Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

2011-05-(25)

COMPARISON
LEGISLATION

OF

TRAILER

ABS

SYSTEMS

&

Jeffry Steemans
WABCO

Gunther Meise
WABCO
Copyright 2011 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc

ABSTRACT
In ECE R13, ABS braking systems are categorized
in Category A and Category B systems. In this paper,
WABCO provides argumentation to support its
recommendation to use Category A trailer braking
systems, and not Category B. Four key arguments will be
elaborated:
1.

TRUCK-TRAILER COMPATIBILITY: trailers


equipped with Cat A braking systems are most
compatible and stable with tractors and trucks.

2.

STOPPING DISTANCE AND STABILITY: a


Cat A system has up to 30% shorter stopping
distance than a Cat B system, especially on roads
partially covered with mud, water, ice, oil and
other.

3.

FAILURE REDUNDANCY: during critical


system failures, trailers with CatT A will continue
to brake, while trailers with Cat B will completely 5.2.
fail to brake.

4.

LEGISLATION COMPLIANCY: Cat B systems


on 3-axle trailers tend to be non-compliant with
fundamental ECE-R13 braking norms related to
time behavior

TABLE OF CONTENT
1.

Technical Fundamentals of ABS


1.1. Objective of ABS
1.2. Friction

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.3. Wheel slip


1.4. Longitudinal friction B
1.5. Latitudinal friction S
1.6. Total Friction R
Relevance of ABS in real life situations
2.1. Overview of scenarios
2.2. Detection of slip
2.3. ABS reaction on slip
2.4. Conclusion
ABS System comparison: Cat A and Cat B
3.1. Legislative comparison
3.2. Layout comparison
3.3. Functional comparison
3.4. Behavioral comparison
3.5. Conclusion & recommendations
Empirical comparison: trucktrailer ABS combinations
4.1. Stopping distance
4.2. Directional stability
4.3. Conclusions & recommendations
Recommendations during transition time
5.1. Vehicle equipment
5.2. Comparison of national & regional ABS
regulations
Legislation per country & region
6.1. Conclusion & recommendations

1. TECHNICAL FUNDAMENTALS OF ABS


1.1. OBJECTIVES The ABS (Anti-Lock Braking
System) technology has two key objectives:
1. To maintain the steerability and stability of the vehicle,
to avoid collision with objects during full braking and
emergency maneuvers, by maximally using the
available latitudinal friction S between the tires and
the road surface, and

2.

To minimize the stopping distance by maximally using


the available longitudinal friction B between the tires
and the road surface.

In the following two paragraphs, the impact of the wheel


slip on longitudinal friction B and latitudinal S friction
will be further explained.

Both S and B are explained in the following paragraph1.

1.4. LONGITUDINAL FRICTION B - The


friction B is function of the slip . Following graph
illustrates the relation between B and on different
surfaces:
B on a concrete road
B on a wet concrete road
B on a road covered with ice

1.2. FRICTION - The friction i of each trailer


wheel on the road is a function of
The wheel characteristics (tire pressure, rubber
composition, tire profile, wheel speed, temperature),
The road characteristics (flatness, humidity,
temperature, cleanliness, etc),
The wheels angle on the road
The friction i can be split in two vectors:
B, the longitudinal friction of the tire on the road,
to slow down the vehicle
S, the latitudinal friction of the tire on the road, to
keep the trailer on its path during maneuvering
Following graph illustrates the S and B, and the resulting
R vector of the wheel.

Figure 2 Longitudinal friction on different surfaces


As can be expected, the surface structure has an impact on
the friction of the wheel, and therefore on the brake
distance: the lower the friction, the longer the brake
distance will be.

Figure 1 Friction forces on trailer wheel


The friction i of a wheel i is a function of the wheel slip i,
which is explained in following paragraph.

1.5. LATITUDINAL FRICTION when the


trailer is driving in a curve, it creates a latitudinal force. To
stay on the road, the tire needs to provide a latitudinal
friction S, which is also a function of the wheel slip .

1.3. WHEEL SLIP - While braking the trailer,


following factors are taken into consideration:
VV the trailer speed
VW the wheel speed of the braked wheel
the slip between tire and road surface2,

VV VW
100%
VV

Following table indicates two extreme values of VW.


VW value

VW = VV
The wheel speed equals the vehicle speed
= 0%
VW = 0
The wheel is blocked
= 100%
Table 1 correlation between wheel speed and slip
Figure 3 Latitudinal friction

WABCO, Vario C ABS system manual


2
J.A.Reuvekamp, Luchtdrukremsystemen, WABCO, 1999

The picture illustrates that when a wheel is blocked


( ~100%), the S will be very low: the vehicle will become
unsteerable and drift over the ground.

Situation 1: a normal braking situation, where all


wheels i keep friction; i < critical
Situation 2: braking when both the wheels at the left
side and the right side loose friction; ( left,, right) >
critical
Situation 3: braking, when the wheels at one side (eg at
the left side) of the vehicle loose friction with the road;
(left > critical; right < critical)
In the pictures, the wheels which loose friction are colored
in black; the wheels which keep friction are colored in
white.
Situation 1: Normal braking, all wheels have friction
( R1, R2, L1, L2) < critical

1.6. TOTAL FRICTION R As illustrated in


picture 1, the wheel has a total available friction R. When
slowing down and maneuvering, the sum of the longitudinal
friction and the latitudinal friction should not exceed this
available friction R.
The ABS system will monitor the wheel slip . When
passes a critical threshold > critical, the system will reduce
the brake pressure to unblock a wheel and restore the
friction. This will ensure the vehicle to remain steerable
and stable during heavy braking and maneuvering.

R1

R2

L1

L2

Situation 2: All wheels loose friction


( R1, R2, L1, L2) > critical

Critical is typically between 10% and 30%, depending on the


tire and road conditions.

TOP VIEW

The functioning of the ABS system on a wheel is illustrated


in the picture below.

REAR VIEW
R1

R2

L1

L2

Situation 3: The left wheels have less friction or


different wheel load than the right wheels
R1, R2 < critical; L1, L2 > critical

Vehicle speed
Wheel speed

TOP VIEW

REAR VIEW
R1

R2

L1

L2

Situation 3 can be further elaborated in 4 scenarios:


1. a slippery road under one side of the trailer
2. in a turn
3. the load is at one side of the trailer
4. different brake forces at the left & right side

Figure 4 Example - ABS functioning on one wheel


The upper part of the figure illustrates the vehicle speed
(the yellow straight line) and the wheel speed (the green
curved line), when the wheel is braked by the ABS system.
The lower part of the figure illustrates the applied brake
pressure on the wheel, measured in bar. In this example,
when the brake force exceeds 2 bar (indicated by the red
line), the slip exceeds critical , which causes the wheel to
loose its grip on the road. At this moment, the ABS system
intervenes by reducing the brake pressure to restore friction.
When the friction is restored, the brake pressure is
increased again until the ABS again detects > critical. This
sequence is repeated until the vehicle is stopped.
2. RELEVANCE OF ABS IN REAL LIFE
SITUATIONS
2.1. OVERVIEW OF SCENARIOS
In following table, we list 3 key situations with a 2-axle
semi-trailer to illustrate the relevance of the ABS system:

When estimating the frequency of the different theoretical


scenarios in reality on the roads, the majority of braking
situations occur with different friction for the left and right
wheels, or so-called split situations. This indicates the
importance of selecting a brake system which reliably
performs in split situations.

Situation 3.1 - Slippery road


The friction of the road is
not equal for the left and
right side of the trailer.
This situation is typically
called -split
Situation 3.2 - In a turn to the left
The wheel load at the left
wheels FL is lower, due to the
centrifugal force of the trailer
and its load in the curve.

3. COMPARISON OF CAT-A AND CAT-B ABS


In this chapter we will compare various aspects ABS
Category A and Category B braking systems. The three
compared areas are:
legislative compliance
layout
functional performance

Situation 3.3 Load is at one side


The force FL is lower than FR
due to unequal distribution of
the load on the trailer sides.

3.1. LEGISLATIVE COMPARISON The ECE


R13 norm classifies ABS systems in two categories:
Category A: braking system which is capable to apply the
ABS functionality separately on the left and right side of
the trailer, when the slip i is not equal for the wheels at the
left and the right side of the trailer. Cat A systems comply
to the -split test according ECE-R13.

Situation 3.4 - Different brake forces at left & right side


If the brake system has
different brake performance
at the left and right side (e.g.
oil or grease on brake pads or
discs, one drum brake slack
adjuster does not function
appropriately, etc), the brake
system could apply a
different brake force on the
wheels, resulting in a
different slip per wheel at the
left and right side of the
trailer.

Category B: braking systems which are capable to apply the


ABS functionality, but is only capable to apply equal brake
force on both the left and right side of the vehicle. Cat B
systems are not compliant to the -split test according
ECE-R13.
Additionally, the ECE-R13 norm specifies minimum
reaction times between the start of a braking maneuver and
the time it takes for the wheels to start braking
appropriately. For Cat B systems, this norm is typically not
met when used on 3 axle semi-trailers, as it cannot timely
provide enough air pressure to each of the wheels.

2.2. DETECTION OF SLIP The ABS system


will monitor the speed of the wheels by measuring and
comparing their relative rotation with wheel sensors. If the
rotation of wheel i decreases relative to the other wheels,
the ABS system will verify whether < critical, and it will
react if > critical

The difference in layout and behavior of both categories


will be illustrated in following paragraphs.
3.2. LAYOUT COMPARISON In the following
table we compare the fundamental layout difference
between Cat A and Cat B systems.

2.3 .ABS REACTION ON SLIP When the ABS


system has detected that > critical in one of the measured
wheels during a braking maneuver, it will automatically
adjust the brake force on selected wheels to reduce the
slipping . This adjustment is depending on the ABS
system configuration, which will be elaborated in the
following chapter by comparing Cat A and Cat B ABS
systems.
2.4. CONCLUSION

Category

Possible
Systems

Cat A

2S/2M
4S/2M
4S/3M

Illustration on 2-axle semitrailer


M1
M2

Non-ABS brake

Cat B

2S/1M

Detection
of wheel
slippage
#
of
wheels
monitored
for
slippage
Brake
pressure in
case
of
slippage

M1

Table 2 Layout comparison of Cat A and Cat B ABS


systems
Cat B systems internally have one modulator,
which is the part within the ABS hardware which provides
the brake pressure towards the individual wheels. As there
is only one modulator, each wheel will receive the same
brake pressure in all situations. A typical Cat B system is a
2S/1M brake system: 2 sensors to measure the wheel speed
at the left and right side of the vehicle, and one modulator.

ABS Category B

NO

PL = PR = P Max

ABS Category A

YES

YES

2 (2S/1M)

2 (2S/2M)
4 (4S/2M, 4S/3M)

PL=PR

PL = f (max(left))

P= f(max(left, right))

PR = f (max(right))

Typical
pressure
chart3

Table 3 brake pressure behavior in three brake systems


The pressure charts in the table display - in separate lines the brake pressure on the left and on the right wheels during
the emergency braking. As can be seen in the charts:
The non-ABS brake simply brakes as hard as the driver
pushes the brake pedal, and will not intervene when the
wheel starts slipping,
The ABS Category B system will intervene when any
wheel starts slipping, but it will brake both the left and
right wheels equally. The disadvantage of this system
is that the wheel which is not slipping, will not brake as
hard as it could be braking.
The ABS category A system will brake each side
separately according to each sides wheel slip . The
advantage of this system is that the friction of both
sides will be used maximally to maintain steerability
and minimize stopping distance.

ABS Category B (2S/1M system) will adjust the brake


pressure of both sides of the trailer equally, in correlation to
the minimum friction measured at any side, or
P = f (max( left, right))
Cat A systems have at least two modulators: on a 2
axle semi-trailer, one modulator should be used to brake the
left side of the vehicle, the second modulator should brake
the right side of the vehicle. This allows to brake the left
and right side of the vehicle with different forces,
depending on the respective slip or friction of each vehicle
side. There are multiple system configurations in Cat A, of
which the most common are 2S/2M, 4S/2M and 4S/3M.
ABS Category A (a 2S/2M system) will adjust the brake
pressure separately at the left and the right side of the
trailer, in correlation to the respective slip of that trailer
side, or
Pleft = f(max( left))
Pright = f(max( right))

3.4. BEHAVIOUR COMPARISON


The differences in functional behavior are the basis for
three key differences in performance behavior: stopping
distance, stability and failure redundancy, as will be
elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Naming convention - In the system naming such as


2S/2M, the number before the letter S stands for the amount
of ABS sensors which are connected to the ABS device
(1 sensor per wheel); the number before the letter M stands
for the amount of modulators in the ABS device.

For the rest of this paper, we will focus on comparing a


Cat A 2S/2M system with a Cat B 2S/1M system.
Stopping distance the stopping distance for
category B systems (2S/1M) is significantly longer than
category A systems (2S/2M) in situations where the Left
Right. Concrete examples are:
roads partially covered with mud or ice
roads partially covered with rain,
roads partially covered with oil

The different behavior and performance of both systems


during a braking maneuver will be illustrated in the
following paragraph.
3.3. FUNCTIONAL COMPARISON If the ABS
system detects that the slip of a wheel equipped with an
ABS sensor is above critical, it will start adjusting the brake
force. The table below illustrates the differences of how
this brake pressure is adjusted in each of the three indicated
systems.

This is illustrated by following empirical data.

WABCO, Truck & Trailer ABS, 2006

A tractor-semitrailer combination is driving at 60km/h and


then braked at maximum pressure Pmax, on a road with split:
the left wheels are driving on wet asphalt, high
the right wheels are driving on ice, low

If a truck or tractor (Cat A) , combined with a trailer (Cat


B) needs to brake on -split , the low deceleration of the
trailer 2S/1M system will cause a pushing king pin or
drawbar force. This might cause the truck and trailer to
start to swinging over the road, or fishtailing.

As can be seen in following chart, the stopping distances


for the compared systems are significantly different.

Cat A systems will prevent this by using the available high


at one side of the trailer
Behavior during system failure Typically, the
suppliers providing ABS systems which are compliant to
ECE-R13 legislation provide these systems on a high
quality level, and braking system failures are exceptional if
vehicles are well-maintained and used within the
recommended limits.
Nevertheless, the potential consequences from a failing
braking system on a commercial vehicle can be significant:
in best case it is unforeseen downtime, in the worst case it
causes fatal physical injuries and material damage.

Figure 5 Comparison of absolute braking distances


This empirical data confirms that the 2S/1M system does
not adequately uses the available high friction of the wheels
driving on the asphalt. As soon as the right wheel slips on
the ice, the 2S/1M ABS system reduces the brake force on
both trailer sides, thereby increasing the stopping distance
significantly. Cat A 2S/2M systems will have a similar
stopping distance as a no-ABS braking system.

In reality, commercial vehicles are being driven in harsh


off-road environments, on remote locations without
technical support, and on the edge of the vehicles physical
limits.
Therefore, built-in redundancy is highly recommended for
the commercial vehicles braking system.

On surfaces with homogeneous friction where all wheels


have similar friction, the stopping distance of Cat A and Cat
B systems is approximately similar.

When making an FMEA (Failure Modes and Effect


Analysis) on Cat-A and Cat-B ABS systems, six main
failure modes can be identified, as listed in the table below,
each with the consequences on the braking behavior.

Stability The ABS system is designed to improve


stability of the truck & trailer combination during
emergency braking. This paragraph will illustrate when
this combination can become instable, and how ABS
prevents this.

For each of the failure modes, the failing element is


indicated for both a 2S/1M and 2S/2M system, and the
consequence of this failure on the braking performance of
the wheels is illustrated graphically.

In situations with -split, the Cat A system will prevent the


combination from Fishtailing, which is illustrated in the
below figure.
.
High

2S1M

Buckling angle
Low

High

2S2M
Low

Figure 6 CAT A prevents Fishtailing

4. COMPARISON OF TRUCK-TRAILER
COMBINATIONS WITH AND WITHOUT ABS
In this chapter, we will illustrate the behavior of trucktrailer combinations both drawbar and semitrailers - in
different combinations with or without ABS.

Wheel can lock during braking


ABS functionality available

In regions where no or partial ABS legislation is applicable,


or during the transition period after ABS legislation is
enforced, fleets typically have a mix of trucks with and
without ABS, and trailers with and without ABS.
Consequently, drivers are confronted with these different
combinations.

Wheel will fail to brake


Wheel might fail to brake

Figure 7 Failure Modes and Effect Analysis overview

In the following paragraphs, two behavioral aspects will be


empirically illustrated:
Stopping distance
Directional stability

Main conclusions that can be drawn from the above FMEA


table:

# Failure modes where


the
system
will
completely fail to
brake
# Failure modes where
all wheels can block
during heavy braking

Cat A
2S/2M

Cat B
2S/1M

4.1 STOPPING DISTANCE - To empirically


document the behaviour of these combinations, objective
tests4 were performed by the governmental organization
RW TV Essen in Germany, with truck & drawbar trailer
combinations, and with tractor & semi trailer combinations.
In all cases, Cat A system were used in both vehicles. Both
tractor and trailer vehicles were unloaded as empty vehicles
are more sensitive to potential instability during braking.
Following vehicle combinations were tested:

Table 4 FMEA of Cat A and Cat B systems


This FMEA analysis allows us to draw following
conclusions on Cat A (2S/2M) systems:
The system will not fail to brake if one of the two
modulators fails, in contrast to the Cat B system.
The system will keep its ABS functionality on one side
of the trailer if one of the modulators or sensors would
fail, in contrast to the Cat B system.

Combination

3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMONDATIONS


The above paragraphs have scientifically and objectively
explained the arguments that support the WABCO
recommendation to only use Cat A systems:
the significantly shorter braking distances in the most
frequent emergency braking situations, when the left
wheels have different friction than the right wheels (split situations)
avoidance of Fishtailing and significantly better vehicle
stability in combination with Cat A trucks/tractors
the built-in redundancy for critical failures, to avoid
loss of braking power
The ECE-R13 compliance to time behavior norms on 3
axle semi trailers

Truck

Trailer

No ABS

No ABS

No ABS

ABS

ABS

No ABS

ABS

ABS

Table 5 Tested tractor-semi trailer configurations

Wolff C, Reinecke E.; Automatisch Blokierverhinderer in


Nutzfahrzeug-Kombinationen, 1982

Combination

Truck

Trailer

No ABS

No ABS

No ABS

ABS

ABS

No ABS

ABS

ABS

Table 6 Tested combinations of truck - drawbar trailers


On the test track, three different road surfaces were used,
with different friction values as listed in the below table.
Figure 8 Relative stopping distance for 4truck +
drawbar trailer combinations on 3 different surfaces

Road surface

value
Wet asphalt
High
0,6
Wet concrete
High
0,55
Wet blue basalt
Low
0,2
Table 7 Road surfaces and values
The tests included four scenarios on horizontal road
surface, as listed in following table.
Scenario
Driving direction
Road friction
1
Straight forward
high
2
Straight forward
low
3
Straight forward
split
4
Curve
high
Table 8 Truck & trailer - ABS test scenarios
The curve scenario was performed on a horizontal circuit
with a radius of 100m, to simulate a sudden manoeuvre to
avoid an obstacle, such as a car coming out of a side street,
or an unexpected traffic jam on the road.

Figure 9 Relative stopping distance for 4 truck +


semitrailer combinations on 3 different surfaces

Following figures illustrate the difference in stopping


distance for each vehicle combination and for each
scenario. The value indicated is the stopping distance as %
against a vehicle without any ABS functionality.

Conclusions that can be made from the above findings:


The best improvement in stopping distance is clearly
provided if trucks and trailers both have ABS systems.
The key objective for the trailer ABS is to improve the
stability during emergency braking, which is not
illustrated in this test. Therefore we will elaborate a
second test in the next paragraph to illustrate stability
improvement.

The first figure illustrates the stopping performance of


different combinations of truck & drawbar trailers.
The second figure illustrates the stopping performance of
different combinations of tractor & semi-trailers.

4.2 DIRECTIONAL STABILITY - When the


combination becomes unstable and begins to slip, the driver
will try to compensate the slipping with steering
corrections.

Following figures illustrates the steering corrections by


visualising the angle of the steering wheel during the
braking manoeuvre. Each line represents a type of braking
system.
00 represents both truck and trailer without ABS
system
M0 represents a truck with ABS and a trailer
without ABS
MM represents both truck and trailer with ABS.

Truck-drawbar trailer
combination

Required steering angle

60

-60

ABS

ABS

50

-50

All tests were performed with two drivers. For each vehicle
combination, the test results were similar for both drivers.

ABS

NO ABS

NO ABS

NO ABS
-170 170

Table 9 Maximum steering angle during emergency stop


on straight line, road friction high
Truck-trailer
combination

Figure 10 Steering angle on truck-drawbar trailer


combination, initial speed 80 km/h, straight road, road
friction high

Required steering angle

-40

ABS

40

ABS

70

-70

ABS

NO ABS

NO ABS

NO ABS
-170 170

Table 10 Maximum steering angle during emergency


stop on straight line, road friction split
Conclusions that can be drawn from these observations:
Without any ABS system on the vehicle the driver will
have considerable difficulty to keep the vehicle on the road
and in control.
Not all drivers have the required experience to control
their vehicle in such situations.
Even when the driver has the required experience, in
many emergency situations there will not be enough
space to regain control over the slipping vehicle.

Figure 11 Steering angle at truck / semi trailer


combination, initial speed 80 km/h, straight ahead, road
friction Split
Following table uses the empirical results from the above
tests to illustrate the difficulty for the driver to keep the
combination on a straight driving line. We visualize the
maximum steering angle that was required during the
stopping maneuver for each combination.

With ABS on the truck and the trailer, the vehicle


combination will remain most stable.
The driver will need limited steering correction to keep
his driving path
The driver can look forward to the traffic situation
during the stopping manoeuvre:
o he does not have to look in the mirror to
verify the stability of his trailer,
o he does not need to take care of stabilizing his
trailer

6. COMPARISON OF ABS REGULATIONS


In this chapter we will provide a brief overview of the main
different regional legislations worldwide, and formulate
WABCO recommendations to legislative organizations.
6.1 LEGISLATION PER COUNTRY/REGION Following table contains a selective list of countries, with
the currently applicable regulation for trailers, the type and
implementation timing of ABS systems, and whether Cat A
systems have been taken into consideration.

If only the truck is equipped with ABS, the truck will be


steerable and stable during emergency braking, and he can
concentrate to the trailer reaction which will require
corrective steering..

ABS
requirements

Country

Regulation

Australia

Australian
Design
Rule ADR 38/03,

Brazil

Resolution
CONTRAN
312/2009

China

GB/T
13594-2003
Antilock
braking
performance
and
testing procedure for
motor vehicles and
their trailers

EU, all
member
states

UN ECE R 13, Series


10

Annex 13

Defined,
all
O4 shall be
equipped with
ABS Cat A

During the transition period of making ABS mandatory on


all vehicles, WABCO advises to immediately retrofit all
trucks with ABS power supply for the trailer.

India

Indian Standard IS
11852; based on
European regulations

In Part 9; if O4
are fitted with
ABS they have to
fulfil
requirements of
part 9

Defined, but
not required

On trailers it is recommended
to equip the trailer with ABS power supply with a 5pole or 7-pole connection according ISO 7638.
to use ABS modulators which are designed for the
additional voltage supply via ISO 1185 or ISO 12098,
which is the brake lamp supply 24N. If the brake
modulator is connected to more than one power supply,
it will automatically select the highest voltage. If one
power supply fails, the brake modulator automatically
switches to the other power supply, to ensure correct
ABS functionality.

Japan

Local
regulation
based on UN ECE
R 13 Series 6

All O3 & O4
trailers must have
ABS

Canada

CMVSS 121
Brake Systems

All semi-trailers
and full trailers
shall have ABS

Korea

UN ECE R13
Series 10

South
Africa

SANS 20013,2009
Edition 3,copy of
ECE R13, 2008
Revision 6

USA

FMVSS 121
Brake Systems

UN ECE

Regulation No 13,
Series 11

If only the trailer is equipped with ABS, in case of panic


reactions or high brake activation on slippery ground, the
wheels of the truck can block and the driver has to release
the brake to stabilize the vehicle. The ABS controlled
trailer will remain stable and keep its driving path, and the
driver can concentrate fully on trucks behaviour

5. RECOMMENDATIONS DURING TRANSITION


PHASE
5.1. VEHICLE EQUIPMENT
Following paragraph lists recommendations to vehicle
builders and vehicle operators, during the transition phase
of implementing ABS on all vehicles.

10

Air

If ABS is fitted,
Appendix 1
Until 1.1.2014 all
O
shall
be
equipped
with
ABS
All O4 shall be
equipped
with
ABS; technical
requirements
similar to ECE R
13

Annex 13

Air

All
vehicles
O3&O4
built
after 14.02.2004
have
to
be
equipped
with
ABS
All semi-trailers
and full trailers
shall have ABS
Annex 13

Cat A
Not mentioned
Not
defined
yet, but follow
original ECR
R13
Defined, but
not required

Not
defined
but
follow
original
R13 06
No
ABS
categories are
defined
Defined,
all
O4 shall be
equipped with
ABS CAT A
Only vehicles
for hazardous
goods requires
CAT A
No
ABS
categories are
defined
Defined,
all
O4 shall be
equipped with
ABS Cat A

6.2 CONCLUSIONS
EU countries all use the ECE R13 norm, and have
mandatory usage of Cat A ABS systems for O4 trailers
(+10 Ton)
Many regions and countries base their new ABS and
RSS legislation on the European norm ECE R13,
which will lead to an international standardisation on
long term.
Some countries still have no ABS legislation
Even in many countries where ABS legislation is not
implemented for transport in general, Category A ABS
systems are mandatory for Transport of hazardous
goods.
In countries where ABS legislation is implemented but
not mandatory requiring a Cat A system, the market
has typically adopted Cat A systems on over 50% of
the O4 trailers.

Figure 12 ABS Myths and Facts, source: Heavy Duty


Trucking & WABCO, 19955
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
GUNTHER MEISE
Gunther.Meise@wabco-auto.com

WABCO
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO
LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATIONS - Based on
observations and experiences in regions which already
implemented ABS and additional legislation, WABCO
recommends following to legislative authorities:

Tel +49 511 922 15 86


Address:
Am Lindener Hafen 21
Hannover 30453 Germany

Make ABS category A mandatory on all tractors and


trailers: ABS has a proven safety benefit
Base the regional legislation on ECE R13. This will
allow vehicle manufacturers to use existing technology
and training infrastructures, thereby minimizing the
direct and indirect costs of vehicle adaptations,
homologation, retrofitting and maintenance.
A public information campaign with objective
statistics, to illustrate the benefits of the new
legislation. In this campaign, a straightforward Q&A
can be used to address commonly asked questions.
Periodic control on correct installation and functioning
of the ABS system on vehicles is highly recommended.
Regions with an ABS legislation, but without a formal
periodic control of vehicles effected by an objective
institute, typically experience a low ABS
implementation percentage on both new and existing
vehicles.
Motivate vehicle manufacturers and logistics operators
for preparing and implementing Rollover Stability
Support (RSS) braking systems. RSS is recommended
as the logic next step in the legislation, within 5 years
after ABS implementation, to further improve road
safety. This will allow the vehicle manufacturers to
anticipate and homologate their vehicles with the most
appropriate technology.
Provide drivers with myths and facts information and
tips on how to use the ABS system. An example is
provided below

GUNTHER MEISE joined WABCO in 1973 and has held


various responsibilities in ABS engineering, sales,
marketing and international management. He is based in
Hannover, Germany, and currently leads the global
business development of Trailer ABS.
JEFFRY STEEMANS
Jeffry.Steemans@wabco-auto.com
Address:
Waversesteenweg 1789
1160 Brussels, Belgium

JEFFRY STEEMANS joined WABCO in 2007 and


held various positions in sales, finance, marketing
management. He is based in Brussels, Belgium,
currently leads the global trailer marketing activities
the development of the Intelligent Trailer Program.

has
and
and
and

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 correlation between wheel speed and slip ..............2
Table 2 Layout comparison of Cat A and Cat B ABS
systems ................................................................................5
Table 3 brake pressure behavior in three brake systems .....5
5

11

A.Ryder, Antilock: understanding it, driving it

Table 4 FMEA of Cat A and Cat B systems........................7


Table 5 Tested tractor-semi trailer configurations...............7
Table 6 Tested combinations of truck - drawbar trailers .....8
Table 7 Road surfaces and values ....................................8
Table 8 Truck & trailer - ABS test scenarios ......................8
Table 9 Maximum steering angle during emergency stop on
straight line, road friction high ............................................9
Table 10 Maximum steering angle during emergency stop
on straight line, road friction split .......................................9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Friction forces on trailer wheel .............................2
Figure 2 Longitudinal friction on different surfaces............2
Figure 3 Latitudinal friction ................................................2
Figure 4 Example - ABS functioning on one wheel............3
Figure 5 Comparison of absolute braking distances............6
Figure 6 CAT A prevents Fishtailing ..................................6
Figure 7 Failure Modes and Effect Analysis overview .......7
Figure 8 Relative stopping distance for 5 truck + drawbar
trailer combinations on 3 different surfaces ........................8
Figure 9 Relative stopping distance for 5 truck + semitrailer
combinations on 3 different surfaces...................................8
Figure 10 Steering angle on truck-drawbar trailer
combination, initial speed 80 km/h, straight road, road
friction high.......................................................................9
Figure 11 Steering angle at truck / semi trailer combination,
initial speed 80 km/h, straight ahead, road friction Split.....9
Figure 12 ABS Myths and Facts, source: Heavy Duty
Trucking & WABCO, 1995 .............................................. 11
REFERENCES
[1] WABCO, Vario Compact ABS, 2nd generation, 4th
edition, 2007, INFORM 8150100083
[2] J.A.Reuvekamp, Luchtdrukremsystemen, 3d edition,
WABCO, Delta Press, 1999, ISBN 90 7764 809 5
[3] Volker Mensing, Truck & trailer ABS, 2006
[4] Wolff C, Reinecke E.; Automatisch Blokierverhinderer
in Nutzfahrzeug-Kombinationen, DKF, TUV Rheinland,
Essen, Germany, 8312DKF41102, 1982
[5] A.Ryder, Anti-lock: understanding it, driving it,
Heavy Duty TruckingNovember 1995

12

Av. Paulista, 2.073 - Ed. Horsa II - Cj. 1003


So Paulo / SP - CEP 01311-940
Seo Regional Caxias do Sul
(54) 3223.8677

11 3287-2033 (fone) / 11 3288-6599 (fax)


www.saebrasil.org.br

Вам также может понравиться