The Equivalent Heavy Vehicle Concept in Australian Sprayed Seal Design

[Home] [Session index] [Author index] [Presenter index]
st
1 Sprayed Sealing Conference – cost effective high performance surfacings, Adelaide, Australia 2008
THE EQUIVALENT HEAVY VEHICLE CONCEPT IN

AUSTRALIAN SPRAYED SEAL DESIGN
Kym Neaylon, ARRB Group, Australia
Russell Spies, Queensland Department of Main Roads, Australia
Allan Alderson, ARRB Group, Australia
ABSTRACT
The foremost challenge facing Australian spray seal designers is the performance of sprayed
seals under the increasing numbers of large heavy vehicles on major transportation routes
connecting capital cities and in rural areas of New South Wales, Queensland and Western
Australia.
It is expected that the Australian freight task will increase by 25% between 2000 and 2010, with
most of this increase already occurring.
Based on data collected in rural areas, the traffic adjustment for heavy vehicles was amended in
the 2006 update of the Austroads sprayed seal design method.
This paper discusses the investigation currently being conducted into the effect of these large
heavy vehicles on sprayed seals, and the concept and development of Equivalent Heavy
Vehicles introduced in the Australian design method in 2006. This paper describes the next
steps in rationalising this concept
INTRODUCTION
During the 1990s it became apparent that published Austroads procedures for selection and
design of sprayed seals was not keeping pace with increases in traffic, particularly the heavy
vehicle component. Changes in road use included increased wheel loads, tyre pressures and
configuration of heavy vehicles, and overall increases in the freight task expected from
individual prime movers. (Alderson, 2008a). In addition, in some states roads that had
previously been surfaced with asphalt were being resurfaced with sprayed seals for reasons of
lower initial cost.
The major problem for sprayed seals as a result of this heavier traffic is flushing or even
bleeding within the wheelpath, particularly during the early life of a fresh seal. A related
problem, in attempting to design a seal to avoid bleeding, stripping between wheelpaths or in
areas of higher traffic stress (e.g. tighter corners, turnouts) can then become prevalent. Other
research is being undertaken (Alderson 2008b) into the reasons as to why a seal becomes
flushed or bleeds with regards to the mechanistic contributions of aggregate embedment,
aggregate packing and aggregate wear/breakdown. Whilst initial indications suggest that all
three of these ‘aggregate’ mechanisms are present, this paper focuses on the ‘binder’
component of a bleeding sprayed seal.
A new seal design method entitled Revision 2000 was published (Austroads 2001). The
validation of this method concluded that, though the method was generally adequate, there
were some concerns with roads that had large proportions of heavy vehicles in the traffic
stream, particularly where the heavy vehicles were B-doubles or larger.
Since the review of the Austroads seal design method (Austroads 2001), there has been a
national increase in the number of Large Heavy Vehicles (LHV), particularly in the rural areas of
 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 1

st
NSW, QLD and WA. Based on general performance impressions gathered from these rural
areas, the traffic adjustment for heavy vehicles was updated to reflect this change.
An interim but temporary measure for the seal design method was agreed (Austroads 2002) to
cater for large heavy vehicles which were defined as B-doubles and other heavy truck/trailer
combinations with seven or more axles (Austroads vehicle class 10 and above). The LHVs
were thought to cause four times more reduction to seal design voids compared to heavy
vehicles from classes 3 to 9. Large heavy vehicles are then converted to Equivalent Heavy
Vehicles (EHV) using the relationship EHV% = HV% + LHV%×3.
The Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research Reference Group (BSRRG) is currently

evaluating the composition of the Australian heavy vehicle fleet, identifying the loads these are
carrying, and evaluating the effect of such loads on void reduction factors for each vehicle class
(Alderson, 2008).
Figure 1: Austroads Vehicle Classification
Figure 1 shows a typical vehicle configuration for each class, but many other possible
configurations fall under these classes, in particular for classes 8, 9, 10 and 11. A discussion

st
paper was published (Austroads 2000) that reviewed the current Australian classification
terminologies and description systems, and gave examples of these different configurations.
Illustrations of these other configurations are contained in Appendix B.
HEAVY VEHICLE DESIGN APPROACHES ELSEWHERE
South Africa
Heavy vehicles are converted to Equivalent Light Vehicles (ELV).
Total ELV/lane/day = number of light vehicles + (number of heavy vehicles x 40) (SANRA
2007).
In earlier documents an equivalency factor of 20 was used, but increases in axle loads and tyre
pressures necessitated the use of the higher value of 40 (COLTO 1998). There is anecdotal
advice (Holtrop 2008a) that 40 is no longer considered sufficient, and an equivalency factor of
80 is now being discussed.
New Zealand
The concept of ‘equivalent light vehicles’ was introduced in 1993, based on South African
experience where a Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) was considered to be the equivalent to
10 light vehicles or cars. The 2004 TNZ chipseal design algorithm uses ELVs defined as
‘cumulative equivalent light vehicles based on the assumption that one HCV is equivalent to 10
cars’. This approximation is based on HCVs consisting of around 10-11% of the traffic mix.
Where the HCV percentage is higher a specific Heavy Traffic Factor can be calculated, still in
terms of ELVs. (Transit New Zealand et al, 2005).
A Heavy Commercial Vehicle in New Zealand is defined as any vehicle over four tonnes gross
weight (Arnold et al. 2005).
Arnold et al. recommend an adjustment to the ESA approach be adopted to predict the effect of
traffic loading on the design of chipseals to account for increases in mass limits. Currently an
assumption made in New Zealand pavement design is that one HCV = one ESA, therefore one
ESA = 10 ELV (Arnold et al. 2005).
North America
A ‘Traffic Factor’ is used based only on vehicles per day (Janisch 1998). There is no
consideration as to the composition of the traffic.
It is reported that in North America, the state-of-the-art in chip seal design essentially ended in
the 1960s when McLeod proposed a design method based on Hanson’s work, and it was
accepted by the Asphalt Institute, and most DoTs. Development further stalled as public
agencies evolved a system whereby no design is performed, and only empirical rates are used
(TRB 2005). Table 1 details how chip seals are currently designed in North America.
In Texas the Modified Kearby design method is used, again with a ‘Traffic Factor’ based only on
vehicles per day with no consideration to the composition of traffic. (Texas DOT 2004).
The TRB has reported that ‘Americans and Canadians can learn from the procedures used in
Australia and New Zealand’ (TRB 2005).

st
Table 1: Chip seal design methods in North America (TRB 2005)
Chip seal design method USA (%) Canada (%)
Empirical/past experience 37 33
No formal method 26 22
Own formal method 19 0
McLeod/Asphalt Institute 11 45
Kearby/Modified Kearby 7 0
United Kingdom - TRL Road Note 39 method
The principal measure of traffic for design purposes is the number of commercial vehicles per
day travelling in the lane under consideration. A commercial vehicle is defined as a vehicle of
unladen weight greater than 1.5 tonnes (Nicholls 1996). An unladen weight of greater than 1.5
tonnes would approximate to an Austroads Class 2 and above.
Tropical and sub tropical countries
Total traffic (all classes) in vehicles/lane/day is used to give a traffic factor (TRL 2000). There is
no consideration as to the composition of the traffic
Summary
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are recognised as world leaders in the field of spray
seals (TRB 2005). The South African design method used equivalent light vehicles as its traffic
measure, but is finding that the equivalencies have been increasing, from 10 to 20 to 40 ELVs
per heavy vehicle. New Zealand uses 10 ELVs per heavy vehicle, but questions are being
raised as to whether ESAs would be a better path to progress. The UK probably has heavier
commercial vehicle loadings than Australia, New Zealand or South Africa. The UK method does
not consider light vehicles or equivalent light vehicles, but designs solely on the number of
commercial vehicles. Americans and Canadians say they can learn from the procedures used
in Australia and New Zealand.
EQUIVALENT STANDARD AXLE (ESA)

In the flexible pavement design process, the first step in assessing the ability of a pavement
configuration to withstand the design traffic is to predict the extent of the damage caused to the
pavement by a reference axle group termed the Standard Axle (Austroads 2004)
The Standard Axle is a single axle with dual tyres applying an axle load of 80kN to the
pavement.
To determine the number of Standard Axle repetitions (SAR), a procedure is required to

calculate the damage associated with each axle group of each axle type in the traffic load
distribution relative to the damage caused by a Standard Axle. Loads on axle configurations
that cause the same amount of damage as the Standard Axle are given in Table 2.

st
Table 2: Axle group loads which cause the same damage (equal maximum deflection) as
the Standard Axle (Austroads 2004)
Axle group type Load (kN)
Single axle with single tyres (SAST) 53
Single axle with dual tyres (SADT) 80
Tandem axle with single tyres (TAST) 90
Tandem axle with dual tyres (TADT) 135
Triaxle with dual tyres (TRDT) 181
Quad axle with dual tyres (QADT) 221
There are a number of reasons why Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research Reference
Group (BSRRG) does not want to follow the pavement design ESA path
1. A previous investigation by BSRRG during the development of the Revision 2000 method
th
(Alderson 2000) did not find any correlation between ESAs using the 4 power damage
exponent and seal performance.
2. Seal damage effects are more related to the rolling action of loaded tyres, which
reorientates the aggregate and alters the voids in the aggregate mosaic that are available to
be filled with binder. This action is different to the structural load carrying capacity of a
pavement.
3. A triaxle group and a single axle may have different damaging effects to a spray seal, yet
they may both be equal in Equivalent Standard Axle value.
4. A seal damage model must be sufficiently robust to evaluate the relative effects of heavy
vehicles outside of the current Austroads classes but which predominate on some sealed
roads (e.g. quarry roads with class 4 trucks towing trailers with various types of axle
groups).
5. Calculating a theoretically accurate ESA requires complexities that are not able to be
addressed by most seal design practitioners.
6. Calculating any value of ESA for sprayed seal use would be different in effect to pavement
design use, as sprayed seal practitioners consider traffic over the early life of a seal, not
over 20 years or more.
7. The EHV concept as already used has been well received in training courses and appears
to be accepted and understood by most people involved in seal design (Holtrop, 2008b).
As an example, Figure 2 shows three axle loads which all cause the same damage to a
pavement:

st
SAST TADT TRDT

5.0t 12.8t 17.2t
Figure 2: Axle group loads that cause the same Pavement Damage (0.75 ESA each)
However, do these three loads and tyre configurations when rolling cause equal void reduction
in a sprayed seal surface?
A previous and an existing ALF program utilising a sprayed seal have been used to collect
aggregate embedment and spray seal surface texture data over time. This opportunity should
continue with data collection for a future correlation analysis with regards to various axle
configurations and resulting sprayed seal voids. This could add to the knowledge gained in chip
seal ‘damage factors’ from work done in New Zealand at CAPTIF by Arnold et al. (2005)
AUSTRALIA’S TRAFFIC FLEET
Method
Data from weigh-in-motion (WiM) sites across Australia were obtained to assess heavy vehicle
fleet composition and loads. The data available was not truly representative of the total vehicle
fleet operating in Australia. The data available at the time of writing was collected in the period
from 1993 to 2000 and so may not represent the present heavy vehicle fleet. The number of
observations in the data set is shown in Table 3 with the total number of observations equal to
26 million.

st
Table 3: Number of weigh-in-motion observations
Year NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NT

1993 na na 228,900 na 1,200 26,700 6,500
1994 na na 31,900 100,800 117,800 32,200 63,000
1995 127,800 2,185,300 1,509,000 75,900 361,900 143,000 45,100
1996 2,199,200 3,008,500 140,600 164,000 728,900 29,700 41,300
1997 na 4,139,600 206,500 20,300 1,040,600 135,800 13,500
1998 na 4,037,500 216,600 na 840,000 385,100 4,400
1999 na 2,339,200 241,500 na 890,200 360,500 18,800
2000 na na na na na na 14,300
Total
HVs 2,327,000 15,710,000 2,575,000 361,000 3,981,000 1,113,000 207,000
Fleet composition
The data was reviewed on a state-by-state basis by:
• determining the number of heavy vehicles in each class for each year
• dividing individual annual class total count by the annual total heavy vehicle count (all
classes) expressed as a percentage
• finding the average annual class percentage across all years.
The raw data calculated using the above process can be found in Alderson (2008a), and the
result is shown graphically in Figure 3.
60
NT
Qld
50 NSW
Vic
Tas
40 SA
WA
Percentage
30
20
10
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Austroads vehicle Class
Figure 3: Annual average vehicle class as a percentage of the total heavy vehicle fleet
for each state

st
Vehicle mass
A detailed breakdown of the vehicle gross mass data was compiled (by state) for each of the
years within the survey period (Alderson 2008a). This information is summarised in Table 4. A
negative value in the annual rate of change indicates that the vehicle gross mass of the class is
diminishing with time. Clearly the larger vehicle classes are carrying an increasing proportion of
the freight task during the survey period.
Table 4: Average gross masses for each class and the annual rate of change in mass
Class Average Annual rate Class Average Annual rate

gross mass of change in gross mass of change in
(tonnes) mass (tonnes) mass
(%) (%)
3 6.2 0.12 8 22.8 0.15
4 13.8 -0.01 9 30.2 -0.43
5 18.0 0.41 10 42.3 0.85
6 9.6 -0.05 11 47.4 1.32
7 14.9 0.13 12 67.0* 2.15*
*the values do not use the data from Queensland and Western Australia
Payloads
Using the assumed tare weights and legal loads as shown in Table 5, it is possible to calculate
the payloads as a percentage of the legal payload using the formula:
Payload = 100(L – X) / Y
where
L = the percentile gross mass (vehicle plus payload)
X = tare weight of the vehicle
Y = legal payload.

st
Table 5: Assumed tare mass and legal load for each class
Class Tare weight Legal Class Tare weight Legal

(tonnes) payload (tonnes) payload
(tonnes) (tonnes)
3 6 9.0 8 14 25.0
4 7 15.5 9 17.5 25.0
5 9 18.5 10 24 35.0
6 10 14.0 11 30 49.0
7 12 19.5 12 42 73.5
The percentile loads were calculated using the pooled state data for each year within the survey
period. The calculations (detailed in Alderson 2008a) are summarised in Table 6. Included also
are the axle configurations and the load in tonnes on each axle group.
Table 6: Class loadings for sprayed seal design
Class Payload as a percentage Gross vehicle Front axle Rear axle(s)

of the legal payload mass (t) (t)
(%) (t)
3 50 10.5 4.75 5.75
4 50 14.75 4.75 10.0
5 70 21.95 4.67 4.67 + 12.6
6 30 14.2 4.6 4.8 x 2
7 30 17.85 4.95 4.8 + 8.1
8 50 26.5 5.5 10.5 x2
9 60 32.5 5.8 12.3 + 14.4
10 80 52.0 6.0 14.4 x2 + 17.2
11 65 61.85 6.0 12.82 x2 + 15.1 x2
12 60 86.1 6.0 12.3 x3 + 14..0 x3
SEAL DESIGN FACTORS FOR HV CLASSES

Previous seal design proposals for HV loading (Spies 2005, 2006) defined the EHV as a Class
3 truck with 80% payload (i.e. 13.2 t gross) proportionately distributed over all axle groups. Each
Class then had 45% of the loading differential at an averaged 80% payload. The 45% in loading
differential was determined as the closest match of the heavier class loads which corresponded
to New Zealand research (Arnold et al. 2005) which settled on a seal damage exponent of 2.7
for standard axle groupings.

st
Subsequent studies into the WiM data (Spies 2007) indicated erratic trends between the states
for class 3 vehicles due to suspected operational inconsistencies at the time of data capture,
processing and/or calibration for this particular class (e.g. inclusion or otherwise of ‘lighter’
commercial vans). On the other hand, the between-state variation for class 4 loadings
(coefficient of variation of 8.4%) was quite uniform.
Consequently, one EHV is now defined as a class 4 truck loaded to 50% legal payload (i.e.
14.75 t gross) proportionally shared between its axle groups to provide 4.75 t on the first single
axle with single tyre (SAST) steer axle and 10.0 t on the rear tandem axle with dual tyres
(TADT) drive axle group (see Table 6). All seal damage effects are then evaluated for any axle-
configured vehicle via the Standard Axle and the exponent of 2.7, and such loaded vehicle
effect converted to EHV.
This damage exponent of 2.7 was then used directly by Spies (2007) to estimate light vehicle
(Classes 1 and 2 and combined) equivalencies.
The damage exponent of 2.7 can be used with the information in Table 7 to determine the seal
damage for each axle group and ultimately for each Austroads vehicle class. The seal damage
equation is given below:
' Load on axle group $ 2.7

Damage = ! %& Standard axle load "#
The allowable loads are given (in kN) in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide (2004) for each
of the four axle configurations and these can be converted to mass in tonnes by dividing by
9.81.
One point that should be mentioned is that the vehicle axle configurations shown in Fig. 1 are
only representative of that vehicle class. Also, one of the assumptions made here is that the
various axle configurations and spacings are aggregated for analysis for use in seal design, i.e.
proportionate loading over all axle groups is presumed rather than uneven or overloading of
some groups.
The damage factors for each class are then divided by the damage factor for the Class 4
vehicle as this was designated as the equivalent heavy vehicle. The damage factors for each
heavy vehicle class can then be expressed in terms of the number of equivalent heavy vehicles
and these are included in Table 7. The values for EHV in Table 7 have been rounded. Out of
curiosity, seal design EHV estimations using this method have been compared with pavement
design ESA estimations for the same classes. No conclusions are drawn from this, and the
estimated comparisons are included for interest as Appendix A.

st
Table 7: EHV equivalencies
National
heavy Equivalent
Damage
Austroads class vehicle fleet heavy vehicle
distribution
factor
(EHV)
(1993 – 2000)
Not
1 0.0127 0.0125
calculated
Not
2 0.038 0.0334
calculated
3 25.9% 1.10 1.0
4 9.1% 1.15 1.0
5 1.3% 1.47 1.3
6 1.5% 0.88 0.8
7 4.3% 1.23 1.1
8 6.8% 2.01 1.8
9 36.3% 3.02 2.6
10 7.6% 4.66 4.1
11 4.5% 4.13 3.6
12 2.8% 5.07 4.4

st
CONCLUSIONS
This paper discusses the investigation currently being conducted into the effect of these large
heavy vehicles on sprayed seals, the concept and development of Equivalent Heavy Vehicles
introduced in the Australian design method in 2006, and ongoing work in rationalising and
progressing this concept.
The information in Table 7 can be used to determine damage for any vehicle stream. The
design traffic is expressed in equivalent heavy vehicles and will require a new relationship to be
developed between equivalent heavy vehicles and basic voids factors for use in seal design.
The existing Austroads seal design model of a single plot of basic voids against the average
daily traffic in the lane (vehicles/lane/day) will not apply to the method discussed in this report.
Shown below is the equation which closely simulates the existing model.
-0.12328 Factor B
VF = 0.37488 x (lane traffic) (i.e. VF = Factor A x (lane traffic) )
The effect of changing to EHV as a measure of traffic has an effect on the seal design. The
actual traffic numbers will change depending on the percentage of heavy vehicles and the
composition of the heavy vehicle fleet. Using traffic composition described in Table 7, it is
possible to back-calculate the average traffic stream used in the derivation of the earlier model.
The earlier model was based on 17.4% heavy vehicles (assuming Factor A is the HV weighting
factor).
The earlier Austroads seal design procedure and the method of dealing with the heavy vehicle
fleet summarised in this paper will be checked on a number of projects. The two designs will be
compared by a panel of practitioners experienced with seal design.
Austroads will then decide on how the EHV versus basic voids concept is to be implemented
within a revision of the Austroads sprayed seal design method.
REFERENCES
Austroads 2000, Development of an Austroads heavy vehicle Nomenclature system –
discussion paper, AP-R174, Austroads, Sydney, Australia
Austroads 2001, Austroads provisional sprayed seal design method, revision 2000, AP-T09,
Austroads, Sydney, Australia
Austroads 2002, Practitioners guide to the design of sprayed seals, revision 2000 method, AP-
T17, Austroads, Sydney, Australia
Austroads 2004, Pavement Design – a guide to the structural design of road pavements, AP-
G17/04, Austroads, Sydney Australia
Alderson AJ, 2000, Austroads provisional sprayed seal design method – Revision 2000. ARRB
Transport research Contract report No. RC90124A, ARRB Group, Melbourne, Australia
Alderson AJ, 2008a, Incorporating heavy vehicles into the Austroads sprayed seal design
method, Austroads project TT1132, draft report awaiting publication.
Alderson AJ 2008b, Seal distress: an initial study into flushed seals, Austroads project TT1132,
draft report awaiting publication.
Arnold G, Steven B, Alabaster D, Fussell A, 2005, Effect on pavement wear of increased mass
limits for heavy vehicles – Concluding report, Land Transport New Zealand Research Report
281, Wellington, New Zealand

st
Committee of Land Transport Officials COLTO 1998, Surfacing seals for rural and urban roads,
draft TRH3 1998, Pretoria, South Africa.
Holtrop W 2008a, BSRRG committee meeting discussions 13 Feb 08.
Holtrop W 2008b, Private email correspondence 29 Jan 2008.
Janisch D 1998, Minnesota Seal Coat Handbook, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St

Paul MN, USA. Website viewed 11 Jan 2008
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/T2Center/Mgt.Systems/PavementTechnology/Minnesota_Seal_Co
ats_2006.pdf
th
Nicholls JC 1996, Design guide for road surface dressing, TRL Road Note 39, 4 edition,
Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, UK
South African National Roads Agency SANRA 2007, Design and construction of surfacing
seals, Technical recommendations for highways, TRH3 2007, Pretoria South Africa
Spies RE 2005, A suggested approach for incorporating heavy vehicles into sprayed seal
design, Working group committee report for the Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research
Reference Group
Spies RE 2006, Considerations in developing seal design factors for various heavy vehicle
types, working group committee report for the Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research
Reference Group
Spies RE 2007, Potential impacts on seal design of heavy vehicle loadings across Australia,
working group committee report for the Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research Reference
Group
Texas Department of Transportation 2004, Seal coat and surface treatment manual, July 2004,
Texas, USA Website viewed 11 Jan 2008 ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-
info/gsd/manuals/scm.pdf
Transit New Zealand, Road Controlling Authorities & Roading New Zealand 2005, Chipsealing
in New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand
TRB 2005, Chip seal best practices, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Synthesis 342, Transportation Research Board, Washington, USA
TRL 2000, A guide to surface dressing in tropical and subtropical countries, Overseas Road
nd
Note 3, 2 Edition, Berkshire, UK
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution made by Mr. Walter Holtrop, whose
‘after dinner’ conversations were instrumental in the development of the EHV concept.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Kym Neaylon
Kym had some 10 years of broad, practical civil engineering experience in quarrying, local
Government, road construction, and contract superintending, before specialising in bituminous
road surfacings 20 years ago.
For 10 years Kym was the Peak Technical Authority in bituminous surfacings treatments for the
Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure SA. He has participated on various

st
Austroads editorial committees for over a dozen technical publications, and is a past Australian
representative for PIARC (World Road Association) International Committee C1, Surface
Characteristics. He has lectured in bituminous surfacings at the University of South Australia,
and has published over a dozen papers, primarily dealing with putting research into practice.
Russell Spies
Russell was a Queensland Main Roads scholarship holder and has worked continuously with
this employer after graduating from the University of Queensland in 1964 with a science degree
majoring in chemistry. All of his subsequent 44 years have been within the materials arena
where his position is now Principal Advisor (Materials Testing).
Russell has served on Standards Australia committees dealing with bitumen, asphalt and soils.
He is a current member of Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research Reference Group
committees for surfacings technology and binder characterisation projects, having been a
previous chairman of the Binders project for 14 years.
Allan Alderson
Allan joined ARRB Group Ltd in 1990 with a B Eng (Hons) from Swinburne Institute of
Technology and has since gained a M Eng from RMIT.
Allan is a member of the Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research Reference Group, and has
had a substantial role in the development of national guidelines for the selection, testing and
design of sprayed seals. Previously, Allan has been concerned with testing geotechnical
materials and geotechnical investigations.
Allan's research expertise is in the areas of materials characterisation using laboratory based
techniques, sprayed seal design and PC based data acquisition and analysis.

st
APPENDIX A
Table A.1: EHV compared with ESA approximations

Approx Approx.
ESA using ESA using
Equivalent
actual maximum
Austroads Class heavy vehicle
loadings possible
(EHV)
from Table GML* legal
6 axle loads
Not Not
1 0.0125
calculated calculated
Not Not
2 0.0334
calculated calculated
3 1.0 0.8 3.0
4 1.0 0.9 3.6
5 1.3 1.8 5.1
6 0.8 0.8 4.5
7 1.1 0.9 5.1
8 1.8 1.7 5.6
9 2.6 2.3 5.0
10 4.1 4.7 7.0
11 3.6 3.9 8.4
12 4.4 4.5 11.8
*GML = General Mass Limits are used in this approximation, not Higher Mass Limits

st
APPENDIX B
Table B.1: 2000 proposal Austroads vehicle nomenclature system (Austroads 2000)

st

The Equivalent Heavy Vehicle Concept in Australian Sprayed Seal Design

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Equivalent Heavy Vehicle Concept in Australian Sprayed Seal Design

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

[Home] [Session index] [Author index] [Presenter index]

THE EQUIVALENT HEAVY VEHICLE CONCEPT IN

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 1

The Austroads Bituminous Surfacings Research Reference Group (BSRRG) is currently

Figure 1: Austroads Vehicle Classification

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 2

HEAVY VEHICLE DESIGN APPROACHES ELSEWHERE

Heavy vehicles are converted to Equivalent Light Vehicles (ELV).

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 3

Table 1: Chip seal design methods in North America (TRB 2005)

Chip seal design method USA (%) Canada (%)

Own formal method 19 0

United Kingdom - TRL Road Note 39 method

Tropical and sub tropical countries

EQUIVALENT STANDARD AXLE (ESA)

To determine the number of Standard Axle repetitions (SAR), a procedure is required to

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 4

Single axle with single tyres (SAST) 53

Single axle with dual tyres (SADT) 80

Tandem axle with single tyres (TAST) 90

Tandem axle with dual tyres (TADT) 135

Triaxle with dual tyres (TRDT) 181

Quad axle with dual tyres (QADT) 221

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 5

SAST TADT TRDT

AUSTRALIA’S TRAFFIC FLEET

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 6

Table 3: Number of weigh-in-motion observations

Year NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NT

1994 na na 31,900 100,800 117,800 32,200 63,000

1995 127,800 2,185,300 1,509,000 75,900 361,900 143,000 45,100

1996 2,199,200 3,008,500 140,600 164,000 728,900 29,700 41,300

1997 na 4,139,600 206,500 20,300 1,040,600 135,800 13,500

1998 na 4,037,500 216,600 na 840,000 385,100 4,400

1999 na 2,339,200 241,500 na 890,200 360,500 18,800

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 7

Class Average Annual rate Class Average Annual rate

4 13.8 -0.01 9 30.2 -0.43

5 18.0 0.41 10 42.3 0.85

6 9.6 -0.05 11 47.4 1.32

7 14.9 0.13 12 67.0* 2.15*

L = the percentile gross mass (vehicle plus payload)

X = tare weight of the vehicle

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 8

Class Tare weight Legal Class Tare weight Legal

4 7 15.5 9 17.5 25.0

Table 6: Class loadings for sprayed seal design

Class Payload as a percentage Gross vehicle Front axle Rear axle(s)

4 50 14.75 4.75 10.0

5 70 21.95 4.67 4.67 + 12.6

6 30 14.2 4.6 4.8 x 2

7 30 17.85 4.95 4.8 + 8.1

8 50 26.5 5.5 10.5 x2

9 60 32.5 5.8 12.3 + 14.4

10 80 52.0 6.0 14.4 x2 + 17.2

11 65 61.85 6.0 12.82 x2 + 15.1 x2

12 60 86.1 6.0 12.3 x3 + 14..0 x3

SEAL DESIGN FACTORS FOR HV CLASSES

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 9

' Load on axle group $ 2.7

 ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2008 10

Table 7: EHV equivalencies

3 25.9% 1.10 1.0