Smith suvSEPTEMBER 2002 49BY MARY S.SMITH AND ANTHONY P.CHRESTn an article in the March 2002 issue of ConcreteInternational (see Sport Utility Vehicles and theincreased to 3000 lb (1400 kg).He also recommends thatthe uniform live load should be increased to 100 lb/ft) for spans up to 20 ft (6 m).
It was proposedfurther that live loads for spans over 20 ft (6 m) shouldnot be reduced for the design of parking structure floors.Finally, he suggests that existing parking structuresshould be evaluated and may need to be retrofitted.His analysis was focused on very short slab spans(2 to 6 ft [0.6 to 1.8 m]) and, in particular, on non-composite concrete slabs carried by steel bar joistsasystem that is rarely used in parking structure design.Point of viewIs There a WeightProblem?How to design parking structures for todays vehicle sales trendsMoreover, the 3000-lb (1400 kg) loads from four rearwheels were applied to a single joist, without anyopinion, the analysis is too conservative.
It essentiallyassumes that every vehicle in a parking structure will bea Ford F-350 pickup truck loaded to nearly its maximumpayload; the maximum gross vehicle weight rating forWalker Parking Consultants has monitored the size ofpurpose is to try to determine what vehicle trends arelikely to affect parking dimension requirements over thenext few years.Our analysis is of calendar-year sales asreported in the .The mixture of vehicles on the road will reflect themixture in sales in 5 to 7 years.
Figure 1 presents thetrends in passenger vehicle sales by vehicle type sincewe began including light trucks, vans, and sport utilityvehicles (LTVU) in the analysis.The classification ofsport wagons is a recent one, and includes sport utilityThis point of view article is presented for reader interest by theeditors.However, the opinions expressed are not necessarilythose of the American Concrete Institute.Reader comment isinvited.This article is also published in memory of Anthony P.Chrest, who died suddenly on April 23, 2002.SEPTEMBER 2002 It was widely reported that LTVU sales comprised halfthe market in 2001, but the shift to LTVUs didnt happenovernight.The minivan, introduced in 1983 by Chrysler,rendered the old family station wagon (among thelargest of all passenger vehicles) an endangered andnearly extinct species.As car prices increased throughthe 1980s, many families found smaller pickup trucks topurchase, a lot of those folks traded up to heavier-dutypickup trucks, and compact pickups pretty muchdisappeared from the market.Then, in the mid-1990s, the sport utility vehicle (SUV)began to steal market share from many classifications,from sports cars to family sedans, as well as minivans.Both the typical SUV and the typical pickup truckbecame much larger through the 1990s, a trend thatappears to be stabilizing.
Those lured into Expeditionsand Suburbans by their passenger-carrying capacity arenow moving down to the newest segment: the sportwagon.
Also called crossovers or hybrids, these aresport utility-type vehicles built on car chassis instead oftruck chassis; thus, they tend to ride and handle likecars rather than trucks.The emergence of the sport wagon (SW) is the mostsignificant trend as of this writing.Sales of SWs doubledin 2001 from 2000, with more than 820,000 sold in 2001.According to JD Powers count, the first SW was the 1996Toyota RAV 4.Today there are 18 SW models, and by2006, there could be 46.It appears that SW sales arecoming from large cars, minivans, and SUV sales.Thegood news is SWs are lighter than SUVs.Sales of the largest LTVUs (Classes 10 and 11) comprisedabout the same market share in 2001 as in 2000.Itappears that the trend to mammoth SUVs has reached aplateau, and therefore, neither parking dimensions nordesign loads are expected to increase significantlybeyond those required today.Conversely, the failure ofan effort last spring by some members of Congress toimprove the fuel efficiency of LTVUs also means thatthose vehicles will probably not get significantly smalleror lighter in the near future.Moreover, while all car and LTVU sales have beentrucks are primarily used for commercial purposes, andare rarely parked in visitor and commuter parkingfacilities, particularly parking structures.In a studyconducted in March 2002 in seven U.S.
cities (Austin, TX;Boston, MA; Denver, CO; Hartford, CT; Indianapolis, IN;Fig.1: Vehicle sales trends, by vehicle type, for 1987 through 1996
2001 SEPTEMBER 2002 51Kalamazoo, MI; and Los Angeles, CA), we comparedfacilities to the mixture of vehicles sold in the last6 years (Table 1).Some regional variations do occur: Denver had 33%vans.However, on average, it appears that about 1/3 ofa typical parking vehicle mixture.
primary focus of our analysis, weight and height haverecently become of increasing concern in parking facilitydesign.Therefore, we recently evaluated our database ofvehicle sales from 1996 through 2001 for weight trends.Figure 2 shows the percent of vehicles sold each calendarand cargo) in incremental categories.This figure doesconservative with regard to parking conditions.reports weights only for the base model.
It furtherreports only curb weight for cars.For LTVUs, whichinclude pickup trucks, vans, SUVs, and SWs, it reportsthe Gross Vehicle Weight Range (GVWR) and PayloadRange, not curb weight.
However, the manufacturersweight as not available.To enhance the analysis ofvehicle weights, we have used multiple Internet sources, Automotive News website, the manufacturershome pages, and vehicle comparison services such ascarsdirect.com and autosite.com.A further complication is that industry sources such dont report sales by submodels.For example, four-door sedan and wagon versions ofthe Taurus are reported in one line.This hasnt beena problem for cars because in nearly all cases, allversions fall into the same size classification
.It is moreof a problem when all Ford F-Series picku
Weight And Dimensional Data On More Than 41,000 Cars, Copy …
database, or the manufacturer is not listed, try to find a similar type vehicle for use in ... The standard curb weight measurement is for the vehicle with full (walkerparking.com)
I/m Lookup Table Update (october 2000)
vehicle parameter database and the consolidated Lookup Table. ... ALVW is defined as the average of curb weight plus gross vehicle weight rating (i.e., [curb weight ... (4n6xprt.com)
FinalrptReport No.SR00-10-01I/M Lookup Table UpdateU.S.Environmental Protection AgencyTransportation and Regional Programs DivisionWork Assignment No.
2-03prepared by:Richard W.JoyJohn M.
LeeSierra Research, Inc.1801 J StreetDISCLAIMER NO.1The accuracy of the information contained in this database has not beenverified by some of the manufacturers of the drivetrain configuration (e.g., two-wheel versus four-wheeldrive) and other parameters could affect the safety of dynamometer testing.In addition, the failure to properly identify vehicles with traction controlsystems could lead to excessive stress on vehicle components duringdynamometer testing.
To minimize the risks associated with suchinaccuracies, it is recommended that vehicles be adequately restrainedduring dynamometer testing until the validity of the information in thedatabase has been confirmed.
To minimize the risk of damage to vehicles,it is recommended that drivers be trained to detect the drive configurationof all vehicles and to recognize when a traction control system is present.DISCLAIMER NO.
2Although the information described in this report has been funded whollyor in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency underand administrative review and is being released for information purposesonly.
It therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency andno official endorsement should be inferred.I/M LOOKUP TABLE UPDATETable of of Certification Register Fuel Economy Additional Table Fuel Inlet Pressure Test of Tablespage1.EPA Certification Contacted Regarding Vehicle Testabilit3.Format of EPA I/M Lookup Sources for EPA I/M Lookup Truck IM240 & Evap Technical Guidance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-R-00-007, April2000, and Acceleration Simulation Mode Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality ControlRequirements, and Equipment Specifications, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-AA-RPSD-IM-96-2, July 1996.maintenance (I/M) programs.
Vehicles subject to enhanced I/M have exhaust emissionsmeasured while undergoing loaded mode testing, i.e., in which the vehicle is driven ona standard driving cycle on a chassis dynamometer.
One or a combination of the possibledriving cycles listed below are currently being used in the enhanced I/M programs.1.A 240-second, stop-and-go driving (transient) test called the IM240.2.Shorter transient test cycles such as the IM93, IM147 (which are both subsets ofthe IM240), or BAR31 tests.3.A shorter, steady-state test called the Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM)2525, designed to simulate acceleration during in-use vehicle operation.
AlthoughASM tests are run at a steady speed, the dynamometer is set to load the vehiclemore than if the vehicle were cruising at a steady speed.
ASM2525 is run at25% of the load required to accelerate at 3.3 mph/sec (the maximum accelerationrate on the FTP) at a speed of 25 mph.4.A second ASM test mode called the ASM5015.
ASM5015 is run at 50% ofthe load required to accelerate at 3.3 mph/sec (the maximum acceleration rate onthe FTP) at a speed of 15 mph.
To efficiently use one or more of the above tests, an I/M test facility must be able toquickly and easily adjust the chassis dynamometer power absorption and (in the case ofthe IM240 or another transient test cycle) inertia weight settings for each vehicle, so thatthe vehicle engine is properly loaded during testing.
Under enhanced I/M test guidanceissued by EPA, the dynamometer settings are to be automatically selected for eachvehicle, based on vehicle parameters entered into the test record by the I/M laneinspector.According to the enhanced test guidance, EPA is responsible for supplying an electroniclookup table that can be used to automatically select the proper dynamometer settings foreach particular vehicle.
Under contract to EPA, Sierra Research developed and releasedin September 1994 an initial version of the Lookup Table that contained bothdynamometer settings and purge/pressure testability data.
Subsequent versions have alsobeen prepared and released by Sierra for EPA.
This report addresses Sierras latestrelease (Version 1.8.4) of the Lookup Table.
Changes incorporated into Version 1.8.4 ofthe table include the addition of 1999 model-year vehicles, deletion of data on alternativetest pressures for conducting the fuel inlet vehicle evaporative control system integrity(pressure) test, deletion of heavy-duty vehicle data records, correction/addition of testparameters based on a detailed comparison with I/M test data provided by the state ofVirginia and other independent sources of data, and other miscellaneous updates.
Section 2 of this report provides background on the sources of data used to construct andupdate the electronic Lookup Table.
Section 3 describes the format of the database andSection 4 contains the computational methodologies used to construct it.
Section 5provides additional details on the changes incorporated into Version 1.8.4 of the table.Several sources were accessed to obtain necessary vehicle parameter data.
Each of thesesources is discussed below, along with a description of the data obtained from eachThe primary source of information used to initially develop the Lookup Table wascertification data obtained from EPAs certification databases located on the Wayne StateUniversity mainframe computer in Detroit, Michigan.
Pertinent data from this source aredescribed in Table 1.
The listed data were provided by EPA for 1981 and later modelyear vehicles (data on curb weight, rather than equivalent test weight, were provided forsome models).
In addition, incomplete data for model years 19781980 were alsoprovided.
For example, vehicle coastdown times were not provided for most of theDetermination of Model Namescertain model names that are listed in a very c
Tags: curb weight of cars,weights of vehicles,curb weights,