Fhwa HRT 24 062

Guide to Select Long-Term
Pavement Performance Traffic

Data for Multiple Uses
PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-24-062 MARCH 2024
Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD
This Guide is designed to help users of the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) database
navigate the available traffic data and computed parameters in the LTPP InfoPave™ web portal.
The Guide identifies traffic parameters suitable for different pavement analyses and details how
to use InfoPave to extract the desired data.
The Guide consists of two parts. Part 1 describes traffic parameters available through LTPP
program sources and provides details about the methods used to collect traffic data and compute
traffic parameters. It also contains recommendations for the most applicable traffic parameters
for different types of pavement analyses. Part 2 provides practical examples and details on how
to use InfoPave to identify and extract various traffic parameters for LTPP sites.
The methodologies presented in this report can be applied beyond the LTPP program to assist
highway agencies in the computation of traffic statistics necessary to support pavement design,
research, management, and forensic investigations. Contractors, researchers, and consultants can
also benefit from this research.
Jean A. Nehme, Ph.D., P.E.

Director, Office of Infrastructure
Research and Development
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for
the use of the information contained in this document.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the
objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve
Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards
and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its
information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to
ensure continuous quality improvement.
Cover Graphic
Source: FHWA.
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-HRT-24-062
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Guide to Select Long-Term Pavement Performance Traffic March 2024
Data for Multiple Uses 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

O.I. Selezneva and M.E. Hallenbeck (ORCID: 0000-0002-
2298-0666)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
7184 Troy Hill Drive, Suite N 11. Contract or Grant No.
Elkridge, MD 21075-7056 DTFH6114C00018
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development July 2014—September 2023; Final Report
Federal Highway Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
6300 Georgetown Pike HRDI-30
McLean, VA 22101-2296
15. Supplementary Notes
Deborah Walker (ORCID: 0000-0002-3684-5190; HRDI-30) served as the contracting officer’s representative.
16. Abstract
The purpose of this Guide is to help Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) data users determine traffic
parameters suitable for their analyses and identify LTPP tables containing such parameters. This Guide describes
available tools and specific procedures for extracting these parameters from the LTPP database and provides
practical examples with step-by-step instructions for identifying and extracting traffic parameters for different
types of LTPP and other research analyses. This Guide consists of two parts. Part 1 includes a description of
traffic data and parameters available through LTPP program sources and provides recommendations on what
traffic parameters are most applicable for different types of pavement analyses. Part 1 also provides information
about methods used to collect traffic data and compute traffic parameters. Part 2 contains practical examples of
how to identify and extract different traffic data and parameters from the LTPP database using the InfoPave™
web portal. In summary, this Guide is designed to help LTPP users maximize use of LTPP traffic data for
achieving their pavement analysis objectives.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Traffic data, traffic loading, pavement design, No restrictions. This document is available to the public
Long-Term Pavement Performance, MEPDG, through the National Technical Information Service,
WIM, vehicle class, truck volume, axle weight Springfield, VA 22161.
https://www.ntis.gov
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 160 N/A
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2
yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1,000 L shall be shown in m3
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2,000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or “metric ton”) Mg (or “t”)
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
5 (F-32)/9
°F Fahrenheit Celsius °C
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or “t”) megagrams (or “metric ton”) 1.103 short tons (2,000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
°C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit °F
ILLUMINATION
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 2.225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2
*SI is the symbol for International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1. LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND PARAMETERS: DATA SOURCES,

METHODS, TOOLS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE ........................................... 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3
Background ............................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 3
Guide Overview....................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2. LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND SOURCES ......................................................... 5
LTPP Traffic Databases ......................................................................................................... 5
Traffic Databases Included in the SDR .............................................................................. 5
Traffic Databases Associated with LTPP Traffic Analysis Software ................................. 5
LTPP Traffic Data Tables and Parameters.......................................................................... 7
Traffic Tables Associated with the Pavement Performance Database ............................... 7
Traffic Tables From LTAS Databases .............................................................................. 13
Ancillary LTPP Traffic Data and Information .................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 3. LTPP TRAFFIC METADATA ......................................................................... 19
Methods of Traffic Data Collection ..................................................................................... 19
LTPP Traffic Data Sources ............................................................................................... 19
Data Shared by LTPP Traffic Sites ................................................................................... 20
Information on Traffic Data Collection Equipment .......................................................... 21
Traffic Data Accuracy .......................................................................................................... 21
Traffic Data Availability ...................................................................................................... 22
Methods Used to Compute Traffic Parameters ................................................................. 22
Codes Describing Data and Methods Used for Parameter Computation and
Parameter Usability .............................................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER 4. SELECTING LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND PARAMETERS FOR
LTPP ANALYSES ...................................................................................................................... 39
Overview of Traffic Parameters Used for Pavement Analysis and Design ..................... 39
Traffic Parameters Recommended for Analyses Requiring Detailed
Characterizations of Traffic Loading ................................................................................. 40
Parameters for Pavement Response Prediction Based on Mechanistic Models ............... 40
Parameters for Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Performance Predictions.................... 42
Traffic Summary Parameters Recommended for High-Level and Empirical
Analyses ................................................................................................................................. 44
Traffic Loading Summary Parameters .............................................................................. 44
Traffic and Truck Volume Summary Parameters ............................................................. 46
Recommendations for Selecting Summary Traffic Loading Parameters Based on the
Purpose of the Analysis .................................................................................................... 46
LTPP Tables Containing Traffic Loading Summary Parameters ..................................... 48
Traffic Parameters For MEPDG Applications Using AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Design Software ..................................................................................................................... 51
Recommendations for Assessing Axle Loading Distribution Data Rationality .............. 54
CHAPTER 5. WHERE TO GET LTPP TRAFFIC DATA .................................................... 57
iii
LTPP InfoPave ...................................................................................................................... 57
Custom Requests ................................................................................................................... 58
PART 2. PLAYBOOK ................................................................................................................ 59
OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 6. GENERIC STEPS TO SELECT AND EXTRACT LTPP TRAFFIC
PARAMETER TABLES USING LTPP INFOPAVE ............................................................. 61
Generic Example of LTPP Traffic Parameter Extraction Using InfoPave ....................... 61
CHAPTER 7. SCENARIO 1: OBTAIN TRUCK TRAFFIC AND TRUCK VOLUME
INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 69
Parameter 1.1: Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume..................................................... 69
Option 1: Download AADT Values from LTPP Database Tables ................................... 69
Option 2: View AADT Values in InfoPave Section Summary Report ............................ 69
Example 1.1: Obtain an Estimate of AADT for an LTPP Test Site ................................. 71
Parameter 1.2: Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic Volume for the LTPP Lane........ 73
Example 1.2.1: Extract AADTT for Each Year in Service or Analysis Period ................ 74
Example 1.2.2: Extract or Estimate AADTT for the Year Selected for Analysis ............ 76
Parameter 1.3: Annual Total Truck Volume ..................................................................... 77
Example 1.3.1: Obtain Annual Total Truck Volume for Each Year in Service or
Analysis Period ................................................................................................................. 77
Parameter 1.4: Cumulative Truck Volume for the Analysis Period ................................ 79
Example 1.4.1: Extract Cumulative Heavy Truck Traffic Volume Through the End
of LTPP Section Participation in the Experiment or Last Reporting Year ....................... 80
Example 1.4.2: Compute Cumulative Heavy Truck Traffic Volume Based on
User-Specified Start and End Dates .................................................................................. 81
CHAPTER 8. SCENARIO 2: OBTAIN VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 83
Parameter 2.1: Annual Truck Volume by Vehicle Class .................................................. 83
Example 2.1.1: Obtain Annual Truck Volume by Vehicle Class for Each Year in
Service or Analysis Period ................................................................................................ 83
Parameter 2.2: Normalized Vehicle Class Distribution .................................................... 87
Example 2.2.1: Obtain Representative Normalized VCD ................................................ 88
Parameter 2.3: Monthly Truck Volume by Vehicle Class ................................................ 89
Example 2.3.1: Obtain Monthly Truck Volume by Vehicle Class ................................... 89
CHAPTER 9. SCENARIO 3: OBTAIN AXLE OR TRUCK LOADING
INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 95
Parameter 3.1: Axle Load Distribution or Axle Load Spectra ......................................... 95
Example 3.1.1: Obtain Annual Axle Load Spectra........................................................... 96
Example 3.1.2: Compute Monthly Axle Load Spectra ..................................................... 96
Example 3.1.3: Obtain Normalized Monthly Axle Load Spectra ..................................... 99
Example 3.1.4: Obtain Daily Axle Load Spectra ........................................................... 101
Example 3.1.5: Obtain Normalized Annual Load Spectra ............................................. 102
Example 3.1.6: Estimated NALS for Sites with Limited or No Site-Specific Axle
Load Spectra ................................................................................................................... 104
Parameter 3.2: Gross Vehicle Weight Distribution ......................................................... 105
iv
CHAPTER 10. SCENARIO 4: OBTAIN SUMMARY TRAFFIC LOADING
INFORMATION (ESAL OR ALTERNATIVE STATISTICS) ........................................... 107
Parameter 4.1: Annual ESAL for Each Year in the Analysis Period ............................ 108
Example 4.1.1: Obtain Annual ESAL for Each Year in the Analysis Period ................. 109
Parameter 4.2: Cumulative ESAL for the Analysis Period ............................................ 111
Example 4.2.1: Obtain Cumulative ESAL for the Analysis Period ................................ 112
Parameter 4.3: Annual GESAL for Each Year in the Analysis Period ......................... 113
Example 4.3.1: Obtain Annual GESAL for Each Year in the Analysis Period .............. 114
Example 4.3.2: Obtain Cumulative GESAL for the Analysis Period ............................. 115
Parameter 4.4: GESAL per Truck, per Vehicle Class, and per Axle ............................ 116
Parameter 4.5: RPPIF per Truck, per Vehicle Class, and per Axle .............................. 117
Parameter 4.6: ATL for Each Year in the Analysis Period ............................................ 118
Example 4.6.1: Obtain ATL for Each Year in the Analysis Period ................................ 119
Parameter 4.7: Cumulative Total Load for the Analysis Period .................................... 120
CHAPTER 11. SCENARIO 5: OBTAIN MEPDG TRAFFIC INPUTS FOR USE IN
AASHTOWARE PAVEMENT ME DESIGN SOFTWARE................................................ 123
Parameter 5.1: MEPDG Base Year AADTT .................................................................... 125
Example 5.1.1: Obtain Base Year AADTT for Use in the AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Software ................................................................................................................... 125
Parameter 5.2: MEPDG Number of Lanes in Design Direction .................................... 126
Parameter 5.3: MEPDG Percentage of Trucks in Design Direction (percent) ............. 127
Parameter 5.4: MEPDG Percent of Trucks in Design Lane (percent) .......................... 127
Parameter 5.5: MEPDG Vehicle Class Distribution ....................................................... 127
Example 5.5.1: Obtain Normalized VCD for the Base Year Specified for the
Analysis........................................................................................................................... 127
Parameter 5.6: MEPDG Annual Vehicle Volume Growth Rate and Growth
Function by Vehicle Class .................................................................................................. 128
Parameter 5.7: MEPDG Monthly Adjustment FactorS .................................................. 129
Parameter 5.8: MEPDG Hourly Distribution Factors .................................................... 132
Parameter 5.9: MEPDG Axle Load Distribution Factors ............................................... 136
Example 5.9.1: Enter ALDF Values in AASHTOWare Software From
MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR Table .......................................................... 137
Example 5.9.2: Importing ALDF XML File to AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
Project ............................................................................................................................. 140
Parameter 5.10: MEPDG Number of Axles Per Truck................................................... 142
Parameter 5.11: MEPDG Axle Spacing for Tandem, Tridem, and Quad Axles .......... 144
Parameter 5.12: MEPDG Average Axle Width ............................................................... 145
Parameter 5.13: MEPDG Dual Tire Spacing ................................................................... 145
Parameter 5.14: MEPDG Tire Pressure ........................................................................... 145
Parameter 5.15: MEPDG Mean Wheel Location ............................................................ 145
Parameter 5.16: MEPDG Truck Wander Standard Deviation ...................................... 146
Parameter 5.17: MEPDG Operational Speed .................................................................. 146
Parameter 5.18: MEPDG Average Spacing of Short, Medium, and Long Wheelbase
Axles and Corresponding Percentage of Trucks ............................................................. 146
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 149
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Screenshot. InfoPave Table Export page....................................................................... 57

Figure 2. Screenshot. InfoPave Data screen with the DATA drop-down box displayed and
“Table Export” option selected. .......................................................................................... 62
Figure 3. Screenshot. InfoPave Table Export menu with checkboxes selecting the
“Section” label and the traffic table label “Monitored Traffic Axle Distribution
(TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB).” ............................................................................. 63
Figure 4. Screenshot. InfoPave Section pop-up screen with site IDs displayed for the
selected State (Arizona is selected). .................................................................................... 64
Figure 5. Screenshot. InfoPave screen displaying the top bars with the “Data Bucket” label
displayed.............................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 6. Screenshot. InfoPave Data Bucket screen with data export format options.................. 66
Figure 7. Screenshot. InfoPave File Download screen with a clickable hyperlink to
download data. .................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 8. Screenshot. Excel screen capture showing the downloaded and saved data from
the TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB table. ................................................................... 68
Figure 9. Screenshot. Example of the “State/Province Summary Reports” option selected. ....... 70
Figure 10. Screenshot. Example of AADT values available in the “Section Summary
Report.” ............................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 11. Screenshot. InfoPave Table Export menu with a checkbox showing “selected”
next to the traffic table label “Annual Trends in Traffic Characteristics
(TRF_TREND).” ................................................................................................................. 75
(TRF_TREND)” and next to the field name
“CMLTV_VOL_HEAVY_TRUCKS_TREND.” ............................................................... 78
(TRF_TREND)” and next to the field name “AADTT_VEH_CLASS_#_TREND.” ........ 84
next to the traffic table label “Representative Site Traffic Parameters (TRF_REP).” ........ 88
next to the traffic table label, “Monthly Axle Counts (MM_AX).” .................................... 97
next to the traffic table label, “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Traffic Axle Distribution (TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST).” .................................................. 100
next to the traffic table label, “NALS Monthly Axle Distribution
(NALS_MONTHLY_DISTRIB).” ................................................................................... 101
next to the traffic table label “Daily Axle Counts (DD_AX).” ......................................... 102
next to the traffic table label “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Annual Traffic Axle Distribution (TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL).” ........................... 103
vi
next to the traffic table label “NALS Annual Axle Distribution
(NALS_ANNUAL_DISTRIB).”....................................................................................... 104
next to the traffic table label “AASHTOWare Pavement ME Axle Distributions
(MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR).” ................................................................. 105
next to the traffic table label “Yearly Aggregate of GVW (YY_GVW).” ........................ 106
next to the traffic table label “Computed Traffic ESALs
(TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED).” .......................................................................................... 109
Figure 24. Screenshot. InfoPave Table Export menu with checkboxes showing “selected”
(TRF_TREND)” and ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND field. .................................................. 110
(TRF_TREND)” and ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND field name. ...................................... 114
next to the traffic table label “Representative Site Traffic Parameters (TRF_REP).” ...... 117
next to the traffic table label “Representative Site Traffic Parameters (TRF_REP)”
and REP_RPPIF field names............................................................................................. 118
(TRF_TREND)” and ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND field name. .......................... 119
Figure 29. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Project 1: Traffic
input screen. ...................................................................................................................... 123
Figure 30. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software showing AADTT
input screen. ...................................................................................................................... 126
input screen with modified input values............................................................................ 126
Figure 32. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Vehicle Class
Distribution and Growth input screen. .............................................................................. 128
Figure 33. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Monthly
Adjustment input screen. ................................................................................................... 130
next to the traffic table label “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Traffic
Monthly Adjustment Factor (TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR).”........................ 131
Figure 35. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Hourly Adjustment
input screen with default values. ....................................................................................... 133
Hourly Distribution (TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST).” ................................................ 134
input screen with values entered for LTPP site 24-0501................................................... 136
vii
(MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR).” ................................................................. 137
Figure 39. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Explorer menu with
traffic options expanded. ................................................................................................... 139
Figure 40. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software screen showing the
ALDF inputs. ..................................................................................................................... 140
Figure 41. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software screen showing
import options for Axle Load Distributions. ..................................................................... 141
Open XML file dialog screen. ........................................................................................... 142
successful file import message. ......................................................................................... 142
next to the traffic table label “AASHTOWare Pavement ME Axles per Truck
(MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK).” .................................................................................. 143
Figure 45. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software showing table with
APT values. ....................................................................................................................... 144
Figure 46. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software showing Axle
Configuration input screen. ............................................................................................... 145
Figure 47. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software showing Lateral
Wander input screen. ......................................................................................................... 146
input screen. ...................................................................................................................... 146
Figure 49. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Wheelbase input
screen. ................................................................................................................................ 148
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. LTPP WIM data accuracy criteria for research-quality data. ......................................... 20
Table 2. Reference sources describing methods used to develop different traffic
parameters. .......................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3. Fields describing sources and usability of traffic parameters included in
analysis-ready tables. .......................................................................................................... 32
Table 4. Codes for AADTT_SOURCE fields............................................................................... 32
Table 5. Codes for VEH_CLASS_SOURCE fields. .................................................................... 33
Table 6. Codes for the ESAL_SOURCE field. ............................................................................. 33
Table 7. Codes for the GESAL_SOURCE field. .......................................................................... 33
Table 8. Codes for the GVW_SOURCE field. ............................................................................. 34
Table 9. Codes for the REP_AADTT_USE_RATING field. ....................................................... 34
Table 10. Codes for REP_VEH_CLASS_USE_RATING. .......................................................... 34
Table 11. Codes for ALDF_USE_RATING fields. ...................................................................... 35
Table 12. Codes for REP_LOAD_USE_RATING fields. ............................................................ 36
Table 13. Codes for the APT_USE_RATING field. .................................................................... 37
Table 14. Codes for the VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_USE_RATING field. .................................. 38
Table 15. Traffic parameters for mechanistic pavement response modeling. .............................. 41
Table 16. Traffic parameters for generic mechanistic–empirical pavement performance
modeling. ............................................................................................................................. 43
Table 17. Traffic summary parameters. ........................................................................................ 48
Table 18. Traffic input parameters required by AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software. .............................................................................................................................. 51
Table 19. AADT values for Arizona site 1024, GPS-1 experiment. ............................................ 73
Table 20. AADTT values for Arizona test site 7613, construction event 1.................................. 76
Table 21. Annual total truck volume values for Arizona test site 7613, construction
event 1. ................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 22. Cumulative heavy truck traffic volume for Arizona test site 7613, construction
event 1. ................................................................................................................................ 81
Table 23. Annual cumulative total truck volume values for Arizona test site 7613,
construction event 1. ........................................................................................................... 82
Table 24. TRF_TREND truck volumes for Arizona test site 7613, construction event 1. ........... 85
Table 25. TRF_TREND truck volumes for Arizona test site 7613, construction event 2. ........... 86
Table 26. Normalized VCD from the TRF_REP table for Arizona site 7613. ............................. 89
Table 27. Annual average daily truck volumes by classification from the TRF_TREND
table. .................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 28. Illustrative monthly truck volume adjustment factors from the
TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table. ................................................................... 92
Table 29. Total single-axle counts for class 9 vehicles for each DOW in June 1998 for
Arizona site 7613 extracted from the MM_AX table.......................................................... 97
Table 30. Average single-axle counts for class 9 for each DOW in June 1998 for Arizona
site 7613 extracted from the MM_AX table. ...................................................................... 98
Table 31. Average daily single-axle counts for class 9 for June 1998 for Arizona site 7613. ..... 98
Table 32. Average monthly single-axle counts for class 9 for June 1998 for Arizona site
7613. .................................................................................................................................... 99
ix
Table 33. Annual ESAL trend table for Arizona site 7613 extracted from the TRF_TREND
table. .................................................................................................................................. 111
Table 34. Cumulative ESAL for construction event 1 for Arizona site 7613............................. 112
Table 35. Annual GESAL trend for Arizona site 7613 from the TRF_TREND table. .............. 115
Table 36. Cumulative GESAL for construction event 1 for Arizona site 7613. ......................... 116
Table 37. ATL trend table for Arizona site 7613 extracted from the TRF_TREND table. ........ 120
Table 38. Cumulative total load computed for the years during construction event 1 for
Arizona site 7613. ............................................................................................................. 121
Table 39. AADTT for the base design year from
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS for Arizona site 7613.................................... 126
Table 40. Normalized VCD for the base design year from the
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS table for Arizona site 7613. .......................... 128
Table 41. Annual vehicle volume growth rate and growth function by vehicle class from
the MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS table for Arizona site 7613. .................... 129
Table 42. MAFs for class 9 vehicles for 2016 for LTPP site 24-0501. ...................................... 132
Table 43. HDF for 2016 for LTPP site 24-0501. ........................................................................ 135
Table 44. ALDF sample for LTPP site 04-6713. ........................................................................ 138
Table 45. APT values from MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK table for LTPP site 01-4073. ...... 144
Table 46. Average axle spacing in inches for multi-axle groups. ............................................... 144
Table 47. Distribution of axle spacing on power units (tractor) for FHWA vehicle classes
8–13. .................................................................................................................................. 147
Table 48. Distribution of axle spacing by vehicle class using sample of SPS TPF-5(004)
WIM data (excluding power-unit wheelbase spacing for FHWA vehicle classes 8–
13)...................................................................................................................................... 148
x
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AADT annual average daily traffic

AADTT annual average daily truck traffic
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AC asphalt concrete
AIMS Ancillary Information Management System
ALDF axle load distribution factors
APT axles per truck
ATL annual total truck load
ATR automatic traffic recorder
AVC automatic vehicle classifier
CTL cumulative total truck load
CTV cumulative truck volume
DOW day of the week
ESAL equivalent single-axle load
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GESAL general equivalent single-axle load
GPS General Pavement Study
GVW gross vehicle weight
HDF hourly distribution factors
ID identification
IMS Information Management System
IMS Guide Information Management System User Guide
IVR individual vehicle record
JPCP jointed plain concrete pavement
LEF load-equivalency factor
LTAS Long-Term Pavement Performance Traffic Analysis Software
LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance
MAF monthly adjustment factor
MEPDG Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
NALS normalized axle load spectra
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
PCC portland cement concrete
PLUG Pavement Loading User Guide
QC quality control
RPPIF Relative Pavement Performance Impact Factor
SDR Standard Data Release
SN structural number
SPS Specific Pavement Study
SQL Structured Query Language
TMG Traffic Monitoring Guide
TPF Transportation Pooled-Fund Study
VCD vehicle class distribution
WIM weigh-in-motion
xi
PART 1. LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND PARAMETERS: DATA SOURCES, METHODS,
TOOLS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE
This Guide consists of two parts. Part 1 helps Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)(1) users
make informed decisions about selecting traffic parameters suitable for their pavement analysis
goal(s) and includes the following:
• Overview (chapter 1).
• Description of the traffic data and parameters available through LTPP program sources
(chapter 2).
• Description of methods used by the LTPP program to collect traffic data and compute
traffic parameters (chapter 3).
• Recommendations on what traffic parameters are most applicable for different types of
pavement analyses (chapter 4).
• Information on where to get the LTPP traffic data (chapter 5).
In summary, part 1 of this Guide provides detailed descriptions of the traffic parameters
available from LTPP sources and their applicability for different types of pavement analyses.(2,3)
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Traffic data support LTPP program(1) experiments and data analysis studies by providing a
measure of traffic loads applied to individual LTPP pavement test sections being studied. Most
LTPP test sites are located on the existing highways that have accumulated traffic loads prior to
the installation of traffic monitoring equipment. The exceptions are selected Specific Pavement
Study (SPS)(1) test sites for new flexible and rigid pavements that had traffic monitoring
equipment installed from the beginning of the pavement’s service life. Over the years, a large
quantity of traffic data have been collected at LTPP test sites. Most data were collected by U.S.
State and Canadian Provincial transportation agencies and submitted to the LTPP program.
These data were collected using a variety of equipment and data collection methods. As a result,
both data quantity and quality vary among the LTPP test sites. Over the years, based on the
collected data, many traffic parameters have been developed and stored in different LTPP
database tables(2,3,4) The format, location, and contents of these tables have been modified over
time to make the traffic data easier to access. Currently, these tables are accessible through the
InfoPave™ web portal.(3) However, users not familiar with the history and evolution of the LTPP
traffic data collection effort often face challenges identifying relevant data tables and reliable
data suitable for their analyses. This document will remedy those challenges.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Guide to Select Long-Term Pavement Performance Traffic Data for Multiple
Uses (herein referred to as the “Guide”) is to help LTPP users identify traffic parameters for their
analyses and identify LTPP database tables containing such parameters. The Guide contains
information about methods used to collect traffic data and compute traffic parameters. The Guide
also describes how to extract these parameters using the InfoPave web portal and provides
practical examples with step-by-step instructions for different types of LTPP and other pavement
analyses.(3) In summary, the Guide is designed to help LTPP users maximize use of LTPP traffic
data for achieving their pavement analysis objectives.
GUIDE OVERVIEW
This Guide consists of two parts. Part 1 describes traffic parameters available through LTPP
program sources and provides recommendations about what traffic parameters are most
applicable for different types of pavement analyses. It also provides details about methods used
to collect traffic data and compute the traffic parameters. Part 2 contains practical examples of
how to identify and obtain different traffic data and parameters using the InfoPave web portal.(3)
For parameters not available through the web portal, examples of computational procedures are
provided showing how available LTPP traffic data could be used to compute the desired
parameter. For traffic parameters that cannot be computed using available LTPP traffic data,
references to available default values and alternative data sources are provided.
3
Part 1 of the Guide includes the following chapters:
• Chapter 1 describes the purpose, scope, and organization of the Guide.
• Chapter 2 describes the traffic data and computed parameters with references to the LTPP
database tables containing these parameters.
• Chapter 3 describes the sources of LTPP traffic data and methods used to collect the data,
as well as provides references to the methods used to compute the traffic parameters. It
describes indices and codes available in LTPP traffic tables that could be used to identify
data sources and computational methods and how to use this information as an aid in
traffic data and parameter selection.
• Chapter 4 provides recommendations about types of traffic data and parameters most
suitable for common pavement analyses, including references to traffic parameter names
and LTPP traffic tables containing these parameters.
• Chapter 5 describes the methods for obtaining LTPP traffic data and parameters using the
InfoPave web portal or by contacting the LTPP Customer Support Service Center.
Part 2 of the Guide includes the following traffic data selection scenarios:
• Scenario 1 shows how to obtain traffic volume information.
• Scenario 2 shows how to obtain vehicle classification information.
• Scenario 3 shows how to obtain detailed axle or truck loading information.
• Scenario 4 shows how to obtain summary traffic loading information.
• Scenario 5 shows how to obtain traffic inputs for use in the AASHTOWare® Pavement
ME Design™ software.(5)
In summary, part 1 helps LTPP users make informed decisions about selecting traffic parameters
suitable for their pavement analysis goal(s), and part 2 provides detailed instructions on how to
obtain these parameters from LTPP sources.(3)
4
CHAPTER 2. LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND SOURCES
The LTPP Information Management System [IMS] User Guide (IMS Guide) is a comprehensive
resource that describes various databases maintained by LTPP program.(2) Chapter 12 and
chapter 16 of the IMS Guide contain descriptions of the traffic tables included in the LTPP
program’s annual Standard Data Release (SDR).(6) The SDR contains data and information for
researchers, highway agency personnel, and others interested in pavement performance-related
research and is downloadable through the LTPP InfoPave web portal.(3) This chapter provides
information from the IMS Guide pertinent to using LTPP traffic data and parameters.
LTPP TRAFFIC DATABASES
The LTPP traffic tables are updated annually and available for download from the InfoPave web
portal.(3) The LTPP traffic data tables come from the two LTPP data sources described in the
following subsections.
Traffic Databases Included in the SDR
LTPP traffic data and parameters used for most pavement analyses are included in the Traffic
module of the Pavement Performance section of the SDR.(6) The contents of the Traffic module
are described in chapter 12 of the IMS Guide.(2) The Traffic module contains several tables with
annual estimates of traffic volume, vehicle classification, and axle loading in the LTPP lane. In
addition to traffic parameters commonly used in transportation engineering and planning, traffic
input parameters formatted for use with the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide (MEPDG)
method are included in the Traffic module, as well as traditional equivalent single-axle load
(ESAL) parameter used in pavement design prior to the development of the MEPDG
method.(2,7,8) These tables support pavement analyses based on empirical methods, as well as
mechanistic–empirical analyses.
The Pavement Performance section of the SDR(6) contains the following traffic databases, which
are available in Microsoft® Access® format:
• Traffic: This database contains all SDR traffic tables, excluding the
TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST table, which stores MEPDG axle load distributions.
• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_*: This series of databases, organized by State code (each

database name has the State’s two-letter abbreviation instead of “*”). Each database
contains the TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST table detailing axle load distributions binned in
MEPDG-compatible format. The data in this table are stored by LTPP section
identification (ID) (including STATE_CODE and SHRP_ID), year, vehicle class, and
axle group for years with at least 210 days of accepted traffic loading data for the LTPP
lane.
Traffic Databases Associated with LTPP Traffic Analysis Software
Another source of LTPP traffic data includes databases associated with the LTPP Traffic
Analysis Software (LTAS) database.(2) LTAS data are mostly used by traffic researchers
5
interested in the analysis of traffic characteristics and their changes over time on a more granular,
disaggregated level. Chapter 16 of the IMS Guide contains detailed descriptions of the LTAS
database’s structure and tables.(2) The LTAS databases contain daily and monthly traffic data
used for computing annual traffic estimates stored in the pavement performance database. LTAS
data also contain information on the locations of traffic monitoring equipment, statistical
summaries used in the quality review of traffic data, information about identified data errors, and
other information used in the traffic data review and analysis. In addition, traffic data from
adjacent or non-LTPP lanes are stored in LTAS databases. States may provide traffic data from
additional lanes adjacent to the LTPP test section or lane. These data are stored but not
processed.
Starting in 2017, LTAS data also include normalized axle load spectra (NALS) at monthly and
annual levels and the Relative Pavement Performance Impact Factor (RPPIF). Due to size
limitations, LTAS tables may be in either Microsoft Access or Microsoft Structured Query
Language (SQL) Server database format.
LTAS data in Microsoft Access format include the following traffic databases (two-letter State
name abbreviation is used instead of “*” in database names).(2)
• Annual_Traffic_*: Series of databases, organized by State code containing summarized

count data and annual traffic estimates for the LTPP test sections.
• Daily_Count_ERR_*: Series of databases, organized by State code containing daily

vehicle classification, weight, and volume counts along with the associated error counts
for class and weight data for the LTPP test sections. Traffic data purges and the record
status of the traffic data are also included.
• Hourly_Class_Counts: Contains volume of trucks by hour table for SPS sites with a
weigh-in-motion (WIM) system that has been field validated by the LTPP program.
• LTAS_Administration: Contains LTAS-specific database metadata and other control

tables used by the LTPP program.
• Monthly_Axle_*: Series of databases, organized by State code, containing monthly axle

load distributions and supporting information for the LTPP test sections. The database
may contain LTPP sections for a part of a State, a single State, or multiple States,
depending on the size limitations of Microsoft Access.
• Monthly_Count: Contains monthly vehicle count data by month for the LTPP test
sections.
• Monthly_GVW_*: Series of databases, organized by State code, containing monthly

gross vehicle weight (GVW) data for the LTPP test sections by year, month, lane,
direction, vehicle classification, and day of the week (DOW). Number of days of data in
the month for that DOW is also included.
6
LTAS data available in SQL Server format include the following databases:(2)
• Daily_Axles_*: Series of databases, organized by State code containing daily data on the
number of axles by axle load bin, vehicle class, and axle group for the LTPP test sections.
• Daily_GVW_*: Series of databases, organized by State code, containing daily data on

GVWs aggregated by weight bin and vehicle class for the LTPP test sections.
LTPP TRAFFIC DATA TABLES AND PARAMETERS
A detailed description of the structures and contents of LTPP traffic data tables can be found
using LTPP Table Navigator, accessible through the InfoPave web portal (select LTPP Table
Navigator option on the Data menu, then select the LTPP traffic table name of interest under the
Traffic subsection and click on the “Export to Excel” button).(3) The following sections
summarize traffic tables available in the pavement performance database. Discussion of specific
LTPP traffic parameters recommended for different LTPP analyses, with references to
appropriate LTPP traffic data tables, is included in chapter 4. Traffic data and parameters are
reported in LTPP traffic data tables for individual LTPP General Pavement Study (GPS) or SPS
test sections.
Traffic Tables Associated with the Pavement Performance Database
Table Naming Convention
Names of tables(3) were developed to help users recognize the source of data or identify datasets
developed for a specific application, such as the MEPDG.(7) The “*” character used in the
following table names means that more than one table name has the prefix shown before the “*”
character.
TRF_HIST* Tables
Tables(3) starting with the prefix TRF_HIST include traffic information provided to the LTPP
program by State and Provincial highway agencies for the years prior to the installation of traffic
monitoring equipment and for the years when traffic monitoring equipment was not collecting
data. Most GPS test sections are existing highways that have accumulated traffic loads prior to
the installation of traffic monitoring equipment. For pavement research, knowledge of these
historical loadings is important. Whenever available, the methodologies that State highway
agencies use to derive historical estimates have been documented by the agencies and provided
to LTPP (as metadata). In some cases, little data were available, and histories are “best guess”
estimates. Historical data include annual estimates of total and truck volumes and the total
ESALs.
TRF_MON* or TRF_MONITOR* Tables
Tables(3) starting with prefixes TRF_MON or TRF_MONITOR include traffic information based
on traffic monitoring data collected at LTPP sites. This traffic information consists of two types.
The first type includes simple statistical summaries of actual measurements from automatic
traffic recorders (ATRs), automatic vehicle classifiers (AVCs), and WIM equipment. The second
7
type is computed values or annualized estimates based on the traffic monitoring data, including
annual estimates of total and truck volumes, vehicle class distributions (VCDs), axle loading
distributions, and total ESALs calculated using American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) methodology.
TRF_MEPDG* Tables
Tables(3) starting with the prefix TRF_MEPDG include traffic parameters that are computed to
be used with the MEPDG method. TRF_MEPDG parameters are computed for the LTPP lane
only for years with at least 210 days of accepted traffic loading data. The data included in
TRF_MEPDG* tables require additional manipulation to develop representative values for use in
the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software.(5) TRF_MEPDG traffic parameters include
annual average daily truck traffic (AADTT), vehicle class and axle loading distributions, hourly
truck volume adjustment factors, monthly truck volume adjustment factors, and the number of
axles per vehicle class.
MEPDG* Tables
Tables(3) starting with the prefix MEPDG include traffic parameters that are computed for use in
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.(5) MEPDG traffic parameters include base year (the first
year the LTPP site opened to traffic) AADTT, representative VCD, truck traffic growth
parameters by vehicle class, representative axle load distribution factors (ALDF), and the
representative number of axles per vehicle class.
TRF_ESAL* Tables
Tables(3) starting with the prefix TRF_ESAL include annual ESAL estimates computed by the
LTPP program using the methodology in the 1993 edition of the AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures.(8) The estimates are based on section-specific pavement structures. These
estimates are available for each year that has accepted monitored axle-loading information for a
section.
NALS* and RPPIF* Tables
Tables(3) starting with prefixes NALS or RPPIF(4) resulted from LTPP research that produced the
Long-Term Pavement Performance Pavement Loading Users Guide (PLUG)(9) and LTPP traffic
loading defaults(10) for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software. NALS tables contain
normalized axle-load spectra by vehicle class and axle group. RPPIF tables contain traffic
loading summary statistics used to group LTPP sites and vehicle classes with similar loading per
axle.
Traffic Volume Table
The TRF_HIST_VOLUME_COUNT table(3) contains results of vehicle volume counts that were
taken by State and Provincial highway agencies prior to the start of LTPP program traffic
monitoring and were used to estimate traffic volumes at a given site. These counts were not
necessarily taken at the sites.
8
Vehicle Classification Tables
The vehicle classification data can be found in the following tables accessible through
InfoPave:(3)
• TRF_HIST_CLASS_DATA: This table contains results of vehicle classification counts

that were taken by the State and Provincial highway agencies prior to the start of LTPP
program traffic monitoring and were used to estimate vehicle distributions at a given site.
These counts were not necessarily taken at the sites.
• TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN: This table contains information on the amount of traffic

monitoring data collection, which occurred at each site for each year for each vehicle
class. This table also includes the estimated annual volume of trucks by class and the
estimated number of axles associated with those truck volumes. Values are reported only
for the LTPP lane.
Traffic Loading Summary Tables
The traffic loading data can be found in the following tables accessible through InfoPave:(3)
• TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL: This table contains estimates of ESALs at the LTPP section

level for each year from the date of that test section’s construction (or 1965, whichever is
later) until its inclusion in the LTPP program (or 1989, whichever is earlier).
• TRF_MON_EST_ESAL: This table contains annual estimates of the number of ESALs

in the LTPP lane and estimates of truck and total vehicle volumes supplied by
participating highway agencies. Data in this table are from 1990 (or when the LTPP lane
became open to traffic, whichever is later) until the test section was instrumented with
traffic monitoring equipment or for any year in which the traffic monitoring equipment
was not operational.
• TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED: This table contains estimates of annual ESAL calculations

for LTPP lanes. These ESAL estimates are provided only for sites that have acceptable
samples of axle load measurements contained in the LTPP database in the indicated year.
The axle load sample is expanded to an annual estimate using a time-based multiplier.
Estimates are contained in the KESAL_YEAR field with units of kESAL/year or
1,000 ESAL/year. Thus, a value of 1 in this field should be interpreted as
1,000 ESAL/year in the LTPP lane.
• TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB: This table contains the annualized number of axles

in each weight range (i.e., weight bin) for each axle group (i.e., single, tandem, triple,
quad, and quad+ (more than four axles)). This information is obtained using the data
collected by WIM equipment installed at or near LTPP test sections. Note that steering-
axle weight distributions are not recorded separately from other single axles in this table.
The WEIGHT_BIN_SIZE field contains the size of the weight bins used to describe the
weight distribution by axle type. This distribution is for the LTPP lane only.
9
Tables Used for ESAL Computation
The data used for ESAL computation can be found in the following tables accessible through
InfoPave:(3)
• TRF_ESAL_INPUTS_SUMMARY: This table contains a summary of all of the input

data used for the annual ESAL estimate, including pavement type, structural number
(SN) for asphalt concrete (AC) pavements, effective thickness for portland cement
concrete (PCC) pavements, terminal service index value, functional road classification,
climate characterizations such as annual average precipitation and freeze index, LTPP
experimental climate region, and start and end dates associated with the construction
number to which these values apply.
• TRF_ESAL_AC_THICK: This table contains values used to compute SNs for

AC-surfaced test sections. It includes the thickness, type of layer, layer coefficient,
average resilient modulus, and drainage layer coefficient for base and subbase layers.
This table also includes start and end dates to which these values apply.
• TRF_ESAL_PCC_COMP_THICK: This table contains values used to compute values of

the effective thickness of PCC layers used in the ESAL calculation. This table includes
information on the thickness of multiple PCC layers and whether they are bonded.
MEPDG Traffic Inputs Tables
The MEPDG traffic input parameters can be found in the following tables accessible through
InfoPave:(3)
• TRF_MEPDG_AADTT_LTPP_LN: This table contains estimates of AADTT in LTPP

test lane computed by three alternate computation methods based on a combination of
classification and weight data, only classification, or only weight data. Estimates are
provided by year.
• TRF_MEPDG_VEH_CLASS_DIST: This table contains percentages of trucks by vehicle

class within truck population (See Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic
Monitoring Guide for definition of FHWA vehicle classes 4–13) in LTPP lane.(11) Each
estimate is based on classification counts, weight data, or a combination of both
classification and weight data as indicated by the code contained in the
TRF_DATA_TYPE field. Estimates are provided by year.
• TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR: This table contains adjustment factors for

average daily truck traffic by month for each truck class based on either vehicle
classification or weight data, as indicated by the code contained in the
TRF_DATA_TYPE field. Estimates are provided by year.
• TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST: This table contains data describing the annual average

hourly distribution of trucks by each hour of the day in LTPP lane, based on available
10
classification data. Computations are performed using the MEPDG algorithm.(7) This
table contains data for sites with at least 210 days of classification data in a calendar year.
• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL: This table contains the annual normalized axle load

distributions by class and axle group for LTPP sites that satisfy data availability and data
review criteria. Records in this table are generated from the LTPP
TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB table where matching records in the
TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN table have a RECORD_STATUS equal to D or E. Per site,
at least 2 years with more than 210 days of WIM data must exist in the
TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN table for data to be present in this table.
• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL_VAR: This table contains means and variances of the

elements of the normalized axle load distributions by vehicle class and axle type for all
years of available site-specific monitoring data. Per site, at least 2 years with more than
210 days of WIM data must exist for data to be present in this table.
• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST: This table contains normalized axle load distributions by

month, truck class, and axle group for each LTPP site and year with more than 210 days
of WIM data in the TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN table. This table is provided in multiple
databases due to its large size, organized by State or Provincial code.
• TRF_MEPDG_AX_PER_TRUCK: This table contains the annual average number of

axles by vehicle class and axle type by year for LTPP sites. These data are computed
from axles weighed as summed in the TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN table. Estimates are
provided by year.
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Input Tables
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME design input parameters can be found in the following tables
accessible through InfoPave:(3)
• MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS: This table contains input parameters used in

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) to estimate traffic volumes of FHWA
vehicle classes 4–13(11) for pavement analyses or design periods, including the following
for each LTPP site and experiment: LTPP lane AADTT for the first year the site was
opened to traffic, percentile VCD factors, and truck volume growth information (fitting
either a linear or compound growth function). The table is designed to resemble the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software input table to facilitate data entry using a
copy–paste operation.
• MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR: This table contains ALDF for use with

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design. One set of values is provided for each LTPP site,
including the source of the data or method used to develop the ALDF. This table is
designed to resemble the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design input table to facilitate
data entry using a copy–paste operation.
11
• MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK: This table contains the representative number of axles
per truck (APT) for vehicles in FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 for use with AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design software. It includes the source of the data or method used to
develop the APT. This table is designed to resemble the AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Design input table to facilitate data entry using a copy–paste operation.
Analysis-Ready Traffic Summary Parameters
The analysis-ready traffic summary parameters can be found in the following tables accessible
through InfoPave:(3)
• TRF_TREND: This table contains annual truck volume estimates for LTPP lanes by
vehicle classification and year for each test site for each in-service and in-experiment
year. The table also includes estimates of AADTT (computed for FHWA vehicle
classes 4–13(11) combined), cumulative truck volumes (CTVs), cumulative FHWA
vehicle class 9 truck volumes, ESAL, general equivalent single-axle load (GESAL), and
total annual load estimates for each year from the time each test section opened for
traffic. These values are calculated based on data consolidated from the multiple traffic
data sources described in this chapter; missing values are estimated. The source of the
data or estimation method for each year is also provided in this table.
• TRF_REP: This table contains representative AADTT values for LTPP sites, as well as
the percentage of AADTT value corresponding to each FHWA vehicle class 4–13. The
table also includes representative loading parameters for each truck class. One set of
values is provided per LTPP site and experiment combination. Metadata describing the
confidence associated with the traffic parameters included in TRF_REP table are also
included.
Traffic Metadata Tables
The traffic metadata data can be found in the following tables accessible through InfoPave:(3)
• TRF_BASIC_INFO: This table contains basic information on the location of the LTPP
test sites.
• TRF_CALIBRATION_AVC: This table contains information on the calibration activities

associated with AVC equipment used to collect vehicle classification data at LTPP test
sites.
• TRF_CALIBRATION_WIM: This table contains information on the calibration activities

associated with equipment used to collect WIM data at LTPP test sites.
• TRF_EQUIPMENT_MASTER: This table contains information on both AVC and WIM

equipment during calibration events.
• TRF_HIST_WEIGHT_MASTER: This table contains all available general information

on the roadways and equipment used for historical truck weighing sessions.
12
• TRF_HIST_CLASS_MASTER: This table contains information on classification counts
that furnished data for the TRF_HIST_CLASS_DATA table. This table also contains the
total volumes recorded during each count.
Traffic Tables From LTAS Databases
LTAS database tables that containing detailed traffic count data at various levels of data
aggregation are detailed in the following sections. The following LTAS tables are accessible
through InfoPave web portal.(3)
Vehicle Classification and Traffic Volume Count Data Tables
The following LTAS vehicle classification and traffic volume count data tables can be found on
InfoPave:(3)
• YY_CT: This table contains count data by site, year, lane, direction, DOW, and data
source for each year for which classification and/or weight data were accepted for
estimating volumes. The number of days of data in the year for a specific DOW is also
included. This table is created by summing, for each data type, the number of days and
counts for each DOW in a month using data from the MM_CT table. Included in the table
is the number of vehicles observed during the count, but these data could not be
classified.
• MM_CT: This table contains count data by site, year, month, lane, direction, DOW, and
data source for each month for which classification and/or weight data were accepted for
estimating volumes. This table is created by summing, for each data type, the number of
days and counts for each DOW in a month using data from the relevant DD_CT table.
The vehicle classes are converted from a State or Provincial agency-specified method
into the FHWA vehicle classes. (See FHWA TMG for description of 13 FHWA vehicle
classes.(11)) This table also includes the number of unclassified vehicles.
• DD_CL_CT: This table summarizes the number of vehicles by class for each day based
on classification records. This table contains count data by site, year, month, day, lane,
and direction for each day for which classification data were accepted for estimating
volumes. This table is created by summing, for each day, the counts over all hours in a
defined day.
• DD_VOL: This table summarizes the number of vehicles by site, year, month, day, lane
and direction.
• DD_WT_CT: This table summarizes the number of vehicles by class based on weight
records. This table contains count data by site, year, month, day, lane, and direction for
each day for which weight data exist for estimating loads.
• HH_CL_CT: This table stores the hourly volumes by vehicle class in the input method
for classification data for selected sites. These data are used to generate inputs to the
TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST table.
13
Traffic Loading Data Tables
The following LTAS traffic loading data tables can be found on InfoPave:(3)
• YY_AX: This table contains the number of axle counts by LTPP site, year, lane,
direction, vehicle class, DOW, and load bin. The number of days of data in the year for a
specific DOW is also included. This table is created by summing the number of days and
the number of axles in each load bin by axle group for each DOW and each year using
data from the MM_AX table. Only vehicles in FHWA vehicle classes 4–13(11) are
included.
• MM_AX: This table contains the number of axle counts by LTPP site, year, month, lane,
direction, vehicle classification, axle group, DOW, and load bin. This table is created by
summing the number of days and the number of axles in each load bin by axle group for
each DOW, each month, and each year using data from the DD_AX table. Only vehicles
in FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 are included. Data provided to LTPP in a State or
Provincial agency-specific vehicle classification method are converted into 13 FHWA
vehicle classes.
• DD_AX: This table contains the number of axle counts by LTPP site, year, month, day,
lane, direction, vehicle class, axle group, and load bin. Each record in this table is created
by summing the number of axle counts for all hours in a calendar day for each load bin,
axle group, and vehicle class. All vehicle classes, including passenger vehicles, may be in
this table. Data are presented in vehicle classes that follow a State or Provincial
agency-specified vehicle classification method.
• YY_GVW: This table contains GVW data by LTPP site, year, lane, direction, vehicle
classification, DOW, and weight bin. The number of days of data in the year for a
specific DOW is also included. This table is created by summing the number of days and
GVW data by weight bin for the DOWs for a year using data from the MM_GVW table.
Only vehicles in FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 are included.
• MM_GVW: This table contains GVW data by LTPP site, year, month, lane, direction,
vehicle classification, DOW, and weight bin. This table is created by summing the
number of days and GVW data by weight bin for the DOWs for each month and each
year using data from the DD_GVW table. Only vehicles in FHWA vehicle classes 4–13
are included. Data provided to LTPP in a State or Provincial agency-specific vehicle
classification method are converted into the 13 FHWA vehicle classes.
• DD_GVW: This table contains GVW data by LTPP site, year, month, day, lane,
direction, vehicle class, and weight bin. This table is created by summing GVW data by
weight bin over all hours in a calendar day for each vehicle class. All vehicle classes,
including passenger vehicles, may be in this table. Data are presented in vehicle classes
that follow a State or Provincial agency-specified vehicle classification method.
14
Axle and Vehicle Loading Characterization Tables
The following LTAS axle and vehicle loading characterization tables can be found on
InfoPave:(3)
• NALS_ANNUAL_DISTRIB: This table contains NALS data by LTPP site, year, lane,
direction, vehicle class, and axle group. This table is created by averaging values from
the NALS_MONTHLY_DISTRIB table. This table is limited to FHWA vehicle classes
4–13.(11)
• NALS_ANNUAL_EVAL: This table contains record status values by LTPP site, year,
lane, direction, vehicle class, and axle group for each associated NALS in the
NALS_ANNUAL_DISTRIB table. Record status values are based on the size of the
NALS distribution tails.
• NALS_MONTHLY_DISTRIB: This table contains percentile NALS values by LTPP

site, year, month, lane, direction, vehicle class, axle group, and load bin. This table is
created by normalizing values from the MM_AX table. This table is limited to FHWA
vehicle classes 4–13.
• NALS_MONTHLY_EVAL: This table contains record status values by LTPP site, year,
month, lane, direction, vehicle class, and axle group for each associated NALS in the
NALS_ANNUAL_DISTRIB table. Record status values are based on the size of the
NALS distribution tails.
• RPPIF_NALS_ANNUAL: This table contains the RPPIF by LTPP site, year, lane,
direction, vehicle class, and axle group. This table is created by applying values from the
RPPIF_WIJ_FACTOR table to the annual NALS distribution.
• RPPIF_NALS_MONTHLY: This table contains the RPPIF by LTPP site, year, month,
lane, direction, vehicle class, and axle group. This table is created by applying values
from the RPPIF_WIJ_FACTOR table to the monthly NALS distribution.
• RPPIF_WIJ_FACTOR: This table contains axle groups, weight bins (defined by the low
weight bin boundary), and the factor values for each weight bin. Factors were developed
to support grouping similar NALS using RPPIF values.
• RPPIF_VEHICLE_CLASS_ANNUAL: This table contains the RPPIF per vehicle class

values by LTPP site, year, lane, direction, and FHWA vehicle classes 4–13. These values
are created using data from RPPIF_NALS_ANNUAL and
VEHICLE_CLASS_AVG_AX_ANL tables.
• RPPIF_VEHICLE_CLASS_MONTHLY: This table contains the RPPIF per vehicle class

values by LTPP site, year, month, lane, direction, and vehicle class. These values are
created using data from RPPIF_NALS_MONTHLY and
VEHICLE_CLASS_AVG_AX_MONTH tables.
15
• RPPIF_ANNUAL_AVG_TRUCK: This table contains the RPPIF for a representative
truck by LTPP site, year, lane, and direction. The value is created using data from
RPPIF_VEHICLE_CLASS_ANNUAL and VEHICLE_CLASS_ADT_ANNUAL tables.
• RPPIF_MONTHLY_AVG_TRUCK: This table contains the RPPIF value for a

representative truck by LTPP site, year, month, lane, and direction. These values are
created using data from RPPIF_VEHICLE_CLASS_MONTHLY and
VEHICLE_CLASS_ADT_MONTH tables.
Axle Per Truck Tables
The following LTAS axle per truck tables can be found on InfoPave:(3)
• VEHICLE_CLASS_AVG_AX_ANL: This table contains the average number of axles by

LTPP site, year, lane, direction, vehicle class, and axle group. These values are created
using data from VEHICLE_CLASS_AVG_AX_MONTH table.
• VEHICLE_CLASS_AVG_AX_MONTH: This table contains the average number of

axles by LTPP site, year, month, lane, direction, vehicle class, and axle group. These
values are created using data from are VEHICLE_CLASS_TOTAL_AXLE and
VEHICLE_CLASS_TOTAL_COUNT tables.
• VEHICLE_CLASS_TOTAL_AXLES: This table contains the total number of axles by

LTPP site, year, month, lane, direction, vehicle class, and axle group. These values are
created using data from MM_AX table.
Traffic Metadata Tables
The following LTAS traffic metadata tables can be found on InfoPave:(3)
• TRAFFIC_CLASS_CONVERT_MASTER: This table indicates which classification

scheme is used by an agency or a specific site.
• TRAFFIC_CLASS_CONVERT_DATA: This table contains information on matching a

State or Provincial highway agency’s classification method to the 13 FHWA vehicle
classes.(11)
• SITE_EQUIPMENT_INFO: This table identifies types of equipment installed and

classification schemes used with that equipment.
16
ANCILLARY LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND INFORMATION
Additional sources of information about data and parameters included in LTPP traffic tables can
be found in the following tables included in the Administrative module of the IMS Guide:(2)
• CODES: This table contains codes and associated descriptions for coded values in the
IMS.
• CODETYPES: This table contains definitions and sources of information for all code
tables stored in the LTPP IMS.
Additional traffic data and information is available in the LTPP Ancillary Information
Management System (AIMS) archives.(12) Chapter 17 of the IMS Guide provides information
about available ancillary LTPP traffic data and information.(2) Ancillary LTPP traffic data
include traffic output files from LTAS and those created by legacy LTPP Traffic Quality Control
software and files from the iANALYZE® software.(2) LTAS-related ancillary traffic data files
are in the FHWA TMG file format.(11)
In addition, AIMS archives contain electronic images of scanned hardcopy data forms used to
report basic traffic information, traffic scale calibration, historical traffic, and traffic estimates
produced by agencies when no onsite measurements were performed. This information also
includes images of vehicles at selected WIM sites with corresponding vehicle classification
results.
Most of the ancillary information from AIMS archives can be obtained through InfoPave. Image
files (and other data not found through InfoPave) can be obtained by contacting the LTPP
Customer Support Service Center at ltppinfo@dot.gov or by calling 202–493–3035.
17
CHAPTER 3. LTPP TRAFFIC METADATA
This chapter describes sources of LTPP traffic data. It also provides references to methods used
to collect traffic data and compute traffic parameters and describes codes available in LTPP
traffic data tables(3) to identify data sources and computational methods. Information in this
chapter will help users’ understanding of the data and methods used in the traffic data collection
and computation of LTPP traffic parameters, as well as limitations associated with the data
sources and methods.
METHODS OF TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION
LTPP Traffic Data Sources
Sources of LTPP traffic data include the following:
• Historical data provided by States and Provinces.
• Monitoring data collected by States and Provinces for the LTPP program.(13)
• Monitoring data collected by the program through the LTPP SPS Traffic Data Collection
Pooled-Fund Study, TPF-5(004) (14) and the LTPP warm-mix asphalt overlay experiment.
• LTPP vehicle classification data collection effort.
The Guide to LTPP Traffic Data Collection and Processing provides a detailed description of the
LTPP traffic data collection and processing methods and procedures.(13) The following sections
provide a brief summary of LTPP traffic data sources and data collection methods, updated with
information about recent efforts of LTPP traffic data collection.
Data Collected by State and Provincial Agencies Prior to the LTPP Program
Traffic data or estimates of traffic collected for each LTPP test site prior to its participation in the
LTPP experiment are referenced within LTPP data sources as historical data. Historical estimates
and supporting data were submitted by local agencies to the LTPP program via a series of forms
referred to as LTPP Traffic Data Sheets (available under the Ancillary Data Selection and
Download section of InfoPave.(3)) Historical estimates include annual average daily traffic
(AADT) values for the entire roadway and test lane broken out for all vehicles as well as trucks
only. ESAL estimates for the test section lane were also obtained.
Data Collected by State and Provincial Agencies as Part of the LTPP Program
After a test site becomes part of the LTPP experiment, an effort is made to collect site-specific
traffic data at or near each site. States and Provinces collect data using automated traffic data
collection equipment, such as ATRs, AVCs, and WIM systems. Equipment can be permanently
installed at LTPP sites, or portable equipment can be used to take short-duration counts.
Equipment from different manufacturers can be used.
19
States and Provinces follow procedures in the FHWA TMG(11) for collecting and reporting traffic
data, and they submit the data (i.e., traffic volume, vehicle classification, and axle loading) to the
LTPP program for further processing. The program processes and quality checks the data before
making the data available on the InfoPave web portal.(3) Due to differences in methods and
equipment States and Provinces use to collect these data, the quality and quantity of available
traffic data vary among LTPP sites.
Data From Select LTPP SPS WIM Sites
Since 2003, 26 LTPP SPS WIM sites(14) have been installed as part of the LTPP SPS Traffic
Data Collection Pooled-Fund Study TPF-5(004). These sites have been installed to collect
research-quality traffic loading data at select SPS-1, -2, -5, and -6 sites.(15) From 2016 to 2018,
the LTPP program expanded the number of LTPP SPS WIM sites to include the new SPS-10
sites.
To meet the study’s research-quality standards, data of known calibration, meeting LTPP’s WIM
data accuracy requirements—for steering and tandem axles, GVW, bumper-to-bumper vehicle
length, vehicle speed, and axle spacing—must be collected for 210 days within a year. Details
about LTPP SPS WIM equipment, installation, calibration, and accuracy requirements are
documented in the LTPP Field Operations Guide for SPS WIM Sites.(16) Table 1 shows criteria
used to evaluate if errors observed in WIM data collected during field validations meet the
accuracy criteria of research-quality data.
Table 1. LTPP WIM data accuracy criteria for research-quality data.

Parameter 95-Percent Confidence Limit of Error
Steering axles +20 percent
Tandem axles +15 percent
GVW +10 percent
Vehicle length ±3 percent (or 2.2 ft)
Axle length +0.5 ft
Vehicle Classification Data Collected by LTPP Program
To provide at least a sample of classification data for all pavement sections that remained in
study in 2005, the LTPP program acquired a week’s worth of classification data from
approximately 140 sites. Data were collected during 2005–2006 from agencies and LTPP
program contractors using the 13 FHWA vehicle classes.(11)
Data Shared by LTPP Traffic Sites
For some LTPP sites, no traffic data are provided in LTPP traffic tables because one set of traffic
data is used for multiple sites. The record of shared data is maintained in SHRP_INFO and
SPS_GPS_LINK tables.(3) To identify reference traffic sites for an LTPP site that is not included
in LTPP traffic tables, the following fields should be used in the SHRP_INFO table for sites that
are not part of the SPS-3 or -4 experiments:
20
• The CLASS_SITE field identifies the reference LTPP site for vehicle classification and
volume information.
• The WIM_SITE field identifies the reference LTPP site for axle loading and truck weight
information.
For sites that are part of the SPS-3 or -4 experiments, the related GPS section, found using
SPS_GPS_LINK, is used as the traffic data source. For some LTPP sites, the source of
classification or weight data changes over time, with data coming from one location for some
years and a different location for other years. Similarly, classification data may come from one
site while weight data may come from another.
INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
The SITE_EQUIPMENT_INFO table (accessible through InfoPave web portal) contains

information about traffic monitoring equipment used at LTPP sites.(3) This table identifies the
types of data being collected (i.e., volume, classification, and weight), types of sensors being
used, and vehicle classification schemes being used. The table does not provide information on
the installation, maintenance, validation, or calibration of that equipment. However, some of this
information is available in TRF_CALIBRATION_AVC, TRF_CALIBRATION_WIM, and
TRF_EQUIPMENT_MASTER tables. Equipment installation and maintenance information are
available in LTPP Traffic Data Sheets 14 and 15 under the Ancillary Data Selection and
Download section of InfoPave.(3)
TRAFFIC DATA ACCURACY
The following two LTPP tables (accessible through InfoPave(3)) contain information about
calibration efforts performed on traffic monitoring equipment used at some LTPP sites:
• The TRF_CALIBRATION_AVC table contains calibrations of automated vehicle

classifiers.
• The TRF_CALIBRATION_WIM table contains calibrations of WIM devices.
These tables include statistics quantifying measurement errors observed from calibration test
truck runs, including mean measurement errors and standard deviations of errors for WIM sites.
This information could be used to infer measurement accuracy of traffic monitoring equipment.
In addition, LTPP Traffic Data Sheet 11, available from the LTPP AIMS, contains information
about the calibration of traffic volume counters.(12)
Not all LTPP WIM sites have information in the TRF_CALIBRATION_WIM table, and the
available information does not always cover all data collection periods. Due to the variety of data
collection equipment and systems being used, along with the limited availability of supporting
data (such as WIM equipment performance parameters, calibration records and criteria, and
WIM performance characteristics measured after calibration), the accuracy of most LTPP traffic
loading data submitted by State and Provincial agencies is unknown.
21
TRAFFIC DATA AVAILABILITY
Information on traffic data availability allows a researcher to quickly identify LTPP sites with
detailed traffic data that could be used in a pavement performance analysis. Information about
the number of days for which traffic data were collected and accepted at each site can be
obtained from the following fields in the LTPP TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN table using
InfoPave web portal:(3)
• The COUNT_DAYS field shows the number of days with vehicle classification data per
year for each LTPP site.
• The WEIGHT_DAYS field shows number of days with vehicle and/or axle weight data
per year for each LTPP site.
The TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN table contains only LTPP sites with traffic monitoring data.
Additional information may be available in TRF_HIST_VOLUME_COUNT and
TRF_HIST_CLASS_DATA tables for the years when historical data were provided by
participating State and Provincial highway agencies.
METHODS USED TO COMPUTE TRAFFIC PARAMETERS
Table 2 details reference sources that describe methods used to develop different LTPP traffic
parameters.
22
Table 2. Reference sources describing methods used to develop different traffic parameters.
Parameter Name Parameter Description LTPP Field Name LTPP Table Reference Source
AADT LTPP lane historical Estimated AADT for the COUNT_AADT_LTPP_LN TRF_HIS_VOLUME_ Values are computed by State and
count (prior to 1990) LTPP lane from count data COUNT Provincial agencies prior to the start
of LTPP monitoring (before 1990);
values are based on traffic-volume
count data; procedures are State
specific, and methods are not
documented.
AADT two-way historical Estimated two-way AADT COUNT_AADT TRF_HIST_VOLUME_ Values are computed by State and
count (prior to 1990) in all lanes from count data COUNT Provincial agencies prior to the start
of LTPP monitoring (before 1990);
values are based on traffic-volume
count data; procedures are State
specific, and methods are not
documented.
AADT LTPP lane historical Estimated AADT for the AADT_ALL_VEHIC TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_AADT_LTPP
estimate (prior to 1990) LTPP lane code in the TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL
table.(3)
AADT two-way historical Estimated AADT in all AADT_ALL_VEHIC_ TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_AADT_TOT code
estimate from local State or lanes, two-way 2WAY in the TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL table.
Provincial agency (prior to
1990)
AADT LTPP lane during Estimated AADT for the AADT_ALL_VEHIC TRF_MON_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_AADT_LTPP
LTPP experiment (1990 or LTPP lane code in the TRF_MON_EST_ESAL
later); estimate from local table.
State or Provincial agency
AADT two-way during LTPP Estimated two-way AADT AADT_ALL_VEHIC_ TRF_MON_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_AADT_TOT code
experiment (1990 or later); in all lanes 2WAY in the TRF_MON_EST_ESAL
estimate from local State or table.
Provincial agency
AADTT LTPP lane during Estimated AADTT in the AADT_TRUCK_COMBO TRF_MON_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_TRK_LTPP code
LTPP experiment (1990 or LTPP lane in the TRF_MON_EST_ESAL
23
AADTT two-way during Estimated two-way AADT_TRUCK_COMBO_ TRF_MON_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_TRK_TOT code
LTPP experiment (1990 or AADTT in all lanes 2WAY in the TRF_MON_EST_ESAL
AADTT LTPP lane historical Estimated AADTT in the AADT_TRUCK_COMBO TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_TRK_LTPP code
estimate from local State or LTPP lane in the TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL table.
1990)
AADTT two-way historical Estimated two-way AADT_TRUCK_COMBO_ TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL See METH_EST_TRK_TOT code
estimate from local State or AADTT in all lanes 2WAY in the TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL table.
1990)
AADTT in the LTPP lane; Estimated AADTT for the AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS_ TRF_TREND See AADTT_SOURCE code in the
estimated for all years LTPP lane for each TREND TRF_TREND table. See Facilitating
in-service year up to the Analysts’ Use of Traffic Data from
end of site participation in the Long-Term Pavement
the LTPP experiment Performance (LTPP) Program final
report.(4)
Annual total truck volume Estimated total annual ANNUAL_TRUCK_ TRF_TREND See AADTT_SOURCE code in the
trend; estimated for all years truck volume for each year VOLUME_TREND TRF_TREND table. See Facilitating
of participation in the Analysts’ Use of Traffic Data from
LTPP experiment the Long-Term Pavement
Performance (LTPP) Program final
report.
AADTT by vehicle class AADTT by vehicle class AADTT_VEH_CLASS_* TRF_TREND See VEH_CLASS_SOURCE code
trend for FHWA vehicle for FHWA classes 4–13 _TREND in the TRF_TREND table. See
classes 4–13;(11) estimated for estimated for each site for Facilitating Analysts’ Use of Traffic
all years each in-service year of Data from the Long-Term Pavement
participation in the LTPP Performance (LTPP) Program final
experiment report.
Cumulative FHWA vehicle Estimated cumulative CUMULATUVE_VOLUME_ TRF_TREND See VEH_CLASS_SOURCE code
class 9 truck volume since FHWA vehicle class 9 VEH_CLASS_9_TREND in the TRF_TREND table. See
site opened to traffic; truck volume to have Facilitating Analysts’ Use of Traffic
estimated annually crossed this test section Data from the Long-Term Pavement
since it opened to traffic Performance (LTPP) Program final
through the end of the year report.
indicated
24
Cumulative heavy truck Estimated cumulative CUMULATUVE_VOLUME_ TRF_TREND See VEH_CLASS_SOURCE code
volume since site opened to volume for FHWA vehicle HEAVYTRUCKS_TREND in the TRF_TREND table. See
traffic; estimated annually classes 4 and 6–13 to have Facilitating Analysts’ Use of Traffic
crossed the test section Data from the Long-Term Pavement
since it opened to traffic Performance (LTPP) Program final
through the end of the year report.
indicated
Representative AADTT Single AADTT value REP_AADTT TRF_REP See REP_AADTT_CLASS_USE_
value for each LTPP site useful for identifying test RATING code in the TRF_REP
sites with truck traffic table. See Facilitating Analysts’ Use
volumes falling within of Traffic Data from the Long-Term
selected ranges Pavement Performance (LTPP)
Program final report.
Representative vehicle Estimated percentage of REP_PERCENT_VEH_ TRF_REP See REP_VEH_CLASS_USE
classification percentage total daily truck traffic that CLASS_# _RATING code in the TRF_REP
occurs within the specified table. See Facilitating Analysts’ Use
FHWA truck class at this of Traffic Data from the Long-Term
site over the course of its Pavement Performance (LTPP)
participation in the LTPP Program final report.
experiment
Annual estimate of total truck Annual estimate of trucks TRUCKS_LTPP_LN TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_L See LTAS Volume 4, Functional
volume for years with in the LTPP lane N Specifications. 1
monitoring data (1990 or
later)
Annual estimate of the total Annual estimate of the SINGLE_AX_EST, TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_L See LTAS Volume 4, Functional
number of axles for years number of single, tandem, TANDEM_AX_EST, N Specifications.
with monitoring data (1990 tridem, and quad+ axles TRIDEM_AX_EST,
or later) QUADPLUS_AX_EST
Annualized axle load Annual estimate of the AX_CT_01, …AX_CT_40 TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_ See LTAS Volume 4, Functional
distribution for years with number of axles measured DISTRIB Specifications.
WIM data (1990 or later) in each weight range for
each axle group (i.e.,
single, tandem, triple, and
quad+) and each FHWA
vehicle class 4–13
1
A copy of LTAS volume 4 can be requested by contacting LTPP Customer Support Services Center at ltppinfo@dot.gov.
25
Axle load distribution Axle load summaries by AX_CT_01, …AX_CT_40 MM_AX This table is from LTAS software
summarized by DOW, load range, year, month, database. See LTAS Volume 4,
month, and year for each DOW, lane, direction, Functional Specifications.
month with weight data FHWA vehicle classes
4–13, axle group, and site
for each month with load
data
GVW distribution GVW summaries by load BIN01, …BIN50 MM_GVW This table is from LTAS software
summarized by DOW, range, year, month, DOW, database. See LTAS Volume 4,
month, and year for each lane, direction, vehicle Functional Specifications.
month with weight data class, axle group, and site
for each month with load
data
VCD summarized by DOW, Vehicle count summaries CT_SUM_01, …CT_SUM_15 MM_CT This table is from LTAS software
month, and year for each by site, year, month, DOW, database. See LTAS Volume 4,
month with classification lane, direction, and data Functional Specifications.
and/or weight data source for each month with
classification and/or weight
data
Axle load distribution Axle load summaries by AX_CT_01, …AX_CT_40 YY_AX This table is from LTAS software
summarized by DOW and load range, year, DOW, database. See LTAS Volume 4,
year for each year with lane, direction, vehicle Functional Specifications.
weight data class, axle group, and site
for each year with load
data
GVW distribution GVW summaries by load BIN01, …BIN50 YY_GVW This table is from LTAS software
summarized by DOW and range, year, DOW, lane, database. See LTAS Volume 4,
year for each year with direction, vehicle class, Functional Specifications.
weight data axle group, and site for
each year with load data
VCD summarized by DOW Vehicle count summaries CT_SUM_01, …CT_SUM_15 YY_CT This table is from LTAS software
and year for each year with by site, year, month, DOW, database. See LTAS Volume 4,
classification and/or weight lane, direction, and data Functional Specifications.
data source for each year with
classification and/or weight
data
26
Annual normalized axle load Annual normalized axle PERCENT_AXLES TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ See SQL scripts and procedures for
distribution for years with at
distribution by FHWA ANL TRF_MEPDG tables.
least 210 days of WIM data vehicle classes 4–13 and
for computing MEPDG axle group for sites that
ALDF have at least 2 years with
more than 210 days of
WIM data in the
TRF_MONITOR_
LTPP_LN table
Monthly normalized axle Normalized axle load PERCENT_AXLES TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST Values are computed from weight
load distribution for years distribution by month, data in MM_AX LTAS table. The
with at least 210 days of FHWA vehicle classes process is documented in SQL
WIM data for computing 4–13, and axle group for scripts and procedures for
MEPDG ALDF years with at least 210 days TRF_MEPDG tables. 2
of WIM data
MEPDG ALDF ALDF in MEPDG format MEPDG_LG01, MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_ See field ALDF_USE_RATING for
representing the percentage …MEPDG_LG39 DIST_FACTOR quality assessment and source. See
of total axle applications Facilitating Analysts’ Use of Traffic
within each load interval Data from the Long-Term Pavement
for a specific axle type Performance (LTPP) Program final
(i.e., single, tandem, report.
tridem, and quad+) and
FHWA vehicle classes
4–13; one set of factors
represents each LTPP site
AADTT LTPP lane for years AADTT based on FHWA AADTT TRF_MEPDG_AADTT_ See field TRF_DATA_TYPE for
with 210 days or more of vehicle classes 4–13 for the LTPP_LN data source; the computational
weight or count data for LTPP lane for years with method is based on the NCHRP
computing MEPDG first year 210 days or more of weight 1-37A Report (MEPDG).(7)
AADTT or count data
MEPDG first year AADTT Estimated AADTT for the AADTT_FIRST_YEAR_ MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_ See Facilitating Analysts’ Use of
LTPP lane first year when the LTPP_LANE PARAMETERS Traffic Data from the Long-Term
pavement at the LTPP site Pavement Performance (LTPP)
location was opened to Program final report.
traffic
2
A copy of the SQL scripts and procedures can be requested by contacting LTPP Customer Support Service Center at ltppinfo@dot.gov.
27
Vehicle class volume Percentage of trucks by PERCENT_OF_TRUCKS TRF_MEPDG_VEH_ See SQL scripts and procedures for
distribution by year for FHWA vehicle classes CLASS_DIST TRF_MEPDG tables.
computing MEPDG vehicle 4–13 within the truck
class volume distribution population (in the LTPP
lane reported for years with
210 days or more of weight
or count data
MEPDG vehicle class Representative percentage VEH_CLASS_DIST_ MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_ See Facilitating Analysts’ Use of
volume distribution of trucks in each FHWA PERCENT PARAMETERS Traffic Data from the Long-Term
vehicle class 4–13; one set Pavement Performance (LTPP)
of factors represents each Program final report.
LTPP site
MEPDG truck growth Linear or compound truck VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_ MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_ See the codes in VEH_CLASS_
function and growth rate by traffic growth rate for FUNCTION PARAMETERS GROWTH_USE_RATING field in
FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 FHWA vehicle classes VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_ the MEPDG_TRUCK_
4–13, expressed as a RATE VOL_PARAMETERS table and
percentage, from the first computational procedure in the
year when the pavement at Facilitating Analysts’ Use of Traffic
LTPP site location was Data from the Long-Term Pavement
opened to traffic until the Performance (LTPP) Program final
end of site participation in report.
the LTPP experiment
MAFs by year for computing Adjustment factors for MONTHLY_RATIO TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ See SQL scripts and procedures for
MEPDG MAFs AADTT for each FHWA ADJ_FACTR TRF_MEPDG tables; additional
vehicle class 4–13 by data manipulations are needed to
month reported for years compute representative values for
with 210 days or more of use in AASHTOWare Pavement ME
weight or count data Design software.(5)
HDF by year for computing Adjustment factors for PCT_HOURLY TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_ Computational method is based on
MEPDG HDF annual average hourly DIST NCHRP 1-37A Report (MEPDG);(7)
distribution of trucks by additional data manipulations are
hour in the LTPP lane needed to compute representative
values for use in AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design software.
28
Axles per truck by year for Average number of axles in AXLES_TRUCK TRF_MEPDG_AX_PER_ Values are computed from the axles
computing MEPDG APT each axle group for a TRUCK summed in the TRF_MONITOR_
vehicle in FHWA vehicle LTPP_LN LTPP table; SQL scripts
classes 4–13 reported for and procedures for TRF_MEPDG
each year with 210 days or tables.
more of weight or count
data
MEPDG APT Representative number of SINGLE_AXLES, MEPDG_AXLE_PER_ See the APT_USE_RATING field
axles for each truck class TANDEM_AXLES, TRUCK of the MEPDG_AXLE_PER_
(i.e., FHWA vehicle TRIDEM_AXLES, and TRUCK table. See Facilitating
classes 4–13) for each axle QUAD_AXLES Analysts’ Use of Traffic Data from
type (i.e., single, tandem, the Long-Term Pavement
tridem, and quad); one set Performance (LTPP) Program final
of factors represents per report.
LTPP site
ESAL historical estimate Annual ESALs in ANL_KESAL_LTPP_LN_ TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL From State or Provincial agency.
(prior to 1990) thousands in the LTPP lane YR Method unknown.
for years prior 1990
ESAL monitored (1990 or Annual ESALs in ANL_KESAL_LTPP_LN_ TRF_MON_EST_ESAL From State or Provincial agency.
later) thousands in the LTPP lane YR Method unknown.
for 1990 or later
Annual ESAL for years with Annual ESALs in KESAL_YEAR TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED See methodology from 1993
acceptable WIM data thousands in the LTPP lane AASHTO Guide for Design of
for sites with an acceptable Pavement Structures.(8)
sample of axle load
measurements in a given
year
Annual ESAL trend Annual ESAL estimate for ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND TRF_TREND See Facilitating Analysts’ Use of
estimated for all years each in-service year up to Traffic Data from the Long-Term
the end of site participation Pavement Performance (LTPP)
in the LTPP experiment Program final report.
Annual GESAL trend Annual GESAL estimate ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND TRF_TREND See Facilitating Analysts’ Use of
for each in-service year up Traffic Data from the Long-Term
to the end of site Pavement Performance (LTPP)
experiment
29
Annual total load trend Annual total load estimate ANNUAL_TOTAL_LOAD_T TRF_TREND See Facilitating Analysts’ Use of
estimated for all years for each in-service year up REND Traffic Data from the Long-Term
to the end of site Pavement Performance (LTPP)
experiment
Representative GESAL per Representative number of REP_GESAL_SINGLE_ TRF_REP See LTPP IMS, Database Schema
APT GESAL per APT AXLE, REP_GESAL_ for Analysis Ready Traffic
TANDEM_AXLE, Computed Parameters, February
REP_GESAL_TRIDEM 2019 (version 27), Working Draft
_AXLE, REP_GESAL_ Database Specifications. 3
QUAD_AXLE
Representative GESAL per Representative number of REP_GESAL_PER_VEH_ TRF_REP See LTPP IMS Database Schema for
vehicle class GESAL per vehicle class CLASS_4, REP_GESAL_ Analysis Ready Traffic Computed
for FHWA vehicle classes PER_VEH_CLASS_13 Parameters, February 2019.
4–13
Representative GESAL per Representative number of REP_GESAL_PER_TRUCK TRF_REP See LTPP IMS Database Schema for
truck GESAL per truck Analysis Ready Traffic Computed
Parameters, February 2019.
Representative ESAL per Representative number of REP_ESAL_SINGLE_AXLE, TRF_REP See LTPP IMS Database Schema for
APT ESAL per APT REP_ESAL_ Analysis Ready Traffic Computed
TANDEM_AXLE, Parameters, February 2019.
REP_ESAL_TRIDEM_
AXLE,
REP_ESAL_QUAD_AXLE
Representative ESAL per Representative number of REP_ESAL_PER_VEH_CLA TRF_REP See LTPP IMS Database Schema for
vehicle class ESAL per vehicle class for SS_4, …REP_ESAL_PE Analysis Ready Traffic Computed
FHWA vehicle classes R_VEH_CLASS_13 Parameters, February 2019.
4–13
Representative ESAL per Representative number of REP_ESAL_PER_TRUCK TRF_REP See LTPP IMS Database Schema for
truck ESAL per truck Analysis Ready Traffic Computed
Representative GVW per Representative GVW per REP_GVW_TRUCK TRF_REP See LTPP IMS Database Schema for
truck truck Analysis Ready Traffic Computed
3
A copy of LTPP IMS, Database Schema for Analysis Ready Traffic Computed Parameters, can be requested by contacting LTPP Customer Support Service
Center at ltppinfo@dot.gov.
30
Representative GVW per Representative GVW per REP_GVW_VEH_CLASS_4, TRF_REP See LTPP IMS Database Schema for
vehicle class vehicle class for FHWA …REP_GVW_VEH Analysis Ready Traffic Computed
vehicle classes 4–13 _CLASS_13 Parameters, February 2019.
Average monthly RPPIF per Monthly average RPPIF RPPIF RPPIF_NALS_MONTHLY See LTPP IMS—LTAS Database
axle per vehicle class per APT Schema for NALS Tables and
Derivative Computed Parameters,
August 2016 (version 6), Working
Draft Database Specification. 4
Annual average RPPIF per Annual average RPPIF per ANNUAL_RPPIF RPPIF_NALS_ANNUAL See LTPP IMS—LTAS Database
axle per vehicle class APT Schema for NALS Tables and
August 2016.
Average monthly RPPIF per Monthly average RPPIF by VEHICLE_CLASS_RPPIF RPPIF_VEHICLE_CLASS See LTPP IMS—LTAS Database
vehicle class vehicle class _MONTHLY Schema for NALS Tables and
August 2016.
Annual average RPPIF per Annual average RPPIF by VEHICLE_CLASS_RPPIF_A RPPIF_VEHICLE_CLASS See LTPP IMS—LTAS Database
vehicle class vehicle class NL _ANNUAL Schema for NALS Tables and
August 2016.
Monthly average RPPIF per Monthly average RPPIF TRUCK_RPPIF RPPIF_MONTHLY_AVG_ See LTPP IMS—LTAS Database
truck per truck TRUCK Schema for NALS Tables and
August 2016.
Annual average RPPIF per Annual average RPPIF per ANNUAL_TRUCK_RPPIF RPPIF_ANNUAL_AVG_ See LTPP IMS—LTAS Database
truck truck TRUCK Schema for NALS Tables and
August 2016.
MAFs = monthly adjustment factors; HDF = hourly distribution factors; NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
A copy of LTPP IMS—LTAS Database Schema for NALS Tables and Derivative Computed Parameters can be requested by contacting LTPP Customer
4
Support Service Center at ltppinfo@dot.gov.
31
CODES DESCRIBING DATA AND METHODS USED FOR PARAMETER
COMPUTATION AND PARAMETER USABILITY
To provide LTPP users with some means of assessing accuracy and applicability of available
analysis-ready traffic parameters, a set of codes is included in each table containing
analysis-ready traffic parameters. Table 3 through table 14 provide descriptions of codes
associated with different parameters. Using these codes, LTPP researchers could identify LTPP
sites that have traffic parameters that meet the analysis criteria based on the data source and data
quality information. These codes can be downloaded from the InfoPave web portal(3) by selecting
the following InfoPave options:
1. Select Data option from the main InfoPave menu.

2. Select LTPP Table Navigator option from the Data menu.
3. Select Codes (CODES) from the list of tables.
4. Click on “Export to Excel” button located at the bottom of the screen.
Table 3. Fields describing sources and usability of traffic parameters included in

analysis-ready tables.
LTPP Field LTPP Table
AADTT_SOURCE TRF_TREND
VEH_CLASS_SOURCE TRF_TREND
ESAL_SOURCE TRF_TREND
GESAL_SOURCE TRF_TREND
GVW_SOURCE TRF_TREND
REP_AADTT_USE_RATING TRF_REP
REP_VEH_CLASS_USE_RATING TRF_REP
REP_LOAD_USE_RATING TRF_REP
VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_USE_RATING MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS
ALDF_USE_RATING MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR
APT_USE_RATING MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK
Table 4. Codes for AADTT_SOURCE fields.

Code Description
E Estimated value
EC AADTT calculated using compound growth function
EL AADTT calculated using linear growth function
H Historical AADTT value
M Monitored AADTT value
MC Monitored AADTT value calculated from monitored class data (when available)
N No data; site not open to traffic
S State-provided AADTT value
WA Derived from publicly available AADT data on agency website
WC Derived from publicly available AADT and vehicle classification data on agency
website
32
Table 5. Codes for VEH_CLASS_SOURCE fields.
Code Description
A AADTT: Based on classification volumes calculated using AADTT and median class
percentages.
D Default: Based on an external source.
EC Estimated compound: Estimated based on other years of data at that site to fill in the
gaps in data coverage using a best fit compound growth equation.
EL Estimated linear: Estimated based on other years of data at that site to fill in the gaps
in data coverage using a best fit linear growth equation.
H Historical: AADTT value supplied by the State department of transportation.
M Monitored: AADTT value submitted in monitoring data.
MC Monitored calculated: AADTT value computed from vehicle classification data
obtained from the monitoring data collection program.
N Not open to traffic: This site has not yet opened to traffic.
S State-supplied: Based on State-supplied historical record data collection efforts prior
to the LTPP traffic monitoring program.
Table 6. Codes for the ESAL_SOURCE field.

Code Description
0 No annual ESAL is provided for the virtual SPS site (*00) or any site that has no
pavement structure information.
1 Annual ESAL is computed by LTPP based on site- and year-specific WIM data.
2 Annual ESAL is computed based on the average ESAL-per-truck values computed
using selected years of site-specific WIM data and site- and year-specific annual truck
volume from the TRF_TREND table.
3 Agency-supplied annual ESAL is for years during LTPP monitoring program.
4 Agency-supplied annual ESAL is for years prior to LTPP monitoring program.
5 Annual ESAL is estimated based on the representative ESAL-per-truck value from the
TRF_REP table and the site- and year-specific annual truck volume by vehicle class
from the TRF_TREND table.
6 Annual ESAL is 0 due to zero truck volume.
Table 7. Codes for the GESAL_SOURCE field.

Code Description
1 Annual GESAL is computed by LTPP based on site- and year-specific WIM data.
5 Annual GESAL is estimated based on the representative GESAL-per-vehicle-class
value from the TRF_REP table and the site- and year-specific AADTT by vehicle class
from the TRF_TREND table.
6 Annual GESAL is 0 due to zero truck volume.
33
Table 8. Codes for the GVW_SOURCE field.
Code Description
1 Annual total GVW is computed by LTPP based on site- and year-specific WIM data.
5 Annual total GVW is estimated based on the representative GVW per truck value from
the TRF_REP table and the site and year-specific annual truck volume from
TRF_TREND table.
6 Annual total GVW is 0 due to zero truck volume.
Table 9. Codes for the REP_AADTT_USE_RATING field.

Code Description
1 Best: >75 percent of AADTT estimates used have an AADTT_SOURCE of M, and no
years during that period experience a year-to-year change in AADTT >25 percent and
> 50 trucks.
2 Better: >75 percent of the AADTT estimates used have an AADTT_SOURCE of either
M or S, and no years during that period experience a year-to-year change in AADTT >25
and percent >50 trucks.
3 Good: >50 percent of the AADTT estimates used have an AADTT_SOURCE of M, but
<75 percent are M or S; no years have a year-to-year change in AADTT >25 percent and
>50 trucks.
4 Fair: >25 percent of the AADTT estimates used have an AADTT_SOURCE of M, but
< 50 percent are either M or S or have large year-over-year AADTT changes.
5 Poor: <25 percent of the AADTT estimates used have an AADTT_SOURCE of either M
or S.
Table 10. Codes for REP_VEH_CLASS_USE_RATING.

Code Description Long
1 Best: >75 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data, and no year-to-year
percentage any class changes by more than 15 percent in the period.
2 Better: >50 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data, and no year-to-year
percentage change in any class >15 percent and no years have a large year-to-year
change in AADTT.
3 Good: >50 percent but <75 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data and no
year-to-year change in any class >15 percent but at least one large year-to-year AADTT
change.
4 Fair: >25 percent but <50 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data or at
least one year-to-year change in any truck class >15 percent.
5 Poor: <25 percent of the years used are monitored vehicle class data.
6 No monitoring data were present.
34
Table 11. Codes for ALDF_USE_RATING fields.
Code Description
1 Best: Based on WIM data that satisfy accuracy requirements for ASTM E1318-09(17)
Type I WIM systems passing data reasonableness checks. Data include at least one of
each DOW in each month.
2 Better: Based on WIM data that satisfies accuracy requirements for ASTM E1318-09
Type I WIM systems passing data reasonableness checks. Data available for at least
1 year, not necessarily all months.
3 Good: Based on WIM data collected by the equipment that does not have a calibration
record. Data quality cannot be quantified. Values based on annual data summaries
passing QC checks.
4 Fair: Based on WIM data collected by the equipment that does not have a calibration
record. Data quality cannot be quantified. Values based on selected annual data
summaries passing QC checks.
5 Default-State pattern: Available WIM data are of unknown quality and did not pass
study descriptive checks for acceptable precision and bias.
6 Default-PLUG pattern: Available WIM data are of unknown quality and did not pass
study descriptive checks for acceptable precision and bias. Loading pattern used to
identify LTPP PLUG defaults.
7 Default-no pattern PLUG: No WIM or information about loading pattern and/or weights
is available. LTPP PLUG default values were assigned using information other than
site-specific weight data.
8 Default-no pattern State: No WIM or information about loading pattern and/or weights
is available. Default values based on the data from the other WIM sites in the same
State.
10 Agency ESAL based: No directly usable annual axle distribution. Agency ESAL
estimate more reasonable than ESALs computed from annual distribution and used as
basis for selecting loading distribution.
11 ESALCalc based: No directly usable annual axle distribution. ESALCalc estimate more
reasonable than agency ESAL estimate and used as basis for selecting loading
distribution.
12 Quantitative acceptance: Single available annual axle distribution quantitatively
screened and accepted for direct use. No better than “fair” quality.
13 Location based: No axle data or agency provided ESAL estimates. Loading distributions
selected based on location information only.
20 Multiple years of unknown data quality, with typical distribution accepted as
representative.
21 Multiple years of data of unknown quality: Agency ESAL estimates are consistent with
ESALs computed from distribution. Typical distribution accepted for use.
22 Multiple years of data of unknown quality: Agency ESAL estimates are reasonable but
smaller than ESALs computed from distribution. Typical distribution accepted for use.
23 Multiple years of data of unknown quality: Agency ESAL estimates are reasonable but
larger than with ESALs computed from distribution. Distributions selected based on
estimated ESALs.
35
Code Description
24 Multiple years of data of unknown quality: Agency ESAL estimates are not reasonable.
Distributions selected based on ESALs computed from distributions.
25 Multiple years of data of unknown quality: Reasonable agency ESAL estimates. ESALs
computed from distributions are lower than reasonable. Axle distributions selected
based on agency ESAL estimates.
26 Multiple years of data of unknown quality: Reasonable agency ESAL estimates. ESALs
computed from distributions are higher than reasonable. Axle distributions selected
based on agency ESAL estimates.
27 Multiple years of data of unknown quality: Agency ESAL estimates and ESALs
computed from distributions are higher than reasonable. Axle distributions selected
based on location.
AA Atypical axle type: Reported axle group is not typical for a given vehicle class. ALDF
values are not recommended for development of the defaults.
ALC Low axle count: Computed values are based on low axle count (<200 axles) and may
not be representative of typical loading condition for a given site.
ALS Small axle sample: Computed values are based on a low number of days with data and
may not be representative of typical loading condition for a given site.
DEF Vehicle class-axle combination not present in dataset: Default picked using the
low-volume criterion for the class.
NA Not applicable: Zero ALDF; vehicle class is not present.
QC = quality control.
Table 12. Codes for REP_LOAD_USE_RATING fields.

Code Description
1 Best: Based on WIM data that satisfies accuracy requirements for ASTM E1318-09(17)
Type I WIM systems passing data reasonableness checks. Data include at least one of
each DOW in each month.
2 Better: Based on WIM data that satisfies accuracy requirements for ASTM E1318-09
Type I WIM systems passing data reasonableness checks. Data available for at least
1 year, not necessarily all months.
3 Good: Based on WIM data collected by the equipment that does not have a calibration
record. Data quality cannot be quantified. Values based on annual data summaries
passing QC checks.
4 Fair: Based on WIM data collected by the equipment that does not have a calibration
record. Data quality cannot be quantified. Values based on selected annual data
summaries passing QC checks.
10 Estimate based on axle distributions selected using ESAL values and truck volumes as
inputs
12 Based on typical site axle distribution.
13 Estimate based on axle distributions selected as a function of site location.
99 Linked site quality undetermined.
36
Table 13. Codes for the APT_USE_RATING field.
Code Description
1 Extensive data availability: APT is based on >200 truck sample size from more than
365 days, recommended for site-specific analysis. Use for development of defaults if no
A codes exist.
2 Good data availability: APT is based on >200 truck sample size from between 210 and
364 days, recommended for site-specific analysis. Use for development of defaults if no
A codes exist.
3 Sufficient data availability: APT is based on a sample of more than 200 trucks collected
over <210 days in total. APT values are recommended for site-specific analysis.
4 Limited data availability: APT is based on <200 truck sample, use with caution in
site-specific analysis or consider use of defaults. Values are not recommended for
default value development.
5 Marginal data availability: APT is based on <100 truck sample, use with caution in
site-specific analysis or consider use of defaults. Values are not recommended for
default value development.
A0 Atypical total axles: Total number of APT does not follow FHWA 13-bin vehicle
classification rules for given vehicle class. Values are not recommended for
development of defaults.
A1 Atypically low single axles: <0.95 single APT (all trucks should have at least one single
steering axle). Values are not recommended for development of default values.
A2 Atypical tandem axle type: Tandem axle is atypical for a given vehicle class. Values are
not recommended for development of default values.
A3 Atypical tridem axle type: Tridem axle is atypical for a given vehicle class. Values are
not recommended for development of default values.
A4 Atypical quad axle type: Quad axle is atypical for a given vehicle class. Values are not
recommended for development of default values.
AW Low-quality weight data: The quality of the associated data is too low for estimating
weight but does not affect classification and axle count data applicability.
D0 Based on available annual estimated truck and axle counts.
D1 State- and route-based default using average axles for routes in the same State/Province
with the same type of route signing (Interstate, U.S., etc.).
D2 Country- and route-based default using average axles for routes in the same country
with the same type of route signing (Interstate, U.S., etc.).
D3 State-based default using average axles for all routes in the same State/Province.
NA Not applicable zero APT: Vehicle class is not present in supporting data.
37
Table 14. Codes for the VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_USE_RATING field.
Code Description
1 Best: >75 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data, and no year-to-year
percentage in any class changes by >15 percent in the period.
2 Better: >50 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data, and no year-to-year
percentage change in any class >15 percent, and no years have a large year-to-year
change in AADTT.
3 Good: >50 percent but <75 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data, and
no year-to-year change in any class >15 percent in <3 years.
4 Fair: >25 percent but <50 percent of years used are monitored vehicle class data or at
least one year-to-year change in any truck class >15 percent.
5 Poor: <25 percent of the years used are monitored vehicle class data.
6 Bad: No monitoring data are present.
38
CHAPTER 4. SELECTING LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND PARAMETERS FOR LTPP
ANALYSES
This chapter contains recommendations for selecting traffic data and parameters, including
references to LTPP traffic parameter names and LTPP tables containing these parameters,
suitable for most common pavement analyses.
OVERVIEW OF TRAFFIC PARAMETERS USED FOR PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND

DESIGN
The LTPP InfoPave portal contains multiple tables with traffic parameters.(3) These parameters
are summary statistics or application-specific input parameters that support a broad range of
research topics related to pavement response and performance modeling and analysis, and
pavement design. Based on the intended application, LTPP traffic parameters could be
categorized as follows:
• Data and parameters for a detailed characterization or study of traffic loading effects.
• Traffic summary parameters for high-level empirical pavement analyses.
• Parameters for use in specialized pavement analysis and design software (such as
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design).(5)
Parameters providing detailed characterizations of traffic loading are used for mechanistic and
mechanistic–empirical pavement response and performance modeling. These models require
detailed information about traffic loading, including information about wheel- and/or axle load
magnitude, load position and configuration (i.e., axle configuration and the position of the
wheels on the pavement), area of load application or tire footprint, load duration, and time
history of load application (i.e., changes in load magnitude over time). For pavement
performance modeling, traffic loading history for the whole analysis period is needed (i.e., the
number and magnitudes of loads reported for specified time increments used in the analysis).
Aggregated traffic summary parameters are used for empirical pavement performance analyses
and modeling, empirical pavement designs, and high-level analyses supporting pavement
management models and decision-support tools. Typically, for these analyses, a single-value
traffic summary statistic is desired, like ESAL, AADTT, CTV, or total load. Also, these
summary statistics are used to identify and group LTPP sites into categories representing
different levels of traffic.
Another set of traffic parameters available through the InfoPave web portal(3) is parameters that
can be used as a direct input for specialized pavement analysis or design software, such as those
used in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software.
39
TRAFFIC PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED FOR ANALYSES REQUIRING
DETAILED CHARACTERIZATIONS OF TRAFFIC LOADING
Parameters for Pavement Response Prediction Based on Mechanistic Models
Pavement response analysis and modeling studies are focused on stresses, strains, and deflections
that pavements experience under each traffic load application. Pavement responses can be
predicted using static or dynamic mechanistic modeling methods. Static analysis methods
assume that the truck load is constantly applied to the pavement. The dynamic methods consider
changes over time in traffic loads and pavement responses, as loads move over the pavement. In
the latter case, in addition to static load, a vertical load component caused by truck bounce, road
geometry, and pavement surface irregularities is considered, along with the speed or time history
of the load application.
Pavement responses predicted by static models (i.e., elastic, viscoelastic, and elastoplastic)
depend on the following traffic loading parameters:
• Magnitude of the load transferred by each wheel.
• Load configuration (i.e., location and number of wheel loads simultaneously applied on
the pavement surface).
• Load distribution within the tire footprint.
• Position of the wheels and axles relative to the edges of the pavement or concrete slab.
• Area and shape of load application (i.e., tire footprint).
• Sequence of loads.
Pavement responses predicted by dynamic models, in addition to these parameters, also require
the following additional inputs:
• Load duration.
• Rate of load application (i.e., number of load applications per time unit measure).
• Speed of moving load.
• Time history of load application (i.e., change in load magnitude or pressure within the
tire footprint over time as each wheel passes over a specific pavement location).
40
LTPP Tables Containing Traffic Parameters for Mechanistic Pavement Response Modeling
Table 15 summarizes the traffic parameters necessary for mechanistic pavement response
evaluation and modeling and the LTPP sources for these parameters. Often, significant data
processing is required to compute these parameters, and not all LTPP sites have the necessary
data for parameter computation. For parameters that do not have supporting LTPP data,
alternative data sources, when available, are recommended.
Table 15. Traffic parameters for mechanistic pavement response modeling.

Input Parameter Parameter Description LTPP Data Source
Vehicle class for each vehicle Vehicle class (FHWA vehicle LTPP WIM IVR files are stored offline
passage. classes 4–13)(11) or truck in the AIMS.(12)
configuration for each vehicle
passage, including the number and
spacing of axles.
Axle-to-axle spacing for each Distance between pairs of LTPP WIM IVR files are stored offline
vehicle passage, or annual average consecutive vehicles’ axles for each in the AIMS.
for each FHWA vehicle class 4–13. vehicle passage.
Axle load for each axle for each Static weight estimated by the WIM LTPP WIM IVR files are stored offline
vehicle passage or annual average system for each axle for each in AIMS and could be used to obtain
for each FHWA vehicle class 4–13. vehicle passage. axle load for each axle for each vehicle
passage; NALS tables available
through InfoPave(3) could be used to
compute average loads.
Wheel load for each axle for each Static weight estimated by the WIM This information is available from
vehicle passage or annual average system for each axle for each some WIM equipment but is not stored
for each FHWA vehicle class 4–13. vehicle passage; can be converted to by LTPP in the AIMS; LTPP NALS
an estimate of wheel load given tables could be used to compute
assumptions about the number of average wheel loads.
tires on each axle.
Duration of each axle- or wheel- Time during which the axle load This information is not collected by
load application. was applied on the monitored LTPP; data could be obtained from
pavement section; used for dynamic some WIM controller records.
pavement response modeling only.
Time history of changes in load Dynamic-load amplitude estimated This information is not collected by
magnitude for each axle or wheel based on the WIM signal for each LTPP; data could be obtained from
passage at a point of interest. millisecond during axle passage some WIM controller records but is
over the WIM sensor; used for not routinely reported by WIM
dynamic pavement response equipment.
modeling only.
Wheel location on the pavement Wheel location measured in inches This information is not collected by
associated with each axle and from the outer edge of the wheel to LTPP; data could be obtained from
vehicle passage, or annual average the pavement marking for each axle specially configured quartz-piezo
for each FHWA vehicle class 4–13. and vehicle passage. sensor arrays and from the advanced
WIM sensors that record tire footprint
and tire position data.
Tire footprint area for each axle Tire footprint area of each axle and This information is not collected by
associated with each vehicle vehicle passage. LTPP; the advanced WIM sensors that
passage, or annual average for each capture tire footprint and tire position
FHWA vehicle class 4–13. data are currently available for pilot
implementations.
41
Load distribution within a tire Load distribution over the footprint This information is not collected by
footprint. area for each axle and vehicle LTPP; the advanced WIM sensors
passage. capable of recording pressure
distribution under the tire footprint are
currently available for pilot
implementations.
Axle width from each vehicle Distance in feet between two This information is not collected by
passage, or annual average for each outside edges of an axle. LTPP; default values may be
FHWA vehicle class 4–13. appropriate due to expected low
variability of this parameter.
Dual-tire spacing from each vehicle Distance in feet between two tires. This information is not collected by
passage, or annual average for each LTPP; default values may be
FHWA vehicle class 4–13. appropriate due to expected low
variability of this parameter.
Tire pressure for the wheels of each Tire pressure (could be used as This information is not collected by
vehicle, or annual average for each alternative means for computing LTPP.
FHWA vehicle class 4–13. size of tire footprint).
Truck speed for each vehicle Truck speed. Value could be obtained from
passage with each vehicle passage, available LTPP WIM IVRs recorded
or annual average for each FHWA for each vehicle passage; LTPP WIM
vehicle class 4–13. IVR files are stored offline in the
AIMS.
IVR = individual vehicle record.
Parameters for Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Performance Predictions
While pavement response analysis and modeling studies are focused on stresses, strains, and
deflections that pavements experience under each traffic load application, pavement performance
analysis and modeling studies are focused on pavement distresses (cracking, rutting, faulting,
etc.) that develop over time. Many pavement distresses develop from incremental or cumulative
changes in pavement structure over time due to material aging, environmental impacts, and
traffic loading. Therefore, for traffic loading characterization, in addition to information about
individual traffic load applications, it is important to know the sequence and cumulative total
number of traffic load applications that lead to pavement deterioration over time.
Many mechanistic–empirical pavement performance analyses are carried out using the MEPDG
method and software products, such as AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.(5) This software
uses a defined set of traffic input parameters in a specific format. These parameters are described
later in this chapter in section, Traffic Parameters for MEPDG Applications Using
AASHTOWARE Pavement ME Design Software. The following sections detail
recommendations for traffic parameters needed for generic mechanistic–empirical pavement
performance analysis and modeling. The traffic parameters that are formatted specifically for use
in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software are described in a separate section.
Axle Loading Characterization
To provide a means for tracking and summarizing traffic load applications over time, traffic
loads are summarized in the form of an axle load spectrum (note that, in some pavement
applications, “axle load spectrum” is referred to as “axle load distribution”). An axle load
spectrum represents a frequency distribution of axle loads, where counts of axle load applications
42
observed during a specified period of time are summed and reported using predefined load bins.
Recognizing the importance of axle load configuration, separate axle load spectra are used to
summarize axle load counts for typical axle groups: single, tandem, tridem, and quad. Depending
on the intended use, load spectra could be created for an individual truck class or for all truck
classes combined. In summary, input from axle load spectra provides information about axle
load magnitudes, the number of axle load applications over a specified period of time at that
magnitude, and axle load configuration (i.e., the number of axles in each axle load group). If no
site-specific axle weight data are available to compute an axle load spectrum, default axle
weights could be used.
In addition to axle load spectra, information about the relative position of axle loads on the
pavement is also important, especially for jointed rigid pavements.
Such detailed characterization of traffic loading allows modeling of pavement responses and
performance using methods where each axle load application on the pavement, expected or
observed during the analysis period, is modeled, and its effect on pavement response and
performance is predicted.
LTPP Tables Containing Traffic Parameters for Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement

Performance Modeling
Table 16 summarizes traffic parameters recommended for generic mechanistic–empirical

pavement performance modeling using pavement response models with static loads. LTPP
sources for these parameters are also provided in the table.
Table 16. Traffic parameters for generic mechanistic–empirical pavement performance

modeling.
Axle load spectrum Frequency distribution, where a number of This parameter is available in InfoPave(3)
axle load applications observed during a tables DD_AX (daily), MM_AX (monthly),
specified period of time is reported in YY_AX (annual), and
predefined load bins. Separate axle load TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB
spectra are used to summarize axle loading (annualized) for each year with WIM data,
for typical axle load groups: single, tandem, MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR
tridem, and quad. Axle load spectra could (representative values for a typical day of
represent daily, monthly, or annual traffic the month or year).
loading summaries. This input must cover the
whole analysis period, using time increments
specified for analysis, so that the number of
axle load applications can be used to model
incremental changes in pavement structure
over the selected analysis period.
Number of APT Annual or representative number of single, This parameter is available in InfoPave(3)
tandem, tridem, and quad axles for each truck table TRF_MEPDG_AX_PER_
class (FHWA vehicle classes 4–13).(11) TRUCK for each year with sufficient WIM
data or MEPDG_AXLE_PER
_TRUCK (representative set of values per
LTPP site). Additional values could be
computed from LTPP WIM IVR files.
43
Axle spacing for Average axle spacing in inches for tandem, This parameter is not available through
tandem, tridem, and tridem, and quad+ axles. LTPP sources. It could be computed using
quad axle groups LTPP WIM IVR files.
Axle spacing Frequency of longitudinal spacing of This parameter is not available in
distribution consecutive axles in feet, excluding spacing InfoPave.(3) It could be computed using
within tandem, tridem, and quad+ axles. LTPP WIM IVR files.
Used to model locations of the load for JPCP
pavements.
Average axle width The distance in feet between two outside This information is not collected by LTPP.
edges of an axle. Only needed for rigid Use manufacturers’ truck specifications to
pavement analysis. find typical values.
Operational speed Average truck speed. This information could be obtained from
WIM IVR records that follow the 2016 or
later TMG data submission format.
Dual-tire spacing Dual tire spacing. This information is not collected by LTPP.
Use manufacturers’ truck specifications to
find typical values.
Tire pressure One value representing hot tire-inflation This information is not collected by LTPP.
pressure.
Mean wheel location The distance from the outer edge of the This information is not collected by LTPP.
wheel to the pavement marking. Used to
model location of the load.
Truck wander Standard deviation from the mean wheel This information is not collected by LTPP.
location, based on wheel-location
measurements from the lane marking. Used
to model location of the load.
JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavement.
TRAFFIC SUMMARY PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED FOR HIGH-LEVEL AND

EMPIRICAL ANALYSES
Many LTPP studies of pavement performance use empirical methods or statistical models to
correlate pavement performance parameters (e.g., road roughness) to traffic and environmental
loads, site conditions, material properties, and construction practices. These studies frequently
use a single traffic summary parameter to describe traffic in the LTPP lane at each LTPP site.
These analyses may require a complete history of changes in the selected traffic summary
parameter (computed annually for the duration of the pavement’s service life, LTPP experiment,
or analysis period), a single cumulative value aggregated over the analysis period, or one
representative traffic summary value for each LTPP site. The most frequently used traffic
summary parameters for empirical analyses are AADTT and ESAL. More details about different
summary statistics and recommendations for their uses are provided in the ensuing sections.
Traffic Loading Summary Parameters
ESAL as a Traditional Traffic Loading Summary Statistic
ESAL has been used as a summary traffic loading statistic for pavement design and analysis
applications since the 1960s. ESAL is a concept developed from data collected at the American
Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) Road Test to establish a relationship to
compare the effects of axles carrying different loads on pavement damage.(18) In ESAL
44
computation, load-equivalency factors (LEFs) are used to convert a mixed stream of traffic
consisting of different axle loads and configurations predicted over a design or analysis period
into an equivalent number of 18,000-lb single-axle load applications summed over that period.
Thus, ESAL is a cumulative traffic loading summary statistic. Although general understanding
and consensus exist in the pavement engineering community that ESALs or LEFs do not
precisely describe the relationship between axle loads and specific pavement distresses like
rutting or cracking, ESAL continues to be a convenient statistic for sizing and quantifying traffic
loading levels for empirical pavement analysis and design.
It is important to note that in addition to traffic loading, ESAL values depend on pavement type,
pavement thickness, and road condition, expressed through a subjective pavement serviceability
index. As a result, ESAL values representing the same traffic stream can vary due to a change in
the pavement type or because the pavement was rehabilitated and, thus, its thickness and/or
roughness changed.
GESAL
GESAL is a parameter computed similar to ESAL, using LEFs for flexible pavements with an
SN equal to 5 and pavement terminal serviceability index equal to 2.5.(19) Because LEFs are set
to a constant, GESALs are independent of pavement type and thickness and the level and type of
pavement distress. Therefore, any changes in GESAL values can be directly attributed to
changes in traffic loads. This makes GESAL a more desired summary traffic loading statistic for
comparing loads, correlating the effect of traffic loads to pavement performance or for
comparing traffic loading between LTPP sites. This summary statistic is more sensitive to the
importance of heavy loads on pavement performance compared to the average traffic load or
total traffic load summary statistics. However, use of constant LEF parameters makes GESAL
not applicable as a direct input to empirical pavement design using the methodology in the 1993
version of the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.(8)
RPPIF
RPPIF is a parameter designed to aid in identifying LTPP sites with similar traffic-loading
levels.(10) Like ESAL, RPPIF computation uses factors that are applied to load spectrum, but
instead of using LEFs based on data from the AASHO Road Test,(18) it uses a parameter called
W-factor. W-factors were determined through MEPDG analysis, based on globally calibrated
distress-prediction models included in the MEPDG report and software.(10) W-factors are not
normalized with respect to 18-kip single-axle loads like LEFs, but instead are normalized with
respect to a fully loaded tandem-axle load, which is 34 kips. The main purpose or usability of
this statistic is to compare axle loading distributions between different sites. As MEPDG models
evolve, W-factors used for RPPIF computation may need to be updated, or distress-specific W-
factors and RPPIF statistics may be desired for a particular pavement performance modeling
task. As with GESAL, the RPPIF statistic is independent of pavement type and thickness and
level of pavement distress.
45
Annual Total Load and Cumulative Total Load
The annual total truck load (ATL) parameter is an estimate or summation of all truck traffic
loads accumulated over a year. The cumulative total truck load (CTL) parameter is an estimate or
summation of all truck traffic loads accumulated over the entire analysis period. The main
advantage of ATL and CTL parameters is that they are independent of empirically derived
relationships that relate load to pavement damage, like ESAL. However, these parameters cannot
be used to infer whether trucks are empty or loaded and whether their values are affected by the
number or the weight of trucks (i.e., a small number of heavy trucks and large number of light
trucks may produce the same ATL value). These limitation makes ATL and CTL parameters less
desirable for analyses of pavement performance that have a nonlinear relationship with load
magnitude.
Traffic and Truck Volume Summary Parameters
For analyses focused on characterizing total traffic or truck volumes at LTPP sites, several
statistical parameters are available through InfoPave web portal.(3) The most widely used traffic
volume parameters are AADT and AADTT in LTPP lane. The AADTT parameter is more
relevant for pavement analysis and management applications than AADT because trucks have a
much higher contribution to pavement damage than the lighter vehicles that make up most of the
AADT number. The AADT parameter may be more appropriate as an input in road prioritization
decision algorithms within pavement or road maintenance management applications.
Other traffic volume statistics used in pavement analyses are total annual truck volume, annual
truck volume by vehicle class, the ratio of FHWA vehicle class 5 to class 9 truck volumes,
cumulative volume of FHWA vehicle class 9 vehicles, and cumulative volume of heavy vehicles
(FHWA vehicle classes 4 and 6–13(11)). In some empirical analyses, annual volume of FHWA
vehicle class 9 vehicles or the portion of AADTT attributed to FHWA vehicle class 9 vehicles
may be used. Typically, in the United States, FHWA vehicle class 9 vehicles carry the largest
portion of total load due to their heavy weight, and they typically make up a high percentage of
the truck population.
Recommendations for Selecting Summary Traffic Loading Parameters Based on the

Purpose of the Analysis
The following recommendations are for the situations when a single traffic loading summary
parameter is a desired input for pavement analysis. No single traffic loading summary parameter
works equally well for all pavement analysis applications, mostly due to the differences in
sensitivity of different pavement distresses to load magnitude versus the number of axle load
applications. The choice of a traffic loading statistic should be based on the intent of the analysis
and perceived relationship between the load and pavement distress. The following is guidance
for selecting a traffic loading summary parameter based on the type of pavement distress being
analyzed:
• If a pavement distress is primarily caused by the repeated heavy axle loads (as in the case
of fatigue cracking), then a summary loading statistic that properly accounts for the
number of heavy-load applications should be used, such as ESAL or GESAL.
46
• If a pavement distress is caused by overloaded trucks or axles (as in the case of rigid
pavement slab cracking), then the summary loading statistic should accurately describe
the number of fully loaded and overloaded axles and average weight of these axles, such
as the number of fully loaded and overloaded axles or the number and average weight of
heavy trucks (FHWA vehicle classes 4 and 6–13(11)).
• If a pavement distress is primarily caused by repeated load application (as in the case of
raveling and, to some degree, rutting), then a summary loading statistic that accurately
describes the number of load applications should be used, such as AADTT, cumulative
total truck volume, CTL, or the total number of axle loads for FHWA vehicle classes
4–13.
• If the cause of the distress is not known but perceived to be load related and a single
traffic loading summary parameter is desired for the analysis, then GESAL or RPPIF may
be the traffic loading summary statistic of choice. The reasoning behind this
recommendation is that these statistics are independent of pavement-related variables but
recognize the higher significance of heavier traffic loads in pavement deterioration. These
parameters are based on an actual axle load spectrum, as well as truck volume. Another
alternative is to use a parameter that represents the total number of heavy axle load
applications (those that are at or above of 50, 75, or 100 percent of the Federal legal load
limit per axle or per truck).
• If a traffic loading statistic that is free of any adjustments with respect to significance of
load magnitude to pavement damage development is needed, either the ATL or CTL
summary statistic can be used. These parameters are suitable for higher level pavement
network-level performance analyses.
• If no site-specific vehicle weight data are available to compute axle or truck weights for
use as a loading traffic summary statistic, default axle weights can be selected for
individual truck FHWA vehicle classes 4–13,(11) such as defaults provided in LTPP
PLUG.(9) These default weights, in combination with site-specific truck volume and
vehicle classification data, can be used to estimate traffic loads and compute a traffic
loading summary statistic of choice for any LTPP site.
• If a parameter to characterize or differentiate traffic loading intensity between LTPP sites

is desired, the average truck weight, GESAL per truck, or RPPIF per truck can be used as
a traffic loading summary statistic. Another alternative is to characterize traffic loading
intensity between LTPP sites with respect to the percentage of heavy axles (75 percent or
more of the Federal legal load limit per axle) that are present on a test section. For
example, a test site might be characterized to have light loading (i.e., less than one-third
of axle applications are heavy), moderate loading (i.e., between one-third and one-half of
axle applications are heavy), or heavy loading (i.e., greater than one-half of axle
applications are heavy).
47
LTPP Tables Containing Traffic Loading Summary Parameters
Table 17 summarizes different traffic summary parameters, specifies the types of analyses for
which these parameters are appropriate to use, and provides references to LTPP traffic data
tables (accessible through InfoPave web portal(3)) containing these parameters.
Table 17. Traffic summary parameters.

Recommended Use and
Parameter Description Limitations LTPP Data Sources
AADT Traffic summary statistic used Can be used to quantify road AADT_ALL_VEHIC_2WAY
to measure average daily road importance for pavement and AADT_ALL_VEHIC
use by all vehicular traffic. management applications to fields from TRF_MON_EST_
quantify the level of facility ESAL and TRF_HIST_EST_
use and as an input for safety ESAL tables. Data are not
and congestion studies; should available for all LTPP test
not be used for evaluating the sites or all in-service years.
effect of traffic loads on Additional data interpolation
pavement performance. and extrapolation required to
estimate AADT for all years.
AADTT Truck traffic summary statistic Can be used to quantify road AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS_
used to measure average daily importance for pavement TREND field from
road use by heavy vehicles management applications; not TRF_TREND table (for LTPP
(FHWA vehicle classes sufficient as a single summary lane only).
4–13).(11). statistic for evaluating the
effect of traffic loads on
pavement performance.
Cumulative truck Traffic summary statistic used Can be used as an input in Compute by summing
traffic volume to measure total road use by analyses of effects of traffic on ANNUAL_TRUCK_
heavy vehicles (FHWA nonstructural pavement VOLUME_TREND values
vehicle classes 4–13) from the distresses and as supplemental from TRF_TREND table.
pavement’s open to traffic date input in analyses of effects of
to the end of pavement service traffic on structural pavement
life or end of the LTPP response and performance; not
experiment. sufficient as a single summary
statistic for evaluating the
effect of traffic on structural
pavement performance.
Cumulative Traffic summary statistic used Can be used as a primary or CUMULATIVE_VEH_
volume of to measure road use by FHWA supplemental input for CLASS_9_TREND field from
FHWA vehicle vehicle class 9 vehicles from analyses of pavement TRF_TREND table.
class 9 trucks the pavement’s open to the performance for LTPP sites
end of pavement service life or with dominant FHWA vehicle
end of the LTPP experiment. class 9 trucks; limitations
associated with variable loads
carried by FHWA vehicle
class 9 trucks should be
understood.
Cumulative Traffic summary statistic used Can be used as a primary or CMLTV_VOL_HEAVY_
volume of heavy to measure road use by FHWA supplemental input for TRUCKS_TREND field from
trucks (FHWA vehicle classes 4 and 6–13 analyses of pavement TRF_TREND table.
vehicle classes 4 from the pavement’s open to performance; limitations
and 6–13) traffic date to the end of associated with variable loads
pavement service life or end of carried by these trucks should
the LTPP experiment. be understood.
48
Recommended Use and
Annual ESAL Traffic loading summary Historically used as a primary ANL_KESAL_LTPP_LN_YR
statistic that uses coefficients input parameter to relate field from TRF_HIST_EST_
developed from the AASHO pavement performance to ESAL or TRF_MON_EST_
Road Test to convert traffic traffic loading; can be used to ESAL tables;
stream to an equivalent characterize traffic loading at TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED
number of 18,000-lb the site, but can be affected by table KESAL_YEAR field;
single-axle loads. nontraffic parameters (i.e., TRF_TREND table
pavement structure, thickness, ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND
and serviceability); if used as a field.
direct input to analyze
pavement response or
performance, limitations
associated with the ESAL
statistic should be understood.
Cumulative Traffic loading summary Historically used as a Compute by summing the
ESAL statistic that provides total parameter to relate pavement annual ESAL values from
measure of traffic load performance to traffic loading; TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL,
accumulated from the used as traffic input to the TRF_MON_EST_ESAL,
pavement’s open to traffic date AASHTO guide from 1993(8) TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED, or
to the end of pavement service and earlier pavement design TRF_TREND tables.
life or end of the LTPP methods; can be used as a
experiment; uses coefficients general estimate of cumulative
developed from the AASHO traffic loading; however,
Road Test to convert traffic because it is affected by
stream to an equivalent nontraffic parameters (i.e.,
number of 18,000-lb pavement structure, thickness,
single-axle loads. and serviceability), its
applicability may be limited.
Annual GESAL Similar to ESAL computation Can be used as a general ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND
for flexible pavements but has estimate of traffic loading at field from TRF_TREND table.
pavement structure and the site and as an input
pavement condition inputs set parameter to relate pavement
to a constant value. performance to traffic loading
when multiple sites are
considered in the analysis; if
used in the analysis,
limitations and assumptions
associated with the GESAL
formulation must be taken in
consideration.
Cumulative Traffic loading summary Can be used as a general Compute by summing the
GESAL statistic similar to cumulative estimate of traffic loading at annual GESAL values from
ESAL but has pavement the site and as an input ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND
structure and pavement parameter to relate pavement field of TRF_TREND table.
condition inputs set to constant performance to traffic loading
values. when multiple sites are
considered in the analysis; if
used in the analysis,
limitations and assumptions
associated with GESAL
formulation need to be
considered by the analyst.
49
Recommended Use and
Representative Summary loading statistic Used to quantify differences in REP_RPPIF_SINGLE_
RPPIF per truck similar to ESAL per axle (i.e., axle loading between different AXLE, REP_RPPIF_
axle single, tandem, tridem, and axle load spectra; can be used TANDEM_AXLE, REP_
quad) but with LEF estimated to identify load spectra likely RPPIF_TRIDEM_AXLE, and
based on MEPDG simulations to produce different levels of REP_RPPIF_QUAD_AXLE
and normalized to fully loaded pavement distresses, fields from TRF_REP table.
34,000-lb tandem-axle loads. especially for distress that are
sensitive to heavy axle load
applications.
Representative Similar to ESAL per truck Can be used to quantify REP_RPPIF_PER_TRUCK
RPPIF per truck statistic but with LEF differences in loading between and REP_RPPIF_PER_
estimated based on MEPDG different truck classes or for VEH_CLASS_# fields from
simulations and normalized to the same truck class between TRF_REP table.
fully loaded 34,000-lb different LTPP sites.
tandem-axle loads.
ATL Summary loading statistic that Can be used as an input ANNUAL_TOTAL_LOAD_
represents an estimate of the parameter to relate pavement TREND field from
total weight of all vehicles in performance to traffic loading; TRF_TREND table.
FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 major limitation is that it does
applied to the pavement during not contain information on the
the reporting year. number of heavy loads that are
especially damaging for
pavements.
CTL Summary loading statistic that Can be used as an input Compute by summing annual
represents an estimate of a parameter to relate pavement traffic load values from
total weight of all vehicles in performance to traffic loading; ANNUAL_TOTAL_LOAD_
FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 major limitation is that it does TREND field of TRF_TREND
applied to the pavement from not contain information on the table.
the pavement’s open to traffic number of heavy loads that are
date to the end of pavement especially damaging for
service life or end of the LTPP pavements.
experiment.
Representative Representative average GVW Describes typical weight of REP_GVW_VEH_CLASS_#
average GVW for each FHWA vehicle class different types of trucks but field from TRF_REP table.
for each FHWA 4–13. does not contain information
vehicle class about truck volume or total
4–13 loading experienced by the
site; in combination with
AADTT by vehicle class
information, can be used to
define traffic loading
associated with each FHWA
vehicle class 4–13 at the site.
50
Recommended Use and
Representative Representative average GVW Can be used to identify or REP_GVW_TRUCK field
average GVW for the site for FHWA vehicle group LTPP sites with a from TRF_REP table.
for FHWA classes 4–13 combined. similar rate of traffic loading;
vehicle classes provides a description of
4–13 combined expected traffic loading but
does not contain information
about truck volume or total
loading experienced by the
site; in combination with
AADTT information, can be
used to characterize total
traffic at the site.
TRAFFIC PARAMETERS FOR MEPDG APPLICATIONS USING AASHTOWARE

PAVEMENT ME DESIGN SOFTWARE
A complete list of input traffic parameters required by AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

software(5) is shown in table 18. This software provides a means to analyze pavement response
and performance using MEPDG models. The parameters shown in table 18 are also used for the
local calibration of MEPDG models and for developing and testing new performance prediction
models.
Table 18. Traffic input parameters required by AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

software.(5)

ALDF for single, ALDF represents a percentile axle load This parameter is available in MEPDG_
tandem, tridem, distribution for a typical day for each AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table in
and quad axles calendar month for a typical design/analysis MEPDG_LG01… MEPDG_LG39 fields.
(percent) year; one set of ALDF is provided for each
vehicle class (FHWA vehicle classes
4–13),(11) axle group type (i.e., single,
tandem, tridem, and quad+), and calendar
month (January through December); ALDF
stay constant between analysis years.
Vehicle class One percentile distribution of vehicles in This parameter is available in
volume FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 is provided to MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS
distribution represent an average VCD for the base table in VEH_CLASS_DISTRIBUTION
(percent) design/analysis year. _PERCENT field, where vehicle class is
defined by the VEH_CLASS field.
Monthly One set of 12 monthly coefficients is Information to compute this parameter is
adjustment factors provided for each FHWA vehicle class 4–13 available for some sites through the
to represent differences in truck volumes InfoPave web portal(3) in the form of
between different calendar months for the monthly summary statistics for each year
base design/analysis year; the sum of factors with data; see the
for all months for one truck class should TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR
equal 12. table and MONTHLY_RATIO field;
compute the average factors, considering
all or selected years of data; one
representative set of factors should be used
in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software.
51
Hourly adjustment One set of 24 hourly factors is provided, Information to compute this parameter is
factors (percent) showing the representative percentage of available through the InfoPave web
total truck traffic for each hour; values are portal(3) for each year with monitored
the same for all truck classes and only apply traffic data; see
to truck volumes; the sum of factors for all TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST table and
hours should equal 100; this input parameter PCT_HOURLY field; compute the average
only applies to PCC pavements. factors, considering all or selected a years
of data; one representative set of factors
should be used in AASHTOWare
Number of APT One representative set of values is provided, This parameter is available through
showing the average number of single, InfoPave web portal(3) in
tandem, tridem, and quad axles for each MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK table in
truck class (FHWA vehicle classes 4–13). SINGLE_AXLES, TANDEM_AXLES,
TRIDEM_AXLES, and QUAD_AXLES
fields.
Base year One value representing the annual average This parameter is available through
AADTT for LTPP daily volume of vehicles in FHWA vehicle InfoPave web portal(3) in MEPDG_
lane classes 4–13 for the first full (base) TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS table in
design/analysis year is provided. If this AADTT_FIRST_YEAR_LTPP_LANE
input parameter is used in the field.
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software in place of two-way AADTT, enter
the following values: percent trucks in
design direction = 100, and percent trucks in
design lane = 100; alternative input to
AADTT for LTPP lane: base year two-way
AADTT.
Base year Two-way AADTT is provided, computed Information to compute this parameter
two-way AADTT for the first full (base) design/analysis year. using a limited number of years is
available in the LTPP database for many
LTPP sites; instead of this parameter, a
better approach is to use the parameter and
corresponding instructions for base year
AADTT for LTPP lane.
Number of lanes Number of lanes in the design direction This parameter is available in
in design direction (direction of LTPP lane) is provided. SHRP_INFO table in LANES_LTPP_DIR
field.
Percentage of Percentage of trucks in the design direction This parameter is not available in the
trucks in design (direction of LTPP lane) is provided for the LTPP sources; instead, use the parameter
direction base design/analysis year. and corresponding instructions for base
year AADTT for LTPP lane.
Percentage of Percentage of trucks in the design lane This parameter is not available in the
trucks in design (LTPP lane) is provided for the base LTPP sources; instead, use the parameter
lane design/analysis year. and corresponding instructions for base
year AADTT for LTPP lane.
Growth rate by Annual growth rate (percent) for each truck This parameter is available in
vehicle class class (FHWA vehicle classes 4–13) is MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS
(percent) provided. This parameter is used together table in VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_RATE
with the growth function parameter (linear field.
or compound) to estimate truck volume
from AADTT values provided for the base
design/analysis year for each year of the
analysis/design period.
52
Vehicle class Type of truck volume growth function This parameter is available in
growth function (linear or compound) is provided by FHWA MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS
by vehicle class vehicle classes 4–13. This parameter is used table in VEH_CLASS_GROWTH
together with the growth rate parameter to _FUNCTION field.
estimate truck volume over the
analysis/design period from the base
design/analysis year AADTT values.
Operational speed This parameter is defined as the posted This parameter is not available in the
(mph) speed limit or the average speed of heavier LTPP sources but could be computed from
trucks through the project limits. WIM IVR files submitted in the 2016
TMG(11) format; alternatively, use the
posted speed limit.
Axle spacing for Average representative axle spacing This parameter is not available in the
tandem, tridem, (inches) is provided for tandem, tridem, and LTPP sources but could be computed from
and quad axles quad axles. WIM IVR files; alternatively, use the
(inches) LTPP default in the LTPP PLUG report.(9)
Percentage of This parameter provides percentages of This parameter is not available in the
trucks with short, trucks with wheelbases that fall in the LTPP sources but could be computed from
medium, and long following three categories: short (≤12 ft), WIM IVR files; alternatively, use the
wheelbases medium (>12 and ≤15 ft), and long (>15 LTPP default in the LTPP PLUG report.
(percent) and ≤20 ft); for multiunit and combination
trucks, only the wheelbase of the truck
power-unit (i.e., first unit) is considered;
used for top–down JPCP cracking model
only.
Average axle The average distance (feet) between two This parameter is not available in the
width (ft) outside edges of an axle is provided as a LTPP sources; use the default in
representative value for all truck classes; AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
only needed for rigid pavement designs. software.
Mean wheel The mean distance (inches) from the outer This parameter is not available in the
location (inches) edge of the wheel to the pavement marking LTPP sources; use the default in
is kept constant between all truck classes AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
and does not change over time. software.
Truck wander Standard deviation (inches) from the mean This parameter is not available in the
standard deviation wheel location is computed based on LTPP sources; use the default in
(inches) measurements from the lane marking. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software.
Dual-tire spacing Average spacing (inches) of dual tires is This parameter is not available in the
(inches) kept constant between all truck classes and LTPP sources; use the default in
does not change over time. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software.
Tire pressure (psi) One value representing hot tire inflation This parameter is not available in the
pressure is kept constant between all truck LTPP sources; use the default in
classes and does not change over time. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software.
MEPDG Parameters Requiring Special Input Formats
Most input parameters can be manually entered into AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software user interface.(5) However, two input parameters—axle load distribution factors and
monthly truck volume adjustment factors—consist of a large set of values. Due to the large size
of these input parameters, the preferable way to enter them into AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Design software is to upload files in a format readable by the software. Alternatively, these input
53
parameters could be entered into the software by copying values from the
MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table and pasting into the AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design software user interface.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ASSESSING AXLE LOADING DISTRIBUTION DATA

RATIONALITY
For successful use in pavement analyses, axle loading distributions factors or NALS must be
computed using accurate axle loading data. Accurate estimates of heavy axle loads are especially
important for load-related pavement response and distress modeling. Therefore, WIM data
should be collected by a calibrated WIM system that satisfies ASTM E1318-09 requirements for
Type Ⅰ WIM systems for the duration of the data collection period.(17)
Only a limited number of LTPP WIM sites have the necessary information in
TRF_EQUIPMENT_MASTER and TRF_CALIBRATION_WIM tables (available through
InfoPave web portal(3)) to quantify WIM data quality and conclude that the available data satisfy
the ASTM E1318-09 requirements for Type Ⅰ WIM systems. To overcome this limitation,
several WIM data rationality checks have been developed to help LTPP users evaluate the
reasonableness and usability of available axle loading data.
The WIM data rationality checks detailed in this section could be used to identify axle loading
distributions likely affected by a strong measurement bias (due to a lack of calibration or
calibration drift) and/or low precision in heavy weight measurements or by vehicle
misclassification. These checks apply to monthly and annual single and tandem NALS for
FHWA vehicle class 9 trucks.(11) FHWA vehicle class 9 NALS are used because this vehicle
class has a well-known and predictable axle loading distribution. Changes in NALS over time or
unusual distributions are used to identify data with suspected quality issues.
These checks are designed to identify high percentages of unusually light or heavy axle loads for
FHWA vehicle class 9 vehicles, as well as atypical weights corresponding to loaded and
unloaded tandem axles of FHWA vehicle class 9 vehicles. High percentages of very light loads
typically indicate a vehicle misclassification issue or calibration drift. Very high percentages of
loads exceeding the legal load limit on tandem axles typically indicate calibration drift. Annual
or monthly NALS that have high percentages of both very light and very heavy loads could also
indicate low precision or temperature sensitivity of WIM weight measurements. Knowledge of
local truck traffic trends and commodities is important for making decisions about usability of
WIM datasets flagged through reasonableness checks.
The following are class 9 single-axle NALS checks:
• Ten percent or greater are <5,000 lb.

• Three percent or greater are ≥20,000 lb.
• Average single-axle weight or peak load in NALS is <9,000 lb.
• Average single-axle weight or peak load in NALS is >12,500 lb.
54
The following are class 9 tandem-axle NALS checks:
• U.S. sites: 10 percent or greater are <8,000 lb.
• U.S. sites: 20 percent or greater are ≥34,000 lb.
• Canadian sites: 10 percent or greater are <8,000 lb.
• Canadian sites: 20 percent or greater are ≥38,000 lb.
• WIM sites located on a road with predominantly empty class 9 trucks have >7 percent of
overloaded tandems.
• Calibration drift check: Sites are likely to be out of calibration if the following applies:
o Percentage of axles between 30,000 and 35,999 lb is less than the percentage of axles
between 36,000 and 41,999 lb. (Note: This condition is likely an overestimation of
loads.)
o Percentage of axles between 26,000 and 33,999 lb is less than the percentage of axles
between 20,000 and 25,999 lb for sites with less than 30 percent of axles between
10,000 and 15,999 lb. (Note: This condition is likely an underestimation of loads.)
• The first loading peak (for tandem axles on empty trucks) is not between 10,000 and
15,999 lb.
• The second loading peak (for tandem axles on loaded trucks) is not between 30,000 and
33,999 lb.
• Average loaded tandem-axle weight (this parameter is computed as the average weight of
class 9 tandem axles weighing 26,000 lb or more) is <29,000 lb.
• Average loaded tandem-axle weight is ≥34,000 lb.
55
CHAPTER 5. WHERE TO GET LTPP TRAFFIC DATA
LTPP INFOPAVE
The InfoPave web portal is one way to get LTPP traffic data and information (figure 1).(3) The
web portal provides a means to search for and download specific LTPP data tables and
parameters. The Help feature, shown in the top right corner of figure 1, provides information on
how to use and navigate the InfoPave web portal. Detailed instructions on how to use InfoPave
to extract traffic parameters are provided in part 2 of this Guide.
Source: FHWA.
Figure 1. Screenshot. InfoPave Table Export page.(3)
The following InfoPave features are most useful for obtaining traffic data:
• Search bar: This feature, shown in the top right corner of figure 1 underneath the Help
feature, allows users to find information, documents, and specific data tables by
searching for a keyword or phrase. This feature is especially helpful if users do not know
what LTPP table or document contains the desired traffic information.
• Data module: This module contains the InfoPave table export feature, which allows
LTPP users to quickly locate and download LTPP data tables that have the desired traffic
information. In addition to downloading data using this module, users may download
documents and other ancillary traffic information.
57
CUSTOM REQUESTS
For data or information not included in LTPP data tables or not found through the InfoPave web
portal, a custom request can be sent via e-mail to the LTPP Customer Support Service Center at
ltppinfo@dot.gov. Other contact information is posted on the LTPP program website.(20)
58
PART 2. PLAYBOOK
OVERVIEW
Part 2 of the Guide serves as a playbook showing practical examples of how to identify and
extract the desired LTPP traffic data and parameters for different pavement analysis applications.
The examples are presented for the following scenarios in the corresponding chapters:
• Chapter 6—Generic Steps to Select and Extract Data Tables Using LTPP InfoPave.
• Chapter 7—Scenario 1: Obtain Truck Traffic and Volume Information.
• Chapter 8—Scenario 2: Obtain Vehicle Classification Information.
• Chapter 9—Scenario 3: Obtain Axle or Truck Loading Information.
• Chapter 10—Scenario 4: Obtain Summary Traffic Loading Information (ESAL or
Alternative Statistics).
• Chapter 11—Scenario 5: Obtain MEPDG Traffic Inputs for Use in AASHTOWare
59
CHAPTER 6. GENERIC STEPS TO SELECT AND EXTRACT LTPP TRAFFIC
PARAMETER TABLES USING LTPP INFOPAVE
The generic steps to select and extract a table with the desired LTPP traffic parameter from
InfoPave are listed as follows.(3) A detailed data extraction example using these steps is provided
in the next section.
1. From the DATA tab on the InfoPave application Data screen, select “Table Export”
option. This action will display the Table Export menu in the InfoPave application.
2. Select the “+” to the left of the word “Traffic” from the Table Export menu, which will
reveal the list of tables containing traffic parameters that can be downloaded.
3. Select the table name that contains the desired parameter.
4. Click on the button “Add to Data Bucket” located at the bottom of the Table Export menu.
5. Locate the “Data Bucket” menu label on the top right of the main InfoPave screen and
click on it. Select the “Data” option from the drop-down Data Bucket menu.
6. On the displayed Data Bucket form, specify the email address to receive data extraction
notifications and the desired data extraction format (typically Microsoft Excel® or
Access) and click on the “Submit for Data Extraction” button shown on the bottom of the
Data Bucket form.
7. Open the email account specified on the Data Bucket form.
8. Find a new email from InfoPave (noreply@infopave.com) containing Data Bucket unique
ID number and a web link to check the status of data extraction.
9. Use the weblink and the Data Bucket ID number to access File Download form.
10. Click on the word “Download” displayed on the pop-up File Download form to download
the data table to a desired location on a local computer.
Generic Example of LTPP Traffic Parameter Extraction Using InfoPave
The generic data extraction steps described in the following example can be used to extract
LTPP data tables using the InfoPave web portal.(3)
1. Open the InfoPave website: https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov.(3)
2. On the InfoPave screen, click on the DATA tab displayed on the top toolbar. When the
drop-down list appears under DATA tab, click on “Table Export” option located on the
drop-down list, as shown in figure 2.
61
Source: FHWA.
Figure 2. Screenshot. InfoPave Data screen with the DATA drop-down box displayed and
“Table Export” option selected.(3)
3. When the Table Export menu is displayed, find the word “Traffic” and click on the circle
with “+” sign displayed to the left of the word “Traffic.” This action will display a list of
available traffic parameters and associated traffic data tables. It will also change the “+”
sign to a “−” sign to the left of the word “Traffic,” as shown in figure 3.
62
Source: FHWA.
Figure 3. Screenshot. InfoPave Table Export menu with checkboxes selecting the “Section”
label and the traffic table label “Monitored Traffic Axle Distribution
(TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB).”(3)
4. Scroll down the list until you find the desired parameter and/or table name. The list item
“Monitored Traffic Axle Distribution (TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB)” is used in
this example.
5. Click on the checkbox to the left of the desired table name, as shown in figure 3. No
additional selection is needed to download the whole table. However, if data are needed
for a specific LTPP section or a set of sections, look on the left-hand side of the screen
shown in figure 3 and find the word “Section” displayed on the left side of the screen
under headers “Find Sections,” and “General.”
6. Click on the checkbox displayed to the left of the word “Section.” A pop-up screen will be
displayed with LTPP section IDs, filtered by the State name, as shown in figure 4.
63
Source: FHWA.
Figure 4. Screenshot. InfoPave Section pop-up screen with site IDs displayed for the
selected State (Arizona is selected).(3)
7. Select the desired State and LTPP section ID by placing a checkmark to the left of the
section ID and click the “Apply” button.
8. Scroll to the bottom of the Table Export form and click on the “Add to Data Bucket”
button located at the bottom.
9. Locate the “Data Bucket” label on the top of the main InfoPave screen (figure 5) and put
mouse pointer over it. A drop-down list will be displayed, as shown in figure 5. Find the
“Data” option on that list and click on it.
64
Source: FHWA.
Figure 5. Screenshot. InfoPave screen displaying the top bars with the “Data Bucket” label
displayed.(3)
10. On the Data Bucket form that will show up (figure 6), specify your email address and the
desired data extraction format (typically Excel or Access) and click on the “Submit for
Data Extraction” button shown at the bottom of that screen.
65
Source: FHWA.
Figure 6. Screenshot. InfoPave Data Bucket screen with data export format options.(3)
11. Open the email account provided on the Data Bucket form. Find a new email from
InfoPave (noreply@infopave.com) containing a Download URL.
12. Click on the weblink provided on the Download URL line in the email. A File Download
web form within the InfoPave website will open as illustrated in figure 7.
66
Source: FHWA.
Figure 7. Screenshot. InfoPave File Download screen with a clickable hyperlink to
download data.(3)
13. Click on the word “Download” displayed on the File Download form to download the data
table to a desired location on a local computer.
14. Review the downloaded data table by opening the downloaded file with the appropriate
software. Figure 8 illustrates this step using Excel.
67
Source: FHWA.
Figure 8. Screenshot. Excel screen capture showing the downloaded and saved data from
the TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB table.(3)
68
CHAPTER 7. SCENARIO 1: OBTAIN TRUCK TRAFFIC AND TRUCK VOLUME
INFORMATION
PARAMETER 1.1: ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
By definition, “AADT” refers to the annual average daily traffic volume occurring in all lanes
and in both directions of travel at a location. AADT is typically used only for high-level
pavement management analyses either to characterize the daily use of a highway facility by all
vehicular traffic or as a preliminary traffic statistic. AADT can be used along with other
available traffic statistics, such as “percent trucks” and “number of lanes,” to estimate truck
traffic volumes on a specific lane of pavement for which estimates of expected pavement
performance are desired. Because these more desirable detailed truck volume statistics are
readily available within the LTPP traffic data tables, use of the AADT parameter for LTPP
analyses is very limited.
Due to its modest connection to changes in LTPP lane pavement performance over time, AADT
was not a focus of the LTPP traffic data collection program. Thus, AADT is not always present
in the current LTPP database tables. The AADT values available in the LTPP database are either
computed by the LTPP traffic data processing software using State-submitted traffic data or are
State-computed and -submitted parameters. These values can be extracted and used as overall
estimates of roadway traffic.
Option 1: Download AADT Values from LTPP Database Tables
AADT values can be found in several LTPP traffic data tables available on InfoPave:(3)
• TRF_HIST_VOLUME_COUNT (contains State-computed AADT values).
• TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL (contains State-computed AADT values that may not be in

TRF_HIST_VOLUME_COUNT).
• TRF_MON_EST_ESAL (contains State-computed AADT values for years without

monitoring data or without monitored loading data).
To download these three tables, use the instructions provided in chapter 6, Generic Steps to
Select and Extract LTPP Traffic Parameter Tables Using LTPP InfoPave. Once data have been
extracted, open the downloaded files, and use the AADT values included in the following fields
in the three tables as follows:
• Table = TRF_HIST_VOLUME_COUNT, field = COUNT_AADT.

• Table = TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL, field = AADT_ALL_VEHIC_2WAY.
• Table = TRF_MON_EST_ESAL, field = AADT_ALL_VEHIC_2WAY.
Option 2: View AADT Values in InfoPave Section Summary Report
In addition to the data download option described in option 1, the AADT values can be viewed in
InfoPave on the Section Summary Report screen. The AADT values shown on the Section
69
Summary Report screen are not roadway AADT values. The InfoPave values are AADT in the
direction of travel of the LTPP test section. The InfoPave AADT values are roughly half of the
AADT for the road section that contains the LTPP test section. To differentiate from the standard
AADT definition, these values are referred to as “Directional AADT” in this Guide.
To use InfoPave to view Directional AADT values, first select the “State/Province Summary
Report” option under the DATA menu (figure 9), and then select the State and Section ID for the
site of interest on the Section Summary Report form. Select the “+” sign next to “Climate and
Traffic” heading shown in the middle of the Section Summary Report form. InfoPave will
respond with an image that looks like figure 10.
Source: FHWA.
Figure 9. Screenshot. Example of the “State/Province Summary Reports” option selected.(3)
70
Source: FHWA.
Figure 10. Screenshot. Example of AADT values available in the “Section Summary
Report.”(3)
If Directional AADT values are available at this site, they will be found in the first traffic
estimate column. For example, an InfoPave screen capture in figure 10 shows Directional AADT
estimates for 1986 to 1990 for Maryland section 1632.
Example 1.1: Obtain an Estimate of AADT for an LTPP Test Site
The availability of that data may vary considerably between LTPP test sites. No simple
mechanism exists for obtaining a single representative AADT value for a given site, nor does one
exist for obtaining AADT values for all pavement in-service years for all sites. If a user requires
a representative AADT value, the recommended option is to download the available AADT
values from the three tables listed under option 1 and analyze the data found in those tables. A
representative value can then be constructed. Although there are many ways to develop such a
value, the suggested method is to:
71
1. Determine the years for which the representative value is to be applied.
2. Take the values available on InfoPave(3) and determine a linear equation for those data.
(For example, use Excel’s “Add Trendline” feature and select the “Linear” option and the
“Display equation on chart” option.)
3. Use that equation to estimate the AADT value for any years for which the data are
missing.
4. Compute an average of the AADT values for all years, including both the downloaded
data and estimates for the missing years. This helps remove biases that might result from
more data being present in some portions of a pavement’s life compared to other years.
Other methods for interpolating missing years of data (such as compound growth) can also be
used and may be more appropriate if the AADT trend line is nonlinear.
For example, to obtain a representative AADT value (both directions of traffic) for Arizona site
1024, during that site’s participation in the GPS-1 experiment, use the instructions in chapter 6 to
extract the available AADT data from the three tables listed under option 1. Once the tables are
downloaded, then extract the values for each year from the following table fields:
• Table = TRF_HIST_VOLUME_COUNT, field = COUNT_AADT.

• Table = TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL, field = AADT_ALL_VEHIC_2WAY.
• Table = TRF_MON_EST_ESAL, field = AADT_ALL_VEHIC_2WAY.
The result is a table that contains the data in the AADT Extracted from LTPP Data Tables
column in table 19. Running a linear regression on that data results in the following formula:
AADT = (294.37 * Year) – 576,971 (1)
Apply this equation to estimate the missing AADT values for 1977, 1993, 1998, and 1999 (the
last year this site was part of the GPS-1 experiment). These values are shown in the right-hand
column of table 19. The average of the AADT values provided in the right-hand column is 8,220.
This number (8,220) is the representative AADT value for Arizona site 1024 for the GPS-1
experiment.
72
Table 19. AADT values for Arizona site 1024, GPS-1 experiment.
Table Data were Taken AADT Extracted from AADT Including
From Year LTPP Data Tables Estimated Missing Values
— 1977 — 4,998
TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL 1978 5,500 5,500
TRF_MON_EST_ESAL 1990 10,500 10,500
TRF_MON_EST_ESAL 1991 9,400 9,400
TRF_MON_EST_ESAL 1992 9,900 9,900
— 1993 — 9,708
TRF_MON_EST_ESAL 1994 9,600 9,600
TRF_MON_EST_ESAL 1995 8,900 8,900
TRF_MON_EST_ESAL 1996 9,400 9,400
TRF_MON_EST_ESAL 1997 9,800 9,800
— 1998 — 11,180
— 1999 — 11,475
—No data.
PARAMETER 1.2: ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRUCK TRAFFIC VOLUME FOR

THE LTPP LANE
AADTT is the key truck volume statistic used in the pavement analyses. AADTT values for the
LTPP test lane are used in analyses that require information about typical daily truck volumes in
a specific traffic lane. AADTT for the test lane is an easily understood, if imprecise, statistic that
describes the general level of truck traffic loading a pavement is experiencing. Most of the LTPP
data analyses involving prediction of pavement performance, service life, or design pavement
thickness use this parameter. AADTT for the road segment is a different statistic, as it includes
truck volume in all lanes and all directions of traffic on that road segment. AADTT for the LTPP
test lane measures only truck traffic that actually drives over the test pavement.
The LTPP tables that contain the AADTT statistics for the LTPP test lane include:
• TRF_TREND contains an analysis-ready complete history of AADTT estimates for all

pavement in-service years. These values are based on either monitored traffic data or
estimates and are periodically updated by the LTPP program. Special codes provide
information about the data source for each statistic.
73
• MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS contains the estimate of AADTT for the test
lane that serves as the first-year truck traffic volume statistic that should be input to
MEPDG analyses for each site (field = AADTT_FIRST_YEAR_LTPP_LANE).
• TRF_REP contains a single AADTT value for each LTPP test lane, which can be used as
the best simple summary of the annual truck traffic volume crossing that test site during
the time that site is part of the LTPP experiment.
• TRF_MON_EST_ESAL contains AADTT values submitted by State and Provincial

highway agencies during LTPP monitoring years.
• TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL contains AADTT values when provided by State and Provincial

highway agencies for years prior to LTPP monitoring years.
The TRF_TREND table contains an easily obtainable, LTPP lane-specific AADTT estimate for
all years for which an experimental site is in service. This estimate is based on monitored data
(where available) or historical data (where monitoring data were not collected but the State
submitted an estimate), or it is estimated based on a mathematical extrapolation of those data
(where the State did not submit data for a given year). The TRF_TREND table contains a
metadata flag (AADTT_SOURCE field with codes) that indicates the source of each AADTT
value: whether the data were submitted as a historical estimate (H or S) by a State or Provincial
highway agency, a value computed from data collected during the LTPP traffic monitoring effort
(M, Mc), or estimated for that year by LTPP because no other estimate exists (E). To download
this entire table from InfoPave,(3) use the instructions provided in chapter 6 and simply select the
entire table.
In addition to AADTT for the LTPP lane, some State agencies collected or submitted data that
described the total volume of trucks in both directions at a test site. Thus, two-directional truck
traffic volume data are available but not for all LTPP sites. If these data are desired, the tables
that contain these values are shown as follows along with the table field name that contains that
information. All data present in these tables are year specific.
• Table = TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL, field = AADT_TRUCK_COMBO_2WAY.

• Table = TRF_MON_EST_ESAL, field = AADT_TRUCK_COMBO_2WAY.
The supporting data on truck volumes by FHWA vehicle class can be found in the table
TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN, along with the number of days traffic monitoring data were
collected.
Example 1.2.1: Extract AADTT for Each Year in Service or Analysis Period
An estimate of annual total truck volume for each year in service can be found in the
TRF_TREND table, in the field AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS_TREND. The InfoPave screen
showing how to select this table is shown in figure 11.
74
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Annual Trends in Traffic Characteristics (TRF_TREND).”(3)
For example, to obtain the AADTT values for all years during which Arizona test site 7613 was
part of the LTPP experiment, follow the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in
chapter 6 to download TRF_TREND table.
The downloaded table will show that Arizona test site 7613 has data reported for two
construction number events during its time with the LTPP experiment. The construction number
field in TRF_TREND table is used to identify changes in the pavement section because of
construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance events that occurred during the site’s participation in
the LTPP experiment. The construction number 1 corresponds to the pavement structure at the
start of that segment’s participation in an LTPP experiment. The subsequent construction
numbers (2, 3, 4, etc.) are used to track changes in pavement structure or surface condition
because of pavement rehabilitation or maintenance activities. Major changes in pavement
structure typically result in the pavement test section being placed out of study from the LTPP
experiment or being reassigned to another LTPP experiment. Once initiated, the construction
number remains active and assigned to all years until the site is de-assigned from the specific
LTPP experiment or changes LTPP experiments.
75
If the user would like to find AADTT values for the LTPP lane corresponding to the years when
Arizona test site 7613 was part of construction event 1 (i.e., covering all years from the initial
participation to the time when the LTPP site left the LTPP experiment), this could be
accomplished by filtering the TRF_TREND table by STATE_CODE = 4, SHRP_ID = 7613, and
CONSTRUCTION_NO = 1. Applying this filter would provide the AADTT values from 1979 to
2001, as shown in table 20.
Table 20. AADTT values for Arizona test site 7613, construction event 1.
CONSTRUCTION AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS_
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID _NO YEAR TREND
4 7613 1 1979 275
4 7613 1 1980 350
4 7613 1 1981 400
4 7613 1 1982 575
4 7613 1 1983 650
4 7613 1 1984 650
4 7613 1 1985 700
4 7613 1 1986 825
4 7613 1 1987 925
4 7613 1 1988 925
4 7613 1 1989 1,000
4 7613 1 1990 817
4 7613 1 1991 847
4 7613 1 1992 876
4 7613 1 1993 760
4 7613 1 1994 1,056
4 7613 1 1995 1,267
4 7613 1 1996 1,274
4 7613 1 1997 522
4 7613 1 1998 941
4 7613 1 1999 1,089
4 7613 1 2000 916
4 7613 1 2001 1,145
Example 1.2.2: Extract or Estimate AADTT for the Year Selected for Analysis
A user could extract an AADTT value for a specific year of analysis following the same
procedure described in example 1.2.1. Once the data for all years have been extracted, a value for
a specific year can be identified in the extracted table. For example, for Arizona site 7613, the
AADTT value for the first year after pavement construction was 275, and for the last year
participation in LTPP experiment it was 1,145.
76
PARAMETER 1.3: ANNUAL TOTAL TRUCK VOLUME
Annual total truck volume values are used in LTPP analyses that require information about total
truck volume for each year over the user-defined analysis period or for specific years. Typically
these are the same years pavement condition or nondestructive-testing data were collected.
An estimate of annual total truck volume for each year in service can be obtained from the field
ANNUAL_TRUCK_VOLUME_TREND in the TRF_TREND table. This field provides annual
total truck volume value for each year since the site was opened to traffic, until the end of site
participation in the LTPP experiment or the last year for which the TRF_TREND table was
updated. For those years when a site participated in the LTPP experiment only during some
months, these annual values cover only those months when the site was part of an LTPP
experiment. For example, if a new SPS site was opened to traffic on July 1, 2004, truck volumes
for 2004 include only the period from July 1 to December 31 for that year. Similarly, if a site
leaves the LTPP experiment on June 30, 2008, the annual truck volume statistic for 2008
includes only the truck volumes crossing that site from January 1 to June 30, 2008.
Example 1.3.1: Obtain Annual Total Truck Volume for Each Year in Service or Analysis
Period
To obtain the annual total truck volume for each in-service year for Arizona test site 7613,
extract records from TRF_TREND table field ANNUAL_TRUCK_VOLUME_TREND
(figure 12) using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in chapter 6. Once the
table has been extracted, filter records for STATE_CODE = 4, SHRP_ID = 7613, and
CONSTRUCTION_NO = 1. Applying this filter provides the annual total truck volume values in
ANNUAL_TRUCK_VOLUME_TREND column shown in table 21.
77
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Annual Trends in Traffic Characteristics (TRF_TREND)”
and next to the field name “CMLTV_VOL_HEAVY_TRUCKS_TREND.”(3)
78
Table 21. Annual total truck volume values for Arizona test site 7613, construction event 1.
CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL_TRUCK_
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID _NO YEAR VOLUME_TREND
4 7613 1 1979 25,300
4 7613 1 1980 128,100
4 7613 1 1981 146,000
4 7613 1 1982 209,875
4 7613 1 1983 237,250
4 7613 1 1984 237,900
4 7613 1 1985 255,500
4 7613 1 1986 301,125
4 7613 1 1987 337,625
4 7613 1 1988 338,550
4 7613 1 1989 365,000
4 7613 1 1990 298,205
4 7613 1 1991 309,155
4 7613 1 1992 320,616
4 7613 1 1993 277,400
4 7613 1 1994 385,440
4 7613 1 1995 462,455
4 7613 1 1996 466,284
4 7613 1 1997 190,530
4 7613 1 1998 343,465
4 7613 1 1999 397,485
4 7613 1 2000 335,256
4 7613 1 2001 365,255
PARAMETER 1.4: CUMULATIVE TRUCK VOLUME FOR THE ANALYSIS PERIOD
The total cumulative truck volume (CTV) data are needed for analyses that require information
about the cumulative use of the LTPP test pavement by heavy vehicles or all trucks over a
selected analysis period. Total truck traffic volume is based on counts of vehicles in FHWA
vehicle classes 4–13.(11) This parameter is computed by summing annual total truck volume
values available in the TRF_TREND table, field ANNUAL_TRUCK_VOLUME_TREND.
In addition, for the convenience of LTPP users, the TRF_TREND table includes a total
cumulative heavy truck volume statistic (CMLTV_VOL_HEAVY_TRUCKS_TREND) for
analyses that require information about the cumulative use of the LTPP test pavement by heavy
vehicles over a selected analysis period. (This statistic ignores class 5 trucks, which typically
impose very little pavement damage because of their light weight.) An accumulation of class 9
truck traffic is also provided (CMLTV_VOL_VEH_CLASS_9_TREND). A separate
accumulated traffic statistic is present for each year, for each construction event, for each LTPP
test site.
79
Accumulated heavy truck traffic for construction event 1 starts from whenever that site opens to
traffic, regardless of when that occurs. For each subsequent year that site and construction event
is part of LTPP experiment, a cumulative traffic record will be present. The combination “State +
SHRP_ID + Construction Number” is used as the unique identifier for the heavy truck traffic
accumulation in the TRF_TREND table. When a new construction number event occurs for an
LTPP site, the traffic accumulation starts over. Thus, the accumulated traffic for construction
event 1 starts when the site opens to traffic, and it continues until construction event 1 ends
(typically at the end of site participation in a given LTPP experiment). The accumulated traffic
for construction event 2 at that same site starts when construction event 2 is assigned in the
TRF_TREND table and continues until construction event 2 ends (typically at the end of site
participation in a given LTPP experiment). For some SPS sites, records are present prior to the
site opening to traffic because a record is present for each year the site is part of the LTPP
experiment. All years present prior to the site opening to traffic are given zero traffic volumes.
Example 1.4.1: Extract Cumulative Heavy Truck Traffic Volume Through the End of
LTPP Section Participation in the Experiment or Last Reporting Year
Because the TRF_TREND table already has computed these values, researchers need to
determine only the sites for which these values are desired. The user may select either the entire
TRF_TREND table or a specific set of sites. The cumulative value is computed for the period
starting from the date when the pavement is first opened to traffic and ending when the pavement
is removed from participation in the LTPP experiment or the last reporting year, whichever is
earlier. A CTV statistic is provided for every year that pavement exists. If the site ends active
participation in one experiment (e.g., GPS-1) and joins a second experiment (e.g., GPS-6B), the
cumulative traffic statistic for that site ends with the first experiment, and a new cumulative
statistic starts over for the new experiment.
The annual estimate of CTV for each year in service can be found in the TRF_TREND table,
field = CMLTV_VOL_HEAVY_TRUCKS_TREND (figure 12). These values are available for
each construction event for each site.
For example, to obtain the cumulative heavy truck traffic volume for all years during which
Arizona test site 7613 was part of the LTPP experiment, extract records for Arizona test site
7613 from the TRF_TREND table using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given
in chapter 6.
Once the records have been extracted, review cumulative heavy truck traffic volume for each
year during construction event 1, starting from 1979, when the site first open to traffic, and
ending in 2001, when the site left the LTPP experiment. At the end of 1979, cumulative heavy
traffic volume was 10,948 vehicles, and at the end of 2001, cumulative heavy truck traffic
volume was 2,865,083 vehicles, as shown in table 22.
80
Table 22. Cumulative heavy truck traffic volume for Arizona test site 7613, construction
event 1.
CONSTRUCTION CMLTV_VOL_HEAVY
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID _NO YEAR TRUCKS_TREND
4 7613 1 1979 10,948
4 7613 1 1980 65,848
4 7613 1 1981 128,993
4 7613 1 1982 219,513
4 7613 1 1983 322,078
4 7613 1 1984 424,924
4 7613 1 1985 535,519
4 7613 1 1986 665,459
4 7613 1 1987 810,729
4 7613 1 1988 956,397
4 7613 1 1989 1,113,347
4 7613 1 1990 1,241,827
4 7613 1 1991 1,375,052
4 7613 1 1992 1,513,034
4 7613 1 1993 1,647,354
4 7613 1 1994 1,781,674
4 7613 1 1995 1,930,229
4 7613 1 1996 2,120,183
4 7613 1 1997 2,222,018
4 7613 1 1998 2,377,143
4 7613 1 1999 2,563,293
4 7613 1 2000 2,707,497
4 7613 1 2001 2,865,083
Example 1.4.2: Compute Cumulative Heavy Truck Traffic Volume Based on

User-Specified Start and End Dates
Although the cumulative total of heavy truck traffic volume can be read directly from the
TRF_TREND table, the user can compute a cumulative total of all truck traffic (thus including
class 5 light trucks), if desired. To make these computations, follow the directions for example
1.3.1 to download the appropriate data (field AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS_TREND) from the LTPP
table TRF_TREND, and then add the annual truck volume totals as shown in the right-hand
column in table 23.
81
Table 23. Annual cumulative total truck volume values for Arizona test site 7613,
construction event 1.
ANNUAL_TRUCK_ Cumulative Total
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID YEAR VOLUME_TREND Truck Volume
4 7613 1979 25,300 25,300
4 7613 1980 128,100 153,400
4 7613 1981 146,000 299,400
4 7613 1982 209,875 509,275
4 7613 1983 237,250 746,525
4 7613 1984 237,900 984,425
4 7613 1985 255,500 1,239,925
4 7613 1986 301,125 1,541,050
4 7613 1987 337,625 1,878,675
4 7613 1988 338,550 2,217,225
4 7613 1989 365,000 2,582,225
4 7613 1990 298,205 2,880,430
4 7613 1991 309,155 3,189,585
4 7613 1992 320,616 3,510,201
4 7613 1993 277,400 3,787,601
4 7613 1994 385,440 4,173,041
4 7613 1995 462,455 4,635,496
4 7613 1996 466,284 5,101,780
4 7613 1997 190,530 5,292,310
4 7613 1998 343,465 5,635,775
4 7613 1999 397,485 6,033,260
4 7613 2000 335,256 6,368,516
4 7613 2001 365,255 6,733,771
82
CHAPTER 8. SCENARIO 2: OBTAIN VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION
PARAMETER 2.1: ANNUAL TRUCK VOLUME BY VEHICLE CLASS
Annual truck volume by vehicle class values are used in LTPP analyses that require information
about the volume of different types of trucks for each analysis year, such as
mechanistic-empirical pavement analyses, or analyses that focus on the effect of certain vehicle
types on pavement performance.
The data fields AADTT_VEH_CLASS_#_TREND (where # refers to FHWA vehicle classes

4–13)(11) in the LTPP table TRF_TREND contain estimates of AADTT volume by vehicle class
for each year from when the LTPP site either is open to traffic or joins the LTPP experiment
(whichever is earlier) to the time when that test site is no longer part of an LTPP experiment (or
the last year for which data were available when this table was produced, if the site is still in the
experiment).
If the user needs very detailed data on truck volume distributions, the HH_CL_CT, DD_CL_CT,
and MM_CT tables from the LTAS database (accessible through InfoPave(3)) provide data about
detailed hourly, daily, or monthly variation in truck volumes by class when vehicle classification
data were collected as part of the LTPP traffic monitoring program.
Example 2.1.1: Obtain Annual Truck Volume by Vehicle Class for Each Year in Service or
Analysis Period
For example, to obtain annual truck volume by vehicle class values for each year in service or
analysis period during which Arizona test site 7613 was part of the LTPP experiment, follow this
sequence of steps:
1. Extract records for Arizona test site 7613 from the TRF_TREND table (figure 13) using
the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in chapter 6. A portion of the
extracted table for construction event 1 is shown in table 24. A second portion of the
table for construction event 2 is shown in table 25.
83
Source: FHWA.
and next to the field name “AADTT_VEH_CLASS_#_TREND.”(3)
84
Table 24. TRF_TREND truck volumes for Arizona test site 7613, construction event 1.
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
_VEH_CLASS
CMLTV_VOL
CMLTV_VOL
AADTT_ALL
CLASS_10_
CLASS_13_
CLASS_12_
CLASS_11_
_TRUCKS_
_9_TREND
ANNUAL_
CLASS_9_
CLASS_8_
CLASS_6_
CLASS_7_
CLASS_5_
CLASS_4_
TRUCKS_
VOLUME
_HEAVY
TRUCK_
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
TREND
YEAR
1979 5 156 24 1 26 57 1 3 0 2 5,244 10,948 275 25,300

1980 6 200 30 1 33 73 1 3 0 2 31,962 65,848 350 128,100
1981 7 227 35 1 38 83 2 4 0 3 62,257 128,993 400 146,000
1982 11 327 50 1 55 119 2 5 1 4 105,692 219,513 575 209,875
1983 12 369 56 2 62 135 3 6 1 4 154,967 322,078 650 237,250
1984 12 369 56 2 62 135 3 6 1 4 204,377 424,924 650 237,900
1985 13 397 61 2 67 145 3 6 1 5 257,302 535,519 700 255,500
1986 15 469 71 2 79 171 3 8 1 6 319,717 665,459 825 301,125
1987 17 527 80 2 88 192 4 8 1 6 389,797 810,729 925 337,625
1988 17 527 80 2 88 192 4 8 1 6 460,069 956,397 925 338,550
1989 18 570 87 2 95 207 4 9 1 7 535,624 1,113,347 1,000 365,000
1990 15 465 71 2 78 169 3 7 1 6 597,309 1,241,827 817 298,205
1991 16 482 73 2 81 175 3 8 1 6 661,184 1,375,052 847 309,155
1992 16 499 76 2 83 181 3 8 1 6 727,430 1,513,034 876 320,616
1993 24 392 76 0 73 179 2 8 1 5 792,765 1,647,354 760 277,400
1994 18 688 74 0 83 171 3 11 1 7 855,180 1,781,674 1,056 385,440
1995 5 860 79 1 101 202 2 11 1 5 928,910 1,930,229 1,267 462,455
1996 21 755 94 5 162 214 5 8 2 8 1,007,234 2,120,183 1,274 466,284
1997 11 243 60 1 65 128 3 5 1 5 1,053,954 2,222,018 522 190,530
1998 19 516 84 5 77 217 5 9 1 8 1,133,159 2,377,143 941 343,465
1999 20 579 104 6 85 271 6 10 1 7 1,232,074 2,563,293 1,089 397,485
2000 17 522 79 2 87 190 4 8 1 6 1,301,614 2,707,497 916 335,256
2001 21 651 99 3 109 237 5 11 1 8 1,377,217 2,865,083 1,145 365,255
85
Table 25. TRF_TREND truck volumes for Arizona test site 7613, construction event 2.
ANNUAL_TRUCK_
CLASS_10_TREND
CLASS_11_TREND
CLASS_12_TREND
CLASS_13_TREND
VOLUME_TREND
CLASS_4_TREND
CLASS_5_TREND
CLASS_6_TREND
CLASS_7_TREND
CLASS_8_TREND
CLASS_9_TREND
TRUCKS_TREND
HEAVY TRUCKS
VEH_CLASS_9
CMLTV_VOL_
CMLTV_VOL_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_VEH_
AADTT_ALL_
_TREND
_TREND
YEAR
1990 15 465 71 2 78 169 3 7 1 6 61,685 128,480 817 298,205

1991 16 482 73 2 81 175 3 8 1 6 125,560 261,705 847 309,155
1992 16 499 76 2 83 181 3 8 1 6 191,806 399,687 876 320,616
1993 24 392 76 0 73 179 2 8 1 5 257,141 534,007 760 277,400
1994 18 688 74 0 83 171 3 11 1 7 319,556 668,327 1,056 385,440
1995 5 860 79 1 101 202 2 11 1 5 393,286 816,882 1,267 462,455
1996 21 755 94 5 162 214 5 8 2 8 471,610 1,006,836 1,274 466,284
1997 11 243 60 1 65 128 3 5 1 5 518,330 1,108,671 522 190,530
1998 19 516 84 5 77 217 5 9 1 8 597,535 1,263,796 941 343,465
1999 20 579 104 6 85 271 6 10 1 7 696,450 1,449,946 1,089 397,485
2000 17 522 79 2 87 190 4 8 1 6 765,990 1,594,150 916 335,256
2001 21 651 99 3 109 237 5 11 1 8 841,593 1,751,736 1,145 365,255
86
2. Once the records have been extracted, it can be seen that on the average day 156, class 5
trucks crossed the LTPP test section in 1979. This grew to 651 class 5 trucks per day in
2001.
3. To compute the annual truck volume for a specific class of trucks, it is necessary to know
the number of days during that year the LTPP site was open to traffic in that year. To
obtain this number, for each year, divide the value found in the field
ANNUAL_TRUCK_VOLUME_TREND by the value found in the field
AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS_TREND. So, for the first year for construction event 1 (1979),
the ANNUAL_TRUCK_VOLUME_TREND is 25,300 vehicles, and the
AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS_TREND is 275. Thus, this LTPP section was open for 92 days
(25,300/275 = 92). Since 1980 was a leap year, there are 366 days of truck volume data
(128,100/350 = 366). Consequently, if the total volume of class 13 trucks passing over the
site is desired for 1980, this can be computed by multiplying the value for
AADTT_VEH_CLASS_13_TREND for 1980 by the number of days: 2 × 366 = 732.
PARAMETER 2.2: NORMALIZED VEHICLE CLASS DISTRIBUTION
Another commonly used set of traffic inputs is the normalized VCD. For pavement analyses,
these distributions typically consider only the heavy vehicle classes (FHWA vehicle classes
4–13).(11) These statistics indicate the percentage of truck traffic occurring in each truck class.
The normalized VCDs are used in mechanistic-empirical pavement response and performance
analyses and design.
These distributions can be obtained in several ways. To obtain these values for specific years,
use the AADTT by class value in the TRF_TREND table (examples of which were previously
shown in table 24 and table 25) and simply divide the AADTT for each class value by sum of
those values for all classes.
Alternatively, the table TRF_REP includes a single distribution of vehicle classification

percentages that provides a single set of values that estimates the percentage of truck traffic that
occurs in each class of vehicles. The values found in the TRF_TREND table illustrate the
variation in what percentage of trucks falls within each truck class. For some sites, these
percentages can vary considerably from year to year. In some cases, this variation is caused by
differences in the equipment being used to collect these data. In other cases, changes in the
economy result in significant changes to the truck volumes for some or all vehicle classes. Thus,
the annual values found in the TRF_TREND table are particularly useful in examining changes
in truck travel over a road segment, but the variables in the TRF_REP table are easier to use if
the intent is to get a general understanding of the types of truck traffic present at a test site.
For a limited number of LTPP sites, normalized VCD values are available in the LTPP data table
TRF_MEPDG_VEH_CLASS_DIST, for the years that had sufficient monitored vehicle
classification or weight data (a minimum of 210 days per year of classification or weight data).
Finally, the representative or annual average condition of the normalized VCD, covering FHWA
vehicle classes 4–13, is stored in the computed parameter table,
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS.
87
Example 2.2.1: Obtain Representative Normalized VCD
The annual average condition of the normalized VCD, covering FHWA vehicle classes 4–13,(11)
can be extracted from the table TRF_REP. The InfoPave screen showing how to select this table
is shown in figure 14.
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Representative Site Traffic Parameters (TRF_REP).”(3)
For example, to obtain the representative normalized VCD for Arizona test site 7613 while it was
a part of the LTPP experiment, extract records for Arizona test site 7613 from the TRF_REP
table using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in chapter 6. The results of
this extract were used to develop table 26.
88
Table 26. Normalized VCD from the TRF_REP table for Arizona site 7613.
Percentage of Trucks in That
Field in TRF_REP Table Vehicle Class
REP_PERCENT_VEH_CLASS_4 1.84
PARAMETER 2.3: MONTHLY TRUCK VOLUME BY VEHICLE CLASS
The total monthly truck volume by vehicle class parameters are used in the analyses that focus
on evaluation of the effect of seasonal changes in truck traffic volume and environment on
pavement response and performance.
Monthly truck volume for a selected calendar month, year, and FHWA vehicle class (trucks are
FHWA classes are 4 to 13), can be computed by multiplying the AADTT value for that year and
vehicle class by a monthly adjustment factor (MAF) for that truck class and month and then
multiplying the resulting average day of month truck volume statistic by the number of days in
that month. Each truck class has a different MAF because truck travel patterns can be quite
different for each vehicle class. Monthly truck patterns can also change from year to year, given
variations in economic activity occurring on that specific roadway.
In addition, only those LTPP sites that have continuous traffic classifier or WIM equipment
installed have data that support computation of this parameter. Many of these sites only have
data for a limited set of years because of either delays in getting permanent equipment installed
or equipment issues that result in some years of data not being present in the LTPP data tables
available on InfoPave.(3) MAFs are stored in the TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table
and accessible through the InfoPave web portal.(3)
Example 2.3.1: Obtain Monthly Truck Volume by Vehicle Class
To compute this parameter for a specific site, first follow the InfoPave table extraction
instructions given in chapter 6 to download two LTPP tables:
• TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR.
• TRF_TREND.
89
The downloaded TRF_TREND file contains the AADTT values for each FHWA vehicle class
(see data fields AADTT_VEH_CLASS_#_TREND) for each year and for each experiment and
construction number for those sites requested. The TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table
contains the monthly vehicle volume adjustment factors by vehicle class for each year for which
sufficient data were collected at each site for which data were requested.
Table 27 illustrates the TRF_TREND data for Arizona site 7614 for construction event 1. Only a
portion of this table is shown. The data fields shown include the annual daily traffic volumes for
each of the 10 FHWA vehicle classes.(11)
As can be seen in table 27, Arizona site 7614 starts with an average daily class 9 volume of
1,233 trucks per day in 1984. This number then declines to only 423 class 9 trucks per day in
1994, before growing again to over 1,000 class 9 trucks in 2004. These annual values are the
control totals used to estimate monthly truck volumes for class 9.
90
Table 27. Annual average daily truck volumes by classification from the TRF_TREND table.
AADTT_ALL_TRUCKS
CONSTRUCTION_NO
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
AADTT_VEH_CLASS
STATE_CODE
_10_TREND
_11_TREND
_12_TREND
_13_TREND
_4_TREND
_5_TREND
_6_TREND
_7_TREND
_8_TREND
_9_TREND
SHRP_ID
_TREND
YEAR
4 7614 1 1984 2,080 13 371 117 7 195 1,233 16 91 28 9

4 7614 1 1985 2,240 14 400 126 8 210 1,327 17 98 30 10
4 7614 1 1986 2,560 16 457 144 9 240 1,516 20 112 35 11
4 7614 1 1987 3,520 22 628 199 12 330 2,086 27 153 48 15
4 7614 1 1988 3,840 24 686 217 13 360 2,275 29 167 52 17
4 7614 1 1989 2,123 13 379 120 7 199 1,258 16 93 29 9
4 7614 1 1990 2,066 13 369 117 7 194 1,223 16 90 28 9
4 7614 1 1991 1,250 8 223 71 4 117 741 10 54 17 5
4 7614 1 1992 1,325 8 237 75 5 124 784 10 58 18 6
4 7614 1 1993 1,109 9 287 37 3 54 591 19 68 23 18
4 7614 1 1994 743 6 79 29 4 139 423 3 43 15 2
4 7614 1 1995 1,218 7 192 48 9 131 720 8 74 25 4
4 7614 1 1996 1,496 10 398 64 7 142 754 9 79 22 11
4 7614 1 1997 1,600 10 286 90 5 150 948 12 70 22 7
4 7614 1 1998 1,501 2 320 114 5 106 859 13 63 13 6
4 7614 1 1999 1,518 3 344 111 4 109 829 21 75 16 5
4 7614 1 2000 1,466 9 262 83 5 138 868 11 64 20 6
4 7614 1 2001 1,549 6 205 97 4 156 995 9 56 17 4
4 7614 1 2002 1,552 10 230 99 4 127 1,002 9 50 17 4
4 7614 1 2003 1,743 8 244 108 4 171 1,123 10 51 20 4
4 7614 1 2004 1,742 14 260 106 4 164 1,110 10 52 18 4
91
Table 28 illustrates the MAFs (in MONTHLY_RATIO column) available for Arizona site 7614.
Because of its size, only a portion of the extracted table is shown in table 28. This illustrative
table shows only 2 months of data for 2 years (1994 and 1995) for all 10 vehicle classes, but it
also shows all years of data available for class 9 for the months of April and May. At this site,
MAFs are available only for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2003, and 2004. Also note that the factor
for May is missing from 1994. The complete table contains data for all vehicle classes, but some
months and years of data are missing because of the equipment issues.
Table 28. Illustrative monthly truck volume adjustment factors from the
TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table.
STATE SHRP VEHICLE VEHICLE_CLASS MONTHLY
_CODE _ID YEAR MONTH _CLASS _EXP _RATIO DATE_EXP
4 7614 1994 4 4 FHWA class 4 1.98 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 5 FHWA class 5 1.52 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 6 FHWA class 6 1.46 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 7 FHWA class 7 0.98 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 8 FHWA class 8 1.85 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 9 FHWA class 9 1.66 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 10 FHWA class 10 2.01 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 11 FHWA class 11 1.73 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 12 FHWA class 12 1.84 04/01/1994
4 7614 1994 4 13 FHWA class 13 2.20 04/01/1994
4 7614 1995 4 4 FHWA class 4 0.70 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 5 FHWA class 5 0.59 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 6 FHWA class 6 0.99 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 7 FHWA class 7 0.64 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 8 FHWA class 8 1.09 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 9 FHWA class 9 0.97 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 10 FHWA class 10 0.88 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 11 FHWA class 11 0.98 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 12 FHWA class 12 1.07 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 4 13 FHWA class 13 0.91 04/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 4 FHWA class 4 0.70 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 5 FHWA class 5 0.63 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 6 FHWA class 6 1.31 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 7 FHWA class 7 0.85 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 8 FHWA class 8 1.09 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 9 FHWA class 9 1.03 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 10 FHWA class 10 1.00 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 11 FHWA class 11 1.13 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 12 FHWA class 12 1.11 05/01/1995
4 7614 1995 5 13 FHWA class 13 1.36 05/01/1995
92
STATE SHRP VEHICLE VEHICLE_CLASS MONTHLY
_CODE _ID YEAR MONTH _CLASS _EXP _RATIO DATE_EXP
4 7614 1996 4 9 FHWA class 9 0.97 04/01/1996
4 7614 1996 5 9 FHWA class 9 1.00 05/01/1996
4 7614 1998 4 9 FHWA class 9 0.96 04/01/1998
4 7614 1998 5 9 FHWA class 9 0.95 05/01/1998
4 7614 2003 4 9 FHWA class 9 1.00 04/01/2003
4 7614 2003 5 9 FHWA class 9 1.00 05/01/2003
4 7614 2004 4 9 FHWA class 9 1.02 04/01/2004
4 7614 2004 5 9 FHWA class 9 1.01 05/01/2004
To obtain an estimate of monthly truck volumes, take the AADTT value for each vehicle class
for each desired year (from TRF_TREND as shown in table 27) and multiply that value by the
appropriate monthly factor for that vehicle class and month. If data were collected for that
specific year, use the value for that class, for that year from the
TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table (using MONTHLY_RATIO field as shown in
table 28).
For example, if class 9 volumes for May 1995 were required, the AADTT value for class 9 in
1995 is 720 (as shown in table 27). The MONTHLY_RATIO in table 28 is 1.03. Thus, the
monthly class 9 AADTT volume in May 1995 is:
720 * 1.03 = 742 (2)
To estimate total monthly class 9 volume, multiply this value by the number of days in the month
of May (31):
742 * 31 = 23,002 (3)
If a monthly volume is required for a year in which MAFs are unavailable in the
TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR TREND table, create an average value for that vehicle
class and month from the years for which factors are available and apply that average.
For example, if a class 9 volume was needed for May for 2002, the first step is to take all May
factors for class 9 that are available (1.03, 1.00, 0.95, 1.00, and 1.01) and compute the average
(1.00). This value is then used as the class 9 May factor for any year that lacks a value in the
table. Thus, the class 9 AADTT volume for May 2002 would be computed as:
1,002 * 1.00 = 1,002 (4)
And the total monthly volume for that month would be 31,062.
Note that the sum of monthly truck volumes will at times be slightly off from the value found in
the TRF_TREND table’s ANNUAL_TRUCK_VOLUME_TREND variable because of different
rounding errors occurring in this process versus the process used to compute those values.
93
CHAPTER 9. SCENARIO 3: OBTAIN AXLE OR TRUCK LOADING INFORMATION
PARAMETER 3.1: AXLE LOAD DISTRIBUTION OR AXLE LOAD SPECTRA
Axle load distribution and axle load spectrum are two names frequently used by pavement
engineers for the same parameter. Axle load distribution is a frequency distribution of axle loads,
whereby counts of axle load applications, observed during a specified period of time, are
reported using predefined load bins. When the distribution of loads is expressed as a percentile
with the percentages of loads reported for each load bin instead of the axle counts, the
distribution or axle load spectrum is called “normalized.” In the LTPP data tables,(3) axle load
spectra are reported separately for each vehicle class 4–13(11) and each axle group (i.e., single,
tandem, tridem, and quad+).
Typically, an axle load spectrum is used to characterize the traffic loading for the
mechanistic-empirical pavement response and performance modeling. Also, it is used to compute
summary axle loading statistics such as ESAL, RPPIF, and cumulative total load. When the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) is used, specifically formatted ALDF are used
as an input. The following examples are for the use of axle load spectra for analyses based on the
MEPDG method not tied to AASHTOWare software.
Axle load spectra are available in several LTPP tables(3) at different level of aggregation or
estimation:
• DD_AX (LTAS table)—Axle load distribution summarized for each day with weight
data.
• MM_AX (LTAS table)—Axle load distribution summarized by DOW, month, and year
for each month with weight data.
• YY_AX (LTAS table)—Axle load distribution summarized by DOW and year for each
year with weight data.
• TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB—Annualized axle load distribution for years with

WIM data (1990 or later).
• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST—Monthly normalized axle load distribution for years with at

least 210 days of WIM data.
• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL—Annual normalized axle load distribution for years

with at least 210 days of WIM data.
• MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR—ALDF or normalized axle load distribution

representing a typical day of each calendar month formatted for use in AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design software, based on either site-specific WIM data or defaults.
95
The accuracy of WIM data varies greatly from site to site. The
MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table contains representative NALS and a code field
with WIM data usability rating based on the assessment of WIM data quality and reasonableness
conducted by LTPP data analysis contractors.
Example 3.1.1: Obtain Annual Axle Load Spectra
Annual axle load spectra provide annualized counts of axle loads, stored by axle load bins. These
parameters are used in analyses based on the MEPDG method when month-to-month variation in
distribution of axle loads is random (i.e., for sites with no definable seasonal pattern) or when
seasonal variations are unimportant or excluded from the analysis. Annual axle load spectra are
also used for computation of annual ESAL.
If axle load spectra are unavailable for the entire analysis period, values for missing periods
could be estimated using available load spectra and information about truck volume growth for a
given LTPP site. Estimating Cumulative Traffic Loads, Volume Ⅱ: Traffic Data Assessment and
Axle Load Projection for the Sites with Acceptable Axle Weight Data, Final Report for Phase 2
provides detailed information about a recommended methodology for estimating and projecting
axle load spectra for the design period.(19)
An example of how to obtain annual axle load spectra for LTPP SPS-1 site, section 0113 in
Arizona using the TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB table is provided in chapter 6.
Once the data have been extracted, it is recommended to check the rationality of the axle load
distribution using the procedure included in chapter 4 of part 1 of this Guide.
Example 3.1.2: Compute Monthly Axle Load Spectra
Monthly axle load spectra provide monthly counts of axle loads, stored by axle load bins. These
parameters are used when month-to-month variation in distribution of axle loads is important for
analysis.
The LTPP LTAS MM_AX table contains axle counts by site, year, month, lane, direction,
vehicle classification, axle group, DOW, and the number of DOW occurrences in a month. This
table is created by summing the number of daily axle counts in each load bin by DOW, axle
group, vehicle class, and LTPP site for each month and year with WIM data.
To compute monthly axle load spectra for a selected LTPP site, vehicle class, axle group, year,
and month:
1. Obtain records of axle counts by load bin from the MM_AX table using the generic
InfoPave data extraction instructions given in chapter 6, as shown in figure 15. An
example of the extracted records for Arizona site 7613 is shown in table 29. Because of a
large volume of data, only partial records are shown, depicting single-axle counts for
class 9 vehicles for each DOW in June 1998.
96
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label, “Monthly Axle Counts (MM_AX).”(3)
Table 29. Total single-axle counts for class 9 vehicles for each DOW in June 1998 for
Arizona site 7613 extracted from the MM_AX table.
VEHICLE_CLASS
OCCURRENCES
DAY_OF_WEEK
AXLE_GROUP
STATE_CODE
NUM_DAY_
AX_CT_01
AX_CT_02
AX_CT_03
AX_CT_04
AX_CT_05
AX_CT_06
AX_CT_07
AX_CT_08
AX_CT_09
AX_CT_10
AX_CT_11
AX_CT_40
SHRP_ID
MONTH
YEAR
….*
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 1 3 0 0 6 1 3 6 6 10 33 41 62 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 2 4 0 0 9 5 24 57 72 93 174 287 331 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 3 5 0 0 9 11 38 52 60 107 233 328 324 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 4 4 0 0 3 1 30 64 61 81 182 279 321 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 5 3 0 0 11 12 18 39 52 96 157 180 194 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 6 3 0 0 7 7 28 37 50 76 188 224 237 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 7 3 0 0 6 0 7 16 12 30 71 74 75 … 0
*Load bins AX_CT_12 to AX_CT_39 are not shown.
97
2. Divide the axle counts reported in each load bin and each DOW by the number of DOW
occurrences reported in the MM_AX table. This step will produce an average axle count
by load bin for each DOW, as shown in table 30.
Table 30. Average single-axle counts for class 9 for each DOW in June 1998 for Arizona
site 7613 extracted from the MM_AX table.
VEHICLE_CLASS
DAY_OF_WEEK
AXLE_GROUP
STATE_CODE
AX_CT_01
AX_CT_02
AX_CT_03
AX_CT_04
AX_CT_05
AX_CT_06
AX_CT_07
AX_CT_08
AX_CT_09
AX_CT_10
AX_CT_11
AX_CT_40
SHRP_ID
MONTH
YEAR
….*
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 3 11 14 21 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 2 0 0 2 1 6 14 18 23 44 72 83 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 3 0 0 2 2 8 10 12 21 47 66 65 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 4 0 0 1 0 8 16 15 20 46 70 80 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 5 0 0 4 4 6 13 17 32 52 60 65 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 6 0 0 2 2 9 12 17 25 63 75 79 … 0
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 7 0 0 2 0 2 5 4 10 24 25 25 … 0
3. Average the average DOW axle counts by load bin over seven DOW to compute an
average daily axle counts for a given month and year. The results are shown in table 31.
Table 31. Average daily single-axle counts for class 9 for June 1998 for Arizona site 7613.
VEHICLE_CLASS
AXLE_GROUP
STATE_CODE
AX_CT_07
AX_CT_01
AX_CT_02
AX_CT_03
AX_CT_04
AX_CT_05
AX_CT_06
AX_CT_08
AX_CT_09
AX_CT_10
AX_CT_11
AX_CT_40
SHRP_ID
MONTH
YEAR
….*
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 0 0 2 1 6 10 12 19 41 54 60 … 0
4. Multiply the average daily counts by the total number of days in the given calendar month
to get average monthly axle counts, as shown in table 32.
98
Table 32. Average monthly single-axle counts for class 9 for June 1998 for Arizona site
7613.
VEHICLE_CLASS
AXLE_GROUP
STATE_CODE
AX_CT_01
AX_CT_02
AX_CT_03
AX_CT_04
AX_CT_05
AX_CT_06
AX_CT_07
AX_CT_08
AX_CT_09
AX_CT_10
AX_CT_11
AX_CT_40
SHRP_ID
MONTH
YEAR
….*
4 7613 9 1 1998 6 0 0 63 44 170 314 365 581 1223 1629 1788 … 0
Example 3.1.3: Obtain Normalized Monthly Axle Load Spectra
Monthly NALS provide monthly percentages of axle loads by axle load bin, axle group, and
vehicle class. These parameters are used when month-to-month variation in distribution of axle
loads is important for analysis. Also, monthly NALS are the key traffic loading input for the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) (See chapter 5 of this Guide for
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software use example.)
LTPP table NALS_MONTHLY_DISTRIB contains monthly NALS for months and years when
WIM data were collected and passed LTPP level E checks (the highest QC hierarchy level for
traffic data). In addition, the TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST table contains monthly NALS for
selected LTPP sites with sufficient number of days with monitored axle weight data (a minimum
of 210 days per year of classification or weight data).
To get the data from these tables, use the InfoPave data extraction instructions given in chapter 6
and identify tables of interest, as shown in figure 16 and figure 17.
Review the downloaded data for reasonableness using the procedure included in chapter 4 of
part 1 of this Guide and decide about data usability for the intended pavement analysis.
99
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label, “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Traffic Axle
Distribution (TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST).”(3)
100
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label, “NALS Monthly Axle Distribution
(NALS_MONTHLY_DISTRIB).”(3)
Example 3.1.4: Obtain Daily Axle Load Spectra
Daily axle weight data are used to investigate variations in axle loading to gain a better
understanding of the changes in truck loads occurring on each DOW.
Daily axle load spectra are stored in the DD_AX table. These spectra provide counts of axle
loads, stored by axle load bin, axle group, and vehicle class for each day with monitored traffic
loading data. Vehicle classes provided in this table are based on classification schemes
implemented by different State and Provincial agencies that are providing the data to LTPP and
may differ from LTPP vehicle classification method (scheme).
To get the daily axle load spectra, use the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in
chapter 6 and select the DD_AX table for download. Place a checkmark next to “Show
Supplementary Tables” option on the Traffic bar, as shown in figure 18.
101
Review the downloaded data for reasonableness using procedure included in chapter 4 of part 1
of this Guide.
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Daily Axle Counts (DD_AX).”(3)
Example 3.1.5: Obtain Normalized Annual Load Spectra
NALS are used to investigate the differences in the shape of axle load distributions by removing
the effect of truck volumes from the load spectra. This parameter allows users to analyze how
heavy different axles are, the typical axle weights of loaded and unloaded trucks at the site, and
how frequently light, moderate, heavy, and overloaded axles are observed for a given LTPP site
or a group of sites.
LTPP table NALS_ANNUAL_DISTRIB contains annual NALS for all LTPP sites with WIM
data that passed LTPP level E checks. In addition, annual NALS are available in the database
table TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL for LTPP sites with a sufficient number of days with
monitored axle weight data (a minimum of 210 days per year of classification or weight data).
To get the data from these tables, use the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given at
the beginning of part 2 of this guide and identify tables of interest, as shown in figure 19 and
figure 20. Place a checkmark next to “Show Supplementary Tables” option under the Traffic bar
to see the NALS_ANNUAL_DISTRIB table.
102
After download, review the downloaded NALS for reasonableness using the procedure included
in chapter 4 of part 1 of this Guide.
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Annual
Traffic Axle Distribution (TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL).”(3)
103
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “NALS Annual Axle Distribution
(NALS_ANNUAL_DISTRIB).”(3)
Example 3.1.6: Estimated NALS for Sites with Limited or No Site-Specific Axle Load
Spectra
LTPP traffic analysis-ready table MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR contains ALDF or

NALS representing a typical day of the year, including the default values assigned for each
LTPP site, including sites with limited or no site-specific axle load spectra. The values
representing a typical day of the year have been assigned to each month of the year. This table
can be downloaded using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in chapter 6. An
example of selecting the MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table for extraction from the
InfoPave Table Export menu is shown in figure 21.
104
Source: FHWA.
(MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR).”(3)
PARAMETER 3.2: GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
GVW distribution information may be needed to compute average truck weight for some of the
analyses that use aggregated traffic loading summary statistics and to investigate variations in
traffic loading that may be associated with WIM equipment calibration drift over time.
The GVW distributions are available for the selected LTPP sites with WIM data collected after
2002. The following tables in LTPP LTAS database contain GVW distributions for FHWA
vehicle classes 4–13:(11)
• DD_GVW—Daily aggregate of GVW distribution data (data reported using

State-specific vehicle classification scheme).
• MM_GVW—Monthly aggregate of GVW distribution data by DOW (data reported using

FHWA vehicle classification scheme).
• YY_GVW—Yearly aggregate of GVW distribution data (data reported using FHWA

vehicle classification scheme).
105
These tables can be downloaded using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in
chapter 6. An example of selecting the YY_GVW table for extraction from the InfoPave Table
Export menu is shown in figure 22.
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Yearly Aggregate of GVW (YY_GVW).”(3)
106
CHAPTER 10. SCENARIO 4: OBTAIN SUMMARY TRAFFIC LOADING
INFORMATION (ESAL OR ALTERNATIVE STATISTICS)
The summary traffic loading parameters are used for analyses that require a single parameter to
describe traffic loading for an LTPP site. These parameters are applied in situations when a quick
judgment about traffic loading is needed (that does not include analysis of axle load
distributions) or for high-level analyses that are not focused on the investigation of the specific
mechanisms of pavement deterioration because of traffic but need some estimate of traffic
loading. A number of such parameters are available through InfoPave,(3) including the following:
• ESAL—Most commonly use traffic loading summary statistic since the 1960s based on
weighted averaging (heavier, more damaging loads carry higher weight compared to light
loads). Its main drawback is that, in addition to traffic loading inputs, it also considers
pavement type, structure, and serviceability rating. In ESAL computation, axle loads are
statistically weighted based on their damaging potential to the pavement using test data
from the AASHO Road Test.(18) (Heavy loads have exponentially higher weights in the
formula.)
• GESAL—Similar to ESAL but with pavement type, structure, and serviceability rating
set to constant values in the ESAL formula. This parameter is useful for comparing
loading between different sites.
• RPPIF—Similar to GESAL but with weight factors computed based on MEPDG model
predictions instead of test data from the AASHO Road Test.(10) This parameter is useful
for comparing loading between different sites. RPPIF values are available for LTPP sites
with WIM data on a monthly and annual basis and reported at different levels of
aggregation: per axle, per vehicle class, and for all truck classes combined.
• ATL—An estimate of ATL. It represents a simple summary of all the loads from heavy
vehicles (computed as a summation of GVWs of the vehicles in FHWA vehicle classes
4–13(4) that traveled over the pavement during the year) to which a pavement was
subjected over a year. Its main drawback is that it lacks the means for differentiating
between sites exposed to large numbers of low to moderate loads and sites exposed to
fewer numbers of heavier loads. For some pavement distresses, the lower number of
heavier loads may be more critical than the higher number of light loads because of a
complex relationship between the load magnitude, the number of load applications, and
the pavement responses and damage accumulation.
• CTL—An estimate of cumulative total load for the period of interest (multiple years). It
represents a simple summary of all the loads from heavy vehicles to which the pavement
was subjected over the analysis period (computed as a summation of GVWs of all the
vehicles in FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 that traveled over the pavement during the
analysis period). It has advantages and disadvantages similar to those of the ATL
parameter.
107
PARAMETER 4.1: ANNUAL ESAL FOR EACH YEAR IN THE ANALYSIS PERIOD
Annual ESAL for each year in the analysis period are used in the empirical analyses correlating
pavement performance parameters collected or computed for specific years with traffic loading
obtained during the same years. In these analyses, ESAL is used as a single parameter
characterizing traffic loading at the site. When using this parameter in an analysis involving
multiple LTPP sites, the user must pay attention to the nontraffic factors affecting ESAL values,
such as road functional class, pavement type, pavement thickness, drainage, and others.
Annual ESAL values can be found in the following LTPP tables:
• TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED—Values based on monitored traffic loading data, available

for years with WIM data.
• TRF_MON_EST_ESAL—Estimated ESAL values during the monitoring period

(post-1989) when no weight data were collected.
• TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL—Historical values provided by local highway agencies based on

various data sources prior to 1989.
• TRF_TREND—Estimated annual ESAL values for all in-service years based on all
available monitored and historical values, as well as projections to fill in the gap years.
These tables can be downloaded using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in
chapter 6. An example of selecting TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED table for extraction from the
InfoPave Table Export menu is shown in figure 23.
Note that ESAL values may be affected by errors because of incorrect vehicle classification, as
well as weighing errors. Critical review and evaluation of changes in the annual ESAL values
year to year is recommended. Comparison with the expected ESAL per truck values is
recommended to identify outliers and identify reasonableness of ESAL values.
108
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Computed Traffic ESALs (TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED).”(3)
Example 4.1.1: Obtain Annual ESAL for Each Year in the Analysis Period
The following example demonstrates how to obtain the annual ESAL values for Arizona test site
7613 for years corresponding to construction number 1.
1. To obtain the annual ESAL values for each in-service year corresponding to
CONSTRUCTION_NO = 1 for Arizona test site 7613, extract records from the
TRF_TREND table field ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND using the generic InfoPave data
extraction instructions given in chapter 6 and the example demonstrated in figure 24.
109
Source: FHWA.
and ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND field.(3)
2. Once the table has been extracted to an Excel or Access file, identify columns (fields)
with headers STATE_CODE, SHRP_ID, YEAR, CONSTRUCTION_NO, and
ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND. Filter records for STATE_CODE=4, SHRP_ID = 7613, and
CONSTRUCTION_NO = 1. Applying this filter would provide the annual ESAL values
in the ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND column shown in table 33.
110
Table 33. Annual ESAL trend table for Arizona site 7613 extracted from the TRF_TREND
table.
CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL_ESAL_
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID _NO YEAR TREND
4 7613 1 1979 14,168
4 7613 1 1980 71,736
4 7613 1 1981 81,760
4 7613 1 1982 117,530
4 7613 1 1983 132,860
4 7613 1 1984 133,224
4 7613 1 1985 143,080
4 7613 1 1986 168,630
4 7613 1 1987 189,070
4 7613 1 1988 189,588
4 7613 1 1989 204,400
4 7613 1 1990 166,995
4 7613 1 1991 190,000
4 7613 1 1992 200,000
4 7613 1 1993 187,000
4 7613 1 1994 249,000
4 7613 1 1995 275,000
4 7613 1 1996 261,119
4 7613 1 1997 106,697
4 7613 1 1998 192,340
4 7613 1 1999 223,000
4 7613 1 2000 187,743
4 7613 1 2001 204,543
PARAMETER 4.2: CUMULATIVE ESAL FOR THE ANALYSIS PERIOD
Cumulative ESAL is used in analyses requiring correlation between pavement deterioration and
traffic loading accumulated at certain time points (typically dates when pavement performance
data have been collected). This also includes analyses when pavement performance is evaluated
at the end of the analysis period and involves accumulation of ESALs from the year when the
site was first opened to traffic to the last year in which the site was part of the experiment or the
last year of pavement monitoring.
Cumulative ESAL values can be computed by summing annual ESAL values extracted from the
LTPP table TRF_TREND for the years identified for the analysis.
111
Example 4.2.1: Obtain Cumulative ESAL for the Analysis Period
Cumulative ESAL values can be computed by summing annual ESAL values extracted from the
TRF_TREND table for the years identified for the analysis period. Typically, this includes years
from the first year when the site was first opened to traffic to the last year in which the site was
part of the experiment or the last year of pavement monitoring.
An example of the cumulative ESAL computation for the years corresponding to construction
event 1 for Arizona site 7613 is shown in table 34. Annual ESAL values for each year are shown
in the ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND column. Cumulative ESAL values for each year are shown in
the Cumulative ESAL column. Cumulative ESAL for any selected year is computed as a
summation of annual ESAL values from all the previous years. For example, cumulative ESAL
for 1981 is computed as a summation of annual ESAL values for 1979, 1980, and 1981. With the
use of the annual ESAL values from the ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND column corresponding to
the above-mentioned 3 years, the following computation can be made: 14,168 + 71,736 + 81,760
= 167,664. For the example shown in table 34, cumulative total ESAL, accumulated over the
years corresponding to construction event 1, could be found on the last row of the Cumulative
ESAL column: 3,889,483. This value is a result of summation of all annual ESAL values from
the ANNUAL_ESAL_TREND column.
Table 34. Cumulative ESAL for construction event 1 for Arizona site 7613.
STATE_ CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL_ESAL_ Cumulative
CODE SHRP_ID _NO YEAR TREND ESAL
4 7613 1 1979 14,168 14,168
4 7613 1 1980 71,736 85,904
4 7613 1 1981 81,760 167,664
4 7613 1 1982 117,530 285,194
4 7613 1 1983 132,860 418,054
4 7613 1 1984 133,224 551,278
4 7613 1 1985 143,080 694,358
4 7613 1 1986 168,630 862,988
4 7613 1 1987 189,070 1,052,058
4 7613 1 1988 189,588 1,241,646
4 7613 1 1989 204,400 1,446,046
4 7613 1 1990 166,995 1,613,041
4 7613 1 1991 190,000 1,803,041
4 7613 1 1992 200,000 2,003,041
4 7613 1 1993 187,000 2,190,041
4 7613 1 1994 249,000 2,439,041
4 7613 1 1995 275,000 2,714,041
4 7613 1 1996 261,119 2,975,160
4 7613 1 1997 106,697 3,081,857
4 7613 1 1998 192,340 3,274,197
112
STATE_ CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL_ESAL_ Cumulative
CODE SHRP_ID _NO YEAR TREND ESAL
4 7613 1 1999 223,000 3,497,197
4 7613 1 2000 187,743 3,684,940
4 7613 1 2001 204,543 3,889,483
PARAMETER 4.3: ANNUAL GESAL FOR EACH YEAR IN THE ANALYSIS PERIOD
This parameter is similar to ESAL but with constant values used for pavement thickness or SN
and serviceability inputs. Thus, this traffic summary statistic is independent of pavement
structure and pavement condition. This parameter is recommended for LTPP empirical analyses
where a single-value traffic loading statistic is desired. Also, GESAL could be used for
quantifying and comparing traffic loads between sites. GESAL is not intended for use with the
AASHTO 1993 pavement design procedure.
An estimate of annual GESAL for each in-service and in-experiment year can be obtained from
the TRF_TREND table, field ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND, using the InfoPave data table
extraction instructions provided in chapter 6. ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND values are
consolidated from multiple sources, with any data discrepancies between multiple sources
resolved and missing values estimated. The source of data or estimation method for each year is
also provided in the TRF_TREND table, field LOAD_SOURCE.
The TRF_TREND table can be downloaded using the generic InfoPave data extraction
instructions given in chapter 6. An example of selecting TRF_TREND table and
ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND field for extraction from the InfoPave Table Export menu is shown
in figure 25.
113
Source: FHWA.
and ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND field name.(3)
Example 4.3.1: Obtain Annual GESAL for Each Year in the Analysis Period
This example demonstrates how to obtain the annual GESAL values for Arizona test site 7613
for in-service years corresponding to LTPP construction event number 1.
1. To obtain the annual GESAL values for each in-service year corresponding to
TRF_TREND table field ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND using the generic InfoPave data
extraction instructions given in chapter 6 (figure 25).
ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND. Filter records for STATE_CODE = 4, SHRP_ID = 7613,
and CONSTRUCTION_NO = 1. Applying this filter would provide the annual GESAL
values in the ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND column shown in table 35.
114
Table 35. Annual GESAL trend for Arizona site 7613 from the TRF_TREND table.
SHRP_ CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL_GESAL_
STATE_CODE ID _NO YEAR TREND
4 7613 1 1979 11,808
4 7613 1 1980 59,083
4 7613 1 1981 68,116
4 7613 1 1982 97,484
4 7613 1 1983 110,239
4 7613 1 1984 110,541
4 7613 1 1985 118,999
4 7613 1 1986 140,130
4 7613 1 1987 156,692
4 7613 1 1988 157,121
4 7613 1 1989 169,546
4 7613 1 1990 138,712
4 7613 1 1991 143,743
4 7613 1 1992 148,683
4 7613 1 1993 133,580
4 7613 1 1994 168,743
4 7613 1 1995 196,663
4 7613 1 1996 211,790
4 7613 1 1997 95,157
4 7613 1 1998 163,393
4 7613 1 1999 189,561
4 7613 1 2000 155,614
4 7613 1 2001 169,964
Example 4.3.2: Obtain Cumulative GESAL for the Analysis Period
Cumulative GESAL values can be computed by summing annual GESAL values extracted from
the TRF_TREND table ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND column for the years identified for the
analysis period. Typically, this includes years from the first year when the site was first opened
to traffic to the last year in which the site was part of the experiment or the last year of pavement
monitoring.
An example of the cumulative GESAL computation for the years corresponding to construction
event 1 for Arizona site 7613 is shown in table 36. The last row in the Cumulative GESAL
column shows the total GESAL, accumulated over the years corresponding to construction
event 1. This value is a summation of all annual GESAL values shown in the
ANNUAL_GESAL_TREND column.
115
Table 36. Cumulative GESAL for construction event 1 for Arizona site 7613.
STATE SHRP_ CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL_GESAL_
CODE ID _NO YEAR TREND Cumulative GESAL
4 7613 1 1979 11,808 11,808
4 7613 1 1980 59,083 70,891
4 7613 1 1981 68,116 139,007
4 7613 1 1982 97,484 236,491
4 7613 1 1983 110,239 346,730
4 7613 1 1984 110,541 457,271
4 7613 1 1985 118,999 576,270
4 7613 1 1986 140,130 716,400
4 7613 1 1987 156,692 873,092
4 7613 1 1988 157,121 1,030,213
4 7613 1 1989 169,546 1,199,759
4 7613 1 1990 138,712 1,338,471
4 7613 1 1991 143,743 1,482,214
4 7613 1 1992 148,683 1,630,897
4 7613 1 1993 133,580 1,764,477
4 7613 1 1994 168,743 1,933,220
4 7613 1 1995 196,663 2,129,883
4 7613 1 1996 211,790 2,341,673
4 7613 1 1997 95,157 2,436,830
4 7613 1 1998 163,393 2,600,223
4 7613 1 1999 189,561 2,789,784
4 7613 1 2000 155,614 2,945,398
4 7613 1 2001 169,964 3,115,362
PARAMETER 4.4: GESAL PER TRUCK, PER VEHICLE CLASS, AND PER AXLE
GESAL per truck values could be used to judge how heavy different trucks are. These values are
also known as truck factors and are being used by State highway agencies for estimating loads.
LTPP table TRF_REP contains estimates of representative GESAL per truck, representative
GESAL per vehicle class, and representative GESAL per axle values for all LTPP sites.
The TRF_REP table can be downloaded using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions
given in chapter 6. An example of selecting the TRF_REP table and related GESAL fields for
extraction from the InfoPave Table Export menu is shown in figure 26.
116
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Representative Site Traffic Parameters (TRF_REP).”(3)
PARAMETER 4.5: RPPIF PER TRUCK, PER VEHICLE CLASS, AND PER AXLE
RPPIF values per truck, per vehicle class, and per axle could be used to judge how heavy
different trucks and axles are and to compare axle loads between different sites. LTPP table
TRF_REP contains representative RPPIF per truck, per vehicle class, and per axle values for
LTPP sites.
The TRF_REP table can be downloaded using the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions
given in chapter 6. An example of selecting the TRF_REP table and related RPPIF fields for
extraction from the InfoPave Table Export menu is shown in figure 27.
117
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “Representative Site Traffic Parameters (TRF_REP)” and
REP_RPPIF field names.(3)
PARAMETER 4.6: ATL FOR EACH YEAR IN THE ANALYSIS PERIOD
The ATL parameter provides an estimate of the total load transferred to the pavement by heavy
vehicles over a year. This parameter is recommended for LTPP empirical analyses where a
single-value traffic loading statistic is desired and for quantifying and comparing traffic loads
between sites. It is computed or estimated.
TRF_TREND table field ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND contains ATL estimates for each

year that a pavement site was in service, up to the end of the site’s participation in the LTPP
experiment. The source of data or estimation method for each year is also provided in this table.
The TRF_TREND table can be downloaded using the generic InfoPave data extraction
instructions given in chapter 6. An example of selecting the TRF_TREND table and
ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND field for extraction from the InfoPave Table Export menu is
shown in figure 28.
118
Source: FHWA.
and ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND field name.(3)
Example 4.6.1: Obtain ATL for Each Year in the Analysis Period
This example demonstrates how to obtain the ATL values for Arizona test site 7613 for
in-service years corresponding to LTPP construction event number 1.
1. To obtain the ATL values for each in-service year corresponding to

TRF_TREND table field ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND using the generic InfoPave
data extraction instructions given in chapter 6 (figure 28).
ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND. Filter records for STATE_CODE = 4, SHRP_ID =
7613, and CONSTRUCTION_NO = 1. Applying this filter would provide the ATL
values in the ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND column shown in table 37.
119
Table 37. ATL trend table for Arizona site 7613 extracted from the TRF_TREND table.
CONSTRUCTION_ ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID NO YEAR TREND (lb)
4 7613 1 1979 651,165,328
4 7613 1 1980 3,266,769,234
4 7613 1 1981 3,760,213,940
4 7613 1 1982 5,386,448,445
4 7613 1 1983 6,101,174,290
4 7613 1 1984 6,117,889,836
4 7613 1 1985 6,575,295,420
4 7613 1 1986 7,740,417,395
4 7613 1 1987 8,664,241,155
4 7613 1 1988 8,687,978,802
4 7613 1 1989 9,367,088,805
4 7613 1 1990 7,659,231,175
4 7613 1 1991 7,936,237,340
4 7613 1 1992 8,212,741,710
4 7613 1 1993 7,408,415,950
4 7613 1 1994 9,162,449,730
4 7613 1 1995 10,764,915,435
4 7613 1 1996 11,574,653,376
4 7613 1 1997 5,315,578,585
4 7613 1 1998 9,076,371,415
4 7613 1 1999 10,694,238,000
4 7613 1 2000 8,603,131,218
4 7613 1 2001 9,388,623,618
PARAMETER 4.7: CUMULATIVE TOTAL LOAD FOR THE ANALYSIS PERIOD
CTL values can be computed by summing the ATL values extracted from the LTPP table
TRF_TREND column ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND for the years identified for the
analysis period. Typically, this includes years from the first year when the site was first opened
to traffic to the last year in which the site was part of the experiment or the last year of pavement
monitoring.
An example of the CTL computation for the years corresponding to construction event 1 for
Arizona site 7613 is shown in table 38. The last row in the Cumulative Total Load column shows
the total cumulative load, accumulated over the years corresponding to construction event 1. The
value of 172,115,270,202 lb is a result of summing the values shown in
ANNUAL_TOTAL_GVW_TREND column.
120
Table 38. Cumulative total load computed for the years during construction event 1 for
Arizona site 7613.
STATE_ CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL_TOTAL_ Cumulative Total
CODE SHRP_ID _NO YEAR GVW_TREND (lb) Load (lb)
4 7613 1 1979 651,165,328 651,165,328
4 7613 1 1980 3,266,769,234 3,917,934,562
4 7613 1 1981 3,760,213,940 7,678,148,502
4 7613 1 1982 5,386,448,445 13,064,596,947
4 7613 1 1983 6,101,174,290 19,165,771,237
4 7613 1 1984 6,117,889,836 25,283,661,073
4 7613 1 1985 6,575,295,420 31,858,956,493
4 7613 1 1986 7,740,417,395 39,599,373,888
4 7613 1 1987 8,664,241,155 48,263,615,043
4 7613 1 1988 8,687,978,802 56,951,593,845
4 7613 1 1989 9,367,088,805 66,318,682,650
4 7613 1 1990 7,659,231,175 73,977,913,825
4 7613 1 1991 7,936,237,340 81,914,151,165
4 7613 1 1992 8,212,741,710 90,126,892,875
4 7613 1 1993 7,408,415,950 97,535,308,825
4 7613 1 1994 9,162,449,730 106,697,758,555
4 7613 1 1995 10,764,915,435 117,462,673,990
4 7613 1 1996 11,574,653,376 129,037,327,366
4 7613 1 1997 5,315,578,585 134,352,905,951
4 7613 1 1998 9,076,371,415 143,429,277,366
4 7613 1 1999 10,694,238,000 154,123,515,366
4 7613 1 2000 8,603,131,218 162,726,646,584
4 7613 1 2001 9,388,623,618 172,115,270,202
121
CHAPTER 11. SCENARIO 5: OBTAIN MEPDG TRAFFIC INPUTS FOR USE IN
AASHTOWARE PAVEMENT ME DESIGN SOFTWARE
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software requires a large number of traffic input
parameters.(5) This Guide demonstrates how LTPP traffic parameters can be used as
AASHTOWare software inputs. The screenshot examples provided in this Guide are consistent
with the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design versions 2.2 through 2.6. A screenshot of the
software with Traffic Inputs menu is shown in figure 29.
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 29. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Project 1: Traffic
input screen.(5)
Most of the required traffic inputs for the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software can be
found in the LTPP traffic data tables or could be computed using LTPP traffic data. Still, a
number of the input parameters are unavailable from the LTPP database. For these parameters,
the use of default values (either included in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5)
or published by LTPP or State/Provincial highway agencies) is recommended. Table 18 in part 1
of this Guide contains a complete listing of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design traffic
input parameters and the LTPP sources where these parameters can be found. For parameters
unavailable through the LTPP database, references to recommended default values are also
provided in table 18.
To make an informed selection of the MEPDG traffic input parameters, it is important to

understand how each of these parameters is used by the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software.(5) To estimate the number of axle load applications of different magnitudes applied
123
during a design or analysis time increment (the time increment typically equals 1 day for flexible
pavement or 1 h for rigid pavements), the following inputs are multiplied inside the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software:
• Base year AADTT is the estimated total number of trucks for the first year in the analysis
or design period. This parameter has a direct effect on the estimate of the total number of
axle load applications. If a two-way AADTT is used, then it is also multiplied by the
number of lanes, by the percentage of trucks in the design direction, and by the
percentage of trucks in the design lane.
• Vehicle Class Distribution (VCD) provides the percentile distribution by vehicle class of
vehicle volume in FHWA vehicle classes 4–13(11) for the base design or analysis year.
This parameter does not contain information about the total number of vehicles. The
parameter contains just the percentile distribution of vehicles by vehicle type. The
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design program has a capability to change this
distribution over the years and between different months by applying annual growth rates
and monthly truck volume adjustment factors, separately for each vehicle class.
• Annual Vehicle Volume Growth Rate and Growth Function by Vehicle Class are values
applied against the base year AADTT value to estimate the total number of trucks for
each year in the analysis or design period, starting with analysis year 2. These parameters
have a direct effect on the estimate of the total number of axle load applications in every
year of the analysis period.
• Monthly Adjustment Factors (MAFs) are multipliers used to adjust truck volume for each
FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 between different calendar months within the
design/analysis period. This monthly distribution stays constant over the design period.
• Hourly Distribution Factors (HDF) (used for rigid pavements only) are multipliers used
to estimate total truck volume occurring during each hour during the day. These values
are the same for all truck classes and apply only to total truck volume. This distribution
stays constant over the design period. These factors used for rigid pavement analysis
only.
• Axle Load Distribution Factors (ALDF) provide the percentile distribution of axle counts
by load magnitude for each heavy vehicle class (FHWA vehicle classes 4–13) and axle
type/group (single, tandem, tridem, and quad). This parameter is the same as the NALS.
Both ALDF and NALS are used in conjunction with the MEPDG method
interchangeably. Use of the term ALDF is limited primarily to the AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design software. This parameter does not contain information about the
total number of axles. It contains just the percentile distribution of axles by load
magnitude (i.e., it shows percentages of light, moderate, and heavy loads) that
characterizes the base year condition, provided separately for each vehicle class and axle
type. For a given vehicle class and axle type, this distribution stays constant over the
design or analysis period.
124
• Number of axles per truck (APT) coefficients, provided for each vehicle class (FHWA
vehicle classes 4–13) and axle type/group (single, tandem, tridem, and quad), is used as
multipliers for estimating the total number of axle loads from the total number of trucks.
An APT is needed for each truck class and axle type. To compute the total number of
single, tandem, tridem, or quad axle loads, single, tandem, tridem, or quad APTs for each
vehicle class are multiplied by the total number of trucks for each truck class; these
products are then summed across different vehicle classes.
To determine the location of the load and load configuration, the following parameters are used
inside the software:
• Axle group and axle spacing for tandem, tridem, and quad axles.
• Average axle width.
• Dual tire spacing.
• Truck wander described using mean wheel location and standard deviation of wheel
location.
• Average spacing of short, medium, and long wheelbase axles and corresponding
percentage of trucks.
The following sections provide examples of how to obtain individual MEPDG traffic parameters,
listed in the order that these parameters are entered in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software.
PARAMETER 5.1: MEPDG BASE YEAR AADTT
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software requires input of two-way AADTT

computed for the base design/analysis year.(5) However, the analysis is for one design lane only.
The two-way AADTT is converted inside the AASHTOWare software to the design lane
AADTT. In the case of the LTPP traffic data, AADTT for the LTPP lane is already known and
does not need this conversion.
To use the LTPP lane’s AADTT value in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, the
following MEPDG parameters must be entered:
1. Enter AADTT values for the LTPP lane.

2. Enter percent trucks in the design direction = 100 percent.
3. Enter percent trucks in the design lane = 100 percent.
Example 5.1.1: Obtain Base Year AADTT for Use in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Software
For example, to obtain base year AADTT for the analysis period during which Arizona test site
7613 was part of the LTPP experiment, extract records for Arizona test site 7613 from the
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS table using the generic InfoPave data extraction
instructions given in chapter 6. The result will be as shown in table 39.
125
Table 39. AADTT for the base design year from MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS
for Arizona site 7613.
AADTT_FIRST_
STATE SHRP TRAFFIC_OPEN_ TRAFFIC_OPEN_ YEAR_LTPP_
_CODE _ID DATE_EXP_NO YEAR_EXP_NO END_YEAR LANE
4 7613 10/1/1979 1979 2001 275
Once extracted from the TRF_TREND table, the design lane AADTT value then could be
entered on the traffic input screen of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, as
shown in figure 30.(5)
©
2022 AASHTO.
input screen.(5)
The software will automatically issue a warning for the “Percent trucks in the design direction”
input because it lacks an option for a one-way, one-lane road. To remove the warning, AADTT
can be multiplied by 2, and then 50 percent can be used for the “Percent trucks in the design
direction” input, as shown in figure 31.
© 2022 AASHTO.
input screen with modified input values.(5)
PARAMETER 5.2: MEPDG NUMBER OF LANES IN DESIGN DIRECTION
Because the software is designed for general application, not just for use in the analysis of LTPP
data, the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software requires the input of the number of
lanes in the design direction (i.e., the direction of LTPP lane).(5) The LTPP table
TRF_BASIC_INFO contains information about the number of lanes in the direction of the LTPP
section in the field NO_LTPP_LANES. The LTPP table SHRP_INFO has a similar field called
LANES_LTPP_DIR. If all other input entries for the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software are set to LTPP lane only, use a value of 1 for number of lanes input.
126
PARAMETER 5.3: MEPDG PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS IN DESIGN DIRECTION
(PERCENT)
For reasons stated in parameter 5.2, the AASHTOWare Pavement ME software(5) requires the
input of the percentage of trucks operating in the design direction (i.e., the direction of LTPP
lane) for the base design/analysis year. Because all LTPP traffic parameters are computed and
reported for just the LTPP lane, the user needs to tell the software that the data entered are
specifically for the LTPP lane. To do this, enter the Percent of Trucks in the Design Direction =
100.
PARAMETER 5.4: MEPDG PERCENT OF TRUCKS IN DESIGN LANE (PERCENT)
Because many roads contain more than one lane in the design direction, the AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design software requires the input of the percentage of trucks in the design lane
(LTPP lane) for the base design/analysis year.(5) Because all LTPP traffic parameters are
computed and reported for just the LTPP lane, the user needs to tell the software that the data
entered are specifically for the LTPP lane. To do this, enter Percent of Trucks in Design Lane =
100.
PARAMETER 5.5: MEPDG VEHICLE CLASS DISTRIBUTION
VCD is one of the parameters used to estimate total traffic loading for MEPDG analysis. It
represents an average VCD for a base design or analysis year. For LTPP sites, one set of
normalized VCD values is stored in the LTPP table MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS.
Each LTPP site has a set of 10 values. If an LTPP site is included in more than one LTPP
experiment, a set of 10 values is stored for each LTPP experiment. Each set of 10 values
represents the percentage of trucks found in one of the FHWA vehicle classes 4–13.(11) The sum
of the 10 values is equal to 100 percent.
Example 5.5.1: Obtain Normalized VCD for the Base Year Specified for the Analysis
The normalized VCD, for the base year corresponding to the opening to traffic date for a given
LTPP site specified for the analysis, can be extracted from the table
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS using the generic InfoPave data extraction
instructions given in chapter 6. For example, the normalized VCD representing the base year for
the analysis period during which Arizona test site 7613 was part of the LTPP experiment is
shown in table 40.
127
Table 40. Normalized VCD for the base design year from the
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS table for Arizona site 7613.
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID VEHICLE_CLASS VEH_CLASS_DIST_PERCENT
4 7613 4 1.91
4 7613 5 56.87
4 7613 6 8.79
4 7613 7 0.2
4 7613 8 9.48
4 7613 9 20.76
4 7613 10 0.37
4 7613 11 0.94
4 7613 12 0
4 7613 13 0.68
Once the data have been extracted, copy the 10 VCD values from the field
VEH_CLASS_DIST_PERCENT and paste them into the Vehicle Class Distribution and Growth
input screen of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, as shown in figure 32.(5)
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 32. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Vehicle Class
Distribution and Growth input screen.(5)
PARAMETER 5.6: MEPDG ANNUAL VEHICLE VOLUME GROWTH RATE AND

GROWTH FUNCTION BY VEHICLE CLASS
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) requires input of growth rate (percent) and
the designation of whether that growth takes the shape of a linear or composite growth function.
Growth rates are applied to each truck class (FHWA vehicle classes 4–13(11)) from the base
design/analysis year through the end of the required analysis period to compute annual truck
traffic volume for each vehicle class. These parameters could be obtained from the LTPP table
128
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS, fields VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_RATE and
VEH_CLASS_GROWTH_FUNCTION.
For example, to extract annual vehicle volume growth rate and growth function records for
Arizona test site 7613 from the MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS table, use the generic
InfoPave data extraction instructions given in chapter 6. The results are shown in table 41.
Table 41. Annual vehicle volume growth rate and growth function by vehicle class from the
MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS table for Arizona site 7613.
AADTT_
TRAFFIC FIRST_ VEH_
_OPEN_ YEAR_ VEH_CLASS_ VEH_CLASS CLASS_
STATE SHRP YEAR_ END_ LTPP_ VEHICLE DIST_ _GROWTH_ GROWTH
_CODE _ID EXP_NO YEAR LANE _CLASS PERCENT FUNCTION _RATE
4 7613 1979 2001 275 4 1.91 Linear 5.44
4 7613 1979 2001 275 5 56.87 Compound 4.24
4 7613 1979 2001 275 6 8.79 Linear 5.96
4 7613 1979 2001 275 7 0.2 Linear 10.55
4 7613 1979 2001 275 8 9.48 Compound 4.24
4 7613 1979 2001 275 9 20.76 Linear 6.22
4 7613 1979 2001 275 10 0.37 Linear 7.32
4 7613 1979 2001 275 11 0.94 Linear 5.8
4 7613 1979 2001 275 12 0 Compound 41.37
4 7613 1979 2001 275 13 0.68 Linear 6.23
Once the data have been extracted, enter these values into the Vehicle Class Distribution and
Growth input screen of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, as shown in
figure 32.
PARAMETER 5.7: MEPDG MONTHLY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
MAFs are used as multipliers to adjust the annual average truck volume statistic for each of the
10 heavy vehicle classes (FHWA vehicle classes 4–13),(11) to reflect the monthly or seasonal
variations present in the truck traffic stream. The monthly distribution pattern is assumed to
remain constant over multiple years for any length analysis period. One set of 12 representative
monthly factors is required for each vehicle class. These factors represent the difference in truck
volume, relative to the annual total, for each of the 12 months in any given year. The sum of
factors for all months for one truck class equals 12.
The LTPP table TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR contains MAFs for LTPP sites with
sufficient vehicle classification data to allow computation of these factors for each calendar
month. For all other LTPP sites, use default values provided in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME
Design software.(5) The default assumes no monthly variation in truck volume, and all MAFs are
equal to 1, as shown in figure 33.
129
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 33. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Monthly Adjustment
input screen.(5)
For example, to extract records from the TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table for LTPP
test section 0501 in Maryland, use the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in
chapter 6 and select the TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table from the Table Export
menu, as shown in figure 34. Then use the following procedure.
130
Source: FHWA.
Monthly Adjustment Factor (TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR).”(3)
1. Once the TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table is extracted for LTPP test section

0501 in Maryland, open the table in Excel and review values in the field
MONTHLY_RATIO. Note that for the LTPP sites that report the weight data and vehicle
classification data separately, there may be two sets of MONTHLY_RATIO values for
the same year (see Weight and/or Classification values in the TRF_DATA_TYPE_EXP
field of the TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR table). Since the purpose of the
MEPDG MAFs is to adjust the number of axle load applications, use the
MONTHLY_RATIO values computed from the weight data, unless the weight data were
not available for the whole year.
2. Select a year with MONTHLY_RATIO values representing vehicle volume distribution

for each FHWA vehicle class 4–13 by calendar month, as shown in table 42 for vehicle
class 9. Alternatively, compute the average MONTHLY_RATIO values by averaging the
values across all the available or selected years for each calendar month and for each
FHWA vehicle classes 4–13 (in this case, renormalize the computed average values so
that sum of 12 monthly average factors is equal to 12 for each vehicle class).
3. Enter computed or selected MONTHLY_RATIO values onto the Monthly Adjustment

input screen of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software (figure 33).(5)
131
Table 42. MAFs for class 9 vehicles for 2016 for LTPP site 24-0501.
STATE_ SHRP_ VEHICLE_ MONTHLY_
CODE ID YEAR MONTH CLASS RATIO*
24 0501 2016 1 9 0.8
24 0501 2016 2 9 0.85
24 0501 2016 3 9 1.03
24 0501 2016 4 9 1.02
24 0501 2016 5 9 0.91
24 0501 2016 6 9 1.16
24 0501 2016 7 9 1.03
24 0501 2016 8 9 1.12
24 0501 2016 9 9 1.06
24 0501 2016 10 9 1.04
24 0501 2016 11 9 1.03
24 0501 2016 12 9 0.95
*This column contains the MAFs.
PARAMETER 5.8: MEPDG HOURLY DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
HDFs apply only to PCC pavements. These factors are used to account for curling and warping
associated with PCC pavement during different times of the day. HDF are used as multipliers to
estimate truck volume for each hour within a 24-h period. These values are the same for all truck
classes and apply to total truck volume. The HDF stay constant over the design or analysis
period. One set of 24-h factors is used as an input to the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software(5) to represent the fraction of total truck traffic for each hour.
For a limited number of LTPP sites, this parameter is reported in the LTPP data table
TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST in the field PCT_HOURLY. The PCT_HOURLY values are
available for each year with hourly volume data submitted by vehicle class. For all other LTPP
sites, use the default values from the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software (figure 35).
It is expected that hourly adjustment factors will be different for the following two groups of
roads: roads that serve primarily local businesses or deliveries, and roads primarily used by the
throughway long-haul trucks. If local agency defaults are available for these two road types, use
these defaults instead of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software default.
132
© 2022 AASHTO.
input screen with default values.(5)
For example, to obtain the HDF from the TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST table for LTPP test
section 0501 in Maryland, use the generic InfoPave data extraction instructions given in
chapter 6, and select the TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST table from Table Export menu, as
shown in figure 36. Then use the following procedure.
133
Source: FHWA.
Hourly Distribution (TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST).”(3)
1. Open the Excel file with the extracted data and review values in the field
PCT_HOURLY. Sort hours in ascending order from 0 to 24.
2. Select a year with PCT_HOURLY values representing typical hourly distribution, as

shown in table 43. Alternatively, compute the average PCT_HOURLY values across all
the available or selected years (in the latter case, renormalize the computed average
values so that the sum of percentile values from PCT_HOURLY over 24 h is equal to
100 percent).
134
Table 43. HDF for 2016 for LTPP site 24-0501.
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID YEAR HOUR PCT_HOURLY
24 0501 2016 0 0.77
24 0501 2016 1 0.71
24 0501 2016 2 0.65
24 0501 2016 3 0.74
24 0501 2016 4 1.14
24 0501 2016 5 2.36
24 0501 2016 6 3.87
24 0501 2016 7 5.21
24 0501 2016 8 6.16
24 0501 2016 9 6.53
24 0501 2016 10 6.4
24 0501 2016 11 6.44
24 0501 2016 12 6.56
24 0501 2016 13 7.26
24 0501 2016 14 8.62
24 0501 2016 15 8.68
24 0501 2016 16 7.36
24 0501 2016 17 6.12
24 0501 2016 18 4.99
24 0501 2016 19 3.36
24 0501 2016 20 2.06
24 0501 2016 21 1.53
24 0501 2016 22 1.33
24 0501 2016 23 1.15
Enter selected or computed PCT_HOURLY values onto the Hourly Adjustment input screen of
the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, as shown in figure 37.(5)
135
© 2022 AASHTO.
input screen with values entered for LTPP site 24-0501.(5)
PARAMETER 5.9: MEPDG AXLE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) uses ALDF to compute traffic loads. One
set of normalized ALDF is available in the LTPP data table
MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR for each LTPP site, vehicle class (classes 4–13),(11)
axle group type (single, tandem, tridem, quad), and calendar month (January through December).
Depending on data availability and data quality, these ALDF represent axle load for a typical day
of the year (same values are reported for each calendar month) or a typical day of each of the 12
calendar months (unique values are reported for each calendar month) observed during pavement
service life. Each LTPP site in the MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table has an index
that provides ALDF usability rating based on the quality and quantity of the data used for ALDF
development.
136
Because of the large size of this input parameter, in addition to the direct input on the ALDF
screen, the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software accepts ALDF inputs in specially
formatted XML files. These files could be downloaded from InfoPave or requested from LTPP
Customer Service.
Example 5.9.1: Enter ALDF Values in AASHTOWare Software From

MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR Table
To enter the ALDF values from the LTPP MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table, use
the following procedure:
1. Use InfoPave table extraction steps provided in chapter 6 to extract the

MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table from the InfoPave Table Export menu,
shown in figure 38, for Arizona site 7613.
Source: FHWA.
(MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR).”(3)
2. Download the MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table for LTPP site 04-7613

to an Excel file.
3. Make sure that the exported data are sorted in ascending order by axle group, then by
the calendar month (January to December), then by vehicle class. A portion of the
extracted ALDF file for site 04-7613 single-axle group is shown in table 44.
137
Table 44. ALDF sample for LTPP site 04-6713.
SHRP_ID
MEPDG
MEPDG
MEPDG
MEPDG
MEPDG
MEPDG
MEPDG
GROUP
TOTAL
_CODE
AXLE_
STATE
CLASS
_LG01
_LG02
_LG03
_LG04
_LG05
_LG06
_LG39
Month
VEH_
…*
4 7613 1 January 4 100 0 0 0.17 2.33 10.69 13.86 … 7.64
4 7613 1 January 5 100 3.91 1.39 19.03 14.46 11.61 9.78 … 2.41
4 7613 1 January 6 100 0 0 1.75 2.71 5.56 10.6 … 4.39
4 7613 1 January 7 100 0 0 0 1.96 4.69 9.62 … 3.83
4 7613 1 January 8 100 3.73 1.82 10.84 8.58 10.81 12.87 … 2.98
4 7613 1 January 9 100 1.68 2.82 4.76 3.54 5.38 13.92 … 1.35
4 7613 1 January 10 100 0.14 0.28 0.75 0.87 2.53 9.22 … 0.8
4 7613 1 January 11 100 1.73 10.24 12.18 11.61 16.67 13.74 … 1.3
4 7613 1 January 12 100 1.35 5.81 6.43 13.37 18.51 11.04 … 1.25
4 7613 1 January 13 100 1.15 0.43 1.77 2.09 4.84 20.49 … 1.17
4 7613 1 February 4 100 0 0 0.17 2.33 10.69 13.86 … 7.64
4 7613 1 February 5 100 3.91 1.39 19.03 14.46 11.61 9.78 … 2.41
4 7613 1 February 6 100 0 0 1.75 2.71 5.56 10.6 … 4.39
4 7613 1 February 7 100 0 0 0 1.96 4.69 9.62 … 3.83
4 7613 1 February 8 100 3.73 1.82 10.84 8.58 10.81 12.87 … 2.98
4 7613 1 February 9 100 1.68 2.82 4.76 3.54 5.38 13.92 … 1.35
4 7613 1 February 10 100 0.14 0.28 0.75 0.87 2.53 9.22 … 0.8
4 7613 1 February 11 100 1.73 10.24 12.18 11.61 16.67 13.74 … 1.3
4 7613 1 February 12 100 1.35 5.81 6.43 13.37 18.51 11.04 … 1.25
4 7613 1 February 13 100 1.15 0.43 1.77 2.09 4.84 20.49 … 1.17
4 7613 1 March 4 100 0 0 0.17 2.33 10.69 13.86 … 7.64
4 7613 1 March 5 100 3.91 1.39 19.03 14.46 11.61 9.78 … 2.41
4 7613 1 March 6 100 0 0 1.75 2.71 5.56 10.6 … 4.39
4 7613 1 March 7 100 0 0 0 1.96 4.69 9.62 … 3.83
4 7613 1 March 8 100 3.73 1.82 10.84 8.58 10.81 12.87 … 2.98
4 7613 1 March 9 100 1.68 2.82 4.76 3.54 5.38 13.92 … 1.35
4 7613 1 March 10 100 0.14 0.28 0.75 0.87 2.53 9.22 … 0.8
4 7613 1 March 11 100 1.73 10.24 12.18 11.61 16.67 13.74 … 1.3
4 7613 1 March 12 100 1.35 5.81 6.43 13.37 18.51 11.04 … 1.25
4 7613 1 March 13 100 1.15 0.43 1.77 2.09 4.84 20.49 … 1.17
*Load bins MEPDG_LG07 to MEPDG_LG38 are not shown in the table.
138
4. Open or create a new project in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.
5. On the AASHTOWare project main menu, locate the green circle and “Traffic” label in
the upper left corner under the “Projects” folder. Left-click on the “+” sign to the left of
the “Traffic” label, and four options for “Single,” “Tandem,” “Tridem,” and “Quad Axle”
distribution inputs will appear, as shown in figure 39.
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 39. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Explorer menu with
traffic options expanded.(5)
6. Double click on each of the axle load distribution types (“Single,” “Tandem,” “Tridem,”
and “Quad”) shown in figure 39. A window will appear to enter axle load distribution
inputs shown in figure 40. The tabs on the top of the window show different axle groups.
(The words “Single,” “Tandem,” “Tridem,” and “Quad” are shown at the end of each tab
label.)
139
© 2022 AASHTO.
ALDF inputs.(5)
7. For each axle group (one at a time), go back to the Excel file containing the
MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR table (see example in table 44) and select
values from 120 rows (for months January to December) and 39 columns (starting from
column MEPDG_LG01 to column MEPDG_LG39) for a given axle type
(AXLE_GROUP = 1 or Single is shown in table 44). Copy the selected information by
right-clicking on the selected area and selecting “Copy” from the pop-up window (or use
Ctrl + C keys).
8. To paste the copied cells into the AASHTOWare input table shown in figure 40,
right-click on the top cell under the first load bin (load bin 3,000 is highlighted in blue in
figure 40 for “Single” axle) and select the “Paste” option in the pop-up menu (or use
Ctrl + V keys).
9. Repeat steps 6 and 7 to paste ALDF for the other three axle types (tandem, tridem, and
quad).
10. Save results in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design project file.
Example 5.9.2: Importing ALDF XML File to AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

Project
Use the following procedure to import an ALDF XML file saved on a local computer to an
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design project.
140
1. Open or create a new project in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.(5)
2. On the AASHTOWare project main menu, right click on the “Traffic” label located in the
upper left corner under the “Projects” folder, as shown in figure 41. Use the drop-down
menus under “Traffic” to click on the “Axle Load Distributions” option and then click on
Import XML…, as shown in figure 41.
© 2022 AASHTO.
import options for Axle Load Distributions.(5)
3. A standard “Open” file dialog window will appear, as shown in figure 42. Use the “Open”
file dialog box to select the ALDF XML file and click on the “Open” button.
141
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 42. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software screen
showing the Open XML file dialog screen.(5)
4. If the software is able to successfully load the XML file, the following message
(figure 43) will appear in the Output window of the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
software.(5)
© 2022 AASHTO.
successful file import message.(5)
PARAMETER 5.10: MEPDG NUMBER OF AXLES PER TRUCK
The number of APT parameter is used as a multiplier to estimate the total number of axle loads
(single, tandem, tridem, and quad) based on the total number of trucks reported for each truck
class (FHWA vehicle classes 4–13).(11) In the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software,(5)
one set of values is used to represent the average number of single, tandem, tridem, and quad
axles for each truck class. These values could be copied from the
MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK table and pasted in the AASHTOware Pavement ME Design
software input screen.
142
To obtain the APT for an LTPP site, use the following procedure:
1. Use the InfoPave table extraction steps provided in chapter 6 to select the
MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK table from the InfoPave Table Export menu, as shown in
figure 44.
Source: FHWA.
next to the traffic table label “AASHTOWare Pavement ME Axles per Truck
(MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK).”(3)
2. Filter the APT dataset for the selected LTPP site. (Site 01-4073 was selected for this
example.)
3. Download the MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK table for LTPP site 01-4073 to an Excel

file.
4. Copy the 40 APT values from the spreadsheet, as shown in table 45 in the columns
“SINGLE,” “TANDEM,” “TRIDEM,” and “QUAD,” and paste them into the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software traffic input screen, as shown in figure 45.
143
Table 45. APT values from MEPDG_AXLE_PER_TRUCK table for LTPP site 01-4073.
STATE_CODE SHRP_ID VEHICLE_CLASS SINGLE TANDEM TRIDEM QUAD
1 4073 4 1.08 0.93 0 0
1 4073 5 2 0 0 0
1 4073 6 1 1 0 0
1 4073 7 0.99 0 0.94 0
1 4073 8 2.13 0.87 0 0
1 4073 9 1.14 1.93 0 0
1 4073 10 1 1.24 0.76 0
1 4073 11 5 0 0 0
1 4073 12 4 1 0 0
1 4073 13 0 0 0 0
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 45. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software showing table with
APT values.(5)
PARAMETER 5.11: MEPDG AXLE SPACING FOR TANDEM, TRIDEM, AND QUAD
AXLES
For the average axle spacing values for tandem, tridem, and quad axles, use the default values
from the LTPP PLUG(9) report developed using data from the LTPP TPF-5(004) SPS WIM
sites(14) or the defaults from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
1-37A project(7) (under which the MEPDG was developed) presented in table 46.
Table 46. Average axle spacing in inches for multi-axle groups.

Default Source Tandem (inches) Tridem (inches) Quads (inches)
NCHRP 1-37A(5,7) 51.6 49.2 49.2
LTPP SPS TPF-5(004)(10) 49.0 50.8 51.8
This information is entered under the Axle Configuration section of the AASHTOWare traffic
input screen, as shown in figure 46.
144
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 46. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software showing Axle
Configuration input screen.(5)
PARAMETER 5.12: MEPDG AVERAGE AXLE WIDTH
Average axle width is the distance in feet between the two outside edges of an axle. One value,
constant between all truck classes, is used by the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software,
but only for rigid pavement designs.(5) For this parameter, use the default values provided in the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, as shown in figure 46.
PARAMETER 5.13: MEPDG DUAL TIRE SPACING
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) requires one input value for this
parameter. This parameter is treated as constant between all truck classes and does not change
over time. For this parameter, use the default values provided in the AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design software, as shown in figure 46.
PARAMETER 5.14: MEPDG TIRE PRESSURE
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) requires one value representing the
average hot tire inflation pressure. This parameter is treated as constant between all truck classes
and does not change over time. For this parameter, use the default values provided in the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, as shown in figure 46.
PARAMETER 5.15: MEPDG MEAN WHEEL LOCATION
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) requires the distance in inches from the
outer edge of the outer wheel path to the pavement marking. This parameter is treated as constant
between all truck classes and does not change over time. For this parameter, use the default
values provided in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software. This information is
entered under the “Lateral Wander” section of the AASHTOWare traffic input screen, as shown
in figure 47.
145
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 47. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software showing Lateral
Wander input screen.(5)
PARAMETER 5.16: MEPDG TRUCK WANDER STANDARD DEVIATION
The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software(5) uses a statistic that represents the standard
deviation of the Mean Wheel Location statistic to represent the fact that different vehicles use
different wheel paths as they travel down the road. This statistic is computed in inches and is
based on measurements from the lane marking. For this parameter, use the default values
provided in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software, as shown in figure 47.
PARAMETER 5.17: MEPDG OPERATIONAL SPEED
This value is defined as the expected or observed speed of traffic traveling in the design lane.
This input impacts design or analysis of pavements with an AC top layer. This parameter is
available for LTPP SPS TPF-5(004) sites on LTPP Traffic Sheet 21. For other sites, use the
posted speed limit, which is available from public domain sources. Operational speed
information is entered under the AADTT section of the traffic input screen of the AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design software,(5) as shown in figure 48.
© 2022 AASHTO.
input screen.(5)
PARAMETER 5.18: MEPDG AVERAGE SPACING OF SHORT, MEDIUM, AND LONG

WHEELBASE AXLES AND CORRESPONDING PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS
This input is required for jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) only. The AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design software(5) requires the input of the average longitudinal spacing, in feet,
of truck wheelbases with short (≤12 ft), medium (>12 ft and ≤15 ft), and long (>15 ft and ≤20 ft)
axle spacings and the corresponding percentages of trucks with these wheelbases. This primarily
applies to power units of tractor semitrailer trucks in FHWA vehicle classes 8–13(11) plus any
other axles that fall in the same axle spacing categories, excluding the spacing within tandem,
tridem, and quad+ axles.
146
Table 47 and table 48 contain data extracted from the LTPP PLUG(9) report and can be used to
compute the percentage of short, medium, and long axle spacings for the desired joint spacing.
Table 47 shows the distribution of axle spacings on tractor units for FHWA vehicle classes 8–13.
In addition, the axle spacing distribution for units other than tractor wheelbases for FHWA
vehicle classes 4–13, based on the SPS TPF-5(004) data, are shown in table 48. These
distributions provide information about vehicle classes that are likely to have axle spacings that
could contribute to the development of top-down cracking in JPCP.
Table 47. Distribution of axle spacing on power units (tractor) for FHWA vehicle
classes 8–13.
Percentage of Axle Spacings on
Axle Spacing (feet) the Tractor Unit
≤7 0.0
>7 and ≤8 0.0
>8 and ≤9 0.0
>9 and ≤10 0.1
>10 and ≤11 0.7
>11 and ≤12 3.5
>12 and ≤13 7.8
>13 and ≤14 5.4
>14 and ≤15 3.0
>15 and ≤16 8.1
>16 and ≤17 12.9
>17 and ≤18 32.9
>18 and ≤19 9.8
>19 and ≤20 7.3
>20 and ≤21 6.9
>21 and ≤22 0.9
>22 and ≤23 0.3
>23 and ≤24 0.2
>24 0.2
147
Table 48. Distribution of axle spacing by vehicle class using sample of SPS TPF-5(004)
WIM data (excluding power-unit wheelbase spacing for FHWA vehicle classes 8–13).
Percentage of Axle Spacing by Class
Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class
Axle Spacing (feet) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
≤8 37 13 49 66 25 47 62 0 20 50
>8 and ≤9 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 6 4
>9 and ≤10 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 17 11 5
>10 and ≤11 0 2 0 3 1 3 1 3 3 3
>11 and ≤12 0 12 1 11 2 1 1 2 5 3
>12 and ≤13 0 7 2 9 8 1 2 12 2 3
>13 and ≤14 0 21 3 3 8 1 2 7 0 2
>14 and ≤15 0 12 3 2 4 1 1 2 0 2
>15 and ≤16 0 4 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 3
>16 and ≤17 0 3 6 0 2 4 2 2 3 3
>17 and ≤18 0 4 9 0 4 9 3 4 6 3
>18 and ≤19 0 3 6 1 4 3 4 2 2 5
>19 and ≤20 0 3 5 0 4 2 2 1 5 4
>20 and ≤21 0 4 6 0 6 2 1 6 13 2
>21 and ≤22 0 5 2 0 5 0 1 24 8 2
>22 and ≤23 1 3 1 0 3 0 0 15 12 1
>23 and ≤24 20 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
>24 42 2 0 0 16 25 15 0 0 5
Average spacing of axles is entered under the “Wheelbase” section of the traffic input screen of
the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software,(5) as shown in figure 49.
© 2022 AASHTO.
Figure 49. Screenshot. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software Wheelbase input
screen.(5)
148
REFERENCES
1. Federal Highway Administration. 2015. The Long-Term Pavement Performance

Program. Report No. HRT-15-049. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/15049/150
49.pdf, last accessed September 5, 2023.
2. Elkins, G.E. and B. Ostrom. 2021. Long-Term Pavement Performance Information

Management System User Guide. Report No. FHWA-HRT-21-038. Washington, DC:
Federal Highway Administration.
3. Federal Highway Administration. 2019. “LTPP InfoPave” (web page).

https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov, last accessed September 5, 2023.
4. Selezneva, O. I., and M. E. Hallenbeck. 2022. Facilitating Analysts’ Use of Traffic Data
from the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program. FHWA Report No.
HRT-22-074. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-06/FHWA-HRT-22-074.pdf, last
accessed September 5, 2023.
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2022.

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design (software). Versions 2.2 through 2.6.
6. Federal Highway Administration. n.d. “LTPP InfoPave: Data” (web page).

https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Data/StandardDataRelease/, last accessed September 5,
2023.
7. NCHRP. 2004. Guide for Mechanistic–Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated

Pavement Structures. NCHRP Report 1-37A. Washington, DC: National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
8. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1993. Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
9. Selezneva, O.I., and M. Hallenbeck. 2013. Long-Term Pavement Performance Pavement

Loading User Guide (LTPP PLUG). Report No. FHWA-HRT-13-089. Washington, DC:
Federal Highway Administration.
10. Selezneva, O.I., M. Ayres, M. Hallenbeck, A. Ramachandran, H. Shirazi, and H. Von

Quintus. 2016. MEPDG Traffic Loading Defaults Derived from LTPP Traffic Pooled
Fund Study. Report No. FHWA-HRT-13-090. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
11. Federal Highway Administration. 2016. Traffic Monitoring Guide. Report No.
FHWA-PL-17-003. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
149
12. Elkins, G.E., B. Ostrom, B. Visintine, and J. Groeger. 2012. Long-Term Pavement
Performance Ancillary Information Management System (AIMS) Reference Guide.
Report No. FHWA-HRT-12-058. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
13. Federal Highway Administration. 2001. Guide to LTPP Traffic Data Collection and
Processing. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/trfcol/trfcol
.pdf, last accessed September 5, 2023.
14. Transportation Pooled Fund. 2023. “Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Specific
Pavement Study (SPS) Traffic Data Collection. Study Number: TPF-5(004)” (web page).
https://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Study/123, last accessed September 5, 2023.
15. Walker, D., and D. Cebon. 2011. “The Metamorphosis of Long-Term Pavement
Performance Traffic Data.” TR News 277 (November–December): 9–17. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board.
16. Federal Highway Administration. 2012. LTPP Field Operations Guide for SPS WIM
Sites, Version 1.0. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
17. ASTM International. 2009. ASTM E1318-09. Standard Specification for Highway
Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Systems with User Requirements and Test Methods. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
18. Yoder, E. J., and M. W. Witczak. 1975. Principles of Pavement Design. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
19. Hajek, J.J., O. I. Selezneva, G. Mladenovic, and Y. J. Jiang. 2005. Estimating Cumulative
Traffic Loads, Volume Ⅱ: Traffic Data Assessment and Axle Load Projection for the Sites
with Acceptable Axle Weight Data, Final Report for Phase 2. Report No.
FHWA-RD-03-094. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
20. Federal Highway Administration. n.d. “Long-Term Pavement Performance” (web page).
https://highways.dot.gov/research/long-term-infrastructure-performance/ltpp/long-term-
pavement-performance, last accessed September 5, 2023.
150
Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration,
Recycled Guide to Select Long-Term Pavement Performance Traffic Data for Multiple Uses
Recyclable (Washington, DC: 2024) https://doi.org/10.21949/1521493 HRDI-30/03-24(WEB)E

Fhwa HRT 24 062

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fhwa HRT 24 062

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fhwa HRT 24 062

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide to Select Long-Term

Pavement Performance Traffic

Research, Development, and Technology

Jean A. Nehme, Ph.D., P.E.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

Quality Assurance Statement

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

PART 1. LTPP TRAFFIC DATA AND PARAMETERS: DATA SOURCES,

Figure 1. Screenshot. InfoPave Table Export page....................................................................... 57

AADT annual average daily traffic

• Overview (chapter 1).

• Information on where to get the LTPP traffic data (chapter 5).

• Chapter 1 describes the purpose, scope, and organization of the Guide.

• Scenario 1 shows how to obtain traffic volume information.

• Scenario 2 shows how to obtain vehicle classification information.

• Scenario 3 shows how to obtain detailed axle or truck loading information.

• Scenario 4 shows how to obtain summary traffic loading information.

LTPP TRAFFIC DATABASES

Traffic Databases Included in the SDR

• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_*: This series of databases, organized by State code (each

Traffic Databases Associated with LTPP Traffic Analysis Software

• Annual_Traffic_*: Series of databases, organized by State code containing summarized

• Daily_Count_ERR_*: Series of databases, organized by State code containing daily

• LTAS_Administration: Contains LTAS-specific database metadata and other control

• Monthly_Axle_*: Series of databases, organized by State code, containing monthly axle

• Monthly_GVW_*: Series of databases, organized by State code, containing monthly

• Daily_GVW_*: Series of databases, organized by State code, containing daily data on

LTPP TRAFFIC DATA TABLES AND PARAMETERS

Traffic Tables Associated with the Pavement Performance Database

Table Naming Convention

TRF_MON* or TRF_MONITOR* Tables

NALS* and RPPIF* Tables

Traffic Volume Table

• TRF_HIST_CLASS_DATA: This table contains results of vehicle classification counts

• TRF_MONITOR_LTPP_LN: This table contains information on the amount of traffic

Traffic Loading Summary Tables

• TRF_HIST_EST_ESAL: This table contains estimates of ESALs at the LTPP section

• TRF_MON_EST_ESAL: This table contains annual estimates of the number of ESALs

• TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED: This table contains estimates of annual ESAL calculations

• TRF_MONITOR_AXLE_DISTRIB: This table contains the annualized number of axles

• TRF_ESAL_INPUTS_SUMMARY: This table contains a summary of all of the input

• TRF_ESAL_AC_THICK: This table contains values used to compute SNs for

• TRF_ESAL_PCC_COMP_THICK: This table contains values used to compute values of

MEPDG Traffic Inputs Tables

• TRF_MEPDG_AADTT_LTPP_LN: This table contains estimates of AADTT in LTPP

• TRF_MEPDG_VEH_CLASS_DIST: This table contains percentages of trucks by vehicle

• TRF_MEPDG_MONTH_ADJ_FACTR: This table contains adjustment factors for

• TRF_MEPDG_HOURLY_DIST: This table contains data describing the annual average

• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL: This table contains the annual normalized axle load

• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST_ANL_VAR: This table contains means and variances of the

• TRF_MEPDG_AX_DIST: This table contains normalized axle load distributions by

• TRF_MEPDG_AX_PER_TRUCK: This table contains the annual average number of

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Input Tables

• MEPDG_TRUCK_VOL_PARAMETERS: This table contains input parameters used in

• MEPDG_AXLE_LOAD_DIST_FACTOR: This table contains ALDF for use with

Analysis-Ready Traffic Summary Parameters

Traffic Metadata Tables

• TRF_CALIBRATION_AVC: This table contains information on the calibration activities