62 nd Annual Missouri Traffic and Safety Conference. M.A.S.H.: The New Safety Hardware Crash Testing Criteria

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "62 nd Annual Missouri Traffic and Safety Conference. M.A.S.H.: The New Safety Hardware Crash Testing Criteria"

Leslie Merritt
8 years ago
Views:

1 62 nd Annual Missouri Traffic and Safety Conference M.A.S.H.: The New Safety Hardware Crash Testing Criteria Richard Albin Federal Highway Administration Resource Center Safety and Design Team May, 2011

2 Crash Testing - History Crash Testing has been used as a tool for evaluating the safety performance of roadside features for many years.

3 History of Testing Procedures Procedures for how to perform crash tests have evolved Highway Research Correlation Services Circular 482 (1962) NCHRP Report 153 (1974) NCHRP Report 230 (1980) NCHRP Report 350 (1993)

Correlation Services Circular 482 (1962) NCHRP Report

4 NCHRP 350 NCHRP Report 350, was formally adopted by FHWA for the NHS This was the first time that FHWA adopted these procedures An implementation date was established in 1998 for new installations on the NHS.

adopted these procedures An implementation date was

5 Practical Worse Case Philosophy

6 Practical Worse Case Philosophy

7 Test Matrix NCHRP Report 350 created 6 Test Levels Levels 1-3 based on speed TL1 50 km/h (31 mph) TL2 70 km/h (43 mph) TL3 100 km/h (62 mph) Levels 4-6 add large trucks

8 Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) Update of the evaluation procedures prepared Published as AASHTO document in October, 2009 Implementation plan also developed

9 Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) Primary Focus of Update Update test vehicles & impact conditions Eliminated ambiguities Removed inconsistencies Consolidate test matrices Tighten reporting procedures

10 Most Significant Changes Small car and Pickup mass increased TL-4, single unit truck test revised Impact angle for small car increased to 25 o Impact angle for terminals and crash cushions raised to 25 o

11 Small Car The 820C vehicle specified in Report 350 has not been manufactured since MASH vehicle is a 1100C (2420 lb) models curb weight - 2,765 lb

12 Small Car Angle Increase impact angle from 20 degrees to 25 degrees to be consistent with Pickup test Tested with new impact vehicle and angle into a rigid NJ shaped concrete barrier

13 Pickup Truck The 2000P Pickup specified in Report 350 has not been manufactured since 2001 Quadcab reflects the 90th percentile vehicle MASH vehicle is a 2270P Quadcab Pickup (5000 lbs) Quadcab Pickup has a higher center of gravity and more closely represents the large SUV s

MASH vehicle is a 2270P Quadcab Pickup (5000 lbs) Quadcab Pickup has

14 Pickup Truck How does w-beam guardrail (27-5/8 height, steel posts) perform with large vehicle?

15 New Test Matrices added Variable Message Sign / Arrow Board test matrix added. Longitudinal Channelizing Devices category added.

16 Test Matrices revised Pickup Truck Test was added for support structures and work zone traffic control devices

17 Test Installations Installation length more definitive (cable barriers 600 ft minimum). Specified the critical impact point for cable barrier testing to be at a post for the pickup truck test

18 Test Installations Barrier height (max) small car & (min) pickup test. Addition of performance based specs for soil.

19 Evaluation Criteria Windshield damage criteria to be more objective. Occupant compartment deformation criteria more objective and based on NHTSA data Maximum roll angle set to 75 degrees.

20 Impact Severity, kj Single Unit Truck Test (TL-4) NCHRP Report 350, the impact 700 severity of the SU 600 test (TL-4) is less 500 than the impact 400 severity of the Pickup test (TL-3) 300 Intent was to 200 make the TL test more meaningful. 0 MASH NCHRP Test Level

impact 400 severity of the Pickup test (TL-3) 300 Intent was to 200

21 Single Unit Truck Test (TL-4) Mass increased from 8,000 kg (18000 lb) to 10,000 (22,000 lb) Speed increased from 80 km/h (50 mph) to 90 km/h (56 mph) 32 New Jersey shaped concrete barrier

22 Single Unit Truck Test (TL-4) 36 Single Slope concrete barrier

23 What did not change? Impact speed for high speed test retained at 100 km/h (62 mph) No Changes to TL-5 and TL-6 Angle for strength test Six test levels

24 Tests Conducted with New Criteria W-Beam Guardrail Steel Post (27-5/8 height) Pickup (passed) W-Beam Guardrail Wood Post (27 height) Pickup (failed)

25 Tests Conducted with New Criteria Box-Beam Guardrail Pickup (passed) Weak Post W-Beam Pickup (passed) Midwest Guardrail (31 height) Pickup (passed) Small Car (passed)

26 Tests Conducted with New Criteria W-Beam Guardrail Median Barrier Pickup (failed) Small Car (passed) Thrie Beam Guardrail Barrier Pickup (failed) Guardrail Transition Pickup (passed) Guardrail Terminal (SKT) CIP test with small car (passed)

27 Tests Conducted with New Criteria Rigid 32 NJ shape concrete barrier Small car (passed) Single Unit Truck (fail as TL-4) Precast Concrete Barrier (Iowa F Shape) Pickup (passed)

28 Tests Conducted with New Criteria U Channel sign support Pickup (passed) Perforated square tube sign suppost Pickup (failed)

29 MASH Implementation Plan AASHTO Technical Committee on Roadside Safety (TCRS) is responsible for developing and maintaining MASH. FHWA shall review and accept highway safety hardware under MASH.

30 MASH Implementation Plan All hardware accepted under Report 350 may remain in place and may continue to be manufactured and installed. Hardware accepted using Report 350 is not required to be retested using the MASH criteria

31 MASH Implementation Plan However If hardware that met Report 350 is tested and fails using MASH AASHTO & FHWA will jointly review results and determine a course of action.

32 MASH Implementation Plan Upon adoption new hardware not previously evaluated shall utilize the MASH criteria Hardware under development at time of AASHTO adoption can be completed under Report 350 FHWA will not consider applications for acceptance under Report 350 after January 1, 2011.

33 MASH Implementation Plan Hardware installed on new or reconstruction projects shall meet Report 350 or MASH Agencies are encouraged to upgrade hardware that does not meet Report 350 or MASH when: roadway is reconstructed 3R projects System damaged repair beyond

34 MASH Implementation Plan Hardware not meeting either Report 350 or MASH and for which there are no suitable alternatives can remain in place and can continue to be installed.

35 Contact Information FHWA Office of Safety Nick Artimovich Phone: FHWA Office of Safety Will Longstreet Phone: FHWA Resource Center Dick Albin Phone: FHWA Roadside Hardware Link

36 A narrated presentation can be viewed by following this link:

Capital Costs for Roadside/Median Barrier Systems

Capital Costs for Roadside/Median Barrier Systems The following basic costs for different roadside barrier systems were developed for use with Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation s new Roadside Design