension operating at
a relatively low speed on a smooth road to 0.4 for a vehicle with a stiff under-damped
suspension operating at high speed on a rough road (De Pont & Pidwerbesky 2000).
In a comparison of the effects of vehicle type Sweatman (1983) found that DLC values
ranged from 0.13 to 0.27 depending on the suspension type of vehicles analysed on the
same conditions of highway speed at moderate roughness levels.

Aust r oads 2012
161
The DLC estimated for well-damped air suspensions has typical values in the range 0.05 to
0.1, where as for well-damped soft steel leaf types, they are 0.2 to 0.4 (Department of
Transport 1988).
J.3 Approaches to Determining Road Damage Due to DWL
J.3.1 Dynamic Road Stress Factor
Sweatman (1983) introduced the concept of Dynamic Road Stress Factor (DRSF) for estimating
the additional pavement damage due to DWL. DRSF is defined as (Equation A 22):

4 2
3 6 1 1 DLC DLC DRSF + + =

A 22
The range of the DRSF measured by Sweatman (1983) was in the order of 1.11 to 1.46. Similar
results were obtained by Mitchell and Gyenes (1989). They estimated that switching from steel
leaf rubber and walking beam suspensions to air suspensions (or some dynamic equivalent) would
reduce pavement damage in the UK by 8% due to drive axles and in the range of 10% to 20% for
semi-trailer bogies. A comparable study as part of OECD (1998) DIVINE testing found air
suspensions increased pavement life between 45% and 65% for rutting and 30% for cracking.
Legislation by the EC encouraged the use of road-friendly air suspensions by awarding a payload
advantage (Council of the European Communities 1992). The benefit of increased pavement life
due to this legislation was estimated using Equation A.2 by Berry (1990). The results agreed with
Sweatmean (1983) concluding that for smooth pavement surfaces and a constant vehicle speed of
80 km/h typical DRSF values range from 1.01 for air suspension to 1.25 for steel leaf semi-trailer
suspension. On rougher pavements these values increase to 1.08 for air and 1.54 for steel.
If these factors were used to estimate pavement life assuming a 20 years design life the life of a
smooth pavement would equate to 19.8 years for air suspension and 16 years for a steel
suspension. For a rough pavement the life would reduce to 18.5 for air and 13 years for a steel
suspension. Or changing from a steel sprung to air sprung vehicle suspension would increase
approximate pavement life for smooth pavements by 24% and for rough pavements by 42%. This
percentage reduction is defined as the Pavement Life Reduction Factor (PLRF).
The DSRF approach has come under criticism for two major assumptions. The first is the use of
the 4
th
power law in determining pavement wear. Various authors have noted that the power may
take the range of 2 to 6 (Cebon 1993). The second major criticism of DSRF is it assumes uniform
damage along the pavement surface. There is significant evidence (Cole et al. 1996; Department
of Transport 1988) that peak dynamic loads tend to group along specific pavement locations
accelerating the damage at these points.
J.3.2 Correcting Static Wheel Load for DWL
Fekpe (1999) investigated using DLC to correct for DWL in pavement damage calculations. The
assumption was made that DLC provides a robust and statistically consistent indication of relative
potential pavement damage due to DWL from different suspension systems and further the DLC is
a derivable function of surface roughness and vehicle speed. The statistical models developed are
(Equations A 23 to A 25):

( )
( )
1000
.V
v A
+
=
A 23

Aust r oads 2012
162

( )
n
IRI v A DLC . =
A 24

WL
m
= SWL [1+ .A(V).IRI
n
] A 25
where
DLC = Dynamic Load Coefficient
IRI = International Roughness Index (m/km)
V = vehicle speed km/h
n
= exponent, function of axle and suspension type
,
= constants
WL
m
= corrected wheel load
SWL = average static wheel load
= multiplier 1-2 depends on roughness.
Different exponents and constants were developed for different axles with different suspension
systems. Corrected wheel loads were then used in calculating pavement wear for each vehicle
and weight class. The latter was then weighted by vehicle kilometres of travel to determine cost
allocations to each vehicle class (Fekpe 1999). Some of the findings were:
The cost share due to DWL increases with pavement roughness. An increase in 2% share is
estimated for combination vehicles equipped with air suspended axles when the pavement
surface deteriorates from smooth to rough i.e. new to old pavement.
For the equivalent steel suspensions the estimate is 3-4% i.e. steel suspensions cause
exponentially more damage than air equivalents as pavement roughness increases.
Spatial repeatability whereby variations in the magnitude and consequences of DWL are
experienced over the length of a pavement make inclusion of DWL effects into existing
performance models difficult. The simplest approach would be to incorporate a factor converting
DWL into the number of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) which certainly would ease the
incorporation of DWL into existing models. However the difficulty in equating to ESAs comes with
the power component. Cebon (1999) reports that the importance of the power should not be
underestimated as it may result in dramatically over or underestimating the effects of DWL.
Further adjustment of ESAs does not necessarily consider the spatial repeatability effect rather
considers DWL as a uniform increase in load.
J.3.3 Long-term Pavement Performance Model
Collop and Cebon (2002) took a different approach to DSRF developing the Long-term Pavement
Performance Model (LTPPM). Previous research by Cebon (1993) found that the simple linear
quarter car model used in roughness measurement has dynamic characteristics that are broadly
representative of the majority of single axle truck suspensions. A comparison of PLRF from EC
(Berry 1990) and the LTTPM (Collop & Cebon 2002) found that the LTTPM agreed on similar

Aust r oads 2012
163
PLRF values for minor roads, 42% for EC and 38.6% for LTTPM, but disagreed substantially on
the effect of air suspensions on major roads, 24% for EC and 2.8% for LTTPM.
The conclusions of Collop and Cebon (2002) in comparing the LTTPM and EC approaches found
that changing the fleet from steel to air sprung vehicles provides an estimated increase in
pavement life of less than 3% for thick asphaltic roads where the principal failure mechanism is
rutting. This percentage increase was found to be far more dramatic for local roads ranging
between 40% and 90% where failures were more sensitive to surface roughness. Collop and
Cebon (2002) stated that the EC approach overestimated the benefits of road-friendly suspensions
on thick asphalt (major roads) and underestimated the potential benefits on thin (minor roads).
The LTPPM is a framework (Figure J 1) combining a set of linked sub-models. It attempts to
predict pavement wear (roughness fatigue cracking and rutting) deterministically by taking into
account variations in flexible pavement structure dynamic loading effects and environmental
factors. Essentially the framework can be divided into three areas: dynamic wheel force simulation
pavement primary response simulation and pavement damage simulation. Particular attention is
given to modelling strength variation in the pavement and dynamic tyre forces.
In the LTPPM a road profile is fed into the vehicle module which calculates the
dynamic forces transmitted to the road surface by truck tyres. The static and
dynamic forces can be calculated using either the QCM or the TruckSim vehicle.
The deformation of the road surface is then calculated and subtracted from the
starting profile to generate the new road profile (see flow chart in Figure J 1). The
process is repeated to simulate the passages of a fleet of vehicles over the
progressively deforming road profile. A number of road damage criteria (rutting
potholing fatigue cracking and surface roughness) are used to trigger maintenance
intervention. The program simulates the rehabilitation process (e.g. modification of
the surface profile) and estimates the cost of the maintenance (Costanzi & Cebon
2006).

Source: Costanzi and Cebon (2006).
Figure J 1: Flowchart of the vehicle-road interaction calculation

Aust r oads 2012
164
J.4 Comparison of Suspension Type and Vehicle Mass in Australian
Conditions
In Australia vehicles are given higher mass limits (HML) if they use approved road-friendly
suspensions. The aggregated approach proposed by Collop and Cebon (2002) was applied to
identify the complicated effects of alternative vehicle mass limits and suspension types on the
performance and maintenance costs of a sample of sprayed sealed roads in NSW. Preliminary
calculations based on the dynamic road stress factor (DRSF) approach used by Sweatman (1983)
concluded that if a portion of the fleet of HML vehicles has partially non-functioning shock
absorbers then road maintenance costs can increase 6% to 12% compared with general mass limit
(GML) vehicles with conventional steel leaf spring suspensions.
Costanzi and Cebon (2006) provide an expansion of the analysis of Collop and Cebon (2002) by
simulating DWL effects using the LTPPM. The models in LTPPM were calibrated for sprayed seal
granular pavements. A number of road damage criteria (rutting potholing and surface roughness)
were used to trigger maintenance intervention. Key findings are reproduced in Table J 1 from
Costanzi and Cebon (2006) and are:
Steel leaf springs triggered potholing and patching maintenance interventions while air
springs triggered excessive roughness (IRI).
Various suspension effects on maintenance costs were largely independent of the strength of
spray-sealed roads considered in the study.
The effects of suspension performance on pavement maintenance costs were greater than
previous estimates. These underestimates were believed to de due to an estimate of
average road damage due to DWL not correctly accounting for spatial repeatability (Collop &
Cebon 2002).
Converting all leaf springs to well-maintained air suspensions at GML is predicted to give a
14% reduction in road maintenance costs per tonne/km.
If the same fleet was allowed to run on HML after air suspension conversion the benefit is
lost with just 1% lower maintenance costs than steel sprung fleets at GML.
The road-friendliness of air suspension is dramatically reduced if shock absorbers are not
properly maintained. If 50% of the fleet is poorly maintained the costs per tonne-km increase
to 21% more than for the reference GML with conventional steel suspension. The previous
simplified analysis based on RSF Collop and Cebon (2002) predicted a 6% increase.
Under GML road-friendly suspension will provide an economic benefit providing no more
than 40% of the fleet has disabled shock absorbers. Under HML no break-even point exists
and maintenance costs are expected to rise regardless.
The simulation predicts that changing to a fleet of air suspensions may change the type of
maintenance intervention required on Australian roads. It is likely that fewer potholes would
form but infrequent complete resurfacing would be needed to repair rutting and excessive
surface roughness which may change maintenance expenditure profiles.

Aust r oads 2012
165
Table J 1: Comparison of road maintenance costs for various fleet scenarios on weak roads

Fleet #1 is considered as the reference scenario. The figures in green show lower maintenance costs than the reference fleet and those in red show higher
maintenance costs than the reference fleet.
Source: Costanzi and Cebon (2006).


Aust r oads 2012
166
APPENDIX K FAMLIT MODELLING PARAMETERS
K.1 Maintenance Strategies and Intervention Criteria
Maintenance intervention criteria adopted for the different combinations of pavement type/road
category are set out in Table K 1. The intervention levels and works unit costs were based on data
supplied by a number of SRAs except for the concrete pavements. The latter unit costs were
assumed in the FAMLIT analyses as no alternative data was available. The maintenance strategy
and relevant standards/intervention criteria adopted in FAMLIT for this study are described below.
1 Routine maintenance is accounted for as a fixed annual cost varying by road class and
surfacing type; for the same road class it is assumed higher for sprayed seals than for
asphalt surfacings.
2 Periodic maintenance is scheduled resealing/resurfacing. The purpose of periodic
treatments is to waterproof the pavement to reduce deterioration and improve surface
condition. Periodic maintenance is accounted for as a fixed annual cost varying by road
class and surfacing type.
3 Rehabilitation in the form of asphalt overlay or granular resheet is triggered to restore the
pavement structural capacity and reduce surface roughness.
Rehabilitation is triggered when the nominated roughness intervention level is reached.
The roughness intervention levels (roughness trigger) vary by road category and are
shown in Table K 1.
The age of the pavement is reset when a rehabilitation treatment is applied; see
Table K 1 for the nominated roughness resets.
The overlay/resheet auto thickness calculation feature was used in all analyses. It
involved specifying the overlay design life traffic growth rate (Table K 1) and the
minimum thickness. The system determines the overlay thickness required for
restoring pavement structural capacity. The thickness from the above is then selected
and tested as follows:
If the thickness is below the minimum the minimum specified thickness is used.
The SN is recalculated for the new thickness and added to the current SNP
(SNPcur) to determine the after works SNP (SNPaw)
If the thickness is greater than the minimum then it is rounded up to the nearest
10 mm the SN is recalculated and used to determine SNPaw.
The approach adopted in determining the SNPaw for all pavement types
simulates mill and replace treatments. That is the top pavement layer with a
thickness equivalent to that determined for the overlay and a material coefficient
that is half that of the new material is removed and replaced by the new overlay.
In other words SN of the removed material is half that of the new overlay i.e. the
improvement in SN =0.5 x thickness of overlay x coefficient of new material.
Material coefficients and minimum thicknesses used in the analysis are:
a = 0.14 for crushed rock and min. thickness = 80 mm
a = 0.4 for asphalt and min. thickness = 40 mm
a = 0.25 for cement treated crushed rock min. thickness = 100 mm.

Aust r oads 2012
167
Table K 1: Maintenance intervention criteria used in the assessment for the different pavement categories
Road category Overlay/resheet criteria Roadworks unit costs
Trigger
(IRI)
Reset
(IRI)
Routine
(cost/m
2
)
Reseal
(cost/m
2
)
Overlay
(cost/m
3
)
Urban Collector GN 5 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Access GN 5.3 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Collector GN 5.3 2 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Access GN 5.5 2 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Fwy GN 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art GN (S) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Fwy CS 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art CS 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art AC (S) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art AC (S) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art GN 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art AC (N) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Fwy AC 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art AC (N) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Collector AC 5 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art CS 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Art GN (N) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Rural Fwy (CON) 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Fwy (CON) 3.4 1.8 0.40 3.5 600
Urban Art (CON) 3.8 1.8 0.40 3.5 600


Aust r oads 2012
168
APPENDIX L FAMLIT OUTPUT
Examples of the outputs of the FAMLIT analyses are shown in Table L 1 for Phase 1 for road
network number one. The example outcomes show for the axle groups SADT TDDT and TRDT
the increases in the estimated EAUC with increases in axle load above the GML and the
corresponding SAR increases. Also shown in Table L 1 are three values of Thornthwaite Index for
each road type for the increases in the estimated EAUC.

Aust r oads 2012
169
TableL 1: Output of FAMLIT analyses (Phase1 strength/roughness model)
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Rural Freeway GN SADT 50 9.0 766 159.30 19 962.88 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 9.0 120 811.47 17 844.17
50 10.0 808 636.61 20 125.39 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 10.0 126 193.36 17 883.08
50 13.0 1 037 895.50 22 661.16 Rural Arterial GN SADT 50 13.0 155 240.56 20 563.78
-50 9.0 766 159.30 12 342.21 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 9.0 120 811.47 11 168.22
-50 13.0 1 037 895.50 13 614.99 Rural Arterial GN SADT -50 13.0 155 240.56 12 519.53

Aust r oads 2012
170
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Urban Freeway CS SADT 80 9.0 2 005 804.02 7 475.68 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 9.0 541 759.90 5 521.34
80 10.0 2 262 655.51 7 721.07 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 10.0 637 492.28 5 738.30
80 12.0 3 750 827.74 9 890.51 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80 12.0 1 192 156.28 7 886.11
80 15.0 13 369 954.80 32 406.72 Urban Arterial CS SADT 80
20 15.0 13 369 954.80 28 702.65 Urban Arterial CS SADT 20
-20 9.0 2 005 804.02 4 009.77 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 9.0 541 759.90 3 072.27
-20 12.0 3 750 827.74 5 466.22 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20 12.0 1 192 156.28 4 628.41
-20 15.0 13 369 954.80 26 920.27 Urban Arterial CS SADT -20

Aust r oads 2012
171
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Rural Freeway GN TADT 50 16.5 766 159.30 19 962.88 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 16.5 120 811.47 17 621.86
50 17.5 843 567.71 20 456.01 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 17.5 133 371.10 18 321.89
50 19.5 1 043 497.78 22 661.16 Rural Arterial GN TADT 50 19.5 165 810.06 20 698.18

Aust r oads 2012
172
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
-50 16.5 766 159.30 12 342.21 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 16.5 120 811.47 10 945.91
-50 19.5 1 043 497.78 13 635.94 Rural Arterial GN TADT -50 19.5 165 810.06 12 460.29
1 Urban Freeway CS TADT 80 16.5 2 005 804.02 7 475.68 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 16.5 541 759.90 5 521.34
80 17.5 2 544 810.19 8 387.31 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 17.5 662 729.10 5 740.20
80 19.5 4 521 222.92 11 508.38 Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 19.5 1 106 295.58 7 570.50
Urban Arterial CS TADT 80 24.5 5 095 491.76 32 598.58

Aust r oads 2012
173
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
Urban Arterial CS TADT 20 24.5 5 095 491.76 26 740.47
-20 16.5 2 005 804.02 4 009.77 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 16.5 541 759.90 3 072.27
-20 19.5 4 521 222.92 6 212.47 Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 19.5 1 106 295.58 4 188.51
Urban Arterial CS TADT -20 24.5 5 095 491.76 23 108.45
1 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 50 18.5 726 877.80 19 728.32 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 18.5 726 877.80 14 638.16
50 20.0 766 159.30 19 962.88 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 20.0 766 159.30 14 859.91

Aust r oads 2012
174
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
50 26.0 1 038 308.57 22 661.16 Rural Freeway GN TRDT 0 26.0 1 038 308.57 15 863.71
-50 18.5 726 877.80 12 076.84 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 18.5 114 880.33 17 211.66
-50 26.0 1 038 308.57 13 614.99 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 50 26.0 161 903.46 20 434.90

Aust r oads 2012
175
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Rural Arterial GN TRDT 0 18.5 114 880.33 11 203.04 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 18.5 114 880.33 10 615.39
0 20.0 120 811.47 11 343.09 Rural Arterial GN TRDT -50 20.0 120 811.47 10 945.91

Aust r oads 2012
176
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
1 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 80 18.5 1 904 166.99 7 467.29 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 18.5 1 904 166.99 5 011.53
80 20.0 2 005 804.02 7 475.68 Urban Freeway CS TRDT 20 20.0 2 005 804.02 5 050.03
-20 18.5 1 904 166.99 4 009.77 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 18.5 522 377.88 5 249.79

Aust r oads 2012
177
Network
no.
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axle
mass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-
km
Roadtype Axle
group
TMI Axlemass
(tonne)
SAR EAUC $/lane-km
-20 28.0 5 019 157.69 7 243.23 Urban Arterial CS TRDT 80 28.0 1 116 401.61 7 570.50


Aust r oads 2012
178
APPENDIX M RESULTS FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
M.1 Concrete Pavements
Table M 1 presents the change in EAUC values EAUC for three types of concrete pavements for
the different axle groups at fixed climate values. The results for the urban freeway concrete
pavements indicate that increasing TRDT axle load to the maximum considered herein has no
impact on agency cost i.e. not associated with an SRMC. Similar results were found for the urban
arterial pavement for the range of loads applied to all three axle group types hence no LWC
relationships were developed.
Table M1: Incremental SRMC values for various concrete pavements
SADT TADT TRDT
Axle load
(tonne)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
Axle load
(tonne)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
Axle load
(tonne)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
EAUC
($/lane-km)
Rural freeway (concrete, TWI =20)
9 3 394 0 9 3 394 18 3 394
9.5 3 394 0 13 3 394 0 20 3 394 0
10 3 394 0 15.5 3 394 0 23 3 394 0
11 3 394 0 16.5 3 394 0 24.5 3 394 0
12 3 858 464 17.5 3 394 0 26 3 394 0
18 3 394 0 29 3 394 0
20 3 885 491 32 3 394 0
22 3 975 90
24 4 248 273
Urban freeway (concrete, TWI =80)
5 4 338 15 4 338 20 4 396
8 4 338 0 15.5 4 338 0 23 4 396 0
9 4 396 57 16.5 4 396 57 24.5 4 396 0
9.5 4 396 0 17.5 4 396 0 26 4 396 0
10 4 456 60 18 4 456 60 29 4 396 0
11 5 520 1 065 20 4 456 0 32 4 396 0
12 10 560 5 040 22 5 484 1 029
24 5 920 436
Urban arterial (concrete, TWI =80)
5 3 201 9 3 201 13 3 228
8 3 201 0 13 3 201 0 20 3 228 0
9 3 228 27 15 3 201 0 21.5 3 228 0
9.5 3 228 0 15.5 3 201 0 23 3 228 0
10 3 228 0 16.5 3 228 27 24.5 3 228 0
11 3 228 0 17.5 3 228 0 26 3 228 0
12 3 228 0 18 3 228 0 29 3 228 0
20 3 228 0 32 3 228 0
22 3 228 0
24 3 228 0

Aust r oads 2012
179
APPENDIX N PARAMETRIC STUDY OUTPUTS FROM
FAMLIT
N.1 Summary of Parametric Study Outcomes
Table N 1 summarises the LWC relationships and the derived SRMC estimates developed from
the parametric study (see Section 6) under Phase 2.

Aust r oads 2012
180
TableN1: Parametric study of load-wear-cost relationships: estimated parameter values climatic factors and goodness of fitresults
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
SRMCaverage SRMCtest Parametric test EAUC equationparameter values Thornthwaitevalue
(1)
r
2

(c/tonne-km) SRMCbase a0 a1 a2 a3 High Medium Low
1 Rural Freeway GN SADT 724 1.00 Base case 15 689 87.04 39.33 2.318 50 0 -50 0.95
601 0.83 Roughness progression 11 833 64.68 29.09 2.372 50 0 -50 0.96
1 093 1.51 Strength (low) 19 302 112.39 180.57 1.799 50 0 -50 0.95
495 0.68 Strength (high) 12 942 70.62 151.97 1.515 50 0 -50 0.97
527 0.73 Traffic level (low) 14 950 80.87 56.09 2.003 50 0 -50 0.95
827 1.14 Traffic level (high) 16 257 94.25 76.56 2.068 50 0 -50 0.95
TADT 1 933 1.00 Base case 15 563 104.26 157.92 1.758 50 0 -50 0.95
1 430 0.74 Roughness progression 11 735 78.20 135.11 1.712 50 0 -50 0.94
3 567 1.85 Strength (low) 19 675 136.23 188.74 1.897 50 0 -50 0.95
1 077 0.56 Strength (high) 13 110 83.26 161.80 1.566 50 0 -50 0.95
1 908 0.99 Traffic level (low) 14 974 96.25 89.17 1.937 50 0 -50 0.95
2 097 1.09 Traffic level (high) 16 186 110.94 205.13 1.701 50 0 -50 0.95
TRDT 1 036 1.00 Base case 15 714 97.15 36.98 1.932 50 0 -50 0.95
1 537 1.48 Strength (low) 19 485 125.94 96.04 1.769 50 0 -50 0.95
468 0.45 Strength (high) 13 072 78.93 100.90 1.416 50 0 -50 0.95
Rural Arterial GN SADT 528 1.00 Base case 12 413 76.03 93.14 1.769 50 0 -50 0.79
1 347 2.55 Strength (low) 15 869 106.89 93.86 2.201 50 0 -50 0.81
328 0.62 Strength (high) 10 740 63.70 77.70 1.633 50 0 -50 0.76

Aust r oads 2012
181
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

TADT 2 549 1.00 Base case 12 774 94.30 73.42 2.094 50 0 -50 0.87
5 071 1.99 Strength (low) 15 658 126.25 362.07 1.801 50 0 -50 0.92
1 102 0.43 Strength (high) 10 768 75.47 125.44 1.653 50 0 -50 0.82
TRDT 866 1.00 Base case 12 667 84.70 40.24 1.855 50 0 -50 0.83
2 395 2.77 Strength (low) 15 854 122.02 98.35 1.891 50 0 -50 0.89
566 0.65 Strength (high) 10 898 71.15 28.75 1.829 50 0 -50 0.80
Urban Freeway CS SADT 5 347 1.00 Base case 3 605 58.62 11.84 3.837 80 20 -20 0.96
9 425 1.76 Strength (low) 5 285 77.22 42.52 3.497 80 20 -20 0.99
2 208 0.41 Strength (high) 3 323 44.21 8.23 3.588 80 20 -20 0.93
TADT 36 837 1.00 Base case 3 453 70.99 33.13 3.252 80 20 -20 0.98
33 573 0.91 Strength (low) 4 793 88.27 227.90 2.571 80 20 -20 0.99

Aust r oads 2012
182
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

16 900 0.46 Strength (high) 3 375 50.42 14.08 3.278 80 20 -20 0.95
TRDT 7 033 1.00 Base case 3 269 57.08 10.21 2.887 80 20 -20 0.95
11 098 1.58 Strength (low) 4 263 77.46 35.84 2.646 80 20 -20 0.98
3 729 0.53 Strength (high) 3 478 44.30 2.05 3.181 80 20 -20 0.94
Urban Arterial CS SADT 5 025 1.00 Base case 2 795 38.38 15.42 3.681 80 20 -20 0.97
8 198 1.63 Strength (low) 3 691 51.22 96.41 3.041 80 20 -20 0.99
2 307 0.46 Strength (high) 2 783 26.91 4.34 3.915 80 20 -20 0.93
TADT 18 754 1.00 Base case 2 719 44.68 25.26 3.115 80 20 -20 0.98
14 719 0.78 Strength (low) 3 337 53.98 264.08 2.249 80 20 -20 0.99
16 956 0.90 Strength (high) 2 790 31.48 2.34 3.892 80 20 -20 0.94
TRDT 4 955 1.00 Base case 2 964 36.18 1.12 3.451 80 20 -20 0.96

Aust r oads 2012
183
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

5 615 1.13 Strength (low) 3 034 48.70 27.59 2.520 80 20 -20 0.98
1 275 0.26 Strength (high) 2 723 23.41 2.56 2.789 80 20 -20 0.92
2 Rural Art AC(S) SADT 235 1.00 Base case 6 318 43.46 8.88 2.489 50 0 -50 0.99
1 037 4.41 Strength (low) 7 457 46.98 54.55 2.333 50 0 -50 0.98
128 0.55 Strength (high) 5 733 43.14 31.21 1.622 50 0 -50 0.97
TADT 2 673 1.00 Base case 6 455 49.63 4.26 3.058 50 0 -50 0.98
2 507 0.94 Strength (low) 7 116 49.73 320.17 1.617 50 0 -50 0.99
536 0.20 Strength (high) 5 803 46.16 24.13 1.949 50 0 -50 0.98
TRDT 1 423 1.00 Base case 6 454 48.48 0.67 3.228 50 0 -50 0.98
1 627 1.14 Strength (low) 7 437 49.60 87.04 1.814 50 0 -50 0.99
296 0.21 Strength (high) 5 812 45.10 8.22 2.006 50 0 -50 0.98

Aust r oads 2012
184
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

Urban Art AC(S) SADT 516 1.00 Base case 5 848 2 301.30 39.32 2.159 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
403 0.78 Roughness progression 4 880 1 816.42 17.69 2.418 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
1 493 2.89 Strength (low) 7 022 2 758.47 34.70 2.718 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
354 0.69 Strength (high) 5 499 1 951.91 6.75 2.812 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
467 0.91 Traffic level (low) 5 720 2 190.96 22.20 2.381 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
560 1.09 Traffic level (high) 5 935 2 430.45 71.17 1.921 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
TADT 1 044 1.00 Base case 5 887 2 481.60 29.70 2.098 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
1 366 1.31 Roughness progression 4 951 2 022.81 5.43 2.750 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97
2 836 2.72 Strength (low) 6 869 2 896.16 74.28 2.125 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 1.00
624 0.60 Strength (high) 5 418 2 113.66 18.20 2.090 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
1 375 1.32 Traffic level (high) 6 120 2 573.30 24.23 2.255 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
TRDT 308 1.00 Base case 5 880 2 300.13 6.36 2.093 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
1 251 4.06 Strength (low) 7 165 2 692.98 1.58 2.929 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
171 0.55 Strength (high) 5 493 1 855.31 3.67 2.081 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
Urban Art GN SADT 1 049 1.00 Base case 10 906 71.14 149.59 1.867 80 20 -20 0.93
2 239 2.14 Strength (low) 13 963 100.50 127.97 2.294 80 20 -20 0.96
665 0.63 Strength (high) 7 155 5 181.71 86.30 1.911 1 [80] 1 [20] 0 [-20] 0.93

Aust r oads 2012
185
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

TADT 1 579 1.00 Base case 10 827 77.43 147.77 1.715 80 20 -20 0.94
4 432 2.81 Strength (low) 13 563 115.76 143.90 2.055 80 20 -20 0.97
1 138 0.72 Strength (high) 7 005 5 374.77 65.47 1.870 1 [80] 1 [20] 0 [-20] 0.93
TRDT 513 1.00 Base case 11 115 68.28 28.63 1.802 80 20 -20 0.92
1 234 2.40 Strength (low) 14 314 94.98 17.86 2.198 80 20 -20 0.96
341 0.67 Strength (high) 7 529 4 956.22 13.55 1.901 1 [80] 1 [20] 0 [-20] 0.93
Urban Collector GN SADT 1 577 1.00 Base case 8 624 99.87 65.51 2.444 80 20 -20 0.95
2 722 1.73 Strength (low) 15 168 148.76 612.35 1.657 80 20 -20 0.99
578 0.37 Strength (high) 7 956 67.86 67.16 1.962 80 20 -20 0.97
TADT 2 788 1.00 Base case 8 328 111.57 71.70 2.131 80 20 -20 0.95
2 849 1.02 Strength (low) 14 919 156.31 702.56 1.413 80 20 -20 0.99
898 0.32 Strength (high) 7 793 72.86 56.73 1.840 80 20 -20 0.96

Aust r oads 2012
186
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

TRDT 305 1.00 Base case 9 265 77.69 1.87 2.454 80 20 -20 0.99
623 2.04 Strength (low) 16 203 135.82 27.14 1.874 80 20 -20 0.99
125 0.41 Strength (high) 8 140 60.21 3.73 1.985 80 20 -20 0.97
2 Urban Access GN SADT 928 1.00 Base case 3 113 46.64 128.76 1.880 80 20 -20 0.99
458 0.49 Strength (low) 12 749 23.43 0.24 4.529 80 20 -20 0.87
90 0.10 Strength (high) 3 316 31.94 6.50 2.186 80 20 -20 0.97
TADT 676 1.00 Base case 3 357 44.47 15.39 2.171 80 20 -20 0.98
104 0.15 Strength (low) 12 877 18.34 0.68 2.584 80 20 -20 0.87
68 0.10 Strength (high) 3 362 30.98 0.58 2.495 80 20 -20 0.97
TRDT 92 1.00 Base case 3 525 38.79 0.77 2.361 80 20 -20 0.98
4 0.05 Strength (low) 12 857 16.77 26.31 0.558 80 20 -20 0.95

Aust r oads 2012
187
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

13 0.14 Strength (high) 3 344 31.26 0.08 2.442 80 20 -20 0.97
3 Rural Art AC(N) SADT 241 1.00 Base case 5 342 4 922.32 0.47 3.897 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 1.00
910 3.78 Strength (low) 7 598 3 211.29 19.45 2.758 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
61 0.26 Strength (high) 5 069 4 800.00 50.15 1.085 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 1.00
TADT 1 667 1.00 Base case 5 658 4 460.94 6.30 2.767 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
3 614 2.17 Strength (low) 8 359 1 966.82 116.61 2.057 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
622 0.37 Strength (high) 5 111 4 929.43 2.29 2.776 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
1 158 0.69 Traffic level (low) 5 436 4 616.05 6.81 2.619 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
TRDT 716 1.00 Base case 5 507 4 618.78 2.73 2.596 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
2 283 3.19 Strength (low) 8 349 2 218.54 22.66 2.310 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
437 0.61 Strength (high) 5 153 4 901.53 0.15 3.324 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 1.00

Aust r oads 2012
188
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

3 Urban Fwy AC SADT 372 1.00 Base case 8 435 53.94 5.71 2.914 80 20 -20 0.98
1 290 3.47 Strength (low) 9 543 58.61 4.19 3.654 80 20 -20 0.98
160 0.43 Strength (high) 7 857 52.58 28.81 1.759 80 20 -20 0.98
TADT 1 195 1.00 Base case 8 380 56.65 21.38 2.250 80 20 -20 0.98
6 006 5.03 Strength (low) 9 076 66.76 44.08 2.545 80 20 -20 0.99
665 0.56 Strength (high) 7 910 54.34 10.31 2.297 80 20 -20 0.98
TRDT 478 1.00 Base case 8 446 54.05 3.09 2.438 80 20 -20 0.98
3 139 6.56 Strength (low) 9 569 60.00 0.92 3.372 80 20 -20 0.98
216 0.45 Strength (high) 7 910 53.22 3.27 2.185 80 20 -20 0.98
Urban Art AC(N) SADT 246 1.00 Base case 5 400 31.35 5.40 2.745 80 20 -20 1.00
1 996 8.12 Strength (low) 5 746 37.68 60.96 2.589 80 20 -20 1.00
114 0.46 Strength (high) 5 141 29.75 11.55 2.025 80 20 -20 1.00

Aust r oads 2012
189
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

TADT 2 905 1.00 Base case 5 499 33.03 0.08 4.446 80 20 -20 0.99
3 276 1.13 Strength (low) 5 527 39.07 142.59 1.960 80 20 -20 1.00
237 0.08 Strength (high) 5 152 30.30 7.20 2.077 80 20 -20 1.00
TRDT 151 1.00 Base case 5 409 30.87 1.01 2.427 80 20 -20 1.00
1 377 9.14 Strength (low) 5 923 36.46 6.12 2.550 80 20 -20 1.00
59 0.39 Strength (high) 5 160 29.26 2.61 1.869 80 20 -20 1.00
Urban Collector AC SADT 1 156 1.00 Base case 5 881 2 878.61 0.49 4.631 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
1 948 1.69 Strength (low) 8 982 3 478.89 377.16 1.726 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
132 0.11 Strength (high) 5 671 30.86 8.95 2.215 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
889 0.77 Traffic level (low) 5 655 30.96 0.07 5.444 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.95
1 399 1.21 Traffic level (high) 5 988 32.93 4.10 3.703 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.94
TADT 3 563 1.00 Base case 5 711 3 132.63 3.13 3.260 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.98
2 481 0.70 Strength (low) 9 209 3 613.85 321.85 1.612 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.99
260 0.07 Strength (high) 5 682 31.65 5.04 2.224 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.97

Aust r oads 2012
190
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

3 485 0.98 Traffic level (low) 5 650 32.41 0.73 3.749 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.94
3 055 0.86 Traffic level (high) 5 838 34.10 15.42 2.670 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.95
TRDT 96 1.00 Base case 5 902 2 803.60 0.02 3.477 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
580 6.02 Strength (low) 9 371 3 330.53 17.88 1.975 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
15 0.16 Strength (high) 5 730 29.18 1.59 1.626 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
37 0.38 Traffic level (low) 5 753 31.06 7.96 1.414 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
146 1.52 Traffic level (high) 6 050 31.90 0.12 3.060 1 [80] 0 [20] 0 [-20] 0.00
4 Rural Arterial CS SADT 17 489 1.00 Base case 6 509 98.97 78.73 3.498 50 0 -50 0.97
20 938 1.20 Strength (low) 9 986 134.09 214.73 3.106 50 0 -50 0.98
15 223 0.87 Strength (high) 5 844 80.94 17.95 4.139 50 0 -50 0.94
TADT 102 179 1.00 Base case 6 706 109.74 529.79 2.661 50 0 -50 0.97
88 924 0.87 Strength (low) 8 511 143.17 1 796.54 2.210 50 0 -50 0.97
127 762 1.25 Strength (high) 6 273 89.43 92.70 3.325 50 0 -50 0.95
TRDT 44 918 1.00 Base case 7 058 82.41 50.21 2.966 50 0 -50 0.95
31 272 0.70 Strength (low) 10 239 112.87 241.31 2.385 50 0 -50 0.97

Aust r oads 2012
191
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

43 303 0.96 Strength (high) 6 223 61.61 12.12 3.386 50 0 -50 0.93
Rural Arterial GN(N) SADT 248 1.00 Base case 7 099 5 935.70 29.53 1.951 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
600 2.42 Strength (low) 8 841 6 574.22 115.97 1.727 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
211 0.85 Strength (high) 6 740 4 816.48 21.82 2.017 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
TADT 1 343 1.00 Base case 6 766 6 267.52 117.99 1.735 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
3 797 2.83 Strength (low) 8 456 7 846.45 66.48 2.257 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 038 0.77 Strength (high) 6 419 5 419.75 32.97 2.062 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
TRDT 662 1.00 Base case 7 099 5 935.70 29.53 1.867 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
1 260 1.90 Strength (low) 8 678 7 247.05 34.34 2.011 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
404 0.61 Strength (high) 6 555 5 174.83 13.55 1.950 1 [50] 1 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99

Aust r oads 2012
192
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

Rural Collector GN SADT 546 1.00 Base case 3 886 7 407.62 5.35 3.128 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 013 1.85 Strength (low) 11 199 5 858.00 474.42 1.326 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
199 0.36 Strength (high) 3 711 5 169.69 5.86 2.606 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
TADT 1 623 1.00 Base case 3 522 8 231.82 26.58 2.279 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
1 258 0.78 Strength (low) 11 074 6 532.08 533.98 1.249 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
359 0.22 Strength (high) 3 405 5 937.97 27.40 1.780 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.92
TRDT 433 1.00 Base case 3 844 7 357.27 2.69 2.450 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
522 1.21 Strength (low) 11 500 5 848.74 152.81 1.331 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.99
146 0.34 Strength (high) 3 712 5 138.90 2.21 2.184 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
Rural Access GN SADT 589 1.00 Base case 2 734 2 573.01 10.40 2.848 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
737 1.25 Strength (low) 12 630 2 014.62 13.00 2.849 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
45 0.08 Strength (high) 2 725 1 860.99 4.70 2.012 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93

Aust r oads 2012
193
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

TADT 1 151 1.00 Base case 2 612 2 819.01 17.96 2.295 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 370 1.19 Strength (low) 12 506 2 215.28 26.37 2.226 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
44 0.04 Strength (high) 2 610 1 940.12 12.45 1.370 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
Rural Access GN SADT 589 1.00 Base case 2 734 2 573.01 10.40 2.848 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
737 1.25 Strength (low) 12 630 2 014.62 13.00 2.849 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.97
45 0.08 Strength (high) 2 725 1 860.99 4.70 2.012 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
TADT 1 151 1.00 Base case 2 612 2 819.01 17.96 2.295 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.96
1 370 1.19 Strength (low) 12 506 2 215.28 26.37 2.226 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.98
44 0.04 Strength (high) 2 610 1 940.12 12.45 1.370 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.93
TRDT 114 1.00 Base case 2 855 2 282.69 0.81 2.409 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.94
221 1.94 Strength (low) 12 763 1 790.49 0.24 2.975 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.95
18 0.16 Strength (high) 2 851 1 772.73 0.12 2.426 1 [50] 0 [0] 0 [-50] 0.94

Aust r oads 2012
194
Road
network
Roadcategory Axle
group
(1)
r
2

1 Where a dummy variable has been used in place of actual Thornthwaite value the convention dummy value [corresponding Thornthwaite value] is used to represent input values.


Aust r oads 2012
195
APPENDIX O EXTENDED INVESTIGATION OF LWC
RELATIONSHIPS (PHASE 2)
O.1 Introduction
Phase 2 estimation of the marginal road wear costs were carried out in order to extend analysis to
a wider range of axle groups and test the robustness of results to assumptions made with respect
of axle load initiating pavement deterioration. This work involved: (i) extending analysis to three
additional axle groups comprising SAST TAST and QADT axle groups; (ii) making use of an
alternative pavement deterioration model for estimation of load related road wear; and (iii)
estimating road wear costs below the current GML limit with estimated axle group tare load
providing the starting point for calculations.
As part of Phase 2 some minor changes were made to the equation form for the LWC relationships
to model and report results, the use of 0.25 tonnes load increments (compared with 1.0 tonnes) for
modelling purposes, and reporting of statistical significance measures in addition to goodness of fit
measures associated with estimated LWC functions.
O.2 Revised Models and Methods
As was the case with Phase 1 the FAMLIT model was used to estimate the impact of increasing
axle loads on road wear costs. Axle loads for target axle groups were varied one at a time using
the axle load group increments of 0.25 tonnes for a range of road types while holding loads of all
other axle groups at their GML level. FAMLIT was then used to generate cost estimates
corresponding to each increment in terms of EAUC in terms of $ per lane-km. In Figure O 1 axle
types and associated axle load ranges and levels used in investigations are set out.
While extension of analysis to include additional axle groups proved straightforward for the SAST
axle group this was not the case for the two other additional axle groups TAST and QADT axle
groups. Complications arose due to the very small proportions of total freight vehicle traffic
comprised by vehicles fitted with these axle groups irrespective of road network being considered.
As a consequence additional axle load increments for the latter two groups could be expected to a
cause very small changes in EAUC for a given road type. This is illustrated in Figure O 1 which
plots out a typical representative relationship between SARs and incremental axle mass increases,
given that SARs provide the direct linear measure (see Equations 4 and 9) by which loads are
modelled causing pavement deterioration and subsequent road wear costs, EAUC. Figure O 1
indicates that changes in loads with the SAST axle groups can be expected to appreciably affect
road wear costs. This outcome is due to two factors the high ratio of incremental tonnes to the
reference load and high traffic levels. The latter reflects the fact that this axle type comprises the
most common axle group associated with freight vehicles. The same does not hold true for TAST
and QADT axle groups. For both axle groups and the sample road type aggregate SARs appear
to be insensitive to equivalent unit changes in axle load. This result was more expected for QADT
axle groups than TAST because the former group has been adopted relatively recently and is
currently only fitted to a very few freight vehicles. In addition the reference load used to compute
SARs for the QADT axle group is the highest of all the axle groups considered. Low numbers
however appears to be the primary cause of insensitivity for TAST axles given that the reference
load is in fact the third lowest considered.
To address these issues it was decided to use alternative treatments. Traffic and traffic
proportions were left unchanged for TAST axle group analysis with measures being taken in
subsequent analysis to address this issue. For QADT analysis it was however decided for FAMLIT

Aust r oads 2012
196
calculations to temporarily swap traffic proportions and numbers with the TRDT axle group. This
was done because widespread QADT axle group use is seen as likely to occur at the expense of
TRDT axle group. The approach used simulates the impact of a 100% conversion.
55000
105000
155000
205000
255000
305000
355000
-3 -2 -1 GML +1 +2 +3 +4
Axl e mass i ncrement
S
A
R
(
4
)
SAST
SADT
TAST
TADT
TRDT
QADT

Figure O 1: Relationship between axle mass increments in tonnes and SAR4 (rural arterial GN (S) pavement)
To test the robustness of results an alternative deterioration model was used with the LWC
relationships compared to those previously obtained. The model strength/roughness model used a
theoretical approach which relates pavement loading to deterioration via modelling the relationship
between load induced reductions in pavement residual strength which in turn causes increased
road surface roughness. When roughness reaches user-defined levels pavement rehabilitation to
restore roughness and strength to specified levels is triggered resulting in an increase in life-cycle
road wear costs. In some cases reductions in strength below acceptable limits can also trigger
intervention. In the alternative rutting/roughness deterioration model load caused pavement
deterioration is based on projected rutting which in turn causes increased road roughness. In
contrast to the strength/roughness deterioration model previously used the rutting/roughness
deterioration models used are based more on empirical observation and measurement than
theoretical constructs (Martin & Choummanivong 2009). A further feature of the rutting/roughness
model is that levels of maintenance activity as distinct from rehabilitation and reconstruction
activities can directly affect the rates of rutting and roughness progression which is more in line
with observed practice and pavement behaviour. In the following sections results are reported for
both the strength/roughness and the rutting/roughness models across the full test factorial.

Aust r oads 2012
197
O.3 Modelling Considerations
Environmental impacts are considered via the use of the Thornthwaite Moisture Index (TMI) for
which three ascending values are considered for each road type. Different ranges of TMI were
associated with different roads according to geographic location. In addition in some cases where
road wear costs were not observed to vary systematically with TMI replacement by dummy
variables modelling a two step rather than a three step scale was found to improve modelling
outcomes. TMI values and dummy variable schemas employed are set out in Section 2. These
should be used when interpreting axle load road wear costs modelling outcomes.
Despite expansion of axle mass categories to include values below GML, and generation of
estimates using quarter tonne intervals, model outcomes are relatively common where t values for
the a2 term in equation type (1) which could be regarded as statistically unacceptable (t <2.,
However it was found that dropping this terms solely on the basis of this statistic was not warranted
as it generally resulted in significant reductions in goodness of fit (r
2
) and explanatory power. From
a modelling perspective the a2 term is required to give the axle mass pavement cost function the
appropriate shape, which demonstrates minimal impact on pavement costs at masses below
reference load, and increasing sensitivity thereafter. An example of premature discarding of the
a2 term on the basis of a non-significant (p >.05) t statistic is demonstrated below both in
Table O 1, and in subsequent figures.
Table O 1: Alternative LWC models urban freeway cement stabilised roads (strength model)
full equation, and equation less linear mass parameter
Road type Equation Axle
group
a0 a1 a2 a3 r
2

Urban Freeway CS
Full equation
(POLYMOD)
SADT 3 722 1.82 0.000006 8.84 0.97
t 29.78 202.75 1.35 29.28

Reduced
(PWRMOD)
SADT 2 552 1.82 3.92 0.87
t 9.79 94.25 269.83

From Table O 1 it can be seen that the t statistic associated with the a2 term indicates non
statistical significance. However, dropping the term to convert the original polynomial model
(POLMOD) into a reduced equation (PWRMOD) while resulting in an equation where all
parameters have appropriate t terms, reduces fit to the extent that the equation provides poor fit to
the estimated EAUC data points. This is shown in Figure O 2.

Aust r oads 2012
198
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Axle Mass (t)
E
A
U
C
Obsvd
PWRMOD
POLYMOD

Figure O 2: LWC model fits for original polynomial equation (POLYMOD) and reduced equation (PWRMOD)
(urban freeway (CS) SADT structural/roughness deterioration model)
When the information used to construct Figure O 2 is subsequently used to estimate incremental
costs distortions associated with dropping the t test deficient term can become magnified, as
shown in Figure O 3.

Aust r oads 2012
199
-1000
1000
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
17000
4

-

5
5

-

6
6

-

7
7

-

8
8

-

9
9

-

1
0
1
0

-

1
1
1
1

-

1
2
1
2

-

1
3
1
3

-

1
4
1
4

-

1
5
E
A
U
C

C
h
a
n
g
e
Obsvd
PWRMOD
POLYMOD

Figure O 3: Estimated incremental cost changes with axle mass increments; comparisons between full (POLYMOD) and
reduced models (PWRMOD) (urban freeway (CS) SADT axle groups strength/roughness deterioration model)
An examination of Figure O 3 indicates that while the full model containing the parameter with a
deficient t value tracks observed incremental costs well, (and in fact overlays and obscures
several observations) tracking by the reduced model is not satisfactory.
Consequently in cases similar to this, full models have been reported even where t statistic
indicate non-significance of estimated parameter values with 5% confidence limits. Only where
dropping of terms with deficient t statistics has little or no effect on r
2
, and tracking of cost
changes can be demonstrated to be adequate, can the case in favour of using the reduced
equation be justified. Perusal of the data to date has shown this to be a rare occurrence.

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2012, Preliminary Methodology for Estimating Cost
Implications of Incremental Loads on Road Pavements, Sydney, A4,
pp.215. AP-R402-12
Keywords: axle group loading, incremental pricing, load-wear-cost, roughness
deterioration, maintenance intervention, road wear cost, marginal road wear
cost, pavement wear.
Abstract:
This report describes the approach, data, models and assumptions used in
developing pavement load-wear-cost (LWC) relationships for incremental
increases in axle loads. A preliminary set of LWC relationships was developed
as a basis for estimating the short-run marginal cost (SRMC) of road wear for a
range road of types in the sealed road network. A life-cycle costing analysis
(FAMLIT) was used in estimating the wear cost of incremental load increases
on road pavements, using available knowledge, existing tools, models,
processes and data. It is important to note that these estimates of SRMC are
highly dependent upon the assumptions, input parameters and models used by
this study.

Preliminary Methodology For Estimating Cost

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Preliminary Methodology For Estimating Cost

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AP-R402-12

AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen