Study on ABS availability for agri / forestry vehicles with max

108th WGAT meeting 25 September 2017

Study on ABS availability for agri / forestry vehicles with max design speed between 40

km/h and 60 km/h

Slide 1 of 33

© 2017 TRL Ltd

Study on the availability of anti-lock braking systems for agricultural and forestry vehicles with a maximum design speed between 40 km/h and 60 km/h

Presentation of final results WGAT Meeting, Brussels, 25th September 2017

Slide 2 of 33

the future of transport. © 2017 TRL Ltd

Apollo Vehicle Safety

Limited

Task 1: Stakeholder consultation and data gathering

Task 2: ABS technology assessment

Availability of suitable AVBS technology

Practical (and economic) applicability of ABS technology

Task 3: Cost benefits analysis of ABS installation

Task 4: Development of conclusions and recommendations

Findings from all tasks are presented in the final study report

(EC report ET-02-17-796-EN-N; ISBN 978-92-79-70240-2)

Project structure

Slide 3 of 33

http://www.iconarchive.com/show/tulliana-2-icons-by-umut-pulat/korganizer-icon.html

http://www.iconarchive.com/show/nuoveXT-icons-by-saki/Actions-gear-icon.html

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQudfvmejVAhWHXRQKHT98C3cQjRwIBw&url=https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-cannot-trust-cost-benefit-analysis-bent-flyvbjerg-%E5%82%85%E4%BB%A5%E6%96%8C-&psig=AFQjCNEzxqWbZuivRf8sW62bRgsznq-9Zg&ust=1503400595207622



Limited

Stakeholder surveys: Bespoke online and MS Word surveys

National Authorities: >170 surveys issued, 5 Member States responded

Manufacturers of agricultural vehicles, trailers/ towed equipment, axles and braking

equipment systems: 72 surveys issued, 33 replies

Industry Bodies & Social Partners: 156 surveys issued, 12 responses

Stakeholder discussions: Face to face meetings and telephone discussions

Industry bodies, manufacturers of braking systems, vehicles, trailers and towed equipment

Literature reviews: Technical and manufacturer literature

Data reviews: Vehicle fleets, legislation & policy, costs, accident stats

Information gathering methodology

Slide 4 of 33

http://www.iconarchive.com/show/tulliana-2-icons-by-umut-pulat/korganizer-icon.html

http://www.iconarchive.com/show/vista-people-icons-by-icons-land/Groups-Meeting-Dark-icon.html

http://www.iconarchive.com/show/my-seven-icons-by-itzikgur/Books-1-icon.html



Limited

What is a Category ‘b’ agricultural vehicle

A vehicle with a maximum design speed (Vmax) > 40 km/h

Conventional tractors with sufficient engine power to tow (heavy?) loads on-road > 40 km/h

This typically means > 130 hp / > 97 kW. To date this includes T1b but not T2b

Lightweight vehicles used for agricultural tasks with sufficient power-to-weight ratio to comfortably

exceed 40 km/h (e.g. an ATV or SbS)

Specialist agricultural tractors with Vmax > 40 km/h capability (e.g. T4.3b)

Agricultural trailers intended for use behind any of these vehicles at Vmax > 40 km/h

Interchangeable towed equipment intended for use at Vmax > 40 km/h

Photo copyrights: Deere & Co.; KYMCO; ATVEA; Aebi-Schmidt; Claas/Joskin

Slide 5 of 33



Limited

Category T1 tractors

600 kg unladen mass, wheel track width > 1150 mm

Category T2 tractors

600 kg unladen mass, wheel track width < 1150 mm

Category T4.3 tractors

Low-clearance, low centre-of-gravity, ≤ 10,000 kg max. permissible mass

Side-by-side vehicles where type-approved as Category T1b

All-terrain vehicles where type approved as Category T3b

Other categories were excluded as they are unlikely to be used for road transport, and/or

may meet national approval requirements rather than EU type-approval

Vehicle categories included in the study

Photo copyrights: SDF; CNH Industrial

Slide 6 of 33



Limited

Category R3 trailers

Sum of permissible masses per axle (MPMaxles) > 3,500 kg but 21,000 kg

Category R4 trailers

Sum of permissible masses per axle (MPMaxles) > 21,000 kg

Category S2 interchangeable towed machinery

Sum of permissible masses per axle (MPMaxles) > 3,500 kg)

Other trailer / towed machinery categories were excluded as they:

• Are of lower mass and pose less of a road safely risk when travelling at 40 – 60 km/h

• May be fitted with inertia brakes, for which ABS technology is not available

Trailer/interchangeable towed machinery categories included in the study

Photo copyrights: Fliegl/CEMA; Pöttinger/CEMA

Slide 7 of 33



Limited

Current/future agricultural vehicle usage in the European Union

EU agriculture is changing

Fewer but larger farms

Greater geographic spread of land

Tractors required to travel further on-road to perform fieldwork

Fewer tractors sold, but they are of increasing engine power,

technical complexity and cost

Agricultural trailer capacity is increasing, both to utilize available

tractor power and match increased output of crop harvesting

machinery

Photo copyright: CNH Industrial

Slide 8 of 33



Limited


Agricultural tractor capability is changing

Higher speed capability: Vmax > 40 km/h tractors have been widely

available for ~15 years (~2003 – 06)

Have proven very popular in the few EU markets which currently

permit their sale / use

Already represent ~50% of tractor production in certain power

categories (e.g. 150 – 300 hp / 112 – 224 kW)

EU market penetration is likely to increase substantially from

January 2018 due to EU type-approval legislation

Photo copyright: SDF

Slide 9 of 33



Limited


Agricultural vehicle usage is changing

Larger / higher powered tractors are required to tow larger / heavier

trailers at V > 40 km/h

Tractor + Trailer laden mass ~ 35,000 – 40,000 kg is common

UK data suggests 150 – 300 hp (112 – 224 kW) tractors may spend up

to 50% of operating time engaged in either material transport or

general on-road travel

Larger capacity trailers tend to be towed by Vmax > 40 km/h tractors


Slide 10 of 33



Limited

Road accidents related to agricultural vehicles

Data suggests collisions involving agricultural vehicles are a small but possibly a growing problem

Fatality risk per unit of exposure is much greater than average

Increasing market penetration of Vmax > 40 km/h tractors may increase frequency & severity of collisions – but

may be partly offset by smaller speed differential with other vehicles

Risk of accidents involving loss of control, jack-knife or trailer swing increases with speed

Tests and statistical evidence show ABS has a strong positive effect on these specific collision types, but

statistics suggest a small net positive effect on crashes overall

Data shows ATVs and SbS vehicles were involved in only a very small proportion of (road) collisions

involving agricultural vehicles

On-road travel and/or transport apparently a minor activity for these vehicles Slide 11 of 33



Limited

Generic ABS systems potentially suitable for agricultural vehicles

ABS Type Actuation Medium

Availability for off-road / agricultural vehicles

Comments

1. Pneumatic Pneumatic Yes – Mature systems • Truck ABS-derived system. • Requires compressor & air reservoir(s) on vehicle

2. Pneumatic Hydraulic: Brake Fluid

Yes – Mature systems • Adaptation of (1). • Only suitable for vehicles with limited brake

application fluid displacements

3. Pneumatic Hydraulic: Mineral Oil

Yes – Mature systems • Adaptation of (1). • Suitable for hydraulically-applied (internal) tractor

disc brakes (very common)

4. Hydraulic (Brake Fluid)

Hydraulic: Brake Fluid

Some mature systems, some proof-of-concept* systems Each only suited for certain (lower mass) vehicles

• Derived from Light Truck or Car systems. • Low installation space requirements. • Only suitable for vehicles with limited brake

application fluid displacements

5. Hydraulic (Mineral Oil)

Hydraulic: Mineral Oil

Under development* • Particularly suited to hydraulic oil-applied braking

systems (e.g. many tractors). • Lower installation space requirements

* Estimated time to market readiness/series production within timescale of currently-proposed legislative deadline for mandatory ABS introduction

Slide 12 of 33



Limited

Agricultural vehicles which do currently offer ABS systems

Brake actuation: Pneumatic ABS Control: Pneumatic

Brake actuation: Hydraulic (brake fluid) ABS Control: Pneumatic

Brake actuation: Hydraulic (mineral oil) ABS Control: Pneumatic

Brake actuation: Pneumatic ABS Control: Pneumatic

Brake actuation: Hydraulic (brake fluid) ABS Control: Hydraulic (brake fluid)?

Photo copyrights: Fendt; CNH Industrial; JCB; Claas/Joskin; KYMCO

Slide 13 of 33



Limited

Agricultural vehicles which do not currently offer ABS systems

Photo copyrights: CNH Industrial; Aebi-Schmidt; KYMCO; Valtra/Amazone; Fleming; ATVEA

Slide 14 of 33



Limited

Effectiveness of ABS


ABS benefits

Maintains vehicle directional control during braking on low-adhesion surfaces

Very effective in mitigating the risk of collisions involving loss of control, jack-

knife or trailer swing. Can be beneficial even if the trailer isn’t fitted with ABS

ABS dis-benefits

Can increase the risk of certain other collision types – Causes the net benefits of ABS to be less than expected

Other factors

ABS can provide a development platform for a wide range of other advanced control systems operating through

vehicle braking system (e.g. Electronic Stability Control) – Has delivered significant casualty reductions in cars

Intelligent control of the (agricultural vehicle) braking system can also provide operational benefits in-field Slide 15 of 33



Limited

Issues affecting wider implementation of ABS on agricultural vehicles (1)

Vehicle brake actuation medium

Influences ease and economic feasibility of ABS installation

Majority of tractors utilize hydraulically-applied brakes, but mature ABS systems

mainly employ pneumatic control – Air-over-Hydraulic converters are required

Can present system packaging / installation challenges.

Wheel speed sensor installation

An engineering task / cost, but readily achievable – could be included as

‘standard-build’ in larger tractor front 4wd axles, if demand existed

Larger R3 & most / all R4 trailers already fitted with ‘sensor-ready’ axles

May increase cost of smaller R3 and some S2 vehicle axles


Slide 16 of 33



Limited

Issues affecting wider implementation of ABS on agricultural vehicles (2)

Off-Road Braking Behaviour

ABS can / will increase stopping distances on loose, off-road surfaces

‘Off-Road’ ABS operating strategies are readily-available to enable

more aggressive braking at lower speeds (< 40 km/h & < 15 km/h)

Can be selected manually or automatically

Photo copyright: Knorr-Bremse

Economic Availability

Overall system cost = Cost of ABS system to tractor manufacturer + installation cost + system development cost

Pioneering tractor manufacturers have incurred substantial development costs, but future users will benefit

Limited number of ABS system manufacturers, but situation reflects previous ‘step’ changes in agricultural

vehicle technical content. Limited market volumes discourage new entrants. Slide 17 of 33



Limited

Current status of generic ABS systems for use on agricultural vehicles Vehicle

type Vehicle Brake

Actuation Medium ABS Type (System Modulating

/ Control Medium) Current Technology

Readiness Stage (TRS)

T1b / T2b

Pneumatic Pneumatic TRS05

Hydraulic (mineral oil) Pneumatic TRS05

Hydraulic (mineral oil) Hydraulic (mineral oil) TRS02 or TRS03 *

Hydraulic (brake fluid) Pneumatic TRS05

T4.3b Hydraulic (brake fluid) Hydraulic (brake fluid) TRS04 or TRS05 *

ATV Hydraulic (brake fluid) Hydraulic (brake fluid) TRS01 or TRS04 *

SbS Hydraulic (brake fluid) Hydraulic (brake fluid) TRS01 or TRS04 *

R3/R4b Pneumatic Pneumatic TRS05

Hydraulic Hydraulic ABS not available

S2b Pneumatic Pneumatic TRS05

Hydraulic Hydraulic ABS not available

TRS01: Concept;

TRS02: Functional prototype, low maturity

TRS03: Functional prototype high maturity;

TRS04: Market ready;

TRS05: Readily available & proven in market

* TRS depends on system type

Slide 18 of 33



Limited

Conclusions: ABS availability and applicability (1)

Clear evidence exists that ABS is technically feasible and available for nearly

all relevant agricultural vehicle types (Categories T, R3, R4 & S2)

Ease & economic feasibility of installation depends on brake application method/medium

and available physical space

Dedicated adaptations of pneumatic truck/truck-trailer ABS systems are mature

and in commercial use on agricultural tractors/trailers.

Hydraulic (mineral oil) systems for agricultural tractors are mainly in

late-stage prototype form and expected to be in series production by 2019

Current ABS development/market availability schedules indicate no reason

to delay mandatory ABS on 40 < Vmax ≤ 60 km/h tractors beyond 2020/21

Photo copyrights: Deere & Co.; CNH Industrial

Slide 19 of 33



Limited

ABS systems are currently not available for trailers / towed equipment fitted with

hydraulically-actuated braking systems

Limited market demand & significant development costs may restrict their future availability

ABS installation would require conversion of such (typically lower-mass, less expensive)

trailers / towed equipment to pneumatic braking systems

Higher specification axles may also be required to accept wheel speed sensors

Most trailers / towed equipment intended for V > 40 km/h use tend to feature

pneumatic braking systems & speed sensor-enabled axles, so there is every

possibility to fit ABS technology to such vehicles.

Conclusions: ABS availability and applicability (2)

Photos copyrights: Pöttinger/CEMA; Claas/Joskin

Slide 20 of 33



Limited

Alternative criteria for ABS implementation?

Tractors can only pull heavy loads

at V > 40 km/h if they have

sufficient engine power – typically

> 150 hp / 112 kW

Maximum Permissible Mass

relates closely to tractor engine

power and influences vehicle

Kinetic Energy during transport

Slide 21 of 33



Limited


K.E. of almost all V > 40 km/h

tractor + trailer combinations

exceeds that of a 12 tonne truck

at 60 km/h

Use a MPM threshold value in

combination with Vmax > 40 km/h

for ABS implementation?

For tractors? Also for trailers/trailed equipment?

Alternatively, select a different

Vmax implementation value for

ABS between 40 and 60 km/h

Slide 22 of 33



Limited


Possible Tractor ABS

implementation criteria:

Vmax > 40 km/h and

MPM ≥ 11,500 kg

Focusses ABS on T1b vehicles

of > 175 hp / 130 kW

Avoids T2b, T4.3b, ATV and SbS

vehicles

Slide 23 of 33



Limited


Possible Trailer ABS

implementation criteria

Vmax > 40 km/h and

MPMaxles ≥ 12,000 kg

Focusses ABS requirement on trailers

of ≥ 11,000 kg carrying capacity

Some R3b and all R4b vehicles

Captures only very heavy S2b vehicles

– probably classified as Rb types

Slide 24 of 33



Limited

Policy options used in CBA (Applicable speed range: 40 < Vmax ≤ 60 km/h unless stated)

Option Detail Tractors: ABS fitted to… Trailers: ABS fitted to…

0 Do nothing (Tractor ABS only) All Tb No R3b and no R4b

1 No ABS No Tb No R3b and no R4b

2 Partial ABS (Trailer only) No Tb All R3b and all R4b

3 Partial ABS (Larger Trailer only) No Tb All R3b with MPMaxles

≥ 12,000 kg & all R4b

4 Tractor + Trailer All Tb All R3b and all R4b

5 Partial ABS (Tractor + Larger Trailer) All Tb All R3b with MPMaxles

≥ 12,000 kg & all R4b

6 Partial ABS (Larger Tractor + Trailer) All Tb with MPM ≥ 11,500 kg All R3b and all R4b

7 Partial ABS (Larger Tractor + Larger Trailer) All Tb with MPM ≥ 11,500 kg All R3b with MPMaxles

≥ 12,000 kg & all R4b

8 Partial ABS (Faster Tractor + Trailer) All Tb where Vmax > 50 km/h All R3b and all R4b

9 Partial ABS (Faster Tractor + Larger Trailer) All Tb where Vmax > 50 km/h All R3b with MPMaxles ≥ 12,000 kg & all R4b

Photo copyrights: Deere & Co.; Claas/Joskin Slide 25 of 33



Limited

Cost benefit analysis methodology

ABS (new vehicle registrations)

ABS (% of parc equipped)

ABS (Casualty prevention

effectiveness)

Projected baseline casualty numbers

(Option 1)

Forecast casualty numbers (Option 0)

Option

0 ABS (Fitment

costs Option 0) Casualty costs

(Option 0)

X

ABS (new vehicle registrations)

ABS (% of parc equipped)

ABS (Casualty prevention

effectiveness)

Projected baseline casualty numbers

(Option1)

Forecast casualty numbers (Option X)

ABS (Fitment costs Option X)

Casualty costs (Option X)

Repeat for each year 2018-35

Repeat for each year 2018-35

Effect of changing policy 0 to X

•Policy X - 0

•€negative = “benefit”

•€positive = “cost”

ABS Fit cost €

•Policy X - 0

•€negative = “Benefit”

•€positive = “cost”

Casualty cost €

•Benefits + costs

•Summed 2018-35 & discounted

•Negative good

Net present

value

•Sum Costs + ben 18-35 individually

•Total Benefits /Total Costs

•>1 good

Benefit to cost ratio

Slide 26 of 33



Limited

All changes with respect to Option 0 (‘Do nothing’, i.e. ABS on all Category Tb)

Overview of CBA (based on upper estimates)

Option Description NPV of change BCR Change in fatalities

Change in serious

casualties

1 No ABS -€ 3.04bn [1] 308 [7] 46 [9] 125 [9]

2 Partial ABS (Trailer only) -€ 2.80bn [3] 384 [5] 32 [7] 93 [7]

3 Partial ABS (Larger Trailer only) -€ 2,80bn [2] 383 [6] 33 [8] 94 [8]

4 Full ABS (Tractor + Trailer) € 72.02m [9] 0.23 [8] -14 [1] -34 [1]

5 Partial ABS (Tractor + Larger Trailer) € 67.50m [8] 0.23 [8] -14 [1] -33 [2]

6 Partial ABS (Larger Tractor + Trailer) -€ 1,12bn [7] 608 [1] 7 [3] 24 [3]

7 Partial ABS (Larger Tractor + Larger Trailer) -€ 1,13bn [6] 596 [2] 7 [3] 24 [3]

8 Partial ABS (Faster Tractor + Trailer) -€ 2,08bn [5] 407 [3] 22 [3] 65 [5]

9 Partial ABS (Faster Tractor + Larger Trailer) -€ 2,08bn [4] 404 [4] 22 [3] 66 [6]

Photo copyrights: Deere & Co.; Claas/Joskin

Slide 27 of 33



Limited

Conclusions: Costs and benefits (1)

Data suggests collisions involving agricultural vehicles are a small but possibly

growing problem – this may increase as faster tractors become more numerous

Evidence shows ABS will have a strong positive effect on specific collision types

directly related to speed but a small net positive effect on crashes overall

Data suggests the cost to farmers of purchasing ABS on new vehicles is

considerably greater than for consumers buying a car

Tractor: €3000 – 5000, Large Trailer: €500 – 1000, Small Trailer: €1300 – 1900

Cost reduction associated with removing requirement for ABS will outweigh the

economic dis-benefits of failing to achieve anticipated ABS-related casualty

reductions.


Slide 28 of 33



Limited

Conclusions: Costs and benefits (2)

Best CBA options in terms of Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)

1. All Tb with MPM ≥ 11,500 kg + all R3b & R4b

2. All Tb with MPM ≥ 11,500 kg + R3b with MPMaxles ≥ 12,000 kg & all R4b

3. All Tb where Vmax > 50 km/h + all R3b & R4b

4. All Tb where Vmax > 50 km/h + R3b with MPMaxles ≥ 12,000 kg & all R4b

BCR is not the only criteria for CBA option evaluation

Removing requirement to fit ABS would generate the largest monetary gain

(Net Present Value (NPV))

Requiring ABS on Tb > 50 km/h and (larger) R3b & R4b delivers relatively good

BCR and NPV


Slide 29 of 33



Limited

The study has identified a wide range of alternative policy options regarding the mandatory requirement for ABS on agricultural vehicles where 40 < Vmax ≤ 60 km/h The selection of which, if any, of the identified policy options to implement is a matter for the Commission and the relevant regulatory committees, informed by the analysis presented in the study report.

Summary

Photo: © CNH Industrial

Cost Benefit Analysis:

Likely costs of ABS implementation are high & unlikely to be outweighed by monetised savings resulting from reduced casualty numbers in the 15 year evaluation period

Applicability of ABS: Systems are applicable for use on relevant agricultural vehicles deemed likely to undertake significant agricultural transport operations on-road.

Technical availability of ABS:

In the majority of instances, systems are readily available for relevant agricultural vehicles

Outcome:

Slide 30 of 33

© 2017 TRL Ltd

Questions?

© 2017 TRL Ltd



Limited

Category Description of measure

Braking

• Technologies described in Reg. (EU) No 167/2013 and supplementing regulations • Introduction of tractor-trailer braking compatibility corridors from Reg. (EU)

2015/68 and Reg. (EU) 2016/1788 • Control of trailer braking system via drive-stick input (CVT transmission / vehicle

travel speed control) • EBS for trailers and ESC for towing vehicles

Other vehicle controls

• V2V communications • Improved recognisability of slow-moving or turning agricultural vehicles • Vehicle distance control • Horizontal acceleration sensing/vehicle stability control

Other vehicle measures • Seatbelts and roll-over protective structures (ROPS)

Vehicle maintenance • Improved maintenance & roadworthiness checks

Vehicle conspicuity • Improved lighting and signalling (Possibly also improved markings)

Photo copyrights: Deere & Co.; Deere & Co.; Fliegl/CEMA

Alternative measures perceived by stakeholders to offer equivalent/greater safety benefits to ABS

Slide 32 of 33



Limited

Alternative measures perceived by stakeholders to offer equivalent/greater safety benefits to ABS

Category Description of measure

Driver field of vision

• Improved field of vision for tractor driver (e.g. mirrors, cameras, blind spot proximity alarms)

• Camera systems for identifying OTHER road users when entering/crossing carriageway

• Driver assist systems that actively warn or actuate to avoid a crash • Surround sensing systems with autonomous vehicle interventions

Driver training • Improved driver training for tractor drivers • Minimum driver age and/or licensing • Improved driver training for OTHER ROAD USERS

Safety of other road users

• Minimum requirements for pedestrian protection • Mandatory helmets for T-category ATV users

Enforcement measures • Limiting allowed towed mass in relation to tractor mass • Improved accident reporting • Better police checking of on-road speeds

Photo copyrights: Deere & Co.; Deere & Co.; Fliegl/CEMA

Slide 33 of 33

Documents

Study on ABS availability for agri / forestry vehicles with max