Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 114
D-1
APPENDIX D
Recommended Regulatory Principles
for Interprovincial Heavy Vehicle
Weights and Dimensions
SEPTEMBER 1987
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE
Chairman: H.K. Walker, Alberta Transportation and Utilities
Secretary: J.B.L. Robinson, Roads and Transportation Association of
Canada
Technical Advisor: J. Pearson, Roads and Transportation Association of
Canada
Members:
T.M. Prim, Newfoundland Department of Transportation
S.M. Ali, Nova Scotia Department of Transportation
T.W. Walker, Prince Edward Island Department of Transportation and Public Works
R.D. Macintosh, New Brunswick Department of Transportation
P. Perron, Ministere des Transports du Quebec
W. Keen, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications
J.B. Rowley, Manitoba Highways and Transportation
M.F. Clark, Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation (to May 1987)
B.D. Martin, Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation (from May 1987)
P. Toogood, British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways
J.A. de Raadt, Yukon Community and Transportation Services
J. Bunge, Northwest Territories Department of Public Works and Highways
T.M. Burtch, Transport Canada
Alternates:
P.S. Askie, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications
R.O. Houston, Alberta Transportation and Utilities
Preface:
The report which follows constitutes the draft final report of the Implementation
Planning Subcommittee of the Joint RTAC/CCMTA Committee on Heavy Vehicle Weights and
Dimensions. Following the completion of the Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Research
Program, marked by the delivery of the Technical Steering Committee Report in December
1986, the Implementation Planning Subcommittee was charged with the following
responsibilities:
1. To develop a plan that will assist each jurisdiction in implementing vehicle weight,
dimension and configuration regulatory principles that will lead to national uniformity.
OCR for page 115
D-2
2. To develop schedules for proposed implementation of the recommendations.
3. To monitor the progress of implementation of the recommendations as they may be
agreed to by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway
Safety at its meeting in September 1987.
With due consideration to the findings of the research program, and in recognition of
the safety of the users of the system, engineering, economic and operational constraints of the
highway system, the operational requirements of the trucking industry, and the capabilities of the
truck and trailer manufacturing industries, the committee has developed a proposed regulatory
environment which provides improved opportunities to safely exploit the available capacities of
both the highway system and the motor transport fleet on a national basis.
The regulatory principles and recommended limits have been developed in the context
of the following objectives:
1. To encourage the use of the most stable heavy vehicle configurations through the
implementation of practical, enforceable weight and dimensions limits.
2. To balance the available capacities of the national highway transportation system by
encouraging the use of the most productive vehicle configurations relative to their impact
on the infrastructure.
3. To provide the motor transport industry with the ability to serve markets across Canada
using safe, productive, nationally acceptable equipment.
The regulatory framework and principles described herein represent the work and
collective efforts of all jurisdictions involved in the regulation of highway transport in Canada.
H.K. Walker
Chairman, Implementation Planning Subcommittee
OCR for page 116
D-3
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
In 1984 a joint government/industry research program was launched with the goal of
achieving uniformity in interprovincial weights and dimensions regulations. The research was
intended to provide insight into and answers to technical questions which stood in the way of
obtaining agreement between jurisdictions on acceptable vehicle configurations, axle loadings
and spacings, and overall dimensions.
The research conducted under the Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study constitutes a
major advancement in understanding the influence of heavy vehicle weights and dimensions on
the stability and controllability of the vehicles which use the highway system and the impacts
they have on the system's infrastructure. The research findings have also served to highlight the
limitations of the capacities and capabilities of both the vehicles and the highway system itself,
while providing direction on opportunities which exist to improve the productivity of the
highway transport system.
Weights and dimensions regulations have traditionally been established primarily in
consideration of the capacities or expected rate of consumption of the highway system
infrastructure. The research program confirmed that a direct relationship also exists between
weights, dimensions and vehicle stability. Consequently, any revision of existing limits has
implications for the stability of heavy combination vehicles and for the safe operation of the
highway system as a whole.
1.2 Vehicle Stability and Control Performance Criteria
The extensive programs of testing and computer simulation carried out under the
research program served to document the wide range of stability and control characteristics of
vehicles currently found in the commercial transport fleet. In reviewing the findings of the
program, it was recognized that both the configuration of the vehicle and the manner in which it
is loaded profoundly influence its stability and control characteristics and its compatibility with
the highway geometry.
The regulatory principles and proposed weight and dimension limits which appear in
the following sections have been selected in consideration of each vehicle configuration's
demonstrated performance against seven measures. As recommended by the Technical Steering
Committee of the research program, vehicles which exhibit performance which meets or exceeds
the reference levels for the following measures should be encouraged for use in interprovincial
carriage.
It is recognized that the desired targets for vehicle stability and control performance
cannot, and will not, be achieved solely through the application of weight and dimension limits.
However, the influence of weight and dimensions on vehicle stability was carefully considered in
developing and selecting the limits proposed in this document. It is recommended that the seven
measures of performance described in the following section be considered in any future revisions
to heavy truck weights and dimensions, and that the recommended minimum or maximum levels
within each be held as desired targets, achievable through judicious application of regulatory
control developed in concert with the manufacturing and operating industries.
OCR for page 117
D-4
Stability and Control Measures:
A. Static Rollover Threshold
The Static Rollover Threshold defines the maximum severity of steady turn which a
vehicle can tolerate without rolling over. The measure expresses the level of lateral acceleration,
in units of g's of lateral acceleration, beyond which overturn occurs. In general, loaded trucks
exhibit rollover threshold values in the range of 0.25 to 0.40 g, a range which lies modestly
above the severity levels encountered in the normal driving of passenger cars. This measure of
truck roll stability is known to correlate powerfully with the incidence of rollover accidents in
highway service.
Target Performance Level:
Vehicles, in the loaded condition, should exhibit a static rollover threshold of 0.4 g or
better.
B. Dynamic Load Transfer Ratio
Dynamic Load Transfer Ratio characterizes the extent to which a vehicle approaches
the rollover condition in a dynamic steering manoeuver such as in avoiding an obstacle in the
roadway. This measure is expressed in terms of the fractional change in tire loads between left-
and right-side tires in the manoeuver, thus indicating how close the vehicle came to lifting off all
of its tires on one side, and rolling over. The value which is determined reflects the amplification
tendencies by which multiple-trailer combinations tend to "crack the whip" in rapid steering
manoeuvers. The Load Transfer Ratio is calculated as follows:
Load Transfer Ratio = sum|FL-FR|/sum(FL+FR)
where: FL = Left side tire loads
FR = Right side tire loads
Target Performance Level:
When a vehicle in the loaded condition negotiates an obstacle avoidance, or lane change
manoeuver at highway speeds, the load transfer ratio should not exceed 0.60.
C. Friction Demand in Tight Turns
The measure termed, Friction Demand in a Tight Turn, pertains to the resistance of
multiple, nonsteered axles to travelling around a tight-radius turn, such as at an intersection.
Especially with semitrailers having widely spread axles, the resistance to operating in a curved
path results in a requirement, or demand, for tire side force at the tractor's tandem axles. When
the pavement friction level is low, such vehicles may exceed the friction which is available and
produce a jackknife-type response. The friction demand measure describes the minimum level of
pavement friction on which the vehicle can negotiate an intersection turn without suffering such
a control loss. When the vehicle design is such that a high friction level is demanded, the vehicle
is looked upon as inoperable under lower-friction conditions such as prevail during much of the
Canadian wintertime.
OCR for page 118
D-5
Target Performance Level:
When a vehicle negotiates a 90 ° turn with an outside radius of 11 m, the peak required
coefficient of friction of the highway surface to avoid loss of traction by the tractor drive tires
should not exceed 0.1.
D. Braking Efficiency
A Braking Efficiency measure is used to indicate the ability of the braking system to
fully utilize the tire/pavement friction available at each axle. It is defined as the percentage of
available tire/road friction limit that can be utilized in achieving an emergency stop without
incurring wheel lockup. For example, a vehicle achieves only a 50% braking efficiency level
when it suffers wheel lockup while braking at 0.2 g's on a surface which could ideally support a
0.4 g stop. The braking efficiency measure is meant to characterize the quality of the overall
braking system as the primary accident avoidance mechanism.
It is recognized that in-service heavy vehicle braking characteristics are influenced by a
multitude of factors including the state of adjustment of the mechanical elements of the braking
system, the response characteristics of the air supply system, the type and condition of tires on
the vehicle, the load distribution between axles and the characteristics of the road surface. As a
consequence, the performance measure described above is somewhat theoretical in nature, and
may not be easily verified through physical testing of appropriately configured vehicles.
Nonetheless, the Braking Efficiency measure as determined using simulation or analysis
techniques does provide a valuable, consistent basis upon which valid comparisons of the
braking performance of differing vehicle configurations can be made, and provides a reasonable
target performance level which vehicles in the fleet should be capable of achieving.
Target Performance Level:
Vehicles in the loaded or unloaded condition should exhibit braking efficiencies of 70%
or better. Braking efficiency is defined as the percentage of available tire/road friction limit that
can be utilized in an emergency stop of 0.4 g's deceleration without incurring wheel lockup.
Offtracking Measures:
E. Low Speed Offtracking
Low-Speed Offtracking is defined as the extent of inboard offtracking which occurs in a
turn. In a right-hand turn, for example, the rearmost trailer axle follows a path which is well to
the right of that of the tractor, thus making demands for lateral clearance in the layout of
pavement intersections. This property is of concern to compatibility of the vehicle configuration
with the general road system and has implications for safety as well as abuse of roadside
appurtenances.
Target Performance Level:
When a vehicle negotiates a 90 ° turn with an outside radius of 11 m, the maximum
extent of lateral excursion of the last axle of the vehicle, relative to the path followed by the
tractor steering axle, should not exceed 6 m.
OCR for page 119
D-6
F. High Speed Offtracking
A High-Speed Offtracking measure has been defined as the extent of outboard
offtracking of the last axle of the truck combination in a moderate steady turn of 0.2 g's lateral
acceleration. This measure is expressed as the lateral offset, in meters, between the trailer and
tractor paths. Recognizing that the driver guides the tractor along a desired path, the prospect of
trailer tires following a more outboard path that might intersect a curb, or an adjacent vehicle or
obstacle poses a clear safety hazard.
Target Performance Level:
When a vehicle negotiates a turn with a radius of 393 m at a speed of 100 km/h, the
maximum extent of outboard lateral excursion of the last axle of the vehicle, relative to the path
followed by the tractor steering axle, should not exceed 0.46 m.
G. Transient High Speed Offtracking
The Transient High-Speed Offtracking measure is obtained from the same obstacle
avoidance manoeuver as that used to define the dynamic rollover stability level and is defined as
the peak overshoot in the lateral position of the rearmost trailer axle, following the severe lane-
change-type maneuver. The amount of overshoot in the rearmost-axle path can be viewed as a
relative indication of the extent of potential intrusion into an adjacent lane of traffic, or the
potential for striking a curb (risking an impact-induced rollover). In layman's terms, this measure
quantifies the magnitude of the "tail-wagging" in response to a rapid steer input.
Target Performance Level:
When a vehicle negotiates an obstacle avoidance, or lane change, manoeuver at
highway speeds, the maximum lateral excursion of the rearmost axle of the vehicle, relative to
the final lateral path displacement of the steering axle, should not exceed 0.8 m.
1.3 Regulatory Approach, Rationale and Application
The regulatory principles were established on the basis of the findings of the research
program and were used to select weight and dimension limits which have been developed in the
context of the following objectives:
1. To encourage the use of the most stable heavy vehicle configurations through the
implementation of practical, enforceable weight and dimensions limits.
2. To balance the available capacities of the national highway transportation system by
encouraging the use of the most productive vehicle configurations relative to their impact
on the infrastructure.
3. To provide the motor transport industry with the ability to serve markets across Canada
using safe, productive, nationally acceptable equipment.
The regulatory principles and limits proposed in this document are intended to apply
only to those vehicles engaged in interprovincial carriage. These vehicles will fall into one of the
following four categories:
a. Tractor Semitrailer
b. A Train Double
c. B Train Double
d. C Train Double
OCR for page 120
D-7
If implemented, the regulatory agreement would permit vehicles which are in
compliance to travel unrestricted across each jurisdiction in Canada on a designated system of
highways. The regulatory proposals are not intended to inhibit the ability of individual
jurisdictions to meet the needs of the transportation system in their region, and to develop
appropriate heavy vehicle weights and dimensions for intraprovincial goods movements.
2.0 Discussion of Proposed Regulatory Controls and Limits
Vehicle stability and infrastructure impacts are influenced to varying degrees by many
components of the vehicle and the physical configuration of the components. In some cases the
research demonstrated a clear and significant correlation between a vehicle parameter and a
performance measure, thereby providing an opportunity for effective regulatory control. In other
cases the research findings were to a certain extent inconclusive, or raised issues or concerns for
which weight and dimension regulatory controls would be ineffective, inappropriate or
premature. However, many findings in the latter category should be considered by the
manufacturing and operating sectors of the trucking industry in view of the potential benefits to
stability and productivity voluntary action would provide.
The research findings and proposed regulatory controls are discussed by vehicle
component as follows:
2.1 Tractors:
Terminology:
Wheelbase: The longitudinal distance from the center of the front or steering axle to the
geometric center of the driving axle(s). For tandem drive axle tractors, from the steering axle to
the center of the drive tandem.
Tandem Axle Spread: The longitudinal distance between the axle centers.
Fifth Wheel Offset: The longitudinal distance from the center of the fifth wheel to the
center of the tandem drive axle group (for two axle tractors, to the center of the drive axle).
Convention: ahead of center is positive setting, behind center is negative setting.
Interaxle Spacing: The longitudinal distance between the centers of two adjacent axles.
2.1.1 Wheelbase:
The research demonstrated that the stability of combination vehicles improves with
increasing tractor wheelbase. However, the tractor wheelbase also directly influences low speed
offtracking performance, i.e., longer wheelbases result in a greater degree of offtracking. In
consideration of the trucking industry's expressed desire for operational flexibility and
interchangeability of tractors between configurations, the proposed regulatory controls apply to
the tractor in each of the four vehicle categories.
It is proposed that the minimum tractor wheelbase be determined by interaxle
spacing requirement (section 2.1.3) and the maximum be 6.2 m because of the resultant
low speed offtracking performance of a tractor semitrailer configuration consisting of
a 6.2 m tractor coupled to a 12.5 m wheelbase semitrailer.
OCR for page 121
D-8
2.1.2 Tandem Axle Spread:
The research demonstrated that vehicle stability generally improves with decreasing
axle spreads in tandem and tridem groups. On the tractor, the drive axle spacing should be kept
as short as possible to reduce the forces required by the steering axle to overcome the "tire
scuffing" of the drive axles which occurs in tight turns.
It is proposed that the spacing between the tandem drive axles be controlled,
with a minimum of 1.2 m and a maximum of 1.85 m. The intent is to encourage the use
of closely spaced axle groups, while providing flexibility to operators who require wider
spreads for other reasons.
2.1.3 Interaxle Spacing:
The research determined that vehicle stability degrades with decreasing tractor
wheelbase and that a minimum spacing must be maintained between the steering axle of the
tractor and the first drive axle with respect to concern for bridge distress under load. A minimum
interaxle spacing requirement is proposed on the basis of encouraging the use of more stable
vehicle configurations, while reducing the demands on bridge structures.
It is recommended that the interaxle spacing on a tractor be a minimum of 3 m.
2.1.4 Fifth Wheel Offset:
Many tractors are equipped with moveable fifth wheels which enable load distribution
between axles on the vehicle to be adjusted. In other instances, the position of the fifth wheel is
selected to accommodate special requirements of the vehicle configuration or commodity carried
(e.g., automobile carriers).
The location of the fifth wheel on the tractor does influence the stability of the entire
vehicle configuration. It is recognized that operational flexibility is required by the industry, and
for this reason no regulatory control is proposed at this time. However, should industry practice
in positioning fifth wheels result in significant degradation of vehicle stability, regulatory control
may become necessary.
No control of fifth wheel offset is proposed at the present time.
2.1.5 Track Width:
Research has demonstrated that the stability of the tractor and the combination vehicle
as a whole improves with increases in the track width, or overall width across the tires. Wider
track axles are not currently available in quantity for tractor steering and drive axles, and their
use would require engineering modifications to existing tractor designs.
Although it is not proposed to control the track width of tractors at this time, it
is recommended that the industry be encouraged to use wider track axles which provide
a nominal width across the tires of 2.6 m to obtain the benefits of improved stability. It
is further recommended that the Government of Canada work with the Government of
the United States to pursue more rapid development of wider track axles for tractors.
OCR for page 122
D-9
2.1.6 Weight to Power Ratio:
While no regulatory requirement is proposed at this time respecting the horsepower of
the tractor relative to the Gross Combination Weight, it should be recognized that interprovincial
carriage through the province of British Columbia must meet that jurisdiction's regulatory
requirement of a maximum of 150 kg/hp and the requirement for tandem drive axles on the
tractor if the vehicle's Gross Combination Weight exceeds 38 000 kg.
2.2 Semitrailers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminology:
Length: The longitudinal distance from the front to the rearmost point of the
semitrailer.
Kingpin Setback: The longitudinal distance from the front of the semitrailer to the
center of the kingpin.
Wheelbase: The longitudinal distance from the kingpin to the turn center of the
semitrailer. For the purposes of this regulatory proposal, the turn center is considered to be
the geometric center of the axle group on the semitrailer.
Rear Overhang: The longitudinal distance from the center of the last axle to the
rearmost point on the semitrailer (or load).
Effective Rear Overhang: The longitudinal distance from the turn center of the
semitrailer to the rearmost point on the semitrailer (or load).
Hitch Offset: The longitudinal distance from the turn center of the semitrailer to
the center of the hitching mechanism provided for towing an additional trailer (typically a
pintle hook).
2.2.1 Length:
The research did not illustrate any direct relationship between trailer length and any of the
performance measures. However, there are other criteria which must be considered in establishing
size and weight limits, including enforcement concerns, the influence of overall vehicle length on
highway capacity and level of service, and operational and manufacturing limitations.
It is recommended that the length of semitrailers be controlled under the limits
developed for each type of configuration addressed in this proposal.
2.2.2 Wheelbase:
The research demonstrated that the wheelbase of a semitrailer has a direct influence on
the stability of combination vehicles. Longer wheelbases improve dynamic stability while
providing an opportunity to reduce the height of the center of gravity of the payload. However,
as wheelbases are increased the low speed offtracking is also increased. Generally, semitrailer
wheelbases should be kept as long as possible, within the constraint of acceptable limits of low
speed offtracking. As wheelbases decrease, the dynamic stability degrades and the friction
demands on tractor drive axles in low speed turns increase (for multiple axle semitrailers).
OCR for page 123
D-10
It is recommended that the minimum and maximum wheelbases of
semitrailers be controlled in all configurations, with appropriate limits selected in
consideration of the inherent stability characteristics of the configuration.
2.2.3 Kingpin Setback:
As the distance from the front of the semitrailer to the kingpin is increased, the potential
for the front corner of the semitrailer to intrude into adjacent traffic lanes in tight turning
manoeuvers increases.
It is recommended that the kingpin setback on semitrailers in tractor
semitrailer configurations and the first semitrailer in double configurations be
controlled to limit lane intrusion in turning manoeuvers. It is recommended that no
part of the trailer forward of the kingpin protrude beyond an arc of 2.0 m radius drawn
about the center of the kingpin.
2.2.4 Effective Rear Overhang:
The length of the trailer or load which extends beyond the turn center of a semitrailer
determines whether intrusion into adjacent lanes of the rear corner of the trailer or load will
occur when a turn is negotiated. Because of the turning characteristics of longer wheelbase
semitrailers, this problem is only of concern with the tractor semitrailer configuration.
It is recommended that the effective overhang on semitrailers in tractor
semitrailer configurations be limited to a maximum of 35% of the wheelbase.
2.2.5 Rear Overhang:
In consideration of the proposed control of effective rear overhang, there is no
proposed control of rear overhang. However, it is recommended that the development
and implementation of standards for improved rear underride protection be
undertaken by the Federal Government in concert with the Provincial Governments
and the manufacturing industry.
2.2.6 Tandem and Tridem Axle Spreads:
The research demonstrated that the stability of semitrailers improves with decreasing
axle spreads on multiple axle groups. Increased axle spreads also demand higher friction levels
between tractor drive axles and the road surface in tight turning manoeuvers, consequently the
maximum spread which can be recommended for a tandem or tridem is also dependent on the
wheelbase of the semitrailer on which it is installed. However, bridge capacity considerations
require that axle spreads be increased to accept particular loading levels. In addition, pavement
damage increases with very wide axle spreads. To accommodate these conflicting objectives, and
to provide maximum utility of vehicles in the trucking fleet, minimum and maximum axle spread
limits are proposed for both tandem and tridem axle groups.
It is proposed that the maximum and minimum spreads of tandem and tridem
axle groups be controlled with limits established for each vehicle configuration.
OCR for page 124
D-11
2.2.7 Track Width:
The research demonstrated that significant improvements in vehicle stability can be
obtained by increasing the track width, or overall width across the tires, of all axles on a
semitrailer. The full stability benefit of the increased axle width is only realized with a
commensurate increase in the spacing between the attachment points of the suspension on the
axle. While this dimension is considered to be outside the practical limits of enforceable weights
and dimensions controls at the present time, manufacturers are encouraged to exploit the full
stability enhancement available through increased axle and suspension width.
It is recommended that wider track axles be used on trailers and semitrailers
in all configurations, and that a nominal width across the tires of 2.6 m be required.
2.2.8 Hitch Offset (Double Trailer Configurations):
Where semitrailers are used in double trailer operations, the distance from the turn
center of the semitrailer to the hitching mechanism for the dolly drawbar(s) is related to the
stability of the combination. Generally, this dimension should be kept as short as possible for the
A Train Double and in particular for the C Train Double. As this dimension increases, the
dynamic stability of both A and C Train Doubles, in terms of load transfer ratio and transient
high speed offtracking, degrades markedly.
It is proposed that the distance from the effective turn center of the semitrailer
to the location of the hitching mechanism for dolly drawbars be kept as short as
possible, and be limited to a maximum of 1.8 m.
2.3 Converter Dollies:
2.3.1 Drawbar Length: A Converter Dollies
The research did not provide conclusive evidence that the length of the drawbar on A
Converter Dollies directly affected the stability and control performance of combination
vehicles. As a consequence, and in view of other overall dimensional constraints on the A Train
category, no control is recommended for the length of drawbar on A Converter Dollies.
2.3.2 Drawbar Length: B Converter Dollies
The research established a direct relationship between the length of the drawbar on the
double drawbar or B converter dolly and the stability of the second trailer in a double
configuration. Generally, as the drawbar length decreases, the dynamic high speed offtracking
improves. There are practical limits to the minimum length of drawbar, dictated in part by inter-
trailer clearance requirements and by minimum interaxle spacing requirements determined by
bridge capacity considerations.
It is recommended that a maximum allowable drawbar length of 2.4 m be established
for B Converter Dollies.
OCR for page 125
D-12
2.3.3 Double Drawbar or B Dolly Converters:
The research determined that significant stability improvements can be achieved in
double trailer configurations through the substitution of a properly designed and installed B
Dolly for a conventional A Dolly. However the research also highlighted the complexities of the
B Dolly design, and demonstrated instances where improperly designed dollies can render the
stability performance of the "C Train" inferior to that of the "A Train".
In the absence of design and operational guidelines for the B Converter Dolly, it is
recommended that the use of the C Train not be encouraged at the present time and that the
size and weight restrictions on this configuration remain as described for the A Train Double.
It is further recommended that high priority be given to developing such guidelines and
implementing a means of ensuring manufacturing and operational compliance.
2.3.4 Number of Axles:
While the research did not provide evidence to suggest that multiple axle dollies exhibit
undesirable performance characteristics, the stability limitations of the A Train Double and the as
yet uncertain engineering requirements of the B Converter Dolly would suggest that additional
load carrying capability by the dolly is unnecessary, and generally not desirable. The proposed
weight restriction on the second trailer of A and C Train Doubles provides no incentive or
requirement for additional load carrying capability.
To discourage excessive loading of the second trailer of A Train Doubles, and in view
of the uncertain requirements of B Dolly design, it is proposed that only single axle converter
dollies be allowed on A and C Train Double Configurations.
2.4 General Considerations:
2.4.1 Interaxle Spacing:
The distance between axles and axle groups on a heavy vehicle affects the response of
the pavement and bridge structure to the loading of the vehicle, and hence its destructive effects.
From the standpoint of bridge capacity constraints, there are minimum spacing requirements
between axles which must be respected, regardless of vehicle configuration.
It is proposed that interaxle spacings be controlled in accordance with the following
table:
Single Axle - Single Axle Min 3.0 m
Single Axle - Tandem Axle Min 3.0 m
Tandem Axle - Tandem Axle Min 5.0 m
Tandem Axle - Tridem Axle Min 5.5 m
Tridem Axle - Tridem Axle Min 6.0 m
2.4.2 Suspension Type and Mix:
The research demonstrated that stability performance can be significantly affected by
the varying characteristics of the range of suspensions commonly available to the fleet operator.
In particular, it is evident that the stability of all four categories of vehicles can be improved
through careful selection of compatible tractor and semitrailer suspensions. Conversely poor
compatibility of suspensions can significantly degrade vehicle stability.
OCR for page 126
D-13
The research also provided preliminary insights to the relative potential damaging
effects of differing suspension types on the infrastructure due to dynamic loadings. The research
suggested that certain types of suspensions would appear to inflict unnecessarily high dynamic
loadings on the pavement and bridges as road roughness and vehicle speeds increase.
While no regulatory controls are proposed at this time for suspension types or
mixes, it is recommended that further research be conducted in this area to determine
whether regulatory controls are appropriate or warrant development.
2.4.3 Tire Type:
The research demonstrated that the use of radial tires can improve the dynamic stability
of heavy vehicles, particularly the double trailer configurations.
While no regulatory controls are proposed at this time for the type of tire to be
used on combination vehicles, the use of radial tires in all axle locations is encouraged.
