Determination of Equivalent Axle Load Factor of Trailer With Multiple Axles On Flexible Pavement Structures
Determination of Equivalent Axle Load Factor of Trailer With Multiple Axles On Flexible Pavement Structures
Determination of Equivalent Axle Load Factor of Trailer With Multiple Axles On Flexible Pavement Structures
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= 69 . 0
V V
V
84 . 4 M
b v
b
4.477
c
0.8 -
d
1
e 0.1365 N
(
= .....(2)
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1196
Pavement life is either based on fatigue criterion or deformation. It requires state of strains
occur in the pavement layers. Information about moduli of each pavement layers are
indispensable. Stiffness modulus of the surface layer made of bituminous mixture can be
predicted based on Equation 3 (AI, 1982). As the modulus depends on temperature of
bituminous layer, the pavement temperature is predicted from the air temperature. It is used
Equation 4 for this purpose. Subgrade resilient modulus can be obtained from its CBR value.
For this purpose, Equations 5a or 5b is used. Base course resilient modulus which made of
untreated granular material is a function of state of the stress in that particular layer.
Prediction of resilient modulus of base course requires iteration procedures. Witczak and
Smith (1981) found that resilient modulus can be predicted by using Equation 6 in order to
simplify the procedure.
( )
| |
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
+
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
+ +
02774 . 0
1 . 1
5 . 0
) log 49825 . 0 3 . 1 ( 5 . 0 ) log 49825 . 0 3 . 1 (
6
70 17033 . 0
200
1
1
0.931757
0.00189 - 0.00005
10 , 0.070377 (Vv) 0.03476 - 0.028829 5.553833 E Log
f
f
P
t P t
f
P
ac
f
ac
f
F
p p
o
.....(3)
6
4
34
4
1
1 +
+
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ =
z z
MMAT MMPT .....(4)
( ) CBR 3 . 10 E
3
= for unit of E
3
in MPa ... (5a)
( ) CBR 1500 E
3
= for unit of E
3
in psi ...(5b)
) 868 . 0 k )( 287 . 0 E )( E )( h )( h ( 447 . 10 E
1 3
139 . 0
1
041 . 0
2
471 . 0
1 2
= .....(6)
In addition to the moduli of pavement layers, it also requires the Poissons ratio of each
layers. The Poissons ratio are not sensitive to the strains. In this particular analysis, the
Poissons ratio for surface and base course are 0.40 while for subgrade is 0.45.
EALF is the ratio of number of load repetitions of standard axle to the non standard axle.
Once the number of load repetitions are obtained for both standard axle (single axle dual
wheels) and non standard load (trailer with 10 axles and 80 tires), the EALF of that particular
non standard axle load can be calculated. There are 27 combinations of pavement structure
analyzed. The combinations are shown on Table 1.
There are two load levels applied to every pavement structure. For standard axle load, the 80
kN is distributed equally to the four tires. The contact pressure with uniform and circle shape
of tires to pavement surface is 483 kPa. The distance of dual wheels is 345 mm (center to
center). Configuration of trailer tires is shown on Figure 2. The maximum load of concrete
segment is 158 tons. In this analysis, total weight of loaded trailer is assumed to be 1715 kN
(175 tons), and equally distributed to each of 80 tires. The contact pressure of each tires to the
pavement surface is 627 kPa, and their shapes are all circles.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1197
Table 1. Combinations of Pavement Structure Analyzed
Thickness of Surface
Course (mm)
Surface Course Stiffness
Modulus (MPa)
*)
Thickness of Base
Course (mm)
Subgrade Resilient
Modulus (MPa)
100 3468.2 150 50
150 3565.0 250 100
200 3644.1 350 150
*
) Calculated by Eq. 3, with MMAT = 18.6C
150 cm 150 cm 150 cm 150 cm 150 cm 150 cm 150 cm 150 cm 150 cm
25
25
25
55
55
75
Figure 2. Configuration of Special Trailer with 10 Axles and 80 Tires
5. DETAIL PROCEDURE
The Everstress program is not developed to analyze 80 tires, as it can only handle 20 loaded
tires. In order to enable the program to calculate strains due to 80 tires, a quarter system of the
trailer is analyzed, i.e. 20 tires (as shown in Figure 2). Strains superposition process from this
quarter system is required to obtain strains of the whole system. In the quarter system, there
are 20 points evaluated for each of the five axles. The points lined up in a particular axle
analyzed. There are additional of 20 points as the mirror of the previous points for the purpose
of superposition analysis. Those points are shown in Figure 3.
As an example, it will be describe the process of strains calculation for pavement structure
with the thickness of surface and base course is 100 mm and 150 mm respectively, with
subgrade resilient modulus of 50 MPa. There are five axles in the quarter system (see Figure
2the upper right corner). This five axles will be numbered from the left to right as 1
st
, 2
nd
,
3
rd
, 4
th
, and 5
th
. For the 1
st
axle strains evaluation, there are 20 points to be evaluated coincide
with the axle, and also 20 additional points as the mirror of them. The results are shown in
Table 2. Strain values under X-axis (Positive) are 20 points evaluated under the 1
st
axle due to
the load of 20 tires in the quarter system, while the values under X-axis (Negative) are 20
points as the mirror of the 1
st
axle. Final horizontal strain
xx
at point 1 is 215.35 micro strain
as the superposition of 232.43 micro strain (due to the 20 tires in the quarter system), -14.93
micro strain (due to 20 tires on the upper left corner), -0.82 micro strain (due to 20 tires on the
lower right corner), and 1.33 micro strain (due to 20 tires on the lower left corner).
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1198
The very similar process for other 19 evaluation points, and the results are shown in the last
three columns of Table 2. Finally, for the 1
st
axle, the maximum horizontal tensile strain is
282.18 micro strain, and vertical compressive strain is 783.76 micro strain. These maximum
strains are used to calculate maximum number of load repetitions, by using Eq. 1 for fatigue
and Eq. 2 for permanent deformation, to determine minimum number of load repetitions to
pavement failure. The results are N
f
= 1,008,565 and N
d
= 109,616, hence the pavement life
is 109,616 of 1
st
axle repetitions. For standard axle load, the same pavement structure has
67,068 load repetitions. Hence, EALF for the 1
st
axle is 0.61.
The same procedure is applied to the other 4 axles, i.e. 2
nd
, 3
rd
, 4
th
, and 5
th
axle and the results
are 0.65, 0.77, 0.00, and 0.00 respectively, which are also shown in Table 3. As one passage
of this particular trailer, there will be 10 axles passing a particular point of interest, then the
total EALFs for one passage of trailer is twice of the sum of each of five EALFs which equal
to 4.06. Other trailers EALFs for the other 26 pavement structures combinations are also
calculated. Finally, there are 27 values of trailers EALFs.
Table 3 shows only six combinations of the pavement structures. In order to make it easier to
see the results of all EALF calculations, Figures 4, 5, and 6 are provided. In general, EALF
depends on thickness of pavement structures, and subgrade moduli. The range of EALFs are
between 3.28 to 78.44. The criterion determined its pavement life depends on subgrade
modulus. The table and the rest of calculations (Fung, 2004) shows that failure on pavement
with high subgrade modulus (150 MPa) is determined by fatigue cracking. Pavement structure
with subgrade modulus of 50 and 100 MPa, its failure is determined by permanent
deformation criterion. EALF of pavement which failure is based on fatigue cracking, is lower
for thicker pavement structure. Its EALF is higher for thicker pavement structure when
permanent deformation criterion governed pavement life. EALF and subgrade modulus has a
negative correlation (except for thin pavement structure, i.e. 100 mm surface course), i.e.
higher EALF at lower subgrade modulus, no matter what failure criterion governed the
pavement life. Pavement with thicker surface course is more sensitive to its EALF value.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1199
9 x @ 1 .5 m
2 5 c m
5 5 c m
2 5 c m
3 7.5 cm
2 5 c m
5 5 c m
2 5 c m
3 7.5 cm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
Figure 3. Forty Points for Strains Evaluations
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1200
Table 2. Strains Evaluation for 1
st
Axle
X-axis (Positive) X-axis (Negative) Total
Evaluation
Points
xx (10
-6
) yy (10
-6
) zz (10
-6
) xx (10
-6
) yy (10
-6
) zz (10
-6
) xx (10
-6
) yy (10
-6
) zz (10
-6
)
1 232.43 -11.56 -768.3 -14.93 2.3 36.26 215.35 -15.79 -710.61
2 168.99 -100.46 -643.5 -15.1 2.38 36.52 151.72 -105.27 -583.2
3 161.22 -107.36 -625.46 -15.12 2.39 36.55 143.91 -112.55 -563.78
4 192.37 -75.71 -693.36 -15.04 2.35 36.43 175.13 -81.78 -628.89
5 278.33 97.74 -851.28 -14.79 2.24 36.04 261.31 90.56 -783.76
6 297.1 201.22 -845.6 -12.68 1.23 32.89 282.18 187.62 -764.42
7 200.58 18.75 -611.34 -11.8 0.81 31.6 186.6 2.42 -525.28
8 111.16 -64.81 -369.7 -10.84 0.35 30.17 98.24 -84.39 -278.39
9 82.73 -73.98 -268.87 -10.33 0.11 29.38 70.42 -95.46 -174.81
10 48.39 -75.23 -126.12 -9.33 -0.35 27.82 37.37 -100.89 -26.87
11 1.86 -23 55.47 -3.55 -2.31 15.96 37.37 -100.89 -26.87
12 1.15 -19.24 50 -3.13 -2.35 14.68 70.42 -95.46 -174.81
13 0.86 -17.57 47.08 -2.94 -2.36 14.06 98.24 -84.39 -278.39
14 0.43 -14.79 41.56 -2.61 -2.35 12.9 186.6 2.42 -525.28
15 0.1 -12.51 36.42 -2.34 -2.32 11.87 282.18 187.62 -764.42
16 -0.55 -7.32 22.55 -1.68 -2.1 8.93 261.31 90.56 -783.76
17 -0.64 -6.4 19.77 -1.56 -2.02 8.27 175.13 -81.78 -628.89
18 -0.73 -5.64 17.46 -1.46 -1.94 7.67 143.91 -112.55 -563.78
19 -0.76 -5.29 16.38 -1.41 -1.9 7.4 151.72 -105.27 -583.2
20 -0.82 -4.71 14.54 -1.33 -1.82 6.89 215.35 -15.79 -710.61
Maximum 282.18 187.62 -783.76
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1201
T
a
b
l
e
3
.
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
s
E
A
L
F
f
o
r
S
i
x
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
E
A
L
F
A
x
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
x
x
(
1
0
-
6
)
y
y
(
1
0
-
6
)
z
z
(
1
0
-
6
)
N
f
N
d
N
N
o
t
e
N
1
8
A
x
l
e
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
a
d
=
1
7
5
t
o
n
s
,
h
1
=
1
0
0
m
m
,
h
2
=
1
5
0
m
m
,
E
3
=
5
0
M
P
a
5
-
2
.
4
1
-
3
.
1
9
9
.
9
9
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
N
f
6
7
,
0
6
8
0
.
0
0
4
-
1
2
.
9
3
-
1
.
0
5
4
5
.
2
1
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
N
f
6
7
,
0
6
8
0
.
0
0
3
2
9
6
.
5
1
1
8
6
.
8
5
-
8
2
4
.
9
0
8
5
6
,
8
4
8
8
7
,
1
7
7
8
7
,
1
7
7
N
d
6
7
,
0
6
8
0
.
7
7
2
2
5
3
.
2
0
1
9
5
.
4
7
-
7
9
3
.
8
2
1
,
4
4
0
,
7
4
3
1
0
3
,
5
3
3
1
0
3
,
5
3
3
N
d
6
7
,
0
6
8
0
.
6
5
1
2
8
2
.
1
8
1
8
7
.
6
2
-
7
8
3
.
7
6
1
,
0
0
8
,
5
6
5
1
0
9
,
6
1
6
1
0
9
,
6
1
6
N
d
6
7
,
0
6
8
0
.
6
1
4
.
0
6
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
a
d
=
1
7
5
t
o
n
s
,
h
1
=
1
0
0
m
m
,
h
2
=
1
5
0
m
m
,
E
3
=
1
0
0
M
P
a
3
2
5
7
.
5
2
1
5
8
.
8
3
-
5
2
2
.
0
9
1
,
3
6
2
,
7
2
0
6
7
5
,
7
5
1
6
7
5
,
7
5
1
N
d
4
7
0
,
1
7
4
0
.
7
0
2
2
3
0
.
2
8
1
6
2
.
8
5
-
4
8
8
.
3
3
1
,
9
6
8
,
7
9
4
9
1
1
,
5
1
3
9
1
1
,
5
1
3
N
d
4
7
0
,
1
7
4
0
.
5
2
1
2
5
1
.
0
1
1
5
8
.
3
4
-
5
0
3
.
6
6
1
,
4
8
2
,
5
2
6
7
9
3
,
7
1
3
7
9
3
,
7
1
3
N
d
4
7
0
,
1
7
4
0
.
5
9
3
.
6
1
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
a
d
=
1
7
5
t
o
n
s
,
h
1
=
1
0
0
m
m
,
h
2
=
1
5
0
m
m
,
E
3
=
1
5
0
M
P
a
3
2
3
7
.
8
1
1
4
5
.
2
3
-
4
0
0
.
0
5
1
,
7
7
0
,
9
7
4
2
,
2
2
5
,
7
0
2
1
,
7
7
0
,
9
7
4
N
f
1
,
6
4
0
,
3
3
6
0
.
9
3
2
2
1
7
.
8
6
1
4
7
.
6
2
-
3
7
3
.
4
7
2
,
3
6
2
,
8
8
9
3
,
0
2
7
,
9
1
6
2
,
3
6
2
,
8
8
9
N
f
1
,
6
4
0
,
3
3
6
0
.
6
9
1
2
3
3
.
6
5
1
4
4
.
4
7
-
3
8
8
.
4
7
1
,
8
7
6
,
8
7
6
2
,
5
3
8
,
5
1
2
1
,
8
7
6
,
8
7
6
N
f
1
,
6
4
0
,
3
3
6
0
.
8
7
4
.
9
9
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
a
d
=
1
7
5
t
o
n
s
,
h
1
=
1
0
0
m
m
,
h
2
=
2
5
0
m
m
,
E
3
=
5
0
M
P
a
5
-
1
.
6
1
-
3
.
5
5
1
4
.
9
7
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
1
7
9
,
8
3
9
0
.
0
0
4
-
1
0
.
6
5
-
2
.
0
8
5
2
.
6
6
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
i
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
1
7
9
,
8
3
9
0
.
0
0
3
2
7
8
.
9
2
1
7
2
.
1
9
-
7
1
4
.
7
3
1
,
0
4
7
,
8
8
1
1
6
5
,
6
3
0
1
6
5
,
6
3
0
N
d
1
7
9
,
8
3
9
1
.
0
9
2
2
4
5
.
0
9
1
7
8
.
4
0
-
7
3
3
.
2
0
1
,
6
0
3
,
6
7
0
1
4
7
,
7
5
1
1
4
7
,
7
5
1
N
d
1
7
9
,
8
3
9
1
.
2
2
1
2
6
6
.
8
1
1
7
2
.
2
7
-
6
6
7
.
1
5
1
,
2
1
2
,
7
0
3
2
2
5
,
4
6
8
2
2
5
,
4
6
8
N
d
1
7
9
,
8
3
9
0
.
8
0
6
.
2
0
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
a
d
=
1
7
5
t
o
n
s
,
h
1
=
1
0
0
m
m
,
h
2
=
2
5
0
m
m
,
E
3
=
1
0
0
M
P
a
3
2
4
9
.
0
0
1
5
1
.
5
2
-
4
1
6
.
9
8
1
,
5
2
2
,
2
7
6
1
,
8
4
8
,
7
4
4
1
,
5
2
2
,
2
7
6
N
f
1
,
2
5
1
,
6
1
9
0
.
8
2
2
2
2
5
.
5
8
1
5
4
.
5
0
-
4
0
3
.
1
0
2
,
1
0
7
,
0
4
2
2
,
1
5
1
,
2
9
3
2
,
1
0
7
,
0
4
2
N
f
1
,
2
5
1
,
6
1
9
0
.
5
9
1
2
4
3
.
3
2
1
5
0
.
6
7
-
3
9
3
.
2
3
1
,
6
4
2
,
3
8
3
2
,
4
0
3
,
8
0
7
1
,
6
4
2
,
3
8
3
N
f
1
,
2
5
1
,
6
1
9
0
.
7
6
4
.
3
6
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
a
d
=
1
7
5
t
o
n
s
,
h
1
=
1
0
0
m
m
,
h
2
=
2
5
0
m
m
,
E
3
=
1
5
0
M
P
a
3
2
3
3
.
7
2
1
4
1
.
5
4
-
3
0
0
.
2
0
1
,
8
7
5
,
0
2
6
8
,
0
4
9
,
4
2
8
1
,
8
7
5
,
0
2
6
N
f
2
,
4
8
6
,
5
1
8
1
.
3
3
2
2
1
5
.
4
7
1
4
3
.
4
0
-
2
8
2
.
5
0
2
,
4
5
0
,
2
4
5
1
0
,
5
6
6
,
3
0
3
2
,
4
5
0
,
2
4
5
N
f
2
,
4
8
6
,
5
1
8
1
.
0
1
1
2
3
0
.
0
1
1
4
0
.
5
4
-
2
8
4
.
9
6
1
,
9
7
6
,
4
1
0
1
0
,
1
6
4
,
0
1
1
1
,
9
7
6
,
4
1
0
N
f
2
,
4
8
6
,
5
1
8
1
.
2
6
7
.
2
0
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1202
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E
3
(MPa)
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
'
s
E
A
L
F
100
150
h
1
=200 mm
Total Load = 175 tons, h
2
= 150 mm
Figure 4. Trailers EALF at Flexible Pavement with 150 mm Untreated Granular Base Course
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E
3
(MPa)
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
'
s
E
A
L
F
100
150
h
1
=200 mm
Total Load = 175 tons, h
2
= 250 mm
Figure 5. Trailers EALF at Flexible Pavement with 250 mm Untreated Granular Base Course
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1203
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E
3
(MPa)
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
'
s
E
A
L
F
100
150
h
1
=200 mm
Total Load = 175 tons, h
2
= 350 mm
Figure 6. Trailers EALF at Flexible Pavement with 350 mm Untreated Granular Base Course
6. CONCLUSIONS
Failure on pavement structure with high subgrade modulus (i.e. 150 MPa), is determined
by fatigue criterion, while pavement with lower subgrade modulus (i.e. 50 or 100 MPa) is
determined by permanent deformation (rutting).
Thicker pavement structure will have lower EALF when its failure is based on fatigue
cracking, otherwise, its EALF will be higher.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the effect of subgrade modulus to the trailers EALF. The higher
the subgrade modulus, the lower the trailers EALF. Trailers EALFs for subgrade
modulus of 50 MPa is higher than for subgrade moduli 100 150 MPa and extremely true
for surface course thickness 150 200 mm.
175 tons of trailers EALF depends on thickness of pavement layers and subgrade
modulus. Trailers EALF for the analyzed pavement structures has a range from 3.28 to
78.44.
NOTATIONS
6 o
10 , F 70
= Absolute viscosity of the bitumen used at 70
o
F (poises x 10
6
). It can be
predicted from penetration value ( )
1939 . 2
F 77
o
pen 2 . 29508
= . In this case is
1.52 million poise
10
M
= Adjustment factor due to mixture characteristics
CBR = California Bearing Ratio of the subgrade (%)
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1204
E
1
= Stiffness modulus of bituminous mixture (psi)
E
2
= Resilient Modulus of base layer made of untreated granular material (psi)
E
3
= Subgrade resilient modulus (psi)
f = Loading frequency (Hz). In this case f is 10 Hz
h
1
= Thickness of surface layer (inch)
h
2
= Thickness of base layer (inch)
K
1
= A constant depends on the quality of untreated granular material used. Its
value within the range of 4,000 to 9,000
MMAT = Mean monthly air temperature (F)
MMPT = Mean monthly pavement temperature (F) and equal to t
p
N
d
= The total number of load repetitions to produce rut depth on the wheel tracks
N
f
= Total number of load repetition to produce at least 20 percent fatigue cracking
on the surface of pavement
P
200
= The percentage in weight of aggregate passing sieve number 200 to the total
mix. In this case P
200
is 5%.
P
ac
= The percentage in weight of bitumen to total mix (%). P
ac
can be calculated as
P
ac
= 0.483 V
be
or P
ac
= 0.434 V
b
t
p
= Average temperature of surface layer (
o
F) and equal to MMPT
V
b
= The percentage of volume of bitumen to the total volume of the mixture. In
this case V
b
is 11%
V
be
= The percentage in volume of effective bitumen to total mix (%)
V
v
= The percentage of voids volume to total volume of the mixture. In this case
V
v
is 4%.
= The position where the average temperature of surface layer,
1
/
3
h
1
(in)
c
= Vertical compression strain at the surface of subgrade layer
t
= Maximum horizontal strain at the bottom of surface layer due to a particular
load level
REFERENCES
AASHTO (1993) AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Asphalt Institute (1982) Research and Development of The Asphalt Institutes Thickness
Design Manual (MS-1) 9
th
Edition. The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MA.
Asphalt Institute. 1991. Thickness Design Aphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets,
Manual Series No. 1. Lexington, KY.
Austroads (1992) Pavement Design A Guide to the Structural Design of Road
Pavements. Austroads, Sydney, Australia.
Fung, C. (2004) Angka Ekivalen Kendaraan dengan 10 Sumbu dan 80 Roda Pada Proyek
Pasupati Bandung. Undergraduate Thesis. Fakultas Teknik Program Studi Teknik
Sipil, Universitas Katolik Parahyangan. Bandung.
Finn, F.N., C. Saraf, R. Kulkarni, K. Nair, W. Smith, and A. Abdullah (1977) The Use of
Distress Prediction Subsystems for the Design of Pavement Structures, Proceedings of
Fourth International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements
Vol. I. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Shell (1978) Shell Pavement Design Manual Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for Road
Traffic. Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, London, UK.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1205
SNI (1989) Petunjuk Perencanaan Tebal Perkerasan Lentur Jalan Raya dengan Metode
Analisa Komponen. SNI-No. 1732-1989F. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Witczak, M.W. and B.E. Smith. 1981. Prediction of Equivalent Granular Base Moduli
Incorporating Stress Dependent Behavior in Flexible Pavements, Journal of
Transportation. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1194 - 1206, 2005
1206