RTMS Workshop, CCBSA, Olifantsfontein,

20 February 2019

Improving the safety of heavy

vehicles in South Africa through a
performance-based standards (PBS)
approach to vehicle design

Paul Nordengen
SA RTMS National Steering Committee
Research Group Leader: Network Asset
Management Systems
CSIR Built Environment
 CONTENTS
 PBS approach to vehicle design
 PBS pilot project in South Africa
 Pilot project monitoring results
Key Elements in Road Freight
Transport
• Road infrastructure: roads,
bridges, roadside furniture, signs,
road markings, eToll gantries
• Vehicles: design, maintenance &
operation
• Drivers: skill, health, fatigue
PBS Pilot Project Objectives
Investigate the Performance-Based Standards
approach to heavy vehicles design and operations as
researched and implemented specifically in Australia,
Canada and New Zealand with a view to improving
heavy vehicles operations in South Africa through:
• Reduced road wear (per tonne.km)
• Reduced vehicle trips i.e.
• Reduced congestion
• Reduced safety exposure risk
• Improved safety performance
• Improved transport productivity
• Reduced emissions (per tonne.km)
4
Problem statement

5
Problem statement

6
Problem statement

7
Problem statment

8
Problem statment

9
Performance-Based Standards
Prescriptive Standards Performance-Based Standards

Prescriptive Standards Performance-Based Standards

What the vehicle looks like What the vehicle can do
Governs mass and dimensions Governs actual on-road performance
Constrains productivity Allows heavier and/or larger vehicles
Constrains innovation Promotes innovation

Images courtesy of the Australian National Transport Commission

10
Smart Truck Pilot Project: Timeline

11
Australian Performance Standards for heavy vehicles

12
 Performance-Based Standards: Safety
Manoeuvre/Test
Low-speed 90° turn (5 km/h)
High-speed lane-change (80 km/h)
Rollover
High-speed pulse steer (80 km/h)
High-speed on uneven road (90 km/h)
Various (driveability standards)
Performance Standard
Low-speed swept path
Tail swing
Frontal swing
Steer-tyre friction demand
Rearward amplification
High-speed transient offtracking
Static rollover threshold
Yaw damping coefficient
Tracking ability on a straight path
Startability
Gradeability A
Gradeability B
Acceleration Capability
13
Low-Speed Offtracking

14
Low-Speed Offtracking

15
Low-Speed Offtracking

16
High Speed Transient Offtracking
PBS Lane Change Manoeuvre (SAE J2179)

17
High Speed Transient Offtracking

baseline PBS

18
Rollover stability: Baseline (legal) vs PBS

19
Performance-Based Standards: Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Pavements Bridges

Pavement Vertical Loading Bridge Loading

Pavement Horizontal Loading
Tyre Contact Pressure Distribution

20
 Road Wear Performance Standard
Pavement A: Pavement B:
Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa) Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa)
ES100 ES100
Ratio Phase I Phase II Phase III Ratio Phase I Phase II Phase III Load Positions
50 AG* 0.44 2000 2000 1500 50 AG* 0.44 2000 1800 1500

150 G1* 0.35 450 450 350 150 G1* 0.35 250 250 240

150 C3* 0.35 2000 2000 500 150 C3* 0.35 2000 1700 160
1000
150 C3 0.35 1500 550 250 150 C3 0.35 1500 120 110

SUBGRADE 0.35 180 180 180 SUBGRADE 0.35 90 90 90

Y (mm)
Pavement C: Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa) Pavement D: Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa)
ES0.1 ES0.1
Ratio Phase I Phase II Ratio Phase I Phase II

S* 0.44 1000 1000 S* 0.44 1000 1000

10000 20000 30000
100 G4* 0.35 300 225 100 G4* 0.35 200 180 X (mm)
125 C4* 0.35 1000 200 125 C4* 0.35 1000 120

SUBGRADE 0.35 140 140 SUBGRADE 0.35 70 70

-1000
- - - - - -

Pavement E: Pavement F:
Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa) Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa)
ES30/ES50 ES1.0
Ratio Phase I Phase II Phase III Ratio Phase I Phase II
40 AG* 0.44 2500 2500 1600 S* 0.44 2000 1600
Load Positions
120 BC* 0.44 3500 3500 1500 80 BC* 0.44 2000 1600

450 C3* 0.35 2200 1000 300 150 C4* 0.35 1000 300

300
200 G7* 0.35 300 200 SUBGRADE 0.35 140 140 1000
SUBGRADE 0.35 150 150 140 - - -

Pavement G: Pavement H:
Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa) Poisson's Elastic Moduli (MPa)
ES10 ES0.3

Y (mm)
Ratio Phase I Phase II Phase III Ratio Phase I Phase II Phase III

30 AG* 0.44 2400 2000 1600 S1* 0.44 2000 1000 200

150 C3* 0.35 2000 1800 250 100 C4* 0.35 2000 1500 100
10000 20000 30000
300 C4* 0.35 1000 300 100 100 C4* 0.35 1000 300 100
X (mm)
SUBGRADE 0.35 180 140 100 SUBGRADE 0.35 140 140 100

- - - - - - - -

* Classification according to TRH 14 (CSRA, 1985) -1000

8 Pavement Structures-1.ppt

21
21
Road Wear Performance Standard

22
Structures Performance Standard
2 Span Bridge: Max Negative Bending Moment Load Ratio
(10% Baseline Overload)
0,9

0,8
Timber Logistics Services Baseline Vehicle with
10% overload
Bending Moment Load Ratio

0,7
Worst Performing Single Tandem Trailer Vehicle
10%
0,6
Worst Performing Single Tridem Trailer Vehicle
0,5 10%
Worst Performing B-Double Vehicle 10%
0,4
TLS PBS Vehicle
0,3
NBC PBS Vehicle
0,2
Unitrans Fuel Quad
0,1
SAB PBS Vehicle
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Span Length (m)

23
Structures Performance Standard

24
New technology not always appropriate
in Africa ….
PBS in Africa ??? ....
PBS Pilot Project in South Africa

27
PBS Pilot Project in South Africa

28
Access: Route assessments

29
Access: Route assessments

30
Access: Route assessments

Using
AutoTU
RN
softwar
e
applicati
on

31
Access: Route compliance

32
Access: Speed compliance

33
Forestry baseline and PBS vehicles

22,0 m, 56.0 tons

24.0 m, 64.1 tons

27.0 m. 67.5 tons

25.8 m, 67.5 tons

25.0 m, 70.0 tons

34
Buhle Betfu Rigid drawbar

36
Timber Logistics Services Rigid drawbar

37
Mining side-tipper

38
 Unitrans
BAB Quad
Unitrans B-Triple vs BAB Quad

40
Mining Road Train: Rearward Amplification

41
Barloworld Transport Sugar Bottom Dumper

42
SG Coal B-double

43
Unitrans Fuel Quad

44
Fuel Quad Case Study

45
Beefmaster B-triple for cattle

46
SA Breweries PBS combination

47
SA Breweries E. Cape PBS combinations:
Efficiency improvements

Kms Kms Hours on Hours Fuel Fuel

Travelled Saved the road Saved Used (ℓ) Saved (ℓ)

Dec-16 33 250 13 253 621 248 23 940 3 962

Jan-17 74 642 29 720 1 477 588 55 059 7 558

Feb-17 63 854 25 519 1 245 497 46 564 7 060

Mar-17 82 108 32 349 1 614 636 60 497 8 117

Total 253 854 100 841 4 957 1 969 186 060 26 697

% Savings 28.4 28.4 12.5

48
ZZ2 B-triple for tomatoes

49
B-double Tautliner Case Study

50
Overtaking evaluation of baseline and longer PBS vehicles

51
Overtaking evaluation of baseline and longer PBS vehicles

Trips to Overtaki Increase

Increased Weight Move ng Time d Time
Time to Time for 1 Pallets per Pallet 100 for 100 for 100
Overtake (s) vehicle pass on truck (KG) Pallets Pallets Pallets

Baseline 9.2 28.3 1350 3.5 32.5 30.7%

PBS 9.95 8.2% 40 1350 2.5 24.9
Overspeeding baseline
(100 km/hr) 10.96 19.1% 28.3 1350 3.5 38.7 55.7%
Overspeeding baseline
(110 km/hr) 18.17 97.5% 28.3 1350 3.5 64.2 158.1%

52
PBS Bi-articulated Bus

53
PBS Bi-articulated Bus

54
Car Carriers

55
 Tail swing
Y Frontal swing
X
Low-speed
swept path

LSSP
DoM
12.5 m
Rear overhang MoD
FS

TS Prescribed path
Tail swing Front corner (tractor)
Front corner (semitrailer)
Rear corner (semitrailer)
Inner edge (semitrailer)
56
 Tail swing

• Existing car-carriers were shown to exhibit poor tail swing performance

due to excessive rear overhangs.
• Tail swing of up to 710 mm was calculated (limit = 300 mm).
• This was shown to be a result of lenient rear overhang legislation.

Rear Overhang Tail Swing

Australia South Africa Australia South Africa
Vehicle type ADR 43/04 NRTR PBS Level 1 NRTR
Rigid truck 3.7 m 5.01 m 0.30 m 0.60 m
Semitrailer 3.7 m 6.32 m 0.30 m 0.87 m
Tag-trailer 3.7 m 7.00 m 0.30 m 1.25 m
De Saxe, C.C., Kienhöfer, F. & Nordengen, P.A., 2012. Tail swing performance of the South African car-carrier fleet. In
12th International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Transport Technology. Stockholm.

57
Smart Truck Pilot Project: Impact

58
Smart Truck Pilot Project: Baseline vs PBS vehicles

PBS Baseline

2% 12% 13%

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3 56% 28%
Level 4
Fail
80% 3%

59
Smart Truck Pilot Project: Baseline vehicles

Number of PBS Failures Percentage of Baseline Vehicles

Failing PBS assessment
40%
9%
35%
30%
18% 25%
20%
15%
73% 10%
5%
0%
Static Rollover Rearward Yaw Damping
1 Failure 2 Failures 3 Failures Threshold Amplification Coefficient

Performance Standards

60
Smart Truck monitoring: Road wear

Estimated Savings in Road

Wear for 2017
(PBS vs Baseline):
o Total: R 4.7 to R6.4 million (R 0.3
to R 0.4 LEF/tonne.km)

o 13% reduction

o Average R 24 450 per vehicle

o Average R 0.34 per laden km

travelled

61
Smart Truck monitoring: Crash rates

Crash rate ratio:

Smart Truck : Baseline 1:1.68 62
Smart Truck monitoring: Cost of crashes

Km Crash Rate
Cost/crash Total Cost
(million) (per million km)

Smart Trucks 136.07 1.25 R 300 000 R 170 088 000

Legal Trucks 166.01 2.10 R 300 000 R 348 611 000

Cost savings R 178 524 000

63
Smart Trucks: Potential Gains

• Reduced vehicle trips i.e.

• Reduced congestion
• Reduced safety exposure risk
• Improved safety performance
• Improved transport productivity
• Reduced road wear (per ton.km)
• Reduced emissions (per ton.km)
• Improved performance of the SA heavy
vehicle fleet
64
Smart Trucks: Way forward

• Phase 2
• Intensive monitoring
• Increase sample size
• Involvement of all 9 provinces in the pilot
• Decision whether to implement or not
• Phase 3
• Formalise policies and procedures
• Update legislation
• Smart Truck portal: administration, monitoring, evaluation
OR
• Exit strategy
• Formal adoption
65
Thank you