Upload
dangliem
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comparative performance of innovative quad-trailer combinations Adam Ritzinger, ARRB Group Ltd. Laszlo Bruzsa, Queensland TMR
Overview
• Background and project scope • Vehicle combina7ons and varia7ons • Performance measures and results • Conclusions and further work
Background
• Increased preference for quad trailer combina7ons
• Currently limited opera7onal experience
• Encouraging industry adop7on of innova7ve vehicles
• Growing road freight transport task
Project scope • Three innova7ve combina7ons
• ‘As of right’ vehicle
AAB-‐quad
BAB-‐quad
ABB-‐quad
A-‐triple
Project scope
• Varying loading scheme (GML/HML) • Tandem and triaxle groups • Mechanical and air suspension
• Four common commodity types – ‘general’ container freight – livestock – quarry product – fuel tanker
Sensitivity study
Trailer centre of gravity height (±10%)
Trailer wheelbase (-‐5%)
Trailer coupling rear overhang (+10%)
• Varied vehicle and trailer geometry
Dolly wheelbase (-‐5%)
Results: Static roll threshold Livestock (0.30 g)
Minimum safe level (0.35 g)
General (0.34 g)
Fuel (0.37 g)
Quarry (0.48 g)
Results: Static roll threshold (g)
Loading A-‐triple BAB-‐quad ABB-‐quad AAB-‐quad
Livestock
General freight
Quarry product
Fuel
0.31
0.34
0.46
0.37
0.30
0.34
0.48
0.37
0.30
0.34
0.48
0.37
0.30
0.33
0.46
0.37