TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND

HEAVY VEHICLE LIMITS PROJECT

Report 5

GEOMETRIC EVALUATION

Excluding Appendices A-O

July 2001
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 2 of 38

An Important Note for the Reader

The investigations which are detailed in this report were commissioned by Transit New Zealand.
While this report is believed to be correct at the time of publication, Transit New Zealand, and its employees and
agents involved in the preparation and publication, cannot accept any contractual, tortious or other liability for its
content or for any consequences arising from its use and make no warranties or representations of any kind
whatsoever in relation to any of its contents.
The report is only made available on the basis that all users of it, whether direct of indirect, must take
appropriate legal or other expert advice in relation to their own circumstances and must rely solely on their own
judgement and seek their own legal or other expert legal advice in relation to the use of this report.
The material contained in this report is the output of research and should not be construed in any way as policy
adopted by Transit New Zealand but may form the basis of future policy.

ISBN 0-478-04710-X

© 2001. Transit New Zealand

PO Box 5084, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand
Telephone 64–4–499 6600; Facsimile 64–4–496 6666

Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project.

Report 5. Geometric Evaluation.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 3 of 38

Foreword
This report is one of a series of seven that cover the latest investigation of the feasibility of
changing the mass and dimensions of heavy vehicles on New Zealand’s roading system.
Transit New Zealand (Transit) has long recognised the importance of the roading network to
New Zealand’s economy, and the desire amongst the transport and export industry sectors for
increased productivity. To this end Transit has supported investigations since 1992 of the
potential benefits of raising weight limits.
Previous studies lead Transit to the conclusion that is was not feasible to upgrade the whole
road network to accommodate substantially longer heavier vehicles. Accordingly in 1998
Transit commenced the current study with the purpose of considering two new scenarios. We
are grateful to Transfund New Zealand for the provision of funding for the investigations.
These project reports represent the culmination of two years’ work by a group of consultants
both here and in Australia. These are listed below:
Transport Engineering Research NZ Ltd, Auckland
Infratech Systems and Services Pty Ltd, Brisbane
Roaduser International Pty Ltd, Melbourne
Saturn Corporate Resources Pty Ltd, Melbourne
Montgomery Watson NZ Ltd, Christchurch
ARRB Transport Research Limited, Melbourne
Commed Associates, Melbourne
Opus International Consultants Limited, Wellington
Pearsons Transport Resource Centre Pty Ltd, Melbourne
Transit is grateful to the members of the project steering group who have provided expert
guidance and comment on behalf of the following organisations:
Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand
Transfund New Zealand
Ministry of Transport
Road Transport Forum New Zealand
Bus and Coach Association New Zealand
Local Government New Zealand.

Robin Dunlop
Chief Executive
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 4 of 38

Preface
What is the Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project?
This report is one of seven issuing from Transit New Zealand’s Heavy Vehicle Limits Project
(HVLP) undertaken in 1999–2000. The full list of reports are:
1. Bridge Evaluation 5. Geometric Evaluation
2. Safety Evaluation 6. Environmental Evaluation(and)
3. Pavement Evaluation 7. Overview
4. Industry Economics
The Heavy Vehicles Limits Project arose out of Transit’s Heavy Transport Routes (HTR)
research project undertaken in 1992-96. As a result of the HTR project, Transit believed that it
was not feasible to upgrade the whole road network to accommodate substantially longer
vehicles. Transit therefore undertook preliminary studies on two scenarios, termed Scenario A
and Scenario B.
Scenario A examined the proposal that the existing vehicle fleet would be allowed to operate
at different weight limits than those presently permitted on the road network but there would
be no increase in vehicle dimensions.
Scenario B examined the proposal that increases in both vehicle weight and dimension limits
would be allowed on selected routes only.
These issues were considered in a preliminary study for Scenario A undertaken by Pearsons
Transport Resource Centre P/L. The work was divided into heavy vehicle weight
investigations and road user charges investigations. The findings were provided in a report
entitled Scoping Study for Scenario A.
Preliminary work on Scenario B for three specific routes by Opus International and Allan
Kennaird indicated that significant benefits would flow from network improvements giving
rise to higher weights and dimensions on these routes.
The Ministry of Transport undertook a separate investigation of road user charges.
As a result of the preliminary studies, the goal of the Heavy Vehicle Limits Project was to
evaluate the safety and economic effects of altering heavy vehicle weights on the entire road
network (Scenario A) and of increasing both heavy vehicle weights and dimensions for
selected routes only (Scenario B).
The general approach of the Project was to consider the effects of increasing allowable
weights on bridges, safety, pavements and industry economics. These issues were common to
both scenarios. In addition, an investigation was required of geometric issues for Scenario B
only. Separate contracts were let for evaluating the different areas. Also required were an
overview of the project with recommendations, and a separate summary with
recommendations.
In some cases, detailed data not published in the reports is available on diskette or CD ROM
upon request from Transit New Zealand. Details of the Scenario B network of routes are
included in Report 5, Geometric Evaluation. Readers not wishing to pursue the detail of the
project may be satisfied with Report 7, Overview alone.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 5 of 38

Project Team

The following is the team that worked on the project.

Project Managers Lynn Sleath and Bob Pearson.
Team Leader Peter Baas.
Deputy Team Leader Dr John dePont.
Analysts / Researchers Paul Milliken, Tim Mueller, Ken Way, Doug Latto, Phillip
Brown, Glen Koorey, Dr David Hutchison, John Vessey, Rex
Humpherson and David Wanty.
Field personnel Surveyors from Opus Regional offices.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following companies and individuals for their support and
assistance in carrying out the Geometrics Evaluation for the Heavy Vehicle Limits Project.

Carr and Haslam Limited, Chris Carr

Halls Refrigerated Transport Limited, Craig Madill
Sheehan’s Transport Assistance Limited, Greg Sheehan
L W Bonney and Sons Limited, Kelvin Bonney
Rodney District Council, Bill Horn
North Harbour Stadium, Murray Dick
North Shore City Council,
Transit New Zealand, Lynn Sleath
Opus International Consultants, John Vessey
Trailer Rental Limited, Neil Bretherton
Serco Group New Zealand Limited,
Traffic Design Group, Dave Wanty
Traffic Planning Consultants Limited, Phillip Brown
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 6 of 38

Contents

Project Team 5
Acknowledgements 5
List of Figures 7
List of Tables 8
Executive Summary 9
1. Introduction 11
2. Method 12
2.1 Outline of the Tasks...................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Developing the assumptions......................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Road width, road edge, and curve widening 12
2.2.2 Preliminaries for the curve investigation 14
2.2.3 Alternative assumptions for the curve investigation 15
2.2.4 The effect of increased trailing infidelity 15
2.2.5 Preliminaries for the roundabout investigation 16
2.3 Method of analysis for the curve investigation .......................................................... 18
2.3.1 Models used to determine offtracking 19
2.3.2 Model validation 20
2.3.3 Costs of road widening in various terrain 22
2.3.4 Calculating the cost of modifying a curve 24
2.4 Method of analysis for the roundabout investigation................................................ 28
2.4.1 Details of the method for determining the cost of modifying a roundabout 28
2.4.2 Costs for the three representative roundabouts 29
3. Results and Discussion 34
3.1 The network of routes................................................................................................... 34
3.2 Results for the curve investigation .............................................................................. 35
3.3 Results for the roundabout investigation.................................................................... 36
4. References 38
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 7 of 38

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cross-section guideline for rural two-lane state highway. ...................................... 13

Figure 2. Curve Widening. ...................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3. The geometric elements of a roundabout................................................................. 16
Figure 4. Rear view of a vehicle cornering on a superelevated road. ..................................... 19
Figure 5. B-Train trial vehicle................................................................................................. 21
Figure 6. Algorithm to calculate the amount of road widening required, q, for a curve of
effective minimum radius of curvature R and road width w. ........................................... 25
Figure 7. Maximum curvature (R-1) versus maximum road width occupied for B1233-62b and
B1233-62f......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 8. The road width occupied by the benchmark vehicles A123-39p and B1232-44p
when negotiating curves................................................................................................... 26
Figure 9. Difference between the maximum road width occupied by each of the trial vehicles
and the maximum of the two benchmark vehicles........................................................... 27
Figure 10. Modification of an existing roundabout................................................................. 29
Figure 11. Estimated cost of modifying a roundabout of arbitrary central island diameter to
accommodate either of the trial vehicles.......................................................................... 31
Figure 12. Central island diameter versus required increase in inscribed circle diameter for
B1233-62f and B1233-62b............................................................................................... 32
Figure 13. Central island diameter versus required decrease in non-mountable central island
diameter for B1233-62f and B1233-62b. ......................................................................... 33
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 8 of 38

List of Tables

Table 1. Estimated cost (in millions of dollars) for modifying curves and roundabouts on the
network of routes.............................................................................................................. 10
Table 2. Maximum offtracking observed for vehicles travelling in a straight line. ................ 16
Table 3: Major vehicle dimensions. ........................................................................................ 21
Table 4. Cost of widening road by 0.5 metres. ....................................................................... 23
Table 5. Cost of widening road by 1 metre. ............................................................................ 23
Table 6. Cost of widening road by 1.5 metres. ....................................................................... 24
Table 7. Cost of modifying the representative roundabout with 34 metre diameter central
island. ............................................................................................................................... 30
Table 8. Cost of modifying the representative roundabout with 21 metre diameter central
island. ............................................................................................................................... 30
Table 9. Cost of modifying the representative roundabout with 7.8 metre diameter central
island ................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 10. Roads selected for inclusion in the network of routes for the Scenario B vehicles.34
Table 11. Cost of modifying curves on the network of routes for B1233-62b and B1233-62f
for the original set of assumptions. .................................................................................. 35
Table 12. Cost of modifying curves on the network of routes for B1233-62b and B1233-62f
for Alternative assumption set 1....................................................................................... 35
Table 13. Cost of modifying curves on the network of routes for B1233-62b and B1233-62f
for Alternative assumption set 2....................................................................................... 35
Table 14. Costs for modifying roundabouts on the network of routes to accommodate B1233-
62b.................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 15. Costs for modifying roundabouts on the network of routes to accommodate B1233-
62f..................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 16. Costs of modifying the network of routes by Route Sector. ................................... 37
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 9 of 38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study investigates the amount of road width effectively occupied by vehicles longer than
20 metres and the cost of modifying a specific network of roads and roundabouts in New
Zealand to accommodate these vehicles should they be introduced. There are two reasons
why the longer vehicles may take up more road space than the current fleet; firstly, longer
vehicles are likely to have greater offtracking when cornering. Secondly, the trailing unit of a
combination vehicle travelling in a straight line may not exactly follow the path of the leading
unit due to minor steering adjustments, cross winds and cross slope of the road. This is
known as trailing infidelity. Unlike offtracking, trailing infidelity affects the amount of road
width a vehicle occupies on straights as well as in curves. The increase in trailing infidelity
on straights was predicted to be less than 50 millimetres so the effect of increased trailing
infidelity of longer vehicles was ignored in this study.
Specifically, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the cost of modifying roads
and roundabouts to accommodate each of two trial vehicles, which are longer and heavier
than vehicles currently permitted on New Zealand roads as a matter of course without a
special permit. The trial vehicles are both B-trains and are referred to as B1233-62f and
B1233-62b. B1233-62f has 18.8 metre overall axle spacing and B1233-62b has 22.0 metre
overall axle spacing. These two trial vehicles are 2.5 metres wide, the same width as vehicles
from the current fleet, and B1233-62b was also considered as part of the Heavy Vehicle
Limits Project Safety Evaluation.
The report is in two parts. First, the costs for modifying sections of road, excluding
roundabouts and intersections, are investigated. This is known as the geometric curve
investigation. Secondly, the costs for modifying roundabouts to accommodate the trial
vehicles are investigated. This is referred to as the roundabout investigation. In accordance
with the project brief, intersections along the specific routes not controlled by a roundabout
were not considered.
To determine the costs for modifying the network of routes, the following assumptions were
made:
• The current network of routes is satisfactory for existing vehicles. If a trial vehicle was
found to offtrack x metres more than a vehicle typical of the current fleet on a particular
curve then, to maintain the same clearances, that curve should be widened by 2x.
However, if 2x<0.25 metres, then it was assumed that widening would not be required.
• Also, if 2x ≥ 0.25 metres, then widening would still not be necessary as long as two trial
vehicles travelling in opposing directions could pass with 1 metre clearance between their
swept paths and 0.5 metres clearance to the edge of the road.
To test the sensitivity of the cost to these assumptions, four alternative sets of assumptions,
Alternatives 1 to 4 were considered.
Alternative 1 was that
• The current network of routes is satisfactory for existing vehicles. If a trial vehicle was
found to offtrack x metres more than a vehicle typical of the current fleet on a particular
curve then, to maintain the same clearances, that curve should be widened by 2x.
However, if 2x<0.15 metres, then it was assumed that widening would not be required.
• Also, if 2x ≥ 0.15 metres, then widening would still not be necessary as long as two trial
vehicles could pass with 2 metres clearance between their swept paths and 1 metre
clearance to the edge of the road.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 10 of 38

Alternative 2 was that

• The current network of routes is satisfactory for existing vehicles. If a trial vehicle was
found to offtrack x metres more than a vehicle typical of the current fleet on a particular
curve then, to maintain the same clearances, that curve should be widened by 2x.
However, if 2x<0.15 metres, then it was assumed that widening would not be required.
Alternative 3 was that
• The current network of routes is satisfactory for existing vehicles. If a trial vehicle was
found to offtrack x metres more than a vehicle typical of the current fleet on a particular
curve then, to maintain the same clearances, that curve should be widened by 2x.
However, if 2x<0.05 metres, then it was assumed that widening would not be required.
• Also, if 2x≥0.05 metres, then widening would still not be necessary as long as two trial
vehicles, travelling in opposing directions, could pass with 2 metres clearance between
their swept paths and 1 metre of clearance to the edge of the road.
Alternative 4 was that
• The current network of routes is satisfactory for existing vehicles. If a trial vehicle was
found to offtrack x metres more than a vehicle typical of the current fleet on a particular
curve then, to maintain the same clearances, that curve should be widened by 2x.
However, if 2x<0.05 metres, then it was assumed that widening would not be required.
The costs for modifying the network of routes under the original assumptions and under
Alternative 1-4 are shown in Table 1.
For the roundabout investigation, a tool for estimating the cost of modifying a roundabout
based on the central island diameter of the roundabout was developed. The suggested
modifications to roundabouts are such that traffic flows and traffic deflection at roundabouts
were not compromised. Estimates of the costs of modifying roundabouts on the network of
routes to accommodate B1233-62b or B1233-62f are also shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Estimated cost for modifying curves and roundabouts on the network of routes.
Assumption set Cost for B1233-62b Cost for B1233-62f
Original Assumptions $43,600,000 $18,800,000
Alternative 1 $132,000,000 $44,700,000
Alternative 2 $214,000,000 $62,600,000
Alternative 3 $161,900,000 $113,500,000
Alternative 4 $292,100,000 $191,100,000
Cost for roundabouts $1,284,000 $1,173,000 .
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 11 of 38

1. INTRODUCTION
This investigation considered the modification of curves and roundabouts required for the
network of routes proposed by Transit New Zealand in the project brief to accommodate
vehicles that are longer and heavier than those currently permitted on New Zealand roads.
Two trial vehicles, longer and heavier than those allowed under current laws, were
investigated; a B-train with 22.0 metre overall axle spacing and a B-train with 18.8 metre
overall axle spacing. Two vehicles, typical of the current fleet, were used to provide a
benchmark against which the trial vehicles could be compared. The two benchmark vehicles
were a tractor semi-trailer with 13.1 metre overall axle spacing and a B-train with 16.0 metre
overall axle spacing. Details of these four vehicles are provided in Appendix A.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 12 of 38

2. METHOD
2.1 Outline of the Tasks
Seven tasks were specified in the project brief. These tasks culminated in finding the cost of
geometric modification of the network of routes. Briefly, the seven Tasks were
Task 1. To develop an analysis tool, describing the relationships between curve geometry
and offtracking for the two trial vehicles and two benchmark vehicles, typical of the
current fleet. Also, it was required to develop a tool to estimate the cost of widening
sections of road to accommodate the increase in offtracking.
Task 2. To finalise the network of routes.
Task 3. To compile an inventory of geometric information for each route.
(Task 7). To conduct a survey to confirm the assumptions regarding the cross sections of road
and adjacent country (including terrain slopes and soil types).
Task 4. To validate the method of modelling the vehicles by experiment using a B-train.
Task 5. To determine the cost of geometric modification of the network of routes.
Task 6. To write this report.

2.2 Developing the assumptions

When an articulated vehicle travels around a curve, the rear wheels generally follow a
different path to the front wheels. The additional road width that the vehicle occupies when
cornering, over and above the road width the vehicle occupies when travelling in a straight
line, is the offtracking. Offtracking may be inboard, when the rear wheels follow paths inside
the paths of the front wheels, or outboard, when the rear wheels follow paths outside the path
of the front wheels. At slow speeds an articulated vehicle will track inboard when turning.
However, as the speed increases the inboard offtracking is reduced and if the speed is high
enough the vehicle may begin to experience outboard offtracking.
To investigate the modifications to curves required to accommodate vehicles longer than
those currently permitted in New Zealand, four articulated vehicles were modelled. Two
benchmark vehicles, typical of the current fleet, were considered; a 39 tonne tractor semi-
trailer with 13.1 metre overall axle spacing (denoted 'A123-39p') and a 44 tonne B-train with
16.0 metre overall axle spacing (denoted 'B1232-44p'). These two benchmark vehicles were
compared with two longer trial vehicles; a 62 tonne B-train with 18.8 metre overall axle
spacing (denoted 'B1233-62f') and a 62 tonne B-train with 22.0 metre overall axle spacing
(denoted 'B1233-62b'). Details of these vehicles are given in Appendices A and B.

2.2.1 Road width, road edge, and curve widening

In this report road width is defined as the total sealed width of a road comprising the total
traffic lane width plus the width of the sealed shoulders. The edge line is the delineated
boundary of the traffic lane. The edge of the road refers to the edge of the sealed/paved part
of the road.
The width of the sealed shoulder is related to traffic volume in vehicles per day (VPD) and
should be uniform within any link along the state highway regardless of curves and straights
(Figure 1). The relationships are explained in more detail in Transit’s State Highway Control
Manual, Appendix 3a: Cross Section Guidelines for Two-lane Rural State Highways.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 13 of 38

Figure 1. Cross-section guideline for rural two-lane state highway.

On straight sections of state highways the traffic lane width is normally a standard 3.5 m; on
curves, the lane width is increased to include curve widening (Figure 2). The relationships are
explained in the Transit policy document Rural Road Design—Guide to the Geometric Design
of Rural Roads, Austroads 1989, and more clearly in Transit’s draft State Highway Geometric
Design Manual.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 14 of 38

Figure 2. Curve Widening.

2.2.2 Preliminaries for the curve investigation

Each curve was characterised by three parameters; the minimum radius of curvature of the
curve R, the length of the curve l and the existing road width w. The objective of this study
was to determine the cost of modifying the network of routes on which it was proposed that
these longer vehicles would be permitted to operate. A number of assumptions were made, as
follows.

Assumption 1
While the current network of roads is generally satisfactory only for existing vehicles, in
practice it is unlikely that curve widening would be undertaken where the calculated required
widening is less than 0.25 metres (equivalent to 0.125 metres on each side of the road).
From Assumption 1, if a curve was found to require widening by an amount less than 0.25
metres then it was assumed that widening would not be carried out. However, if the
offtracking of a trial vehicle was found to be significantly greater than the offtracking of the
worst of the benchmark vehicles then Assumption 2 provided the foundation for the
specification of the required road width for such a curve.

Assumption 2
If a curve is such that the trial vehicle takes up significantly more road width than the
benchmark vehicles representing the existing fleet (Assumption 1 specifies 0.25 metres as
significant) then the amount of road width is unsatisfactory unless two trial vehicles,
travelling in opposite directions, can pass with 1 metre clearance between their swept paths
while each vehicle remains at least 0.5 metres from the edge of the road.
The 0.5 metres provided at the edge of the road was chosen to allow for two effects; firstly
driver variation, and secondly avoidance of excessive edgebreak problems for unkerbed roads.
The 1 metre clearance allowed between the swept paths of opposing vehicles was provided to
allow for driver variation. Note that if there were to be provision for cyclists, at least 1.5
metres clearance between the path of a truck and the edge of the road would be required.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 15 of 38

Since a negligible proportion of the routes will have provision for cyclists, the cost of this
widening has been ignored.

2.2.3 Alternative assumptions for the curve investigation

Assumption 1 and Assumption 2 were such that the distances between vehicles and to the
edge of the road to allow for driver variability and trailing infidelity were minimal, so two
alternative sets of assumptions were also considered:

Alternative Set 1 - Assumption 1

While the current network of roads is generally satisfactory only for existing vehicles, in
practice it is unlikely that curve widening would be undertaken where the calculated required
widening is less than 0.15 metres (equivalent to 0.075 metres on each side of the road).

Alternative Set 1 - Assumption 2

If a curve is such that the trial vehicle takes up significantly more road width than the existing
fleet (see Alternative 1 - Assumption 1) then the amount of road width is unsatisfactory unless
two trial vehicles, travelling in opposite directions, can pass with 2 metres clearance between
the swept paths while each vehicle remains at least 1 metre from the edge of the road.
The justification for Alternative 1 - Assumption 2 was that 250 millimetres was allowed for
wing mirrors on one side of one of the vehicles and 400 millimetres was allowed on one side
of each vehicle to allow for the trailer not following the predicted path due to cross winds,
minor steering adjustments etc. In addition to this, 500 millimetres was allowed on each side
of each vehicle to account for driver error and an additional 350 millimetres distance was
allowed to the edge of the road to prevent edge break.
The second alternative is as follows.

Alternative Set 2 - Assumption 1

While the current network of roads is generally satisfactory only for existing vehicles, in
practice it is unlikely that curve widening would be undertaken where the calculated widening
is less than 0.15 metres (equivalent to 0.075 metres on each side of the road).

Alternative Set 2 - Assumption 2

The current network of roads is only just wide enough to accommodate the current fleet.
Therefore, any increase in vehicle offtracking would require an increase in road width.
The costs for road widening corresponding to these two alternative sets of assumptions are
shown in Section 3.

2.2.4 The effect of increased trailing infidelity

Trailing infidelity is when the trailing unit of a combination vehicle does not exactly follow
the path of the leading unit on a straight road due to cross winds, cross slope of the road,
minor steering adjustments and other asymmetries. Generally, longer vehicles may be
expected to have greater trailing infidelity than shorter vehicles.
In this study, the effect of increased trailing infidelity of the trial vehicles was ignored
because an Australian study [Prem et al, 1999] suggested that the change in trailing infidelity
would only be around 50 millimetres for a 5 metre increase in vehicle length. Prem et al
[1999] estimated the effect of trailing infidelity for a number of vehicles when travelling on a
straight road. Trailing infidelity values for a few vehicles are summarised in Table 2.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 16 of 38

Table 2. Maximum offtracking observed for vehicles travelling in a straight line.

Straight road offtracking Vehicle
300mm tractor semi (18.5m)
over 400mm truck trailer (16.8m) R12T12
just less than 400mm truck trailer (20m) R12T22
350mm B train (19m)
just less than 400mm B train (25m)

If there was to be road widening to allow for increased trailing infidelity, straight roads as
well as curves may require modification as it is more difficult to maintain a smooth steering
input on a curve than on a straight road.

2.2.5 Preliminaries for the roundabout investigation

The features of a roundabout and some terminology used in this report are illustrated in
Figure 3 [Austroads, 1993].

Figure 3. The geometric elements of a roundabout.

Three roundabouts with dual circulating lanes were used as representative roundabouts
because these roundabouts were considered typical of those found on the network of routes
which is comprised mostly of main roads. However, a few of the roundabouts on the network
of routes were single lane roundabouts. It was also assumed that a roundabout could be
characterised by the size of its central island.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 17 of 38

The preferred modification is to use mountable kerbs to accommodate heavy vehicles while
not interfering with the deflection of the roundabouts for other vehicles. Definition 1 relates
to Figure 3 and pertains to the specification of mountable curve kerbs on a roundabout. See
Figure 10 for details of how mountable kerbs might be used.

Definition 1
The inscribed circle diameter of the mountable kerb is the inscribed circle diameter measured
between mountable curve kerbs on opposite sides of a roundabout. Similarly, the inscribed
circle diameter of the non-mountable kerb is the inscribed circle diameter measured between
non-mountable curve kerbs on opposite sides of a roundabout. Also, note that not all
roundabouts have mountable kerbs.
Three existing roundabouts with central island diameters of 7.8 metres, 21 metres and 34
metres were used to represent a typical sample of all roundabouts on the network of routes.
To calculate how these roundabouts should be modified to accommodate each of the trial
vehicles Assumption 3 was made.

Assumption 3
The roundabouts that currently exist in the proposed network of routes are large enough to
accommodate the existing fleet but no larger. Therefore, any increase in the width of road
occupied by vehicles longer than those of the current fleet will require a corresponding
increase in the size of the roundabouts.
For a particular roundabout, to determine the amount of additional road width needed to
accommodate the trial vehicles, one of two assumptions was made. Either it was assumed
that the roundabout should allow the trial vehicle to navigate the roundabout without
interference from other traffic or it was assumed that one of the trial vehicles and a non-
articulated vehicle should be able to approach the roundabout side by side. The size of the
roundabout was used in Assumption 4 to determine which of these scenarios was considered.

Assumption 4
If the non-mountable central island diameter of the existing roundabout, D (in metres), was
such that
D<24
then it was assumed that the roundabout was designed to accommodate an articulated vehicle
only. If the non-mountable central island diameter of the existing roundabout, D (in metres),
was such that
D≥24
then it was assumed that the roundabout was designed to accommodate an articulated vehicle
and a non-articulated vehicle travelling side by side.
The following assumption was also made.

Assumption 5
For a right turn at a roundabout, the driver would approach the roundabout in the right-hand
lane. For a left turn the driver would approach the roundabout in the left lane and to travel
straight ahead the driver could use either lane.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 18 of 38

2.3 Method of analysis for the curve investigation

An algorithm for determining the amount of road widening required for a given curve was
determined in accordance with Assumption 1 and Assumption 2. The algorithm used the
results of a number of vehicle simulations that provided an equation for offtracking in terms
of the minimum radius of curvature and the vehicle's speed. The simulations were performed
on hypothetical roads designed in accordance with Austroads [1997]. Details of the curves on
which the simulations were performed may be found in Appendix D.
Now, we consider a vehicle negotiating a curve as shown in Figure 4.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 19 of 38

e2 Fn

M3
e1 Ft h2
mv2R-1

h1

mg
θ
Figure 4. Rear view of a vehicle cornering on a superelevated road.

Consider a vehicle cornering at constant speed on a road with superelevation angle θ, as

shown in Figure 4. It was assumed that an articulated vehicle would take such a curve at a
speed such that the acceleration in the h1 direction was between -0.05g and -0.2g. Note that
advisory speed signs for curves are such that the acceleration in the h1 direction is -0.2g.
Recognising that, for a curve with a greater superelevation angle, a greater speed is required
to reach an acceleration of -0.2g in the h1 direction, it is not surprising that the offtracking is
approximately independent of superelevation for this formulation of the problem. This result
is shown in Appendix E and was useful because it allowed superelevation to be ignored for
the simulations used to determine offtracking.

2.3.1 Models used to determine offtracking

Two computer programs were used to build vehicle models for simulating offtracking. They
were VPATH and Mechanical Simulation Corporation’s multibody code generating software,
AutoSim.
VPATH
VPATH is a simulation program suitable for the determination of low speed offtracking or
swept path measures. The position of a vehicle is calculated using a kinematic model of the
vehicle and is valid only for predicting low speed (less than 8 km/h) offtracking of vehicle
combinations.
TERNZ - AutoSim Models
AutoSim is an equation generator for models of mechanical systems. It generates non-linear
symbolic equations in the form of computer source code for solution in languages such as
Fortran, C, and Matlab. AutoSim was developed for building large, complicated vehicle
dynamics simulation programs at the University of Michigan’s Transport Research Institute,
(UMTRI) and is sold commercially by Mechanical Simulation Corporation.
With AutoSim, a mechanical system is described as a series of rigid bodies, joints, springs,
applied forces and moments. The description of the system is used by AutoSim to generate
the equations of motion in the chosen computer language. How well the model simulates the
actual mechanical system depends on the assumptions made in describing the system. The
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 20 of 38

ability of AutoSim to then generate accurate equations of motion has been well documented
by Sayers and Riley [1996] and Sayers [1989].
The B-train model, used to simulate B1233-44p, B1233-62f and B1233-62b, is a constant
velocity, 29 degree of freedom (DOF) model suitable for predicting the yaw and roll response
of a nine axle B-Train. The tractor sprung mass has 5 DOF, 2 translational and 3 rotational.
The first and second semi-trailers have 3 rotational DOF but no translational DOF. Two rigid
bodies each with 1 DOF are used to model each axle, one to account for vertical translation
and one for a rotation of the axle in the yaw plane due to the sprung mass rolling relative to
axle, (roll steer). The hitches are modelled as ball joints, the pitch and yaw stiffnesses are set
to zero and the roll stiffness is set high enough to provide adequate roll coupling between the
units (110 kNm – 340 kNm) [Sayers and Riley, 1996].
The vertical stiffness of the truck suspension is modelled with two springs per axle, the force
deflection characteristics of the springs are intended to capture the observed hysteretic
frictional behaviour of heavy truck suspensions. The describing equations for the spring are
those originally published by Fancher [1980]. Hydraulic dampers are modelled as linear
viscous dampers acting between the axles and sprung mass. The total roll stiffness of the
suspension derives from the vertical stiffness of the springs and any additional stiffness due to
linkages and from an anti-sway bar if fitted. The additional or auxiliary stiffness is modelled
as a torsion spring whose restoring moment is proportional to the roll of the sprung mass
relative to the axle.
The cornering force and aligning moment properties of the tyres are modelled using a table
lookup for a given slip angle and vertical load, longitudinal tyre dynamics are not included in
this model. Tyre damping rate is included as a linear viscous damper acting between the
ground and unsprung mass.
An implementation of the driver model of MacAdam [MacAdam, 1981] is used so that the
simulation can be run in closed loop mode, that is, the model can be steered to follow a
specified x-y path with minimal tracking error.
A complete listing of the model input data is given by Latto in Appendix C [Latto, 1999].

2.3.2 Model validation

AutoSim models were used to calculate offtracking for vehicles when cornering both at
highway speed and during low speed manoeuvres VPATH was used to estimate offtracking
for vehicles during slow speed cornering at intersections and roundabouts. To verify the
validity of these models, a 62 tonne, 26.5 metre long B-train was used to measure offtracking
under a range of test conditions. These measurements were then compared to the offtracking
of the vehicle simulated in AutoSim and in VPATH.
A thorough account of the model validation is given in Latto (1999] but a brief description is
given here:
The vehicle combination was a nine axle B-train which consisted of a three axle tractor unit
pulling two three axle semi-trailer units. The payload consisted of 40.4 tonnes of steel plate.
The tractor unit was a cab-over engine Kenworth with a 525 horsepower Cummins engine, an
18 speed Eaton gearbox and Rockwell drive axles fitted with Kenworth’s eight bag air
suspension. The semi-trailers were flat deck configurations. The first semi-trailer was fitted
with a three leaf steel spring load-sharing suspension. The second semi-trailer had a mono leaf
steel spring load-sharing suspension. Figure 5 is a photograph of the trial vehicle, loaded and
on the road.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 21 of 38

The trial vehicle had a GCM of 62.09 tonnes.

Figure 5. B-Train trial vehicle.

Physical Dimensions
Table 3 lists the vehicle dimensions, Overall Axle Spacing (OAS) and Overall Length (OAL).
A complete list of the vehicle dimensions and masses used in the simulations is given by
Latto [1999].

Table 3: Major vehicle dimensions.

Unit Description Distance (m)
Tractor Front overhang 0.92
YA9227 Wheelbase 4.42
Drive axle spacing 1.33
Fifth Wheel Offset 0.4
1st Semi Front overhang 1.5
H8269 Forward Length 7.6
Axle Spacing 1.33
Fifth Wheel Offset 1.38
Fifth Wheel Height 1.255
2nd Semi Front overhang 0.75
6713C Forward Length 9.26
Axle Spacing 1.26
Rear overhang 3.27
Whole unit Overall Axle Spacing 23.52
Overall Length 26.45

Test Procedure
Data from ten tests were recorded, four low speed tests and six high speed tests. The tests are
described below.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 22 of 38

Low Speed Tests

Two sites in Albany, 15 minutes north of Auckland, were used for these tests, one involving a
22 m diameter roundabout and the other a 90 degree T-intersection. For all low speed tests the
driver conducted at least one practice run on the course, with the roads being closed for the
duration of the tests.
High Speed Offtracking Tests
Paul Matthews Road in Albany
The curve used for these tests is located on Paul Matthews Road between Omega Street and
Saturn Place, curve has an approximate deflection of 65° and cross slope of 1.5°.
On Highway Curves
Offtracking data for three curves between Warkworth and Puhoi was recorded on the
southbound leg of the On Highway test. The curves in order from north to south were
advisory speed sign posted at 75 km/h, 55 km/h and 40 km/h, respectively. The instruments
used to collect data for the model validation are described in Appendix I.
Conclusions for the Low Speed Offtracking validation
Both VPATH and the TERNZ AutoSim model gave offtracking predictions that were in good
agreement with offtracking measurements made during the road trial.
VPATH over-predicted the maximum offtracking on all tests but the one conducted at the
lowest forward speed. These results are consistent with the creep speed assumption used in
VPATH and show the model’s validity for offtracking predictions when the forward speed is
less than eight kilometres per hour. The ease of use and minimum data set requirements
makes VPATH an ideal simulation model for predicting low speed offtracking behaviour.
The TERNZ AutoSim model gave very good results because it accounted for the dynamic
effects at higher speeds.
Conclusions for the High Speed Offtracking validation
The TERNZ AutoSim model gave results within the uncertainty of measurement for all the
high speed tests where the axle paths tracked by the steer axle and rear axis of the vehicle
were surveyed. On the open road curves where only a spot measurement of the maximum
offtracking was made, two of the three curves showed a difference higher than 6 %. This was
due to the fact that the actual cross slope on the curve was ignored in the simulation.
Overall both VPATH and the TERNZ AutoSim models provided offtracking predictions that
were in good agreement with measured offtracking. For details of the results of the road
trials used for model validation see Latto [1999].

2.3.3 Costs of road widening in various terrain

The costs for widening sections of road, in various environments, by certain amounts were
determined. A detailed account of how this was performed is given in Appendix B. Field
surveys were also conducted to refine the costs and verify the assumptions for road widening.
These field surveys involved the selection of 13 curves in different terrain which might
require widening. The cost of widening each of these curves was determined and used to
refine the costs for road widening in Tables 4, 5, and 6. Details of the field survey are given
in Appendix M.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 23 of 38

The costs shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6 were used to determine the cost of modifying curves on
the network of routes. Estimated costs for widening a section of road by 0.5 metres, 1 metre
and 1.5 metres for various terrain types and zoning environments are given in Tables 4, 5, and
6.

Table 4. Cost of widening road by 0.5 metres.

Terrain Conditions Widening 0.5m Widening
Curve Land Widening Taper
($/m) ($/m) ($)
Mountainous Difficult Cut 0.75 426 4,260
Fill 0.75 1,168 11,680

Average Cut 2 401 4,010

Fill 1.5 754 7,540

Hilly Average Cut 2 282 2,820

Fill 8 423 4,230

Flat Average Cut 3 161 1,610

Fill 3 250 2,500

Poor 2.75 307 3,070

Urban Average 20 534 5,340

Table 5. Cost of widening road by 1 metre.

Terrain Conditions Widening 1.0m Widening
Curve Land Widening Taper
($/m) ($/m) ($)
Mountainous Difficult Cut 1 570 11,400
Fill 1 1,607 32,140

Average Cut 3 499 9,980

Fill 2 982 19,640

Hilly Average Cut 4 337 6,740

Fill 10 512 10,240

Flat Average Cut 6 188 3,760

Fill 6 292 5,840

Poor 5.5 418 8,360

Urban Average 40 608 12,160

Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 24 of 38

Table 6. Cost of widening road by 1.5 metres.

Terrain Conditions Widening 1.5m Widening
Curve Land Widening Taper
($/m) ($/m) ($)
Mountainous Difficult Cut 1.25 741 22,230
Fill 1.25 2,056 61,680

Average Cut 3 599 17,970

Fill 2.5 1,229 36,870

Hilly Average Cut 6 399 11,970

Fill 12 610 18,300

Flat Average Cut 9 220 6,600

Fill 9 333 9,990

Poor 8.25 542 16,260

Urban Average 60 715 21,450

Note that the figures in Tables 4-6 are only estimates and are not known precisely, although
the actual best guesses are listed in these Tables. Appendix C and Appendix M explain how
the costs presented in Tables 4-6 were calculated. Note that the taper cost is a lump sum and
allows for a 1 in 20 taper at the end of each curve. That is, 10 metres of taper on each end for
0.5 metre widening, 20 metres on each end for 1 metre widening and 30 metres on each end
for 1.5 metres widening.

2.3.4 Calculating the cost of modifying a curve

To calculate the cost of modifying a section of road, information from Tables 4-6 may be used
in conjunction with the modifications that are required for each curve, as follows. To modify
an arbitrary curve, the algorithm shown in Figure 6 is used to calculate the amount of road
widening that is required for a curve of radius of curvature R, road width w and length l to
accommodate B1233-62b. This algorithm is an implementation of Assumption 1 and
Assumption 2 using the results of vehicle simulations. The simulations were performed to
determine the amount of offtracking experienced by each of the trial vehicles and the
benchmark vehicles on various curves.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 25 of 38

f1

x2 R

f2
f4

x3 x4
w if x4<0.25 then
f3 x7=0 else x7=x4

x5
x7
if x5<0 then
x6=0 else x6=x5

q
x6 min(x6, x7)

Figure 6. Algorithm to calculate the amount of road widening required, q, for a

curve of effective minimum radius of curvature R and road width w.
where
f1 : x2 = 62.8 R-1 + 2.47 (1)
f2 : x3 = 2 + 2x2 (2)
f3 : x5 = x3 - w (3)
f4 : x4 = 43.2 R-1 (4)
Note, it follows from Assumption 1 that curves with radii of curvature greater than 250 metres
could be ignored because the difference in offtracking between B1233-62b and the worst of
the benchmark vehicles was less than 0.125 metres.
The cost of widening a curve of minimum radius of curvature R, length l and road width w, to
accommodate B1233-62b, may be determined from this algorithm which uses equations
(1), (2), (3) and (4) and Tables 4-6.
The algorithm shown in Figure 6 remains the same for the other trial vehicle, B1233-62f, but
instead of using Equations (1) and (4), we used (5) and (6)
f1 : x2 = 52.2 R-1 + 2.45 (5)
f4 : x4 = 22.0 R-1 - 0.03 (6)
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 26 of 38

Inspection of the algorithm shown in Figure 6 simply reveals the underlying assumptions
Assumption 1 and Assumption 2.
We will now show how Equations (1), (4), (5) and (6) were developed from the vehicle
simulation results.
Figure 7 shows the maximum road width occupied by B1233-62b and B1233-62f when
negotiating a curve of curvature R-1. The maximum was taken over simulations performed at
the advisory speed and half the advisory speed. Straight lines fitted to these data give
equations (1) and (6).

4.6
B1233-62b
4.4 B1233-62f

4.2
road width occupied (m)

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

2.8

2.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
-1
curvature (m )

Figure 7. Maximum curvature (R-1) versus maximum road width occupied for
B1233-62b and B1233-62f.
The road width occupied by the benchmark vehicles followed a similar trend

4
A123-39p
B1232-44p
road width occupied (m)

3.5

2.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
-1
curvature (m )

Figure 8. The road width occupied by the benchmark vehicles A123-39p and
B1232-44p when negotiating curves.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 27 of 38

Note that we have defined curvature as R-1, where R is the radius of curvature of a curve. So,
a curve with R=100 metres has a curvature of 0.01 metres-1.
The difference between the maximum road width occupied by each of the trial vehicles and
the maximum of the two benchmark vehicles is shown in Figure 9.

0.7
B1233-62b
B1233-62f
0.6

0.5
difference in offtracking (m)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
-1
curvature (m )

Figure 9. Difference between the maximum road width occupied by each of the
trial vehicles and the maximum of the two benchmark vehicles.
Straight lines were fitted to the data in Figure 9 (and doubled to account for two lanes) giving
equations (4) and (6) for B1233-62b and B1233-62f, respectively.
Typical curves and wheel paths used to determine the offtracking are given in Appendix D.
Remarks
• The kinks in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 that occur at a curvature of 0.01 metres are
due to the imperfect nature of the driver model and have no physical significance.
• The lines that are fitted to the data in Figure 7 and Figure 8 are for 30<R<333. Therefore,
the lines fitted to the data in Figure 7 are not required to pass through (0,2.5) and the lines
fitted to the data in Figure 9 are not required to pass through the origin.
• Simulations were performed with fully loaded vehicles. The vehicle offtracking is a
combination of low speed effects (tracking inboard) and high-speed effects, which result
in less inboard offtracking or greater outboard offtracking. Since the high-speed effects
become more prevalent as the mass of the vehicle increases, the vehicles may offtrack
differently when unloaded.
• It was assumed, for the simulations, that a curve would be taken at a speed such that the
maximum lateral acceleration during the cornering manoeuvre was between 0.05g and
0.2g.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 28 of 38

2.4 Method of analysis for the roundabout investigation

The simulation program VPATH™1, developed by Phillip Brown, was used for the
assessment of low speed offtracking. The benchmark tractor semi-trailer (A123-39p) was
simulated negotiating the roundabout with a path typical of one that a driver might take. This
vehicle was simulated for three manoeuvres; a left turn, a right turn and a path straight
through the roundabout. The other benchmark vehicle and the two trial vehicles were also
simulated taking a path where the front axle of each of the vehicles followed the path taken by
the front axle of the benchmark tractor semi-trailer. Since the front axle of all four vehicles
followed the same path for each of the three roundabouts, the differences in the offtracking
were due only to differences in the vehicles.
The following example illustrates how the modifications to the roundabouts were calculated.
Consider the calculation of the required modifications for one of the three representative
roundabouts for one of the trial vehicles. Suppose the trial vehicle takes up an additional
width a when performing a left turn at the roundabout. Consistent with Assumption 3 and
Assumption 4, the required increase in the inscribed circle diameter of the non-mountable
kerb is 2a. Now, suppose that, for a right hand turn, the trial vehicle takes up an additional
width b which is greater than a. Using Assumption 5, the non-mountable central island
diameter should be reduced by 2(b-a) for roundabouts of any central island diameter.
The modifications that would be required, for a roundabout of arbitrary size, to accommodate
each of the two trial vehicles were estimated by interpolating between the modifications
required for the three representative roundabouts. Similarly, the corresponding cost of
modifying a roundabout of arbitrary size was estimated by interpolating between the costs for
modifying the three representative roundabouts. An example of a plot of the swept path of a
vehicle travelling around the roundabout is given in Appendix H.

2.4.1 Details of the method for determining the cost of modifying a roundabout
Consider the modification of a roundabout of arbitrary size. Consider the generalised
roundabout of Figure 10. The existing roundabout is shown with a solid line and the
modifications are shown with dashed lines. The proposed modifications are a reduction in the
size of the non-mountable part of the central island and an increase in the inscribed circle
diameter of the non-mountable kerb. Increasing the inscribed circle diameter of the non-
mountable kerb involves the removal of the part of each splitter island facing the roundabout,
moving the non-mountable curve kerb back and making the corresponding changes to the
entry curves and exit curves.

1 VPATH is a registered Trademark owned by P. R. Brown.

Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 29 of 38

Figure 10. Modification of an existing roundabout.

A relationship between the central island diameter of an arbitrary roundabout and the cost of
modifying such a roundabout to accommodate each of the trial vehicles was determined as
described later in this section.

2.4.2 Costs for the three representative roundabouts

Widening costs were calculated for three representative roundabouts. It has been assumed
that widening would be achieved by reducing the diameter of the non-mountable central
island and replacing the existing outside kerb and channel with a mountable kerb and
channel and a non-mountable kerb at the extent of the widening. The area between the
two kerbs would be finished as a concrete trafficable surface. This would allow heavy
vehicles to track over the mountable central ring and the outer widening, if required, while
directing the remainder of traffic around lanes similar to those currently marked.
It has been assumed that there would be footpaths adjacent to the outside kerbs for the
urban and industrial situation only. Because of the addition of a second kerb on the
outside of the roundabout it will be necessary to reconstruct the footpaths at a slightly
higher level over the full length of the widening. In the rural situation grass would extend
from the back of the kerb to the road reserve boundary.
Land costs have not been included as, generally, with larger roundabouts there would be
sufficient space to accommodate the 1.2 m required, within the current road reserve.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 30 of 38

The costs of widening included the following as appropriate

• Site clearance.
• Traffic control.
• Excavation.
• Kerb (remove/new).
• Concrete apron (centre).
• Road construction ( subbase, basecourse, roading (asphaltic concrete), road marking).
• Footpath (asphaltic concrete)
• Topsoil/grassing
• Traffic sign relocation
• Light pole relocation
• Fixed percentage for establishment, contingency & design fees.
A summary of costs is shown in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

Table 7. Cost of modifying the representative roundabout with 34 metre diameter central island.
Reduce Inner Radius Move Outer Kerb Total
Vehicle B1233-62f B1233-62b B1233-62f B1233-62b B1233-62f B1233-62b
Change 0.2m 0.6m 0.6m 0.95m
Urban $12,345 $16,815 $91,605 $98,315 $103,950 $114,950
Industrial $12,345 $16,815 $91,605 $98,315 $103,950 $114,950
Rural $12,345 $16,815 $79,000 $85,540 $91,345 $102,355

Table 8. Cost of modifying the representative roundabout with 21 metre diameter central island.
Reduce Inner Radius Move Outer Kerb Total
Vehicle B1233-62f B1233-62b B1233-62f B1233-62b B1233-62f B1233-62b
Change 0.8m 1.0m 0.6m 1.05m
Urban $12,375 $16,500 $48,111 $52,584 $60,486 $69,084
Industrial $12,375 $16,500 $48,111 $52,584 $60,486 $69,084
Rural $12,375 $16,500 $45,105 $48,661 $57,480 $65,161

Table 9. Cost of modifying the representative roundabout with 7.8 metre diameter central island
Reduce Inner Radius Move Outer Kerb Total
Vehicle B1233-62f B1233-62b B1233-62f B1233-62b B1233-62f B1233-62b
1.4m 1.4m 0.6m 1.2m
Urban $6,170 $6,170 $48,150 $53,270 $54,320 $59,440
Industrial $6,170 $6,170 $48,150 $53,270 $54,320 $59,440
Rural $6,170 $6,170 $41,875 $48,045 $48,045 $52,940

Figure 11 shows a plot of central island diameter versus the cost of modifying a roundabout to
accommodate either B1233-62f or B1233-62b in a rural, industrial or urban zone. Drawings
of the three representative roundabouts used to generate Figure 11 are given in Appendix G.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 31 of 38

120

100

80
cost (times $1,000)

18.8m Btrain, urban/industrial zone

60 18.8m Btrain rural
22m Btrain, urban/industrial zone
22m Btrain rural
40

20

0
10 15 20 25 30 35
central island diameter (m)

Figure 11. Estimated cost of modifying a roundabout of arbitrary central

island diameter to accommodate either of the trial vehicles.

Curves were fitted to the data shown in Figure 11 to give equations for the estimated cost C of
modifying a roundabout as a function of the central island diameter. The cost of modifying a
roundabout of diameter D to accommodate B1233-62b is given by (7) for the case where the
roundabout is in a rural zone and (8) for the case when the roundabout is in an industrial or
urban zone
C = -0.0695D2 + 4.79D + 19.8 (7)
2
C = -0.0795D + 5.44D + 21.8 (8)
The cost of modifying a roundabout of diameter D to accommodate B1233-62f is given by (9)
for the case where the roundabout is in a rural zone and (10) for the case when the roundabout
is in an industrial or urban zone.
C = -0.0669D2 + 4.45D + 17.4 (9)
2
C = -0.0777D + 5.14D + 19.0 (10)
respectively. Recall that D is central island diameter in metres and C is the cost in thousands
of dollars.
The modifications required for roundabouts of arbitrary central island diameter were found by
interpolating between the modifications that were required for the three representative
roundabouts. The modifications that were required for the three representative roundabouts
are given below and an example of a plot of the swept path of a vehicle negotiating a
roundabout is shown in Appendix H.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 32 of 38

The modifications required, for a roundabout of arbitrary central island diameter, to

accommodate each of the trial vehicles follow:
To accommodate B1233-62f, a roundabout with non-mountable central island diameter D
should be modified as follows:
For the curve kerbs, a mountable kerb should be constructed in place of the existing
kerb and a new non-mountable kerb should be built such that the inscribed circle
diameter of the non-mountable kerb is 1.2 metres greater than before.
For the central island, a mountable kerb should be constructed in place of the existing
non-mountable kerb. Also, a new non-mountable kerb should be built such that the
non-mountable central island diameter is reduced by e, where
e = -0.0914D+3.54 (11)
To accommodate B1233-62b, a roundabout with a non-mountable central island of diameter
D should be modified as follows:
For the curve kerbs, a mountable kerb should be constructed in place of the existing
kerb and a new non-mountable kerb should be built such that the inscribed circle
diameter of the non-mountable kerb is f metres greater than before, where
f = -0.0157D+2.4663 (12)
For the central island, a mountable kerb should be constructed in place of the existing
non-mountable kerb. Also, a new non-mountable kerb should be built such that the
non-mountable central island diameter is reduced by h, where
h = -0.0611D+3.2669 (13)
The changes required to the non-mountable part of the central island and the inscribed circle
of a roundabout of arbitrary size to accommodate B1233-62f and B1233-62b vehicles are
shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively.

B1233-62f
B1233-62b
increase in inscribed circle dia.

1.5

1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
D

Figure 12. Central island diameter versus required increase in inscribed circle
diameter for B1233-62f and B1233-62b.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 33 of 38

3
B1233-62f
B1233-62b
2.5

reduction in D
1.5

0.5

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
D

Figure 13. Central island diameter versus required decrease in non-mountable

central island diameter for B1233-62f and B1233-62b.

Remarks
• A result of Assumption 3 is that all roundabouts apart from those where the trial vehicles
are only permitted to travel straight ahead are assumed to require modification to
accommodate the trial vehicles.
• Intersections along the specific routes not controlled by a roundabout were not considered
in accordance with the project brief.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 34 of 38

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 The network of routes
Note that in this report RS is used as an abbreviation for route sector. A network of routes was
chosen to be considered for use by longer and heavier vehicles than are currently permitted on
roads in New Zealand. The network of routes in Table 10 was provided by Transit New
Zealand [Sleath, 1999]. The network consists of six major routes each of which consists of
sectors which are mainly sections of State Highway but also include some links to industrial
and port precincts. Route N1 includes route sectors RS1 to RS6 and route sectors RS12 to
RS16. Route N2 consists of route sectors RS7 to RS10 and RS21 to RS24. Route N3 is route
sector RS11 and Route N4 consists of sectors RS17 to RS20. Route S1 consists of route
sector RS25 and RS30 to RS35. Route S2 consists of sectors RS26 to RS29.

Table 10. Roads selected for inclusion in the network of routes for the Scenario B vehicles.

Released by Transit New Zealand

NORTH ISLAND
Route Number Route Sector Location of Route Position Route Position
Number Port/Centre Node #1 Node #2

N1 RS1 Whangarei Port-Auckland City SH15 @ RS 4 SH1/SH 16 @ RS 335

N1a RS2 Auckland Port Links SH1 @ RP 326/7.00 SH1/SH 16 @ RS 335
N1b RS3 Avondale/Rosebank Link SH1/SH 16 @ RS 335 Rosebank Precinct
N1c RS4 Southdown/Penrose Link SH1 @ RS 345 SH1/SH20 @ RS 355
N1 RS5 Auckland City-Manukau City SH1/SH 16 @ RS 335 SH1/SH20 @ RS 355
N1 RS6 Manukau City-Pokeno SH1/SH20 @ RS 355 SH1/SH2 @ RS 385
N2 RS7 Pokeno-Tauranga SH1/SH2 @ RS 385 SH2/SH29 @ RS 157
N2 RS8 Tauranga-Rotorua SH2/SH29 @ RS 157 SH5/SH30 @ RS 54
N2 RS9 Rotorua-Taupo SH5/SH30 @ RS 54 SH1/SH5 @ RS 617
N2a RS10 Tauranga-Kawerau SH2/SH29 @ RS 157 SH34 @ RS 21
N3 RS11 Piarere-Mt Maunganui SH1/SH29 @ RS 505 Mt Maunganui Precinct
N1 RS12 Pokeno-Hamilton SH1/SH2 @ RS 385 SH1/SH3 @ RS 462
N1 RS13 Hamilton-Piarere SH1/SH3 @ RS 462 SH1/SH29 @ RS 505
N1 RS14 Piarare-Taupo SH1/SH29 @ RS 505 SH1/SH5 @ RS 617
N1 RS15 Taupo-Bulls SH1/SH5 @ RS 617 SH1/SH3 @ RS 844
N1 RS16 Bulls-Wellington SH1/SH3 @ RS 844 SH1 @ RP 987/5.00
N4 RS 17 Hamilton-New Plymouth SH1/SH3 @ RS 462 SH3/SH3A @ RS 258
N4a RS 18 Port Taranaki Links SH3/3A @ RS 229 SH3/SH3A @ RS 258
N4 RS19 New Plymouth-Bulls SH3/SH3A @ RS 258 SH1/SH3 @ RS 844
N4 RS 20 Bulls-Woodville SH1/SH3 @ RS 844 SH2/SH3 @ RS 802
N2 RS21 Taupo-Napier SH1/SH5 @ RS 617 SH50 @ RS 0
N2 RS22 Napier-Woodville SH50 @ RS 0 SH2/SH3 @ RS 802
N2 RS23 Woodville-Wellington SH2/SH3 @ RS 802 SH1 @ RP 987/5.00
N2b RS24 Gracefield Link SH1 @ RP 987/5.00 Gracefield Precinct

SOUTH ISLAND
Route Number Route Sector Location of Route Position Route Position
Number Port/Centre Node #1 Node #2

S1 RS25 Picton-Blenheim SH1 @ RS 0 SH1/SH6 @ RS 28

S2 RS26 Blenheim-Nelson SH1/SH6 @ RS 28 SH6 @ RS 116
S2 RS27 Nelson-Westport SH6 @ RS 116 SH 6/SH67 @ RS 336
S2 RS28 Westport-Greymouth SH 6/SH67 @ RS 336 SH6/SH7 @ RS 430
S2a RS29 Cape Foulwind Link SH 6/SH67 @ RS 336 SH67A @ RS 9
S1 RS30 Blenheim-Christchurch SH1/SH6 @ RS 28 SH1/SH74 @ RS 332
S1a RS31 Lyttleton Port Link SH1/SH74 @ RS 332 SH1/SH73 @ RS 347
S1 RS32 Christchurch-Timaru SH1/SH74 @ RS 332 SH1/SH8 @ RS 501
S1 RS33 Timaru-Dunedin SH1/SH8 @ RS 501 SH1/SH88 @ RS 706
S1 RS34 Dunedin-Bluff SH1/SH88 @ RS 706 SH1 @ RS 953
S1b RS35 Port Chalmers Link SH1/SH88 @ RS 706 SH88 @ RS 13
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 35 of 38

Note that Table 10 specifies the network of routes only roughly. Details of the exact roads
included in the network of routes may be found in Appendix L.

3.2 Results for the curve investigation

The estimated costs for widening each part of the network of routes for the two trial vehicles,
B1233-62b and B1233-62f for the original set of assumptions are shown in Table 11. The
estimated costs for widening for Alternative assumption set 1 and Alternative assumption set
2 are shown in Table 12 and Table 13.

Table 11. Cost of modifying curves on the network of routes for B1233-62b and
B1233-62f for the original set of assumptions.
Cost for B1233-62b Cost for B1233-62f
Cost for N1= $3,500,000 $1,300,000
Cost for N2= $6,300,000 $4,000,000
Cost for N3= $300,000 $100,000
Cost for N4= $3,400,000 $1,600,000
Cost for S1= $8,100,000 $3,900,000
Cost for S2= $22,000,000 $7,900,000
total= $43,600,000 $18,800,000

Table 12. Cost of modifying curves on the network of routes for B1233-62b and
B1233-62f for Alternative assumption set 1.
Cost for B1233-62b Cost for B1233-62f
Cost for N1= $14,000,000 $3,900,000
Cost for N2= $23,100,000 $8,500,000
Cost for N3= $700,000 $300,000
Cost for N4= $18,200,000 $5,000,000
Cost for S1= $32,500,000 $8,900,000
Cost for S2= $43,500,000 $18,100,000
total= $132,000,000 $44,700,000

Table 13. Cost of modifying curves on the network of routes for B1233-62b and
B1233-62f for Alternative assumption set 2.
Cost for B1233-62b Cost for B1233-62f
Cost for N1= $38,800,000 $8,100,000
Cost for N2= $44,000,000 $12,400,000
Cost for N3= $5,100,000 $2,100,000
Cost for N4= $30,400,000 $7,000,000
Cost for S1= $46,400,000 $13,300,000
Cost for S2= $49,300,000 $19,700,000
total= $214,000,000 $62,600,000

The routes N1, N2, N3, N4, S1 and S2 are described in Table 10. Also note that RGDAS data
and RAMM data, which give detailed information about road width, curvature, terrain etc. for
roads in New Zealand were used for Tables 11, 12, and 13.
Remarks
• The costs for modifying curves on the network of routes presented in Table 11 are based
on Assumption 1 and Assumption 2.
• The removal of route S2 (State Highway 6) from the network of routes would
significantly reduce the costs.
Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 36 of 38

• Clearly, there are safety implications associated with the design of the assumptions for the
modification of curves on the network of routes. A recent Australian study suggested that
“a 1 metre increase in seal width (either as additional lane width or shoulder seal)
produced a 20 percent reduction in accident rates.” [McLean, 1996]. However, this was
an Australian study and dealt with widening of an entire section of road, not just the
curves. Milliken has made some attempt to estimate the safety implications of road
widening in [Milliken, 1999].
• The estimated costs of modifying curves on the network of routes were presented in
Tables 11, 12, and 13. The costs are sensitive to the assumptions that were used to
estimate widening because changing the widening assumptions alters the number of
curves that require modification. The number of curves that were estimated to require
modification were:
Assumption Set Vehicle Number of curves to be modified
Original B1233-62b 817
Original B1233-62f 376
Alternative 1 B1233-62b 2531
Alternative 1 B1233-62f 927
Alternative 2 B1233-62b 3784
Alternative 2 B1233-62f 1247 .

3.3 Results for the roundabout investigation

The costs for modifying the roundabouts on the network of routes are shown in Table 14 and
Table 15 for B1233-62b and B1233-62f, respectively.

Table 14. Costs for modifying roundabouts on the network of routes to accommodate B1233-62b.
cost for N1= $175,000.00
cost for N2= $259,000.00
cost for N3= $205,000.00
cost for N4= $113,000.00
cost for S1= $364,000.00
cost for S2= $168,000.00
total cost= $1,284,000.00

Table 15. Costs for modifying roundabouts on the network of routes to accommodate B1233-62f.
cost for N1= $158,000.00
cost for N2= $236,000.00
cost for N3= $188,000.00
cost for N4= $103,000.00
cost for S1= $333,000.00
cost for S2= $154,000.00
total cost= $1,173,000.00

Details of the costs for each of the roundabouts on the network of routes that required
modification are given in Appendix J. Also note that it was not necessary to modify
roundabouts where only a ‘straight through’ manoeuvre was permitted. For the safety
evaluation project, 119 other alternative vehicles were simulated. Estimates of the costs of
modifying the network of routes to accommodate each of these alternative vehicles were
made. These results and the corresponding method are presented in Appendix K. The costs
for modifying curves and roundabouts on the network of routes are separated by route sector
in Table 16.
Report 5: Geometric Evaluation. Paul Milliken, TERNZ. Page 37 of 38

Table 16. Costs of modifying the network of routes by Route Sector.

Transit New Zealand Heavy Vehicle Limits Project Page 38 of 38

4. REFERENCES
[Austroads, 1993] Austroads, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 6 - Roundabouts,
Austroads, Sydney, 1993.
[Austroads, 1997] Austroads, Rural Road Design - Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural
Roads, Austroads, Sydney, 1997.
[Fancher, 1980] P. S. Fancher et al, Measurement and representation of the mechanical
properties of truck leaf springs., SAE: Warrendale. p. 14, 1980.
[Gillespie, 1992] T. D. Gillespie, Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Warrendale, 1992.
[Latto, 1999] D. Latto, Road trial for Model Validation, TERNZ report for Transit New
Zealand, 1999.
[MacAdam, 1981] C. C. MacAdam, Application of an Optimal Preview Control for
Simulation of Closed-Loop Automobile Driving, IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, SMC - 11(6), 1981.
[McLean, 1996] McLean, Review of accidents and Rural cross section elements including
roadsides, ARR 297, November 1996.
[Milliken, 1999] P. C. Milliken, Task 4 Summary Safety Report, TERNZ report for Transit
New Zealand, 1999.
[Prem et al., 1999] Prem, H., Ramsay, E., Fletcher, C., George, R., Gleeson, B., Estimation of
Lane Width Requirements for Heavy Vehicles on Straight Paths, preliminary report produced
at AARB, 1999.
[Sayers, 1989] M. W. Sayers, Automated Formulation of Efficient Vehicle Simulation Codes
by Symbolic Computation (AUTOSIM) in The Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks,
Kingston, Ontario: Swets Zeitlinger, 1989.
[Sayers and Riley, 1996] M. W. Sayers and S. M. Riley, Modelling Assumptions for realistic
Multibody Simulations on the Yaw and Roll behaviour of Heavy Vehicles, SAE 960173, 1996.
[Sleath, 1999] L. Sleath, Email communication with Peter Baas, 30 June 1999.