|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 1
August 2010
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Responsible Senior Program Officer: Charles W. Neissner
Research Results Digest 349
EVALUATION OF EXISTING ROADSIDE SAFETY HARDWARE USING
MANUAL FOR ASSESSING SAFETY HARDWARE (MASH ) CRITERIA
This digest presents the results of NCHRP Project 22-14(03), "Evaluation
of Existing Roadside Safety Hardware Using Updated Criteria." The project
was conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute with Principal
Investigator D. Lance Bullard, Jr., Roger P. Bligh, Wanda L. Menges, and
Rebecca R. Haug.
RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT current fleet of vehicles in the pickup/van/
sport-utility vehicle class. Further, MASH
National Cooperative Highway Re- increases the impact angle for most small
search Program (NCHRP) Report 350: car crash tests to the same angle as the light
Recommended Procedures for the Safety truck test conditions. These changes place
Performance Evaluation of Highway Fea- greater safety-performance demands on
tures contains guidelines for evaluating many of the current roadside safety features.
the safety performance of roadside fea-
tures, such as longitudinal barriers, termi-
nals, crash cushions, and breakaway struc- RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
tures. This document was published in 1993
and was formally adopted as the national The objective of this project was to eval-
standard by the Federal Highway Adminis- uate the safety performance of widely used
tration (FHWA) later that year with an im- non-proprietary roadside safety features by
plementation date for late 1998. In 1998, the using MASH. Features recommended for
American Association of State Highway and evaluation included longitudinal barriers
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and (excluding bridge railings), terminals and
FHWA agreed that most types of safety crash cushions, transitions, and breakaway
features installed along the National High- supports. Evaluation methods included, but
way System (NHS) must meet NCHRP were not limited to, engineering assessment,
Report 350 safety-performance evalua- simulation, full-scale crash testing, pendu-
tion criteria. lum testing, and component testing. Where
An update to NCHRP Report 350 was practical, cost-effective modifications to sys-
developed under NCHRP Project 22-14 tems that do not meet the new criteria were
(02), "Improved Procedures for Safety- recommended for future evaluation.
Performance Evaluation of Roadside Fea-
tures." This document, Manual for Assess- PHASE I RESEARCH--STATE-OF-
ing Safety Hardware (MASH), published by THE-ART ASSESSMENT
AASHTO in 2009, contains revised criteria
for safety-performance evaluation of virtu- Since its publication in 1993, NCHRP
ally all roadside safety features. For exam- Report 350: Recommended Procedures
ple, MASH recommends testing with heav- for the Safety Performance Evaluation of
ier light truck vehicles to better represent the Highway Features established guidance
OCR for page 2
for evaluating the safety performance of roadside impact loads that are comparable to those of the
features, such as longitudinal barriers, terminals, 4409-lb, 3/4-ton, standard cab pickup. Further, the
1
crash cushions, and breakaway structures. This doc- /2-ton, 4-door, pickup truck appears to be more sta-
ument was formally adopted as the national standard ble and have less propensity for occupant com-
by FHWA later that year with an implementation partment intrusion than the 3/4-ton pickup.
date of late 1998. When these vehicle factors are combined with
An update to NCHRP Report 350, now known as much more liberal thresholds for occupant compart-
the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH ), ment deformation, the need for revising existing hard-
was developed under NCHRP Project 22-14(02), ware to comply with MASH does not appear to be as
"Improved Procedures for Safety-Performance Eval- extensive as once anticipated. This fact is reflected
uation of Roadside Features." This document con- in the performance assessment ratings assigned to
tains revised criteria for safety-performance evalua- the hardware assessed. The researchers do note that
tion of virtually all roadside safety features. Changes the dramatic increase in impact severity of the pickup
to the design test vehicles and impact conditions will truck redirection tests and other changes in the test
place greater impact performance demands on many matrices for terminals and crash cushions will likely
current roadside safety features. necessitate the modification of some of these systems.
It may be of interest to note that as the develop- However, most of these devices are proprietary in
ment of MASH progressed, it appeared that the new nature and therefore, an assessment of their per-
design test vehicle for structural adequacy tests formance has not been addressed under NCHRP
would be a 5000-lb, 3/4-ton, standard cab pickup. The Project 22-14(03).
rationale was to keep the same body style pickup In addition to changes in the pickup truck vehicle,
used under NCHRP Report 350 with a test inertia the test conditions for TL-4 have changed signifi-
weight adjusted to reflect the upsizing trend indi- cantly. Most notably, the weight for the single-unit
cated in sales of new passenger vehicles. Previous truck (SUT) vehicle increased from 17,640 lb to
research had concluded that the 3/4-ton, standard cab 22,050 lb and the impact speed increased from 50 mi/h
pickup was a reasonable surrogate for light truck to 56 mi/h. The increased weight and speed of the
vehicles, and there was a tremendous amount of SUT vehicle increased the impact severity of longitu-
experience and investment in designing for and test- dinal redirection test 4-12 by 56 percent. In addition,
ing with this truck. the estimated impact force of 76 kips for MASH test
The implications of specifying the heavier, 4-12 represents a 41 percent increase from the 54-kip
5000-lb, 3/4-ton pickup truck as the new design test design load used for NCHRP Report 350 test 4-12.
vehicle were not completely understood, but it was Consequently, some barriers that meet the NCHRP
known that it would be more critical than the ex- Report 350 guidelines as a TL-4 barrier may not have
isting 4409-lb, 3/4-ton pickup used under NCHRP adequate strength to comply with the same test level
Report 350. The 13 percent increase in weight and under MASH.
impact severity would place more demand on the Another aspect of the structural adequacy criteria
structural adequacy of barrier systems and would is that the test vehicle should not override the barrier.
aggravate problems with vehicle stability and occu- Adequate barrier height is required to prevent heavy
pant compartment deformation. As an example, it trucks with high centers of gravity from rolling over
was demonstrated in a full-scale crash test that stan- a barrier. Full-scale crash testing has shown that
dard strong steel post W-beam guardrail would not 32-in. tall barriers are capable of meeting TL-4
accommodate the new vehicle under Test Level 3 impact conditions under NCHRP Report 350. How-
(TL-3) impact conditions. ever, when MASH test 4-12 was conducted on a
It was not until well into the development of 32-in. tall New Jersey safety shape concrete bar-
MASH that the design test vehicle changed to a rier, the SUT rolled over the top of the barrier.
5000-lb, 1/2-ton, 4-door pickup truck. The rationale After the unsatisfactory outcome of the test per-
for this change is that this body style pickup has char- formed under Project 22-14(02), it was proposed
acteristics that more closely resemble large SUVs to reduce the center-of-gravity (C.G.) height of the
than the 3/4-ton, standard cab pickup. Subsequent crash ballast of the SUT from 67 in. to 63 in. This effec-
testing and analyses conducted under NCHRP Proj- tively decreases the overturning moment by decreas-
ect 22-14(02) and other projects indicate that the ing the moment arm between the C.G. of the truck
5000-lb, 1/2-ton, 4-door, pickup truck will impart and the reactive force applied by the barrier. Addi-
2
OCR for page 3
tional testing was performed under this project to performance and evaluation criteria. Highway safety
determine whether the decrease in C.G. height was hardware proposed for evaluation included longitu-
sufficient to permit 32-in. tall barriers to contain dinal barriers (excluding bridge railings); terminals
the SUT or whether taller barriers would be needed and crash cushions; transitions; and breakaway sign
to comply with MASH. Testing under this project supports that had previously been accepted under
demonstrated that the decrease in ballast C.G. height NCHRP Report 350.
was not sufficient to prevent the SUT from rolling Researchers identified use and frequency of spe-
over a 32-in. tall New Jersey safety shape barrier. cific non-proprietary roadside safety hardware by
State DOTs make considerable use of non- surveying the state DOTs. In conjunction with the
proprietary roadside safety systems. Although NCHRP project panel, a final test matrix consisting
some barrier testing was conducted under NCHRP of nine roadside safety hardware features was chosen
Project 22-14(02) during the development of the from 89 identified non-proprietary roadside safety
MASH criteria, many barrier systems and other hardware features. Researchers performed a total of
roadside safety features have yet to be evaluated 10 full-scale crash tests on nine different types of
under the proposed guidelines. Therefore, evalua- roadside safety hardware.
tion of the remaining widely used roadside safety
features following the impact performance require-
ments of MASH was needed. New Jersey Safety Shape Barrier
Under this research project, researchers conducted Test 4-12
a survey of the state DOTs for use and frequency
rates for non-proprietary hardware and reviewed Test Vehicle: 1999 Ford F-800
the test reports of the crash tests performed under single-unit truck
NCHRP Project 22-14(02) and TXDOT project Test Inertia Weight: 22,090 lb
FHWA/TX-07/0-5526-1, as well as numerous tests Gross Static Weight: 22,090 lb
performed under NCHRP Report 350 guidelines. A Impact Speed: 57.4 mi/h
performance assessment of existing roadside safety Impact Angle: 14.4 degrees
devices was performed to help evaluate the impact The 32-in. New Jersey safety shape bridge rail
of adopting MASH. Crash test results, engineering failed to contain and redirect the SUT vehicle under
analyses, and engineering judgment were used to the new TL-4 impact conditions with a ballast C.G.
assist with the hardware evaluation. Categories of height of 63 in. The SUT rolled 101 degrees before
roadside features that were considered under the exiting the end of the barrier. Although subsequent
project include guardrail, median barriers, transitions contact with the ground enabled the vehicle to right
from approach guard fence to barriers, breakaway itself as it came to rest, there is no question that the
sign supports, and precast and permanent concrete SUT would have continued to roll over the top of the
barriers. Proprietary devices were not considered. rail had the barrier test installation length been longer.
The manufacturers of these devices will be required The 32-in. New Jersey safety shape bridge rail failed
to assess the impact performance of their devices and to demonstrate satisfactory performance according
ultimately demonstrate compliance of their devices to the TL-4 evaluation criteria in MASH.
with the new test and evaluation guidelines.
Results of the performance assessment were used Test 3-11
to develop a prioritization scheme for further testing
and evaluation required to bring roadside safety fea- Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado
tures into compliance with the new impact perfor- 4-door pickup
mance guidelines. Test Inertia Weight: 5049 lb
Gross Static Weight: 5049 lb
Impact Speed: 62.6 mi/h
PHASE II RESEARCH--FULL-SCALE Impact Angle: 25.2 degrees
CRASH TESTING
The New Jersey safety shape barrier contained
The objective of Phase II of this project was to and redirected the 2270P vehicle under TL-3 impact
evaluate the safety performance of widely used non- conditions. The vehicle did not penetrate, underride,
proprietary roadside safety hardware using MASH or override the installation. No measurable deflection
3
OCR for page 4
of the barrier occurred. No detached elements, frag- G4(1S) W-Beam Median Barrier
ments, or other debris were present to penetrate or
to show potential for penetrating the occupant com- Test-3-10
partment or to present hazard to others in the area. Test Vehicle: 2002 Kia Rio
Maximum occupant compartment deformation was Test Inertia Weight: 2418 lb
2.0 in. at the right kickpanel. The 2270P vehicle Gross Static Weight: 2584 lb
remained upright during and after the collision Impact Speed: 61.4 mi/h
event. Maximum roll and pitch angles were 29 and Impact Angle: 26.0 degrees
-16 degrees, respectively. Occupant risk factors
were within the limits specified in MASH. The 2270P The G4(1S) W-beam median barrier contained
exited the barrier within the exit box. and redirected the 1100C vehicle. The vehicle did not
The New Jersey safety shape barrier performed penetrate, override, or underride the installation. Max-
acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle imum dynamic deflection was 11.25 in. No detached
(2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup) and evaluated in elements, fragments, or other debris were present to
accordance with the safety-performance evaluation penetrate or to show potential for penetrating the
criteria presented in MASH. occupant compartment or to present a hazard to others
in the area. Maximum occupant compartment defor-
mation was 2.0 in. in the left front driver's area at the
G4(2W) W-Beam Guardrail level of the floor pan. The 1100C vehicle remained
Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado upright during and after the collision event. Maximum
4-door pickup roll angle was 8 degrees. Occupant risk factors were
Test Inertia Weight: 5009 lb within the limits specified in MASH. The 1100C vehi-
Gross Static Weight: 5009 lb cle exited the median barrier within the exit box.
Impact Speed: 64.4 mi/h The G4(1S) W-beam median barrier performed
Impact Angle: 26.1 degrees acceptably when impacted by the 1100C vehicle
(2002 Kia Rio).
The G4(2W) W-beam guardrail did not perform
acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle Test-3-11
(2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). The vehicle pen-
etrated the guardrail after the W-beam rail element Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado
ruptured and then subsequently rolled 180 degrees. 4-door pickup
It should be noted that the impact speed and angle for Test Inertia Weight: 5029 lb
this test were 64.4 mi/h and 26.1 degrees, respec- Gross Static Weight: 5029 lb
tively. The impact speed and angle were within the Impact Speed: 64.0 mi/h
acceptable limits prescribed in MASH. However, Impact Angle: 25.1 degrees
the impact condition represented an impact severity The G4(1S) W-beam median barrier did not per-
16.4 percent greater than the target MASH condition form acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehi-
(62.2 mi/h and 25 degrees). cle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). The 2270P
Various modifications to W-beam guardrail have Silverado pickup truck overrode the installation. It
demonstrated improved performance. Modifications should be noted that the impact speed and angle for
that have demonstrated improved performance in this test were 64.0 mi/h and 25.1 degrees, respec-
crash tests include increasing the rail height to 31 in., tively. The impact speed and angle were within the
moving the rail splices to mid-span of the posts, and acceptable limits prescribed in MASH. However,
using 12-in. deep block-outs. It is believed that any the impact condition represented an impact severity
one or more of these changes will improve the per- 7.5 percent greater than the target MASH condition
formance of the G4(2W) W-beam guardrail. Addi- (62.2 mi/h and 25 degrees). If the speed and angle in
tionally, it is known that W-beam guardrail has his- the test were nearer to target impact conditions, the
torically been performing at or very near 100 percent vehicle may not have vaulted over the test installation.
of structural design capacity. If the speed and angle Typically, when the G4(1S) W-beam barrier is
in the test were nearer to target impact conditions, impacted in a roadside application, the support posts
the rail may not have ruptured. displace through the soil and help dissipate the energy
4
OCR for page 5
of the impacting vehicle. When the displacement or The W-beam transition to concrete parapet per-
deformation of the post becomes large enough, the formed acceptably when impacted by the 2270P
rail detaches from the post by means of the post bolt vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado 4-door pickup).
pulling out of the rail slot. However, in the G4(1S)
W-beam median barrier, the addition of the rear
Sign Supports
W-beam rail element provides additional stiffness
and constrains the lateral displacement of the posts. Test Vehicle: 2003 Dodge Ram 1500
Because the rail cannot readily detach from the posts, quad-cab pickup
the rail is pulled down by the posts and the effective Test Inertia Weight: 4958 lb
rail height is reduced in the region of impact. In the Gross Static Weight: 4958 lb
test presented herein, a guardrail post was impacted Impact Speed: 63.3 mi/h
by the left front tire and the vehicle climbed the post Impact Angle: 0 degrees
and W-beam rail element.
A 30-in. tall version of the G4(1S) W-beam The U-channel and perforated square steel tube
median barrier (AASHTO Designation SGM06a-b) (PSST) small sign supports both readily activated
incorporates a C6x8.2 rub-rail channel that is mounted upon impact by the 2270P vehicle by fracturing at
12 in. above the ground to the center of the rub-rail. bumper height and at the ground stub interface. The
The addition of the rub-rail will prevent the wheel detached sign supports rotated around the front of
from contacting the face of the posts and thus help the vehicle, and the sign panels struck near or at the
mitigate vehicle-post snagging. The rub-rail will also windshield and roof area and subsequently traveled
increase the barrier stiffness, which should reduce post with the vehicle. The 2270P vehicle remained upright
displacement and rail deflection. However, the rub- during and after both collision events. Minimal roll
rail may still permit the pickup to climb the barrier. and pitch were noted. Occupant risk factors were
The researchers recommend evaluating the 30-in. within acceptable limits. The 2270P vehicle came
tall G4(1S) W-beam median barrier (AASHTO Des- to rest behind the test articles.
ignation SGM06a) with MASH Test 3-11. Contact of the U-channel support with the wind-
shield and roof was minimal, and the support did not
penetrate nor show potential for penetrating the occu-
W-Beam Transition pant compartment. The largest detached piece of this
Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado support weighed 33.6 lb, but the trajectory was rel-
4-door pickup atively low and should not cause undue hazard to
Test Inertia Weight: 5029 lb others in the area. No occupant compartment defor-
Gross Static Weight: 5029 lb mation related to impact with the U-channel support
Impact Speed: 62.8 mi/h was measured.
Impact Angle: 25.7 degrees The upper section of the PSST support and sign
panel contacted and shattered the windshield. No tear
The W-beam transition to concrete bridge para- of the windshield plastic lining occurred. However,
pet successfully contained and redirected the 2270P the windshield was deformed inward 3.5 in. MASH
vehicle. The vehicle did not penetrate, override, (Section 5.3 and Appendix E) limits deformation of
or underride the installation. Maximum dynamic the windshield to 3 in.
deflection was 3.8 in. No detached elements, frag- The 4 lb/ft steel U-channel support manufactured
ments, or other debris were present to penetrate or by NuCor Steel Marion successfully met the MASH
to show potential for penetrating the occupant com- evaluation criteria for Test 3-62. The 12-gauge per-
partment or to present a hazard to others in the area. forated, 2-in. square, steel tube (PSST) support
Maximum occupant compartment deformation was manufactured by Northwest Pipe failed to meet
0.6 in. in the left rear area at hip height. The 2270P the MASH evaluation criteria for Test 3-62 due to
vehicle remained upright during and after the col- excessive occupant compartment deformation at
lision event. Maximum roll angle was 54 degrees. the windshield.
Occupant risk factors were within the limits specified The primary observed difference in the perfor-
in MASH. The 2270P vehicle exited the W-beam tran- mance of the two sign support types is the manner
sition within the exit box. in which the sign panel reacted during the impact
5
OCR for page 6
sequence. Both sign support types fractured at Modified G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail
bumper height and near the ground stub interface.
Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado
The U-channel sign support installation kept the sign
4-door pickup
panel attached to the support for much of the impact
Test Inertia Weight: 5004 lb
event. The sign panel remained attached until the
Gross Static Weight: 5004 lb
support and panel impacted the roof of the truck as
Impact Speed: 62.4 mi/h
an assembly. Upon separation, both the sign and
Impact Angle: 24.6 degrees
support passed over the cab of the pickup truck.
During the test of the PSST sign support, the sign The modified G2 weak post W-beam guardrail
panel released from the support at approximately the contained and redirected the 2270P vehicle. The
same time the support failed at bumper height. The vehicle did not penetrate, underride, or override the
failure of the sign attachment and release of the sign weak post W-beam guardrail. Maximum dynamic
panel changed the dynamics of the impact and per- deflection of the rail during the test was 8.6 ft. There
mitted the sign panel to impact the windshield more was no debris from the test installation that pene-
directly. The PSST sign support stayed in the front trated or showed potential for penetrating the occu-
of the vehicle and displaced forward with the vehicle pant compartment or presented a hazard to others in
with very little angular momentum. It is the opinion the area. Maximum occupant compartment defor-
of the researchers that had the sign panel remained mation was 0.25 in. in the lateral area across the
attached to the support, the PSST sign support instal- cab at the driver's side hip area. The 2270P vehicle
lation performance would have been similar to the remained upright during and after the collision event.
U-channel performance, and the PSST would have Maximum roll angle was -12 degrees. Occupant risk
likely met the MASH performance evaluation criteria. factors were within the limits specified in MASH. The
Further testing with enhanced sign panel-to-post con- 2270P vehicle remained within the exit box.
nection can be performed to verify this opinion. The modified G2 weak post W-beam guardrail
performed acceptably when impacted by the 2270P
vehicle (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup).
G3 Weak Post Box-Beam Guardrail
Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado
G9 Thrie Beam Guardrail
4-door pickup
Test Inertia Weight: 5011 lb Test Vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet Silverado
Gross Static Weight: 5011 lb 4-door pickup
Impact Speed: 63.2 mi/h Test Inertia Weight: 5019 lb
Impact Angle: 25.4 degrees Gross Static Weight: 5019 lb
Impact Speed: 63.3 mi/h
The G3 weak post box-beam guardrail contained
Impact Angle: 26.4 degrees
and redirected the 2270P vehicle. The vehicle did
not penetrate, underride, or override the weak post The G9 thrie beam guardrail did not perform
guardrail. Maximum dynamic deflection of the rail acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle
during the test was 4.8 ft. Two rail brackets detached (2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). After being con-
from their posts, but they did not penetrate or show tained and redirected, the 2270P Silverado pickup
potential for penetrating the occupant compartment rolled 360 degrees. Maximum dynamic deflection of
or present a hazard to others in the area. Maximum the thrie beam during the test was 33.2 in. Maximum
occupant compartment deformation was 0.75 in. in occupant compartment deformation was 3.56 in. in
the lateral area across the cab at the driver's side kick- the right rear passenger area. It should be noted that
panel. The 2270P vehicle remained upright during the impact speed and angle for this test were 63.3 mi/h
and after the collision event. Maximum roll angle and 26.4 degrees, respectively. The impact speed and
was -14 degrees. Occupant risk factors were within angle were within the acceptable limits prescribed in
the limits specified in MASH. The 2270P vehicle MASH. However, the impact condition represented
exited within the exit box. an impact severity 15.3 percent greater than the target
The G3 weak post box-beam guardrail performed MASH condition (62.2 mi/h and 25 degrees). If the
acceptably when impacted by the 2270P vehicle speed and angle in the test were nearer to target impact
(2007 Chevrolet Silverado pickup). conditions, the vehicle may not have rolled over.
6
OCR for page 7
CONCLUSION Copies of the crash test reports (Appendices B
through K) are available on the National Crash Analy-
Nine different types of roadside safety hard-
sis Center website (www.nac.gwu.edu).
ware were crash tested and evaluated in accordance
with MASH. Six of the 10 crash tests performed on
these nine safety devices successfully met the MASH ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
evaluation criteria. Table 1 summarizes the non-
proprietary roadside safety hardware tested under This study was conducted under NCHRP Project
NCHRP Projects 22-14(02) and 22-14(03) that suc- 22-14(03), "Evaluation of Existing Roadside Safety
cessfully met the MASH evaluation criteria. Table 2 Hardware Using Updated Criteria." It was guided
identifies the non-proprietary roadside safety hard- by NCHRP Project Panel 22-14, chaired by Ronald
ware tested under these projects that failed to meet J. Seitz, with the following members: Richard B.
the MASH evaluation criteria. Albin, James Buchan, Mack O. Christensen, Keith
A. Cota, F. Daniel Davis, John C. Durkos, H. Clay
Gabler, David L. Little, Howard M. McCulloch,
REPORT AVAILABILITY
Leonard Meczkowski, Barry Stephens, Harry W.
The complete report for NCHRP Project 22- Taylor, Jr., Steven E. Walker, Kenneth S. Opiela,
14(03) is available on TRB's website (www.trb.org) and Stephen F. Maher.
as NCHRP Web-Only Document 157.
7
OCR for page 8
8
Table 1 Crash tests performed under NCHRP Project 22-14 that met MASH (passed).
Ref. Vehicle Impact Impact
Test Agency Test Test Test Vehicle Make Mass Speed Angle OIV Ridedown
No.* No. Designation Article and Model (lb) (mph) (deg) (ft/s) (G)
1 2214WB-11 3-11 Modified G4(1S) 2002 GMC 2500 5000 61.1 25.6 X = 17.3 X = -19.7
Guardrail 3
/4-ton Pickup Y = 16.2 Y = -8.5
2 2214WB-2 3-11 Modified G4(1S) 2002 Dodge Ram 5000 62.4 26.0 X = 17.6 X = 6.9
Guardrail 1500 Quad Cab Y = 13.1 Y = -6.6
Pickup
3 2214MG-1 3-11 Midwest Guardrail 2002 GMC 2500 5000 62.6 25.2 X = 17.1 X = -8.8
System (MGS) 3
/4-ton Pickup Y = 14.8 Y = -5.3
4 2214MG-2 3-11 MGS 2002 Dodge Ram 5000 62.8 25.5 X = 15.3 X = -8.2
1500 Quad Cab Y = 15.6 Y = -6.9
Pickup
5 2214MG-3 3-10 MGS (Max. Height) 2002 Kia Rio 2588 60.8 25.4 X = 14.8 X = -16.1
Y = 17.1 Y = -8.4
6 2214TB-1 3-11 Free-Standing 2002 GMC 2500 5000 61.8 25.7 X = 18.5 X = -11.9
Temporary 3
/4-ton Pickup Y = 18.9 Y = -6.5
F-Shape Barrier
7 2214TB-2 3-11 Free-Standing 2002 Dodge Ram 5000 61.9 25.4 X = 17/0 X = -7.2
Temporary 1500 Quad Cab Y = 17/3 Y = -11.4
F-Shape Barrier Pickup
8 2214NJ-1 3-10 32-in. Permanent 2002 Kia Rio 2579 60.8 26.1 X = 16.5 X = -5.5
New Jersey Safety Y = 35.0 Y = -8.1
Shape Barrier
OCR for page 9
9 2214T-1 3-21 Guardrail to Concrete 2002 Chevrolet 5083 60.3 24.8 X = 24.4 X = 12.7
Barrier Transition C1500HD Crew Y = 25.0 Y = 8.7
Cab Pickup
10 2214TT-1 3-34 Sequential Kinking 2002 Kia Rio 2597 64.4 14.5 X = 17.8 X = -7.5
Terminal (SKT)- Y = 13.4 Y = -9.1
MGS (Tangent)
13 476460-1-4 3-11 32-in. Permanent 2007 Chevrolet 5049 62.6 25.2 X = 14.1 X = -5.6
New Jersey Safety Silverado Pickup Y = 30.2 Y = -9.6
Shape Barrier
14 476460-1-2 3-62 4 lb/ft U-Channel 2003 Dodge Ram 4958 63.3 0 No contact N/A
Sign Support 1500 Quad Cab
Pickup
15 476460-1-3 3-21 W-Beam Transition 2007 Chevrolet 5029 62.8 25.7 X = 16.4 X = -8.1
Silverado Pickup Y = 28.5 Y = 16.4
16 476460-1-6 3-11 G3 Weak Post Box- 2007 Chevrolet 5011 63.2 25.4 X = 11.2 X = -5.7
Beam Guardrail Silverado Pickup Y = 15.1 Y = 7.2
17 476460-1-7 3-11 G2 Weak Post 2007 Chevrolet 5004 62.4 24.6 X = 9.5 X = -3.4
W-Beam Guardrail Silverado Pickup Y = 10.5 Y = 4.5
18 476460-1-10 3-10 G4(1S) W-Beam 2002 Kia Rio 2584 61.4 26.0 X = 16.4 X = -16.5
Median Barrier Y = 24.3 Y = 10.5
1Rail ruptured. Passed by FHWA.
9
OCR for page 10
10
Table 2 Crash tests performed under NCHRP Project 22-14 that did not meet MASH (failed).
Ref. Vehicle Impact Impact
Test Agency Test Test Vehicle Make Mass Speed Angle OIV Ridedown Mode of
No.* Test No. Designation Article and Model (lb) (mi/h) (deg) (ft/s) (G) Failure
11 2214NJ-2 4-12 32-in. Permanent 1989 Ford F-800 22,045 56.5 16.2 X = 6.5 X = -22.4 Truck rolled
New Jersey Y = 13.6 Y = -8.8 over rail
Safety Shape
Barrier
12 476460-1b 4-12 32-in. Permanent 1999 Ford F-800 22,090 57.4 14.4 X = 8.2 X = -4.3 Truck rolled
New Jersey Y = 13.8 Y = 7.7 over rail
Safety Shape
Barrier
15 476460-1-2 3-62 Perforated Square 2003 Dodge Ram 4958 61.7 0 X = 4.3 X = -08 Excessive
Steel Tube 1500 Quad Cab Y = 2.3 Y = -0.4 deformation
Sign Support Pickup
19 476460-1-5 3-11 G4(2W) W-Beam 2007 Chevrolet 5009 64.4 26.1 X = 21.6 X = -10.2 Pickup pene-
Guardrail Silverado Pickup Y = 14.1 Y = 9.6 trated and
rolled
20 476460-1-8 3-11 G9 Thrie Beam 2007 Chevrolet 5019 63.3 26.4 X = 17.1 X = -6.9 Pickup rolled
Guardrail Silverado Pickup Y = 17.4 Y = 7.7
21 476460-1-9 3-11 G4(1S) W-Beam 2007 Chevrolet 5029 64.0 25.1 X = 17.2 X = -5.2 Penetrated rail
Median Barrier Silverado Pickup Y = 17.1 Y = 5.3 element
OCR for page 11
OCR for page 12
Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
ISBN 978-0-309-15484-0
90000
Subscriber Categories: Design · Safety and Human Factors 9 780309 154840
These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Persons
wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 500
Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright
to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is
given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation
endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit
uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
