Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 23
23
curb is placed underneath a strong-post W-beam guardrail, DeLeys and Brinkman used crash data analysis and com-
there is little chance of vehicle contact with the curb (24, 27). puter simulation to investigate rollover tendencies of vehi-
It has also been found that stiffening the guardrail system by cles traversing various kinds of roadside terrain. They con-
installing a W-beam rail to the back of the posts or installing cluded that the data bases lacked the comprehensive and
a rub-rail will enhance the safety performance of a curb detailed information necessary to define conditions that lead
guardrail system (28). The installation of a rub-rail may pro- to rollover. A modified version of HVOSM with improved
vide the most safety benefit, since it both stiffens the system application for rollover situations was used in their study
to avoid vehicle-to-curb contact and shields the posts from (33). Full-scale tests were used to validate the computer
potential wheel snag. models and, subsequently, over 200 simulations were con-
There have been three tests performed on curbguardrail ducted to investigate the rollover tendencies of vehicles tra-
systems under NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 impact condi- versing various sideslopes, fill embankments, and ditch con-
tions: MwRSF tests NEC-1, NEC-2 and TTI test 404201-1 figurations. They did not investigate vehicle-curb interaction;
(29, 30, 32). These tests involved 100-mm-high curbs placed however, the models that were used in their study may have
in combination with strong-post guardrails. Both test NEC-1 been applicable for such analysis.
and test TTI 404201-1 resulted in significant tensile forces in Cooperrider et al. carried out a series of full-scale crash
the W-beam rail and excessive movement of the anchor sys- tests to determine the potential for rollover of various vehicle
tem. In test NEC-1, the two upstream anchor posts for the types tripped by a curb, sliding in soil, and rolled off a dolly
G4(1S) guardrail with wood blockouts ruptured causing the (34). A steel 152-mm-square tube section rigidly affixed to
vehicle to pocket (29). This ultimately resulted in rupture of the roadway was used to represent a curb in their tests. In five
the W-beam rail element, and the vehicle penetrated the guard- of the eight tests that they conducted, the vehicles rolled
rail. The poor performance of this system was not directly over. In the cases where rollover did not occur, the wheel
attributed to the effects of the curb, but rather to a loss of ten- assembly failed during impact with the curb due to the high
sile capacity of the guardrail during impact when the anchor forces that were developed. The failure of the wheel assem-
system failed. bly, consequently, removed the overturning force that was
In TTI test 404201-1, the foundation of the anchor posts being applied to the vehicle. If the wheel assembly had not
of the G4(2W) guardrail moved in excess of 70 mm at the failed in those cases, it is possible that all the tests would
ground line, and there was considerable damage to the guard- have resulted in a rollover.
rail system; however the system did meet all safety require- The vehicle dynamics code, VDANL, has been used to
ments of NCHRP Report 350 (30). Also, the extent of dam- study vehicle rollover as a function of unstable maneuvering
age to the system in test TTI 404201-1 was much greater than conditions and also to investigate vehicle rollover because
that of previous crash tests on the G4(2W) guardrail system of impact with various vehicle tripping mechanisms such as
curbs, soil, ditches, and so forth (3537). The results of the
without a curb present (31).
computer models developed in those studies were validated
In test NEC-2, the G4(1S) guardrail with wood blockouts
with full-scale tests. VDANL was chosen by the FHWA to be
was modified and retested (32). The guardrail was modified
incorporated into the IHSDM, which is used to assess new
by nesting 12-gauge W-beam rails along the length of the sys-
highway designs.
tem. This test resulted in excessive vertical trajectory of the
vehicle during impact, but the vehicle remained upright and
successfully met all safety criteria of NCHRP Report 350.
SUMMARY
Vehicle tripping on curbs was addressed in a very limited
number of studies. The studies that were identified in the lit-
While there has been some work performed on the safety
erature used a variety of techniques for analysis including effectiveness of curbs and the use of curbs in conjunction
analytical methods, computer simulation, full-scale crash test- with traffic barriers, the literature review shows that there are
ing, and accident data analysis (24, 33, 34). Vehicle tripping many limitations, such as the age of the tests, the lack of
on curbs was addressed in Holloway et al. using HVOSM to sophistication in early computer models, and changing full-
simulate nontracking impacts of large passenger sedans (24). scale crash testing guidelines. The following are the major
Based on the results of their simulations, they concluded that findings of the literature review:
sloping curbs may not be a significant cause of vehicle roll-
overs; however, it should be noted that the models used in · Curbs should not be used in combination with W-beam
their study were not validated for nontracking impacts. It guardrail systems on high-speed roadways due to the
was not reported whether or not friction between the tires potential safety hazard of vaulting or underriding the
and ground surface was included in the simulations. Fric- barrier. In cases where design engineers include curbs
tion between the tires and ground will affect the initial roll along high-speed roadways for drainage reasons or to
angle and roll rate of the vehicle prior to impact, which may improve delineation, other methods should be sought to
increase the vehicle's tendency to rollover. achieve those purposes.
OCR for page 24
24
· Neither the large and small cars crossing 150-mm-high · Nontracking impacts with curbs may result in vehicle
or smaller curbs in a tracking manner are likely to result instability and rollover, especially impacts involving
in loss of vehicle control or cause serious injuries. The vehicles with high centers of gravity. From the literature
response of the 2000-kg pickup truck crossing curbs, study it seems that the most likely methods for analyz-
however, was not known. The large passenger car used ing nontracking impacts will be vehicle dynamics codes,
in the previous crash testing procedures was replaced in such as VDANL. There has been a great deal of advance-
the current testing procedures (NCHRP Report 350) ment in computation power and in code development
with the 2000-kg pickup truck. The dynamic response over the past few years that has enabled computer sim-
of this particular vehicle type crossing over curbs (not ulation programs to become a very efficient means of
in conjunction with a roadside safety barrier) has never analysis. Both tracking and nontracking impact on curbs
been evaluated with either full-scale tests or computer may be investigated using vehicle dynamics codes, such
simulation. as VDANL, and finite element analysis (FEA) using
· Most of the curb impacts that were found in the literature
LS-DYNA.
involved vehicles encroaching the curb in a tracking · A small number of tests have been performed in which
manner. It was concluded in every case that a vehicle a curb was placed behind the face of guardrail barriers.
encroaching onto a sloping curb in a tracking manner is
The idea was to locate the curb such that minimal inter-
not likely to cause the driver to lose control of the vehi-
action between the vehicle and curb occurred. This
cle or cause the vehicle to become unstable unless a sec-
worked well with lighter vehicles, such as the 820-kg
ondary impact occurs. Another aspect of collisions with
small car, but did not prevent vehicle-curb interaction
curbs involves an out-of-control vehicle impacting the
with the heavier vehicles, such as the 2000-kg pickup
curb in a nontracking position. In these situations, vehi-
cle tripping may be highly probable during impact. truck, unless the guardrail was retrofit in some man-
· Errant vehicles leave the roadway in a variety of orien- ner to strengthen it and minimize guardrail deflection.
tations; however, it is assumed that the majority of these To circumvent the problem, one option considered
vehicles encroach onto the roadside in a semicontrolled was to use a low-profile curb underneath the guardrail.
tracking manner. In such cases, the left or right front This was expected to minimize the effects that the
bumper would be the first point of contact with a road- curb would have on vehicle trajectory when the wheels
side object in an impact event. The position of the bumper of the vehicle were able to contact the curb during
upon impact has, therefore, been a primary concern impact; however, full-scale tests conducted by various
involving impacts with longitudinal traffic barriers, where organizations provided mixed results. In some cases
it has been assumed that the position of the bumper dur- the crash test was successful, while in others it was not.
ing impact is a reasonable indicator of vehicle vaulting In cases where the test was a failure, it was not clear
or underriding the barrier. Due to pitching of the mov- whether the failure was induced by vehicle-curb inter-
ing vehicle, the bumper height at impact may be higher action or if it was simply caused by inadequate barrier
or lower than the static position of the bumper. performance.
