Improving the Compatibility of Vehicles and Roadside Safety Hardware (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 83-106
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 83... ...
78 Chapter 4 Strategies to Improve Vehicle/Roadside Hardware Compatibility Throughout the research period, a number of techniques and available data sources were used to evaluate compatibility between vehicles and roadside hardware systems. Findings presented in previous chapters offer some insight into existing compatibility issues.
|
From page 84... ...
79 4.1 Industry Interaction and Workshop Findings A workshop involving representatives from the automotive industry, Federal and State DOTs, roadside hardware manufacturers and other related groups was held to discuss roadside hardware compatibility issues. This open forum allowed relevant groups to learn about ongoing research and offer valuable suggestions to improve safety in this area.
|
From page 85... ...
80 This workshop initiated dialog and interaction between groups who do not typically communicate on such topics. A primary feature of this workshop was the exchange of information between the roadside community and vehicle safety researchers/manufacturers.
|
From page 86... ...
81 o Driver behavior is a confounding issue. SUV drivers may behave differently than automobile drivers.
|
From page 87... ...
82 o Time is an important issue- in order to replace all of the guardrails in operation, it will take many years.
|
From page 88... ...
83 o Many of the fatalities were caused when people were ejected from the vehicle during a rollover. Also, since SUVs roll more without engaging a guardrail, the fatalities of occupants in mid-sized SUVs might not be a guardrail issue.
|
From page 89... ...
84 o More granularity is needed in the accident data in order to know what to test. Anecdotal evidence can be used to determine where the issues lie.
|
From page 90... ...
85 4. Can the design of barrier systems be modified to allow for improvements in airbag systems?
|
From page 91... ...
86 2. What is the best way to resolve hardware concerns?
|
From page 92... ...
87 o It is a less expensive approach to examine the existing vehicle platforms used. o At the very least, it should be used as a first step in the research before full scale tests are performed.
|
From page 93... ...
88 In order to determine if there is a true compatibility problem, steps should be taken to not only get more data surrounding accidents with roadside hardware, but also to get more out of the data that is currently available. With increased support, more modeling can be done to address the problems of vehicle compatibility with guardrail systems.
|
From page 94... ...
89 coded variables. These variables include pre-impact dynamics of vehicles that interact with roadside hardware systems, barrier characteristics and resulting barrier interaction/performance.
|
From page 95... ...
90 NCHRP 22-15 Proposed Roadside Form NASS/CDS Data Collection Format I Header Variables 1.
|
From page 96... ...
91 NCHRP 22-15 Proposed Roadside Form NASS/CDS Data Collection Format I General Roadside Form 1.
|
From page 97... ...
92 NCHRP 22-15 Proposed Roadside Form NASS/CDS Data Collection Format 16. Treatment Height ____ (-97)
|
From page 98... ...
93 NCHRP 22-15 Proposed Roadside Form NASS/CDS Data Collection Format Longitudinal Barrier Form Complete this section for each impact involving a longitudinal barrier. (if multiple impacts with a barrier type take place, relative location by vehicle number should be indicated by sequence number for item 1 below.)
|
From page 99... ...
94 NCHRP 22-15 Proposed Roadside Form NASS/CDS Data Collection Format End Treatment/Crash Cushion Complete this section for each impact involving an end treatment or crash cushion. (if multiple impacts with a barrier type take place, relative location by vehicle number should be indicated by sequence number for item 1 below.)
|
From page 100... ...
95 In order for NASS/CDS investigators to accurately distinguish specific crash cushions, barriers and end treatments, additional training in this area is necessary. Alternatively, a requirement for clear labeling on each device may facilitate data coding required by proposed Figure 4.5.
|
From page 101... ...
96 resulting interaction with a deploying airbag could have harmful effects. Human surrogates and/or close attention to airbag deployment timing is necessary to understand this phenomenon.
|
From page 102... ...
97 4.3.1 Test Vehicle Selection During this project, definite behavioral trends were observed when comparing vehicle response during impacts with roadside devices. It was determined that pickup trucks do not represent the behavior of SUVs adequately during all impact conditions.
|
From page 103... ...
98 4.3.2 Occupant Representation During Crash Testing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) require that both active and passive restraint systems provide a minimum level of protection for belted and unbelted occupants.
|
From page 104... ...
99 recognize potential occurrence of incompatibility would be to exercise all available roadside models with all available vehicle models to assess overall performance. To date, the only vehicles used for roadside hardware simulation studies have been limited to those specified by NCHRP report 350 requirements.
|
From page 105... ...
100 • Chevrolet S-10 Pickup Truck (1998) • Ford Taurus (1991)
|
From page 106... ...
101 • Three strand Cable Rail Barrier • G42W W-Beam Guardrail • Concrete Median Barriers (CMB) Four Shapes: F-Shape, NJ Shape, Vertical Wall, Single Slope • W-Beam to CMB Transition -Four models: Thrie-beam/W-beam, Wood-post /Steel-post • PCB to CMB Plate Transition • Secure Mailbox
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.