Professional Documents
Culture Documents
th
24 ARRB Conference Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia 2010
ABSTRACT
Historically, geometric road design for heavy vehicles focussed on providing sufficient road
space within the road cross-section and for vehicle swept paths at intersections. Design criteria
related to heavy vehicle performance were limited to grades and climbing lanes.
The 2003 Austroads guides for the geometric design of roads incorporated truck stopping sight
distance criteria for the first time and listed situations that should be checked for truck operation.
In some of these situations, the provision for trucks simply reflected good design practice for car
operation.
The 2009 Guide to Road Design now requires designs to be checked to ensure that they are
safe for trucks and includes additional design criteria based on Australian research and
experience over the last 10 years.
This paper covers:
How geometric road design for heavy vehicles has been advanced by the 2009 Guide
The research, experience and assumptions behind the development of some of the criteria
The relevance of design vehicles
The new challenges and compromises that will be faced by road designers
Important design criteria that still need to be developed.
INTRODUCTION
Geometric road design criteria cover a wide range of issues such as choice of horizontal and
vertical curve size, traffic lane width, intersection types and layout, sight distance, overtaking
provision, etc. However, all geometric road design standards have some underlying basis of
vehicle dynamics, vehicle size, driver characteristics or some combination of these.
Vehicle size has an obvious impact on traffic lane width and clearance to vertical obstructions.
As far as maximum vehicle width and maximum vehicle height are concerned, these have been
static in Australia for more than 35 years although recognition has been given to the need for
some roads to cater for special vehicles with increased width and/or height. Increases in
vehicle length lead to increases in the time needed for a heavy vehicle to clear an intersection
and have an impact on the time needed to overtake a heavy vehicle. Less obvious is the link
between vehicle length and vehicle swept path.
The swept path of a vehicle is the area of ground swept by all parts of the vehicle as it moves
along the road. More importantly, swept path width increases when a vehicle is on a horizontal
curve because the rear wheels offtrack with respect to the front wheels of the vehicle.
Geometric road design criteria that are directly related to swept path are:
Lane Width.
Curve widening.
Method of applying curve widening.
Table 2. Indicative Truck Volumes at Which Truck-Based Standards are Justified for
Horizontal Curve Radius and Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance.
Design Speed Terrain Truck Volume (trucks/day)
Single-Carriageway Dual Carriageway
90 km/h Level 100
Easy 100 150
Moderate 300 - 400
100 km/h Level 200 400
Easy 300 400 600 800
Moderate 700 - 1200 1,500 2,500
DESIGN VEHICLES
Austroads 2006 specifies the current range of design vehicles for the geometric design of
Australian roads or more specifically, for ensuring adequate road-space. New Zealand has a
different set of design vehicles that are generally slightly smaller than the corresponding
Australian vehicle (see Table 5.2 in Austroads 2009b). Austroads 2006 also provides a range of
Restricted Access vehicles which are essentially the design vehicles for routes to which these
vehicles are restricted.
Austroads 2006 also provides:
Turning path (i.e. swept path) templates for a range of turning radii for each design vehicle
Guidance for the selection of the design vehicle and the appropriate checking vehicle. The
design vehicle and the minimum turning radius for a particular case depends upon the road
function, intersecting road types, adjoining land use (e.g. industrial or residential) and whether a
road is a restricted access vehicle route (see also Table 5.1 in Austroads 2009b).
Guidance for the application of the templates including the provision of operating clearances.
Austroads 2006 now includes twelve vehicle types in order to cover all road-space cases
(except possibly some special over-dimension routes that service ports or mining sites). With
the advent of the Performance Based Standards scheme in Australia, road authorities regularly
receive requests for typical PBS vehicles to supplement the standard design vehicles.
However, this loses sight of the intent of the PBS scheme namely, to improve freight
efficiency in Australia by allowing vehicles to operate that meet performance based standards
for a range of operating conditions rather than meeting the traditional prescriptive standards
for dimensions, masses and turning paths, like for the standard design vehicles.
Since the PBS criteria have been developed to meet the needs of the existing road network,
e.g. lane widths or the space generally available for turns within intersections, designers should
note that specific turning templates for PBS vehicles are not necessary. Essentially, it is only
necessary to use the normal prime mover and semi-trailer, or B-double or Type 1 or 2 Road
Train as the design vehicle for road-space.
When it comes to speed dependent geometric design criteria, the 85th percentile truck speed at
any point becomes the truck design speed for a given direction at that location. Because truck
speeds vary considerably due to grade of the road, vehicle load and vehicle type, this means
that one of the standard design vehicles does not necessarily represent the vehicles that
correspond to the 85th percentile speed (see the section on Determining operating speeds
below).
NEW CRITERIA
New or revised design criteria or practices for trucks that were introduced in Austroads 2009a
and 2009c are:
Determining operating speeds
(for the purpose of fixing the start and end of climbing lanes), graphs are now provided for a
range of modern vehicles and purposes, namely:
19m semi-trailer (33 t) carrying an average load (9.7 kW/t) for selecting truck design speeds
where speeds are not controlled by horizontal curves (included as Figure 1). Note that the
speed of this vehicle is used as a surrogate for the 85th percentile truck speed.
19 m semi-trailer (42.5 t), 12 litre diesel carrying a maximum load (7.5 kW/t) for determining
start and end of climbing lanes.
B-double (62.4 t), 12 litre diesel carrying a maximum load (5.4 kW/t) for determining start and
end of climbing lanes.
Type 1 road train (89.8 t), 12 litre diesel carrying a maximum load (3.8 kW/t) for determining
start and end of climbing lanes.
Type 2 road train (140 t), 16.4 litre diesel carrying a maximum load (3.1 kW/t) for determining
start and end of climbing lanes.
When using the abovementioned graphs however, it is necessary to be aware of when trucks
are not able to make use of a downgrade (except towards the end of the grade) to increase
speed because of limitations of the braking system on steep grades. The simplest way to make
appropriate allowance is to use the guide for the treatment of steep descents in the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (i.e. Figure 4.25 in AS1742.2 or Figure 3.24 in the Queensland
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices). In such cases, the truck speed to be used for the
downgrade may be the speed that may be maintained (or perhaps 5km/h higher) for an upgrade
of the same magnitude, as shown on the relevant truck speed graph in Austroads 2009a. Also,
it is not appropriate to infer for road design purposes, that trucks will travel at higher speeds on
steep or long, steep downgrades because grade correction values are shown for these speeds
in Table 5.5 of Austroads 2009a.
As stated above, VEHSIM will slow vehicles for descending long down-grades. Even so,
speeds on downgrades should be checked against the guide for the treatment of steep
descents in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Direction of travel
In practice, the absolute maximum side friction factors for trucks yield a limiting curve speed
(see Austroads 2009a for a definition) for trucks for a given radius curve that is about 7km/h
below the car limiting curve speed (for curves with a radius less than about 600m). Given that
85th percentile car speed on curves is usually close to the limiting curve speed when vehicles
slow for the curve, the truck limiting curve speed for the curve can be used as the truck design
speed for the same curve (unless the grade causes the truck speed to be lower).
With respect to transition curves, there are revised length criteria. These criteria recognise the
tracking and stability issues for heavy vehicles entering and leaving circular curves in situations
where there is not the room for a large vehicle to make a suitable transition path within the traffic
lane. The revised criteria took into account a number of modern studies, namely Blue and
Kulakowski (1991), Bonneson (2000) and Glennon, Neumann and Leisch (1985) with respect to
vehicle dynamics; Bonneson (2000) and Perco (2005) with respect to driver actions and vehicle
tracking.
Even though the length criteria are not significantly different from the criteria in Austroads 2003
(if the latter is followed closely), the findings of the research listed above highlighted the need to
more clearly state when transition curves were needed. Experience has shown that transition
curves had tended to become seen as an optional (or somewhat less preferred) feature in some
road authorities (see Cox 2010).
Application of Superelevation
Linked to transition curves, reverse curves, amount of superelevation and side friction demand
is the application of superelevation that is, how and where the superelevation is introduced for
a curve. Since this involves rotating the crossfall of the pavement (or in very rare cases,
running vehicles over a diagonal crown) there is a fundamental element of vehicle stability
linked to the rate of rotation and where that occurs with respect to the start and end of a curve.
Austroads 2009a has similar criteria to Austroads 2003 for the amount of superelevation needed
on horizontal curves and where and how the superelevation should be applied. However, their
description and explanation has been revised and linked to more recent research in order to
overcome problems in interpretation that can be traced back to ambiguities in earlier guides. In
turn, these ambiguities can be traced back to mistranslating some criteria from the American
AASHO guides of 1954 and 1965. See Cox (2010) for further details.
For transitioned curves, it has been normal practice to tie the superelevation runoff length (i.e.
the length of rotation from the zero crossfall point to the point where maximum superelevation is
attained) to the transition length. This practice has a theoretical basis in that with the uniform
attainment of superelevation in conjunction with the uniform increase in curvature (1/Radius)
along the transition, there is a uniform increase in side friction demand.
With untransitioned curves, some road authorities (for example, Queensland Transport and
Main Roads) have long used the practice of locating the superelevation runoff length equidistant
about the curve tangent point. This location is intended (or assumed) to match the transition
path that drivers still make when entering or leaving an untransitioned curve. Conversely, some
road authorities (for example, VicRoads) for some time applied all of the superelevation on the
tangent so that some part of the curve could not be deemed to have insufficient superelevation.
Austroads 2009a cites the research by Blue and Kulakowski (1991)that showed that transient
conditions in roll and lateral movement are reduced for trucks when 50% of the superelevation
runoff is located on the tangent (but with a maximum of 1s of travel into the curve). However,
Austroads 2009a also covers situations when the superelevation runoff may need to be moved
further onto the tangent (as much as 80% to 100%) and sets 60% to 70% as an acceptable
compromise in the interests of uniformity.
Stopping distance
When Austroads 2003 introduced stopping sight distance criteria for trucks, it made the point
that when crest vertical curves provided sufficient sight distance for cars, sufficient sight
distance was also provided for trucks travelling at the same speed as the cars the greater
stopping sight distance of the trucks was offset by the greater driver eye height.
On horizontal curves, the greater truck driver eye height offers little (sometimes no) advantage
over the car driver eye height. Table 5.1 in Austroads 2003 only partly acknowledged this and
recommended that it was preferred practice to avoid having features on a horizontal curve that
would require a vehicle to have to slow or stop. In effect, this simply implied that it was not
practical to achieve sight distance for trucks on horizontal curves. Achieving the necessary
stopping sight distance for trucks on horizontal curves required clearing between 7m and 11m
on the inside of a curve. Rarely was such clearing practical (or even possible), especially when
there were hazards that warranted the need for a safety barrier. Furthermore, providing the
normal design sight distance for trucks on curved bridges or on curves under bridges or in road
tunnels is impractical on other than very large radius curves unless truck speeds were markedly
less than car speeds due to grades. The impractical widths usually resulted in no form of
visibility widening being provided.
Austroads 2009a introduced a practical solution to the sight distance issue for trucks (and cars)
with specific criteria for the provision of sight distance around concrete barriers and structures
on freeways and interchanges. In these situations, a combination of being able to stop for
stopped cars (being the most common hazard to have to stop for) and manoeuvring capability
around small hazards is provided. The supplementary width that needs to be provided for
manoeuvring varies between 2.5m and 4m, depending on the stopping capability provided. In
practice, the manoeuvre width usually ensures reasonable capability for cars to stop for a small
hazard and for trucks to stop for a stopped car.
The technical foundation for the provision of sight distance around concrete barriers and
structures on freeways and interchanges is given in Arndt, Cox, Lennie and Whitehead (2010).
Figure 3 shows an example of a shoulder on a bridge that provides stopping sight distance for
cars and manoeuvre sight distance for trucks.
It is on the last point that Austroads 2009a introduces a fundamental change: The clearance is
now applied to the swept path (which applies usually to the body, including the front overhang)
rather than the wheel path. This is consistent with the practice in the Queensland Department
of Transport and Main Roads for more than 30 years and which shows that there is no
appreciable cost impact. Given the significantly greater front overhang of some vehicles (mainly
buses and some cab-forward prime-movers) compared to that on vehicles fifty years ago when
the previous practice was established, it became necessary to change to a more defendable
practice.
Applying the operating clearance to the swept path rather than the wheel path also allowed the
clearance to be reduced from 0.6m to 0.5m. This then provided consistency with the clearances
that exist for a 2.5m wide heavy vehicle in a standard 3.5m wide traffic lane.
Intersection Acceleration Lanes and Freeway entry ramps
McLean, Tziotis and Gunitallake in Austroads 2002 concluded that it was unrealistic to provide
an acceleration lane of sufficient length for trucks to accelerate to truck design speeds for the
through lanes unless the acceleration lane was combined with a down-grade. Note that this
does not necessarily mean to the car design speed. Even for cars, Austroads 2009c (see note
1 to Table 5.4) recognises that it is usually more appropriate to design for cars to accelerate to
the mean free speed which is typically about 10km/h less than the 85th percentile car speed.
Whereas Austroads 2002 considered that it would be appropriate to design for trucks to merge
at 10 to 20km/h less than the truck design speed of the through road on a route specifically
designed for trucks, Austroads 2009c has had to face up to what may be tolerable for all road
types. Whereas a preference is maintained for a maximum 20km/h speed differential (and more
appropriately between entering trucks and the mean free speed of the through road), guidance
on larger speed differentials of up to 40km/h or more is also provided. Furthermore, for
intersections, the following alternatives are recognised as being appropriate in some cases:
a basic left-turn treatment comprising a give way or stop situation or a high entry angle
channelsied left turn treatment
an acceleration lane length that is based on car acceleration only.
Even with freeway entry ramps, it is more common to allow for car acceleration only. However,
on freeways, there is usually scope for vehicles on the through carriageway to change lanes
under free flow conditions. Furthermore, with Austroads 2009e giving at least tacit preference
for entrances with 100m to 200m of parallel lane, there is scope for heavy vehicles to reduce the
speed differential by another 10 to 20km/h on the parallel lane section.
Deceleration Lanes and Freeway exit ramps
As with acceleration lanes, Austroads 2009c takes, on first appearances, a pragmatic stance
with the design of deceleration lanes and freeway exit ramps to suit truck operation. Austroads
2009c states:
"Where a turning lane caters for a high percentage of heavy vehicles consideration may be
given to increasing the length above that required for cars so that less interference to traffic flow
occurs in the through lane as a result of trucks slowing. However, it is accepted that turning
lanes should generally be designed for the deceleration of cars and that heavy vehicles may
reduce speed in the through lane."
However, the comfortable deceleration rate of 2.5m/s2 that is recommended for deceleration
lanes at intersections and which underpins the length of free exit ramps is suitable for truck
operation. A truck driver who wants to decelerate at a more comfortable rate can then do so
without unduly slowing traffic in the through lane. Nevertheless, on a truck route, it is not
unreasonable to consider using a deceleration rate of 2.0m/s2 for design. The main challenge
for designers is to make allowance for the different deceleration profiles that there will invariably
be between cars and the trucks. Most car drivers, and certainly those at the 85th percentile
speed, will not see the need to start decelerating from the point where trucks will start to
decelerate.
for trucks than it will be for cars. It is more likely to be a problem if a preceding radius has had
to be increased because of a crash history on that curve.
The amount of superelevation on a curve and the pavement rotation rate may need to be
changed to conform to current practice for the new operating speed. Likewise, the location of
the pavement rotation in order to effect the superelevation, may need to revised.
Transition curves may need to be added to a currently untransitioned curve because of the
changed operating speed and/or a revision to the application of the superelevation. However, if
a curve is currently transitioned but with a shorter transition than current practice, it will usually
be unnecessary to increase the transition curve length. Nevertheless, increasing the transition
length is usually not difficult.
The spacing between reverse curves may need to be increased in order to meet the
changed operating speed. It is most likely that the spacing will be deficient for current truck
speeds with drivers having to make greater steering adjustments than normal for the curve radii.
Sometimes, increasing the spacing between existing reverse curves will be a challenge. Most
designers will think this can only be achieved by a realignment, which is likely to be outside the
scope of a restoration project. And sometimes this will be so. However, and especially if
widening of the formation is involved, it will often be possible to slightly reduce each radius by
about 10m (maintaining the outer tangent point position) so that a longer (and very slightly
realigned) intervening tangent can be accommodated. In addition to slightly reducing a radius,
it may be necessary to also move the outer tangent point by about 2m to 5m (see Cox 2010).
CONCLUSION
The Austroads guides for the geometric design of roads and intersection design have always
provided design criteria for the necessary road space for heavy vehicles and for the provision of
climbing lanes. However, Austroads 2009a and 2009c have advanced geometric design
through making it necessary to always design for truck operation (in addition to car operation) in
the areas of sight distance and horizontal curve design. In turn, this has required the need to
predict the appropriate truck design speed at all points along the road.
Given that truck speeds vary along most roads due to grade (even on high standard roads), and
at times, horizontal curvature, this means greater design effort in allowing for truck operation.
The predicted truck speeds should also be backed up if possible by measured truck speeds on
other parts of the road in question and other roads with similar geometry in order to better
account for the range of trucks in operation and their loads.
Given the number of restoration projects these days with the need/ability to apply Extended
Design Domain in order to assess the suitability of the road geometry, it is likely that the
mandatory requirement to ensure both car and truck sight distance capability will overcome any
resistance to designing for trucks in greenfield projects.
Given the large amount of attention now given by the media to heavy vehicle crashes, it is no
longer appropriate or defendable (if it ever was) for a road authority to claim that it is
unnecessary to design for trucks for other than road space requirements. This is why Austroads
(2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d) has taken the position it now has. Even so, there is still the need
to refine some design criteria and develop additional criteria as previously outlined. In other
words, geometric road design for heavy vehicles has advanced considerably but still has a way
to go.
REFERENCES
AASHO (1954). A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways. American Association of State
Highway Officials. Washington D.C.
AASHO (1965). A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways. American Association of State
Highway Officials. Washington D.C.
AASHTO (2004). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington D.C.
AS 1742. 2:2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices part 2: Traffic control devices for
general use.
Austroads 2002. Designing for Trucks - When, Where and How? AP-R211 McLean, J. Tziotis,
M. and Gunitallake, T. Austroads, Sydney, Australia, 2002.
Austroads 1989. Rural Road Design: A Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads.
Austroads, Sydney, Australia, 1989.
Austroads 2003. Rural Road Design: A Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads.
Austroads, Sydney, Australia, 2003.
Austroads 2006, Design Vehicles and Turning Path Templates. AP-G34/06 Austroads, Sydney,
Australia, 2006
Austroads 2009a, Guide to Road Design: Part 3: Geometric Design, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Guide to road design: part 4: intersections and crossings general,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009c, Guide to Road Design: Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009d, Guide to Road Design: Part 4B: Roundabouts, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009e, Guide to Road Design: Part 4C: Interchanges, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010a, Heavy Vehicle Brake Safety on Long and Very Steep Roads: Final Report.
Austroads Research Report AP-R362/10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010b (ARRB 2010 Draft). Road Design for Heavy Vehicles, Progress Report: Gap
Selection Criteria for Heavy Vehicles Austroads Project No. TS1607. Bucko, A. Ritzinger, A.
Tziotis, M. and Eady, P. Austroads, Sydney, Australia, 2010.
Interim Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads. National Association of State Road
Authorities of Australia (now Austroads), 1980.
Arndt , O.K., Cox, R.L., Lennie, S.C. and Whitehead, M.T. Provision of Sight Distance around
Concrete Barriers and Structures on Freeways and Interchanges. 4th International Symposium
on Highway Geometric Design, Valencia, 2010.
Cox, R.L. and O.K. Arndt. Australian Experience with using Speed Prediction Models to
determine accurate Design Speeds. 4th International Symposium on Highway Geometric
Design, Valencia, 2010.
Easa, S.M., and Abd El Halim, A. Radius Requirements for Trucks on Three-Dimensional
Reverse Horizontal Curves with Intermediate Tangents. TRB 85th Annual Meeting, Washington
D.C., 2006.
Road Planning and Design Manual (RPDM) Queensland Department of Main Roads, 2001+.
www.mainroads.qld.gov.au. Accessed 14 Oct. 2009.
McLean, J.R. Review of the Design Speed Concept, Report No AIR 1029-2, Australian Road
Research Board, 1978.
McLean, J.R. Driver speed behaviour and rural road alignment design, Traffic Engineering and
Control, 22(4), 1981.
McLean, J.R. Speeds on Curves: Side Friction Factor Considerations. Research Report ARR
No. 126, Australian Road Research Board, 1983.
Queensland Department of Main Roads (2009): Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD).
Cox, R.L. A Review of the Effect of Increases in Vehicle Size on Australian Geometric Road
Design Standards, Fifth International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions,
Australia 1998.
Cox, R.L. Application of the Austroads Speed Environment Model (Always? Often? Sometimes?
Never?), Planners and Designers Symposium April 2003. Queensland Department of Main
Roads, Brisbane, Australia, 2003.
Cox, R.L. Transition curves and application of superelevation dispelling some myths and
restoring good practice. Presentation at Transport and Main Roads Forum August 2010.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, Australia, 2010.
Glennon, JC, TR Neumann & Leisch, JE 1985, Safety and operational characteristics for design
of rural highway curves, report FHWA-RD-86, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC, USA.
Bonneson, RJ 2000, Superelevation distribution methods and transition designs, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, report 439, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC.
Perco, P 2005, Comparison between vehicle paths along transition sections with and without
spiral curves, International symposium on highway geometric design, 3rd, June 2005, Chicago,
Illinois, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 23 pp.
Austroads 2008. Styles, T., Mabbott, N., Roberts, P., Tziotis, M. Safety Benefits of Improving
Interaction between Heavy Vehicles and the Road System. Publication No. APT119/0
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads. National Association of State Road Authorities
of Australia (NAASRA now Austroads), 1967.
Interim Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads. National Association of State Road
Authorities of Australia (NAASRA now Austroads), 1980.
Road Design Manual Volume 1 (RDM) (1965). Main Roads Department, Queensland.
Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW): Road Design Guide (RDG). 1988
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Mr Ricky Cox
Ricky Cox is the Principal Advisor (Design Innovation and Standards) in the Queensland
Department of Main Roads. He has been involved in the planning and design of roads and with
research and development of road design standards for more than 40 years. Ricky has also
been responsible for the development of various computer systems used in road design and
also has extensive experience in their application.
His particular interests are in vehicle swept path, vehicle dynamics and the relationship between
heavy vehicle operation and geometric road design standards. He has been responsible for
writing sections of the Queensland Department of Main Roads Road Planning and Design
Manual. He has also had major input into new Austroads design guides.
Dr Owen Arndt
Dr Owen Arndt holds the position of Principal Advisor (Road Design Standards) within the
Queensland Department of Main Roads. Owen has extensive experience in the planning and
design of urban and rural roadways, motorways, intersections and interchanges. His experience
also covers the management of road and noise barrier construction projects. Owen's current
responsibilities include developing and updating road design standards, undertaking of research
projects, providing specialist advice and reports on road design standards and projects. Owen is
the Queensland representative on the Austroads Road Design Review Panel.