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 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 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"IIsilied 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 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 Impact Velocity, Test MIW-2 ...... 53 A-3. Graph of l ongitudinal Occupant J)jsplaecment, Test .MIW-2 ...... _ ...... 54 A-4. Graph of Lateral Deceleration. Test MIW-2 ...... , . . . . , . ,...... 55 A-5. Graphof l ateral Occupant Impact Velocily, Test MIW-2 ...... 56 A-6. Graph ofl merdl Occupant Displacement, Test M I W -2 ...... _ ...... 57 B-1. Graph of Roll Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 ... . , . . . . , . , .. . . , . , . .. . , . . , . . , 59 13-2. Graph of Pitch Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 ...... 60 B-). Graph orYaw Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 ...... 61 List of Tables Page I. NCHRP Report No. 350 Evaluation Criteria for 2000P Pickup Truck Crash Test ...... 6 2. Summary or Safety Pcrfonllance Evaluation Results - MDOT's Type R Banier System . . , . 46 '" I INTRODUCfJON 1.1 Problem Statement Michigan's Department onran'qlOrtation (MOOT's) Type B (W-beam) longitudinal barrier system has modcst differences from barriers cum:ntly certified to Test Level 3 (TL-3) safety pe rfOlman~ criteria National Cooperative High"'llY Research Program (NCHRP) Report No. 350. The differences include: (1) a Tt'duction in the midpoint mounting height of the W-bcam rail from 550 mm to 530 mm; (2) the use ofa non-routed blockout with a nail to resi~1 block rotation rather than arouted ",uod blockout; (3) an incTt'ased blockout distance of 10 mm due to the use of a non routed wood blockout; and (4) a de<:rease in post embedment depth by 2 mm. The change in mounting height and non-routed wood bJockouts are the significant differences between the Michigan standard and existing compliant systems. "Jbe researchers believed that the usc of non routed wood blockouts should not adversely elTec1 1he guardrail system's safely pertOrmance. In order to assure compliance with NCHRP Report No. 350 safety performance evaluation criteria, MichigUll's Type R guardrail was subjected to fu!l-sealc crash testing with a 7".-ton pickup W . The test vehicle snagged on one of the guanjrai l posts and subsequently mlled over. The rollover appeared to be caused by premature suspension failure on the test vehicle. Therefore, another test o r Michigan' s Type B guardrail was determined to be appropriate. Based on recommendations from the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), the retest was conducted with the guardrail installed at the standard 550-mm mounting heighllO the center ofthe guardrail element. 1.20hjective Thc objective oftheresearch project wus to evaluate the satety performance of the MOOT's Type B guardrail system whcn mounted at a height of 550 mm to the center of the guardrail element. The guardrail system was evalualed according to the T L- 3 ~afcty pcrfonnance crileria set forth in the NCHRP Rcport No. 350, Recommended Procedures jor the Sajety Performance Eva/un/ion of Highway Feature;' (2). 1.3 Scope 1bc research objective was to be achieved by perfomring several tasks. Fi!"!>1, a literature review was pcrfonncd on the previous testing on W-beam guardrail systems. Next, a full-scale vehicle crash test was performed using a 'I.-ton pickup truck, weighing approximately 2,O()() kg, with a largct impact speed and angle of 100.0 kmihr and 25 degrees, respc!\.-'tively. Finally, the test results ""ere analyzed, evaluated, and docwncntcd. Conelusions and recommendations were then made that perta.in to the safety pcrfonnance oftlle W-tlt'am guardrail system. 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Th~ W-tM"am guardrail system is one of the most commonly used guardrail systems on our nation's high1Nays. PrevioU5 testing has shoV>TI that containing ami redirecting a Yo-ton pickup truck depends on the interaction ofthe frout wheel and suspension and the W-beam Q.:j). Essentially, the impacting vehicle is partially restrained as thc front tire is captured uuder the rail. A W-tM"wn, wood-post glJardrail system was successfully tested according to TL-3 of NCHRP Report No. 350 by Texas Transportation Iru;titute (Tn) Q). The pi~kup truck achieved a roll angk 0139 degrees during this test, but did uot rollover. The b'Uardrail system was constructed with 2.66-mm (12-gauge) thkk guardrail elements and was supported by 152 mm x 203 mm timher posts with 152 mm x 203 nml by 356-mm long wooden blockouls. Post ~pacing~ were 1.9-m on center. TIle guardrail mounting height was 550 nUll to the center of the W-beam rail element. A W-beam, steel-post guardnlil syslenl wilsalso tested ilC{:ording to TL-3 ofNCHRP Report No. 350 b)' Tn (;1). Onring thc impact. the pickup truck was contained but after redirection the vehicle rolled omo ils side, (hus resulting in a failure of the NCHRP Rcport No. 350 crash test requiremcnts. The guardrail s)' st~m was constructed with 2.66-mm (l2-gauge) thick guardrail clements and was supported by W152x12.6 sted posts with W152x12.6 hy 356-mm long ~ted blockouts. Post spacings were 1.9-m on center. The guardrail mounting height was 550 mm to the centcr of the W-beam rail ekmen(. Subsequently, TIl successfully developed and tested a modi lied W -tM"am, Sled-post gUilrdrail ~ys(~m according to TL-3 ofNCHRP ReportNo. 350 8). The key difference between the modified and previously tested W-bcam system was the usc of 152-mm wide x 203-mm deep x 360-mm long routed wood blockouts in p l ac~ orthe W152x 12.6 by 356-mm longsted blockouts. "Jbc system ""as 3 cow;lruct~d with 2.66-mm ( 12-gauge) thick guardrail elements and was supported by W152x12.6 stcel posts spaced 1.9-m on c~ntt:r. The guardrail mounting height was 550 mm to the centcrofthe W-b\:am mi l element. A W-beam, round wood-post guardrail system was successfully tested with a pickup truck according to TL-3 ol"NCHRP Report No. 350 by r n (2). The guardrail system was constructed with standard 2.66-mm (l2 - gaug~) W-beam mil elements and was supported by 184-mm diameter posts with t 46 mm x 146 nUll by 356-mm long chamfered wooden blockouts that had on~ concave surface to match the clJrvatlJTe oflbe posts. Post spacings ..vere 1,905-mm on center. This system was also certified to perfonn satisfadorily with an 820-kg small car without further testing due tD the succe~~rultest of a similar system with a smal.l car W. Previously, the Midwest Roadside Safety Jiaeility (MwRSF) completed the Phase I evaluation eflort for the MOOT Type D (W-bcam) longitudinal barrier design (1). For this study, a barrier configured with sl.t:el posts supporting 53.34 m ofW-beam rail was constructed and unsuccessfully era~h tested according \0 the NCHRP Report No . 350 criteria using a 'I.-ton pickup truck. 4 3 TEST REQUIREMEJ'Io'TS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 3.1 Test Requiremenu Longitudinal barriers. such as W-beam guardrail systetll5, must satisfY the safety performance criteria provided in NC HRP Report No. JSO to be =pted for use ol1 l1ew construction projects or as a replacement for existing designs not meeting current safety standards. According to TL-3 of NC HRP Report No. 350, W-beam guardrail systems must be subjected to two full-scale vehicle crash tests: (I) a 2,OOO-kg pickup truck impacting at a speed of 100.0 kmIhr and at an angle of25 degrees; and (2) an 820-kg small car impacting at 11 speed of ]00.0 kmIhr and at an angle 0(20 degrees. However, W-beam guardrails perform satisfactorily when impacted by small cars, being essentially rigid (2:1), with no significant potential for occupant risk problems arising from vehicle pocketing or severe wheel snagging on the guardrail posts. Therefore, the 82()"kg small car crash test was deemed unnecessary for this project. 3.2 Evaluation Criterill Evaluation criteria for full-scale vehicle crash testing are based on three appraisal areas: (\) structural adequacy; (2) occupant risk; and (3) vehicle trajectory after collision. Criteria for structurnl adequacy are intended to evaluate Ihe ability of the barrier to contain, redired, or allow controlled vehicle penetration in a predictable manner. Occupant risk evaluates the degree of hazard to occupants in the impacting vehicle. Vehicle trajectory after collision is 11 measure of the potential for Ihe post-impact trajectory oftbe vehicle to cause subsequcnt multi-vehicle accidenu. It is also an indicator for the potcntial safely hazard for the occupants of the other vehicles or thc occupants of the impacting vehicle whcn subjected to secondary collisions with other fixed objects. These three evaluation criteria are defined in Table I. The full-scale vehicle crash tests were conducted and 5 reponed in accordance with the procedures provided in NCHRP Repon No. 350. Table 1. NCHRP Repon No. 350 Evaluation Criteria for 2000P Pickup Truck Crash Test (2) A. Test article should contain and redirect the ve hicle; the vehicle should not Structural penetrate, underride, or override Ihe installation although controlled Adequacy lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable. D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, Occupant or personnel in 3 work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the Risk occupant compartment that could cause serious injuries should not be pennitted. F. The vehicle sllould remain upright during and after collision although moderate roll, pitching, and yawing are acceptable. K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. L. The occupant impact velocity in the longitudinal direction should not Vehicle exceed 12 mlsec and the occupant ridedown acceleration in the Trajectory longitudinal direction should not exceed 20 O's. M. The exit angle from the test article prefcrably should be less than 60 percent of test impact angle, measured at time of vehicle loss of contact with test devise. 6 4 GUARDRAIL DESIGN The totallengtll of the test installation was 53.34 m, as shown in Figure L Photographs of the test installation are shown in Figures2lhrough 4. The test installation consisted of standard 12- gauge W-beam guardrail supported by Sled posts and an anchorage system replicating a Breakaway Cable Terminal (BCn on both the upstream and downstream ends but installed tangent to the guardrail system and without the buffer bead. The entire system was constructed with twenty-nine guardrail posts. Post nos. 3lhrough 21 were galvanized ASTM A36 steel WI52x13.4 sections measuring 1,830-mm long. Post nos. 1,2, 28, and 29 were timber posts measuring ]40-mm wide x ] 90-mm deep x ] ,080-mm long and were placed in steel foundation tubes. The timber posts and foundation tubes were pan of an anchor system, similar to a BCT but installed tangent to the system, used to develop the required tensile capacity in the guardrail. L.ap-splice connections between the rail sections were configured to reduce vehicle snagging at the splice during the crash test. Post nos. ] through29 were spaced 1,905-mm on center. For post nos. 3 through 21, the soil embedmentdeptll was ] ,100 mm. The posts were placed in a compacted coarse, crushed limestone material that met GradingBof AASHTOMI41-65 (1990)as found in NCHRP ReportNo. 350. The guardrail posts were installed by augering 610-mm diameter holes approximately 1,092-mm deep and installing soil material in I 52-mm to 203 -mm lifts., with optimum moisture (1% by dry "'tight), tamped with air tamper to a density of approximately 2].4 kNfm'. In addition, 152-mm wide x 203-mm deep x 360-mm long standard wood offset-spacer blockouts were used to block the rail away from post nos. 3lhrough 21. This is in contrast to the system used in Design No. I (l) that was previously tested with double-tapered wood offset-spacer 7 bloclr:oulS at the system's steel poslS. For each wood blockoul, two 16-prnny, ungalvanimd nails ~re installed 25·mm down from the top of the front face of the post and along the upstream and downstream edges in order to prevent wood blockout rotation. The lIlIils ~re driven S I mm into the wood blockout and then the top 25 mm ofthc nail was bent around the posl, as shown in figures I and 4. MOOT's standard requires hot-dipped. zinc-wated nails. All guardrail used throughout the installation consisted of2.66-mm (12·gauge) thick W-beam. rail. Specific details reganling the lengths and positions of guardrail sections an: provided in Figute I. The mounting height orlbe W·beam rail WlI!'I 706 mm, as measured from the ground 10 the lop orlhl: rail. This is in contrnst to the system used in Design No. I U)that WlI!'I previously tested with the mounting height of the W-beam rail al686 mm from Ihe ground 10 the lOp oflhe rail. 8 1------·-. ·-- .. s.s.M------1 " a n • • • D • ~ • " • It • ~ ~ U Q II • t • • .. _ .. _ .. _ '.!..C ~ ~ ~ '!::: ·.:..:::: ·.:.= ·.:.:: ... _ ... _ u::_ .u::.. _ JltO - . ,. _ ·.:..:::: ... _ ... _ ... _ ...... • .. _ JltO - · · - - · ... ··· - · ,,._r ···- L ~ Figun: I. Modified Type B (W-beam) Longitudinal Barrier System . : . . - I Figure 2. Modified Type B (W-bcam) Longi tudinal Barrier System to Figure 3. Simulated End Anchorage for Longitudinal BarriCl" Syslf:m II • • . ~~--.;. - I . I - Figure 4. Post-to-Rail Attachment for the Type B (W-bearn.) Longi tudinal Barrier System " 5 TF-ST CONDITIONS 5. 1 Tfil Fa ~ ilily The testing faci lity is located althc Lincoln Ai r-Pari<. on the northwest (NW) (md of the Lincoln Municipal Airport and is approximately 8.0 km NW of the University ofNebraska- Lincoln. 5.2 Vehicle Tow and Guidance Sysl~m A reverse cable tow system witb a 1:2 mechanical advantage was used to propel the test vehicle. The distance traveled and the speed ofthe tow vehicle were one-half that o f the test vehicle. The test vehicle was released from lhe lOW cable before impact with the guardrail. A digital speedometer in the loW vehicle was utili1.cd to increase the accuracy ofthe test vehicle impact sp•. .'cd . A vehicle guidance system developed by Hinch (2) was used to steer the test vehicle. A guide-flag,attached to the front-left wheel and the guide cable, was sheared offbcfore im pacting the guardrail. The9.5-mm diameter guide cable was tensioned to approximately 13.3 kN, and supported by hingedstanchiolls in the lateral and vertical directions and spaced at 30.48 m initially and at 15.24 m toward the end of the guidance system. The hinged stanchions stood upright while balding up the guide cable, but as the vehicle was towed down the line. the guide-flag struck and knocked each stanchion to the ground. The vehicle guidance ~ystem was approximatcly 457.2-m long. 5.3 Test Vchlcll' For test MIW-2, a 1994 GMC 2500~.- to n pickup truck was used as the tcst vehicle. The tCSI inertial and gross stalic weights were 2,034 kg. The test vchicle is sbown in Figure 5. and vebicle dimensions are shown in Figure 6. II Figure S. Test Vehicle. Test MIW-2 14 Dale, _--"'LIL12 " I"OXOL_ Tesl N~mlH r: _--'""IW"-="''---_ ~ odel: _---"OO.O.O'-'P'---_ ~eq : __"G.".C ___ _ Vel>;cle 1.0.' : 1GOGC24K9RE56025l Tore Si ..: 1 I 2 4 5/75 816 Yeor: _---',"'"'"'L_ Odoo Vel>ic .. c.om.try - mm 0. 188.) b 1829 nTi' c 5517 cI 1295 1 .. .}3ZZ r 914 ~ g 667 h 1129 ~ 445 J _ ,,,60,,,-_ ,_~'~JQL_ 787 -'.. " 1588 " 1619 ='- c 1D22 P 102 (9 " Q 755 r 145 ~ " 476 t 1848 _ Cente< ~" t Front .}65 , _ Center H.;gl>l Reer .} 75 I whoeel Wen Cleorgnc. (rR) 895 Wheel Wen C"eronc. (RR) 95l En9;"" T y ~ 8 cn. GAS We;gl>ls - .. ,~ 'n' I""rt;ol c..., Sletic: En9iM Sin ,'.7U.... ,"'. 0L W~, 856 865 BB5 G§tomot;c) or ~e n""l FWD od:§IDor 4WD 'oIte1el 2D28 2D'}1 20.}1 Not' ony dGfTIC9t" prior to. test: ,N'O"N"" ______ Figure 6. Vehicte Dimensions.. Test MIW-2 15 The Suspension Method (ll!) was used to detennine the vertical component oftbe center of gravity (c. g.) for the 'I.-ton pickup truck. This method is based on the principle that the c.g. of any freely suspended body is in the vertical plane through the point of suspension. The vehicle was suspended successively in thm: positiofl5, and the respective planes containing the c.g. were established. The intersc<;tion oftbese planes pinpointed the location of the center of gravity. The longirudinal component oftbe c.g. was detennined using the measured axle weigbts. The center of gravity of the truck was found to be 667 mm above ground as sho'-"Tl. in Figure 7. Square, black and wbite-cbeckered targets were placed on tbe vehicle to aid in the analysis of the bigh-speed film, as sbown in Figure 7. Round. checkered targets were placed on the c.g. on the driver's side door, tbe passenger's side door, and on tbe roof of the vehicle. The remaining targets were located for reference so that tbey could be viewed from the bigh-speed cameras for film analysis. The front wheels oftbe test vebicle were aligned for camber, caster, and toe-in values ofzero so tlmt the vehicle would track properly along the guide cable. Two 58 flash bulbs were mounted on both the hood and roof of the vehicle to pinpoint the time of impact with the guardrail on the high-speed film. The flasb bulbs were fired by a pressure tape switch mounted on the front face of tbe bumper. A remote controlled brake system was installed in the test vehicle so the vehicle could be brougbt safely to 3 stop after the test. 5.4 Data Acquisition Systems 5.4.1 Accelerometers One triaxial piewresistive accelerometer system with a range of ±lOO G's was used to measure the acceleration in the longitudinaL lateral, and vertical directions at a sample rate of 10,000 16 , I !"iiI I - 1& -N ----- ~ f-- !"iiI , I 1--, 1 ': \:"'l !"iiI !"iiI I ~ \ ~\ k ! l :c :c )/ ~ , ; TEST #. MIV-2 TARGET GEOMETRY ( MM) • 902 d 1829 9 1022 J 10lD b 527 e 2153 h 1429 k 667 c f' 2153 1913 I 1060 Figure 7. Vehicle Target Locations, Test MIW-2 17 Hz. The environmental shock and vibration sensor/recordcr system, Model EDR-4M6, was developed by Instrumented Sensor Technology (1ST) of Okemos, Michigan and includes three differential channels as weI! as three single-ended channels. The EDR-4 was configured with 6 Mb of RAM memory and a 1,500 H;: lowpass filter. Computer software, "OynaMax I (OM-I)" and "OAOiSP" were used to digitize, analyze, and plot the accelerometer data. A backup triaxial piezoresistive accelerometer system with a range of01200 G's was also used to measure {he acceleration in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions at a sample rate of 3,200 Hz. The environmental shock and vibration sensor/m:order system, Model EDR-3, was developed by Instrumented Sensor Technology (lSn of Okemos, Michigan. The EDR-3 was configured with 256 Kb of RAM memory and a 1,120 Hz 10wpa5s filter. Computer software, "OynaMax I (OM-I)" and "OADiSP" were used to digitize, analyze, and plotthe accelcromClerdata. 5.4.2 Rate Transducer A Humphrey 3-axis rate transducer with a range of360 deglsec in each ofthe three directions (pitch, roll, and yaw) was used to measure the rates of motion ofthe test vehicle. The rate transducer was rigidly attached to the vehicle near the center of gravity of the test vehicle. Rale transducer signals, excited by a 28 volt DC power source, were received through the three single-ended channels located externally on the EDR-4M6 and stored in the internal memory. The raw data measurements were then dovmloaded for analysis and plotted. Computer software, "DynaMax I (OM-I)" and "OAOiSP" wen: used to digitize, analyze, and plot the rate transducer data. 5.4.3 High-Speed Photography For test MIW-2, three high-speed 16-mm Red Lake Locam cameras, with operating speeds of approximately SOO frames/se<:, were used to film thecrash test. Two high-speed Red Lake Elcam 18 digital video cameras, with operating speed range of 500 to 1000 frames/sec, were used to film the crash test. A Locam, with a wide-aogle 12.5-mm lens, was placed above the lesl installation 10 provide a field of view perpendicular \0 the ground. A Locam with a 76 mm lens, a SVHS video camem, and a J5-mm still camera were placed dO\~11Slream from the impact point and had a field of view parallel to the barrier. A Locam. with a 16 10 64'mm zoom lens. and a SVHS video camera were pl llCed on the traffic side of the barricr and had a field of view perpendicular to the barricr. A Red Lake E'kam high·speed digital video camera. with an operating speed of500 frames/$CC, and a SVHS video camera were placed downstream and behind the barrier. Another Red Lake Elcron high-speed digital video camera. with an operating speed of 500 frames/sec, was placed upstream and behind the barrier. A Canon digital video camera was also ploccd upstream and behind the barrier, but closer to the impact point. A schematic of all ten camera locations for test M1W-2 is shown in Figure 8. The film was analyzed using the Vanguard Motion Analyzer. Actual camera speed and camera divergence factors were considered in the analysis of the high-speed film. 5.4.4 Pressure Tape Switch~ Fortesl MIW-2, live pressure-activated !ape s\O,ltchc:s, spaced at 2·m intervaJs.. werc: used to detennine the speed of the vehicle before impact. Each tape switch fired a strobe light which scnt an electronic timing signal 10 the datil acquisition system as the left-front tire o f the lest vehicle passed over it. Test vehicle speed was delennincd from electronic timing marl:: data recorded on "Test Point" software. Strobe lights and high-speed film analysis are used only as a backup in the evenl thai vehicle speed cannot be detennincd from the eJeo::tronic data. " -E/cem.. - 10.48 m DC '--'" No. 2 ...,. 70 I'MI ...... • 1 -;:.~~~ .,.._: ~~.4• ------84.1l m ------1 IMPACT ...... 0 51 .51 m oe t..eam ..... , S'M5 .... I II --.. ,._... ,... Figure 8. Location of High-Speed Cameras, Test MIW-2 6 CRASH TEST NO.2 6.1 Test MIW-2 The 2.034-kgpickup truck impacted the W-beam guardrail system at a speed of99.8 kmIhr and an angle of 27.7 degrees. A swnnwy of the test !'milts and the sequcntial pholOgrnphs are sholWl in Figure 9. Additiolllll sequential photogrnphs arc shown in Figures 10 through I I. Documentary photographll of the crash test arc stlown in Figures 12 through 14. 6.2 Test Description Initial impactoccUl'Tlld at thecenterofpost no. l3, asshown in Figure I S. Upon impact with the guardrail. post no. 13 rowed backward. At 0.046 sec after impact. the right-front comer of the vehicle, which was at the midspan between post nos. 13 and 14, crushed inward. At 0.059 sec, post no. 14 quickly rotated backward. At 0.069 sec. the right-front comer of the vehicle continued to crush inwardaspost 00. 13 had rocated back ....'!Ird to itsmaximwn deflection. At 0.083 sec, theright front comer of the vehicle was at post no. 14. and post no. IS began 10 show movement. At 0.129 sec. the right-fmnt comer of the vehicle was allhe midspan between POSI nos. 14 and IS. At this same time. post no. 14 reached its maximum deflection as the truek began to redirect. At 0.134 see, the guardrail released from post no. 14. At 0.1 58 sec. the front bwnperrose above the topofthc rail. AI 0.192 sec, the right-front tire impacled post 110. I S and wasdeflated. AI this same time, the fmnl end of the vehicle began 10 pitch upward and the lell·front lire wasaUbome. At 0.220 se<:, the fmnt of the vehicle was lit post no. 16. At 0.307 se<:. the front of the vehicle was at post no. 17, and the rear bwnper contacted the rail. At 0.383 sec, the right-rear tire impacted post 00. 15 and was deflilted. AI 0.432 sec. the right-reartire. which had been riding along the lnIffic-side face ofthe rai l. lost contact and was located on the back side of the rail. AI 0.44 sec, the vehicle reached its 2J maximum pitch angle of approximately 14 degrees. At 0.458 sec, the left-rear tiro was airborne. At 0.541 sec, the vehicle, which was partially airborne, began 10 roll away from the rail that was positioned along the Iongitudirllll midpoint ofthe vehicle. At 0.640 see, the vehicle was completely airborne and free from the rail. At 0.810 sec, the vehicle returned to an unpitched state. At 1.074 sec, the left-front tire contacted the grourKI. At 1.234 sec, the right-rear tire contacted the ground on the backside of the guardrail. At 1.480 sec, the right-rear tire became airborne behind the guardrail with the vehicle positioned on top of the guardrail. At 1.760 sec, the left-rear tire contacted the ground behind the guardrail. At 1.9 sec, the vehicle roached its mwd rnum roll angle of approximately 24 degrees toward the rail. The vehicle's post-impac1trajcctory is shown in FigW"C 9. The vehicle came 10 rest 28.58-m downstream from impact and on top of the guardrail between post nos. 26 and 29 with the left-front tire located 0.61·m laterally away from the traffic·side of the rail,asshown in Figures 9 and 16. 6.3 Barriu Oamlge Damage to the barrier was moderate, as shown in Figures 17 througb 25. Barrier damage consisted mostly ofdefonned W-beam. contact marks on a guardrai I section. and defonned guardrail posts. The W ·beam damage consisted of major deformation and flattening o f the impacted section between post llOS. 13 and 15. Contact marks were found on the guardrail between post nos. 13 and 17. The topofthe W-beam rail.downstream of post no. 21. wasdamnge from the truck ridingalong the rail. A 559·mm long cut was found on the bottom peak staning 76-mm upstream ofpost no. 14. Steel post nos. 3 through 13 and 17 through 19 moved backward slightly. Three steel posts, post nos. 14 through 16. rotated in the soil and bent toward the ground. A 406-mm long tire contact Il\arl( was found along the front face of post no. 14. The top of post 00. 15 was also slightly 22 damaged. The tops of steel post nos. 20 through 27 were contacted and damaged extensively by the vehicle. The wooden blockout at post no. 14 split dO"l1 the middle but was still attached. Contact marks were found on the wooden blockout at post no. 15. A piece of the wooden blockout at post no. 16 was removed. Both the upstream and downstream anchorage systems move slightly, but the posts were not damaged, except for post 00. 28 which was split along its length. lbe permanent set of the guardrail and posts is shown in Figures 17 through 18 and 22 through 25. The cable anchor ends encountered slight permanent set deformations, as shown in Figure 25. lbe maximum lateral dynamic post and rail dcnections were 1,084 mm at post no. 15 and 772 nun at the midspan between post nos. 15 and 16, respectively, asdetermined from the high speed film analysis. 6.4 Vehicle Damage Exterior vehicle damage was moderate, as shown in Figures 26 and 27. Interior occupant compartment defonnations were determined to be negligible. The majority of the vehicle damage oe<:urred to the vehicle's right side. The right-front fender was crushed inward and downward, and the right side of the front bumper was also bent toward the engine contpartment. lbe right-front wheel assembly was deformed to approximately a 90 dcgree bend and pushed toward the firewall. Major damage was found on the inside of the right-front tire rim as well as tie-rod disengagement. lbe lower ball joint connection and the sway bar connection to the A-frame were defonned. lbe right side of the vehicle's frame was deformed extensively from the rear fender to the rear bumper. In addition, contact marks were observed on the inside of the right-rear wheel well. The outer side wall of the right-rear tire and the inner side wall of the right-front tire were slashed. Wood pieces were embedded into the A-frame and the connection between the drive shaft and rear end. Small 23 contact marks were found on the outside surface of the right-front tire and the lower front comer of the right-side door. The headlight, parking light, and fog light on the right-side broke. Minimal damage WIIS found on the right side of the grill. No other damage to the vehicle WIIS observed. 6,5 OCCUpalll Ri$k Values The longitudinal and lateml occupant impact velocities were detennined to be 7.35 m1sec and 3.89 m1sec. respectively. lbe maximum O.OIQ-scc average occupant ridedown decelemtiolls ill the longitudinal and lateml directions were 9.04 g' s and 9.94 g's, respet:tively. It is IIOted that the occupant impact velocities (O[V) and occupant ridedown decelerations (ORO) were within the suggested limits provided in NCHRP Repon No. 350. The results of the occupant risk, determined from the accelerometer data, arc summarized in Figure 9. Resllhs are shown graphically in Appendix A. Due to technical difficulties, the mle tmnsducer did not collect the roll, pitch, and yaw data. However, roll. pitch, WId yaw data were collected from fil m analysis and are shown graphically in Appendix B. 6.6 Discussion Michigan's Type B W+beam guardrail systcm successfully contained the 2000P test vehicle, and the vehicle remained stable and upright throughout the test. However, the system did not successfully redirect the vehicle lIS the right-side wheels contacted the ground behind the guardrail system during the impact sequence. The vehicle subsequently came to rest on top ofthc guardrail. Asa result, the guardrail system's perfonnance was detennined to be unacceptable according to the NCHRP Rcpon No. 350 criteria. The cause of this unaco;:eptable behavior is attributed to the failure of the W-beam to release quickly from the guardrail posts. lbe splice in the W·beam rail element remained attached to post 24 no. 15 until the right-front tire contacted the post. During this time, the posl rotaled downward approximately 250 mm. Although the blockout reduced the magnitude ofthe downward motion, Ihis POSI anachmenl caused the W-beam 10 be pulled down during a period when il is nonnally lifted up to retain the impacling vehicle' s fronl lire. As a result, the lire was forced out from under the guardrail when it struck post no, 15, and the wheel began to climb the barrier as the test vehicle progressed. This wheel climb lead to vehicle vaulting and the failure of the system to successfully redire<:t the test vehicle. Careful inspection ofthe damaged guardrail syslem and photos of the barrier prior to impact revealed that the post bolts were installed near the downstream end of the slot in the rail element. Testing of the post bolt pullout strengths has shown that bolts installed near the end of the slot generate higher forces before being pulled through the rail. This installation detail may have helped prevent the post bolt from becoming detached from the rail element. It is the opinion ofthe authors that the wooden blockouts used in the Type B guardrail system did not contribute to this fai lure. A full-scale crash test ofa nested guardrail system utilizing routed wood blockouts demonstrated that post bolts sometimes do not pull out of a double ply guardrail system (ill. Hence it is not surprising that post bolts will occasionally fail to pull through a lap splice, regardless of the blockout configuration. Finally, the vehicle's impact angle was measured to be approximately 27.7 degrees or 2.7 degrees greater than the 25 degree target angle. Although this larger impact angle increased the actual impact severity of the lest. it is not believed to be sufficient to cause the observed failure. Recent crash testing ofW·beam barriers at angles in excess of28 degrees has exhibited acceptable safety performance ill). 25 , . '.._ ~._"",.", ; ,~I:I21-'6Ir::I" " .. :. ,; ~I : !IBoTo, I ." " "00 mm .'''''10 __. l '.... -- • Vehicle ""&Ie • Test Number ...... M1W·2 Imf*! ...... 21.1 dcJr= ~ • OMe ...... Sl l2lOO bit ...... NA • AppurIC1W1Ce ...... Mif;hi.... " Type B • VehicleSn.&iin& ...... Mi_whcclsnq:onpostl>o. 14 (W-beam) pardrail $ysIem • Vehicle Pockt11nj ...... None: • TotIlJ.enJih ...... n.J.4 m • Vehlt:l. Stability ...... Sltisfactory • SI..,1 W.8e-am (Nested) • Ottupant Rldtdown Deceleration (10 mst<: ava.) Thlt:kness ...... 2.66 mm Longitudinal ...... 9.04 < 20 G'. Top Mountin$ Hei$ht ...... 706 mm Lateral (1)01 fUjuired) ...... 9.94 • Slftl Posu • CIccupmt: ImpK"l Velocity PosiNos. ).27 ...... WI 5b.1).4byl,IJG.mm1on& LonaiQlclinai .•...... ••••••• 1.35 < 12 rnIs • Wood $Jeer Biods LIItnI (not fUju .....) ...... 3.89 Pose Nos. 3 -21 ...... 1S2 mm ~ 20J mm by 36O-mm Ion& • Vehicle Doam.I&c ...... Modmole • SoilType ...... Gndin&B . AASIITOM 147-65(1990) TAD" ...... I. RFQ--4 • Vehicle Model ...... 199-4 GMe 25002WD SAE" ...... I·RfE3 CurtI ...... 2,02" k& • Vehlt:1e Stoppina Distaoo: ...... U .5' m downstream T." lnert;'1 ...... 2,0J.4 k& 0.61 m Inft-'c-,ide fae. Gross Sialic ...... 2.0J.4 k& • Bani.,. Darnaae ...... Modem. • V.hlt:le Speed • Maximum ~f1cction , 1m,*, ...... 99.' kmIhr Dynamic - Posi ...... 7n mm ElIiI ...... NA Dynamic _ Rail ...... 1,01-4 mm Figure 9. Summary of Test Results and Sequential Photographs, Test MIW-2 -- - , 0.000 sec 0.000-- sec 0.064 sec 0.040 sec 0.122 sec 0.058 sec .. w • J 0.1 84 sec a.on sec 0.256 SI.,(: O.110scc 0.332 sec 0. 134 sec Figure 10. Additional Sequential Photographs, Test M[W·2 27 0.000 sec 0.910 sec 1.074 sec 0.194 sec 1.204 sec 0.458 sec .348 sec •• 1.760 sec Figure II. Additional Sequential Photographs, Test M1W-2 " , • '. Figure 12. Documentary Photographs, Test M[W·2 29 • • • , , • .' • Figure ll. Documentary Photographs, Test MIW·2 30 - • ...... , .. • / --~ - • Figure 14. Documentary Photographs, Test MIW-2 31 FigUJ"C IS . ' ~;;;;~;;;:::' 32 Figure 16. Final Vehicle Location, Test MIW·2 33 Figure 17. Type B Longitudinal Barrier Damage, Test MIW-2 34 - Figure 18. Type B Longitudinal Barrier Damage, Test MJW-2 35 figure 19. Type B LongituchnDI Barrier Rail and Post Damage, Test WW-2 - '" ,, • . ,,~"" J '~, - Figure 20. Type B Longitudinal Barrier Rail and Post Damage. Test MIW-2 31 Figure 21. Type B Longitudinal Barrier Rail and Post Damage, Test M1W-2 l8 Post No. 12 2 FigUfC 22. final Post PosiliOfl - Post Nos. 12 and 13. Test t.UW· " Post No. 14 Post No. 15 Figure 23. Final Post Positions - POSt Nos. 14 and 15. Test MIW·2 40 Post No. 16 Post No. 17 Figure 24. Final Post Positions - Post Nos. 16 and 17. Test MIW-2 41 r·. ' -- ~ -' ' . ' ·' . I \ ,\ • •• \ ~ ,. . • ' - ... Figure 25. Permanent Set Deflections of End Anchorages, Tes1 MJW-2 • Figure 26. Vehicle Damage, Test MIW-2 • • m UQJ• l- 1 Figure 27. Front-End Vehicle and Rear-Tire Damage. Test MIW-2 7 SUMMARY AN I) CONCLUSIONS MOOT's Type B W-bcam guardrail ~y s tem was constructed with u mounting height of550 nun to the ~ntcr of the mil ~kment. The system was then subjected to one fu ll -scale crash test with II 'I.-Ion pickup truck according 10 the TL-3 safety performance eval uation eritena contained in NC HRP Repon No, 350. "IllC emsh lesl. lest no. MIW-2. failed to provic.le un ucceptable safcty perfoffilancc. Uming the impact, the vehicle val/lted and landod on top of the guardrail with ils right-side wheels ~ont!lC ti n g the ground bl:h ind the barri er system wul then came to rest on top of the doWfl5t.ream eod ofthc guardr.til system. Evaluation of the cmsh lest films and the be fore and after pboto¥1UPhic documentatioo indicatoo lhatthc test fuilllTl:: was caused when che po:st bott did oot PUll lhroligh the W-bl:am rail elemental post no. 15. The post bolt may have )'(lqu ired a higherpl/ll nul force because the post bo lts were originally iru;talkd IlCat the end ofche slot in the W-beam guardrail. A summary of thc safety perfOffilWlCC evaluation is provided in Table 2. 45 Table 2. Summary of Safety Performance Evaluation Results - MDOT's Type lJ lJarrier System Evaluation Evalnation Criteria rest MIW-2 factors A. rest article ,h()nld ""ntain '0" redirect the vehicle; the Structural vehicle ,h()uld om pendrate, underride, m ()verride B. Detached ..dements , fragment' Or other debri, [rom the test article should not penetrate or show potemial [or penetrating the occupant ""mpartmem. or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, m personnel w"' zone. , t:.)ocupant lleformations of. m IntrUSIons Into,'" L ["he occupant impact velocity in the longi tu dinal directi()n shou ld n()t exc""d mise" and the occupant ridedown Vehiclc S acceleration in the longitudina" l directi()n should ,wt exceed T,,\jectof)' 20 G's, M . The exit angle [rom the tesl article preferably should be less than 60 percent of test impad angle. measured at time of S "chicle loss of c01l1 S - (Satisfactory) M _ (Marginal) U _ (Uns.at i,tactory) NA - NOI Available 46 8 RECOMi\tENDA nONS The Michigan Type B (W-beam) longitudinal barrier with a mounting height of 550 mm to th e center of the rail clement. as dtscribed in thi s Tq'IOrt. was no t succcssfully crash testcd according to the criteria found in NCHRP Report No. 350. Due to the vehicle landing on top of the guardrail system and contacting the ground behind the system. test MIW-2 was judged to be a Iilihlft:. Analysis of test MIW-2 indicates that thc failufC oflhe W -beam rail to release from the guardrail po~IS was a significam contributor to the launching orthe vehicle. However, there is no indicati on that the wood blockoUIS contributed to this failure. It is also noted that previous test results imlkate that Tcst 3-11 is near the upper limit or strong-post W-beam guardrail . Relatively small variances, such a~ POSt bolts that are ncar the end of the rail slot so thilt the release orthe nlil is restrictcd. may cause problems wi th any strong-post W-beillU guardrail. There is no indication that the b l o ck uu t~ u~ed in cOluunction with strong-post W-beam guardrail contributed to the failure urthe Michigan Type B longitudinal barrier. 47 9 REFERENCF.. -"i 1. Polivka, KA., Sicking, 0.1.., Rohde, J. R. , Fall er, R.K., and Hollowa)', J.e., CrWlh Testing ofMichigan·.\· Type B (W~h ea m) Gllardrail SysTem, Final Report to the Midwest Slate's Regional Pooled Fund Program, Transportation Report No. 1RP-03-90-99. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Univer~ity orNebr..,;ka~Linooln , Novembt:r 10, 1999. 2. Ross, H.E., Sicking, D.L.. Zimmer, R.A. and Michie, J.D., Recommended Proceduresfor the Safety l'erjormanCf Evai1ll11ion of Higln+'ay Fealllres, National Coopentlive Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No. 350, Transportation Research l3oard, Washington, D.C., 1993. 3. Mak. K.K., l3ligh. R.P., and Menges, W.L., Testing of Stare Roadside Safety Systems, Volume Xl: Appendix J - Crash Ti:sl and F.valuali(!I1 ()fF.:,;i.Iling Guardrail Sysrems, Draft Report No. FHW A/RD-95IXXX. Submitted to the Officc of Safety and Traffic Opemtions, Federal HighY,llY Administration, Performed by Texas Transportationlnstitute, Deccmber 1995. 4. Bullard, Jr., D.L, Menges, W.L., and Allxr~on , D.C., NCHRP Reparl 350 Compliance Test 3-11 ofthe ModifiedG4{ISj Guardrail with Timber niockouts, OraftRcport No. FHWAfRD- 96/XXX, Submitted to the U.S. Department of TnUl~portation. Federal IIighway Administr 5. Poston, J. L., FHWA Geometric and Roadside Design Acceptance Letter 13-32 of Round Timber Post W-lxam Guardnril System design, To Doug Arnold, Arnold Forest Products Corpor 6. Buth. C.E., Campise, W,L., GriHin, TIT, 1-.1. , Love, M.L., and Sicking, D.L., Performance Um;I.)· of LongilUdilUll Barrier Sy.ltems ~ Volume 1 . Summary Reporl, Report No. FHWAIRD-86/153, Submitted to the Office of Safety and Traffic Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Performed by Texa~ Transportation Instilute, May 1986. 7. Ivey, D.L. , Robertson, R. , and Buth, C.E., Tesl and Evaluation ofW-Beam and Thrie-Beam Guardrails, Report No. FHW NRO-82/071 , Submitt",d to the Ollice of Research, Federal Highway Administmtion, Performed by Texa, Transportation Institute, March 1986. 8. Ross, II.E., Jr., Perera, H.S., Sicking, D.L., and Bligh, R.P., Road~' ide Saji!ly Designjor Small Vehicles, National Cooperative Highway R.cscarch Program (NCHRP) Report No.3 18, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., May 1989. 9. Hinch, J., Yang, T-L, and Owings, R.. Guidance Systemsfor Vehicle Testing. ENSCO, Inc., Springfield, VA 1986. 48 10. Center ofGravily Te.l"l Code - SAt: .1874 March 1981, SAE Handbook Vol. 4, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc .. Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1986. I I. Polivka, KA, Fall er, R.K., Sicking, D.L., Rohde, J.R.. Rdd, J.D., and Holloway, J.e., Guardrail and Guardrail Terminalslrutalled Over Curbs - Phase 11, Omit Report to the Midwest State's Regional Pooled Fund Program, T ransportati on Report No. TRP-03-1 05-00, Midwest Roadside Safety Facil ity, University of Ncb raska-Lincoln, Ocrobcr 15, 2000. 12. Vehicle Damage Scalefor Traffic Invesrigarors, Second Edition, Technical Bulleti n No. I, Traffic Accident Data (TAD) P roj e~ t, National Safcty Council , Chicago, Illinois, 197 1. 13. Colli.";on Deformation Classification - Recommended Proclice .1224 March II/IiO, Handbook Volwnc 4. Society of Automotive Rngineers {SA E), Warrendale. Pellllsylvania, 1985. 49 10 APPENDICES 50 APPENDIX A Accelerometer Data Analysis, Test MIW-2 Figure A-I. Graph of Longitudinal Deceleration, Test MIW-2 Figure A-2. Graph of Longitudinal Occupant Impact Velocity, Test MIW-2 Figure A-3. Graph of Longitudinal Occupant Displacement, Test MIW-2 Figure A-4. Graph of Lateral Deceleration, Test MIW-2 Figure A-S. Graph of Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity, Test MIW-2 Figure A-6. Graph of Lateral Occupant Displacement, Test MIW-2 SI W17: Longitudinal Deceleration ·10·Msec Avg.· CFC 180 Filtered Data· Test MIW·2 (EDR-4) u~------~------~------,------~------~------,------~ ______ 10 ~ ------~------r------,------______~------,------1 c'; ,------,------,------t------__ ~-- ______- Vl ------t tv \V I i I ' I o I- - ',' --I I , , I I, ------r ------r ______,__ ___------~------;------I .. ~-- 0.50 0.00 O.U~ 0.10 0.15 02' 025 0.30 0.35 0.40 us Sec Figure A-I. Graph of Longitudinal Deceleration, Test MIW-2 i W8: Longitudinal Occupant Impact Velocity - CFC 180 Filtered Data - Test MIW-2 (EDR-4) 50 ------,... ------., ------,------,------,------ ~L ______~ ______~ ______~ ______~ ______~ __ =-=-_____ •______-;;;-::- _ .l- ______ ' , - , ~, , ~~------~------~------~------~~------~---- ______' ______----~------:------~------ o , , I I , ; 1 {f:20 ------~------v. --~------~------~------,------7------,------~------w 10,...------,------~-~------,------r------~------,------~------[------T------ ------~------~------~------,------~------,------+------ 40~------;------~------;------~------;------~------;------~-----"---;------I I· ~ ~ w w w = ~ g ~ ~ ~ k I I Figure A-2. Graph of Longitudinal Occupant Impact Velocity, Test MIW-2 W9: Longitudinal Occupant Displacement - CFC 180 Filtered Data - Test MIW-2 (EDR-4) " ,'" [ I t ~~------~------~------:------~------~------r------~------r------ E ______,., 150'------,- ----I -----:- -,--' - -,' ------, r 100 ~ ------~ ------:------:------;------~ ------:------:-/------..: ------_.'. ------_ .. .E v. .j:. 50~------~------:------~------~------~------~------~------,------ , ~ o ------~------,------~------~------,------ 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 020 0.2.5 0.30 0.35 OM 0.45 0.50 Sec Figure A-3. Graph of Longitudinal Occupant Displacement, Test MIW-2 W12: Lateral Deceleration -10-Msec Avg. - CFC 180 Filtered Data - Test MIW-2 (EDR-4) ro------·--~------'------.------ 5~------~------i------;------.------ -~ V> V> ~~------~------~----i -,------r--- --;- 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 020 o~, 0.30 0.35 0." ...., 0.50 Sec Figure A-4. Graph of Lateral Deceleration, Test MIW-2 W8: Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity - CFC 180 Filtered Data - Test MIW-2 (EDR-4) ~------~------~------~------~------,------7------ ______-1_ 1. _:'______,______..!. ______' ______.:. ______~------~------ ~ u. v. '" 10 ------'--- , o ~------~------~------~------r------7------7------:------T------1 L t 'I I ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ g w w ~ Sec Figure A-5. Graph of Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity, Test MIW-2 W9: Lateral Occupant Displacement - CFC 180 Filtered Data - Test MIW-2 (EDR-4) i 1~~------~------'------~------~------~------~------~------.i ...... 100 ------~ ------:------~ ------:------~ ------;------:------~ ------:------7 OO~------~------~------~------;------~------~------'------ oo~------~------~------+------:------~------~------~------; ------,------ .s V. -..J 40 ~ ------~ ------:------~ - -.------:------; ------/- ... ------.. ------.- __ ---- ____ I , . ~ ------~------~------~------' ------~------~------1------,------ I I , ! o;!' ~ ------: ------+ , ------~ ------~------~ ------~ ------:------'1'1 , 'i :" : : :" . : I .,. __ ,__ ·m _l ____ on __ :___ mon _~ ___ mm~on ______:.______m: ____ m___ :, ____ m__ ~ ... O.on O.va 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 us Sec Figure A-6. Graph of Lateral Occupant Displacement, Test MIW-2 APPENDIXB Roll, Pitch, and Yaw Data Analysis, Test MIW-2 Figure B-l. Graph of Roll Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 Figure B-2. Graph of Pitch Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 Figure B-3. Graph of Yaw Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 58 Michigan W-Beam Guardrail MIW-2, Roll Angle 1 I I I I I ! i -""- I I I 18 , I , i I 1;-\ 14 I I ! I I l +- I I I , ! ! I I I I "1 ' I U; 10 t, , , , , Q) Q) 6 -+~~.- I- r-----ti--__ .__ r- I I II I\-! 0> Q) 2 :3- -2 I I Q) -.L \ I ,V I'1\1 -I II v. I ~ I '-0 0> -6 c: \ 'r--7r « -10 '---n ~! ~'-Ii J ~ 0-14 I .... 1 .f 't 0::: -18 t 1- I i :~! \1 I -22 L___ I ! I! ~ I ! I I 1 I I!il, I i I I I ! I i I I -~~ - I i -26 t ----,------I o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Time (ms) Figure B-1. Graph of Roll Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 Michigan W-Beam Guardrail MIW-2, Pitch Angle T 2 I - I_ I---- 'I I o ; . -I~_-+II ~-+----rf;] enQ) -2+1----r~--1'----~--4_--_t--_1----~:l~--~----_L ~ -4 _I --+-----f,iI-T 0> I • Q) J.. I, "'0 -6, • , '--' I I gj Q) T I i 0>C -8 - i. i !_ I +1 I ! «-10- -- I : ..c() ,I • ~I +-' i ~ / , .- -12 : I I.. J I 0.. ~ I I \i:<..I! I -14--t- - !! I I I I -16 ~i o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Time (ms) Figure B-2. Graph of Pitch Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2 Michigan W-Beam Guardrail MIW-2, Yaw Angle 30 +-.----+-..... ). I I J 25 -L I! \ \ r--- I -j ~! 1 \ ~ T I .. C)~ 20+1-- (l) "0 -; 15- - -'" 1 1 g> t , • .- 0 ""~I , 5 1 i r f 1 I, II . , - -+------;-1;--_ I -LI . -+----t-!~ o I .~_~~,--- : o 100 200 300 400 500 Time (ms) Figure B-3. Graph of Yaw Angular Displacements, Test MIW-2