final thesis correction full

Upload: sarjumulmi

Post on 03-Apr-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    1/175

    ANALYSIS OF PERMIT VEHICLES IN RHODE ISLAND

    BY

    SARJU MULMI

    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

    REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

    MASTER OF SCIENCE

    IN

    CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

    UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

    2011

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    2/175

    MASTER OF SCIENCE THESIS

    OF

    SARJU MULMI

    APPROVED:

    Thesis Committee:

    Major Professor: Prof. Mayrai Gindy

    Prof. Valerie Maier-Speredelozzi

    Prof. Martin Sadd

    Prof. George Tsiatas

    Nasser H. Zawia

    DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

    UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

    2011

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    3/175

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    4/175

    may not elect to make adjustments to the current load rating standard permit vehicle or

    their permit review process.

    The study shows that a data quality check should be set up at the onset of the

    permit application process to get error-free, valid truck information from the database.

    There is also a need to establish a set of guidelines to be followed to forward the

    permit applications of overweight trucks to RIDOT for detailed and in-depth review.

    The 3- and 4-axle permit trucks were found to be the critical trucks in terms of load

    effects on the bridges with the effect being more severe in the case of short-span

    bridges.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    5/175

    iv

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    First and foremost, I would like to extend my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Mayrai Gindy

    for her constant support and guidance during the course of my work. I would like to

    give special thanks to Prof. Dr. George Tsiatas for his help and advice during my stay

    at URI. I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Prof. Dr. Martin

    Sadd and Prof. Dr. Valerie Maier-Speredelozzi for helping review and provide

    insightful feedback on the content of this thesis. I would like to thank Rhode Island

    Department of Transportation for providing the funding for the research, especially

    Dave Morgan, Thomas Viall, Keith Gaulin and Mike Sock for providing various

    research materials and for their feedbacks. I am also thankful to faculty and staffs of

    the Department of Civil and Environmental engineering for their help and support.

    Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continued support

    throughout this research.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    6/175

    v

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... ii!

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ iv!

    TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................... v!

    LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii!

    LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... x!

    CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................. 1!

    1.1 History of Federal and State Weight Regulations................................................ 4!

    1.1.1 The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 ............................................................. 5!

    1.1.2 The Federal Aid Highway Act Amendments of 1974....................................... 6!

    1.1.3 The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982........................... 7!

    1.1.4 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991........ 8!

    1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 10!

    CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................ 13!

    2.1 Single-Trip Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Permit Database.............................. 16!

    2.1.1 Data Quality Checks........................................................................................ 16!

    2.1.2 Vehicle Size and Weight Classification .......................................................... 18!

    2.2 Characteristics of Overweight Vehicles ............................................................. 22!

    2.2.1 Number of Permit Applications....................................................................... 22!

    2.2.2 Number of Permit Re-Submittals .................................................................... 24!

    2.2.3 Time Required to Review Permits .................................................................. 26!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    7/175

    vi

    2.2.4 Requested Travel Route .................................................................................. 29!

    2.2.5 Number of Axles ............................................................................................. 30!

    2.2.6 Gross Vehicle Weight...................................................................................... 31!

    2.3 Criteria for Requiring a RIDOT Review............................................................ 34!

    2.3.1 Size Characteristics ......................................................................................... 34!

    2.3.2 Weight Characteristics..................................................................................... 38!

    2.4 Load Effects of Overweight Vehicles ................................................................ 39!

    CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................ 47!

    3.1 Vehicle Body Types ........................................................................................... 49!

    3.2 Comparison of RI Body Types with Previous Studies....................................... 59!

    CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................ 63!

    4.1 Rhode Island Standard Permit Vehicles ............................................................. 74!

    4.2 Load Effects Normalized to RI Standard Permit Trucks.................................... 81!

    4.3 Proposed New Standard Permit Vehicles........................................................... 98!

    4.4 Analysis for Additional Standard Trucks ......................................................... 106!

    CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................. 127!

    APPENDIX A: DATA QUALITY CHECK ............................................................. 132!

    APPENDIX B: WEIGHT LIMIT VIOLATIONS..................................................... 133!

    APPENDIX C: PERMIT PROCESSING TIME AND LOAD EFFECTS................ 136!

    APPENDIX D: NEW JERSEY BODY TYPE ORIGINAL.................................... 147!

    APPENDIX E: NEW JERSEY BODY TYPE REVISED...................................... 150!

    APPENDIX F: CALTRAN BODY TYPE ORIGINAL ......................................... 153!

    APPENDIX G: CALTRAN BODY TYPE REVISED........................................... 156!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    8/175

    vii

    BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................... 159!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    9/175

    viii

    LIST OF TABLES

    Table 1-1 Current Federal and State Size and Weight Regulations............................... 9!

    Table 1-2 Historical Development of Overweight Vehicles.......................................... 9!

    Table 2-1 NETC Envelope Vehicle Configurations for Non-divisible Single-Trip

    Permits (NETC, 1995) ................................................................................................. 15!

    Table 2-2 Parameter Definition for the RI OS/OW Vehicle Permit Database ............ 17!

    Table 2-3 Data Quality Checks .................................................................................... 18!

    Table 2-4 Legal Size and Weight Limits Exceeded..................................................... 20!

    Table 2-5 Vehicle size and weight classification by agency........................................ 22!

    Table 2-6 Number of Application Submittals by Agency for Overweight Vehicles... 25!

    Table 2-7 Time Required to Review Overweight Permits by Agency and Number of

    Submittals..................................................................................................................... 28!

    Table 2-8 Statistical Parameters for the Time Required to Review Overweight Permits

    by Agency .................................................................................................................... 28!

    Table 2-9 Statistical Parameters of GVW for Different Number of Axles.................. 33!

    Table 2-10 Strictly Oversize Vehicles ......................................................................... 35!

    Table 2-11 Approximate Normal Statistical Parameters of Positive Moment............. 42!

    Table 2-12 Approximate Normal Statistical Parameters of Negative Moment ........... 43!

    Table 2-13 Approximate Normal Statistical Parameters of Shear ............................... 43!

    Table 2-14 Table of Probability of Exceedance of HL93 Load Effects ...................... 45!

    Table 3-1 FHWA Vehicle Classification (Traffic Monitoring Guide, 2001) .............. 48!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    10/175

    ix

    Table 3-2 New Jersey Vehicle Body Type (International Road Dynamics Inc, 1999) 50!

    Table 3-3 Caltrans Vehicle Body Type (Lu et al., 2002)............................................. 51!

    Table 3-4 Original and Revised Body Types............................................................... 56!

    Table 3-5 Most Frequent Body Types ......................................................................... 58!

    Table 3-6 Comparison of RI Body Types with Preziosos Body Types...................... 62!

    Table 4-1 Contribution of Truck Load in HL-93 for Positive Moment (kip-ft) .......... 66!

    Table 4-2 Contribution of Truck Load in HL-93 for Negative Moment (kip-ft)......... 66!

    Table 4-3 Contribution of Truck Load in HL-93 for Shear (kips)............................... 67!

    Table 4-4 Approximate Normal Statistics of HL-93 Normalized Positive Moment ... 71!

    Table 4-5 Approximate Normal Statistics of HL-93 Normalized Negative Moment.. 72!

    Table 4-6 Approximate Normal Statistics of HL-93 Normalized Shear...................... 72!

    Table 4-7 Difference Between RI Standard Vehicles and HL-93-Positive Moment... 78!

    Table 4-8 Difference Between RI Standard Vehicles and HL-93-Negative Moment . 79!

    Table 4-9 Difference Between RI Standard Vehicles and HL-93-Shear ..................... 79!

    Table 4-10 Load Effects due to RI Standard Vehicles Positive Moment (kip-ft)..... 79!

    Table 4-11 Effects due to RI Standard Vehicles Negative Moment (kip-ft) ............ 80!

    Table 4-12 Effects due to RI Standard Vehicles Shear (kips) .................................. 80!

    Table 4-13 Distribution of Number of Axles in Overweight Permit Vehicles ............ 81!

    Table 4-14 Summary of Load Effect Ratios Normalized by RI Standard Trucks....... 98!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    11/175

    x

    LIST OF FIGURES

    Figure 1.1 Number of Overweight/Overwidth Permits Issued by States....................... 2!

    Figure 1.2 Overweight Permits Issued by States ........................................................... 3!

    Figure 2.1 RI Legal Size Limits................................................................................... 21!

    Figure 2.2 RI Legal Weight Limits .............................................................................. 21!

    Figure 2.3 Monthly Variation of Overweight Permits Approved by Each Agency..... 23!

    Figure 2.4 Number of Submittals for Each Agency..................................................... 26!

    Figure 2.5 Time Required to Review Overweight Permits by Agency ....................... 27!

    Figure 2.6 Statistical Variation of the Time Required to Review Overweight Permits

    with the Number of Permit Re-submittals ................................................................... 29!

    Figure 2.7 Requested Origin-Destination States for Overweight Permit Vehicles...... 30!

    Figure 2.8 Variation of Number of Axles for Overweight Vehicles............................ 31!

    Figure 2.9 CDF of GVW of Overweight Vehicles by Number of Axles..................... 32!

    Figure 2.10 Seasonal Variation of GVW ..................................................................... 33!

    Figure 2.11 Variation of Number of Axles for All Permit Vehicles............................ 34!

    Figure 2.12 Width of Strictly OW Vehicles ................................................................ 36!

    Figure 2.13 Height of Strictly OS Vehicles ................................................................. 37!

    Figure 2.14 Width of Strictly Overwidth Vehicles...................................................... 37!

    Figure 2.15 GVW of Strictly OW Vehicles ................................................................. 39!

    Figure 2.16 Positive Moment for Short, Medium and Long Span by Agency ............ 41!

    Figure 2.17 Negative Moment for Short, Medium and Long Span by Agency........... 41!

    Figure 2.18 Shear for Short, Medium and Long Span by Agency............................... 42!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    12/175

    xi

    Figure 2.19 Probability of Exceedance of Load Effects by Agency............................ 45!

    Figure 2.20 Average and Maximum Load Effects for All Spans by Agency.............. 46!

    Figure 3.1 Original and Revised New Jersey Body Types .......................................... 54!

    Figure 3.2 Original and Revised Caltrans Body Types ............................................... 55!

    Figure 3.3 FHWA Classification ................................................................................. 59!

    Figure 4.1 HL-93 Loadings.......................................................................................... 65!

    Figure 4.2 Positive Moment Ratio Normalized by HL-93........................................... 69!

    Figure 4.3 Negative Moment Ratio Normalized by HL-93 ......................................... 70!

    Figure 4.4 Shear Ratio Normalized by HL-93............................................................. 71!

    Figure 4.5 Statistical Parameter of Positive Moment Ratio......................................... 72!

    Figure 4.6 Statistical Parameter of Negative Moment Ratio ....................................... 73!

    Figure 4.7 Statistical Parameter of Shear Ratio ........................................................... 73!

    Figure 4.8 RI Standard Permit Vehicles ...................................................................... 76!

    Figure 4.9 Difference Between RI Standard Vehicles and HL-93-Positive Moment.. 77!

    Figure 4.10 Difference Between RI Standard Vehicles and HL-93-Negative Moment

    ...................................................................................................................................... 77!

    Figure 4.11 Difference Between RI Standard Vehicles and HL-93-Shear .................. 78!

    Figure 4.12 Load Effects of 3-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-

    BP1 (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear.......................................... 83!

    Figure 4.13 Load Effects of 4-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-

    BP2 (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear.......................................... 86!

    Figure 4.14 Load Effects of 5-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-

    OP1 (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear ......................................... 89!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    13/175

    xii

    Figure 4.15 Load Effects of 6-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-

    OP2 (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear ......................................... 92!

    Figure 4.16 Load Effects of 8-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-

    OP3 (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear ......................................... 95!

    Figure 4.17 Revised 3- and 4-axle RI Standard Permit Vehicle.................................. 99!

    Figure 4.18 Positive Moment of 3-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by

    RI-BP1R..................................................................................................................... 100!

    Figure 4.19 Negative Moment of 3-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by

    RI-BP1R..................................................................................................................... 101!

    Figure 4.20 Shear of 3-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-BP1R. 102!

    Figure 4.21 Positive Moment of 4-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by

    RI-BP2R..................................................................................................................... 103!

    Figure 4.22 Negative Moment of 4-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by

    RI-BP2R..................................................................................................................... 104!

    Figure 4.23 Shear of 4-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-BP2R. 105!

    Figure 4.24 Probability of Exceedance of 3-axle RI Standard Permit Truck ............ 105!

    Figure 4.25 Probability of Exceedance of 4-axle RI Standard Permit Truck ............ 106!

    Figure 4.26 AASHTO Legal loads for SHVs ............................................................ 107!

    Figure 4.27 RI Blanket Permit Vehicles .................................................................... 107!

    Figure 4.28 Load Effects of 4-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by SU4

    (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear................................................ 108!

    Figure 4.29 Load Effects of 5-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by SU5

    (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear................................................ 111!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    14/175

    xiii

    Figure 4.30 Load Effects of 6-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by SU6

    (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear................................................ 114!

    Figure 4.31 Load Effects of 7-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by SU7

    (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear................................................ 117!

    Figure 4.32 Load Effects of 5-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-

    BP3 (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear........................................ 120!

    Figure 4.33 Load Effects of 6-axle Overweight Permit Vehicles Normalized by RI-

    BP4 (a) Positive Moment (b) Negative Moment (c) Shear........................................ 123!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    15/175

    1

    CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

    Federal and State size and weight limit restrictions on heavy and large vehicles

    have been established in the past and continued into the present to reduce the adverse

    effect on highway bridges due to their passage. Any commercial vehicle exceeding the

    legal size and/or weight limits is required to apply for and obtain a permit prior to its

    travel. Currently, in the state of Rhode Island all permit applications are submitted

    online to RIDMV via the RI.govs online application system.

    Transport by trucks on the nations network of roads and bridges significantly

    contribute to a healthy economy. In the United States, each year nearly $5 trillion

    worth of goods are transported through the highway system via commercial trucks

    (Bergen et al., 1998). In 2002, trucks were responsible for shipping nearly 12 billion

    tons of freight representing almost 60% of all transport activities. This number is

    expected to nearly double by the year 2035. The value of freight shipped by trucks

    also represents a major portion of the total value of commodities shipped nationwide.

    In 2002, trucks shipped about $9 trillion of freight, which is estimated to increase by

    180% in the year 2035 (Freight Facts and Figures, 2007). With an increase in the

    volume and value of freight shipped by trucks also comes a trend toward heavier and

    larger truck combinations. Many past and recent studies also show that truck volume

    and weight are increasing enormously and the change is forecasted to continue (LRFD

    Bridge Design Specifications, 2004). Federal Highway Administration also indicated

    that the issuance of Overweight permit continues to increase, with annual or multiple

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    16/175

    2

    trip permits becoming more commonplace. The forecasted increment in freight

    tonnage has also been a concern of FHWA for some time (Fu et al., 2006). From 1987

    to 2002, trucks weighing between 100 kips and 130 kips increased by 238%

    (Strawhorn, 2004). Figure 1.1 shows the number of overweight/oversize vehicle

    permits issued nationally from 1997 through 2003. It clearly depicts a steady annual

    increasing trend in the number of permits issued (Fu et al., 2006). Figure 1.2 presents

    the number of divisible and non-divisible permits issued in 1985, 1990 and 1995

    respectively. It shows a significant increase in the number of permit issued over the

    span of a decade. The total number of permits issued increased by 60%, with divisible

    load permits increasing by 148% and non-divisible by 50% from 1985 through 1995

    (Truck Size and Weight Final Report). This observed growth is likely due to several

    factors including economic growth, technological advances in freight transportation

    logistics, and changing trade patterns resulting from the North American Free Trade

    Agreement.

    !Figure 1.1 Number of Overweight/Overwidth Permits Issued by States

    (Fu et al., 2006)

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    17/175

    3

    Figure 1.2 Overweight Permits Issued by States

    (Truck Size and Weight Final Report)

    With the increase in freight tonnage, highway roads and bridge safety has become

    a major concern. There are 600,000 bridges in the US under a wide variety of

    ownership and control. FHWA now estimates that more than 200,000 bridges are

    inadequate and lists 125,000 as structurally deficient on the National Bridge Inventory

    (NBI) system. There are 5,000-8,000 replacements per year so for the foreseeable

    future the inventory of bridges in the US will contain numerous structures incapable of

    carrying todays truck weight (Harding et al., 1990). The emphasis for highway

    industries in the United States has shifted to maintenance, rehabilitation and

    conservation of existing structures. Heavy truckloads not only impair the structural

    load carrying capacity of the bridge but also reduce the remaining lifespan of the

    bridge. Recent studies show that although overall performance of highway generally

    continued to increase from 2006 to 2007, the percentage of deficient bridges has

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    18/175

    4

    worsened from 24.13% to 25.29% (Hartgen et al., 2009).

    The condition of highway bridges in the state of Rhode Island is even more

    gruesome. The number of oversize/overweight (OS/OW) vehicle permits has seen a

    steady increase in Rhode Island (Gindy et al., 2007). More and more trucks are

    requesting permits to travel above the legal load limit. This coupled with an aging and

    deteriorating highway bridge infrastructure as evidenced by several high profile bridge

    postings (i.e. Pawtucket River Bridge and Sakonnet River Bridge), only worsens the

    state of RI bridges. Rhode Island has the highest number of deficient bridges ranking

    last (50

    th

    ) in that category and 47

    th

    in per mile capital and bridge disbursements and

    maintenance disbursements in the US (Hartgen et al., 2009). The added cost due to

    overweight vehicles are in the range of $8 to $144 million for several states. On

    national level, this cost amounts to $265 million to $1.11 billion (Carson, 2008). With

    many old bridges rendered inadequate or structurally deficient, shortage of funds for

    repair and maintenance and truck loads continually increasing, proper regulation of

    overweight vehicles becomes very critical in preserving the life of the bridge and thus

    keep the highway system running. In this context, the regulation of overweight

    vehicles is of major concern for highway agencies.

    1.1 History of Federal and State Weight Regulations

    The adverse effects of heavy truck traffic on the US highway and bridge network

    were highlighted as early as 1918 (Truck Size and Weight Final Report). As a result,

    legislation limiting truck size and weight has been enacted for nearly a century. The

    first federal regulation was introduced in 1956 through the Federal-Aid Highway Act

    and limited truck weights to 73,280 lbs for gross vehicle weight, 18,000 lbs for single

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    19/175

    5

    axles, and 32,000 lbs for tandem axles (Truck Size and Weight Final Report) on the

    Interstate System. These limits were increased in 1975 to 80,000 lbs for gross vehicle

    weight, 20,000 lbs for single axles, and 34,000 lbs for tandem axles as a result of the

    Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974. This legislation also required

    conformance with the Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula (Formula B), which

    limits the total load on axle groupings based on the number and spacing between

    axles.

    Prior to federal regulations in 1956, truck size and weight limits were controlled

    by individual states. As early as 1913, truck weight limits existed (i.e. Maine,

    Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington) and by 1933, all states had passed some

    form of truck size and weight regulation (Truck Size and Weight Final Report). But

    there was no Federal regulation on truck size and weight until 1956.

    1.1.1 The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956

    The first Federal truck size and weight restrictions were enacted in the Federal

    Aid Highway Act of 1956. It was based upon the recommendation of the-then

    American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO), subsequently renamed to

    American Association of State Highway and Transportation (AASHTO). The

    substantial degree of financial participation of Federal government, which was 90/10

    and 80/20 Federal/State match for Interstate and State system in 1956 respectively,

    warranted increased Federal involvement in setting the Interstate Truck size and

    weight limits. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 set the following limits on truck

    size and weight:

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    20/175

    6

    Maximum width limit of 96 inches; Single-axle weight limit of 18,000 lbs; Tandem-axle weight limit of 32,000 lbs; and GVW limit of 73,280 lbs.

    The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was also qualified by a grandfather

    clause that allowed trucks operating at loads above those set by the Federal Act given

    that they are consistent with State laws in effect on July 1, 1956.

    1.1.2 The Federal Aid Highway Act Amendments of 1974

    The Federal Aid Highway Amendments of 1974 adopted several

    recommendations from the 1964 AASHO report. The 1974 Amendments increased the

    single-axle and tandem-axle weight limits to 20,000 lbs and 34,000 lbs respectively. It

    also set the GVW to 80,000 lbs provided that they also meet the weight table given by

    the Federal Bridge Formula B. The Federal Bridge Formula B is given by (Sivakumar

    et al., 2007, Fu et al., 2006):

    W = 500L

    N!1+12N+ 36

    "#$

    %&'

    eqn 1.1

    where,

    W=allowable gross vehicle weight of any group of two or more consecutive axles

    in lbs,

    L=distance between the outer axles of any group of two or more consecutive

    axles in ft,

    N=number of axles included in the group under consideration.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    21/175

    7

    Federal law provides exceptions to the results given by Formula B; two sets of

    tandem axles can carry 34,000 lbs each if the distance between the first and last axle is

    more than 36 feet apart and a single set of tandem axles spread no more than 8 feet

    apart is limited to 34,000 lbs.

    The exemptions of grandfather clause were further expanded to include any

    State weight tables or axle spacing formulas not meeting the new bridge formula.

    However, the 1974 Act did not mandate the States to adopt the new weight limits,

    which led six barrier states in the Mississippi Valley to refuse the new GVW limit of

    80,000 lbs. The trucking companies thus faced a barrier to cross-country interstate

    commerce and the congress intervened with the Surface Transportation Assistance Act

    of 1982.

    1.1.3 The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982

    The STAA of 1982 established the maximum and minimum standards for weight

    and width and minimum standards for length on the Interstate and many Federal-aid

    highways. It made the previous single-axle, tandem-axle and GVW maximum the

    States could allow, the minimum they must allow on the Interstate highways,

    overriding the barrier states. The STAA also made the following changes regarding

    vehicle size regulations:

    States were prohibited from restricting the length of trailer unit of a twin-trailerconsisting of a tractor and two trailer units, to less than 28 ft or imposing an

    overall length limit.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    22/175

    8

    States were prohibited from restricting the size of a semi-trailer on a tractor-semi-trailer combination to 48 ft or imposing an overall length limit.

    States were required to allow 102 inch wide vehicles on Interstate and Federal-aidhighways with 12 ft lanes.

    1.1.4 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991

    The ISTEA put a freeze on the weight and length of Long Combination Vehicles

    (LCV) by only allowing LCVs that were, in actual and lawful operation under State

    law on June 1, 1991. An LCV was defined as a tractor and two or more trailers and

    semi-trailers operating on Interstate with GVW exceeding 80,000 lbs.

    The current Federal regulations regarding the truck size and weight are as follows:

    Single-axle weight limit of 20,000 lbs on the Interstate; Tandem-axle weight limit of 34,000 lbs on the Interstate; GVW limit of 80,000 lbs on the Interstate; Application of Federal Bridge Formula B for other axle groups on the Interstate; Width of 102 inches on the Interstate and Federal-aid highways; Length of 48 ft minimum for semi-trailers in a semi-trailer combination on the

    Interstate and Federal-aid highways;

    Length of 28 ft minimum for trailers in a twin-trailer combination on the Interstateand Federal-aid highways.

    The state of Rhode Island practices the Federal size and weight limits with

    modifications in order to adjust for the grandfather rights. Currently, Rhode Island

    allows up to 22,400 lbs on single-axle, 36,000 lbs on tandem-axle and 80,000 lbs on

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    23/175

    9

    GVW. On top of that, the modified Federal Bridge Formula is also applicable for other

    axle groups. The modified Bridge Formula limits the single- and tandem-axle weight

    limits to 22,400 lbs and 36,000 lbs respectively under the grandfather clause (Rhode

    Island Manual for Overweight and Oversize Vehicle Permits, 1989). If the Bridge

    Formula yields lower weight limits, then the grandfathered limits hold true. Table 1-1

    summarizes the current Federal and State truck size and weight limits. Table 1-2

    shows the development of Federal and State legislations regarding overweight

    vehicles.

    Table 1-1 Current Federal and State Size and Weight Regulations

    OS/OW Parameter Federal Rhode Island

    Single axle 20k 22.4k

    Tandem axle 34k 36k

    GVW 80k 80k

    FBF Yes Yes (modified)

    Width 8.5ft 8.5ft

    Height No limit 13.5ft

    Length No limit No limit

    Single unit No limit 40ft

    Tractor-semi-trailer No limit 48.5ft on trailer

    Twin-trailers No limit 28.5ft on trailer

    Table 1-2 Historical Development of Overweight Vehicles

    Criteria 1956 1975 Current RI (Current)

    Single Axle Wt. 18,000 20,000 20,000 22,400

    Tandem Axle Wt. 32,000 34,000 34,000 36,000

    GVW 73,280 80,000 80,000 80,000

    FBF Inactive Enacted Holds Modified!Any vehicle violating the Federal or State size and weight regulations, as the case

    may be, is required to apply and obtain a permit prior to its journey. It is very obvious

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    24/175

    10

    that the permit vehicles would constitute the largest and the heaviest trucks in the

    traffic. Hence, the highways and the bridges on it are more susceptible to damage from

    these overweight and/or oversize vehicles than other normal traffic stream. Thus

    proper regulation and management of the permit vehicles would prove to be very vital

    in maintaining a safe, reliable and cost-effective road network system.

    1.2 Objectives

    The goal of this project is to assess the capability of the current load rating

    standard permit vehicles in enveloping the effects of overweight vehicles in the State

    of Rhode Island and to recommend changes if necessary (Manual for Condition

    Evaluation and Load Rating of Highway Bridges Using Load and Resistance Factor

    Philosophy, 2001 and Sivakumar 2009). To achieve this, the research plan will collect

    representative oversize/overweight permit records from the electronic database

    currently maintained by RI.gov, develop statistical descriptors for overweight permit

    vehicles in Rhode Island, evaluate truck load effects (i.e. positive and negative

    bending moments and shear forces) for simple and two-span continuous bridges of

    varying span lengths, and identify vehicle configurations that best envelope the effects

    of these overweight permit vehicles. This study will provide a realistic assessment of

    the impact of overweight permit vehicles on highway bridges across the State. This

    information is critically important to their continued efforts of ensuring the safety of

    bridges in the State. Based on the results of this study, the Department of

    Transportation may or may not elect to make adjustments to the current load rating

    standard permit vehicle or their permit review process.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    25/175

    11

    This chapter has outlined the historical background of Federal and State

    involvement in Size and Weight regulations of oversize/overweight permit vehicles.

    Chapter two deals about the electronic database of non-divisible single trip permit

    truck applications maintained by RIDOT consisting of truck information from January

    2009 to December 2009. It discusses different types of permits, data quality check of

    the database, size and weight characteristics of the permit database, time required for

    permit reviewing and criteria for requiring a detailed RIDOT review. Size, weight and

    load effects of the permit trucks reviewed by RIDMV and RIDOT were analyzed and

    compared. Chapter three deals with developing a vehicle body type scheme for

    overweight permit trucks in RI. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classes are

    defined and unmodified body type schemes of New Jersey and California

    Transportation are employed to define vehicle body types of RI overweight permit

    vehicles. The New Jersey and California Transportation body types are then revised to

    better suit the vehicle configuration of RI permit vehicles. Chapter four presents the

    load effects of RI permit vehicles. The load effects caused by the permit trucks for

    bridges with spans ranging from 20 ft to 200 ft are calculated in terms of maximum

    positive moment, maximum 2-span continuous negative moment and maximum shear.

    The load effects are then compared with those induced by standard HL-93 truck and

    results are discussed. The load effects are then compared with those produced by 3-, 4-

    , 5-, 6- and 8-axle standard RI permit trucks and the results are compared to check

    whether the standard trucks are capable of satisfactorily enveloping the effects of the

    permit trucks. New standard truck models are developed if the current ones are found

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    26/175

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    27/175

    13

    CHAPTER 2OVERWEIGHT VEHICLE DATABASE

    Any commercial vehicle exceeding the legal size and/or weight limits is required

    to obtain a permit prior to its travel. Generally, oversize/overweight (OS/OW)

    vehicles can be classified into two categories, namely non-divisible or non-reducible

    loads and divisible or reducible loads. Divisible loads are those consisting of a

    product, material or equipment that can be reduced in weight and dimension as to

    comply with all statutory limits. These include ready-mix concrete, gravel, or

    petroleum products. Divisible load permits are issued by the State based upon historic

    grandfather rights for overweight and not oversize vehicles. These routine

    permits allow unlimited intrastate travel over a years period.

    Non-divisible loads, on the other hand, are those that exceed regulated weight or

    dimension limits which, if separated into smaller loads or vehicles, would compromise

    the intended use of the vehicle, destroy the value of the load or vehicle, or require

    more than 8 work hours to dismantle using appropriate equipment. Examples of non-

    divisible loads are large transformers, houses, and pieces of construction equipment.

    Non-divisible load permits can be issued for loads not meeting axle, gross, or Federal

    Bridge Formula requirements only when warranted by sound engineering judgment

    and review of bridge structures, clearances, and road safety (Sivakumar, 2009).

    In Rhode Island, three different non-divisible permits can be issued:

    a. Single-trip permit issued for travel along the designated route only once withinthe five days the permit is valid. The fee for a single-trip permit is $24.50.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    28/175

    14

    b. Blanket permit issued for unlimited intrastate travel. These permits can beissued to trailers carrying boats and certain types of construction equipment that

    have an overall length less than 75 and a width less than 11-11 for a 3-6 month

    period (fee of $311.50) or to cranes that do not exceed 12 in width, 136 in

    height, 95 in length and 130,000 lbs in GVW (Sivakumar, 2009) for period of one

    year (fee of $100.00).

    c. Consortium permit issued for interstate travel of non-divisible loads through anyof the five participating consortium states (Maine, Massachusetts, New

    Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) along a pre-approved regional roadway

    network provided the vehicles size and weight are within the specified limits

    shown in Table 2-1. Operators of vehicles exceeding any of the limitations of the

    envelope vehicle must obtain separate permits from each state in which travel will

    occur. This agreement resulted from the 1987 New England Transportation

    Consortium (NETC) Common Truck Permit Program (NETC, 1995). This

    program allows a transporter to file only one application for interstate travel rather

    than each individual state. The permit-issuing state is the destination state if it is

    one of the five Consortium members or the entry state otherwise.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    29/175

    15

    Table 2-1 NETC Envelope Vehicle Configurations for Non-divisible Single-Trip

    Permits (NETC, 1995)

    Size &

    Weight

    Limits

    Width

    140Except for modular ormobile homes for which anadditional 6 overhang foreave(s) will be allowed.The greater overhang shallbe on the right-handshoulder side of thehighway.

    Height 136

    Length 900

    AxleSpacing

    Grossvehicleweight

    ! 5-axles! 6-axles

    108,000 lbs120,000 lbs

    Weight Tridem Axle 20,000 lbs/axle (60 kip total)

    In Rhode Island, OS/OW vehicle permits are administered by the Rhode Island

    Department of Motor Vehicles (RIDMV). This includes reviewing applications,

    collecting fees, and issuing permits. RIDMV reviews all divisible load permits while

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    30/175

    16

    single-trip non-divisible permits are reviewed by RIDMV and the Rhode Island

    Department of Transportation (RIDOT). This Chapter presents the analysis of the

    latter, with special focus on overweight non-divisible single-trip permits.

    2.1 Single-Trip Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Permit Database

    A database of approved non-divisible single-trip OS/OW vehicle permits was

    obtained from the Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicles (RIDMV) via the

    RI.gov online permit application system (www.ri.gov/DMV/OSOW). The database

    contains 9,404 records from January 2009 through December 2009 and includes

    information on the applicant (i.e. company name), travel route (i.e. origin-destination,

    specific route), vehicle configuration (i.e. dimensions of width, length, and height and

    axle configuration including number of axles, individual axle weights and spacing, and

    gross vehicle weight), and the permit review (i.e. reviewing agency, number of

    submittals, and time required for review). Table 2-2 presents the details of the

    database.

    2.1.1 Data Quality Checks

    A data quality check was performed to identify errors in the data, primarily due to

    input errors by the applicant. Data quality criteria were primarily of two categories,

    weight and length, and included checks on the gross vehicle weight, overall truck

    length, and number of axles. Table 2-3 shows the sequence of checks used along with

    the number and percent of trucks that did not meet each particular criterion.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    31/175

    17

    Table 2-2 Parameter Definition for the RI OS/OW Vehicle Permit Database

    Column Field Description

    1 ID 6-digit permit application identification number

    2 Company Name Name of the trucking company

    3 Route Specific trip route requested

    4 Initials Email address of the permit reviewer

    5-10Year, Month, Day,

    Hour, Minute, SecondIn

    Date and time permit application is submitted byapplicant

    11-16Year, Month, Day,

    Hour, Minute, SecondOut

    Date and time permit review application iscomplete

    17 Agency RI agency reviewing permit (1=DMV, 2=DOT)

    18 Origin Originating state of travel (1=RI, 2=CT, 3=MA)

    19 Destination Destination state of travel (1=RI, 2=CT, 3=MA)

    20 SubmittalNumber of times the same permit was submittedfor review

    21 Height Height of vehicle (inches)

    22 GVW Gross vehicle weight (lbs)

    23 Width Width of vehicle (inches)

    24 Length Length of vehicle (inches)

    25 NAX Number of axles

    26 AXW1 Weight of axle 1 (lbs)

    27 AXS1 Spacing between axles 1 and 2 (inches)28 AXW2 Weight of axle 2 (lbs)

    29 AXS2 Spacing between axles 2 and 3 (inches)

    ... ... ...

    63 AXS19 Spacing between axles 19 and 20 (inches)

    64 AXW20 Weight of axle 20 (lbs)

    It was found that nearly 40% of the records did not meet one of the three data

    quality check criteria. The primary error identified was that the number of axle weight

    entries did not match the number of axles specified by the applicant. That is, most

    applicants either omitted some axle weight entries or entered an incorrect value for the

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    32/175

    18

    number of axle field. This check identified 34% of the records as erroneous. An

    additional 3% had individual axle weight entries that did not sum to the gross vehicle

    weight specified while an additional 1% had individual axle spacing that summed to a

    value greater than the overall specified truck length. In total, only 5,850 records were

    used in this study. This large loss of data could have been avoided if these simple

    checks were incorporated at the onset of data entry prompting the applicant to reenter

    the vehicle information if any of the checks are violated.

    Table 2-3 Data Quality Checks

    No. CriteriaNo. of VehiclesNot Meeting

    Criteria

    Percent ofVehicles Not

    Meeting Criteria

    1Number of axle weight entries equalsthe number of axles specified

    3,205 (90.2%) 34%

    2GVW equals the sum of individualaxle weights

    299 (8.4%) 3%

    3Overall truck length greater than orequal to the sum of individual axlespacing

    50 (1.4%) 1%

    TOTAL 3,554 (100%) 38%

    2.1.2 Vehicle Size and Weight Classification

    There are four basic weight limits; single-axle, tandem-axle, gross vehicle weight,

    and Federal Bridge Formula B (Formula B). In Rhode Island, the limits are 22.4 kips

    for single axles, 36 kips for tandem axles, 80 kips for gross vehicle weight (GVW),

    and adherence to a modified form of Formula B for all highways. The modified

    Formula B is given by the same expression as the Federal Bridge Formula B in

    equation 1.1 but with adjustments to allow for higher single-axle and tandem-axle

    weight limits from 20 and 34 kips to 22.4 and 36 kips, respectively.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    33/175

    19

    Regarding size limits in Rhode Island, vehicles with a width greater than 8.5 ft or

    a height greater than 13.5 ft are classified as oversized. There is no one overall

    bumper-to-bumper length restriction but there are different restrictions depending on

    the type of vehicle. The maximum length of a single unit truck is limited to 40 ft, the

    length of the trailer on a tractor-semi-trailer combination is limited to 53 ft with those

    greater than 486 permitted only on designated routes and the length of trailers on

    twin-trailers are limited to 28.5 ft (The State of Rhode Island General Laws; Rhode

    Island Manual for Overweight and Oversize Vehicle Permits, 1989). Since the dataset

    used in this study did not include specifics about the body type of the vehicle, an

    analysis of length could not be performed.

    Table 2-4 shows the size and weight limits most often exceeded. It is important to

    note that a vehicle may exceed one or more limits and therefore the total number of

    limits exceeded does not sum to the total number of vehicles. With regards to vehicle

    size, the analysis indicates that non-divisible single-trip permit vehicles most often

    exceed the width limit (86%) while only 4% exceed the height limit.

    With regard to weight, nearly half of vehicles exceeded the Formula B (53%),

    GVW (47%), and tandem-axle (45%) limits while a third exceeded the single-axle

    limit (33%). Upon a thorough look in to the database, it is found that a negligible

    number of trucks only exceed axle limits exceeding any other weight limits. In other

    words, a truck that exceeds the single- or tandem-axle limit most likely also exceeds

    the GVW and/or Formula B. This is useful because it reduces the number of weight

    limit checks by half and identifies the two primary limits as GVW and adherence to

    Formula B. Table 2.4 also indicates that there is no significant difference between the

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    34/175

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    35/175

    21

    stated. However, an attempt is made in this study to infer these guidelines solely from

    analyzing the data in latter sections.

    Figure 2.1 RI Legal Size Limits

    Figure 2.2 RI Legal Weight Limits

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    36/175

    22

    Table 2-5 Vehicle size and weight classification by agency

    Size and Weight Characteristic Total RIDMV RIDOT

    Strictly Oversize (OS) 2,778 (47.5%) 2,627 (44.9%) 151 (2.6%)

    Oversize & Overweight

    (OS&OW)2,611 (44.6%) 2,294 (39.2%) 317 (5.4%)

    Strictly Overweight (OW) 461 (7.9%) 444 (7.6%) 17 (0.3%)

    TOTAL5,850

    (100%)

    5,365

    (91.7%)

    485

    (8.3%)

    2.2 Characteristics of Overweight Vehicles

    Overweight permit vehicles are analyzed to characterize the number of

    applications approved, number of application re-submittals, origin-destination states,

    number of axles, and GVW. Seasonal variations are also examined.

    2.2.1 Number of Permit Applications

    The characteristics of overweight vehicles are examined with the information on

    3,072 valid single-trip non-divisible OW permit trucks. The database contains OW

    permit vehicles with number of axles ranging from 2 to 13. There is one special 20-

    axle super-load truck, with a GVW of 622,000 lbs. The permit application was

    submitted in the month of August 2009 and was issued in September 2009 and it took

    nearly 30 days for RIDOT to review it. The superload vehicle traveled from Rhode

    Island to Connecticut. The vehicle was overheight, overwidth and overlength as well.

    Since this type of truck is a one-off case, results of this truck are omitted in this study.

    Vehicles with number of axles 2 and 9 or above are too few to be of any statistical

    significance and hence are not considered in this study while dealing with vehicles of

    specific number of axle configuration.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    37/175

    23

    Figure 2.3 shows the monthly variation of the number of overweight permit

    applications approved by each agency. On average, 260 overweight permit

    applications are approved each month with 230 approved by RIDMV and 30 approved

    by RIDOT. It should be noted that only valid data records (i.e. those that passed the

    data quality checks) were used in the analysis. The total number of approved permit

    vehicles may in fact be much larger since RIDMV and RIDOT personnel would have

    most likely corresponded with the motor carrier to attain valid vehicle information.

    Additionally, the months of May, June and October had nearly 88% of the records

    removed due to data input errors as identified by the data quality checks. Each month

    only contained about 30 valid overweight applications.

    Figure 2.3 Monthly Variation of Overweight Permits Approved by Each

    Agency

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    38/175

    24

    2.2.2 Number of Permit Re-Submittals

    There are a number of reasons why a permit application is rejected but the most

    common reason is that the requested route cannot accommodate the vehicle

    configuration due to a width, height or a bridge capacity restriction. Whatever the

    reason, the applicant often resubmits the application. Table 2-6 and Figure 2.4 show

    the number of submittals for overweight vehicles by agency. It can be seen that if a

    permit is approved, 94% of the time it is approved the first time it is submitted.

    However, there are cases where a single application was reviewed five times before it

    was approved.

    Table 2-6 also shows that RIDOT had a higher rejection rate than RIDMV. That

    is, 24% of applications reviewed by RIDOT required at least a second submission

    versus only 4% of RIDMV reviews. This is most likely due to the complexity of the

    reviews that RIDOT performs in comparison with RIDMV. RIDOT performs an

    engineering analysis for each bridge along the requested route using the specific

    vehicle configuration, which is more likely to result in cases where the route cannot

    accommodate the load.

    Since the database only contained information on approved permits, the total

    number of applications reviewed by each agency is not available. However, this can

    be estimated from the number of approved permits and the number of submittals. For

    example, RIDMV approved 2,638 overweight permits the first time the application

    was submitted, 79 applications on the second submittal, 15 applications on the third

    submittal, and 6 applications on the fourth (or more) submittals. Assuming all

    applications requiring at least four reviews were approved on the fourth submittal, the

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    39/175

    25

    total number of overweight permits reviewed by RIDMV can be estimated to be 2,638

    (85.9%) "1+79 (2.6%) "2+15 (0.5%) "3+6 (0.2%) "4=2,865.

    Similarly, RIDOT is estimated to have reviewed 254 (8%)"1+60 (2%)"2+17

    (0.6%) "3+3 (0.1%) "4=437 overweight permits. These numbers do not include those

    applications that were rejected but never resubmitted or the applications that were

    filtered out by the data quality checks. For the latter, RIDMV and RIDOT personnel

    had to spend additional time figuring out the correct data entries or communicating

    with the applicant.

    To account for invalid records, similar re-submittal percentages were assumed for

    the data filtered out by the data quality checks. That is, 52.5% (1,866) of the 3,554

    records rejected are overweight, 89% (1,633) of which are reviewed by RIDMV and

    11% (203) are reviewed by RIDOT. With similar percentages for the number of

    submittals required, this would result in 1,551 and 29 overweight applications

    reviewed by RIDMV and RIDOT respectively. This results in an estimate for the total

    number of overweight applications reviewed by RIDMV and RIDOT each week as

    (2,865+1551)/52=85 and (437+29)/52=9, respectively.

    Table 2-6 Number of Application Submittals by Agency for Overweight Vehicles

    No. of SubmittalsAgency

    1 2 3 !4

    Number of

    OS&OW and OW

    Vehicles

    RIDMV2,638

    (85.9%)

    79

    (2.6%)

    15

    (0.5%)

    6

    (0.2%)

    2,738

    (89%)RIDOT

    254(8.3%)

    60(2.0%)

    17(0.6%)

    3(0.1%)

    334(11%)

    TOTAL4,808

    (94.1%)

    219

    (4.5%)

    51

    (1.0%)

    13

    (0.3%)

    3,072

    (100%)

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    40/175

    26

    Figure 2.4 Number of Submittals for Each Agency

    2.2.3 Time Required to Review Permits

    The time required to review overweight vehicles is of interest, particularly for

    RIDOT engineers, because it is an indication of their added responsibilities as well as

    of the efficiency of the permit review process. The dataset includes fields for the date

    and time, to the second, of when the application was submitted and the review was

    completed. Figure 2.5 shows the number of days it took each agency to review

    overweight permit applications. Generally, it takes RIDMV less than one day to

    review 96% of its permit applications and five days to review all applications. The

    latter is most likely due to a situation where a permit is submitted on a Friday and

    accepted on Tuesday after a 3-day holiday weekend. RIDOT, on the other hand,

    reviews about 60% of the applications in less than one day and generally requires

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    41/175

    27

    about 6 days to review 96% and two weeks to review all overweight permits. This is

    reasonable given the laborious nature of the engineering review process and that no

    full-time engineer is dedicated to permit review.

    Figure 2.5 Time Required to Review Overweight Permits by Agency

    Table 2-7 shows the number of days it took to review each permit by the number

    of submittals. It was expected that an application that had been submitted several

    times (i.e. have a high number of submittals) would be familiar to the reviewer and

    would therefore require less time to review. However, as shown in Figure 2.6, there

    was no real savings of time in reviewing the same permit more than twice, particularly

    for RIDOT. The average time required for reviewing was found to actually increase

    with the number of submittals for both agencies.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    42/175

    28

    Table 2-8 shows the statistical parameters for the time required to review

    overweight permits by agency. On average, it takes RIDMV about 4 hours to review

    first submittals compared with 30 hours for RIDOT.

    Table 2-7 Time Required to Review Overweight Permits by Agency and Number

    of Submittals

    Number of overweight permits reviewed

    RIDMV RIDOT

    No. of Submittals No. of SubmittalsDays

    1 2 3 !4 Total 1 2 3 !4 Total

    1 2581 67 13 2 2663 181 12 3 0 196

    2 3 2 1 1 7 24 18 3 0 45

    3 49 2 1 2 54 11 11 2 0 24

    4 5 6 0 0 11 19 10 5 0 34

    5 0 2 0 1 3 6 4 1 1 12

    6 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5

    7 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 1 11

    !8 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 7

    Total 2638 79 15 6 2738 254 60 17 3 334

    Table 2-8 Statistical Parameters for the Time Required to Review Overweight

    Permits by Agency

    RIDMV RIDOT

    No. of Submittals No. of Submittals

    Statistical

    Parameters

    (hours 1 2 3 !4 1 2 3 !4

    Mean () 4 20 17 44 29 57 78 158

    Std. Dev (!) 10 28 18 40 38 55 59 66

    CoV (%) 295 145 102 91 132 96 75 42

    Minimum 0.0 0.4 0.5 1 0.1 3 2 92

    Maximum 92 115 71 98 265 334 215 264

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    43/175

    29

    Figure 2.6 Statistical Variation of the Time Required to Review Overweight

    Permits with the Number of Permit Re-submittals

    2.2.4 Requested Travel Route

    The requested origin-destination states for overweight vehicles are presented in

    Figure 2.7. For interstate travel, no distinction is made between the origin or

    destination state. That is, travel from CT to RI is grouped with travel from RI to CT.

    Results indicate that 93% of non-divisible single-trip permits were requested for

    interstate travel while only 7% was for intrastate travel (RI-RI). Furthermore, 10% of

    overweight vehicles used RI as a throughway to neighboring states (CT-MA) while

    83% of vehicles originated or ended in RI.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    44/175

    30

    Figure 2.7 Requested Origin-Destination States for Overweight Permit Vehicles

    2.2.5 Number of Axles

    The number of axles of overweight permit vehicles ranged from 2 to 13 axles with

    very few 2-axle and 9- or more axles. There was one permit approved for the travel of

    a 20-axle, 622-kip superload from RI to CT that took nearly 30 days to review. Since

    this type of truck is a special case, it was omitted from the analysis.

    Figure 2.8 presents the distribution of the number of axles of the overweight

    permit vehicles. Results indicate that nearly half of the population is 5-axle trucks

    (53%) followed by 6- (24%), 7- (9%), 4- (8%) and 8-axle (3%) vehicles respectively.

    This result is also seen in Chapter 3 where vehicle body type is examined. It is found

    that the most common truck body type is that of a FHWA Class 9, 5-axle tractor-

    trailer followed by a Class 10, 6-axle truck.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    45/175

    31

    Figure 2.8 Variation of Number of Axles for Overweight Vehicles

    2.2.6 Gross Vehicle Weight

    The Cumulative Distribution Frequency (CDF) of the GVW is plotted in Figure

    2.9 on normal probability paper (NPP) for 3 to 8-axle overweight vehicles. In this, the

    vertical axis represents the inverse of the standard normal distribution function and is

    given by z =!"1[F(x)] , where F(x) is the cumulative distribution of random variable,

    X (i.e. gross vehicle weight). Thus, the value of x corresponding to z = 0

    corresponds to the mean value of X , while values corresponding to z = 1, z = 2 and

    z = 3 represent the 84th, 98th, and 99.8th percentile respectively. The statistical

    parameters are summarized in Table 2-9.

    In general, average and maximum GVW increase with an increasing number of

    axles as expected. The average GVW for 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8-axles are found to be

    69, 71, 94, 106, 124, and 139 kips, respectively with a 20% Coefficient of Variance

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    46/175

    32

    (CoV). The maximum vehicles weights were 93, 130, 132, 146, 155 and 172 kips,

    respectively. It is interesting to note that there was only a 2-kip difference between

    the maximum GVW on a 4-axle truck when compared with a 5-axle truck. This can

    have serious implications on highway bridges if more 4-axle vehicles are loaded to

    such levels since they often have a short wheelbase and tend to concentrate the axle

    loads.

    Figure 2.9 CDF of GVW of Overweight Vehicles by Number of Axles

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    47/175

    33

    Figure 2.10 Seasonal Variation of GVW

    Table 2-9 Statistical Parameters of GVW for Different Number of Axles

    Description 3-axle 4-axle 5-axle 6-axle 7-axle 8-axle

    Mean () 69 71 94 106 124 139

    Std. Dev. (!) 14 20 17 19 22 24CoV 20% 27% 18% 18% 18% 18%

    Minimum 45 41 40 49 55 60

    Maximum 93 130 132 146 155 172

    Figure 2.10 shows the variation of the GVW over the entire year of 2009. The

    monthly variation of the mean, maximum and 95% percentile, denoted by W95, are

    presented. No real trend can be identified with regards to gross vehicle weight.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    48/175

    34

    2.3 Criteria for Requiring a RIDOT Review

    As mentioned earlier, the criteria used by the RIDMV for requiring a RIDOT

    engineering review for non-divisible single-trip permits are not explicitly known. In

    this study an attempt is made to infer these criteria solely based on the size and weight

    characteristics of the permit vehicles reviewed by each agency.

    2.3.1 Size Characteristics

    Three size parameters are considered, namely the number of axles, vehicle width,

    and vehicle height.

    Figure 2.11 Variation of Number of Axles for All Permit Vehicles

    As far as the number of axles is concerned, almost all of the permit vehicles with 6- or

    less axles are found to be reviewed by RIDMV (97%) as shown in Figure 2.11. For

    permit vehicles with 7- or more axles, although RIDOT reviewed most of the permit

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    49/175

    35

    vehicles (68%), RIDMV was still found to review a significant portion of permit

    vehicles with 7- or more axles. Therefore, there is no apparent criterion found with

    respect to number of axles.

    With regards to vehicle width and height, only strictly oversize vehicles (OS)

    were examined. This was necessary to isolate the threshold used by the RIDMV. This

    data subset included 2,778 vehicles (95% reviewed by RIDMV and 5% reviewed by

    RIDOT) of which 2,339 exceeded both the legal width and height limits, 114 only

    exceeded the legal width limit (overwidth), and 19 only exceeded the height limit

    (overheight). This accounted for about 89% of the OS data subset. The remaining

    11% of OS vehicles most likely exceed the legal length limit. Table 2-10 presents the

    breakdown of these numbers by agency.

    Table 2-10 Strictly Oversize Vehicles

    Strictly Oversize RIDMV RIDOT Total

    Strictly Overwidth 2,313(83%)

    26(1%)

    2,339(84%)

    Overwidth and Overheight 10(0.4%)

    104(4%)

    114(4%)

    Strictly Overheight 2(0.1%)

    17(1%)

    19(1%)

    Sub-Total 2,325(84%)

    147

    (5%)

    2,472

    (89%)

    Total 2,627(95%)

    151

    (5%)

    2,778

    (100%)

    Figures 2.12 and 2.13 present the CDF plots for the width and height of strictly

    oversize (OS) vehicles, respectively, by agency along with the legal limits. Regarding

    width, both RIDMV and RIDOT reviewed vehicles of widths ranging from the 102

    limit (8-6) to 192 (16) while only RIDOT reviewed vehicles having widths greater

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    50/175

    36

    than 192 (16). If only the overwidth vehicles are considered, as shown in Figure

    2.14, similar trends to those of strictly oversize vehicles were found.

    With regard to vehicle height, nearly all overheight vehicles were reviewed by

    RIDOT with only 2 out of the 19 vehicles reviewed by RIDMV. From conversations

    with RIDOT Bridge engineers, these incidents were probably errors on the part of the

    RIDMV personnel, which were later manually forwarded to RIDOT engineers for

    review, which was not reflected in the dataset. Figure 2.13 shows the CDF of the

    vehicle height for strictly oversize vehicles. A clear cut-off point is evident at the

    legal height limit that separates both agencies.

    Figure 2.12 Width of Strictly OW Vehicles

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    51/175

    37

    Figure 2.13 Height of Strictly OS Vehicles

    Figure 2.14 Width of Strictly Overwidth Vehicles

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    52/175

    38

    2.3.2 Weight Characteristics

    A similar approach is taken to identify weight-related guidelines for warranting a

    RIDOT review. In general, RIDMV personnel can base their decision for requiring a

    RIDOT review on three vehicle weights directly available to them, namely single-axle,

    tandem-axle, and GVW. However, since it was found that most vehicles that

    exceeded an axle limit also exceeded a GVW and/or a Formula B limit, only GVW is

    considered herein.

    Figure 2.15 presents the CDF of the GVW for strictly overweight (OW) vehicles

    for each agency. It can be seen that, in general, RIDMV reviews permits for loads up

    to 130 kips while anything greater is solely reviewed by RIDOT. There was only one

    case where an 80-kip load was reviewed by RIDOT, which could have been forwarded

    in error. It is interesting to note that the RIDMV solely reviews all blanket permits for

    cranes up to 130 kips. This may explain part of their rational for internally handling

    single-trip non-divisible loads up to 130 kips as well.!

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    53/175

    39

    Figure 2.15 GVW of Strictly OW Vehicles

    2.4 Load Effects of Overweight Vehicles

    Although the total load is an important factor in bridge analysis, the individual

    axle weights and the distribution of axles along the vehicle wheelbase are also

    critically important. This is particularly true for short-span bridges where the vehicle

    wheelbase may exceed the total length of the bridge. In such cases, not all axle groups

    are simultaneously on the bridge and the individual axle groups become more

    important than the total load. One way of accounting for the widely varying axle

    configurations of each permit vehicle, is to use the load effect (i.e. bending moment or

    shear force) imposed on the bridge by each vehicle.

    For each of the 5,850 permit vehicles, positive and negative bending moments

    "#and "$ and shear forces % are calculated for a wide range of span lengths ranging

    from 20 ft to 200 ft at 20-ft intervals. Both simply-supported and continuous bridges

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    54/175

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    55/175

    41

    Figure 2.16 Positive Moment for Short, Medium and Long Span by Agency

    Figure 2.17 Negative Moment for Short, Medium and Long Span by Agency

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    56/175

    42

    Figure 2.18 Shear for Short, Medium and Long Span by Agency

    Table 2-11 Approximate Normal Statistical Parameters of Positive Moment

    20 ft 120 ft 200 ftM+

    TRUCK/ M+

    HL-93

    Statistical

    Parameter DMV DOT DMV DOT DMV DOTMean () 0.85 0.92 0.69 0.80 0.65 0.77

    Std. Dev. (!) 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.17

    CoV 15% 16% 15% 20% 14% 22%

    Minimum 0.39 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.30 0.27

    Maximum 1.61 1.29 1.46 1.21 1.37 1.18

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    57/175

    43

    Table 2-12 Approximate Normal Statistical Parameters of Negative Moment

    20 ft 120 ft 200 ftM+

    TRUCK/ M+

    HL-93

    Statistical

    ParameterDMV DOT DMV DOT DMV DOT

    Mean () 0.81 0.88 0.43 0.52 0.39 0.47Std. Dev. (!) 0.17 0.16 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.11

    CoV 21% 19% 14% 23% 15% 23%

    Minimum 0.35 0.17 0.32 0.16 0.20 0.15

    Maximum 1.65 0.97 1.61 0.91 1.17 0.86

    Table 2-13 Approximate Normal Statistical Parameters of Shear

    20 ft 120 ft 200 ftM+

    TRUCK/ M+

    HL-93

    StatisticalParameter

    DMV DOT DMV DOT DMV DOT

    Mean () 0.88 0.93 0.79 0.93 0.70 0.83

    Std. Dev. (!) 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.19 0.10 0.18

    CoV 16% 16% 14% 21% 15% 22%

    Minimum 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.30 0.32 0.29

    Maximum 1.5 1.33 1.12 1.22 1.021 1.22

    Figure 2.19 presents the percent of load effects above a ratio of 1.0 for different

    bridge spans by agency. The load effects induced by trucks reviewed by RIDMV are

    shown by solid lines whereas those by RIDOT are shown by dashed lines. Positive

    bending moment, negative bending moment and shear are represented by square,

    circle and triangle symbols respectively. Table 2-14 summarizes the probability of

    exceedances of load effects for various spans shown in Figure 2.19. Again, in general

    the probability of exceedances of trucks reviewed by RIDOT is greater than those of

    RIDMV reviewed trucks. The margin by which the former is higher than latter ranges

    from -0.3% (i.e., probability of exceedance of RIDMV reviewed trucks is greater than

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    58/175

    44

    that of RIDOT) to 34.3%. For spans less than 80 feet, the probability of exceedance of

    RIDMV and RIDOT reviewed trucks are found to be quite similar.

    Thus it can be inferred that there is a strong possibility that RIDMV is reviewing

    permit applications of trucks, which induce load effects greater than those being

    reviewed by RIDOT. Conversely, RIDOT is also getting permit applications of trucks

    forwarded from RIDMV with load effects which are seemingly less than those being

    reviewed by RIDMV. However it must also be noted that the vehicles with smaller

    load effects might have been forwarded to RIDOT to check for its size restrictions

    rather than its weight restrictions, as it is not clear from the database itself as to the

    reason for any permit being forwarded to RIDOT from RIDMV. This could be very

    crucial since it has been already mentioned that most of the trucks in the database are

    found to violate both the size and weight restrictions. Under any circumstances, it

    should also be noted that there is clearly a need to delineate a criteria that separates

    permit applications reviewed by RIDMV and RIDOT.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    59/175

    45

    Figure 2.19 Probability of Exceedance of Load Effects by Agency

    Table 2-14 Table of Probability of Exceedance of HL93 Load Effects

    Positive Moment, % Negative Moment, % Shear, %Span

    RIDMV RIDOT RIDMV RIDOT RIDMV RIDOT

    20 ft 7.6 31.8 6.2 5.1 8.7 45.340 ft 7.2 49.1 74.8 77.0 5.1 9.4

    60 ft 3.4 3.6 - 21.0 5.0 9.2

    80 ft 2.3 1.5 - - 3.7 30.9

    100 ft 1.9 1.7 - - 3.0 38.5

    120 ft 1.5 2.3 - - 1.8 33.8

    140 ft 0.9 2.4 - - 1.0 30.1

    160 ft 0.6 2.6 - - 0.7 25.1

    180 ft - 2.3 - - 0.1 15.4

    200 ft - 1.6 - - 0.1 6.1

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    60/175

    46

    Figure 2.20 Average and Maximum Load Effects for All Spans by Agency

    Figure 2.20 shows a plot of average and maximum normalized "#&!"$, and % for

    all spans by agency. Solid symbols with solid represent RIDMV while hollow

    symbols with dashed lines represent RIDOT. Again, it can be seen that although the

    average load effects of RIDOT approved vehicles are higher than those of RIDMV

    approved vehicles, the range is almost the same and for shorter spans, the maximum

    load effects of RIDMV approved vehicles are higher than RIDOT approved ones.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    61/175

    47

    CHAPTER 3VEHICLE BODY TYPES

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifies vehicles using a 13-

    category scheme depending on the use (i.e. passenger or commodity), number of axles

    and number of power and trailer units as shown in Table 3-1. This algorithm, referred

    to as Scheme F, was developed in the mid-1980s by the Maine DOT (Wyman et al.,

    1985). All states currently use this classification scheme or some variation of it for

    classifying vehicles (Traffic Monitoring Guide 2001). Rhode Island uses an

    unmodified version of the scheme to classify its vehicles. From Table 3-1, it is seen

    that nine classes are reserved for trucks, namely Classes 5-7 for single-unit trucks,

    Classes 8-10 for single trailer trucks, and Classes 11-13 for multi-trailer trucks.

    Within each FHWA class, however, vehicles can take on several different body

    types. A vehicle body type describes a more specific grouping of axles within a

    particular vehicle class. For example, all 5-axle semi-tractor trailers are classified as

    Class 9 vehicles although they can take on different axle configurations such as a

    single-tandem-tandem or a single-tandem-spread tandem or any other axle

    arrangement. If a more detailed analysis of vehicle characteristics is of interest, then

    identifying the different vehicle body types is necessary.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    62/175

    48

    Table 3-1 FHWA Vehicle Classification (Traffic Monitoring Guide, 2001)

    Class Vehicle Description Schematic

    0Unclassified vehicles which do not fit into any other

    classification

    1Motorcycles. All two-or three wheeled motorizedvehicles. This category includes motorcycles, motorscooters, mopeds, and all three-wheel motorcycles.

    2Passenger Cars. All sedans, coupes, and station wagonsmanufactured primarily for purpose of carryingpassengers.

    3Other two-axle, four-tire single units. Included in thisclassification are pickups, vans, campers, ambulances.

    4

    Buses. All vehicles manufactured as traditional passenger-

    carrying buses with two axles and six tires or three ormore axles.

    5Two-Axle Single Unit Trucks. All vehicles on a singleframe including trucks, camping and recreation vehicles.

    6Three-Axle Single Unit Trucks. All vehicles on a singleframe including trucks, camping and recreational vehicles.

    7Four- or more Axle Single Unit Trucks. All vehicles ona single frame with four- or more axles.

    8

    Four- or Less Axle Single Trailer Trucks. All vehicleswith four or less axles consisting of two units, one ofwhich is tractor or straight truck power unit.

    9Five-Axle Single Trailer Trucks. All five-axle vehiclesconsisting of two units, one of which is a tractor orstraight truck power unit.

    10Six-or More Axle Single Trailer Trucks. All vehicleswith six- or more axles consisting of two units, one ofwhich is a tractor or straight truck power unit.

    11Five-or Less Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks. All vehicleswith five or less axles consisting of three or more units,one of which is a tractor or straight truck power unit.

    12Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks. All six-axle vehiclesconsisting of three or more units, one of which is a tractoror straight truck power unit.

    13Seven- or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks. All vehicleswith seven- or more axles consisting of three or moreunits, one of which is a tractor unit.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    63/175

    49

    3.1 Vehicle Body Types

    Two different vehicle body type schemes are examined, namely that used by

    International Road Dynamics (IRD) for the State of New Jersey (International Road

    Dynamics Inc, 1999) and that used by the California Department of Transportation,

    Caltrans, (Lu et al., 2002). Both body type schemes are based on the FHWA Scheme

    F classification with some minor modifications.

    Table 3-2 presents the NJ vehicle body types for trucks (i.e. vehicle class 5 and

    above) of 3-8 axles. In general, since these schemes are used for normal truck traffic,

    which contains very few vehicles with large number of axles, the axle configurations

    for vehicles with 9 or more axles are very general and can be considered as catch-all

    types and are therefore not used in this study. Similarly, Table 3-3 presents the

    Caltrans vehicle body type scheme for trucks of 3-6 axles. In total, 20 and 10 body

    types can be uniquely identified for the NJ and Caltrans schemes respectively.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    64/175

    50

    Table 3-2 New Jersey Vehicle Body Type (International Road Dynamics Inc, 1999)

    Axle Spacing, ft GVWNo. of

    Axles

    FHWA

    Class

    Body

    Types 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 Min Max

    6 NJ10 0-20 0-5.8 0 100

    6 NJ11 25.5-40 0-5.8 0 1503

    8 NJ12 0-20 5.8-40 0 150

    7 NJ17 0-40 0-9.8 0-5.8 0 150

    7 NJ18 0-5.8 0-40 0-5.8 0 150

    8 NJ19 0-40 0-40 0-5.8 0 1504

    8 NJ20 0-40 0-5.8 0-40 0 221

    7 NJ21 0-40 0-5.8 0-5.8 0-5.8 0 221

    9 NJ22 0-40 0-5.8 0-40 0-5.8 0 221

    9 NJ23 0-40 0-5.8 0-40 0-11.7 0 221

    11 NJ24 0-14.2 0-40 0-40 0-40 0 221

    5

    9 NJ25 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0 221

    7 NJ26 0-40 0-5.8 0-5.8 0-5.8 0-5.8 0 221

    10 NJ27 0-40 0-5.8 0-40 0-40 0-5.8 0 221

    10 NJ28 0-40 0-40 0-5.8 0-5.8 0-5.8 0 2216

    12 NJ29 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0 221

    10 NJ30 8.2-20 3.3-8.2 3.3-8.2 3.3-8.2 3.3-8.2 3.3-8.2 0 2217

    13 NJ31 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0 221

    10 NJ32 8.2-20 0-8.2 0-8.2 8.2-40 0-8.2 0-8.2 0-8.2 0 2218

    13 NJ33 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0-40 0 221

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    65/175

    51

    Table 3-3 Caltrans Vehicle Body Type (Lu et al., 2002)

    Axle Spacing, ft GVW, kipsNo. of

    Axles

    FHWA

    Class

    Body

    Types 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 Min Max

    6 CAL10 6-23.09 6-25 - - - 12 -

    3 8 CAL11 6-23 6-25 - - - 20 -

    7 CAL15 6-23.09 11-40 3-12.99 - - 12 -

    8 CAL16 6-23 6-25 13-44 - - 12 -4

    8 CAL17 6-23 3-5.99 3-11.99 - - 20 -

    9 CAL19 6-26 3-5.99 6-46 3-10.99 - 12 -

    11 CAL20 6-26 11-26 6-20 11-26 - 12 -5

    14 CAL21 6-26 3-5.99 6-23 11-27 - 12 -

    10 CAL22 6-26 3-5.99 6-46 3-11.99 3-10.99 12 -6

    12 CAL23 6-26 3-5.99 11-26 6-24 11-26 12 -

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    66/175

    52

    Since the OS/OW non-divisible single-trip permit vehicle database used in this

    study did not include vehicle class, only the number of axles, GVW and individual

    axle spacing were used to identify the vehicle body type. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 present

    the distributions of the RI overweight permit vehicles based on the NJ and Caltrans

    schemes, respectively. It can be seen that more than 33% of the vehicles were

    unclassified using either scheme. As a result, some minor modifications were made to

    each scheme as follows:

    1. All tandem axle spacing were widened up to 8 ft per definition by the FederalBridge Formula B

    2. AXS3 for NJ25, NJ27, and NJ29 was widened from 0-40 ft to 0-50 ft3. AXS3 for CA21, CA22, and CA23 was widened from 0-40 ft to 0-50 ft4. AXS4 for catch-all NJ31 and NJ33 was widened from 0-40 ft to 0-70 ft5. CA21A was introduced as a new 5-axle catch-all body type.

    In addition, following a close examination of the unclassified vehicles, the

    following two changes were made. These two modifications do not necessarily reduce

    the number of unclassified vehicles but improved the vehicle body type classification

    because they narrowed a wide axle spacing range and more specifically identified a

    body type.

    6. AXS4 for NJ25 was reduced from 0-40 ft to 0-11 ft7. AXS4 for NJ27 was reduced from 0-40 ft to 0-12.6 ft

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    67/175

    53

    The original and revised axle spacing for both schemes are presented in Table

    3-4 with modifications shown in bold print. Additionally, similar NJ and CA vehicle

    body types are now presented alongside one another. For example, NJ22, NJ23 and

    CA19 all describe typical 5-axle tractor-trailer trucks and hence are presented along a

    single row.

    The body type distributions of the RI overweight vehicle permits using the

    revised schemes are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 and are labeled as Rev-NJ and Rev-

    CA. The number of unclassified vehicles has now been reduced to 4% and 10% for the

    NJ and CA schemes, respectively.

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    68/175

    54

    Figure 3.1 Original and Revised New Jersey Body Types

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    69/175

    55

    Figure 3.2 Original and Revised Caltrans Body Types

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    70/175

    56

    Table 3-4 Original and Revised Body Types

    Axle Spacing, ft Axle Spacing, ftNo. of

    Axles

    FHWA

    Class

    NJ Body

    Types Original Revised

    CA

    Body

    TypesOriginal Revised

    NJ10 0-20;0-5.8 0-20;0-86

    NJ1125.5-40; 0-

    5.825.5-40;0-8

    CA106-23.09;3-

    5.99

    6-23.09;3-

    83

    8 NJ12 0-20; 5.8-40 0-20;8-40 CA116.0-

    23.0;11-40

    6-23;11-

    40

    7 NJ170-40;0-9.8;0-

    5.8

    0-40;0-

    9.8;0-8CA15

    6-23.09;3-

    5.99;3-

    12.99

    6-23.09;3-

    8;3-12.99

    NJ200-40;0-5.8;0-

    40

    0-40;0-8;0-

    40CA16

    6-23;3-

    5.99;13-44

    6-23;3-

    8;13-44

    8

    NJ19 0-40;0-40;0-5.8

    0-40;0-40;0-8

    CA17 6-23;11-44;3-11.99

    6-23; 11-

    44; 3-

    11.99

    4

    7 NJ180-5.8;0-40;0-

    5.8

    0-8;0-40;0-

    8

    7 NJ210-40;0-5.8;0-

    5.8;0-5.8

    0-40;0-8;0-

    8;0-8

    NJ220-40;0-5.8;0-

    40;0-5.8

    0-40;0-8;0-

    40;0-89

    NJ230-40;0-5.8;0-

    40;0-11.7

    0-40;0-8;0-

    40;0-11.7

    CA19

    6-26;3-

    5.99;6-

    46;3-10.99

    6-26;3-

    8;6-46;3-

    10.99

    11 NJ240-14.2; 0-

    40;0-40;0-40

    0-14.2;0-40;0-40;0-

    40

    CA206-26;11-

    26;6-

    20;11-26

    6-26;11-26;6-

    20;11-26

    9 NJ250-40;0-40;0-

    40;0-40

    0-40;0-

    40;0-50;0-

    11

    14 CA21

    6-26;3-

    5.99;6-

    23;11-27

    5

    9 CA21A

    0-40;0-

    40;0-40;0-

    40

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    71/175

    57

    Table 3-4 Original and Revised Body Types

    Axle Spacing, ft Axle Spacing, ftNo. of

    Axles

    FHWA

    Class

    NJ Body

    Types Original Revised

    CA

    Body

    TypesOriginal Revised

    7 NJ260-40;0-5.8;0-5.8;0-5.8;0-

    5.8

    0-40;0-8;0-8;0-8;0-8

    - - -

    10 NJ270-40;0-5.8;0-

    40;0-40;0-5.8

    0-40;0-8;0-

    50;0-12.6;0-8 CA22

    6-26;3-

    5.99;6-46;3-

    11.99;3-10.99

    6-26;3-

    8;0-50;3-11.99;3-

    10.99

    10 NJ28

    0-40;0-40;0-

    5.8;0-5.8;0-5.8

    0-40;0-

    40;0-8;0-8;0-8

    - - -

    6

    12 NJ290-40;0-40;0-40;0-40;0-40

    0-40;0-40;0-50;0-

    40;0-40

    CA23

    6-26;3-5.99;11-

    26;6-24;11-26

    6-26;3-8;11-50;6-

    24;11-26

    10 NJ30

    8.2-20; 3.3-

    8.2; 3.3-8.2;3.3-8.2; 3.3-

    8.2; 3.3-8.2

    8.2-20; 3.3-

    8.2; 3.3-8.2; 3.3-

    8.2; 3.3-8.2; 3.3-8.27

    13 NJ31

    0-40;0-40;0-

    40;0-40;0-40;0-40

    0-40;0-40;0-40;0-

    70;0-40;0-40

    10 NJ32

    8.2-20; 0-

    8.2;0-8.2;8-40;0-8.2;0-

    8.2;0-8.2

    8.2-20;0-

    8.2;0-8.2;8-40;0-8.2;0-

    8.2;0-8.28

    13 NJ330-40;0-40;0-

    40;0-40;0-40;0-40;0-40

    0-40;0-

    40;0-40;0-70;0-40;0-

    40;0-40

    Table 3.5 presents the most frequent vehicle body types found in Rhode Island

    along with their number of axles, FHWA class and their axle configuration. It can be

    seen that the most frequent trucks are 5- and 6-axle single-trailer trucks with axle

    Contd..

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    72/175

    58

    configurations of single-tandem-tandem and single-tandem-spread tandem,

    respectively, accounting for about 50% of the truck population.

    Table 3-5 Most Frequent Body Types

    NJ CANo. of

    Axles

    FHWA

    Class Body

    TypesNumber

    Body

    TypesNumber

    Axle

    Configuration1(NJ/CA)

    4 8 NJ1993

    (3.03%)CA17

    64(2.08%)

    S-S-D/S-S-SD

    NJ 22745

    (24.25%)CA19

    836

    (27.21%)S-D-D&SD/S-D-SD

    5 9

    NJ 2349

    (1.59%)- - -

    6 10 NJ 27

    700

    (22.79%) CA22

    689

    (22.43%) S-D-ST/S-D-ST

    8 13 NJ3279

    (2.57%)- - S-T-Q

    Total -1,666

    (54.23%)-

    1,589

    (51.73%)-

    Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of vehicle class of the RI overweight dataset

    based on the revised NJ and CA body types for classes 6 and above. It is clear that

    Class 9 (i.e. 5-axle single trailer trucks) and Class 10 vehicles (i.e. 6- or more axle

    single trailer trucks) are the most common overweight trucks in RI. Class 9 and Class

    10 trucks are comprised of 49.7% and 25.9% of the single-trip overweight permit

    truck population respectively.

    1S single, D tandem, SD spread tandem, T tridem, ST spread tridem, Q - quadrem

  • 7/28/2019 Final Thesis Correction Full

    73/175

    59

    Figure 3.3 FHWA Classification

    3.2 Comparison of RI Body Types with Previous Studies

    Prezioso, A. (2008) also defined RI vehicle body types for OS/OW permit

    vehicles. The study was based on 294 non-divisible OS