Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Jan 2014

Objective Analysis of the Stability of an Extralegal Weight Tractor-Trailer Combination during a Rapid Air Loss Event

and
Page Range: 35 – 56
DOI: 10.2346/tire.14.420103
Save
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

In the California Transportation Permits Manual, the minimum overall tire-to-tire axle width (overall width) of a vehicle in the extralegal weight configuration is 2.44 m. Commercial truck tractor and trailer tandem 1.82-m-wide axles fitted with new-generation wide base single (NGWBS) tires measure 2.34 m in overall axle width; thus, they are not compliant with the current California Department of Transportation requirement. Because of the growing application of NGWBS tires in the market, it is important to understand the vehicle stability characteristics of a tractor-semitrailer fitted with both dual and NGWBS tire configurations. In this research, a comparison of dual to NGWBS with both a 50.8-m outset wheel and a 25.4-mm outset wheel is presented. A rapid air loss (RAL) event was initiated to represent a severe scenario in each of the three following maneuvers: straight line, steady-state curve, and lane change. The data were evaluated, and differences between NGWBS and dual tire–fitted vehicles were compared. While a tire RAL event can be perceived as a dramatic event, previous studies and driver-training events have shown that such an RAL event is manageable. The conclusion of this work is that an RAL event with NGWBS tires is as manageable as a dual tire–fitted vehicle and does not make the system unstable.

Keywords: rapid air loss; heavy truck; stability; handling
FIG. 1
FIG. 1

Vehicle track width.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

(a) Typical axle width measurements.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

(b) Dual tire overall width = 2.44.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

(c) NGWBS + 50.8-mm outset wheel overall width = 2.34 m.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

(d) Dual tire track width = 1.85 m.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

(e) NGWBS + 50.8-mm outset wheel track width = 1.91 m.

FIG. 3
FIG. 3

Tire explosive setup.

FIG. 4
FIG. 4

Straight line maneuver course (vehicle traveling from top to bottom of figure).

FIG. 5
FIG. 5

Steady-state cornering maneuver course (vehicle traveling from top to bottom of figure).

FIG. 6
FIG. 6

(a) Lane change maneuver course (vehicle traveling from top to bottom of figure).

FIG. 6
FIG. 6

(b) Lane change maneuver graphical representation.

FIG. 7
FIG. 7

Average tractor lateral acceleration for straight line maneuver.

FIG. 8
FIG. 8

Average trailer lateral acceleration for straight line maneuver.

FIG. 9
FIG. 9

Average tractor yaw rate for the straight line maneuver.

FIG. 10
FIG. 10

Average tractor pitch rate for straight line maneuver.

FIG. 11
FIG. 11

Average tractor lateral acceleration for the steady-state curve maneuver.

FIG. 12
FIG. 12

Average tractor yaw rate for the steady-state curve maneuver.

FIG. 13
FIG. 13

Average trailer lateral acceleration for the steady state curve maneuver.

FIG. 14
FIG. 14

Average tractor pitch rate for the steady-state curve maneuver.

FIG. 15
FIG. 15

Tractor lateral acceleration as a function of vehicle position.

FIG. 16
FIG. 16

Average tractor lateral acceleration for the lane change maneuver.

FIG. 17
FIG. 17

Average trailer lateral acceleration for the lane change maneuver.

FIG. 18
FIG. 18

Average tractor yaw rate for the lane change maneuver.

FIG. 19
FIG. 19

Average tractor roll rate for the lane change maneuver.

FIG. 20
FIG. 20

Average trailer roll rate for the lane change maneuver.

Contributor Notes

2 Corresponding author. Email: Jeffery.Anderson@us.michelin.com
  • Download PDF