LDTP-76-3
Technical Support Report for Regulatory Action
Light Duty Vehicle R6ad Load Determination
by
Glenn D. Thompson
December, 1976
Notice
Technical support reports for regulatory action do not necessarily
represent the final EPA decision on regulatory issues. They are intended
to present a technical analysis of an issue and recommendations resulting
from the assumptions and constraints of that analysis. Agency policy
constraints or data received subsequent to the date of release of this
report may alter the recommendations reached. Readers are cautioned to
seek the latest analysis from EPA before using the information contained
herein.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
When vehicle exhaust emission tests or vehicle fuel consumption
measurements are performed on a chassis dynamometer, the dynamometer is
usually adjusted to simulate the road experience of the vehicle. Speci-
fically, if the dynamometer measurements are to accurately reflect on-
road operation of the vehicle, the dynamometer must supply the appro-
priate load; that is, the force required to drive the vehicle on a level
surface as a function of the vehicle speed. In this study, road load
versus speed data were obtained from 64 light duty vehicles. The coast
down technique, in which the forces acting on a freely decelerating
vehicle are deduced from the speed-time history of the deceleration, was
used for all track measurements.
When a vehicle is operated on a chassis dynamometer, the vehicle
must overcome the dissipative losses of the drive train and tires before
power is transmitted to the dynamometer. Therefore, to derive a dyna-
mometer setting appropriate to simulate the road experience of a vehicle,
these losses must be subtracted from the total system losses measured on
the track. Measurements of the dissipative forces of the driving tires,
the drive train, the non-driving tires, and the non-driving wheel bear-
ings were performed on a 48 inch diameter single roll electric dynamo-
meter.
The dynamometer load settings, resulting from the subtraction of
the dissipative losses of the drive train and the driving tires from the
total system measurements, are presented. These data are regressed
against vehicle mass to develop equations to predict the dynamometer
load settings. This equation is then compared with the current light
duty vehicle dynamometer adjustment table. The current table is correct,
at least within the accuracy of the tire-roll interaction assumptions.
It is concluded that while the current table is approximately correct
for an average vehicle, significant deviations can exist between any
prediction system based on vehicle weight and specific vehicles. It is
therefore concluded that further effort should be made to develop road
load prediction systems based on vehicle frontal area and, if necessary,
estimates of the vehicle aerodynamic drag coefficient.
-------
-1-
I. Purpose
The purpose of this study is to develop equations to predict the
dynamometer adjustment forces appropriate to simulate the on road ex-
periences of light duty vehicles. To accomplish this, equations of road
load versus speed were obtained from a diverse class of light duty
vehicles. These data were then converted to dynamometer adjustment
forces appropriate to simulate the on road experience of a vehicle.
II. Introduction
When vehicle exhaust emission tests or vehicle fuel consumption
measurements are performed on a chassis dynamometer, the dynamometer is
usually adjusted to simulate the road experience of the vehicle. Specifi-
cally the dynamometer must simulate the road load of the vehicle. In
this report the vehicle road load is defined as the component of force
in the direction of vehicle motion which is exerted by the road on the
vehicle driving wheels. As defined, the road load force is the force
which propells the vehicle. In the standard case, when a vehicle is
moving with a constant velocity vector on a level surface, this force is
equal in magnitude to the sum of the rolling resistance and the aerodynamic
drag of the vehicle. Unfortunately, neither this road-tire force, nor
the equal magnitude tire-road force can be directly measured because of
the virtual impossibility of instrumenting the tire-road interface.
Consequently, all experimental methods involve indirect measurements and
some corrective process.
Commonly used methods for road-load determination are: the deceleration
or coast down technique, drive line force or torque measurements, and
manifold pressure measurements. The coast down method was selected as
the approach best suited for this study since a method easily adaptable
to a diverse class of vehicles was required. The concept of the coast
down technqiue is to determine the rate of deceleration of a freely
coasting vehicle; then, knowing the mass of the vehicle, the road-load
force may be calculated by Newton's second law, f = ma. Previous experi-
mental work at the EPA has demonstrated similar results are obtained
with the coast down technique and with drive shaft torque meters.
Sixty-four diverse light duty vehicles were chosen as the experimental
sample. These vehicles were chosen to approximately represent the sales
weighting of light duty vehicles.
The track measurements include the dissipative losses of the vehicle
tires, wheel bearings and drive train. To determine a road value appropriate
for adjusting a chassis dynamometer, the dissipative losses from the
drive train and driving tires must be subtracted from the total system
measurements. These dissipative losses were measured using a 48" diameter
roll electric dynamometer.
-------
-2-
III. Discussion
This section discusses the specific physical measurements which
must be performed to yield the dynamometer adjustment information. This
section is included since some of the desired parameters must be deter-
mined indirectly; consequently the reason for some of the measurements
may not be apparent.
The discussion is presented in three subsections. The system energy
section discusses the general aspects of the problem and introduces the
concept of equivalent effective mass. The track measurements determine
the acceleration of the vehicle system. The mass measurements provide
the information necessary to calculate forces or powers from the accelera-
tion measurements.
A. System Energy
The introduction states that the vehicle mass and the vehicle
deceleration under freely rolling conditions are the general parameters
which must be obtained to determine road-load with the coast down tech-
nique. This section will discuss in detail what measurements must be
performed to obtain these data.
The total energy of the decelerating vehicle system is the sum of
the translational kinetic energy of the vehicle and the rotational
kinetic energy of any vehicle components in rotational motion. For all
mechanical components of the wheels and drive train, the rotational
velocity is proportional to the vehicle velocity; therefore, the energy
of the system may be written as:
1/2 mv2 + 1/2 (Z I.ct2 )v2 (1)
Where:
E = the total system energy
m = the vehicle mass
v = the vehicle speed ,
I. = rotational inertia of the i rotating component
a. « the proportionality constant between the rotational
velocity of the i rotating component and the vehicle
speed
Differentiating equation (1) with respect to time, and comparing the
resulting expression for power with the similar time derivative of a
purely translational system, the generalized force on the system may be
expressed as:
-------
-3-
F i ( m -I- Z Id )A (2)
i
Where:
F = the generalized system force
A = the translational acceleration of the system
Defining M as the "total effective mass of the system", where:
M = m + £ I.a2 (3)
i
Equation (2) now has the familiar form
F = MA (4)
2
The Z I.d . term is identified as the "equivalent effective mass" of the
rotating components and may be designated by:
The equivalent effective mass, defined by equations (3) and (5), is
simply one approach to include the effect of the rotational kinetic
energy of the system. Equations (2) through (4) indicate that the
acceleration of the system, the vehicle mass and the equivalent mass of
the rotating components are the parameters which must be measured to
determine the road load force.
B. Acceleration
Experimentally, it is not practical to measure the vehicle accelera-
tion directly; however, the acceleration may be determined from the
vehicle speed. The vehicle acceleration can be calculated by numerically
differentiating the velocity versus time data. This is theoretically
undesirable for two reasons. The non-analytical differentiation process
is inherently noise sensitive and this can be a problem when attempting
a least squares fit to the differentiated data. Also, since the accelera-
tion must be derived from the velocity, the initially random errors in
the velocity versus time data may not yield normally distributed errors
in the acceleration versus velocity. A better approach is to assume a
model for the acceleration versus speed equation and then perform analy-
tical operations on this equation to convert it to the form of a speed
versus time function. This expression may then be directly fitted to
the velocity versus time data to obtain dv/dt as a function of vehicle
velocity. The latter approach was chosen. The exact method used
is an extension of the approach used by Korst and White , and is .dis-
cussed in detail in reference 2.
C. Mass
The required masses are the gravitational mass and the equivalent
effective mass of the rotating components. Equation (5) indicates that
-------
-4-
the rotational inertia is the primary measurement necessary to determine
the equivalent effective mass of the rotating components.
1) Gravitational Mass
The gravitational mass of the system may be easily measured by a
vehicle scale.
2) Effective Equivalent Mass of the Drive Wheels and Drive Train
The effective equivalent mass of the drive wheels and drive train
was estimated by the equation:
nL = 0.0155 m (6)
Deq
where:
nL = the effective equivalent mass of the drive train
and drive tires
m = the vehicle mass
Equation (6) was developed by regressing the measurements of light duty
vehicle drive train and driving tire inertia versus the vehicle mass.
The vehicles used were a 50 vehicle subset of the vehicles used in this
study. The measurements are described in reference 3. The standard
error of this regression was 5.13. Therefore the 68% confidence
interval of this regression is approximately + 5 kg.
3) Effective Mass of the Vehicle Non-Driving Wheels
The effective mass of the vehicle non-driving wheels was estimated
by:
-------
-5-
Approximately 50 of the vehicles were selected on a sales weighted
basis. The percentage of sales in each of the EPA Federal test procedure
inertia categories was calculated. In each inertia category, when the
sales of a single manufacturer was 2% or more of the total U.S. sales,
one vehicle of the appropriate type was chosen to represent each 2% of
the total sales. The remainder vehicles were chosen to represent unusual
vehicles. Specifically, additional very heavy and very light vehicles
were chosen. Also, vehicles with reputations of superior aerodynamic
designs were added to the fleet, as were several vehicles with "boxy"
poor looking aerodynamic designs. The vehicles were procured either by
renting or by requesting participation from the automotive manufacturers;
63% were obtained from manufacturers and the remaining 37% were rented.
Table 1 of Appendix A identifies and describes each vehicle.
A. The Track Measurements
The speed versus time data are the only measurements that are
required on the test track. Ambient conditions were, however also
monitored to allow correction to a set of standard ambient conditions.
1) Test Facility and Test Procedure
All vehicle speed versus time data were collected on the skid pad
of the Transportation Research Center of Ohio, in East Liberty, Ohio.
This facility is a multilane, concrete, straight track with large turn
around loops at each end. Approximately 1 kilometer of this straight
track has a constant grade of 0.5% and this section was used for all
measurements.
Prior to the coast down measurements, the vehicle tires were
adjusted, when cold, to the manufacturers recommended pressures. The
cold tire pressures were recorded, as were the tire pressures immediately
after the coast.down tests. After adjustment of the tire pressures, the
vehicles were warmed up for approximately 30 minutes at about 50 mph.
Twenty coast downs were recorded for each vehicle, ten in each
direction of travel on the test track. Ten coast downs were conducted
by accelerating the vehicle to approximately 65 mph, then shifting into
neutral and recording speed versus time as the vehicle freely decelerated.
The remaining ten coast downs were conducted in the same manner; however,
the initial speed was approximately 40 mph. The two series of coast
downs were necessary because the 1 km of section of track with constant
grade was insufficient to coast most vehicles from 60 mph to a terminal
speed near 10 mph.
2) Velocity Instrumentation
The vehicle speed was measured by a police type Doppler radar. The
instrumentation contained a noise discriminator system which rejected
the Doppler pulse count any time the period between pulses differed
significantly from the previous pulse separation.
Modifications were made to the standard configuration to increase
the range. The length of the antenna horn was increased and aluminum
-------
-6-
corher reflectors, or strips of aluminum foil, were placed inside the
target vehicle windows. These modifications increased the range from
about 0.5 km to approximately 1.0 km. The Doppler frequency counter
gate time was also increased from approximately 30 msec to 300 msec in
an attempt to improve the system precision. This modification did
increase the speed resolution; however, it also increased the total
period the discriminator evaluated the Doppler signal for extraneous
noise. The system noise is basically random; therefore, the probability
the discriminator will reject a measurement of the Doppler frequency is
linear with the counter gate time. The increase in the precision of
each measurement was accompanied by a decrease in the number of speed
versus time points measured during the coast down. Also, the range was
greatly reduced since the probability of radar signal noise increased as
the distance from the transmitter to the target increased. This modifi-
cation was subsequently rejected and the final configuration of the
system provided a range of about 1 km with a resolution of + 1 mph.
A count of the Doppler frequency was recorded each second during
the coast downs on a seven track magnetic digital tape recorder. This
recorder and the support electronics were placed in a small van, parked
on the track berm. Electric power was provided by an alternator, bat-
tery bank, and inverter on this van. An example of the speed versus
time record of a light duty vehicle coast down is given in Figure 1.
60 t
40'
SPEED
(m P h >
SPEED vs TIME
VEHICLE 1001
h i •? h *•%
speed ""..
r a n
o w
speed
r u n
20 •••
1
0
1
20
I
40
60
TIME (sec)
Figure 1
-------
-7-
3) Ambient Conditions
Coastdowns were conducted only when steady winds were less than 15
km/hr (9.3 mph) with peak wind speeds less than 20 km/hr (12.4 mph).
Wind speed during the test period was measured with a photochopper type
six-cup anemometer. The anemometer was located near one side of the
test track, at one end of the 1 km test section. These data were re-
corded at one second intervals on the same magnetic tape as was used to
record the vehicle speed. During test periods the ambient temperature
was in the range of 5°C (41°F) to 35°C (95°F). The barometric pressure
was between 102 kPa (30.2 in Hg) and 94 kPa (27.9 in Hg). The air
moisture content ranged from 0.29 to 0.73 gm H?0/gm dry air. These
slowly varying ambient parameters were recorded by an observer on a data
sheet associated with each vehicle.
B. The Dynamometer Measurements
The dynamometer measurements are conceptually simple since the
desired information is force data, and the dynamometer could be used to
measure forces directly. The dynamometer used was one of the EPA light
duty vehicle electric dynamometers. This dynamometer is a G.E. motor-
generator type with a 48" diameter single roll. During these experiments
the normal 0-1000 Ib. load cell of the dynamometer was replaced with a
more sensitive 0-300 Ib load cell.
Prior to all measurements the cold tire pressures were adjusted to
the manufacturers recommended pressures. Again, the cold pre-test
pressures and the hot post-test pressures were recorded. The vehicle
weight was adjusted to approximate the vehicle weight during the corres-
ponding track measurement. The dynamometer force measurements were
conducted on both the front and rear axles of the vehicle. During the
rear axle measurements the transmission was shifted into neutral, as it
was during the track coastdowns.
The vehicle was placed on the dynamometer, and then the vehicle and
dynamometer were warmed up for 30 minutes at approximately 50 mph.
After warm up, the torque necessary to motor the dynamometer and vehicle
was measured at speeds from 60 to 10 mph in 5 mph decreasing speed
intervals. For each measurement steady state dynamometer speed and
torque signals were recorded on a strip chart for a period of approximately
100 seconds. The stabilized values were then read from the strip chart
by the dynamometer operator.
After the measurements were completed with the full vehicle weight
resting on the dynamometer rolls, the vehicle was then lifted until the
vehicle tires were just contacting the dynamometer roll. The vehicle
tires were considered to be just touching the dynamometer roll if a
person could, with difficulty, manually cause the tire to slip on the
roll when the roll was locked. With this test configuration the torque
versus speed measurements were repeated as before. Finally, the torque
required to motor only the dynamometer was recorded in the same manner.
-------
-8-
The dynamometer speed data were converted to the units of m/sec.
All torque data were converted to force in newtons at the roll tire
interface. A scatter plot of the data from one vehicle, after conversion
to force at the tire-roll interface and subtraction of the force neces-
sary to motor the dynamometer, is given as an example in Figures 2(a)
and 2(b). In addition, the difference between the force measurement
when the full weight of the vehicle was on the dynamometer and the force
measurement when the tire was just contacting the dyno roll, is also
given in Figures 2(a) and 2(b).
DRIUE flXEL FORCE MEflSUREMEHTS
VEHICLE 1001
FORCE(NT)
200.000 +•
I
1
X
150.000 + "' ^ i^n.c. L> i oo i r n i i vt rur.u-c. ..»_. 4.
I
I
1
I
I
I
50.000 *
T
T
I 4I44I I I
_ ^
O.C + 4 -+-.--.---->-_--.--.-+----.----f- .-.. + --.-.- +
0.0 5.0CO 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000
SPEED (M/StIC)
: i
2 =
: i
J.
; i
2 21
3 31
I
i
I
I
UEHICLE
TJRE DI
UEHICLE
i
i
i
2 212
I 3
3 31
I
I
414
4 I
I I
FULL WEIGHT
SSIPflTIUE FORCE
JUST TOUCH IMG
i i
i i
2 12 I
I I
I I
3 13 33
I I
14 4 4
41 I
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21 2 2
--2 *
I
I
3 31 3 3
I
4 41 4
I
I
I
Figure 2 (a)
-------
-9-
HQN-BRIUE HXEL FORCE MERSUkEMENTS
UEHICLE 1001
FjriCE(NT)
r
T
ic.-\ A T rt +_„...
j.
T
I
I
I S
I 6
I
r
I 7
I
5 =
b =
7 =
i
i
A.
fcl
I
1
I
1
r
71
UEHI
TIRF
UEHI
5
6
7
I
CLE f-ULL
DISSIPflT
CLE -HIS"
i
i
515 5
616 6
I
I
T
I
I
717 7
I
I
I
15
16
I
I
I
I
I
17
I
FORCE.
i. H 1 \\ b
I
i
5 5
b 6
T
I
I
I
7
7 I
I
I
X
X
I
I
I
i
I
6 61 6
I
I
I
7 71 7
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
i
5 I
I
6 1
I
I
I
7 I
I
I
C.C 5.0CO 10.000 15.COC 20.000 25.000 30.000
SPEED (H/SEC)
Figure 2 (b)
C. Masses
1) The Gravitational Masses
The gravitational mass was measured by weighing each vehicle, with
the driver, immediately after the coast downs. The vehicle scale of the
TRC was used for all vehicle mass determinations. TRC personnel indi-
cated calibration checks on this scale have repeatedly been within + 10
pounds in the 0 to 10,000 pound range.
2) Tire Mass
The tire mass was determined for each vehicle by weighing a tire,
usually the spare tire, on a platform scale. This scale was a "shipping
clerks" scale with a maximum capacity of 1000 Ib, and a resolution of
+ 0.5 Ib.
-------
-10-
V. Data Analysis
A. Track Data
The usual form of a vehicle deceleration curve is assumed to be a
constant plus a term proportional to the velocity squared. However the
effect of a steady head-tail wind will apear as a linear-term. Also,
the drive train losses were expected to be approximately linear in
velocity and some published tire data have indicated the inclusion of a
linear term may be theoretically desirable. For these reasons, a model
equation was chosen of the form:
dv/dt = aQ + a^ + a,,v2 (8)
Terms were added to equation (8) to account for any effects of wind and
track grade. The variables of the resulting equation can be separated
and integrated to yield an expression for time as a function of velocity.
Since these functions are inverse trigonometric or hyperbolic functions,
their inverse may be taken to yield velocity as a function of time.
These functions were fitted to the coast down data by the method of
least squares to determine the a», a.,, and a» of equation (8). The
mathematics of this technique is discussed in detail in Reference 2 and
in the EPA recommended practice for road load determination.
2
Since the a« coefficient multiplies the v it was assumed to rep-
resent the aerodynamic drag of the vehicle. The aerodynamic drag is
proportional to the air density; therefore all a2 coefficients were cor-
rected for differences between the ambient conditions during the test,
and a set of standard ambient conditions chosen to be:
temperature 20°C (68°F)
barometric pressure 98 kPa (29.02 in Hg)
humidity 10 gm H-0/kg dry air (70 gr H20 dry air)
The corrected acceleration coefficients a«, a.., and a. of
equation 8 are presented in table 1 of Appendix B for all vehicles
tested. The vehicle tire pressures for the track measurements are give
in table 2 of Appendix B.
B. Dynamometer Data
The dynamometer measurements determine the dissipative losses of
the driving tires and the drive train. The dynamometer measurements are
conceptually simple since the dynamometer used, a 48" roll GE electric
chassis dynamometer, measures the forces directly. The only arithmetic
necessary is to convert from the force values at the dynamometer load
cell to the force at the tire-roll interface. This conversion is simply
the ratio of the length of the moment arms. In addition a conversion to
MKS units of force was made at this time.
-------
-11-
The data for the tire dissipative losses, the wheel bearing losses,
and the drive train dissipative losses were all scatterplotted versus
speed. These plots indicate the wheel bearing and drive train losses
are generally linear with speed, while the tire losses are approximately
constant with speed. Consequently a linear least squares regression was
fitted to each data set of the drive train and driving tire losses, the
driving tire losses, the drive train losses and the non-driving tire
losses. The coefficients from these regression analyses are given in
Tables 1 through 4 respectively of Appendix C.
The vehicle tire pressures for the dynamometer measurements are
given in Table 5 of Appendix C.
C. The total Effective Equivalent Mass of the Vehicle
The total effective mass of the vehicle is the sum of the gravita-
tional mass and the equivalent effective masses of drive train, driving
wheels, and non-driving wheels. These masses are given in Table 1 of
Appendix D for each vehicle. The total vehicle effective mass is also
given in this table.
VI. Results
The total vehicle road load is given by equation (4) as the product
of the acceleration and the total system effective mass. The vehicle
acceleration is known in the form of the acceleration coefficients of
equation 8. Therefore, it is convenient to express the forces in terms
of force coefficients where each force coefficient is the product of
the total system effective mass and the corresponding acceleration co-
efficient. That is, for example, the force coefficient, fg, is given
by £Q = ma0. These force coefficients were calculated for all vehicles
and are presented in Table 1 of Appendix E. Also presented in Table 1
of Appendix E is the total road load force and power at 50 mph.
The total vehicle road load force is the sum of the tire rolling
resistances; the dissipative losses of the drive train, wheel bearings,
and brake drag; and the aerodynamic drag of the vehicle.
FTOT = ftire + fmech + faero (9)
where
F o = the total vehicle road load force
tire = the sum of the tire rolling resistances
f , = the mechanical dissipative losses
mech
f = the aerodynamic drag
aero
The total vehicle road load force includes the dissipation in the
drive train from the rear wheel up to the point where the drive train is
decoupled from the engine. When the vehicle is being tested on a dyna-
mometer, the vehicle engine is required to overcome the drive train and
-------
-12-
driving tire losses prior to supplying power to the dynamometer. Conse-
quently these losses-1 should not be included in the dynamometer adjustment
force. The drive train losses are independent of the choice of a dyna-
mometer, however, the tire rolling resistance will depend on the type of
dynamometer. Therefore, to develop the appropriate dynamometer adjust-
ment force, tire losses for that particular dynamometer must be subtracted
from the total road measurements, in addition to the drive train losses.
A. Force Coefficients for Road Simulation on a Small Twin Roll
Dynamometer
In order to calculate a force appropriate for adjusting a small twin
roll dynamometer two assumptions must be made about tire power dissipation
on a small twin roll dynamometer.
Assumption 1: "Two on the rolls equals four on the road"
It is commonly stated that two tires dissipate as much energy on a
small twin roll dynamometer as four tires dissipate on a flat surface.
However, measurements on sufficiently large tire sample to prove or
disprove this concept have not yet been reported in the literature.
There is some theoretical basis for this statement , and one study
reported a bias ply tire dissipated very nearly twice as much power on
a small twin roll dynamometer as it dissipated on a flat surface. This
was observed at inflation pressures of both 25 and 45 psi.
Assumption 2: "Power dissipation on a large single roll is proportional
to road power dissipation.
The assumption that tire power dissipation on a large single roll
dynamometer is greater than, but proportional to, the power dissipation
a flat surface is much better documented. The relationship between tire
losses on a large single roll and a flat surface, when determined by
torque or power consumption measurements, has been shown theoretically
to be given by:
FR = V ./ 7TT do)
where
FD = the rolling resistance of the tire on a flat road surface
K
FD = the rolling resistance of the tire on a cylindrical
dynamometer surface
r = the rolling radius of the tire
R = the radius of the dynamometer roll
-------
-13-
The relationship given by equation (10) has been empirically tested by
an SAE round-robin tire test program . In addition, the theoretical
treatise used to develop equation (10) has also been used to predict the
relationship between tire rolling resistances on a large single roll and
on a flat surface when the measurements are obtained directly from
spindle force transducers. This relationship has been experimentally
tested and appears reasonably valid.
The rolling radii of the tires were determined by measuring the
hight of the loaded tire, from the contact patch to the top of the tread
and dividing by two. Previous experiments at the EPA have shown this
technique is a very good simple static measurement of the dynamic
rolling radius. Five to ten tires of each tire size were measured and
the average roling radius used for all tires of that size. These
average rolling radii are given in Figure 3.
Rolling Radii versus Tire Size
Nominal Tire Size Average Rolling Radii
13 inches 0.28 m
14 inches 0.31 m
15 inches 0.34 m
Figure 3
The rolling radii given in Figure 3 were inserted into equation (10).
The correction factor, /1+r/R ranged from 0.826 to 0.801. Since this
value was very nearly constant the value 0.813 was used to convert the
rolling resistance measurements for all front and rear tires to estimates
of the tire rolling resistance on a flat road. In addition, since the
tires of light duty vehicles are usually inflated to 45 psi when the
vehicle is operated on a small twin roll dynamometer, a correction
factor was applied to estimate the flat surface rolling resistance of
the tires at 45 psi. The correction factors used were 0.73 for bias ply
tires and 0.81 for radial ply tires. -These correction factors were
derived from the SAE round robin data . These data are from numerous
measurements by five different tire testing laboratories, however the
test sample was only five tires from a single manufacturer. The estimates
of the tire rolling resistances, at 45 psi inflation pressure, of both
the driving and non-driving tires, were subtracted from the total road
forces as required by assumption 1. In addition, the drive train losses
were also subtracted. The resulting coefficients are given in Table 2
of Appendix E as are the force and horsepower at 50 mph.
A significant purpose of this study is to develop equations to
predict the appropriate dynamometer power absorber setting as a function
of some easily measured vehicle parameter. The ability to predict the
small twin roll dynamometer power absorber setting at 50 mph as a function
of vehicle weight will be discussed in the following sections.
-------
-14-
A theoretically based model can be developed based on several
logical assumptions. The first assumption is that, because of similari-
ties in manufacturing technology, the density of light duty vehicles is
approximately constant. Stated as an equation, the assumption is:
M * V (11)
where
M = the mass of the vehicle
V = the volume of the vehicle
The vehicle volume is approximately equal to the product of the three
major dimensions. The second assumption is that each of the major
vehicle dimensions may be expected to increase approximately equally
with an increase in mass. Consequently each major dimension is pro-
portional to the cube root of the vehicle mass. That is:
L -v. MW 1/3 (12)
where
L = any of the major vehicle dimensions of height width and
length.
The twin roll dynamometer power absorber setting is primarily the aero-
dynamic drag of the vehicle. The aerodynamic drag is proportional to
the frontal area which is approximately equal to the product of the
vehicle height and width. Consequently the twin roll dynamometer force
adjustment should be proportional to the mass of the vehicle to the
two-thirds power.
2/3
F ~ M ' (13)
The previous arguments are hardly rigorous, therefore a model of
the form:
F = aMX (14)
was chosen which allowed the exponent to vary. This model will predict
a dynamometer force setting of zero for a vehicle of zero mass, which is
theoretically appropriate. Also, if x is less than 1, the model predicts
the slope of the force versus mass curve will decrease as the mass...
increases. This is also theoretically logical; and consistent with the
observed data.
The model, equation (14), unfortunately cannot be conveniently
fitted to the data by least squares process. The fitting process is
difficult since the normal equations resulting from the least squares
criterion are non-linear. These equations can be solved simultaneously
by numerical methods, however a simplier approach is to "linearize"
-------
-15-
equation (14) by the following logarithimic transformation.
In F = In a M*
= Ina + InM* ,..,.-.
= Ina + xlnM
Identifying In F as the dependent variable and In M as the independent
variable, equation (15) can now be fitted by a simple linear regression.
The results of this regression are:
Regression of Twin Roll Dynamometer Force at 50 mph
versus
Vehicle Mass
Regression model In F = In a + x In M
In F = the natural logarithm of the dynamometer force (nt)
setting at 50 mph
In M = the natural logarithm of the vehicle mass (kg)
In a =2.394
x = 0.479
Sample size 68
Converting to the form of the original model, the prediction equation
is:
F = 11.0 M°'479 (16)
The statistics of this regression cannot be readily interpreted since
they are the statistics of the regression performed on the transformed
parameters. In order to evaluate the prediction equation it is plotted,
together with the data points, in figure 4. The fitted model is a
reasonable appearing choice for these data. There is however a data
scatter of approximately + 50 nt about the fitted line.
Expressed in common U.S. engineering units equation (16) becomes:
Hp = 0.225 W°'479 (17)
where:
Hp = the dynamometer power absorber setting at 50 mph (horsepower)
W = the vehicle weight (Ib)
In this system of units the scatter of the data about the regression
line is approximately + 1.5 hp.
-------
600 .00
-16-
TWIN ROLL DYNAMOMETER FORCE ADJUSTEMENT AT 50 mph
VERSUS
VEHICLE IIASS
700.00 +
500.00
FORCE
Cnt)
400.00
.:• 0 0 . 0 0
REGRESSION
LINE
2 0 0 . 0 0
700.00 1300.0
800. UO Mfl£s 1*00.0
(kg)
;:300.0
£800.0
FIGURE 4
Equation (16) is probably appropriate only for7vehicleSfitted with
tires of bias ply construction. Only one reference discusses power
dissipation of radial ply tires on a small twin roll dynamometer. This
reference indicates radial ply tires, inflated to 45 psi, dissipate more
than twice as much power as they would on a flat surface. The data
presented would indicate two radial ply tires inflated to 45 psi, dissipate
as much energy on a small twin roll dynamometer as four radial ply tires
inflated to 25 psi would dissipate on a flat surface. If this is a more
realistic treatment of radial ply tires, then the inflation pressure
corrections should not be applied to the tire rolling resistance calcu-
lations for vehicles with radial tires.
-------
-17-
In order to test the implied difference in appropriate dynamometer
power absorber settings for vehicles with radial tires, a small twin
roll dynamometer adjustment setting for vehicles with radial ply tires
was calculated in the same manner as the previous calculation, except
the tire pressure corrections were omitted. In this case coefficients
representing the total estimated rolling resistance of all four tires at
normal inflation pressures, were subtracted from the total road load
measurements. The rusulting coefficients and the total force and power
at 50 mph are given in Table 3 of Appendix E.
A regression of the form (15) was computed to develop a prediction
of the dynamometer power absorber setting versus vehicle weight. The
results of this regression are:
Regression of Twin Roll Dynamometer
Force at 50 mph for Vehicles
With Radial Ply Tires
Regression Model
In F = In a + xln M
In F = the natural logarithm of the dynamometer force (nt)
setting at 50 mph
In M = the natural logarithm of the vehicle mass (kg)
In a =2.484
x = 0.456
Sample Size 68
Converting to the form of the original model:
F = 12.0 M°'456 (18)
Equation (18) is plotted in Figure 5 together with the data used in the
regression. Equation 18, expressed in common engineering units, is:
Hp = 0.251 W°'456 (19)
-------
700.00
600 .00
500.00
-18-
ESTIMATES OF TWIN ROLL DYNAMOMETER
FORCE ADJUSTMENTS FOR VEHICLES WITH RADIAL TIRES
VERSUS
VEHICLE MASS
FORCE
(nt)
HO 0.00
300 .00
REGRESSION
LINE
200.00 +
+—
300.00
+ jf + + + + + + 1.
1300.0 2300.0
600.00 1800.0 2800.0
MflSS
(kg)
-------
-19-
V
B. Large Roll Dynamometer Adjustment Force
Equations to predict the power absorber settings for large single
roll dynamometer are developed since these equations may be useful at
the present, or in future work.
The appropriate adjustment force for a large roll dynamometer can
be obtained directly since the tire and drive train dissipative losses
were measured on this dynamometer. To obtain the force coefficients
appropriate for adjusting a 48" roll dynamometer, the coefficients of
the tire and drive train losses, given in Table 1 of Appendix C, were
subtracted from the total force coefficients, give in Table 1 of Appendix
E. The resulting net force coefficients, representing the sum of the
non-driving tire and wheel bearing losses plus the vehicle aerodynamic
drag, are presented in Table 4 of Appendix E. The forces at 50 mph and
the appropriate power setting for a large single roll dynamometer to
simulate the vehicle road load at 50 mph are also presented in Table 4.
A regression of the large roll dynamometer power absorbers setting
versus vehicle mass similar to the previous regressions, was conducted.
The results were:
Regression of Large Single Roll Dynamometer
Power at 50 mph versus
Vehicle Weight
Regression model In F = In a + xln M
In F = the natural logarithm of the dynamometer force (nt)
setting at 50 mph
In M = the natural logarithm of the vehicle mass (kg)
In a = 1.999
x = 0.544
Sample Size 68
Converting to the form of the original model, the prediction
equation is:
F = 7.384 M°'544 (20)
Hp = 0.144 W°'544 (21)
Conclusions
The two small twin roll regression lines, equations (17) and (19)
are plotted for comparison in Figure 6. Also plotted in Figure 6 are
the horsepower versus weight points of the current LDV road load table.
It is apparent the first regression line agrees very well with the
current table, while the second equation is approximately one horsepower
lower.
-------
-20-
Dynamometer Power Absorber Setting at 50 mph
Power 11
(HP)
vs.
Vehicle Weight
Regression Line for Vehicles
with Bias Ply Tires
Regression Line for Vehicles
with Radial Ply Tires
Current Federal Register Table
-t-
-t-
1000
2000 3000 4000
Vehicle Weight (Ib)
5000
6000
Figure 6
This indicates the current table is approximately correct for bias ply
tires, but predicts higher than actual road load for vehicles with
radial ply tires. The accuracy of second line is however, questionable
since the tire-roll interaction assumptions used in computing this line
have only been reported once in the literature. In addition, this
reference only dicusses measurements on a single radial ply tire. At
the present time this line should be considered as an indication of the
magnitude of possible radial tire effects. A limited test program to
investigate tire effects in greater detail is currently in progress by
the SAE Committee on Tire Rolling Resistance. A more extensive program
is also currently in progress by the EPA.
-------
-21-
The amount of data scatter observed will not be reduced by any
additional tire information. It is therefore concluded that any road
load prediction system based on vehicle weight will have an accuracy of
approximately +1.5 horsepower. Two of the vehicles in the test fleet, a
Pontiac Lemans and a Ford Granada, were repeat tested. The variations
in estimated twin roll dynamometer power absorber settings between the
repeat tests were about 0.5 hp, or 4% of value in each instance. It can
therefore be concluded that much of the +1.5 horsepower data scatter
about the prediction line occurs because of the inadequacy of the
regression model and is not simply random measurement error. Equation
(9) followed by the corrections for tire rolling resistance demonstrate
the aerodynamic forces predominate in the small twin roll dynamometer
adjustment. Since there is little if any direct relationship between
the vehicle weight and the aerodynamic forces on the vehicle, the
vehicle weight is not a physically logical parameter to use to predict
the dynamometer absorber power setting.
It is concluded that a system to predict the dynamometer power
absorber setting based on the aerodynamic parameters of the vehicle
should be investigated. Such a prediction system would be physically
logical, and may be able to reduce the average error in predicting the
dynamometer power absorber setting. Because of the theoretical advantages,
a dynamometer power absorber setting prediction system based on vehicle
aerodynamic parameters should be adopted. This is recommended even if
it can only be shown that this would not result in a decrease in the
accuracy of the prediction of the dynamometer power absorber setting
compared with prediction systems based on vehicle weight.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the data from the tire studies currently in
progress be incorporated into this analysis as soon as these data
become available. Specifically, more information is necessary on the
tire-roll interaction on small twin roll dynamometers. This information
may indicate a correction factor based on the vehicle tire type should
be introduced in road load prediction system.
It is also recommended that dynamometer adjustment prediction
systems based on vehicle aerodynamic parameters be considered. This is
the logical approach to improve the accuracy of the prediction of the
dynamometer power absorber setting. This approach can also provide the
incentive for improvements in the aerodynamic characteristics of vehicles.
No change in the current light duty vehicle road load table is
recommended until one or both of the above improvements can be incor-
porated.
-------
-22-
References
1. R. A. White and H. H. Korst, "The Determination of Vehicle Drag
Contributions from Coast-down Tests." Society of Automotive
Engineers, 720099, New York, N.Y. 1972.
2. G. D. Thompson, "The Vehicle Road Load Problem - Approach by Non-
Linear Modeling." 1SETA Fourth International Symposium on Engine
Testing Automation, Vol. II. Published by Automotive Automation,
Croydon, England.
3. G. D. Thopmson, EPA Report, unpublished.
4. G. D. Thompson, EPA Report, unpublished.
5. J. D. Walter and F. S. Conant, "Energy Losses in Tires." Tire
Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 2, No. 4, November 1974.
6. S. Clark, University of Michigan, unpublished discussions.
7. W. B. Crum, "Road and Dynamometer Tire Power Dissipation." Society
of Automotive Engineers, 750955.
8. S. K. Clark, :Rolling Resistance Forces in Pneumatic Tires."
University of Michigan Report DOT-TSC-76-1, prepared for Department
of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Mass.,
January 1976.
9. S. Clark, unpublished report to the SAE Subcommittee on Tire
Rolling Resistance.
10. D. J. Schuring, "Rolling Resistance of Tires Measured Under Transient
and Equilibrium Conditions on Calspan's Tire Research Facility."
DOT-TSC-OST 76-9, March 1976.
11. C.W. LaPoint, Suggestion during telephone conversation.
-------
APPENDIX A
VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION
-------
A-l
Table 1
Test Fleet
Vehicle
Identification
Number
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
4507
Model
Year
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1973
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975.
1975
Manufacturer
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
Pontiac
Pontiac
Ford
Oldsmobile
American Motors
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
Ford
Buick
Buick
Buick
Buick
Chevrolet
Ford
Ford
Buick
Mercury
Plymouth
Buick
Buick
Lincoln
Mercury
Toyota
Mercury
Toyota
Saab
Ford
Triumph
American Motors
Ford
Volkswagen
Honda
Triumph
Mazda
Fiat
Mercury
Ford
Mercury
Ford
Da t sun
Model
Name
Impala
Chevelle
Firebird
Ventura
Pinto
Cutlass
Gremlin
Impala
Vega
Granada
Century
Special
Skylark
Apollo
Monza
Mustang
Mus tang
Sky hawk
Capri -
Valiant
LeSabre
Estate
Body
Style
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Stationwagon
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Stationwagon
Continental Sedan
Capri
Corolla
Comet
Celica
99
Mustang
TR6
Pacer
Maverick
Rabbit
CVCC
TR6 (1)
RX-3
128
Mont ego
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Convertible
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Convertible
Stationwagon
Sedan
Sedan
Gran Torino Sedan
Marquis
LTD
280Z
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Test
Weight
(Ibs)
4560
4100
3640
3520
2800
4250
2970
5250
2680
3510
4140
4020
3720
3910
3490
3000
3020
3200
2570
3600
4870
5590
5450
2350
2470
3320
2760
2710
3320
2650
3330
3320
2170
1900
2630
2680
2180
4560
4570
4990
4860
3110
(1) Same vehicle as 3212, however convertible top down.
-------
A-2
Table 1 con't.
Vehicle
Identification
Number
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5603
5601
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
Model
Year
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1976
1975
1975
1975
Manufacturer
Datsun
Pontiac
Oldsmobile
Dodge
Pontiac
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Chrysler
Chrysler
Pontiac
Oldsmobile
Ford
Mercury
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Volvo
Chevrolet
Oldsmobile
Chevrolet
Model
Name
B210
Lemans
Cutlass
Dart
Lemans
Valiant
Gran Fury
Scamp
Valiant
New Yorker
Newport
Lemans
Delta 88
Granada
Mont ego
LTD
Torino
Granada
LTD
Body
Style
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
(2) Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
(3) Sedan
Sedan
Gran Torino Stationwagon
Gran Torino Stationwagon
Torino
264DL
Corvette
Toronado
Corvette
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
(4) Sedan
Test
Weight
(Ibs)
2310
4230
4330
3610
4260
3580
4840
3680
3620
5120
4840
4320
4770
3760
4500
5020
4420
3800
5060
5210
5000
4600
3290
3850
5170
3820
(2) Same vehicle as 5001.
(3) Same vehicle as 5802.
(4) Same vehicle as 8101, however head lamps up.
-------
APPENDIX B
TRACK MEASUREMENTS
-------
B-l
TAHLE 1
AMBIENT CORRECTED ACCELERATION COEFFICIENTS
10
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2^01
2502
2602
2700
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
AO
(M/SEC**2)
0.1130E*00
0.1676E+00
0.8516E-01
0.1649E+00
0.1588E+00
0.1612E+00
0.7939E-01
0.8552E-01
0.1504E+00
O.B275E-01
0.=>664t-01
0.6549E-01
0.6375E-01
0.1013E+00
0.1252E+00
0.97^5E-01
0.1291E+GO
0.1323E+00
0.1287E+00
0.1352E*00
0.8436E-01
0.7363E-01
0.1158E*UO
0.1114E*00
0.8610E-01
0.1144E+00
0.1369E*00
0.1697E*00
0.1098E*00
0.1992E*00
0.1124E+00
0.6446E-01
0.1418E*00
0.7354E-01
0.1211E*00
Al
(I/SEC)
0.1939E-02
-0.3935E-02
0.6844E-02
-0.1754E-02
-0.2409E-02
-0.4964E-02
0.1229E-01
0.2782t-02
0.3904E-02
0.6042E-Q2
0.8590E-U2
0.6402E-02
U.8297E-02
0.5146E-02
-U.7781E-03
0.379**E-02
0.3468E-02
-0.1569E-02
0.1502E-02
-0.218SE-02
0.3521E-02
0.3121E-U2
0.1943E-02
0.4465E-02
0.5536E-U2
0.3007E-02
-0.3672E-02
-0.3998E-02
0.4164E-02
-0.7761E-02
0.4277E-02
0.9504E-02
-0.3726E-U3
0.1132E-01
0.6316E-02
A2
(1/M)
0.27b4E-03
O.S192E-03
U.1176E-03
0.4208h-03
U.5492E-03
0.4762E-03
0. f436E-04
0.2678E-03
0.3246E-03
0.2807E-03
0.1690E-U3
(J.2093E-03
0.1297E-03
0.1973E-03
O.J04UE-(J3
O.J116E-03
O.J214t-03
0.3780E-03
0.4313E-03
0.^445E-U3
0.2288E-03
0.2537t-03
0.1996E-03
U.J056E-03
0.3022t-03
0.2962L-03
O.S008E-03
O.S474E-03
0.2407E-03
0.6315E-03
0.2420E-03
0.103SE-03
U.bll8E-03
0.2389E-03
0.23a9t-03
-------
B-2
AMBIENT
ID
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
TABLE
CORRECTtO
AO
-------
B-3
TABLE ?
TRACK AMPIENT CONDITIONS
VEHICLE
ID
101
201
301
401
502
601
80^
901
1001
110?
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
180?
1901
210?
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
410?
4202
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
TEST
DATE
15
15
17
17
17
22
22
22
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
26
27
27
27
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
DRY
BULB
TFMP
(F )
70.0
7S.O
7?.0
77.0
81.0
8S.O
9?.0
88.0
76.0
7?.0
74.0
75.5
7Q.5
86.0
86.0
73.0
80.0
84.0
86.5
91.0
9?.0
95.0
74.0
8?.0
85.0
90.0
91.0
76.0
77.0
81.5
87.0
65.7
67.5
68.5
76.0
87.5
70.0
75.5
78.0
WFT
BULB
TFMP
(F)
63.0
64.0
66.0
68.0
70.0
71.0
71.5
69.5
7] .0
61.0
64.0
64.5
64.0
64.5
65. 0
65.0
6*.0
6R.O
69.0
6H.O
6«.5
70.0
69.0
74.0
7S.O
76.0
76.0
69.5
70.0
71.0
70.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
63.0
71.5
64.5
66.0
64.0
BAROMETRIC MFAN
STATION WIND
PRESSURE SPEED
(IN Ho)
29.00
28.98
29.00
29.00
28.98
28.80
28.8^
28.84
28.88
28.78
28.80
28.79
28.80
28.81
28.80
28. *b
28.88
28.96
28.94
28.94
2R.94
28.91
28.95
28.96
28.96
29.94
28.94
28.74
2*. 7*
28.74
28.70
2P.91
28.91
28.92
2P.94
28.85
29.06
29.10
29.10
(MPH)
S.I
6.8
0.0
5.3
7.1
5.9
3.8
4.0
9.2
<*.8
5.9
4.8
4.2
7.5
6.9
2.4
3.6
4.6
3.7
3.9
3.8
2.8
0.6
0.0
0.1
2.1
3.7
1.6
0.3
3.3
2.5
5.8
7.0
8.3
6.5
7.9
?.3
J.5
2.7
-------
B-4
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
TRACK AMBIENT CONDITIONS
VEHICLE
10
4302
4402
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5603
5601
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
TEST
DATE
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
22
23
24
16
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
DRY
BULB
TFMP
(F)
83.0
85.5
85.5
87.5
88.0
85.0
70.8
73.5
79.0
82.0
87.0
89.5
89.0
87.5
76.5
77.0
77.5
64.0
67.0
71.0
73.0
60.5
75.0
73.0
79.0
60.5
75.0
71.0
52.0
WET
BULB
TEMP
(F)
64.5
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.5
65.5
63.0
65.0
65. 5
67.0
67.5
6A.O
67.5
68.0
69.0
71.0
71.0
54.0
51.0
sa.o
57.0
S4.0
6iS.O
60.0
64.0
5?. 5
59.0
S7.0
46.0
BAROMETRIC MEAN
STATION WIND
PRESSURE SPEED
(IN HG)
29.08
29.06
29.05
29.02
29.0^
29.02
29.02
29.02
29.02
29.00
2*. 98
2P.96
2P.94
2«.9
-------
B-5
TABLE 3
TRACK TIRF PRESSURES
VEHICLE
ID
101
201
301
401
50?
601
804
901
1001
110?
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
170?
180?
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
340?
3505
3613
371?
3908
4014
4102
4202
INITIAL
FRONT
(PSI)
28.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
32.0
24.0
28.0
30.0
26.0
26.0
24.0
27.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
26.0
27.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
27.0
26.0
20.0
26.0
24.0
27.0
22.7
20.0
26.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
PRESSURES
REAR
(PSI)
28.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
32.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
32.0
24.0
32.0
32.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
31.0
2H.O
2R.O
28.0
26.0
31.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
27.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
27.0
22.7
24.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
FINAL
FRONT
(PS
30.5
27.5
29.3
28.0
27.2
29.7
28.3
25.7
28.0
27.4
29.5
35.0
27.5
30.5
33.8
29.4
29.8
27.7
27.3
32.5
29.5
27.5
29.7
29.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
28.5
28.5
22.2
28.3
27.0
29.2
26.0
21.2
29.5
28.5
28.2
28.5
I)
30.0
27.5
29.3
27.5
27.1
29.5
28.7
25.8
28.0
27.7
29.2
35.2
27.4
30.5
33.2
29.2
29.5
27.7
27.0
32.5
29.5
27.5
29.6
32.7
26.0
26.5
26.5
29.0
28.0
22.5
28.2
27.5
28.5
2b.O
22.0
29.6
28.5
28.0
28.2
PRESSURES
REAR
(PSI)
30.5 30.5
27.0 27.5
27.3 27.0
27.5 27.5
25.5 27.0
28.8 30.0
27.9 27.6
36.4 36.2
28.0 28.0
29.4 29.8
30.0 29.7
35.2 35.0
27.7 27.4
29.9 29.8
35.4 33.8
30.3 29.2
30.0 30.0
29.5 29.5
34.9 34.7
33.0 32.5
31.7 31.0
32.0 32.0
30.0 30.0
29.0 33.0
26.5 26.0
29.0 29.0
28.0 27.5
29.0 28.7
28.0 29.0
26.2 25.5
28.0 27. S
29.5 29.0
28.5 28.5
24.2 24.2
26.0 26.2
29.5 30.0
26.5 26.5
28.5 29.0
29.5 28.8
-------
B-6
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
TRACK TIRF PRESSURES
VEHICLE
ID
4302
4402
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5303
5303
5403
5503
5603
5601
5701
580?
600?
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
TIAL PRESSURES
RONT
PSD
26.0
26.0
28.0
24.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
26.0
28.0
28.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.0
20.0
28.0
20.0
REAR
(PSI)
26.0
26.0
28.0
24. 0
30.0
28.0
28.0
30.0
28.0
26.0
28.0
28.0
24.0
26.0
30.0
28.0
24.0
2<*.0
26.0
26.0
24.0
26.0
32.0
32.0
24.0
26.0
20.0
2^.0
20.0
FINAL PRESSURES
FRONT
(PSI
29.8
30.0
31.0
28.0
31.0
30.8
32.0
32.0
31.5
29.5
32.0
32.0
28.0
29.0
32.0
29.8
27.0
27.0
30.2
27.8
27.4
29.5
27.5
27.0
28.8
26.5
23.3
30.5
22.0
)
29.5
29.2
30.2
27.0
30.5
30.5
31.5
33.5
31.5
30.0
32.0
32.0
27.5
28.5
33.5
29.8
27.0
26.0
30.5
27.0
26.0
29.8
27.5
27.0
28.0
27.0
23.3
30.5
21.5
REAR
(PSI
30.2
29.5
33.2
27.8
34.0
30.8
33.0
33.5
31.5
30.5
32.5
32.0
28.0
29.5
33.5
31.5
26.5
27.2
31.0
28.5
27.5
30.0
36.5
36.5
27.5
28.2
23.5
25.4
22.5
)
29. H
29.5
31.2
26.5
32.5
30.5
32.5
32.0
31.2
29.2
31.8
31.5
27.8
29.0
32.0
31,5
26.5
27.0
31. U
29.0
26.2
29.8 .
36.5
36.0
29.0
29.0
23.5
25.0
22.0
-------
APPENDIX C
DYNAMOMETES MEASUREMENTS
-------
C-l
TABLE 1
DRIVE TRAIN * DRIVING TIRE
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
ID
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
A
(NT)
101.717
72.360
82.378
102.374
66.274
98.210
91.133
120.995
80.06**
67.366
95.005
68.112
69.966
119.277
67.916
78.155
101.203
61.621
60.839
66.798
127.981
105.724
43.744
62.382
50.067
42.390
57.992
46.990
93.368
90.319
101.^32
86.27b
28.<*01
54.398
90.319
88.477
32.686
140.387
127.891
77.300
102.101
8
(KG/SEC)
2.345
2.596
2.395
1.802
1.755
2.171
2.114
2.508
2.143
4.091
3.026
3.000
2.b29
1.682
2.077
1.898
1.175
1.567
2.102
1.400
1.518
J.097
1.852
1.777
1.482
3.390
1 .t!8b
0.970
1.118
1.221
2.452
1.517
U.631
1.697
1.221
1.607
0.923
0.813
1.554
2.191
2.117
-------
C-2
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
DRIVE TRAIN * DRIVING TIRE
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
10
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
A
(NT)
97.JP8
63,221
90.049
107.353
82.354
59.980
75.385
81.945
59.874
80.495
37.296
59.980
103.096
115.754
83.096
121.589
113.670
86.157
63.096
134.417
136.316
108.470
68.876
68.550
107.667
198.481
107.667
8
(KG/SEC)
1.464
1.541
1.971
1.803
2.279
3.248
2.799
3.205
3.111
2.372
b.403
3.248
2.572
1.660
1.634
1.244
1.U09
4.361
1.634
1.544
1.956
2.888
3.516
1.798
1.685
0.215
I.b85
-------
C-3
TABLE 2
DRIVING TIRE
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
ID
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
A
(NT)
76.182
69.682
76.373
71.451
55.387
68.166
79.993
74.341
76.744
30.407
98.372
46.631
50.241
86.593
39.212
56.213
73.240
53.471
46.485
44.149
89.550
88.606
41.021
37.919
-6.761
27.733
47.383
31.906
69.702
49.000
79.946
64.990
18.437
47.619
49.000
46.001
26.975
132.244
85.202
61.592
68.730
B
(KG/SEC)
0.635
0.810
0.305
0.289
0.145
0.617
0.730
1.049
0.276
0.708
-0.789
0.676
1.000
-0.608
0.637
0.564
0.297
0.856
0.580
-0.633
0.364
0.995
0.639
0.138
1.540
0.418
0.436
0.328
0.139
0.119
0.798
0.687
0.167
0.175
0.119
0.064
0.324
0.505
0.868
0.694
0.506
-------
C-4
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
DRIVING TIRE
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
ID
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
A
(NT)
62.980
47.277
67.365
69.927
66.040
60.255
58.705
47.075
40.020
79.322
56.476
60.255
66.405
76.031
64.147
70.702
87.241
75.627
64.147
97.069
69.242
33.696
53.527
47.097
59.739
70.915
59.739
B
(KG/SEC)
0.269
0.437
0.672
0.541
0.570
0.815
0.575
0.160
1.540
0.533
0.768
0.815
0.658
0.858
0.342
0.482
0.589
0.692
0.342
0.420
0.583
0.119
0.768
-0.018
0.907
-0.035
0.907
-------
C-5
TAHLE 3
DPIVfc TRAIN
DEGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
ID
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1S01
1601
1702
1802
1901
210?
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
A
(NT)
25.535
2.679
6.004
30.923
10.888
30.044
11.140
46.654
3.318
36.959
-3.366
21.482
19.724
32.683
28.704
21.942
27.962
8.148
14.354
22.6^9
33.432
17.118
2.7P4
24.463
56.830
14.658
10.609
15.084
23.66X
41.318
21.4*6
21.285
9.963
6.778
41.318
42.475
5.712
8.143
42.689
15.708
33.372
ti
(Ku/SfcC)
1.710
1. 786
2.08S*
1.513
1.610
1.554
1.384
1.459
1.867
3.383
3.815
2.324
1.529
2.291
1.440
1.33<*
O.rt7rj
0.711
1.521
2.033
1.153
2.102
1.212
l.o4U
-O.U58
2.971
1.450
0.642
0.979
1.102
1.655
0.930
0.464
1.523
1.102
1.543
0.599
0.30*
O.^Bh
1 .49tf
i.hll
-------
C-6
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
ORlVt TRAIN
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
10
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5<+03
5503
5601
5603
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
A
(NT)
34.349
15.443
22.683
37.426
16.314
-0.275
16.679
34.870
19.853
1.174
-19.181
-0.275
36.690
39.723
18.948
50.888
26.430
10.o30
18.948
37.347
67.073
f4.773
15. 3^8
21. ^53
47.929
127.S66
47.929
d
(KG/SEC)
1.195
1.104
1.299
1.261
1.709
2.432
2.224
3.04^
1.570
1.839
4.636
2.^32
1.913
0.802
1.293
0.761
1.220
3.668
1.293
1.124
1.373
2.769
2.749
1.815
0.778
0.250
0.778
-------
C-7
TABLE 4
NON-DRIVING TIRE
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
ID
101
201
301
401
502
bOl
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
A
(NT)
114.778
123.098
123.098
115.314
81.985
72.462
100.238
104.881
92.313
50.929
91.932
93.828
36.315
123.098
86.202
69.056
74.448
82.243
67.495
21.178
108. U10
86.1P6
76.672
16.797
57.607
100.708
35.769
18.202
92.667
46.007
100.238
108.100
16.797
20.527
46.007
53.398
39.645
95.874
135.400
124.442
145.133
B
(KG/SEC)
O.b97
0.525
0.525
0.412
U.452
0.188
0.538
-0.011
0.216
0.923
0.326
0.235
0.307
0.525
0.715
0.560
0.416
0.583
0.601
1.949
O.U97
1.013
-0.12J
O.OBJ
0.550
O.J67
0.520
0.234
0.377
0.27J
0.538
0.305
0.083
0.069
0.273
0.280
0.062
-0.696
0.815
0.230
0.059
-------
C-8
TAdLE 4 (CONTINUED)
NON-DRIVING TIRE
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
ID
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6b02
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
A
(NT)
59.390
62.766
62.457
86.218
109.712
80.086
59.S03
122.697
92.273
92.S82
119.843
80.086
103.466
129. b81
101.203
109.818
117.844
153.439
101.203
124.460
124.729
77.671
84.692
62.098
79.239
81. nil
79.239
B
(KG/SEC)
-0.063
0 . 1 39
0.692
0.348
0.60-3
0.415
2.035
-0.073
0.402
0.666
0.985
0.415
0.883
0.808
O.b97
-0.190
0.305
0.196
O.b97
O.b4o
0.275
0.170
0. J08
O.JB6
0.363
O.b60
0.363
-------
C-9
TABLE 5
DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS
INITIAL TIRF PRESSURES F
VEHICLE
ID
101
201
301
401
50?
601
804
901
1001
110?
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
210?
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
321?
3304
3402
3505
3613
371?
3908
4014
4102
4202
TEMP
(F)
73.0
75.0
73.0
74.0
76.0
76.0
73.0
76.0
78.0
75.0
76.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
78.0
75.0
76.0
74.0
75.0
73.0
76.0
76.0
75.0
73.0
75.0
78.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
75.0
76.0
74.0
72.0
FRONT
(PSI)
28.0
24.0
22.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
32.0
24.0
26.0
30.0
26.0
26.0
24.0
27.0
28.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
27.0
26.0
20.0
26.0
24.0
22.7
26.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
REAR
(PSI)
28.0
24.0
?4.0
24.0
22.0
26.0
24.0
32.0
26.0
26.0
32.0
24.0
26.0
32.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
31.0
28.0
24.0
28.0
26.0
31.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
27.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
22.7
26.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
FR
(P
32.3
28.7
31.1
25.7
28.0
27.0
34.8
28.1
JO. 4
34.9
29.0
28.8
27.2
29.9
30.0
26.5
27.6
29.0
26.0
28.0
25.7
30.0
29.2
21.2
30.6
28.4
28.0
30.6
29.0
26.?
29.4
FINAL TIRE PRESSURES
r REAR
I (PSI)
31.9 31.4 31.9
25.5 25.5
24.0 26.0
27.9 ?7.0 27.0
26.0 24.0
30.5 28.5 28.0
27.8 28.4
25.7 35.8 36.0
29.0 28.0
28.0 26.5 26.0
26.7 27.2 27.8
35.4 35.0 35.0
28.8 27.6 28.0
30.3 28.0 28.0
34.2 36.8 36.0
29.5 29.5 29.5
29.7 28.4 28.4
28.2 28.5 28.5
30.1 35.2 36.0
30.8 31.4 31.2
26.5 30.0 29.5
28.0 33.9 34.1
29.0 29.0 30.0
26.0 25.5 26.0
28.0 28.8 28.8
25.8 25.3 25.7
30.0 30.0 30.0
29.2 28.8 28.8
21.7 26.0 26.0
30.9
28.8 29.8 30.4
28.0 22.7 22.7
31.2 29.8 29.P
29.2 26.0 26.0
25.8 27.5 27.5
29.4 29.4 29.0
-------
C-10
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS
INITIAL TIRF PRESSURES FINAL TIRE
VEHICLE
ID
430?
440?
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
510.1
5203
531)3
54Q3
5503
5603
5601
5701
580?
6002
6102
620?
630?
640?
650?
670?
680?
6909
8101
84Q1
9101
TEMP
(F)
74.0
75.0
74.0
75.0
76.0
76.0
73.0
74. U
75.0
75.0
76.0
76.0
75.0
75.0
74.0
74.0
73.0
74.0
75.0
75.0
76.0
76.0
74.0
76.0
72.0
73.0
72.0
FRONT
(PSI)
26.0
26.0
28.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
28.0
28.0
26.0
28.0
28.0
24.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.0
20.0
26.0
20.0
REAR
(PSI)
26.0
26.0
28.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
28.0
28.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
25.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
24.0
26.0
34.0
32.0
24.0
26.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
FRONT
(PSI)
29.0
32.0
32.3
29.2
30.4
29.0
33.6
32.0
29.2
34.5
33.3-
28.1
31.4
30.7
32.1
27.4
28.0
30.3
29.?
30.4
26.8
25.6
28.0
27.8
22.2
30.5
22.2
29.3
31.5
32.3
29.0
30.7
28.8
33.0
32.0
29.0
34.4
33.0
28.9
31.0
31.7
32.1
26.8
27.2
30.6
29.4
30.8
26.8
25.5
27.5
27.8
22.2
31.6
22.2
PRESSURES
REAR
(PSI
30.4
33.3
27.8
29.4
?9.5
31.6
31.8
29.4
33.2
33.8
29.0
29.5
28.7
30.0
26.6
32.0
?8.0
27.0
39.7
35.0
33.2
28.0
23.5
21.0
23.5
)
30.6
33.8
28.2
28.9
29.7
31.0
31.2
29.8
33.0
34.0
28.0
30.1
28.7
31.2
26.0
31.0
28.5
27.2
39.0
35.5
28.2
28.2
23.0
21.5
23.0
-------
APPENDIX 0
MASSES
-------
D-l
TABLE 1
VEHICLE MASSES
IU
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
290b
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
NOT EFT
MASS
(KG)
23.14
21.10
20.86
21.22
17. 7S
23.98
17.03
27.34
16.31
22. Ob
23.8*
24.46
21.82
17.99
16.47
18.59
19.67
16.67
16.67
20.50
?5.4^
27.3^
28. 3u
16.67
17.51
21.3*
19.19
17.51
19.19
22.06
16.45
21.2?
14.63
11.27
22.06
14.75
12.71
24.94
25.56
28.0*
?2.54
UTDT EFF
MASS
(KG)
32.16
28.91
25.67
24.82
19.75
29.97
20.95
37.02
ltt.9u
24.75
29.20
28.35
26.23
27.57
24.61
21.16
21.30
22.57
IB. 12
25.39
34.34
39. 4
-------
D-2
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
VEHICLE MASStS
ID
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5302
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
MOT EFF
MASS
(KG)
21.22
13.91
22.54
23.50
16.19
23.9^
16.31
26.14
16.07
17.89
25.66
23.9*
25. 6h
22.18
21.82
24.22
27.34
24.2?
21.82
28.78
25.4?
23.50
23.74
17.03
26.62
28.30
26.62
DTOT EFF
MASS
(KG)
21.93
16.29
29.83
30.54
25.46
30.47
25.25
34.13
25.95
25.53
36.11
30.47
34.13
33.64
26.52
31.74
36.39
30. lf^
26.52
35.6*
36.74
35. 2b
32.4<+
23.20
27. lb
36.46
27.15
GKAV
MASS
(KG)
1413.64
1050.00
1922.73
19t.tt.18
1640.91
1963.64
1627.27
2200.00
1672.73
1645.45
2327.27
1963.64
2200.00
2168.18
1709.09
2045.45
2345.45
1945.45
1709.09
2300.00
236W.18
2272.73
2090.91
1495.4'i)
1750.00
2350.00
1750.00
TOTAL VEH
MASS
(KG)
1456.79
1080.20
1975.10
2022.22
1682.56
2018.08
1668.83
2260.27
1714.75
Ib08.87
2389.04
2018.08
2259.79
2224.00
1757.43
2101.41
2409.18
1999.66
1757.43
2364.46
2430.34
2331.49
2147.09
1535.68
1803.77
2414.76
1803.77
-------
APPENDIX E
VEHICLE HOAD LOAD
AND
DYNAMOMETER ADJUSTMENT TO SIMULATE VEHICLE ROAD LOAD
-------
E-l
TABLE I
TOTAL VEHICLE ROAD LOAD
10
101
201
301
401
502
601
80*
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2S02
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
GRAVMASS
(KG)
2072.7
1863.6
1654.6
1600.0
1272.7
1931.8
1350.0
2386.4
1218.2
1595.4
1881.8
1827.3
1690.9
1777.3
1536.4
1363.6
1372.7
1454.6
1168.2
1636.4
2213.6
2540.9
2477.3
1068.2
1122.7
1509.1
1254.6
1231.8
1509.1
1204.6
1513.6
1590.9
986.4
863.6
1204.6
1218.2
990.9
2072.7
2077.3
2268.2
2209.1
FO
(NT)
0.2404E+03
0.3208E*03
0.1449E+03
0.2714E*03
0.2081E*03
0.3200E+03
0.1102E+03
0.2096E*03
G.1885E«-03
0.13S9E+03
0.1096E*03
0.1231E+03
G.1109E+03
0.1847E*03
0.2040E+03
0.136ftE*03
0.1826E+03
0.1976E+03
0.15<*9E + 03
C.2275E+03
0.191«E+03
0.1920£*03
0.2947E+03
0.1227E*03
0.9967E*02
0.1778E+03
0.1771E*03
0.2152E*03
C.1704E+03
0.2481E+03
0.1747E+03
0.1055E+03
0.1441E*03
0.6532E*02
0.150HE*03
0.1847E*03
0.1553E*03
0.2456E*03
0.1648E*03
0.6598E*03
0.2665E*03
Fl
(KG/SEC)
0.4126E+01
-0.7530E*01
0.1164E*02
-0.2887E+01
-0.3156E*01
-0.9857E*01
0.1706E*02
0.5bl8E*01
0.4893E+01
0.9923E*01
0.1662E*02
0.1204E*02
0.1443E*02
0.9384E+01
-0.1268E*01
0.5324E*01
0.4903E*01
-0.2344E*01
0.1807E+01
-0.3676E*01
0.8005E*01
0.8139E+01
0.49^3E*01
0.4918E*01
0.6409E*01
0.4672E*01
-0.4749E*01
-0.5071E*01
0.6461E+01
-0.9665E*01
0.6645E*01
0.1556E*02
-0.3787E*00
0.1006E+02
0.7865E*01
0.5347E*00
-0.2685E*01
0.6986E*01
0.2019E*02
-0.3749£*02
0.5826E*00
F2
(KG/M)
0.5860E+00
0.9936E*00
0.2000E*00
0.6926E*00
0.7195E*00
0.9457E+00
0.1032E*00
0.6562E*00
0.4068E>00
0.4610E*00
0.3270E+00
0.3936fc*00
0.2255t*00
0.3596E*00
0.4953E*00
0.4373E+00
0.4544E*00
0.5647E*00
0.5188E*00
0.7477E*00
0.5202E+00
0.6615E*00
0.5077E*00
0.3366E*00
0.3499E*00
0.4602E*00
0.6477E*00
0.6943E*00
0.3735E*00
0.7864E*00
0.3760E*00
0.1693E*00
0.5202E*00
0.2122E*00
0.2975E*00
0.6015E*00
0.6859E*00
0.4874E*00
0.1744E*00
0.1658E*01
0.6670E*00
FtiSO
(NT)
0.6253E*03
0.6488E>03
0.5050E*03
0.5528E*03
0.4970E*03
0.5721E*03
0.5430E*03
0.6898E+03
0.5011E*03
0.5880E*03
0.6444E*03
0.5887E*03
0.5460E+03
0.5741E*03
0.4231E*03
0.4742E*03
0.5191E*03
0.4273E+03
0.4544E*03
0.5188E*03
0.6306E*03
0.7043E*03
0.6588E*03
0.4007E*03
0.4177E*03
0.5121E*03
0.3945E*03
0.4487E*03
0.5014E*03
0.4249E*03
0.5110E*03
0.5378E*03
0.3955E*03
0.3961E*03
0.4752E*03
0.4971E*03
0.4379E+03
0.6452E+03
0.7031E*03
0.6504E*03
0.6127E*03
HP(B50
(HP)
18.742
19.446
15.135
16.569
14.896
17.147
16.275
20.673
15.020
17.622
19.313
17.645
16.364
17.207
12.680
14.213
15.560
12.807
13.620
15.551
18.899
21.110
19.744
12.011
12.518
15.348
11.823
13.449
15.028
12.734
15.316
16.118
11.853
11.871
14.243
14.899
13.126
19.339
21.074
19.493
18.365
-------
E-2
TABLE 1 {CONTINUED)
TOTAL VEHICLE ROAD LOAD
ID
4507
4607
4701
4601
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6 '02
6402
6b02
6702
6802
6909
8101
8401
9101
GRAVMASS
(KG)
1413.6
1050.0
1922.7
1968.2
1640.9
19o3.6
16*7.3
2200.0
1672.7
1645.4
2327.3
1963.6
22UO.O
2168.2
1709.1
2045.4
2345.4
19*5.4
1709.1
2300.0
2368.2
22/2.7
2090.9
1495.4
1750.0
2350.0
1750.0
FO
(NT)
0.1219E+03
0.1275E+03
0.2164E*03
0.2186E*03
0.1376E*03
0.3866E*OJ
0.15<»9E*03
0.2448E+03
0.1736E+03
u.2835E*03
0.33<+7E + 03
0.1974E*03
0.1448E*03
G.2278E*03
0.1740E*03
0.2486E+OJ
0.1494E+03
0.1580E+03
0.2231E*03
0.1487E+03
0.2053E+03
0.2097E*03
0.2965E*03
0.1059E*03
0.349?E*03
C.2**87E*03
0.2331E*03
Fl
(KG/SEC)
0.9159E+01
0.3935E*01
0.2275E*00
-O.S525E+00
0.1354E*02
-0.1570E*02
0.1490E*02 .
0.6799E*01
0.1283E*02
-0.3427E*01
-0.3877E*01
0.7106E*01
0.1667E+02
0.7702E*01
0.7805E*01
0.1023E*02
0.1807E*02
0.1733E*02
-0.1301E*01
0.1430E*02
0.8997£*01
0.5246E*01
-0.7b23E*01
0.1201E*02
-0.9181E*01
0.6112E*01
0.4b70E*01
F2
(KG/M)
0.2515E*00
0.3359E*00
0.6013E*00
0.7274E+00
0.1701E*00
0.1039E*01
0.2431E*00
0.4845E*00
0.2600E+00
0.7847E*00
0.8128E*00
0.4269E*00
0.2314E*00
0.4750E*00
0.4446E»00
0.3783E*00
0.2086E*00
0.2446E*00
0.7182E*00
0.3583E*00
0.5551£>00
0.7385E*00
0.9875E*00
0.3338E*00
0.7654E*00
0.5472E*00
0.4822E*00
Fi«i50
(NT)
0.4522E*03
0.3833E*03
0.5219E*03
0.5696E*03
0.5253E+03
0.5546E*03
0.6093E*03
0.6388E*03
0.5902E*03
0.5989E+03
0.6541E*03
0.5695E*03
0.6329E*03
0.6372E*03
O.S706E+03
0.6661E*03
0.6574E*03
0.6676E*03
0.5528E*03
0.6473E*03
0.6837E*03
0.6958E*03
0.6216E*03
0.54HE*03
0.5263E+03
0.65d6E*03
0.5828E*03
HPi«i50
(HP)
13.554
11.487
15.641
17.072
15.745
16.623
18.262
19.146
17.689
17.949
19.604
17.068
18.969
19.097
17.101
19.963
19.703
20.009
16.569
19.401
20.492
20.856
18.631
16.218
15.774
19.741
17.468
-------
E-3
TAbLE 2
SMALL ROLL DYNAMOMETEH ESTIMATES
ID
101
201
301
401
50?
601
rtO*
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1*01
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2*01
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3*02
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4*02
GKAVMASS
UG)
2072.7
1863.6
16S4.6
1600.0
1272.7
19J1.6
1350.0
2386.4
1218.2
1595.4
1881.8
1827.3
1690.9
1777.3
15-16.4
1363.6
1372.7
1454.6
1168.2
1636.4
2213.6
25*0.9
2477.3
1068.2
1122.7
1509.1
1254.6
1231.8
1509.1
1204.6
1513.6
1590.9
9*6.4
863.6
12U4.6
1218.2
990.9
2072.7
2077.3
2268.2
2209.1
FO
(NT)
0. lOlSE + OJ
0.2037E+03
C.2052E+02
0.1296E*03
0.1071E+03
0.197HE+03
-0.7893E*01
0.5659E+02
0.8436E+02
0.4561E+02
-0.1181E*02
0.9527E+01
0.1644E+01
0.27S8E*02
0.9307E+02
0.3273E+02
0.5781E*02
0.1005E+03
(;.65dlE*02
0.1620E+03
0.2384E*02
0.602fiE*02
0.2148E*03
0.6236E*02
0.9372E*01
0.7893E*02
0.1120E*03
0.1673E*03
0.4028E*02
().1445E*03
0.4589E*02
-0.2927E*0^
0.1110E*03
0.1810E*02
0.4719E+02
0.7705E*02
0.1059E*03
0.8789E*02
-0.2253t*02
0.5221E+03
u.9291E*02
Fl
(Kb/SEC)
0.16rt5E*01
-0.1011E+02
0.9058E*01
-0.*815E*01
-0.515&E*01
-0-1194E*U2
0.1492E+02
0.4743E*01
0.2733E*01
0.5472E*01
O.U11E*02
U.9ll8E*01
0.1204E*02
0.7142E+01
-0.3595E*01
0.3253E*01
0.3557E+01
-u.3998E*01
-0.4870E*00
-0.6571E*01
U.65*9£-»-01
0.*V22E*01
0.339lE*Ol
0.31346.*01
0.5096£*01
0.11^6t*01
-0.6dc;6E*Ol
-0.6081E*01
0.51*26*01
-0.1102E*02
0.*198E*01
0.1398E+02
-0.100HE*01
0.d392E*01
0.6507E*01
-0.1233E*01
-0.3536E+01
0.6804r.*01
O.lb40t*02
-0.3959E*02
-0.1397E+01
F2
(KG/M)
0.5B60E*00
0.9936E*00
0.2000t*00
0.6926E*00
0. Jf195E*00
0.9*57E*00
0.1032E*00
0.6562E+00
0.*068E*uO
0.*61QE*UO
0.327QE*UO
0.3936E*00
0.2255E+00
0.3596t*00
0.4953t*00
0.4373£*00
0.4544E*00
0.56*7E*00
0.5188E*00
0.7477E*00
0.5202E*00
0.6615E*00
0.5077E+00
0.3366t *00
0.3499t*00
0.4602E*00
0.6*77F.*00
0.69*3t>00
U.37;iSt*00
0.7864E*00
0.3760£*00
0.1693E*00
0.5202E+00
0.2122E*00
0.2975E*00
0.6015E*00
0.6«59E*00
0.48/4E+00
0.17*4t>00
O.l658t*01
0.6670E*00
F,oi50
(NT)
0.4319E+03
0.4741E*03
0.3229E*03
0.3630E+03
G.3513E+03
0.40 J3E*03
0.3772E*03
0.4904£*03
0.3491E*03
0.3982E*03
0.*445E*03
0.4099t*03
0.3835E*03
0.3668E*03
0.26ulE*03
0.3239E*03
0.3643E*03
0.2932E*03
0.31*1E*03
0.388bE*03
0.*301E*03
0.*9t>3E*03
0.5442E*03
0.3005E+03
0.2961E*03
0.33b3E*Oj
0.2830E*03
0.37r)2E*03
0.341dE+03
0.2910E*03
U.3275E*03
0.3677E*03
0.34d4E*03
0.3117E*03
0.3412£*03
0.3500E*03
0.3695t*03
0.48J4t*03
0.*759E+03
0.*65*E*03
0.3949E*03
HP*50
(MP)
12.945
14.211
9.077
11.030
10.328
12.088
11.305
14.698
10.465
11.935
13.323
12.286
11.493
10.995
7.797
9.707
10.918
8.78a
9.414
11.049
12.09U
1*.874
10.311
9.00H
d.933
10.050
d.*ai
11.33*
1U.2**
d. /20
9.dl7
11.021
10.**!
9.341
10.227
I0.*d9
li.075
I*.4d9
1*.263
13.950
11.M35
-------
E-4
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
TWIN SMALL kOLL DYNAMOMETER ESTIMATES
ID
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5H02
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
6502
6702
6802
f* O f\ O
O ^ \J f
8101
8401
9101
GKAVMAS!
(KG)
1413.6
1050.0
1922.7
1968.2
1640.9
1963.6
1627.3
2200.0
1672.7
1645.4
2327.3
1963.6
2200.0
2168.2
1709.1
20^*5.4
2345.4
1945.4
1709.1
2300.0
2368.2
2272.7
20*0.9
1495. 4
1750.0
23SO.O
1750.0
a FO
(NT)
0.7320E*01
0.4625E+02
0.1086E+U3
0. 7880E+02
0.1699E+02
0.2949E+03
0.6807E+02
0.9862E+02
0.7524E*02
0.18u3E+03
0.23S3E*03
0.1057E+03
-0 .32h5E*01
0.6606E+02
0.466**E + 02
0. 7936E+02
-0.1149E*02
-0.2716E*01
0.9574E*02
-0.3389E*02
0.1105E+02
0.61 9 ]E* 02
0.1905E*03
0.1285E*02
0.2102E+03
G.2126E+02
0.9405E*02
Fl
(KG/SEC)
0.7829E*01
0.2438E+01
-0. 1966E*01
-0.2395E*01
0.1114E>02
-0.1894E+02
0.1113E*02
U.3697E*01
0.1011E*02
-0.5978E*01
-0.9662E+01
0.3870t*01
0.1374E*02
0.5913E*01
U.5897E*01
0.9278E*01
0.1626E*02
0.1308E*02
-0.3209E*01
0.1254£*02
0.7061E+01
0.2287E*01
-0.1 098E*02
0.9953E*01
-0.1079E+02
0.5518E*01
0.3261E*01
(KG/M)
0.2515t*00
0.3359E*00
0.6013t>00
0.7274t*00
0.1701E*00
0.1039E*01
0.2431E*00
0.4845E*00
0.2600t*00
0.7847E*00
0.8l?8fc*00
0.4269E+00
0.2314E+00
0.4750E*00
0.4^46t»00
0.3783E*00
0.2086E+00
0.2446E*00
0.7182L*00
0 .3B83t +00
0 .5551E *00
0.73B5t*00
0.9875E+00
0.333HE+00
0.7654t + 0()
0.5472E*00
0.4622E+00
Fi-50
(NT)
0.3079E*03
0.2697E*03
0.3650E*03
0.3886E+03
0.3508E*03
0.3906E*03
0.4382E*03
0.4233E*03
0.4310E*03
0.4387E+03
0.42B3t*03
0.4054E*03
0 .4195E+03
0.433bE+03
0.40U5E*03
0.4757E*03
0.4562E+03
0.4118E+03
0.3H28E+03
0 .<*254£ + 03
0.4461E+03
0.4819E*03
0 .4Jt»5E + U3
0.4020E+03
0.3513E*03
0.41 /9E + 03
0.4078E+03
HPia.50
(HP)
9.229
8.082
10.940
11.647
10.515
11.707
13.133
12.686
12.918
13.148
12.838
12.151
12.57^
13.052
12.U04
14.257
13.674
12.J42
11.4/2
12.749
13.372
14.444
13.142
12.050
10.530
12.526
12.223
-------
TWIN
E-5
TABLE 3
SMALL KOLL DYNAMOMETER ESTIMATIONS
FOR VEHICLES WITH RADIAL TIKES
ID
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1*01
1501
1601
1702
1802
1901
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2/06
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3712
3908
4014
4102
4207E*01
0.1062E*01
-0.6976E+01
-0.6169E*01
0.5061E*01
-0.1108E*02
0.3905E*01
0.1J82E+02
-0.10^7F.*01
O.b338£*01
0.6445E*U1
-0.1287E*01
-0.3597E*01
0.6834E*01
0.1814E*02
-0.3974E*02
-0.1486E*01
F2
(KG/M)
0.5860E*00
0.9936E*00
0.2000E*00
0.6926E*00
0.7195E*00
0.9457E*00
0.1032E*00
0.6562E*00
0.4068E*00
0.4610E*00
0.3270E*00
0.3936E*00
0.2255E*00
0.3596E+00
0.4953E*00
0.4373E*00
0.4544E*00
0.5647E*UO
0.51fl8E*00
0.7477E*00
0.5202E*00
0.6615E*00
0.5077E*00
0.3366L+00
0.3499E+00
0.4602E*00
0.6477E*00
0.6943E*00
0.3735E+00
0.7864E*00
0.3760E*00
0.1693E*00
0.5202E*00
0.2122E+00
0.2975E*00
0.6015E*00
0.6859E*00
0.4874E*00
0.1744E*00
0.1658E*01
0.6670E*00
Fio«50
(NT)
0.3839E+03
0.4253E*03
0.27bOE*03
0.3235E*03
0.3276E*03
0.3783E*03
0.3314E*03
0.4459E*03
0.3096E*03
0.3797E*03
0.4162t*03
O.J8<*6E*03
0.3574E*03
0.3212E*03
0.2356E*03
0.3002E*03
0.3385E*03
0.2668E+03
0.2920E*03
0.3737E*03
0.3974E+03
0.4617E*03
0.5239E*03
0.?912E*03
0.2827E*03
0.3123E*03
0.26t>5E*03
0.36rt3E*03
0.31*4t*03
0.2746E*03
0.2814E+03
0.33/UE*03
0.3419E*03
0.2955E*03
0.3249E*03
0.3331E*03
0.3577E*03
0.44«2E*03
0.*3D2E*03
0.4329E*03
0.35*2t*03
HPl«"bO
(HP)
11.507
12.746
8.243
9.697
9.817
11.340
9.933
13.365
9.280
11.379
12.<+75
11.528
10.711
9.627
7.062
rt.99tt
10.147
7.*9b
8.751
11.202
ll.vlO
13.838
lb. 1Q'
-------
S-6
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
TWIN SMALL ROLL DYNAMOMETER ESTIMATIONS
FOR VEHICLES *ITH RADIAL TIRES
ID
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
580*
6002
6102
6202
b3U2
6402
6502
6702
6602
6909
8101
8<*01
9101
GRAVMASS
(KG)
1413.6
1050.0
1922.7
1968.2
1640.9
1963.6
1627.3
2200.0
1672.7
1645.4
2327.3
1963.6
2200.0
2168.2
1709.1
20*5.4
23<*5.4
1945.4
1709.1
2300.0
2368.2
2272.7
2090.9
1495.4
1750.0
2350.0
1750.0
» FO
dxlT)
-0.1193E+02
0.2209E+02
0.'8817E*02
0.5423E*02
-0.2160E+02
0.2728E+03
0.4212E+02
0.7191E+02
0.4619E+02
0.1426E+03
0.2105E*03
0.8358E+02
-0.2999E+02
0.2092E+02
0.2062E+02
0.5095E+02
-0.4376E*02
-0.3876E+02
0.6972E*02
-0.6875E*02
-0.1947E*02
0.4439E+02
0.168fiE*03
-0.4329E*01
0.1883E*03
-0.2707E*01
0.7218E*02
Fl
(KG/SEC)
0.7797E*01
0.2361E*01
-0.2181E«-01
-0.2S35E*01
0.1088E*02
-0.1913E+02
0.10b5E*02
0.3683E+01
0.9681E*01
-0.6241E*01
-0.9938E*01
0.3676t*01
0.1350E*02
0.5547E*01
0.5/50E*01
0.9232E*01
0.1612E*02
G.1294E+0?
-0.33b6E*01
0.1239E*02
0.6926E*01
0.2241E*01
-0.1115(->02
0.9895E*01
-0.1099E*02
0.5436E*01
0.3061E*01
F2
(KG/M)
0.2515E*00
0.3359E*00
0.6013E*00
0.7274E+00
0.1701E*00
0.1039t*01
0.2431E*00
0.4845E*00
0.2600E+00
0.7847E*00
0.8128E*00
0.4269E*00
0.2314E*00
0.4750t*00
0.4446E*UO
0.3783E*00
0.20fl6E*UO
0.2446E*00
0.7182E+00
0.35«3E*00
0.5551E*00
0.7385E*00
0.9875E*00
0.3338E+UO
0.7654E*00
0.5472E*00
0.4822E*00
F(«»50
(NT)
0.2880E+03
0.2426E*03
0.3398E*03
0.3609E*03
0.3065E*03
0.3642E*03
0.3994E*03
0.3962E*03
0.3924E*03
0.3951E*03
0.3944E*03
0.3790E*03
0.3874E*03
0.3822E*03
0.3712E+03
0.4463E*03
0.420HE*03
0.3726E*03
0.3535E*03
0.3871E+03
0.4126E*03
0.4634E*03
0.4129E*03
0.3836E*03
0.3250E*03
0.3921E*03
0.3815E*03
HPi«»50
(HP)
8.631
7.273
10.184
10.817
9.185
10.915
11.972
11.876
11.762
11.841
11.822
11.359
11.610
11.454
11.126
13.37b
12.612
11.168
10.594
11.603
12.367
13.rt88
12.377
11.49b
9.741
11.753
11.433
-------
E-7
TABLE 4
SINGLE LARGE ROLL DYNAMOMETER
10
101
201
301
401
502
601
804
901
1001
1102
1201
1301
1401
1501
1601
1702
1802
1^01
2102
2203
2301
2401
2502
2602
2706
2802
2906
3011
3102
3212
3304
3402
3505
3613
3^12
3908
4014
4102
4202
4302
4402
GRAVMASS
(KG)
2072.7
1863.6
1654.6
1600.0
1272.7
1931.8
1350.0
2386. 4
1218.2
1595.4
1881.8
1827.3
1690.9
1777.3
1586. 4
1363.6
1372.7
1454.6
1168.2
1636.4
2213.6
2540.9
2477.3
10b8.2
1122.7
1509.1
1254.6
12J1.8
1509.1
1204.6
1513.6
1590.9
986.4
663.6
1204.6
1218.2
990.9
2072.7
2077.3
22*8.2
2209.1
FO
(NT)
0.1387E+03
0.2484E+03
0.6252E*02
0.1690E+03
0.1418E+03
0.2218E*03
0.1907E*02
G.8861E+02
0.1084E+03
0.6853E*02
0.1460E+02
0.5499E+02
0.4093E+02
0.6542E*02
0.1361E*03
<).58S5E*02
0.8140E+02
0.1360E+03
U.9<»06E + 02
U.1607E+03
C.63H2E*02
0.862BE+02
0.2510L+03
0.6012E*02
U.49bOt*02
G.1354£*03
0.1191E*03
0.1682E*03
0.7703E*02
0.1578E*03
C.7287E*02
0.1923E*02
0.1157t*03
0.1092E*02
C.6048E*02
0.9622E*02
0.1226E+U3
C.1052L*03
0.3691E*02
C,5825E*03
0.1644£*03
Fl
(KG/SEC)
0.1781E*01
-0.1013E*02
0.9245E*01
-0.46B9E*01
-0.4911E*01
-0.1203t*02
0.1495E*02
0.4310E*01
0.2750E*01
0.5832E*01
0.1359E*02
0.9040E«01
0.1190E*03
0.77Q2E*01
-0.3345E*01
0.3426E*01
0.3728E*01
-0.39HE*01
-0.2950E+00
-0.5076E*01
0.6487E*01
0.5042E*01
0.3091E*01
0.3141E*01
0.4927E*01
0.1282E*01
-0.6635E*01
-0.6041E*01
0.5343E*01
-0.1089E*02
0.4193E*01
0.1394£*02
-0.1010£*01
0.8363E+01
0.6644E»01
-0.1072E*01
-0.3608E*01
0.6173E*01
0.1864E*02
-0.3968E*02
-0.1534E*01
F2
(KG/M)
0.5860E+00
0.9936E*00
0.2000E^OO
0.6926£*00
0.7195E*00
0.9457E*00
0.1032E*00
0.6562E*00
0.4068E*00
0.4610E*00
0.3270£*00
0.3936E*00
0.2255E*00
0.3596E*00
0.4953£*00
0.4373E*00
0.4544E«00
0.5647E*00
0.5188t*00
0.7477E*00
0.5202E+00
0.6615E*00
0.5077E*00
0.3366E*00
0.3499E*00
0.4602E*00
0.6477E*00
0.6943E*00
0.3735E»00
0.7864E*00
0.3760E*00
0.1693E*00
0.5202E*00
0.2122E*00
0.2975E*00
0.6015E*00
0.6859E*00
0.4874E*00
0.1744E*00
0.16S8E*01
0.6670E+00
Fl
-------
E-8
TABLE ^ (CONTINUED)
SINGLE LAKGE ROLL DYNAMOMETER
ID
GRAVMASS
(KG)
4507
4607
4701
4801
4903
5001
5103
5203
5303
5403
5503
5601
5603
5701
5802
6002
6102
6202
6302
6402
' 502
6702
6802
690^
8101
8401
9101
1413
1050
1922
1968
1640
1963
1627
2200
1672
1645
2327
1963
2200
2168
1709
2045
2345
1945
1709
2300
2368
2272
2090
1495
1750
2350
1750
.6
.0
.7
.2
.9
.6
.3
.0
.7
.4
.3
.6
.0
.2
.1
.4
.4
.4
.1
.0
.2
.7
.9
.4
.0
.0
• 0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
FO
(NT)
2457E
6428E
Fl
(Kli/SEC)
+ 02
+ 02
1264E+03
1112E
5525E
3266E
7951E
1629E
1137E
2030E
2974E
1374E
4170E
1120E
9090E
1270E
3573E
7184E
1400E
+ 03
+ 02
+ 03
+ 02
+ 03
+ 03
+ 03
+ 03
+ 03
+ 02
+ 03
+ 02
+ 03
+ 02
+ 02
+ 03
1428E+02
6898E
1012E
2276E
3735E
2415E
502?E
1254E
+ 02
+ 03
+ 03
+ 02
+ 03
+ 02
+ 03
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
o.
7695E+01
2394E+01
1743E+01
2356E+01
1126E+02
1895E+02
1210E+02
3594E+01
9719E+01
5799E+01
9280E+01
3a60E+01
1410E+02
6042E+01
6171E*01
8986E+01
1626E+02
1297E+02
2935E+01
1276E+02
7041E+01
2358E+01
1104E+02
1021E+02
1087E+02
5897E+01
3185E+01
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
F2
(KG/M)
2515E+00
3359E+00
6013E+00
7274E+00
1701E+00
1039E+01
2431E+00
4845E+00
2600E+00
7847E+00
6128E+00
4269E+00
2314E+00
4750E+00
4446E+00
3783E+00
2086E+00
2446E+00
7182E+00
3583E+00
5S51E+00
7385E+00
9875E+00
3338E+00
7654E+00
5472E+00
4822E+00
FlP»50
(NT)
0.3222E+03
0.2856E+03
0.3877E+03
0.4220E+03
0.3919E+03
0.4221E+03
0.4714E+03
0.4852E+03
0.4608E+03
0.4654E+03
0.4960E+03
0.4369E+03
0.4724E+03
0.4844E+03
0.4509E+03
0.5168E+03
0.5034E+03
0.4839E+03
0.4332E+03
0.4784E+03
0.5036E+03
0.5228E+03
0.4742E+03
0.4323E+03
0.3810E + 03 .
0.4554E+03
0.4375E+03
HPl*50
(HP)
9,656
8.559
11.621
12.647
11.746
12.652
14.129
14.542
13.812
13.948
14.866
13.096
14.158
14.517
13.515
15.490
15.087
14.503
12.983
14.337
15.095
15.670
14.212
12.958
11.420
13.648
13.112
------- |