Crash Testing of Michigan's Type B (W-Beam) Guardrail System - Phase Ii
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CRASH TESTING OF MICHIGAN'S TYPE B (W-BEAM) GUARDRAIL SYSTEM - PHASE II Submitted by Karla A. Polivka, B.S.M.E., E.LT. Research Associate Engineer Dean L Skking, ?h.D., P.E. John R. Rohde, Ph. D. , P.E. Associate Professor and MwRSF Director Associate Professor Ronald K. Faller, Ph.D., P.E. James C. Hollo",,~y, M.S.C.E., Err. Research Assistant Professor Rest:arch Associate Engineer MIDWEST ROADSIDE SAFETY FACILITY University of Nebraska-Lincoln 1901 "Y" Street, Building "C" Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0601 (402) 472-6864 Submitted to Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30049 885 Ricks Road Lansing, MI 48909 MwRS F Research Report No. TRP-03-104-00 December 13, 2000 T ecbmcal R(eport D ocumentatlOn p , ~'1"" No , J. Recipieo!', """'"'" No "" •. TO!< ... oJ Subti ... 5. R'poltDatc Crash Testing of Michigan's Type B (W-bcam) Guardrail December 13, 2000 System - Pha.>~ 11 • J."otOOrj,) i . P.,fonn •• ~ Orj: ...i, .. "" Re""LNo Polivka, K,A .. Sicking, 0.1. , Rohde, J.R., Faller. R. K .. TRP-OJ-104-00 and Holloway, J.c. 9. PcrfOOllin ~ O<v'"''"''' N,"r>< ",><I Addo'm 10. Pn';O""'... ..IJ'Ii"'. lJ"il No Miuwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) University of Nebraska-Lincoln II 0."""",0", G,"", (G ) No. I '10 I Y St., Dldg. C Lincoln, NE 68588 0601 Ll . S",."",O>i Ot&o>J.il.lhoo ~ome ..,0 Ao.Jn:" Il. TYi>< ofRcport >lid 1'<00d Cowed Michigan Dt:par\ment of Transportation Final Report 2000 P,O. Box 30049 L4. 'P"""""'J A&'OC~ coo. !l85 Ricks Road Lansing, MI 48909 IS. Supplomontv)· "'000> Prepared in cooperation with U,S. Departmen\ orTransJXlrtation, Federal Highway Administration I~ AW,.," (I.;' ••. 100 w",d» Michigan Ikpartment ofTr.n'portation 's Type [3 (W -beam) longitudina l barrier oy.tem was con.tructed and crash tested. The barrier design wa, constructed with a 2.66-mm (12_gauge) thick W_bearn rail totaling 53.34 m in length. The W_beam rail was ,upported by twcnly-flve Wl 52x IJ.4 steel posts. each measuring 1, 830-mm long, ami four standard BeT post" each measuring 1,080-mm long. Each of the steel posts had a 152x20J by J60-mrn long standard wood offset blockoul. Post spacings were 1,90S_rnm on center. The re,eard study included full-scale vehicle crash testing, '''ing a Yo-t"n pickup truc k. The tesl vehicle impacted at a speed of99.8 kmlllr and an angle of27.7 degrees. Tne le,t wa. unsuccessful due to the vehicle vaulting and landing on top of the guardrail with its right-side wheels contacting the gmund behind the barrier system and then com ing. to re.t on top "fthe downstream end oft he guardrai I. ' ln is unacceptable behavior wa. allributed to the failure ofthe W-beam guardrail \() rdease properly from the guardrail posts. '111e safely perfonnanc<: of Michigan', Type B (W -beam) longitudinal barner system was determined 10 be nnacceptable according to Test Level J (TL-3) evaluation critcria .pecified in NCHRP Report No. 350, Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation ,-,f lfig/iway Feature". 1I wa, al>o concluded thaI the use of the ronted wood blockouts did not contribute to the failure ofthc syslem. I) l>o<>.om<no A"'y';",'[).,"""'CI<> 't. A,.iL,..I;Iy ~L."""'"L Highway Safety, Guardrail, Roadside Appurten3Jlces, No restrictions. Document available from: Longitudinal Barrier, Crash Test, Compliance National Te<:hnical infomlalion Services, W-bcanl Burrier, Test Springlield, Virginia 22161 19. $<,,,,i t)- n ... (II". "'1"J'l1 10. s«... ioy CI .., (tIli> P"II<I No, off.. " " II ""'" Unclus~ified Unda.>silied 61 DISCLAIMER STATEMENT "(be contents of this report reneet the views ofthc authors who arc responsible for the facts and th~ accuracy of the data presented h~r~in . The contents do not neccssarily reflcct thc official viev.'S or policies of the Fcdcral Highway Adminbtntlion nor the Michigan Department of Transportation. This report docs not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. u ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Th~ au\hor~ wish 10 acknowlcdgcscveral sources that made a contributiontothis project: (I) thc Miehiganlkpanment ofTransporllltion lor donating: l h~ barricr lTIa\erial ~ and for ~pon;;oring this project; and (2) MwRSF pcrsolUlcJ for constructing the barrier and conducting the crash tc: st. A special thanks i~ al,,, given 10 the following individuals who made a contribution to the complction of this research project. Midwest Roadside Safety FacililV J.D. Reid. Ph.D., A~~oc i <l\e Profess.or, Mechanical Engineering Departmem R.W. Flielenh.... r g , M.S.M.E. Research Associate Engine~r E.A. Kcller. Il.S.M.E., Resc<lrch AsstlCial~ Engineer K.II. Addink, B.S.C.F.. , Res.earch Associate Engineer K.L. Krenk, B.S.M.A., Shop Manager M.L. Hanau, L!I.bonltory Moxhanic I D.M. McBride, Laboratory Mechanic I Undergraduate and Graduate A~sislanl.s Michigan nC"lIrtm~nt of Transportation Carlos Libiran, Design Vic Childers, Traffic & Safety Oave Morena. FIIWA Jill Mol"t'na, Traffic & Safcty I Risk Management Wayne Pikka, Design Bard Lower, Maintenance JeffGrossklaus, Construction & Technology lmad Gedaoun, Trallie & Sal"t.ly David Juntun~n , Conslruction & Technology Dunlap Photography Jame~ Dunlap, Presidcnt and Owner '" TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TECHNICAL REPORT IX>CUMENTATION PAGE . .. .. .. .... ... .... ... .. , DISCLAIMER STATEMENT. " ACKNOWI.EIX'MENTS . •. ..... • .... ... • •....... III TABLE OF CONTENTS. .. i v ljst of Figures . .... • ... .. • ..... • ....... • ........ Vl List of Tables ... .. ............ ....... ...... .. .. '" 1 INTRODUCTION . I 1.1 Problem Statement. .. .. .. .. .. .... • ........•.......... 1 J.2 Objective ... .. .. .. ... .••... •• . .. .. .. ••........ • .......... 1 1.3 Scope . ... ••. .. .. 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. .............. • . ....... 3 3 TEST REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITER IA .......... .. .. .. .. 5 3.1 Test Requirements. .. ...... ... .............. 5 3.2 Evaluation Criteria. .. .. .. .. ... 5 4 GUARDRAIL DESIGN .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .... ....... 7 5 TEST CONDITIONS . ....... • . •• . .... 13 5. 1 Test Facility . .. ... ...... ..... ... .• . .... .. ... ... .. 13 5.2 Vehicle Tow and Guidance System. .. 13 5.3 Test Vehiele ... ... ...... ..•..... .... .... .... ..... ..13 5.4 Data Acquisition Systems .... ... .. ...... .. ..... .. .... ... .. ... .. 16 5.4.1 Accelerometers . ......... ... .. .... .. ....... .. 16 5.4.2 Rate Transducer . ..... .. ............... ... .. .. 18 5.4.3 High·Speed Photography . ......•.. ... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. 18 5.4.4 Pressure Tape Switches .. ........ , . ...... • ... , .... ... ........ 19 6 CRASH TEST NO.2 . ... .... .. ... •... .. .. ..•. ... • . • . .. 21 6.1 Test MIW·2 .... , .. ...... .... ........ • .. .. .. 21 6.2 Test Description. ..... • . •..• 21 6.3 Barrier Damage ...... .. ..... .......... ..................... 22 6.4 Vehicle Damage . ....... ...... ... ... , . .... ,. , . , . .. 23 6.5 Occupant Risk Values .... , . .. , .. , ... .......... .. ....• ............... 24 6.6 Discussion , . , .. .. ............•..... ..•. .. .. • . .. .. .. 24 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..•.. , . • ,. ,. , .• ,. , . • , .•..• ,45 8 RECOMMENDATIONS .. 47 9 REFERENCES .......... .. ... .. , . , . .. 48 10 A PPENDlCES . .. .. .. ......... .. .. , . ,., . .. , . ... , .... , .. , . 50 APPENDIX A _ Accelerometer Data Analysis, Test MIW-2 ... .... .. .. .. 51 APPENDIX B - Roll, ritch, and Yaw Data Analysis, Test MIW-2 ................ 58 List of Figur.es Page I. Modified Type B (W-bcam) Longitudinal Barrier System .. .. .... .. .. .. .. 9 2. Modified Type B (W-bcam) l ongitudinal Barrier System .. ....................... 10 3. Simulated End An~hordge ror Longiludinal Barrier System. I I 4. Post-to-Rail Attacluncnt for the Type II (W-bcam) l ongitudinal Barrier System ..... 12 S. Test Vehicle. Test MIW-2 .. .. 14 6. Vehicle Dimt;:TlRions, Test MIW-2 . ..................... .. ... .. .. .. .. IS 7. Vehicle Target Locations, Test MlW-2 . ... 17 8. Location of High-Speed Camt:Ta~, Test MIW-2 .. ............ ...... ... ... 20 9. Summary or Test Results and Sequential Photographs. Test .MIW-2 . .. ... .. .... 26 10. Additional Sequential Photographs, Test MIW-2 . ... .. ....... 27 11. Additional Sequential Photogrdphs, Tesl MIW-2 . .... .. ... .. .. .. .. 28 12. Documentllry Photographs, Test MIW-2 . ... .. .. .. .... 29 13. Documentary Photographs, Test MIW-2 .. .. .. ..... .. ...... .. ... ....... 30 14. Documentary Photographs, Test MIW-2 . .. .. , . , ....... .. 31 IS. Impact l ocation, Test MIW-2 . , . ......... .............. , ........ 32 16. Final Vehicle Location, Test MIW-2 . .. .. .. .......... .. ....... • . .... .. 33 17. Type B Longitudinal Barrier Damage, Test MIW-2 , . , . .... .. , .. , . , . 34 18. Type B longitudinal Barrier Damage, Test MIW-2 .. .. .. ... ................. 35 19. Typo;: B Longitudinal Barrier Rail and Post Damage. Test MlW-2 . .. ... ...... • . .... 36 20. Type B Longitudinal Barrier Rail wld Post Damage, Test MIW-2 ... .... , . , .. , . .. 37 21. Type B longitudinal BllITier Rail and Post Damage, Test MIW-2 . ..........•.... .. 3~ 22. Final Post Position - Post Nos. 12 and 13, Test MI W-2 . ... .. ..... 39 23. Final Post Positions - Post Nos. 14 and 15. TestMIW-2 . .. .. ..... .. ........ 40 24. Final Post Positions - Post Nos. 16 and 17, Test MIW-2 . .. .. 41 25. Perrnallt;:Tlt Set Deflections of End Anchorages, Test MIW-2 .. ... ... .. 42 26. Vehicle Damage, Test MlW-2 . .... .. .. .. , ...... .. .. .. , 43 27. Front-End Vehicle and Rear-Tire Damage, Test MlW-2 .. .. ... •. ..... 44 A-I. Graph of Longirndinal Deceleration, Test MIW-2 . , . , . , . , . , .. 52 A-2. Graph of l ongitudinal Occupant