Cornpurrs & Structures Vol. 49, No. 6. pp. 1055-1067.

1993
0 1994 Elswier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain.
0045-7949/93 56.00 + 0.00

DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF HIGHWAY TRUCKS DUE

TO ROAD SURFACE ROUGHNESS
T. L. WANG,? M. SHAHAWY$ and D. Z. HUANGt
tDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University,
Miami, FL 33199, U.S.A.
$Structures Research and Testing Center, Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL 32310, U.S.A.

(Received 1 April 1992)

Alastrati-Vehicle characteristics, vehicle speed and road surface roughness are major factors influencing
bridge dynamic response.. In order to improve the previous vehicle model studies, vehicle models with
seven or twelve degrees of freedom were developed for H20-44 and HS20-44 trucks, respectively. Vehicle
models were validated by comparisons with the real truck dynamic systems.
The road surface roughness was generated from power spectral density (FSD) functions for very good,
good, average, and poor roads. The impact factors of suspension and tire forces were obtained for vehicle
models running on different classes of roads at various speeds. A comparison of computed and
experimental impact results was also made.

1. INTRODUCTION Specification [7l. Two nonlinear vehicle models with

Vehicle characteristics, vehicle speed and road surface
roughness are some of the major factors that influ-
ence the dynamic response of a bridge due to moving
loads. In reality, a truck is a very complex mechanical
system because of its suspension. Some assumptions
need to be made in order to simplify the vehicle
characteristics in mathematical modeling analysis.
The dynamic analysis of highway vehicles has been
studied since the middle of this century. Brief reviews
of the literature can be found in [l-6]. Most of the
previous studies have assumed that (1) the vehicle
frames are rigid, (2) the interleaf friction forces are
considered in a suspension system, (3) spring forces
and damper forces are proportional to displacements
and a single point. However, all vehicle models were
limited to pitch mode vibration and road surface
profiles were obtained from field measurement in
most of these studies.
Even though Whittemore et al. [6] used frequency
domain prediction techniques to simulate pavement
load, the techniques were established only for linear
systems excited by stationary random inputs.
In this study, the numerical road surface roughness
spectrum is generated by using the random number
based on the power spectrum density functions.
Vehicle nonlinearity can be admitted when the gener-
ated road surface roughness is treated as an input
function directly. In addition, the new vehicle models
will include the roll vibration.
2. VEHICLE MODELS
H20-44 and HS20-44 trucks are two major design
vehicles in the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Oflicials (AASHTO)
seven and twelve degrees of freedom were developed
according to the H20-44 and HS20-44 trucks,
respectively.
Figures 1 and 3 illustrate the side and front views
of the H20-44 vehicle model. Three rigid masses
represent the truck, front wheel/axle set, and rear
wheel/axle set, respectively. In the model, the truck
was assigned three degrees of freedom, corresponding
to the vertical displacement (JJ), rotation about the
transverse axis (pitch or O), and rotation about the
longitudinal axis (roll or 4). Each wheel/axle set is
provided with two degrees of freedom in the vertical
and roll directions. The total degrees of freedom in
the model are seven.
Similarly, another vehicle model (refer to Figs 2
and 3) with twelve degrees of freedom was developed
to represent an HS20-44 truck, consisting of five rigid
masses as tractor, semi-trailer, steer wheel/axle set,
tractor wheel/axle set, and trailer wheel/axle set.
Tractor and semi-trailer were assigned three degrees
of freedom (y, 0, and 4) individually. Two degrees of
freedom (y and 0) were assigned for each wheel-axle
set. The tractor and semi-trailer were interconnected
at the pivot point (so-called fifth wheel point, see
Fig. 2).
Suspension force consists of the linear elastic spring
force and the constant interleaf friction force [8]. The
load-displacement relationships for friction force, sus-
pension spring force, and combination of these two
forces are shown in Fig. 4. The tire springs are
assumed to be linear.
Since the truck is a complex physical system, certain
assumptions were made to simplify the model. These
assumptions are as follows:
1. The vehicle runs at a constant speed.

1055
1056 T. L. WANG et al.

I- -1

Fig. 1. Side view of an H20-44 vehicle model.

2. All components move with the same velocity in
the longitudinal direction.
3. Provision is made in the model for wheel lift.
Under this condition, the vertical tire stiffnesses are
taken as zero.
4. Each tire contacts the road at a single point.
5. Force inputs are limited to the vertical direction.
6. In suspension systems, damping elements were
assumed to be linear and to be of the viscous type.
Damper force is proportional to the velocity. Ten per
cent of the critical damping value was used for
damping coefficient [6]. In the tires, the damping
forces were neglected.
The total potential energy, V = Xvi, of the sys-
tem is then computed from the spring stiffnesses
and relative displacements, whereas the dissipation
energy, D = ZDi,of the system is obtained from
the damping forces. The total kinetic energy,
T = Xl;, of the system is calculated using the
mass, mass moment of inertia, and translational as
well as rotational velocities, of the system com-
ponents. The moment of inertia of all components
is assumed to be constant and the weight of each
component is considered as the external force on
that component.
The equations of motion of the system are derived,
using Lagranges formulation, as follows:
8%
_dT+dv+aD=o,
a4i a4
(1)

6
Ir 4
Is I_ I _ 15
N
I I I \

2 *1- 1
k I-
4 $3+
t-

Fig. 2. Side view of an HSZO-44vehicle model.

 Dynamic response of highway trucks 1057

18
tr -I

c
0t1
f YII
h

Fig. 5. Side view of step bump used in vehicle validation.

3. VEHICLE MODEL VALIDATION

In order to check that the mathematical vehicle

d.
Fig. 3. Front view of H20-44 and HS20-44 vehicle models.
where qi and di are the generalized displacements
and velocities. Details of derivation are presented in
191.
The equations of motion were solved by using a
fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme [lo, 111, with an
integration time step of 0.005 sec. Such a small time
step was necessary to avoid numerical instability.
The real percentage of impact acquired from the
study is defined as
models properly simulate a real truck dynamic sys-
tem, it is necessary to validate the models. The
3/4 in-high x 18 in-long and l/2 in-high x 18 in-long
step bumps were taken to generate a vertical input for
H20-44 and HS20-44 vehicle models respectively, as
shown in Fig. 5. The appropriate data used in
dynamic simulation of the models was adopted from
[8] and is given in [9]. The experimental data was
available in [6].
Both damped and undamped suspensions were
considered, but tire damping was neglected in this
study. Typical tire force histories for H20-44 and
HS20-44 vehicle models are shown in Figs 6-9.
Impact factors of suspension and tire forces for
wide range of vehicle speeds are given in Tables 1
and 2 for H20-44 and Tables 3 and 4 for HS20-44.

(2)
It may be seen that the impact factors of suspen-
Imp(%) =
[
4-
sm
1 1 x 100%
sion forces were reduced when a damped suspension
system was considered in most cases. However,
for tire forces, the impact factors did not change
in which R, and R, are the absolute maximum significantly between damped and undamped
responses for dynamic and static studies respectively. suspension systems. The comparisons of computed

(a) Friction force (b) Suspension spring force

(c) Combination of friction and suspension spring forces

Fig. 4. The relationship between the force and displacement in the suspension system.
1058 T. L. WANG et al.

0 I 0 I
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6

SIMULATION TIME (SEC) SIMULATION TIME (SEC)

Fig. 6. The tire force history of the rear axle of an H20-44 Fig. 7. The tire force history of the rear axle of an H20-44
vehicle with undamped suspension system running at 3/4 in- vehicle with damped suspension system running at 3/4 in-
high step bump and 55 mph. high step bump and 55 mph.

01 0 I
0.6 1.3 1.6 2.3 2.6 3.3 3.6 4.3 0.6 1.3 1.6 2.3 2.6 3.3 3.6 4.3
SIMULATION TIME (SEC) SIMULATION TIME (SEC)
Fig. 8. The tire force history of the tractor axle of an Fig. 9. The tire force history of the tractor axle of an
HS20-44 vehicle with undamped suspension system running HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system running at
at l/2 in-high step bump and 35 mph. l/2 in-high step bump and 35 mph.

and experimental impact results of tire forces in 4. ROAD SURFACE ROUGHNESS

different axles are illustrated in Figs 10-13. The
agreement between computed and experimental
results was found to be very good. The computed
impact factors of tire forces almost cover all
experimental results.
The typical road surface may be described by a
periodically modulated random process. The power
spectral density (PSD) is a useful tool for analyzing
the periodically modulated random process. The PSD

Table 1. Maximum suspension forces and impact factors of an H20-44 vehicle running
at 3/4 in-high step bump for different suspension damping conditions and vehicle soeeds
Undamped Damped
suspension suspension

Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor
&ins) (mph) tkins) (%1 (kit& f%)
15 5.361 44.74 5.164 39.42
20 5.074 36.99 5.048 36.29
25 4.877 31.67 4.865 31.34
30 4.721 27.46 4.705 27.02
Front 3.704 35 4.648 25.49 4.624 24.84
axle 40 4.513 21.84 4.516 21.92
45 4.506 21.65 4.494 21.33
SO 4.444 19.98 4.452 20.19
55 4.324 16.74 4.306 16.25
15 24.158 79.7s 24.163 79.78
20 24.097 79.29 23.990 78.50
25 24.499 82.28 24.051 78.95
30 24.321 80.96 24.129 79.53
Rear 13.440 35 24.449 81.91 24.489 82.21
axle 40 23.438 74.39 23.405 74.14
45 22.193 65.13 22.093 64.38
SO 22.638 68.42 22.622 68.32
5s 22.196 65.15 22.189 65.10
 Dynamic response of bigbway trucks 1059

Table 2. Maximum tire forces and impact factors of an H20-44 vehicle running at
3/4 in-high step bump for different suspension damping conditions and vehicle speeds
Undamped Damped
suspension suspension

Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor
(kips) 6ph) (kips) (%) Wps) W)
15 9.313 78.19 8.882 68.86
20 8.926 69.70 8.882 68.86
25 8.946 70.08 8.940 69.96
30 8.888 68.97 8.878 68.78
Front 5.260 35 8.950 70.15 8.918 69.54
axle 40 8.942 70.00 8.940 69.96
45 8.892 69.05 8.893 69.07
50 8.964 70.42 8.965 70.44
55 8.952 70.19 8.961 70.36
15 29.330 95.01 29.714 97.57
20 29.480 96.01 29.644 97.10
25 28.874 91.98 28.614 90.25
30 29.758 97.86 29.704 97.50
Rear 15.040 35 29.107 93.53 29.158 93.87
axle 40 28.392 88.78 28.626 90.33
45 29.585 96.71 29.689 97.40
50 29.310 94.88 29.200 94.15
55 29.156 93.86 28.827 91.67

functions for highway surface roughness have been

S(f#l)=A 2 --2, f#J>$ (4)
developed by Dodds and Robson [123. They are 0 90 O
shown as
where S(4) is the PSD (m*/cycle/m), b, is the wave
number (cycle/m), A is the roughness coefficient
S(r$)=A
02 --,
90
(b<f#J
\O
(3) (m3/cycle), and 4. is the discontinuity
quency = 1/(2n) (cycle/m).
fre-

Table 3. Maximum suspension forces and impact factors of an HS20-44 vehicle running
at l/2 in-high step bump for different suspension damping conditions and vehicle speeds
Undamped Damped
suspension suspension

Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor
(kips) (mph) (kips) W) (kips) (%)
15 4.470 53.34 3.971 36.23
20 4.241 45.47 3.941 35.19
25 4.069 39.60 3.878 33.04
Steer 2.915 30 3.860 32.42 3.835 31.57
axle 35 3.848 31.99 3.764 29.12
40 3.735 28.12 3.659 25.52
45 3.651 25.26 3.697 26.82
15 25.133 77.08 23.279 64.02
20 25.538 79.93 22.484 58.42
25 23.441 65.16 22.203 56.44
Tractor 14.193 30 22.148 56.05 23.338 64.43
axle : 21.845 53.92 20.124 41.79
21.852 53.96 21.005 48.00
45 22.131 55.93 21.557 51.89
I5 23.463 61.01 23.218 59.32
20 22.878 56.99 23.218 59.32
25 22.966 57.59 22.908 57.19
Trailer 14.573 30 22.257 52.73 22.816 56.57
axle 35 21.677 48.75 22.347 53.34
40 21.712 48.99 33.351 53.37
45 22.614 55.18 23.012 57.91
1060 T. L. WANG et al.

Table 4. Maximum tire forces and impact factors of an HS20-44 vehicle running at
l/2 in-high step bump for different suspension damping conditions and vehicle speeds
Undamped
suspension suspension

Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor
(kips) (mph) (kips) (%) (kius) (%)
15 6.891 72.49 6.518 63.15
20 6.524 63.13 6.488 62.40
25 6.482 62.25 6.499 62.69
Steer 3.995 30 6.458 61.65 6.470 61.96
axle 35 6.501 62.72 6.455 61.57
40 6.405 60.32 6.358 59.16
45 6.426 60.84 6.476 62.09
15 28.741 79.71 29.598 85.06
20 26.660 66.69 27.915 74.54
25 25.591 60.01 25.993 62.52
Tractor 15.994 30 25.971 62.38 26.502 65.70
axle 3s 25.717 60.79 25.841 61.57
40 26.387 64.98 25.990 62.50
45 26.003 62.58 25.682 60.58
15 25.381 58.51 25.623 60.02
20 25.242 57.64 25.602 59.89
25 25.801 61.13 25.320 58.13
Trailer 16.012 30 25.889 61.68 25.978 62.24
axle 35 25.845 61.41 25.828 61.30
40 25.931 61.95 25.955 62.09
45 25.411 58.70 25.790 61.06

120 -
- UNDAMPED SUSPENSION
i? 100 - DAMPED SUSPCNSION
0: 0 CXPCROIENTU-:-IDATA
60
h-~. 0

d 60. 0 0 0
- NDAYPCD SUSPCNSlDN g 40. 0
- DMPCD SUSPENSION 2 0 0
0 CXPCRlYCNTAL DATA z?i 20. 0

0
20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50

VEHICLESPEED (MPH) VEHICLESPEED (MPH)

Fig. 10. The comparison of computed and experimental Fig. 11. The comparison of computed and experimental
impact results for tire forces of the rear axle of an H20-44 impact results for tire forces of the steer axle of an HS20-44
vehicle running at 3/4 in-high step bump. vehicle running at l/2 in-high step bump.

- UNDAMPED SUSPENSION
i? 100 - DUPED SUSPENSION
0 EXPERIMENTAL DATA
-g 60
t k-.
-. _---- - ---_
60
iz 8 I

I
20 30 40 50 20 30 40

VEHICLESPEED (MPH) VEHICLESPEED (MPH)

Fig. 12. The comparison of computed and experimental Fig. 13. The comparison of computed and experimental
impact results for the tire forces of the tractor axle of an impact results for the tire forces of the trailer axle of an
HS20-44 vehicle running at l/2 in-high step bump. HS20-44 vehicle running at l/2 in-high step bump.
 Dynamic response of highway trucks

!c:,:t
WI 0
,.
64
.
128
.
192
I
256
3
2
1
-4.0 0 64 125 182
I
256
DISTANCEALONGTHE ROAD(M) DISTANCE ALONGTHE ROAD(Id)
[ai *mt s&s (a) ni+t LLmz

E 2.0
z 1.0
g 0.0
s -1.0
2 -2.0
s\

gj 1:::t.10 256
m
DISTANCEALONGTHE ROAD(M) D&k ALO: THE ROE (N)
@a)Iam \ina ib) Lett line
Fig. f4. Vertical highway surface pro&s in a very good Fig. 16, Vertical highway surface profiles in an average
road. road.

The values of wi and w, varied from 1.36 to It was found that the comparison between nume~cal
2.28 [I2]. In order to simplify the description of road and analytical PSDs agreed fairly well [9].
surface roughness, both wi and w, are assumed the The random numbers which have approximate
value of two. Equations (3) and (4) are converted as white noise properties were generated first [ 131.Then,
follows: these random numbers were passed through the first
order recursive filter [14]. Finally, the output function
S(gl)=A
0$ -2.0
will be the road surface roughness. The detail of the
procedure has been discussed by Wang [lo]. In this
study, the values of 5 x 10m6, 20 x 10m6, 80 x lo-*
and 256 x lOA m*/cycle were used according to
2 2.0
Intemational Organization for Standardization (ISO)
2 specifications [15] as the roughness coefficient A for
ii 1.0
the classes of very good, good, average, and poor
s
iz 0.0
roads, respectively. The sample length was taken as
256m (839.9 ft) and 2048 (2) data points were
s
w -1.0
generated for this distance. The average vertical
5: highway surface profiles of right and left lines from
2
VI
-2.0
0 84 128 182 258
five simulations are shown in Figs 14-17 for very
good, good, average, and poor roads respectively.
DISTANCEALONGTHE ROAD(M)
,a> Righrin*

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUS?ONS

According to the real H20-44 and HS20-44 trucks,

two nonlinear vehicle models with seven and twelve
degrees of freedom were developed and validated by
the experimental data. Four different classes of road
surface roughness were generated for very good,
good, average, and poor roads. The maximum dy-
2 namic forces and entire force histories were recorded
2 0 256 in 800-B simulation length when vehicle models with
DIST:CE ALOZTHE ROE(M) damped suspension system were running on the
(b, I&r line different classes of roads. Typical force histories of
Fig, IS. Vertical highway surface profdes in a good road. suspension and tire for H20-44 and HS20-44 vehicles
1062 T. L. WANGet al.

u 4.0
E
E 2.0

6 0.0
3
0
E -2.0

u" -4.0
iz
5 -6.0
VI 0 64 128 192 256
5
VI Ol 1.2 2.2 3.2
DISTANCEALONGTHE ROAD(Id) SIMULATIONTIME (SEC)
(oi)HlqhtLine
Fig. 20. The suspension force history of the tractor axle of
an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system running
52 6.0 ,
-1 at 75 mph and average road surface condition.

L
2 -6.0 3.
0-l 0 25R
DIST:CE ALOETHE ROE(M)
(b)Left
line
Fig. 17. Vertical highway surface profiles in a poor road.
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2
SIMULATIONTIME (SEC)
Fig. 21. The tire force history of the tractor axle of an
HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system running at
75 mph and average road surface condition.

O-0 VERYGOODROADSWRPACE
A-.& GOODROAG SURFACE
0-o AVRRAGEROAD SURFACE
o-----v POOR ROM SURFACE

m 0.6 1.6 2.6 3.0 4.6 5.6 6.6

SIMULATIONTIME (SEC)
Fig. 18. The suspension force history of the rear axle of an
H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system running at 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60
75 mph and average road surface condition.
VEHICLESPEED (MPH)
Fig. 22. Impact results of suspension forces for the front
axle of an H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system.

25, I
z 140 -
20 O-0 VERY GOOD ROAD SURFACE
a 120 d--a GOOD ROAD SURFACE
R O--O AVERAGE ROAD SVRFACE
5 o-----v POOR ROAD SURFACE .v...
2 15 ; 100. p ,./ x--._s
?? 10 E 60. ~c.p_.._---
.o/--
2cr 5 2 60. v... -.._,v ,... ...
,-I+-o-_-O
o----o
F: t; 40. o/
e__-4-__L-----9----e---~---r~
d
0 2 20.
0.6 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.6 5.6 6.6
0
SIMULATIONTIME (SEC) 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60
VEHICLESPEED (MPH)
Fig. 19. The tire force history of the rear axle of an H20-44
vehicle with damped suspension system running at 75 mph Fig. 23. Impact results of suspension forces for the rear axle
and average road surface condition. of an H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system.
 Dynamic response of highway trucks 1063

Table 5. Maximum suspension forces and impact factors of front axle of an H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system
for different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static VehiCle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic rmpact
force speed fOW2 factor force factor force factor force factor
(kips) (mph) Orips) (/I (kips) (/I (kipsl Wl (kips) Wl
15 4.008 8.20 4.146 11.92 4.444 19.97 5.050 36.32
25 3.996 7.87 4.166 12.46 4.421 19.34 5.188 40.06
35 4.947 9.26 4.183 12.93 4.847 30.84 6.l65 66.44
3.704 45 4.064 9.71 4.199 13.36 4.950 33.63 6.244 68.57
55 4.054 9.43 4.296 15.99 4.954 33.74 6.182 66.89
65 4.102 10.73 4.370 17.98 5.170 39.57 5.739 54.94
75 4.084 10.24 4.368 17.91 5.660 52.79 5.995 61.85

Table 6. Maximum suspension forces and impact factors of rear axle of an H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system
for different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road curface conditions
very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor force factor force factor
fkiP@ (mph) &bsl </of fkips) @f &ips) W-t Rips> (%I
15 17.274 28.53 17.804 32.47 18.679 38.98 22.553 67.81
25 17.275 28.53 17.840 32.74 20.203 50.32 21.271 58.26
35 17.561 30.67 17.976 33.75 20.241 50.60 23.304 73.39
IJ.440 45 17.518 30.34 18.003 33.95 21.442 59.54 24.976 85.83
17.435 29.72 18.057 34.36 21.336 58.75 25.586 90.37
:: 17.463 29.93 18.290 36.08 21.161 57.45 27.657 105.78
75 17.570 30.73 18.859 40.32 21.264 58.21 25.771 91.75

Table 7, Maximum tire forces and impact factors of front axie of an H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system for
different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor force factor force factor
(kipsl (mph) tkipsl WI <kipsI (Al Ikipsf (%f (kipsl WI

:: 5.462
5.516 4.87
3.83 5.660
5.823 10.70
7.69 6.230
6.442 22.47
18.43 7.544
8.412 43.42
59.92
35 5.525 5.04 5.940 12.92 7.183 36.55 9.863 87.51
5.260 45 5.588 6.23 5.978 13.64 7.480 42.20 9.960 89.36
55 5.627 6.98 6,199 17-67 7.729 46.94 9.71 I 84.61
65 3.636 7.15 6.183 17.54 9.046 71.97 9.6i8 82.85
75 5.643 7.29 6.261 19.03 9.384 78.40 10.265 95.16

O--O YeBY GO00 RDAD SURFACE

*--a GDOB ROAD SURFACE
4---o AYERAGS RDAD SURFACE
(I -... P POOR ROAO SURFACE
l . FXPERMXTAL DATA
_,d..V
.=--~..,_~_..~-~-
,

Fig. 24. Impact results of tire forces for the front axle of an Fig. 25. The comparison of computed and experimental
H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system. impact results of tire forces for the rear axle of an H20-44
vehicle with damped suspension system.
1064 T. L. WANG et ai.

140 . 160
o- 0 VERY DOOD RQAD SUfWACL o-0 WRY GOOD ROAD SURFACE
140 A-.4 Gooll ROAD SumwE
G O---o AW$RAGE ROAD SURFACE
O--P POOR ROAD SURFACE ; 120 v----v POOR ROAD SURFACE

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 50 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80

V~HIC~SP~~D(MPH) VEHIC~SP~ED(MPH)
Fig. 26. Impact results of suspension forces for the steer Fig. 27. Impact results of suspension forces for the tractor
axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system. axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system.

Table 8. Maximum tire forces and impact factors of rear axle of an H20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system for
different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor
~-
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor force factor force factor
(hips) (mph) &ipsl (%I Chips) WI @ripsI (%I (k&N (,I
1.5 15.799 16.407 9.09 17.673 17.51 22.165 47.37
25 15.967 16.783 11.59 19.408 29.04 20.809 38.36
35 16.018 6.50 17.083 13.58 19.906 32.35 23.165 54.02
IS.040 45 16.066 6.82 17.306 15.07 21.421 42.42 26.091 73.47
55 16.138 7.30 17.592 16.97 20.759 38.02 25.358 68.60
65 16.306 8.42 17.681 17.56 21.596 43.59 25.894 72.17
75 16.227 7.89 18.543 23.29 22443 49.22 26.853 78.55

Table 9. Maximum suspension forces and impact factors of steer axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damned
_ suspension
_ system
for different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor force factor force factor
&ins) (mph) &ins) WI &ins) (%) @ins) W) (kins) WJ)
15 3.350 14.93 3.479 19.35 3.680 26.25 4.625 58.67
25 3.373 15.72 3.551 21.81 3.881 33.15 4.505 54.53
35 3.360 15.28 3.677 26.15 4.045 38.76 5.028 72.50
2.915 45 3.433 17.78 3.683 26.33 4.063 39.37 5.318 82.42
55 3.379 15.92 3.510 20.41 4.875 67.24 6.069 108.20
65 3.385 16.12 3.576 22.67 4.504 54.52 5.508 88.95
75 3.411 17.03 3.593 23.24 4.365 49.76 N/A WA

Table 10. Maximum suspension forces and impact factors of tractor axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damned suspension
system for different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force force factor force factor force factor force factor
(hips) tsm% (hips) Wl (hips) W) (hips) W) @ins) W)
15 19.083 34.45 19.763 39.25 20.798 46.54 22.856 61.04
25 19.142 34.87 19.353 36.36 20.719 45.98 23.435 65.12
35 19.499 37.38 20.000 40.91 20.63 I 45.36 25.662 80.81
14.193 45 19.252 35.65 20.222 42.48 22.300 57.12 28.500 100.80
55 19.221 35.42 20.311 43.11 23.371 64.67 28.324 99.56
65 19.024 34.04 20.773 46.36 22.340 57.40 26.323 85.47
75 19.033 34.11 20.087 41.53 22.211 56.50 WA N/A
 Dynamic response of highway trucks 1065

01 1
10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80
VEHICLESPEED (MPH) VEHICLESPEED (YPH)
Fig. 28. Impact results of suspension forces for the trailer Fig. 29. Impact results of tire forces for the steer axle of an
axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system. HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system.

Table 11. Maximum suspension forces and impact factors of trailer axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension
system for different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force force factor force factor force factor force factor
otips) ?ms otips) (%) (kips) (%) (kips) (%) (kips) W)
15 18.862 29.43 19.342 32.73 21.560 47.95 26.376 80.99
25 19.059 30.79 19.849 36.20 20.991 44.04 24.079 65.23
35 19.178 31.60 20.476 40.51 22.221 52.48 31.295 114.74
14.573 45 19.152 31.42 19.988 37.16 23.344 60.19 26.473 81.66
55 18.972 30.18 19.711 35.26 22.818 56.58 28.589 %.I7
65 19.433 33.35 20.176 38.45 22.301 53.03 29.283 100.94
75 19.273 32.25 20.832 42.95 22.87 1 56.94 N/A N/A

Table 12. Maximum tire forces and impact factors of steer axle of an HSZO-44 vehicle with damped suspension system
for different road surface conditions and vehicle sneeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor force factor force factor
(kips) (mph) (kips) (%) otips) (%) (kips) (%) Orips) (%)
15 4.294 7.49 4.474 11.99 4.893 22.48 6.461 61.73
25 4.365 9.25 4.612 15.43 5.314 33.01 6.821. 70.74
35 4.348 8.84 4.912 22.96 5.443 36.25 7.040 76.22
3.995 45 4.422 10.68 4.845 21.28 6.074 52.03 8.774 119.62
55 4.475 12.00 4.960 24.15 6.703 67.79 8.455 111.64
65 4.521 13.17 5.035 26.02 6.023 50.76 8.572 114.56
75 4.562 14.18 5.033 25.99 6.822 70.76 N/A N/A

Table 13. Maximum tire forces and impact factors of tractor axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system
for different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force force factor force factor force factor force factor
(kivs) (kius) (%) (kips) (%) (kips) (%) fkins) I%)
15 17.804 11.32 19.507 21.97 21.910 36.99 24.960 56.06
25 17.874 11.76 19.524 22.08 21.549 34.74 29.212 82.65
35 18.377 14.90 20.991 31.25 22.724 42.08 28.563 78.59
15.994 45 18.613 16.38 21.919 37.05 25.667 60.48 39.058 144.21
55 18.892 18.12 21.552 34.76 26.469 65.50 33.769 111.14
65 18.402 15.06 21.730 35.87 25.530 59.63 29.674 85.54
75 18.441 15.30 20.608 28.85 25.746 60.98 N/A VA
 o----o VRRY woo ROAO SuRFACL
A- -d GOOD ROM SURFACE
F 100
O----o AVERAGE ROAD SURFACE
v-.-.0 POOR ROAU SURFACE

_-0-_---a--
___o----_&-
-
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 80 70
VEHICLE SPEED (MPH) VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
Fig. 30, The comparison of computed and experimental Fig. 31. Impact results of tire forces for the trailer axle of
impact results of tire forces for the tractor axle of an an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system.
HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system.

70 70
0-o SIBElI AXLE 0-o SCEER AXLE
60 A---A TRACTORAXLE SD .%---A TRACTOR AXLE
i? o---o TRAILER AXLE G O--o TRAILER AXLE
w 507

01 ,
12 14 18 18 20 22 24 28 28 30 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Lz @T) L2 W')

Fig. 32. Impact results of suspension forces in an HS20-44 Fig. 33. Impact results of tire forces in an HS20-44 vehicle
vehicle with damped suspension system running at 55 mph with damped suspension system running at 55 mph and
and good road surface condition for different L, values. good road surface condition for different L, values.

running at 75 mph and average road surface con-
dition are shown in Figs 18-21. A summary of the
impact factors of suspension and tire forces for
different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds is
given in Tables 5-14 and ill~trat~ in Figs 22-31.
The different distances between the tractor and trailer
axles (L,) of an HS20-44 vehicle have also been
studied. The results are shown in Table 15, Figs 32
and 33.
The conclusions of this study are summarized as
follows:
1. The impact factors of both suspension and tire
forces increased with vehicle speed in most cases.
2. The impact factors were affected slightly by the
vehicle speeds in very good and good roads for both
suspension and tire forces. However, the vehicle
speeds influence the impact factors significantly in
average and poor roads.
3. The impact factors of both suspension and tire
forces obtained from the poor road are the highest
among these four different road surface conditions
for speed varied from 15 to 75 mph. The lowest
impact factors are always found in the very good
road.
4. In Tables 13 and 14, it may be seen that the
impact factors of tire forces of tractor axle are
much higher than those of trailer axle in HS20-44
vehicle.
5. When values of L, changed, the impact factors
of all three axles of HS20-44 vehicle varied slightly.
However, Figs 32 and 33 show that the highest

Table 14. Maxims tire forces and impact factors of traiier axle of an HS20-44 vehicle with damped suspension system
for different road surface conditions and vehicle speeds
Road surface conditions
Very good Good Average Poor
-
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
static Vehicle dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact dynamic Impact
force speed force factor force factor force factor force factor
(kipsl (mph) (hips) (%l Chips) (%l @ipsl W) Wpsl Wl
15 17.059 6.54 17.743 10.81 19.007 18.70 25.085 56.66
25 17.470 9.10 17.952 12.11 19.959 24.65 22.258 39.00
35 17.401 8.67 18.673 16.61 20.308 26.83 28.01 I 74.93
16.012 4.5 17.450 8.98 18.482 15.42 22.922 43.15 25.813 61.21
55 17.588 9.84 19.164 19.68 21.423 33.79 27.585 72.27
65 17.823 11.31 18.970 18.47 21.476 34.12 28.116 . 75.59
75 17.801 11.17 19.863 24.05 21.720 35.64 N/A N/A
 Dynamic response of highway trucks 1067

Table 15. Maximum suspension forces, tire forces, and impact factors of an HS20-44 vehicle with
damped suspension system running at 55 mph and good road surface condition for different L, values
Suspension Tire

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

static dynamic Impact static dynamic Impact
JG* force force factor force force factor
(ft) (kips) (kips) (%) (kips) (kips) (%)
14 3.510 20.41 4.960 24.15
16 3.510 20.40 4.960 24.15
18 3.548 21.72 4.861 21.68
Steer 20 2.915 3.574 22.61 3.995 4.870 21.90
axle 22 3.501 20.11 4.821 20.67
24 3.506 20.29 4.867 21.84
26 3.541 21.48 5.007 25.33
28 3.539 21.40 5.026 25.80
14 20.311 43.11 21.552 34.76
16 20.648 45.48 21.744 35.96
18 20.639 45.42 21.323 33.32
Tractor 20 14.193 19.531 37.61 15.994 20.332 27.13
axle 22 20.120 41.76 20.957 31.03
24 20.578 44.99 21.181 32.44
26 20.070 41.41 21.955 37.28
28 19.904 40.24 21.093 31.89
14 19.711 35.26 19.164 19.68
16 19.768 35.65 19.019 18.78
18 19.754 35.56 18.929 18.21
Trailer 20 14.573 19.613 34.58 16.012 19.097 19.26
axle 22 19.746 35.50 18.924 18.18
24 19.788 35.79 18.869 17.84
26 19.770 35.66 19.105 19.32
28 19.786 35.77 19.014 18.74
*L2 is the distance between the tractor and trailer axles.

impact factors were obtained when L, = 14-16 ft and
26-28 ft for both suspension and tire forces.
6. Some experimental data obtained by
Whittemore et al. [6] were used to compare with
computed data. A comparison of computed and
experimental impact results for tire forces is presented
in Figs 25 and 30. It can be seen that the computed
impact values agree very well with the experimental
data.
REFERENCES
1. S. J. Fenves, A. S. Veletsos and C. P. Siess, Dynamic
studies of bridge on the AASHO road test. Highway
Research Board, Report 71, National Academy of
Scienses, Washington, DC (1962).
2. S. J. Fenves, A. S. Veletsos and C. P. Siess, Dynamic
studies of the AASHO road test bridge. Hiahwav
Research Board, Report 73, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC (1962).
3. S. Levy and J. P. D. Wilkinson, The Component Element
Merhod in Dynamic. McGraw-Hill, New York (1976).
4. G. R. Potts and H. S. Walker, Nonlinear truck ride
analysis. J. Engng for Industry, Trans. ASME, May,
597-602 (1974).
5. A. S. Veletsos and T. Huang, Analysis of dynamic
response of highway bridges. J. Engng Mech. Div.,
AXE %, 593620 (1970).
6. A. P. Whittemom, J. R. Wiley, P. C. Schultz and D. E.
Pollock, Dynamic pavement loads of heavy highway
vehicles. National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-
gram Report, Washington, DC (1970).
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 14th Edn.
American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials, Washington, DC (1989).
T. Huang, Dynamic response of three-span continuous
highway bridges. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL (1960).
T. L. Wang and D. Z. Huang, Computer modeling
analysis in bridge evaluation. Final research report
prepared for Florida Department of Transportation
under Contract No. C-3394 (WPI-0510542),
Tallahassee, FL (1991).
10. T. L. Wang, Ramp/bridge interface in railway pre-
stressed concrete bridges. J. Struct. Engng, AXE 116,
1618-1659 (1990).
11. T. L. Wang, V. K. Garg and K. H. Chu, Railway
bridge/vehicle interaction studies with a new vehicle
model. J. Struct. Engng, AXE 117, 2099-2116
(1991).
12. C. J. Dodds and J. D. Robson, The description of road
surface roughness. J. Sound Vibr. 31, 175-183 (1973).
13. J. Moshman, Random number generation. In Math-
ematical Methods for Digital Computers (Edited by A.
Ralston and H. S. Wilf), Vol. II, Chap. 12, pp. 249-263.
John Wiley, New York (1967).
14. R. K. Otnes and L. Enochson, Digital Time Series
Analysis. John Wiley, New York (1972).
15. C. J. Dodds, BSI proposals for generalized terrain
dynamic inputs to vehicles. ISO/TC/l08/WG9, Docu-
ment No. 5, International Organization for Standardiz-
ation (1972).