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.
D-1 Appendix D Literature Review I. Vehicle Fleet A. One very important factor with regard to vehicle and roadside hardware interaction are classifications or categories of vehicle classes. Current crash testing under NCHRP Report 350 guidelines features the 820 kg car and the 2000 P pickup, there is a need to have some sense of how the RSH is performing for passenger vehicles intermediate to this range. Several additional vehicle categories have been identified by various studies. A possible finding for this research project may include additional proposed vehicle classifications and an assessment of how representative current classes are. (A.18, C.1.a., C.5) B. Light truck (i.e. pickups, large vans, mid size and large utility vehicle) sales have continued to climb for the last 20 years. The 3/4 ton and 1/2 ton pickup have the largest market share and are considered representative of this category. The 3/4 ton pickup is considered a practical worst case; however, lighter SUV's are less stable. (C.1.a, C.5) It has been established that Fords have comparatively higher CGs. The implications of varied fleet characteristics and vehicle characteristics will be critical to assess compatibility. C. The 820 kg car category may not be available in the near future due to phasing out of this lower end category. (C.5) This should be considered in future updates to NCHRP Report 350 and during the definition of performance ranges for future roadside safety systems. D. Sales trends indicate that the light trucks will continue to be a more significant percentage of the vehicle fleet. Changes in accident data may be reflected as the fleet characteristics are reflected. (C.1., C.5) During this project, accident data should be evaluated to confirm these trends and to establish their implications to RH safety performance. E. Air bags will be in 100% of the fleet within the next decade. There is some controversy about the meaning of this due to multiple impact consideration with roadside hardware. No evidence has been established to date of establishing the significance of this. This phenomenon is postulated to effect passenger safety during oblique impacts (off angle). Also, the emergence of side bags (ITS, curtain bags, thorax bags, etc) may provide additional occupant protection during side impact scenarios. The additional protection which airbags will provide should be considered as future safety criteria are established. A vehicle based (non-occupant) criteria may not take this additional energy absorbing system into account to estimate occupant protection.
D-2 F. Long term projections indicate huge changes in vehicle mass may become reality within the next 25 years. A goal of up to 40% weight reduction, if achieved, could significantly compromise the performance of energy absorbing or force threshold hardware due to higher g's imparted to small cars although safety improvements in vehicle design could offset this. (C.5) During short term planning, this will not be a problem. Without concrete knowledge regarding future vehicle trends, design changes to existing roadside hardware safety systems to accommodate future vehicles may compromise the current performance of these systems. G. It is estimated that vehicle platforms will undergo major changes every 3 to 4 years with new platforms every 3 - 7 1/2 years. (C.5) The challenge for assuring compatibility could be great if significant changes occur. The focus of this project is to identify critical vehicle characteristics which may be used for the assessment of future interaction of vehicles and roadside systems. A general approach to testing and verification of correct interaction should be proposed. H. Some increase in vehicle stiffness is forecast over the next decade. (C.5) This is based on frontal crash. Stiffness trends and metrics should be identified for other modes of impact as well. In particular, oblique structural stiffness is important during impact with longitudinal barriers. I. The cab forward design may see up to 50% penetration by 2003. Disadvantages include a congested engine compartment and large windshield. (C.5) There is some anecdotal evidence that congested engine compartment may be a good thing, particularly for frontal impacts with narrow objects. (Bronstad) Narrow objects, such as guardrail terminal beams, can proceed somewhat unimpeded through the engine compartment of full-size pickups where voids are present (i.e. for frontal impacts). The engine compartment of cars and smaller LTV's are much more congested and provide resistance to invading structures. These voids could be characterized in this project. J. Little change is forecast for frame design and suspension systems. (C.5) Closer interaction with vehicle manufacturers and related industry may help to confirm this statement. Innovations are not often publicly available therefore the research team cannot easily assume this to be true. K. It is unlikely that future trends will be obtained from vehicle manufacturers due to "trade secret" status. (C.5) As stated above, there are mechanisms to interact with the automotive design community however, "trade secret" status will probably not change. II. Vehicle Parameters A. Problems using the 2000 P pickup in Report 350 evaluations are attributed to higher bumper height, shorter front overhang, stiffer crush properties, and higher CG locations. (C.5) These differences generally contribute to stability problems for 2000 P vehicles. These characteristics support the use of this platform to represent the worst case impacts with large vehicles however, vehicles intermediate to the 820
D-3 kg car and the 2000 P vehicle may have structural properties which can drastically influence crash performance depending on impacted device. B. Geometry ranges for light trucks compared to the 4500 lb car; (C.5) a. top of Bumper exceeded all car values b. front overhang was less than all car values, c. wheel base was more or less (both sides), d. tire diameter - both sides e. curb weight - both sides, f. c.g. height mostly exceeded car, g. c.g. location from front axle - both sides. The combined effect of each of these factors is difficult to analyze. Parametric studies may be performed using finite element models to isolate the effect of design variables on performance behavior during impact. Few full-scale impacts have been performed using other vehicle platforms. As a result performance data is not currently available. d. The 2000 P (3/4 ton pickup): (C.1.b) e. bumper/suspension varies, f. Ford CG. is typically 2.5 inches higher than Chevrolet, g. CG closer to front axle has tendency to counter rotate instead of smoothly redirected, h. front end stiffer than 4500 lb car. Testing, as currently done with mostly Chevrolet Pickups, is not the practical worst case. A robust approach to testing and roadside safety design should be established where the effects of these slight design changes are not significant. C. 820 kg (1800 lb) car hood latches and hinges are lower strength; allows detachment. (C.1.b) Generally, this characteristic has not been critical for Report 350 tests. D. Lower profile cars have been shown to interact unsatisfactorily with certain roadside hardware due to under-ride. (C.3.b., D.5, and D.6) No current testing with these vehicle types is required. Investigation of this effect could be performed during this project on a limited basis using FE Analysis if necessary. Establishing acceptable and unacceptable profile corridors may result. E. Inertia of smaller cars (e.g. 820 kg) is a potential problem for off-center impacts. (C.5) This will remain a potential problem without drastic changes in energy absorbing capabilities in impacted systems. F. A controlled hood-collapse mechanism is essential to prevent hood segments from being forced into the passenger compartment for certain hardware.(C.3.a.) During full-frontal impacts conducted under NHTSA's FMVSS 208, this phenomenon would also occur. Since compliance FMVSS 208 is required for all vehicles, this sort of structural behavior is considered during design. It is believed that vehicles are currently being made with this design principle. G. A study conducted in the 1980's demonstrated that the profile of bumpers and location of the structural part of the bumper can influence override/underride interaction particularly with curved boundary features such as W-beam and thrie beam. Since this older study, there has been no effort to characterize this property. Based on gathered design characteristics of the current vehicle fleet, an evaluation of these characteristics as they relate to guardrail interaction will be given during this study.
D-4 H. A current study, which has examined design parameters of 7 vehicles, is considered one of the most comprehensive computer simulation projects which is publicly available to date. (C.5) Some correlation's have shown that much can be learned using some of the older codes, however limitations in accuracy, output information and applicability to new system designs do exist. Often though, use of simplified analysis codes are sometimes more economical to run than finite element codes such LS- DYNA. I. The most significant factor was determined to be the mass; heavier vehicles impart larger forces/energies whereas lighter vehicles are more critical in terms of occupant risk. (C.5) Since testing is conducted on the extreme ranges of vehicle size - intermediate vehicle size evaluations may be recommended for certain devices. Devices should be classified as size, mass, stiffness or geometrically sensitive in order to establish the nature of applicable tests required for its validation. J. CGs of light trucks in the vertical direction were typically 20 to 35 inches high whereas passenger car heights are in the 20 to 23 in. range. (C.5) Rollover rates will continue to increase as LTV's continue to increase as a percentage of the vehicle fleet. This data will be verified through investigation of rollover rates on a year-by-year basis. K. Bumper heights of light trucks average about 17 to 27 in. (bottom to top) while passenger cars average 17 to 21 in. (C.5) This will increase override possibilities. Investigation of accident data is needed to evaluate this phenomenon. L. The overhang for full-size passenger cars typically averages about 43 in. whereas the average for full-size pickups is about 30 in. (C.5) The combination of shorter pickup front wheel overhang and higher CG leads to a vehicle stability problem. Methods to mitigate the effects of these design characteristics will be studied and reported. M. Structural differences made the front end of passenger cars Ãofter" and more energy absorbing than light trucks. Different vehicle frame/bumper support geometry can provide different performance. (C.5) Some analysis of these factors will be accomplished in this project. Specific emphasis will be placed on understanding frontal and oblique crush stiffnesses. N. Light truck suspensions are stiffer than passenger cars. (C.5) This fact, while important, will not likely change. Implications of this will be identified as it relates to the compatibility with specific roadside safety systems discussed. O. Low profile designs are more common to cars and can represent an underride problem for certain RSH. (C.3.b., D.5, D.6) Generally all of the differences between cars and light trucks contribute to stability problems for the light truck category. In addition, vehicles override/vaulting can result due to bumper height considerations. These vehicle characteristics and their relationship to safety performance of each system will be identified and reported during this study.
D-5 III. Computer Simulations A. Large parametric evaluations using the latest finite element analysis codes such as LS-DYNA require a great deal of computational time. In some cases, this type of analysis is impractical. Also, in some cases, a lack of validation for RH objects and vehicles is an issue. The use of HVOSM for rigid barriers simulations and BARRIER VII provides insight for flexible barrier systems although not to the extent that a validated LS-DYNA simulation can provide. (C.5) LS-DYNA simulations are preferred due to the great amount of flexibility and resulting output information, however, they cannot currently be economically employed in large-scale matrices. In many cases, the use of older, more efficient codes can be employed to achieve acceptable results. B. LS-DYNA. This code has been used to examine performance of RSH with some very good results. It is particularly useful in examining complex behavior/deformation until the point of fracture in the W-beam system during crash tests. (C.5) The older codes lack the detail to examine certain complex behavior. Limitations such as accurate fracture initiation and crack propagation exist in current explicit finite element codes. During instances where fracture results, a technique is used where critical stresses are monitored to understand when fracture would be initiated. At this point, failure is anticipated in some form. C. Latest versions of HVOSM are useful to perform hundreds of parametric evaluations for comparable performance using different vehicle and impact condition parameters. This 3-D code predicts vehicle stability after striking rigid barriers. (C.5) See the above discussion regarding limitations and applicability of available analysis codes. D. The BARRIER VII code has been validated and widely used in flexible barrier simulations for over 25 years. It has some capability of predicting wheel snagging, but cannot predict vehicle underride/override or rollover. (C.5) Severe wheel snagging for higher c.g. vehicles can result in rollover. Alternative means for studying this phenomenon may be necessary. IV. Roadside Safety Hardware (RSH) In general, light trucks create a greater demand on RSH than did the 4500 lb car. (B.11, C.5) This has been examined more in depth with longitudinal barriers and terminals / crash cushions. A. Rigid Barriers. Based on crash tests and computer simulations: 1. Light trucks are much more unstable than cars for tracking impacts with NJ barriers. (C.5) Only future accident data can reveal full extent of this problem. Characteristics of the light truck class indicate that high CGs directly yield some degree of instability during a number of impact cases.
D-6 2. The SUV category has the greatest level of instability with NJ shape among light truck category. (C.5) This has not been fully evaluated; there is a potential problem here that requires additional investigation. As stated above, evaluation of recent accident statistics will clearly define the seriousness of this interaction. 3. Tracking crash tests with 2000 P pickup with NJ shape under Report 350 TL-3 conditions resulted in satisfactory performance. (C.5) No compatibility issues here. Verification will take place using accident statistics. 4. Accident data indicates that a higher incidence of rollover occurs with light trucks than with passenger cars. (C.5) This will continue to increase as fleet reflects sales trends. Obvious vehicle characteristics such as CG height, frontal over hang distance and high ride height support this conclusion. 5. Of three barriers simulated, the constant slope barrier (CSB) introduced the greatest instability, especially with light trucks. (C.5) As the CSB usage, and light truck sales increase, this could be a problem as reflected in accident history. 6. Within light truck category, the SUV and small pickup (SPU) have greatest propensity for overturning even at relatively low speed of 70 km/h and 15 degree angle. (C.5) Accident experience reflecting this fact should increase serious injury and fatal rates. 7. The vertical wall barrier (VWB) introduces less instability - no overturns were predicted. (C.5) In order to analyze the trade-off in reducing overturn accidents as compared to increasing occupant risk due high acceleration levels and compartment intrusion, a calculation of the level of HARM associated with each is appropriate. This calculation, based on resulting cost due to injury, can help to identify the most desirable countermeasure under consideration.. 8. Non-tracking impacts with VWB can result in excessive occupant risk values. (C.5) See above. B. Flexible Longitudinal Barriers 1. The standard W-beam and thrie beam guardrail and median barrier systems are marginal at best when subjected to the basic TL-3 2000 P test of NCHRP Report 350. (B.11) Modifications to steel post block-out have resulted in successful test results, but performance over the acceptable range of barrier heights has not been explored. 2. For given impact conditions, more pronounced wheel snagging is associated with light trucks due to short overhang. (B.11,C.5) Strong post systems with rigid block-outs have reduced problems associated with this. Relative numbers of this installation type will be identified based on a sampling state inventory findings. 3. For given impact conditions light trucks produce larger barrier deflections than large passenger cars. (C.5) This larger increase is not sufficient to change fixed object distance criteria.
D-7 4. Block-out depth is critical for minimizing wheel snagging in strong post barriers. (C.5) Block- out collapse of 6 in block-out cannot be tolerated. Test results for barrier systems using non-steel block- out materials must be evaluated for their suitability. 5. Major wheel snagging occurred in a TL-3 test with 2000 P vehicle and G4-1(S) guardrail resulting in vehicle rollover. Major snagging was predicted by BARRIER VII. Use of an older code can predict wheel snagging if properly interpreted. 6. A G4(1S) test with 2000 P vehicle at 110 km/h and 20 degree angle resulted in vehicle rollover. (C.5) This information is useful to evaluate the current testing criteria as well as guardrail design specifications. 7. A modified G4(1S) with a 6 in. wood block-out was tested under TL-3 conditions with a 1995 Taurus with satisfactory results. A vehicle from the same intermediate class, a 1995 Chevrolet Lumina, was used in a subsequent test that resulted in tearing of the W-beam and vehicle penetration. Cause of the failure has been attributed to differences in frame geometry and stiffness characteristics. (D.1, Interim Report)This is possibly a problem; the project team has located a source of data for frame characteristics. A detailed study will be made and summary findings will be reported. 8. A G9 thrie beam test at TL-3 conditions with 2000 P vehicle resulted in multiple vehicle rollover. Major wheel snagging in the test was predicted by BARRIER VII. (C.5) See above regarding W- beam. g. Terminals and Crash Cushions There are a large number of these devices that have met the requirements of NCHRP Report 350 TL-3. (A.7) Many devices meeting Report 230 met Report 350 requirements without any modifications. 1. The MELT terminal under development for Report 350 experienced 2000 P vehicle overturns in TL-3 tests for L-O-N. Devices employing flares at the end are susceptible to problems associated with increased impact angle. 2. In a surprising test, the W-beam fractured in a test of the MELT-2 for the TL-3 critical impact condition with the smaller car. (D.13) This surprising result was evaluated using LS-DYNA. Similar evaluation will be conducted as performance of various roadside safety systems are explored. D. Signs and Luminaire Supports. There are a very large number of these devices that have met both NCHRP Report 230 and 350. 1. Since the small car test controls with these devices, and since Report 230 requirements are considered more stringent, devices tested to 230 have been accepted according to criteria of 350. (A.7, A.16, Project Interim Report) A limited study determined problems with sign mounting heights. Failure Summary- Summaries of known RSH failures are shown in Table 8 Due to vehicle design considerations, it was determined that only 1982 and newer vehicle results would be summarized.
D-8 (References D) While much of the RSH meeting Report 230 also met Report 350 requirements, problems associated with the 2000 P pickup required modifications with some designs. Tests with intermediate sedans (Taurus and Lumina) on a W-beam system resulted in a surprising failure attributed to geometric/structural differences. V. Other findings The following Selected RSH developed for Report 230 met Report 350 requirements without modification: 1. ET-2000 (A.1) 2. REACT 350 (A.2) 3. 29 Ft luminaire support used with road closure gate. (B.6.c.) The following Selected RSH developed for Report 230 have been modified to meet 350. 1. BEST (B.6.a) 2. G4-1S (D.1) 3. Buried in-back slope terminals (B.8., B.9.) A. LS-DYNA applications h. 1990 Taurus and 1982 Honda Civic modeled (A.14) i. LLNL- DYNA 3D modeled G2 Guardrail (B.b.j) j. LS-DYNA 3D steel characteristics (B.6.k) k. LS-DYNA 3D simulations of dual support breakaway sign compared to full-scale crash tests (B.6.l) Used as a Method to compare simulations with Full-Scale test results. (B.6.m) A. Articles and Reports, Section 1 1. Hayes E. Ross, Jr., et al, "NCHRP Report 350 Compliance Tests of ET-2000 2. J. F. Carney III, et al, "Development of Reusable High-Molecular-Weight-High Density Polyethylene Crash Cushions". 3. Brian G. Pfeifer and Dean L. Sicking, "Development of Metal-Cutting Guardrail Terminal" 4. John G. Viner, Implications of Small Passenger Cars on Roadside Safety" 5. Doran L. Gauz, et al, "Crash Tests of a Retrofit Thrie Beam Bridge Rail and Transitionâ 6. Amy E. Wright and Malcolm H. Ray, "Characterizing Guardrail Steel for LS-DYNA3D Simulations" 7. Director, Office of Engineering HNG-14 Web Site (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/roadside- hardware.htm), "Safety - NCHRP Report 350 Roadside Hardware," 2000 8. Jerry A. Reagan, "Vehicle Compatibility with Roadside Safety Hardware" 9. Hampton Gabler and William T. Hollowell, "NHTSA's Vehicle Aggressivity and Compatibility Research Program"
D-9 10. John F. Carney, et al, "NCHRP Report 350 Crash Test Results for Connecticut Truck - Mounted Attenuator", TR Record 1528, 1996 11. John D. Reid, "Dual - Support Breakaway Sign with Modified Fuse Plate and Multidirectional Slip Base, TR Record 1528, 1996 12. Ronald K. Faller, et al, Approach Guardrail for Single-Slope Concrete Barriers", TR Record 1528, 1996 13. James C. Holloway, et al, "Reduced-Height Performance Level 2 Bridge Rail", TR Record 1528, 1996 14. Dale A. Schauer, et al, "Crashworthiness Simulations with DYNA 3D" 15. James C. Holloway, et al, "Performance Level 2 Tests on the Missouri 30-in. New Jersey Safety- Slope Bridge Rail", TR Record 1367, 1992 16. Brian G. Pfeifer, et al, "Full-Scale Crash Tests on a Luminaire Support. 4-Bolt Slipbase Design", TR Record 1367, 1992 17. T. J. Hirsch and C. E. Ruth, Aesthetically Pleasing Combination Pedestrian- Traffic Bridge Rail", TR Record 1367, 1992 18. John G. Viner, et al, "Frequency and Severity of Crashes Involving Roadside Safety Hardware by Vehicle Type", TR Record 1468, 1994 B. Literature Review References, Section 2 1. Vehicle Highway Infrastructure: Safety Compatibility, SAE P-194, Feb. 23-27, 1987 a. James E. Bryden and Jan S. Fortuniewicz, "Traffic Barrier Performance Related to Passenger Car Characteristics" b. M. H. Ray, et al, Importance of Vehicle Structure and Geometry on the Performance of Roadside Safety Features" c. N.J. DeLeys and C. P. Brinkman, "Rollover Potential of Vehicles on Embankments, Sideslopes, and Other Roadside Features" 2. Transportation Research Record 1258, 1990
D-10 a. Dewayne Breaux and James R. Morgan, Evaluation of Small-Sign Systems from Existing Crash Test Data". b. T. J. Hirsch and Perry Romere, "Crash Test of Modified Texas C202 Bridge Rail" c. C. E. Buth, T. J. Hirsch, and C. F. McDevitt, "Performance Level 2 Bridge Railings" d. King K. Mak and Dean L. Sicking, "Rollover Caused by Concrete Safety-Shaped Barrier" 3. Transportation Research Record 1367, 1992 a. James C. Holloway, et al, "Performance Level 2 Tests on the Missouri 30-in. New Jersey Safety-Shape Bridge Rail" b. Brian G. Pfeifer, et al, "Full-Scale Crash Tests on a Luminaire Support 4-Bolt Slipbase Design" c. T. J. Hirsch and C. E. Buth, Aesthetically Pleasing Combination Pedestrian-Traffic Bridge Rail" d. Todd R. Guidry and W. Lynn Beason, "Development of a Low-Profile Portable Concrete Barrier" e. King K. Mak, et al, "Long-Span Nested W-Beam Guardrails over Low-Fill Culverts" f. Don L. Ivey, et al, "Guardrail End Treatments in the 1990s" g. King K. Mak, et al, "Minnesota Bridge Rail-Guardrail Transition Systems" h. Don L. Ivey and Mark A. Marek, ADIEM: Low-Cost Terminal for Concrete Barriers" 4. Transportation Research Record l468. 1994 a. King K. Mak, Don J. Gripne, and Charles F. McDevitt, "Single-Slope Concrete Bridge Rail" b. D. Lance Bullard, Jr., et al, "Development of Combination Pedestrian-Traffic Bridge Railings," TRR 1468, 1994 c. King K. Mak and Roger D. Hille, "Tennessee Bridge Rail to Guardrail Transition Designs" d. Dean C. Alberson and Don L. Ivey, Improved Breakaway Utility Pole, AD-IV" 5. Transportation Research Record 1500, 1995 a. King K. Mak, Roger P. Bligh, Hayes E. Ross, Jr., and Dean L. Sicking, "Slotted Rail Guardrail Terminal," TRR 1500, 1995 b. Gary P. Gauthier, John R. Jewell, and Payam Rowhani, "Development of Variable Yaw Angle Side Impact System and Testing on Double Thrie Beam Median Barrier" c. Wanda L. Menges, et al, "Triple T: Truck Thrie Beam Transition" d. Dean C. Alberson, et al, "Performance Level 1 Bridge Railings"
D-11 e. Wanda L. Menges, et al, "Performance Level 3 Bridge Railings" 6. Transportation Research Record No. 1528, 1996 a. Brian G. Pfeifer and Dean L. Sicking, "Development of Metal-Cutting Guardrail Terminal" b. Hayes E. Ross, Jr., et al, "NCHRP Report 350 Compliance Tests of the ET-2000." c. King K. Mak, et al, "Wyoming Road Closure Gate," TRR 1528, 1996 d. John F. Carney III, "NCHRP Report 350 Crash Test Results for Connecticut Truck- Mounted Attenuator" e. Barry T. Rosson, et al, Assessment of Guardrail-Strengthening Techniques" f. Ronald K. Faller, et al, Approach Guardrail Transition for Single-Slope Concrete Barriers" g. John R. Rohde, et al, Instrumentation for Determination of Guardrail-Soil Interaction" h. James C. Holloway, et al, "Reduced-Height Performance Level 2 Bridge Rail" i. Dale A. Schouer, et al, "Crashworthiness Simulations with DYNA3D" j. Bart F. Hendricks and Jerry W. Wekezer, "Finite-Element Modeling of G2 Guardrail," TRR 1528, 1996 k. Amy E. Wright and Malcolm H. Ray, "Characterizing Guardrail Steel for LS-DYNA3D Simulations" l. Gene W. Paulsen and John D. Reid, "Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis of Dual Support Breakaway Sign" m. Malcolm H. Ray, "Repeatability of Full-Scale Crash Tests and Criteria for Validating Simulation Results" 7. M.E. Bronstad, et al, Effects of Changes in Effective Rail Height on Barrier Performance," Volume 1, Research Report FHWA/RD-86/191, April 1987 8. C. Eugene Buth, et al, "Crash Test of the G4 W0 Beam Guardrail with Terminal Buried-in- Backslope, FHWA-RD-98, March 1998 9. Althea G. Arnold, et al, "Testing and Evaluation of W-Beam Guardrails Buried-in-Backslope," FHWA-RD-99-055, February 1997 10. John G. Viner, "Roadside Safety Problem: Measures to Address Leading Ran-off-Road-Crash Losses," Transportation Research Circular Number 435 January 1995 11. Implications of Increased Light Truck Usage on Roadside Safety," Hayes E. Ross, Jr., Transportation Research Circular Number 453, February 1996 12. "Safety Appurtenance Design and Vehicle Characteristics," Barry D. Stephens Energy Absorption Systems, Inc
D-12 Literature Review and Summary Presented at Panel Meeting, November, 2000 1. Transportation Research Circular 453, February 1996. a. Implications of Increased Light Truck Usage on Roadside Safety", Hayes E. Ross, Jr., Texas Transportation Institute b. Safety Appurtenance Design and Vehicle Characteristics", Barry D. Stephens, Energy Absorption Systems, Inc 2. Transportation Research Circular 435, January 1995. "The Roadside Safety Problem: Measures to Address the Leading Ran-off-Road Crash Losses, John G. Viner, Federal Highway Administration 3. Vehicle Highway Infrastructures: Safety Compatibility, SAEP-194, February 23-27, 1987 a. James E. Bryden and Jan S. Fortuniewicz, "Traffic Barrier Performance Related to Passenger Car Characteristics" b. M. H. Ray, et al, Importance of Vehicle Structure and Geometry on the Performance of Roadside Safety Features" 4. M. E. Bronstad, et al, Effects of Changes in Effective Rail Height on Barrier Performance," Report No FHWA/RD-86/191, 1987 5. Roger Bligh, et al, Assessment of Vehicle Characteristics", FHWA Contract DTPH61-94-C- 00152, Draft Final Report, October 2000 D. Crash Test References for Failures 1. King K. Mack, et al, "Crash Testing and Evaluation of Existing Guardrail Systems", FHWA-RD- 95, December 1995 2. C. Eugene Buth, "W-Beam Guardrail", TRB Paper No. 990871, January 1999 3. T.T.I. Luminaire Test 4. J. B. Mayer, "Final Report - Full Scale Crash Test Evaluation of MELT", Report No. FHWA-RD- 99-031, September 1999 5. Christopher M. Brown, "Low Profile Vehicle Crash Test Into Guardrail Terminal Ends, Report No. FHWA-RD-95-024 1995 6. Christopher M. Brown, "MELT Retrofit Attachments to Prevent Vehicle Underride", Report No FHWA-RD-97-037, April 1997 7. King K. Mak, et al, "Testing of State Roadside Safety Systems", Res. Study RF471470, 1996 8. D. Lance Bullard, Jr., "Crash Testing and Evaluation of the Roadway Safety Service Inc. Fitch Inertial System Crash Cushion, 1995
D-13 9. 405491-2 10. FC-1 11. INJ-3-1 12. NEBT-1 13. Roger P. Bligh, et al, Evaluation of Roadside Features to Accommodate Vans, Mini-Vans, Pickup Trucks, and 4-Wheeled Drive Vehicles", Final Report NCHRP Project 22-11 14. King K. Mak, et al, "Testing and Evaluation of the MELT-2 Terminal", Draft Final Report No. FHWA-RD-96-, August 1996
