80 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1356

Roadway Design Standards To

Accommodate Low-Clearance Vehicles
RONALD w. ECK AND s. K. KANG

It has been attempted to develop geometric design standards to
accommodate low-ground-clearance vehicles using computer soft-
ware. Low-clearance vehicles include lowboy equipment trailers,
car carriers, single- and double-drop van trailers, and cars and
trucks with trailers. Hang-ups and overhang dragging on high-
profile roadways are causes of concern for low-ground-clearance
vehicles. The objective was achieved through the development
and application of the HANGUP software package and the anal-
ysis of the design standards of several agencies. Although a few
agencies have developed geometric design standards for low-
clearance vehicles at rail-highway grade crossings, they are not
commonly used by highway engineers. The American Railway
Engineering Association (AREA) grade crossing and ITE drive-
way design standards were evaluated with HANGUP using a
vehicle with a 36-ft wheelbase and 5 in. of ground clearance. This
can be considered as the standard or "design" low-clearance ve-
hicle. On the basis of limited field data collection, such vehicles
represented 85th-percentile values for ground clearance and
wheelbase. The results indicate that the AREA design standards
accommodate low-clearance vehicles but the ITE standards do
not. Grade changes of more than 2.3 percent on each side of
railroad grade crossings have the potential for causing low-clearance
vehicles to become stuck. Grade changes at intersections should
be less than or equal to 4.6 percent, which is the maximum slope
rate for the standard low-clearance vehicle.
Only very limited data are available on the hang-up and
overhang problems at railroad crossings and elsewhere on the
highway system . Certain severe accidents have been publi-
cized in the media and investigated by the National Trans-
portation Safety Board (NTSB) (1,2). In telephone conver-
sations, personnel from the Public Utility Commission of
Oregon indicated that Oregon averages about one accident a
year in which a low-clearance vehicle gets hung up on railroad
tracks and is struck by a train. Discussions with local and state
highway agency personnel and trucking company officials in-
dicated that even though hard data are lacking, the problem
is believed to be significant. For example, the mid-Atlantic
region safety director for a trucking company that transports
automobiles noted that his fleet experiences 50 to 60 hang-
up incidents per month. However, from accident data in gen-
eral, it is usually not possible to identify which accidents are
the result of low-clearance vehicles' becoming lodged on high-
profile roadways. Thus, it is difficult to quantify the magnitude
of the hang-up problem.

When a long wheelbase or low-ground-clearance vehicle ne-

gotiates a high-profile roadway-such as a railroad-highway
grade crossing, roadway crown, or driveway entrance-the
vehicle may become lodged or stuck on the "hump." There
are several types of low-ground-clearance vehicle, as shown
in Figure 1. These include lowboy equipment trailers, car
carriers, single- and double-drop van trailers, and cars and
trucks with trailers. A not-uncommon occurrence is one in
which a railroad is on an embankment and a low-ground-
clearance vehicle on the crossing roadway becomes lodged on
the track and is subsequently struck by a train. Hang-ups on
railroad crossings are probably the most visible and dramatic
of all incidents on high-profile roadways, but the problem also
occurs relatively frequently at driveway entrances, street in-
tersections, and roadway crowns.
Vehicle overhang is another cause of concern for low-ground-
clearance vehicles. On sag vertical curves, significant front
and rear overhang may cause dragging. Even though overhang
is a less significant situation than a hang-up, it creates many
problems-including damage to the roadway surface, poten-
tial danger if the affected vehicle carries hazardous material,
and delay and inconvenience to the truck and other motorists.

R. W. Eck, Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia Uni-

versity, Morgantown, W.Va . 26506. S. K. Kang, Keimyung Univer- FIGURE 1 Common types of low-clearance vehicles found in
sity, Shindong-dong, Dalsa-gu, Daegu, Korea. traffic stream.
Eck and Kang
NTSB believes that although high-profile surfaces at grade
crossings are not a statistically significant problem nationwide,
the hazard is serious enough to warrant corrective measures
(3). Countermeasures should be initiated relative to the iden-
tification of such crossings and the signing of crossings iden-
tified as hazardous to low-profile vehicles. Recently, NTSB
recommended that FHW A identify design criteria to deter-
mine what geometric conditions on approaches to grade cross-
ings would create a hazard to low-clearance vehicles and to
develop geometric design criteria and traffic control systems
for mitigating these hazards (3). A procedure to identify pro-
file design criteria for rail-highway crossings and for high-
profile roadway sections in general needs to be developed.
OBJECTIVES
Research was conducted to address the problem of low-
clearance vehicles. Specific objectives of the study were
1. To determine, through a literature review, existing stan-
dards and guidelines aimed at accommodating low-ground-
clearance vehicles on high-profile roadways.
2. To develop a microcomputer software package to model
the travel of low-clearance vehicles over a variety of high-
profile geometries.
3. To apply the oftware package to evaluate the adequacy
of existing standards and guidelines aimed at low-ground-
clearance vehicles.
4. To apply the software package to develop specific high-
way design criteria to accommodate low-clearance vehicles
and to present them in a form suitable for inclusion in ap-
propriate highway design standards.
The software package, HANGUP, has been described before
(4 ,5). This paper will focus on the review and analysis of
existing guidelines and on the development of design stan-
dards .
APPROACHES TO PROBLEM
The literature review indicated that researchers have been
aware of vehicle ground-clearance problems for a number of
years. However, efforts have been sporadic and directed at
specific problems. There has been no integrated approach to
address the ground-clearance problem in general.
As early as 1958, McConnell mentioned vehicle ground-
clearance problems in his review of 10-year trends (1948-
1958) in domestic and foreign passenger car dimensions (6).
Specific dimensions studied included wheelbase, angles of ap-
proach and departure, minimum ground-clearance, and ramp
breakover angle . Figure 2 illustrates the concepts of angle of
approach, angle of departure, and breakover angle for pas-
senger cars.
McConnell concluded that the most critical condition was
rear overhang on short-wheelbase vehicles under conditions
of rear jounce, which is a vehicle's downward action in a sag
vertical curve or bump (6). A sag vertical curve radius less
than about 90 ft would bother short passenger cars. Long
passenger cars would experience the same trouble on a sag
81
FIGURE 2 Concept of angle of approach (top), angle of
departure (middle) and ramp breakover angle (bottom)
(6).
radius of 80 ft or less. McConnell recommended that th~re
be no more than a 5 percent change in slope betw<;en any two
10-ft chords (that is, the ramp over a 6-in. curb should be at
least 10 ft long) and that there be no more than 1.5 in. of
clearance between the pavement and a 10-ft straightedge.
Bauer described the problem of insufficient ground clear-
ance for automobiles traversing driveway entrances in sub-
urban or residential areas (7). He proposed the use of a 2-
in . safety margin for vehicle ground clearance to accommo-
date the downward thrust that cars experience when brakes
are applied while traversing the varying profile grade of
driveway proposed. Figure 3 shows the driveway design
propo ed by Bauer. Figure 3 (top) presents the profile for an
ascending slope; Fi~ure 3 (bottom) shows that of a descending
slope. When the driveway ascends steeply from the back of
the walk into an owner's property, the ascent for the first 5
ft back of the walk should not be more than 10 in., or at the
rate of 16 percent. For a descending slope, the descent should
not be more than 2.5 in., or 4 percent, in the first 5 ft from
the back edge of the walk and not more than 9 in., or 15
percent, in the next 5 ft, making the maximum permissible
descent about 1 ft in the first 10 ft. The 25 percent grade
shown on the illu tration is the maximum recommended grade
for driveways on private property.
This was the precomputer era, so Bauer recommended a
manual procedure for checking designs (7). The procedure
involved cutting out a model car using a piece of cardboard
at the same scale as the profile. The model could be slid along
the profile to find any trouble spots, and the profile adjusted
as necessary.
Given the early intere tin clearance problems at driveway
and parking lot entrances, a portion of the .l iterature review
focused on this topic. Vehicles entering and leaving driveways
and traver ing parking .ramps face the possibility of hang-up
or dragging of vehicle overhangs. The profile of the driveway
or ramp is an important element because it affects potential
damage to the unde1 ides of vehicles and the comfort of ve-
hicle occupants. Similarly, an elevated pavement crown can
82
w
u
z
c.
m: I
~I
.J '
u l
HT !FT
CRITICAL CLE~ANCE
l[----
POSITION I
+
3FT :SFT
CUMI
FIGURE 3 Driveway profiles proposed by Bauer (7): ascending slope, top; descending
slope, bottom.
cause a hang-up situation for !ow-clearance vehicles when they
cross such roadways or when they attempt U-turns.
Standards established by SAE (8) for passenger cars and
light-duty truck under full-rated load limit the ramp break-
over angle and angle of departure to 10 degrees. The angle
of approach should be no more than 16 degrees. Even though
the angles for heavy truck were not mentioned in the SAE
handbook the angles might be much higher than those of the
pa senger cars and light-duty trucks. Veh.icles (pa . enger cars)
designed to negotiate such geometry theoretically should be
able to traverse sag and crest sections at the bottom and top
of a 17.6 percent ramp grade and to move to flat grades
without need for a grade transition area. However, a guideline
for parking lot ramp suggests a minimum 12-ft-Jong transition
slope equal to half of the ramp grade to increa e driver sight
distance at the ramp crest and to give comfort at sag section
(9) .
ITE bas published a guideline for driveways (JO). Figure 4
and Table 1 show desirable and suggested maximum grade
changes for three classes of driveways. For the values shown
in the table, no vertical curve connecting the tangents is nee-
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1356
!HT VARIABLE
ORIVEWAY
AREA
-- -~ ....
4 .0 I".
z
1
.;--~
' ~
5 FT
OAIVEWAY
essary.The value of G 1 is limited by shoulder slope or by the
presence of a sidewalk within the right-of-way but desirably
il hould not exceed 10 percent. The maximum grade (G2 )
generally should be Limited to 15 percent for residential drive-
ways and 5 to 8 percent for commercial and iodu trial drive-
ways.
The ITE guideline would work with the SAE vehicle stan-
dards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks; however, it is
doubtful that it could accommodate heavy trucks. The ITE
guideline also suggests that for grade changes more abrupt
than those shown in the figure, vertical curves at least 10 ft
long should be used to connect tangents.
Low-ground-clearance vehicle hang-up accidents on
railroad-highway grade crossings highlight the absence of readily
available geometric standards for designing and maintaining
roadway profiles at grade crossings. After it investigated a
1983 hang-up accident in North Carolina, NTSB (1) warned
that crossing profiles with hump-like vertical curves can impede
the operation of a vehicle if the distance between any two
axles of a vehicle spans the hump and the height of the hump
exceeds the vehicle's ground clearance. The report recom-
Eck and Kang 83

Edge of
pavement or
shoulder --....
I
I
I
I
I

Tangent

FIGURE 4 Driveway profiles suggested by ITE (JO).

mended that existing grade crossings with roadway profiles
that may be hazardous to certain vehicles should be identified
and, subsequently, improvements made. Identification of such
crossings implies the need for a geometric design standard or
criteria.
The America Railway Engineering Association (AREA)
developed and published geometric design standards for
railroad-highway grade crossings (11). The standards state,
"It is desirable that the surface of the highway be not more
than 3 inches higher nor 6 inches lower than the top of nearest
rail at a point 30 feet from the rail, measured at right angle
thereto, unless track superelevation dictates otherwise." Un-
fortunately, there is no evidence that these guidelines were
used in any of the accidents investigated by NTSB, most likely
because the railway engineering document was not generally
available to highway designers. It is interesting to note that
the 1990 edition of the AASHTO Green Book included, for
the first time, specific vertical alignment standards to accom-
modate low-clearance vehicles (12). The standards presented
are actually a restatement of the AREA standards.
dards were evaluated with HANGUP using a vehicle with a
36-ft wheelbase and 5 in. of ground clearance.
As noted, the AREA design standard was used in the 1990
edition of the AASHTO Green Book for grade crossing pro-
files (12). As shown in Table 2, a 36-ft-wheelbase vehicle will
not bang up until the ground clearance drops below 4 in.
Therefore, the AREA design standard, as expected, was found
to accommodate most low-clearance vehicles.
ITE's recommended driveway design, shown in Figure 4,
was analyzed using HANGUP. The maximum grade change
(D) of 3 percent was analyzed. The standard low-clearance
vehicle will have problems with this design, as shown in Table
3. Consequently, most low-clearance vehicles will hang up on
the recommended low-volume driveway profile. It can be
concluded, therefore, that the ITE driveway design recom-
mendations do not accommodate low-clearance vehicles. This
should be pointed out clearly in the recommendations.
Development of Design Standards

Design Considerations
RESULTS
Field studies indicate that the trucks operating on the nation's
Applications to Existing Design Standards highway system have a wide variety of wheelbases and ground
clearances. Although it is clearly unusual, ground clearances
It seemed appropriate to apply the capabilities of the HANGUP as low as 2 in . have been found. Wheelbases, defined here
software package to evaluate some of the low-clearance design as the distance from rear axle of the tractor to front axle of
standards currently in use. The AREA and ITE design stan- the trailer, are even more variable . Data from weigh stations
indicate that wheelbases of low-ground-clearance vehicles can
range from 21 to more than 40 ft.
It is not feasible to design the highway system to accom-
TABLE 1 Suggested Grade Changes for Three Classes of modate such extremes. However, the system should accom-
Driveway Shown in Figure 4
modate all of the common vehicle types. A logical choice,
Suggested Maximum which has precedence in traffic engineering, would be to use
Grade Change (D) (percent) 85th-percentile values for ground clearance and wheelbase .
Type of Driveway Desirable Maximum To meet this criterion vertical alignment should be de igned
High volume 0 3
for vehicles with greater than or equal to 5 in. of ground
Low volume on clearance and for wheelbases of less than or equal to 36 ft.
major or collector This can be considered as the design low-ground-clearance
street 3 6 vehicle.
Low volume on controlled by vehicle Different profile types may create problems for low-clearance
local street 6 clearance ( 15)
vehicles. Three types of high-profile roadway are shown in
84 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1356

TABLE 2 Output from Software Package HANGUP for AREA Design Standard
Crossing Profile

Ground Clearance (in)

--------------------------------------------------
Wheel Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
--------------------------------------------------
10 (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 (ft) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 (ft) 1 l 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 (ft) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 (ft) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 (ft) l l 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 (ft) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 (ft) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 (ft) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------
l -> Hanq up, O -> Safe

Figure 5. The first two profiles have the potential to cause
hang-ups for low-clearance vehicles . The last profile can cause
dragging or scraping problems for vehicles with long over-
hangs. Table 4 presents the maximum grades and elevation
differences at a point 30 ft from outer rails for the Type I
profile. Table 5 presents the minimum crest vertical curve
lengths for Type II profiles that can safely accommodate the
design low-clearance vehicle.
The design and construction of crest vertical curves for low-
ground-clearance vehicles involve several considerations:
which does not interrupt through traffic, must also be pro-
vided for low-ground-clearance vehicles in advance of the
crossing.
5. Weigh stations should measure wheelbase and ground
clearance under static conditions for vehicles whose ability to
negotiate high-profile roadways appears questionable .
6. On existing roadway profiles, surface maintenance is very
important. Pavement patches or pavement defects can lead
to hang-ups for certain low-ground-clearance vehicles.

1. To eliminate hang-up incidents at high-profile roadways, Prevention of Overhang Dragging

the rate of change of grade on crest vertical curves should be
constant, that is, a parabolic curve.
2. All Interstate and primary highways should accommo-
date the design low-ground-clearance vehicle .
3. All secondary highways and local roads that cannot meet
the design standard should provide an advance warning sign
advising of the potential clearance problem.
4. A detour route or turning space on a relatively level area,
When a low-ground-clearance vehicle traverses a sag vertical
curve, significant front and rear overhang of the vehicle may
cause dragging. Figure 6 represents the rear end of a long-
overhang vehicle, where V is the rear-overhang length (in
feet) and his the ground-clearance (in inches) in a sag vertical
curve. Equation 1 gives the minimum sag vertical curve length
to prevent the overhang problem.
Eck and Kang 85

TABLE 3 Output from Software Package HANGUP for Profile Recommended by

ITE for High-Volume Driveways
Ground Clearance (in)
--------------------------------------------------
Wheel Base l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
--------------------------------------------------
10 (ft) l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 (ft) 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 (ft) 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 (ft) l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 (ft) 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 (ft) l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 (ft) 1 l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 (ft) 1 l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 (ft) 1 l 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 (ft) l l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 (ft) l l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 (ft) l l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 (ft) l l l l 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 (ft) l l l l 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 (ft) l 1 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 (ft) 1 1 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 (ft) l l 1 l 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 (ft) 1 1 l 1 l 0 0 0 0 0
29 (ft) l 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
30 (ft) 1 1 l 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
31 (ft) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
32 (ft) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
33 (ft) 1 1 1 1 l 0 0 0 0 0
34 (ft) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
35 (ft) 1 l l 1 l 1 0 0 0 0
36 (ft) 1 l l 1 l 1 0 0 0 0
37 (ft) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
38 (ft) 1 1 1 l 1 1 0 0 0 0
39 (ft) 1 1 l l 1 1 1 0 0 0
40 (ft) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------
1 -> Hang up, o -> Sate

44
I- w -j L . = l V2 + h cos (90 - Y2 tan - 1(A)] (1)
mm 12/i
~----~+g~------~~----~---
g --~
where
L = length of sag vertical curve (ft),
V = overhang length of the vehicle (ft),
2 h = ground clearance of the vehicle (in .), and
A = g2 - gl A = algebraic difference in grades (percent/100).
Table 6 presents the minimum lengths of sag vertical curves
to prevent overhang dragging for the design low-clearance
vehicle. For example, when a low-ground-clearance vehicle
whose rear overhang length is 5 ft and ground clearance is 5
in. traverses a sag vertical curve wi th a 10 percent algebraic
-g + difference in grade the minimum length of the sag curve
I- w -1
should be 3 ft. For overall safety on highway , sag vertica l
FIGURE 5 Three types of high-profile roadway: Type I, top; curves should be long enough so that low-ground-clearance
Type II, middle; Type III, bottom. vehicles can traverse the curve without dragging.
TABLE 4 Maximum Grades and Elevation Differences for Type I Profile To Accommodate the Design Low-
Clearance Vehicle

Width of Level Maximum Safe Max. Eleva. Dif-

Section, w (ft) Grades, g (\) ferences, h (in)
4 1 8. 5 11 2.5 9.0
6 2.7 9.5
8 2.9 9.7
10 3.1 10.2
12 3.3 10.4
14 3.5 10.6
16 3.8 11.1
18 4.1 11. 5
20 4.4 11.8
22 or more 4.6 11.8

TABLES Minimum Crest Vertical Curve Lengths for Type II Profiles To Accommodate Design Low-
Clearance Vehicle

Algebraic Difference, A (\) curve Length, L (ft)

1 4
2 8
3 12
4 16
5 20
6 24
7 28
8 32
9 35
10 39

Parabolic Profile

FIGURE 6 Rear end of long overhang vehicle with sag vertical curve.
Eck and Kang 87

TABLE 6 Minimum Lengths of Sag Vertical Curves To Prevent Overhang Dragging for Design Low-Clearance
Vehicle
CLEARANCE (IN. )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
2 2.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
3 5.4 2.7 1. 8 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
4 9.6 4.8 3.2 2.4 1. 9 1. 6 1. 4 1. 2 1.1
5 14.9 7.5 5.0 3.8 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 1. 7
6 21. 5 10.8 7.2 5.4 4.3 3.6 3.1 2.7 2.4
7 29.3 14.7 9.8 7.3 5.9 4.9 4.2 3.7 3.3
8 38.3 19.1 12.8 9.6 7.7 6.4 5.5 4.8 4.3
9 48.4 24.2 16.2 12.1 9.7 8.1 6.9 6.1 5.4
10 59.8 29.9 19.9 15.0 12 . 0 10.0 8.6 7.5 6.7
Note Grade Difference = 10 t, Unit for lengths is in . ft.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Additional wheelbase and ground-clearance data need to

This study has attempted to use computer software to develop
geometric design standards to accommodate low-ground-
clearance vehicles. This objective was achieved through the
development of the HANGUP software package and the anal-
ysis of the design standards of several agencies.
Although a few agencies have developed geometric design
standards for low-clearance vehicles at crossings, they are not
generally known to highway designers and, therefore, are not
used. Apparently, the standards have been based on expe-
rience or on a seat-of-the-pants approach rather than on a
formal analysis of crossing geometry and truck characteristics.
No evaluation of these standards has been made to assess
their adequacy. The 1990 edition of the AASHTO Green
Book incorporates the AREA profile for railroad-highway
grade crossings; however, the high-profile problem on high-
ways in general is not addressed.
Grade changes of more than 2.3 percent on each side of
the crossing leave the potential for low-clearance vehicles to
become stuck. From the results of HANGUP, a few crossing
profiles that would accommodate low-clearance vehicles were
suggested. To resolve the overhang dragging problem, an
equation and a table were developed to give minimum lengths
of sag vertical curves.
Grade changes at inter ection are al o an important design
factor for highway engiDeers. ff two roadways inter. ect, grade
difference at the intersection should be less than or equal to
4.6 percent, which is the maximum slope rate for the standard
low-clearance vehicle.
It is apparent that highway and traffic engineers need to
pay more attention to the ground-clearance problem in gen-
eral, at rail-highway grade crossings in particular. Attention
in this sense also includes the matter of communicating ex-
isting design standards to practitioners.
be collected from several geographic regions before specific
dimensions can be specified for each of the low-clearance
vehicle categories.
Low-clearance vehicles also need to be considered in high
way operations. For example, the current permitting process
for over ize vehicles con iders weight, height, and width but
apparently not ground clearance. This oversight should be
corrected. The wide variety in dimensions of low-clearance
vehicles should be examined with an eye toward po ibly es-
tablishing reasonable minimum ground-clearance tandards
for vehicles Operating on public highways. This is especially
important in light of the growing variety of specialized vel1icles
in the traffic stream.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for the re earch de cribed in thi paper wa provided
by a U.S. Department of Transportation/ Univer'ity Trans-
portation Centers Program grant and by the Division of High-
ways West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT).
The encouragement and cooperation provided throughout the
project by Ray Lewi of WVDOT and Richard Mather of
the Public Utility Commission of Oregon are sincerely
appreciated.
REFERENCES
l. Railroad/Highway Accident Report- Co//isio11 o.f Amtrak Traill
No. 88 ivitlr Tractor Lowboy Semitrailer Combi11atio11 Tmck ,
Rowland North Carolina Augus125, 1983 Report NTSBfRHR-
84/01. National Transportation afety Board. Wasl1ington, D.C..
Aug. 1984.
88
2. Safety Study-Pa.vscnger!Commwer Trai11 and Motor Vehicle
ollisions at Grade Crossi11gs (1985). Report NTSD/S -86104.
National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D .C., Dec.
1986.
3. Safl!ly Recom111e11d111io11s H 9-6 a11d 11-89-7. National Trans-
portation Safety Board, Wa hington , D. . Feb. 19 9.
4. S. K. Kang and R. W. Eck . Low-Ground-Ocarance Vehicles at
Railroad-Highway 01 mJc Ci o. lngs: A Design and Analysis Soft-
ware Package. Proc., /111ema1io11a/ Symposium 011 Railroad
Hif:l11vay 1rade Crossing Research and Safety , University orTcn-
nessee, Knoxv ille, Nov. 1990 (in press).
S. R. W. Eck and S. K. Kang. Low-Chrnrnnce Vehicles at Rail
Highway Grade Crossings: An Overview or the Problem and
Potential Solutions . In Tm11 portation Rese11rclt Recortl 1327, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991.
6. W. A. McConnell. Passenger Car Overhang and Underclearance
as Related to Driveway Profile Design, Part I-Vehicle Data.
Bulletin 195, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1958, pp. 14- 23 .
7. L. A. Bauer. Passenge r ar vcrhang and Undcrclearance as
Related to Driveway Profile De ign, Part 11'-Strcct a11d High-
way Design. Balle1i11 195, HRB , National Rcse<irch uncil,
Washington , D.C., 1958, pp. 23-29.
8. 1988 SAE H1111d/Jook, Vol. 4. SAE, Warrendale, Pa., 1988.
9. R. A. Weant. Parking Garage Planning and Operation. Eno
Foundation for Transportation, Inc., Westport, 01rn . , 1978.
10. Guidelinl!s for Driveway Location and Design. Technical Com-
mittee SB-13, ITE, Washington, D.C., 1987.
11. Manual for Railway Engineering. American Railway Engineering
Association. Chicag , III. , 1971.
12. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO,
Washington, D.C., 1990.
The contents of tire paper reflect tlie views of the awlrors, who are
responsible for the fa cts arul ac 11r11cy of the informlllio11 prese111ed
herein.
DISCUSSION
J. L. GATTIS
University of Oklahoma, 202 West Boyd, Room 334, Norman,
Okla. 73019.
As one who has been a practicing roadway design engineer,
I believe that Eck and Kang have provided useful information
in this article. Authors of roadway and driveway design pub-
lications should include a similar development of these issues .
In the "Developing Design Standards" section of the paper,
the authors discuss using short vertical curves to accommodate
low-clearance vehicles. Before selecting a short vertical curve
design, an engineer should consider not only the impacts of
future surface maintenance (as the authors recommended),
but also the tolerances to which the field crews will build a
short vertical curve. It may be that without very close super-
vision, the field crews will actually build short tangents instead
of the intended vertical curves.
In the same section, the authors note that ground clearances
as low as 2 in. have been found; because such values have
"precedence in traffic engineering," they favor 85th-percentile
values for ground clearance and wheelbase design. I believe
that the use of the 85th-percentile value in establishing speed
limits or other traffic engineering criteria to which the authors
were alluding does not necessarily justify its use for underside-
clearance design. An alternative approach for arriving at the
proper percentile for design would involve considering the
attributes of the particular issue at hand, in this case the
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1356
distribution of vehicle ground-clearance frequencies. The dis-
tribution of clearance dimensions may be such that only the
least 5 percent (or some other value) are outliers. Even then,
issues such as the consequences of not accommodating a cer-
tain percentage , or the possibility that certain classes of out-
liers may always be found at certain types of land uses (e.g.,
automobile dealerships) should be considered.
One would not expect vehicles with extremely low clear-
ances to enter driveways serving many types of land uses or
local residential streets. If vehicles with extremely low clear-
ance are more likely to enter a commercial site or an arterial
street than a residential site or a local street, then perhaps
there should be a number of low-clearance design vehicles,
each of them appropriate for a particular application.
The authors allude to the underlying problem in the final
section, when they consider the possibility of establishing
ground-clearance standards for vehicles on the public high-
ways. If the designer is to consider the driver, the vehicle,
and the roadway as components of an engineered system,
then manufacturers must build vehicles that conform to di-
mensional requirements such as minimum underside clear-
ance and minimum eye-height standards. It seems illogical to
charge street and highway officials with the task of designing
roadways that will be safe for years to come when the critical
attributes of vehicles on the roadway are not controlled. With-
out such controls, designers will either be chasing an ever-
moving target in an attempt to define values for those attributes
that govern design or be selecting costly, overly conservative
design values in an attempt to address any imaginable vehicle
design situation.
AUTHORS' CLOSURE
We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and constructive review
of our paper by Gattis. We recognized early on that the design
criteria proposed in the paper were preliminary in nature
because they were based on limited data. Thus, one of our
objectives in preparing this paper was to seek input from
practitioners on the reasonableness of our proposed criteria
and to stimulate interest in collecting additional vehicle data
nationally.
We agree completely with the comment about tolerances
attainable in the field and agree that this is an area that needs
attention . In our study, we observed a number of locations
where the initial design was sound but construction or main
tenance operations changed the surface of the road such that
there was a potential for hangups.
We concur with the discussant's remarks about use of the
85th-percentile value. We proposed this as a starting point
for discussions because it did have some precedence in traffic
engineering practice. Certainly, the value or values chosen
here should reflect a balance between the economic realities
faced by highway agencies and the needs of the trucking in-
dustry. Open discussion of this issue would be desirable, in
our view.
The suggestion about developing several low-clearance de-
sign vehicles has considerable merit. However, there are not
sufficient data to accomplish this now. As noted in our rec
Eck and Kang
ommendations, we believe that it is important that additional
data on the physical characteristics of low-clearance vehicles
be collected from all regions of the country. Such information
would be useful in establishing the vehicle dimensional re-
quirements proposed by the discussant.
As the discussant clearly points out, there is still consid-
erable work to be done before criteria to accommodate low-
89
clearance vehicles become a formal part of any design policy.
We hope that discu sion relative to this topic will continue
to take place. Interested readers are encouraged to respond
formally or informally to R. W. Eck.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Geometric
Design.