This section highlights previously held forums where vehicle and infrastructure design professionals had the opportunity to initiate or further the dialogue on SVID concepts. The discussion below provides a brief description of the events, their goals and/or objectives, and summarizes findings or recommendations resulting from the interaction of the participants.

Events discussed are:

1) MVMA/AASHTO Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interface Meetings - Ft. Wayne, IN and San Antonio, TX, 1992

2) First Invitational SVID Workshop—Dearborn, MI, 1996 (Alliance for Transportation Research)

3) SVID Seminar—Beijing, China, 1996 (Alliance for Transportation Research)

In 1992 a group of leading organizations in the highway and vehicle areas of transportation formed the Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interface Coordinating Task Force*. This group is no longer functioning, yet its member organizations are still well recognized as important contributors to the SVID discussion.

The Task Force convened two orientation programs, one in Ft. Wayne, IN, in October 1992 and the other in San Antonio, TX, in December 1992. The Ft. Wayne meeting was organized by the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association (MVMA) and gave members of the truck community an opportunity to apprise the highway community about factors affecting the design and manufacture of commercial vehicles. Customer requirements, state and federal regulations, and the highway infrastructure were among the topics addressed. Less than two months later participants also met in San Antonio. That meeting was organized by AASHTO and gave members of the highway engineering community an opportunity to apprise the truck community about factors affecting the design of pavements, bridges, and structures.

Points of interest raised at the two meetings:

Ft. Wayne Meeting (MVMA organized)

— identified vehicle factors affecting pavements;

— discussed static axle loads and weight per axle, suspension systems, and dynamic response of vehicles; and

— addressed productivity issues that are causing vehicle design changes and that affect pavement (such as radial tires).

San Antonio Meeting (AASHTO organized)

— identified factors that determine pavement condition and performance;

— discussed functional performance factors as well as structural performance factors that affect pavements;

— discussed the different life-cycles of highway systems and vehicles—truck fleets have comparatively short life cycles while highway systems have long life cycles. Many interstates are 30-40 years old, but geometrics are not able to be changed in the existing infrastructure to keep pace with truck design changes.

Despite the myriad concerns of truck designers and highway designers, these meetings raised the visibility of the issues. As a result the Task Force stated "it is becoming increasingly clear that the interface between highways and commercial vehicles is too important for either group of designers to ignore." Although the Task Force set out an agenda to create a mechanism to carry forward the results of these meetings, the lack of a championing organization to sponsor future activities hampered the effort's sustainability.

* Task Force Members: AASHTO, American Bus Association, American Trucking Associations, FHWA, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility (now American Highway Users Alliance), Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (now American Automobile Manufacturers Association), NHTSA, National Private Truck Council, SAE, TRB, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, and University of Texas at Austin.

(Excerpted from "Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interface: Toward a Cooperative Approach to Highway and Vehicle Design, Executive Summary".)

1.2 FIRST INVITATIONAL SVID WORKSHOP - Dearborn, MI, 1996 (Alliance for Transportation Research)

The invitational workshop was planned for a group of approximately 24 representatives of state and federal highway agencies, private companies and a consortium of automobile manufacturers; a consortium of public interest groups; and national laboratories. The workshop resulted in helping to refine the concept of simultaneous design and identified projects to demonstrate the concept in the United States.

1) Concept refinements consisted of gaining an improved understanding of project selection criteria, of the problem-based process of SVID, and of information and communication support requirements. 1) The five problem selection criteria that were identified and used during the workshop are: common design interest; potential for mutual benefits to private sector industry and public sector agencies; value added for individuals—the project should be compelling to persons involved; exercise of a suitable trial case for SVID; and visibility.

2) The workshop assisted in focusing on the problem-based nature of SVID. As a result there is an increased sense of the importance of the clarity of problem statement and thoroughness of problem understanding. Additionally, the SVID wheel as described in the Roehrig paper included in the workshop preparatory package was presented as an aid to understanding these items and other aspects of the SVID concept.

3) There was repeated emphasis by workshop participants regarding need for ongoing information and communications support for SVID.

Four projects were preferred by workshop participants. These are:

1) Compatibility of Vehicle/Roadway/ Occupants: Compatibility of vehicle and driver with the roadway has not been jointly optimized by the vehicle, highway, private, and commercial user communities; thereby causing additional costs to society in terms of death, injuries, property damage, and inefficient transportation.

2) Pavement Noise Performance: Traffic noise pollution is exacerbated by uncoordinated infrastructure design, vehicle design, and land use planning.

3) Pavement and Vehicle Performance: The interaction of highway vehicles with pavement has not been optimized. Changes in the near-term performance of one component typically results in decreased performance of other components of the highway system. The result is increased cost of construction and operation of the highway and the vehicle.

4) Harmonization of Standards: (General) The U.S. highway transportation system is not compatible with other nations, resulting in reduced economic competitiveness. (Specific) Current crash testing does not reflect the relationship between the vehicles and highway barriers, therefore, does not maximize safety, efficiency, and cost.

(Excerpted from the First Invitational SVID Workshop Proceedings.)

Informative papers were presented at the workshop:

This paper deals with defining SVID: it discusses the maturing concept of SVID, describes the SVID wheel as a mechanism to graphically depict the relationship of the elements of SVID - vehicle, infrastructure and the individual (user). The paper describes the steps in the SVID process as detailed in Section 2. A significant observation presented is that "the traditional separation of vehicle and infrastructure design could in part be overcome by capabilities of the nation's science and technology base." (Albright, 1996 paper included in First Invitational Workshop Proceedings).

This paper recapped the SVID concept and discussed several examples within the transportation system that may approximate the SVID process. Threshold questions were posed and answered:

Question: What changes can we perceive in transportation that will open opportunities for SVID? Where will these occur?

Answer: For developed-in-transportation countries - the most significant change is perception of transportation as a more integral part of society; for less developed-in-transportation countries - change toward highway-based mobility.

Question: Can the infrastructure and vehicle communities come together around this topic? What forcing factors might become operative to make this happen?

Answer: Issues of public versus private, variation in disciplines, and matters of market-based and institutional competition coupled with tradition and law will determine whether this central issue can be overcome. Forcing factors focus on public demand.

Question: What are the technology-based factors that make this a propitious time to advance this topic?

Answer: Both a rapidly growing base of fundamental knowledge and the current capabilities in systems methods, enriched by phenomenal computational strength make this an appropriate time to advance SVID.

(Excerpted from Larson, paper included in the First Invitational SVID Workshop Proceedings.)

Slides/graphics from this presentation are included in the Appendix. In particular, note the "SVID Planning Matrix" (updated with user included) that resulted from the discussions during that workshop.

The SVID Seminar conducted in Beijing consisted of presentations similar to those given at the Dearborn Workshop described in Section 4.2 above. Albright, Larson, and Miller and Pierz presented papers of the same content as at the Dearborn Workshop. Shi Yang of the Research Institute of Science and Technical Information, MOC, PRC, China, presented "SVID and Road Transport System Developments in China." The paper related SVID concepts to the developing transportation system in China. It was noted that because of the simultaneous emergence of vehicle development and infrastructure development, China may occupy an advantageous position regarding use of SVID concepts. As both the vehicle and infrastructure technologies mature, SVID processes may be the original design concept. This was compared to countries with more mature transportation systems where the design processes are already established as separate entities making SVID potentially more difficult to implement.

This section contains syntheses of on-going or recently completed research studies and the FHWA Scanning Program Tour for Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction. These syntheses are provided as foundational materials forming the setting in which further consideration of SVID can occur.

Under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a team of representatives from government, industry, and the research community made scanning trips through North America (September-October 1994) and Europe (April-May 1995) to discuss and report on current practices, technologies, and knowledge of the highway/commercial vehicle interaction. Both trips included visits with government agencies, vehicle and component manufacturers, research agencies, and academe. (N.A. countries - the United States, Canada, and Mexico; European countries - France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden.)

The overall objective of the effort was to scan current practices, innovations, rules, and compliance to identify options and issues in highway/commercial vehicle interaction technology. The goals of the scanning team included:

1. Building and strengthening the state of mutual understanding among components of the transportation technology system.

2. Assisting the evolution of technology and policy initiatives, and benchmarking of current North American technology.

3. Documenting information on both current practices in truck-pavement design and on new and emerging technologies that have potential for immediate or long-term application for extended pavement and bridge life, while allowing for increased productivity in terms of the amount of goods transported.

4. Evaluating specific vehicle, vehicle component, and pavement and bridge design effects on highway infrastructure and vehicle life cycle costs.

5. Identifying trends in vehicle design, vehicle components, truck controls and regulations, and truck operational characteristics in the context of their influences on pavements and bridges.

6. Identifying implications of vehicle and highway technologies and policy options with regard to vehicle safety performance and highway safety.

7. Promoting the development and implementation of promising technology in the United States.

Scanning team questions for the many interviews conducted focused on the topics of pavements, bridges, commercial motor vehicles, truck size and weight policy, and truck size and weight compliance and enforcement.

Conclusions of the study team addressed the following broad categories:

Panel recommendations were developed and prioritized into three main groupings: below:

High-priority recommendations:

1) Technologies for Transfer to the U.S.: Distill conclusions on the viability of "road-friendly" truck components for implementation in U.S. size and weight regulations focusing on:

2) Expanded Leadership: FHWA and AASHTO should provide national leadership necessary to make the freight transport system more efficient, including the development of continuing, cooperative working relationship with public and private stakeholders to address inefficiencies in the nation's freight transportation system and to promote appropriate solutions.

3) Comprehensive Freight Policy: Develop a comprehensive national freight policy that includes: safety, infrastructure, modal efficiency, truck size and weight policy, taxation, intermodal movement (especially containers), international competitiveness, and environment. The scanning team identified critical issues necessary to incorporate into truck size and weight changes.

4) Performance standards on vehicle operations, safety, and infrastructure.

5) Cost allocation and recovery procedures.

6) Short-term changes to size and weight limitations to accommodate intermodal containers.

7) Re-assessment of the bridge formula for more appropriate control on bridge stress.

8) Envelope of allowable vehicle configurations based on engineering and safety performance.

9) Enhanced accident data for trucks.

10) Researching "road-friendly" vehicles

11) More effective enforcement

12) Standards for international containers

13) Public education

(Excerpted from the report, "FHWA Study Tour for Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction.")

Raymond A. Krammes

In its current form, available information on the safety effects of highway planning and design decisions is not readily usable to evaluate and compare design alternatives. Lacking convenient evaluation tools limits designers ability to detect potential safety problems in design, select safety cost-effective design parameters, compare the safety of design alternatives, and optimize the safety of a particular design. As a result, differences in safety performance may not be given due consideration in deciding among design alternatives.

In an attempt to marshal what is known about safety into a more useful form for highway planners and designers, the Federal Highway Administration is developing the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). IHSDM is envisioned as a computer-based tool that facilitates evaluation of the safety implications of design alternatives throughout the planning, design and review phases of highway construction and reconstruction projects. For ease of use, it is being developed to operate in the computer-aided design (CAD) environment, in which most design work is currently performed.

The development of IHSDM is a long-term, multi-year activity. The initial development efforts are restricted to two-lane rural highways, which are the largest single class of highways in the U.S., representing approximately two-thirds of all Federal-aid highways. A subsequent phase of IHSDM development will add the capability to evaluate multi-lane design alternatives.

IHSDM is structured in five modules:

IHSDM provides an integrated collection of evaluation tools that estimate safety-related measures of effectiveness, identify areas for improvement, and compare design alternatives. Individual modules will be made available as they are completed and successfully beta tested, starting in 1999. A Technical Working Group representing seven State Departments of Transportation as well as FHWA field offices provides periodic input to ensure that these tools are responsive to the needs of the user community. FHWA is also working with design software vendors through cooperative research and development agreements so that IHSDM can be integrated into those software packages for delivery to highway planners and designers. GEOPAK Corporation recently became the first vendor to sign such an agreement with FHWA.

For additional information contact:

NHTSA conducts crashworthiness modeling in conjunction with crash tests to determine the occupant injuries resulting from traffic crashes. The vehicle is viewed as the means by which the crash loads are transmitted from the struck object to the occupant and not as an entity itself to be protected. NHTSA develops computer models in three broad categories: vehicle models, occupant models, and system models.

The simulation of a single crash event is typically conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the response of the vehicle structure to an impact is simulated. The major output of the vehicle simulation are vehicle crash pulses, e.g. the deceleration time history of the occupant compartment. In the second phase, the impact response of the vehicle is input to the occupant/occupant compartment model as a prescribed motion. In this occupant simulation, the impact response of the occupant is determined as the occupant interacts with the air bag and other elements of the occupant compartment including the steering wheel and the instrument panel. The major output of the occupant simulation are occupant injury criteria.

In vehicle modeling two approaches are currently used: lumped mass models where the vehicle structure is segmented into a system of lumped masses and discrete non-linear springs, and finite element modeling where the vehicle structure is discretized into thousands of small elements which when interconnected capture the geometry, material properties, and structural characteristics of the vehicle. Finite element models are used as a full system crash test surrogate. These models are extremely complex and expensive to exercise. A number of specific vehicle finite element models are being developed by NHTSA as part of the Presidential Initiative for a Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.

Occupant/occupant compartment modeling is performed with a three-dimensional lumped mass code. For each vehicle crash driver and passenger are modeled for both belted and unbelted occupant restraint cases for three different occupant heights.

Systems models are beneficial because vehicle crashworthiness should be evaluated on the safety performance of the vehicle when exposed to the entire traffic crash environment. NHTSA has developed a model for fleetwide examination of crashworthiness. This model can be applied to evaluation of a particular vehicle or the problem of producing an optimal vehicle design. This model calculates the estimated social cost of a given design in terms of the estimated costs to society of a fatality or serious injuries to a simulated population of occupants.

(Excerpted from the referenced paper, "Vehicle Modeling at NHTSA.")

For more information contact:

This paper was presented at the SAE International Congress & Exposition February 25 - March 1, 1985.

Abstract: Although computer simulation is regarded primarily as a tool for systems analysis, simulation can also be used in the process of systems optimization. The paper describes recent enhancements to a computer program package which enables the use of vehicle and occupant simulation models in determining the design of vehicles and restraints for maximum occupant impact protection. Also described is an application of this program package to determine the optimal design of a passenger vehicle involved in frontal collisions.

Conclusions of the study are as follows:

1) Significant injury mitigation in combined front-to-front, front-to-side, and front-to-fixed object collisions can be achieved through the optimal design of the front end of the striking vehicle at any level of belt usage.

2) A progressive front-end collapse structure (softer in the front and stiffer in the rear) combined with increased available crush and stiffer belts, appears to provide an optimal balance between conflicting design requirements for occupant protection while simultaneously reducing the aggressiveness of the design vehicle.

3) The conventional design of occupant compartment contact surfaces appears to be compatible with the optimal vehicle/restraint design defined in 2) above, over a wide range of belt usage levels.

4) The reduction associated with the optimal design is roughly equally split between the occupants of the design vehicles and the occupants of other vehicles, with the principal benefits accruing to occupants of the design vehicle in front-to-barrier collisions and to the occupants of side-struck vehicles front-to-side collisions.

(Excerpted from the referenced paper, "Simulation Optimization of the Crashworthiness of a Passenger Vehicle in Frontal Collisions using Response Surface Methodology.")

DIVINE is an OECD sponsored international cooperative research program of $1.5 million having goals of 1) describing important aspects of the interaction between heavy vehicles and the infrastructure in an objective manner, and 2) suggesting ways in which those responsible for the main parts of this interaction - pavements, bridges, vehicles, transport policies and regulation, and research - could act to reduce the negative consequences of road freight transport and reduce costs. DIVINE program research was performed having the perspective that the two partners involved with this subject, the infrastructure and the heavy vehicles which use the infrastructure, have never been considered as one transportation system. DIVINE seeks a higher level of scientific knowledge of the interaction between trucks and pavements and between trucks and bridges that will open the way for regulation/policy based on vehicle performance in terms of road-friendliness.

Research performed under the DIVINE Program includes:

OECD DIVINE program participation from 15 member countries and the private sector entailed accelerated dynamic pavement testing (in New Zealand); pavement primary response testing (in the United States); road simulator testing (in Canada); computer simulation of heavy vehicle dynamics (in the Netherlands); spacial repeatability of dynamic loads (in France); and dynamic loading of bridges (in Switzerland).

Some conclusions from the research are:

(Excerpted from the referenced report, "OECD DIVINE Programme, Final Report: Final Interaction of Heavy Vehicles with Roads and Bridges," Executive Summary.)

A DIVINE Concluding Conference was held in Ottawa, Canada in June 1997. The conference objectives were: 1) to clearly articulate the DIVINE Program, its objectives, and findings; 2) to examine implications of the research with regard to roads, bridges, and vehicles; 3) to examine policy options and implementation issues; and 4) to develop strategies and solutions to current problems.

Recent roadside safety research indicates that increased variation in the size, weight, characteristics, and shape of vehicles in the U.S. vehicle fleet is raising concerns that existing barriers, related hardware, and other features may not fulfill all their safety functions. These concerns suggest a need for improved compatibility between the vehicle and the roadside safety hardware, but increased compatibility is not likely to occur effectively under current practices for the design of roadway facilities and vehicles.

This effort is expected to focus on the full range of passenger vehicles, but be expandable to other types of vehicles. The final report of this research is expected to include:

As of mid-December 1997, proposals have been solicited and the contract has not yet been awarded. The project is to be accomplished within 27 months of contract award.

(Excerpted from the NCHRP 22-15 Research Project Statement)

For additional information contact:

Other NCHRP projects touch on various aspects of SVID. A partial list includes:

1) Instituting Graduated Licensing for Young Drivers

2) Ensuring that Drivers are Fully Licensed and Competent

3) Sustaining Proficiency in Older Drivers

4) Curbing Aggressive Driving

5) Reducing Impaired Driving

6) Keeping Drivers Alert

7) Increasing Driver Safety Awareness

8) Increasing Safety Seat Belt Usage and Increasing Air Bag Effectiveness

9) Making Walking and Street Crossing Safer

10) Ensuring Safer Bicycle Travel

11) Improving Motorcycle Safety and Increasing Motorcycle Awareness

12) Making Truck Travel Safer

13) Increasing Safety Enhancements in Vehicles

14) Reducing Vehicle-Train Crashes

15) Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway

16) Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Roadway

17) Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections

18) Reducing Head-on and Cross Median Crashes

19) Designing Safer Work Zones

20) Enhancing EMS Capabilities to Increase Survivability

21) Improving Information and Decision Support Systems

22) Creating More Effective Processes and Safety Management Systems