National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: V. Full-Scale Crash Testing
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"VI. Summary and Conclusions ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22938.
×
Page 184

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

173 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS PHASE I Since its publication in 1993, NCHRP Report 350 “Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features” established guidance for evaluating the safety performance of roadside features, such as longitudinal barriers, terminals, crash cushions, and breakaway structures. This document was formally adopted as the national standard by FHWA later that year with an implementation date of late 1998. An update to NCHRP Report 350, now known as the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), was developed under NCHRP Project 22-14(02), “Improvement of Procedures for the Safety-Performance Evaluation of Roadside Features.” This document contains revised criteria for safety-performance evaluation of virtually all roadside safety features. Changes to the design test vehicles and impact conditions will place greater impact performance demands on many current roadside safety features. It may be of interest to note that as the development of MASH progressed, it appeared that the new design test vehicle for structural adequacy tests would be a 5000-lb, 3/4-ton, standard cab pickup. The rationale was to keep the same body style pickup used under NCHRP Report 350 with a test inertial weight adjusted to reflect the upsizing trend indicated in sales of new passenger vehicles. Previous research had concluded that the 3/4-ton, standard cab pickup was a reasonable surrogate for light truck vehicles, and there was a tremendous amount of experience and investment in designing for and testing with this truck. The implications of specifying the heavier, 5000-lb, 3/4-ton pickup truck as the new design test vehicle were not completely understood, but it was known that it would be more critical than the existing 4409-lb, 3/4-ton pickup used under NCHRP Report 350. The 13 percent increase in weight and impact severity would place more demand on the structural adequacy of barrier systems, and would aggravate problems with vehicle stability and occupant compartment deformation. As an example, it was demonstrated in a full-scale crash test that standard strong steel post W-beam guardrail would not accommodate the new vehicle under TL-3 impact conditions. It was not until well into the development of MASH that the design test vehicle changed to a 5000-lb, 1/2-ton, 4-door pickup truck. The rationale for this change is that this body style pickup has characteristics that more closely resemble large SUVs than the 3/4-ton, standard cab pickup. Subsequent crash testing and analyses conducted under NCHRP Project 22-14(02) and other projects indicate that the 5000-lb, 1/2-ton, 4-door, pickup truck will impart impact loads that are comparable to those of the 4409-lb, 3/4-ton, standard cab pickup. Further, the 1/2-ton, 4-door, pickup truck appears to be more stable and have less propensity for occupant compartment intrusion than the 3/4-ton pickup. When these vehicle factors are combined with much more liberal thresholds for occupant compartment deformation, the need for revising existing hardware to comply with MASH does not appear to be as extensive as once anticipated. This fact is reflected in the performance

174 assessment ratings assigned to the hardware assessed. The researchers do note that the dramatic increase in impact severity of the pickup truck redirection tests and other changes in the test matrices for terminals and crash cushions will likely necessitate the modification of some of these systems. However, most of these devices are proprietary in nature and therefore, an assessment of their performance has not been addressed under this project. In addition to changes in the pickup truck vehicle, the test conditions for Test Level 4 (TL-4) have changed significantly. Most notably, the weight for the single-unit truck (SUT) vehicle increased from 17,640 lb to 22,050 lb and the impact speed increased from 50 mi/h to 56 mi/h. The increased weight and speed of the SUT vehicle increase the impact severity of longitudinal redirection test 4-12 by 56 percent. In addition, the estimated impact force of 76 kips for MASH test 4-12 represents a 41 percent increase from the 54-kip design load used for NCHRP Report 350 test 4-12. Consequently, some barriers that meet the NCHRP Report 350 guidelines as a TL-4 barrier may not have adequate strength to comply with the same test level under MASH. Another aspect of the structural adequacy criteria is that the test vehicle should not override the barrier. Adequate barrier height is required to prevent heavy trucks with high centers of gravity from rolling over a barrier. Full-scale crash testing has shown that 32-inch tall barriers are capable of meeting TL-4 impact conditions under NCHRP Report 350. However, when MASH test 4-12 was conducted on a 32-inch tall New Jersey safety shape concrete barrier, the SUT rolled over the top of the barrier. After the unsatisfactory outcome of the test performed under project 22-14(02), it was proposed to reduce the center-of-gravity (C.G.) height of the ballast of the SUT from 67 inches to 63 inches. This effectively decreases the overturning moment by decreasing the moment arm between the C.G. of the truck and the reactive force applied by the barrier. Additional testing was performed under this project to determine if the decrease in C.G. height was sufficient to permit 32-inch tall barriers to contain the SUT or if taller barriers will be needed to comply with MASH. Testing under this project demonstrated that the decrease in ballast C.G. height was not sufficient to prevent the SUT from rolling over a 32-inch tall New Jersey safety shape barrier. State DOTs make considerable use of non-proprietary roadside safety systems. Although some barrier testing was conducted under NCHRP Project 22-14(02) during the development of the MASH criteria, many barrier systems and other roadside safety features have yet to be evaluated under the proposed guidelines. Therefore, evaluation of the remaining widely used roadside safety features following the impact performance requirements of MASH is needed. Under this research project, researchers conducted a survey of the State DOTs for use and frequency rates for non-proprietary hardware; and reviewed the test reports of the crash tests performed under NCHRP Project 22-14(02) and TXDOT project FHWA/TX-07/0-5526-1, as well as numerous tests performed under NCHRP Report 350 guidelines. A performance assessment of existing roadside safety devices was performed to help evaluate the impact of adopting MASH. Crash test results, engineering analyses, and engineering judgment were used to assist with the hardware evaluation. Categories of roadside features that were considered under the project include guardrail, median barriers, transitions from approach guard fence to

175 barriers, breakaway sign supports, and precast and permanent concrete barriers. Proprietary devices were not considered. The manufacturers of these devices will be required to assess the impact performance of their devices and ultimately demonstrate compliance of their devices with the new test and evaluation guidelines. Results of the performance assessment were used to develop a prioritization scheme for further testing and evaluation required to bring roadside safety features into compliance with the new impact performance guidelines. PHASE II – FULL-SCALE CRASH TESTING The objective of Phase II of this project was to evaluate the safety performance of widely used non-proprietary roadside safety hardware using MASH performance and evaluation criteria. Highway safety hardware proposed for evaluation included longitudinal barriers (excluding bridge railings); terminals and crash cushions; transitions; and breakaway sign supports that had previously been accepted under NCHRP Report 350. Researchers identified use and frequency of specific non-proprietary roadside-safety hardware by surveying the State DOTs. In conjunction with the NCHRP project panel, a final test matrix consisting of nine roadside safety hardware features was chosen from 89 identified non-proprietary roadside safety hardware features. Researchers performed a total of 11 full-scale crash tests on nine different types of roadside safety hardware. New Jersey Safety Shape Barrier Test 4-12 Test Vehicle: 1999 Ford F-800 single-unit truck Test Inertia Weight: 22,090 lb Gross Static Weight: 22,090 lb Impact Speed: 57.4 mi/h Impact Angle: 14.4 degrees The 32-inch New Jersey Safety Shape bridge rail failed to contain and redirect the SUT vehicle under the new TL-4 impact conditions with a ballast center-of-gravity height of 63 inches. The SUT rolled 101 degrees before exiting the end of the barrier. Although subsequent contact with the ground enabled the vehicle to right itself as it came to rest, there is no question that the SUT would have continued to roll over the top of the rail had the barrier test installation length been longer. The 32-inch New Jersey Safety Shape bridge rail failed to demonstrate satisfactory performance according to the TL-4 evaluation criteria in MASH.

176 Test 3-11 Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup Test Inertia Weight: 5049 lb Gross Static Weight: 5049 lb Impact Speed: 62.6 mi/h Impact Angle: 25.2 degrees The New Jersey safety shape barrier contained and redirected the 2270P vehicle under TL-3 impact conditions. The vehicle did not penetrate, underride, or override the installation. No measurable deflection of the barrier occurred. No detached elements, fragments, or other debris were present to penetrate or to show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or to present hazard to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 2.0 inches at the right kickpanel. The 2270P vehicle remained upright during and after the collision event. Maximum roll and pitch angles were 29 and -16 degrees, respectively. Occupant risk factors were within the limits specified in MASH. The 2270P exited the barrier within the exit box. The New Jersey safety shape barrier performed acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup) and evaluated in accordance with the safety performance evaluation criteria presented in MASH. G4(2W) W-Beam Guardrail Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup Test Inertia Weight: 5009 lb Gross Static Weight: 5009 lb Impact Speed: 64.4 mi/h Impact Angle: 26.1 degrees The G4(2W) W-beam guardrail did not perform acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). The vehicle penetrated the guardrail after the W-beam rail element ruptured and then subsequently rolled 180 degrees. It should be noted, the impact speed and angle for this test were 64.4 mph and 26.1 degrees, respectively. The impact speed and angle were within the acceptable limits prescribed in MASH. However, the impact condition represented an impact severity 16.4 percent greater than the target MASH condition (62.2 mph and 25 degrees). Various modifications to W-beam guardrail have demonstrated improved performance. Modifications that have demonstrated improved performance in crash tests include increasing the rail height to 31 inches, moving the rail splices to mid-span of the posts, and using 12 inch deep block-outs. It is believed any one or more of these changes will improve the performance of the G4(2W) W-beam guardrail. Additionally, it is known that W-beam guardrail has historically been performing at or very near 100 percent of structural design capacity. If the speed and angle in the test were nearer to target impact conditions, the rail may not have ruptured.

177 G4(1S) W-Beam Median Barrier Test-3-10 Test Vehicle: 2002 Kia Rio Test Inertia Weight: 2418 lb Gross Static Weight: 2584 lb Impact Speed: 61.4 mi/h Impact Angle: 26.0 degrees The G4(1S) W-beam median barrier contained and redirected the 1100C vehicle. The vehicle did not penetrate, override, or underride the installation. Maximum dynamic deflection was 11.25 inches. No detached elements, fragments, or other debris were present to penetrate or to show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or to present a hazard to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 2.0 inches in the left front driver’s area at the level of the floor pan. The 1100C vehicle remained upright during and after the collision event. Maximum roll angle was 8 degrees. Occupant risk factors were within the limits specified in MASH. The 1100C vehicle exited the median barrier within the exit box. The G4(1S) W-beam median barrier performed acceptably when impacted by the 1100C vehicle (2002 Kia Rio). Test-3-11 Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup Test Inertia Weight: 5029 lb Gross Static Weight: 5029 lb Impact Speed: 64.0 mi/h Impact Angle: 25.1 degrees The G4(1S) W-beam median barrier did not perform acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). The 2270P Silverado pickup truck overrode the installation. It should be noted, the impact speed and angle for this test were 64.0 mph and 25.1 degrees, respectively. The impact speed and angle were within the acceptable limits prescribed in MASH. However, the impact condition represented an impact severity 7.5 percent greater than the target MASH condition (62.2 mph and 25 degrees). If the speed and angle in the test were nearer to target impact conditions, the vehicle may not have vaulted over the test installation. Typically, when the G4(1S) W-beam barrier is impacted in a roadside application, the support posts displace through the soil and help dissipate the energy of the impacting vehicle. When the displacement or deformation of the post becomes large enough, the rail detaches from the post by means of the post bolt pulling out of the rail slot. However, in the G4(1S) W-beam

178 median barrier, the addition of the rear W-beam rail element provides additional stiffness and constrains the lateral displacement of the posts. Because the rail cannot readily detach from the posts, the rail is pulled down by the posts and the effective rail height is reduced in the region of impact. In the test presented herein, a guardrail post was impacted by the left front tire and the vehicle climbed the post and w-beam rail element. A 30 inch tall version of the G4(1S) W-beam median barrier (AASHTO Designation SGM06a&b) incorporates a C6x8.2 rub-rail channel that is mounted 12 inches above the ground to the center of the rub-rail. The addition of the rub-rail will prevent the wheel from contacting the face of the posts and thus help mitigate vehicle-post snagging. The rub-rail will also increase the barrier stiffness, which should reduce post displacement and rail deflection. However, the rub-rail may still permit the pickup to climb the barrier. The researchers recommend evaluating the 30 inch tall G4(1S) W-beam median barrier (AASHTO Designation SGM06a) with MASH Test 3-11. W-Beam Transition Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup Test Inertia Weight: 5029 lb Gross Static Weight: 5029 lb Impact Speed: 62.8 mi/h Impact Angle: 25.7 degrees The W-beam transition to concrete bridge parapet successfully contained and redirected the 2270P vehicle. The vehicle did not penetrate, override, or underride the installation. Maximum dynamic deflection was 3.8 inches. No detached elements, fragments, or other debris were present to penetrate or to show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or to present a hazard to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 0.6 inches in the left rear area at hip height. The 2270P vehicle remained upright during and after the collision event. Maximum roll angle was 54 degrees. Occupant risk factors were within the limits specified in MASH. The 2270P vehicle exited the W-beam transition within the exit box. The W-beam transition to concrete parapet performed acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado four-door pickup). Sign Supports Test Vehicle: 2003 Dodge Ram 1500 quad-cab pickup Test Inertia Weight: 4958 lb Gross Static Weight: 4958 lb Impact Speed: 63.3 mi/h Impact Angle: 0 degrees

179 The U-channel and perforated square steel tube (PSST) small sign supports both readily activated upon impact by the 2270P vehicle by fracturing at bumper height and at the ground stub interface. The detached sign supports rotated around the front of the vehicle, and the sign panels struck near or at the windshield and roof area and subsequently traveled with the vehicle. The 2270P vehicle remained upright during and after both collision events. Minimal roll and pitch were noted. Occupant risk factors were within acceptable limits. The 2270P vehicle came to rest behind the test articles. Contact of the U-channel support with the windshield and roof was minimal, and the support did not penetrate nor show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment. The largest detached piece of this support weighed 33.6 lb, but the trajectory was relatively low, and should not cause undue hazard to others in the area. No occupant compartment deformation related to impact with the U-channel support was measured. The upper section of the PSST support and sign panel contacted and shattered the windshield. No tear of the windshield plastic lining occurred. However, the windshield was deformed inward 3.5 inches. MASH Section 5.3 and Appendix E limits deformation of the windshield to 3 inches. The 4 lb/ft steel U-channel support manufactured by NuCor Steel Marion successfully met the MASH evaluation criteria for test 3-62. The 12 gauge perforated, 2 inch square, steel tube (PSST) support manufactured by Northwest Pipe failed to meet the MASH evaluation criteria for test 3-62 due to excessive occupant compartment deformation at the windshield. The primary observed difference in the performance of the two sign support types is the manner in which the sign panel reacted during the impact sequence. Both sign support types fractured at bumper height and near the ground stub interface. The U-channel sign support installation kept the sign panel attached to the support for much of the impact event. The sign panel remained attached until the support and panel impacted the roof of the truck as an assembly. Upon separation, both the sign and support passed over the cab of the pickup truck. During the test of the PSST sign support, the sign panel released from the support at approximately the same time the support failed at bumper height. The failure of the sign attachment and release of the sign panel changed the dynamics of the impact and permitted the sign panel to impact the windshield more directly. The PSST sign support stayed in the front of the vehicle and displaced forward with the vehicle with very little angular momentum. It is the opinion of the researchers that had the sign panel remained attached to the support, the PSST sign support installation performance would have been similar to the U-channel performance and the PSST would have likely met the MASH performance evaluation criteria. Further testing with enhanced sign panel-to-post connection can be performed to verify this opinion.

180 G3 Weak Post Box-Beam Guardrail Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup Test Inertia Weight: 5004 lb Gross Static Weight: 5004 lb Impact Speed: 63.2 mi/h Impact Angle: 25.4 degrees The G3 Weak Post Box-Beam guardrail contained and redirected the 2270P vehicle. The vehicle did not penetrate, underride or override the weak post guardrail. Maximum dynamic deflection of the rail during the test was 4.8 ft. Two rail brackets detached from their posts, but they did not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or present a hazard to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 0.75 inches in the lateral area across the cab at the driver’s side kickpanel. The 2270P vehicle remained upright during and after the collision event. Maximum roll angle was -14 degrees. Occupant risk factors were within the limits specified in MASH. The 2270P vehicle exited within the exit box. The G3 Weak Post Box-Beam guardrail performed acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). Modified G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup Test Inertia Weight: 5004 lb Gross Static Weight: 5004 lb Impact Speed: 62.4 mi/h Impact Angle: 24.6 degrees The Modified G2 Weak Post W-Beam guardrail contained and redirected the 2270P vehicle. The vehicle did not penetrate, underride or override the weak post W-beam guardrail. Maximum dynamic deflection of the rail during the test was 8.6 ft. There was no debris from the test installation that penetrated or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or presented a hazard to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 0.25 inches in the lateral area across the cab at the driver’s side hip area. The 2270P vehicle remained upright during and after the collision event. Maximum roll angle was -12 degrees. Occupant risk factors were within the limits specified in MASH. The 2270P vehicle remained within the exit box. The Modified G2 Weak Post W-Beam guardrail performed acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup).

181 G9 Thrie Beam Guardrail Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup Test Inertia Weight: 5019 lb Gross Static Weight: 5019 lb Impact Speed: 63.3 mi/h Impact Angle: 26.4 degrees The G9 thrie beam guardrail did not perform acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). After being contained and redirected, the 2270P Silverado pickup rolled 360 degrees. Maximum dynamic deflection of the thrie beam during the test was 33.2 inches. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 3.56 inches in the right rear passenger area. It should be noted, the impact speed and angle for this test were 63.3 mph and 26.4 degrees, respectively. The impact speed and angle were within the acceptable limits prescribed in MASH. However, the impact condition represented an impact severity 15.3 percent greater than the target MASH condition (62.2 mph and 25 degrees). If the speed and angle in the test were nearer to target impact conditions, the vehicle may not have rolled over. CONCLUSIONS Nine different types of roadside safety hardware were crash tested and evaluated in accordance with MASH. Six of the 11 crash tests performed on these nine safety devices successfully met the MASH evaluation criteria. Table 21 summarizes the non-proprietary roadside safety hardware tested under the NCHRP projects 22-14(2) and 22-14(3) that successfully meet the MASH evaluation criteria. Table 22 identifies the non-proprietary roadside safety hardware tested under these projects that failed to meet the MASH evaluation criteria.

182 Table 21. Crash Tests Performed Under NCHRP Project 22-14 That Meet MASH (Passed). Ref. Test No.* Agency Test No. Test Designation Test Article Vehicle Make and Model Vehicle Mass (lb) Impact Speed (mph) Impact Angle (deg) OIV (ft/s) Ridedown (G) 1 2214WB-11 Pg 22 & Ref 37 3-11 Modified G4(1S) Guardrail 2002 GMC 2500 ¾-ton Pickup 5000 61.1 25.6 X=17.3 Y=16.2 X=-19.7 Y= -8.5 2 2214WB-2 Pg 22 & Ref 38 3-11 Modified G4(1S) Guardrail 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab Pickup 5000 62.4 26.0 X=17.6 Y=13.1 X= 6.9 Y=-6.6 3 2214MG-1 Pg 22 & Ref 39 3-11 Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) 2002 GMC 2500 ¾-ton Pickup 5000 62.6 25.2 X=17.1 Y=14.8 X=-8.8 Y=-5.3 4 2214MG-2 Pg 22 & Ref 40 3-11 MGS 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab Pickup 5000 62.8 25.5 X=15.3 Y=15.6 X=-8.2 Y=-6.9 5 2214MG-3 Pg 22 & Ref 41 3-10 MGS (Max. Height) 2002 Kia Rio 2588 60.8 25.4 X=14.8 Y=17.1 X=-16.1 Y= -8.4 6 2214TB-1 Pg 42 & Ref 50 3-11 Free-Standing Temporary F-Shape Barrier 2002 GMC 2500 ¾-ton Pickup 5000 61.8 25.7 X=18.5 Y=18.9 X=-11.9 Y= -6.5 7 2214TB-2 Pg 42 & Ref 51 3-11 Free-Standing Temporary F-Shape Barrier 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab Pickup 5000 61.9 25.4 X=17/0 Y=17/3 X= -7.2 Y=-11.4 8 2214NJ-1 Pg 43 & Ref 53 3-10 32-inch Permanent New Jersey Safety Shape Barrier 2002 Kia Rio 2579 60.8 26.1 X=16.5 Y=35.0 X=-5.5 Y=-8.1 9 2214T-1 Pg 59 & Ref 58 3-21 Guardrail to Concrete Barrier Transition 2002 Chevrolet C1500HD Crew Cab Pickup 5083 60.3 24.8 X=24.4 Y=25.0 X=12.7 Y= 8.7

183 Ref. Test No.* Agency Test No. Test Designation Test Article Vehicle Make and Model Vehicle Mass (lb) Impact Speed (mph) Impact Angle (deg) OIV (ft/s) Ridedown (G) 10 2214TT-1 Ref 74 3-34 Sequential Kinking Terminal (SKT)- MGS (Tangent) 2002 Kia Rio 2597 64.4 14.5 X=17.8 Y=13.4 X=-7.5 Y=-9.1 (13) 476460-1-4 Pg 106 & App C 3-11 32-inch Permanent New Jersey Safety Shape Barrier 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup 5049 62.6 25.2 X=14.1 Y=30.2 X=-5.6 Y=-9.6 (14) 476460-1-2 Pg 138 & App H 3-62 4lb/ft U-Channel Sign Support 2003 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab Pickup 4958 63.3 0 No contact N/A (15) 476460-1-3 Pg 130 & App G 3-21 W-Beam Transition 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup 5029 62.8 25.7 X=16.4 Y=28.5 X= -8.1 Y=16.4 (16) 476460-1-6 Pg 151 & App I 3-11 G3 Weak Post Box-Beam Guardrail 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup 5011 63.2 25.4 X=11.2 Y=15.1 X=-5.7 Y=7.2 (17) 476460-1-7 Pg 158 & App J 3-11 G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup 5004 62.4 24.6 X= 9.5 Y=10.5 X=-3.4 Y= 4.5 (18) 476460-1-10 Pg 118 & App E 3-10 G4(1S) W-Beam Median Barrier 2002 Kia Rio 2584 61.4 26.0 X=16.4 Y=24.3 X=-16.5 Y= 10.5 * For reference purposes within this report 1 Rail ruptured. Passed by FHWA

184 Table 22. Crash Tests Performed Under NCHRP Project 22-14 That Did Not Meet MASH (Failed). Ref. Test No.* Agency Test No. Test Designation Test Article Vehicle Make and Model Vehicle Mass (lb) Impact Speed (mph) Impact Angle (deg) OIV (ft/s) Ridedown (G) Mode of Failure 11 2214NJ-2 Pg 43 & Ref 54 4-12 32-inch Permanent New Jersey Safety Shape Barrier 1989 Ford F-800 22,045 56.5 16.2 X= 6.5 Y=13.6 X=-22.4 Y= -8.8 Truck rolled over rail (12) 476460-1b Pg 99 & App B 4-12 32-inch Permanent New Jersey Safety Shape Barrier 1999 Ford F-800 22,090 57.4 14.4 X= 8.2 Y=13.8 X=-4.3 Y= 7.7 Truck rolled over rail (15) 476460-1-2 Pg 139 & App H 3-62 Perforated Square Steel Tube Sign Support 2003 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab Pickup 4958 61.7 0 X=4.3 Y=2.3 X=-08 Y=-0.4 Hole in windshield (19) 476460-1-5 Pg 111 & App D 3-11 G4(2W) W-Beam Guardrail 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup 5009 64.4 26.1 X=21.6 Y=14.1 X=-10.2 Y= 9.6 Pickup penetrated and rolled (20) 476460-1-8 Pg 165 & App K 3-11 G9 Thrie Beam Guardrail 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup 5019 63.3 26.4 X=17.1 Y=17.4 X=-6.9 Y= 7.7 Pickup rolled (21) 476460-1-9 Pg 125 & App F 3-11 G4(1S) W-Beam Median Barrier 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup 5029 64.0 25.1 X=17.2 Y=17.1 X=-5.2 Y= 5.3 Penetrated rail element * For reference purposes within this report

Next: VII. References »
Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report Get This Book
×
 Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Web-Only Document 157: Volume I: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria—Technical Report explores the process that was followed in developing NCHRP Research Results Digest (RRD) 349: Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) Criteria.

NCHRP RRD 349 explores the safety performance of widely used non-proprietary roadside safety features by using MASH. Examples of features evaluated include longitudinal barriers (excluding bridge railings), terminals and crash cushions, transitions, and breakaway supports.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!