December, 2008
DEVELOPMENT AND CRASH TESTING OF AN AESTHETIC,
SEE- THROUGH BRIDGE RAIL, TYPE 90
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
OFFICE OF SAFETY INNOVATION AND COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
Supervised by......................................................................................... Robert Meline, P. E.
Principal Investigator................................................................................ John Jewell, P. E.
Report Prepared by .............................................................................. David Whitesel, P. E.
Research Performed by .................................................... Roadside Safety Research Group
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
OFFICE OF MATERIALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND CRASH TESTING OF AN AESTHETIC,
SEE- THROUGH BRIDGE RAIL, TYPE 90
Supervised by............................................................................................ Robert Meline, P. E.
Principal Investigator................................................................................... John Jewell, P. E.
Report Prepared by ................................................................................. David Whitesel, P. E.
Research Performed by ....................................................... Roadside Safety Research Group
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
i
1. REPORT NO.
FHWA/ CA08- 0766
2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
DEVELOPMENT AND CRASH TESTING OF AN
AESTHETIC, SEE- THROUGH BRIDGE RAIL, TYPE 90
5. REPORT DATE
December 2008
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR( S)
David Whitesel, John Jewell, Robert Meline
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
FHWA/ CA08- 0766
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Roadside Safety Research Group
California Department of Transportation
5900 Folsom Blvd.,
Sacramento, CA. 95819
10. WORK UNIT NO.
11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.
CA08- 0766
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
California Department of Transportation
5900 Folsom Blvd.,
Sacramento CA. 95819
13. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
FINAL
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This project was performed in cooperation with the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, under
the research project titled “ DEVELOPMENT AND CRASH TESTING OF TWO AESTHETIC, SEE- THROUGH BRIDGE
RAILS.”
16. ABSTRACT
A newly developed aesthetic bridge rail, the Type 90, was tested in accordance with NCHRP Report 350. The bridge
rail is a steel post and beam system atop a concrete curb with a reverse slope of 5.2° from vertical on the traffic side. The
“ reverse- slope” raises the reaction point of impacting vehicles, reducing the potential for vehicle roll. The concrete curb is
550 mm high and the total height of the rail is 925 mm. The steel rail consists of a 254x102x6.4- mm tube steel beams with
178x127x7.9- mm tube steel posts spaced 3 m apart. The barrier tested was about 24 m long and was constructed at the
Caltrans Dynamic Test Facility in West Sacramento, California.
Three crash tests were conducted under Report 350 Test Level 4, one with a 2000- kg pickup truck, one with an 820-
kg small car, and one with an 8000- kg single unit van truck. The results of the three tests were within the limits of the
Report 350 guidelines.
The Type 90 bridge rail is recommended for approval on California highways requiring TL- 4 bridge rails. Since it is
symmetric, the Type 90 is also recommended in locations where a reverse hit is possible.
17. KEY WORDS
Barriers, Crash Test, Bridge Rail, Steel, Vehicle Impact Test,
Aesthetic, See- through, Type 90
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
No Restrictions. This document is available through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASSIF. ( OF THIS REPORT)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASSIF. ( OF THIS PAGE)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
90
22. PRICE
ii
NOTICE
The contents of this report reflect the views of the Roadside Safety Research Group,
which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do
not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal
Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard specification or regulation.
Neither the State of California nor the United States Government endorses products or
manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered
essential to the object of this document.
METRIC ( SI) to English System of Measurement
iii
SI CONVERSION FACTORS
To Convert From To Multiply By
ACCELERATION
m/ s2 ft/ s2 3.281
AREA
m2 ft2 10.764
ENERGY
Joule ( J) ft- lb B f B 0.7376
FORCE
Newton ( N) lb B f B 0.2248
LENGTH
m ft 3.281
m in 39.37
cm in 0.3937
mm in 0.03937
MASS
kg lb B m B 2.205
PRESSURE OR STRESS
kPa psi 0.1450
VELOCITY
km/ h mph 0.6214
m/ s ft/ s 3.281
km/ h ft/ s 0.9113
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was accomplished in cooperation with the United States Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Special appreciation is due to the following staff members of the Division of
Research and Innovation and Materials Engineering and Testing Services for their help on this
project: John Jewell, Mike O’Keeffe, Ali Zalekian, Malinda Gallaher, Christopher Caldwell, and
Larry Moore, test preparation, data reduction, vehicle preparation, and video processing; Dave
Bengel, Independent Camera Operator; Eric Jacobson and Ed Ung, electronic instrumentation;
Martin Zanotti, Mike Said, and Bill Poroshin, machine shop services.
Other persons from Caltrans who made important contributions include: Tillat Satter,
and Roberto Lacalle, Structures Design; Don Tateishi, Ed Andersen, and Jon Hirtz, Headquarters
Photo Section; Tony Tipton, Jack Rothaus, and Loren Newell, Structures Construction.
Nahed Abdin, while working for Caltrans Structures Design, designed the bridge rail.
Applied Research Associates of Mountain View, CA, performed the finite element modeling.
Altman General Engineering of Yuba City; constructed the test article under the supervision of
Joel Altman, owner.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
T 1 T T INTRODUCTION T ............................................................................................................................... .. 1
T 1.1 T T Problem T ............................................................................................................................... .............. 1
T 1.2 T T Objective T ............................................................................................................................... ............. 1
T 1.3 T T Background and Significance of Work T ............................................................................................... 1
T 1.4 T T Literature Search T ............................................................................................................................... 2
T 1.5 T T Scope T ............................................................................................................................... ................... 2
T 2 T T TECHNICAL DISCUSSION T ................................................................................................................ 3
T 2.1 T T Test Conditions - Crash Tests T ............................................................................................................. 3
T 2.1.1 T T Test Facilities T .............................................................................................................................. 3
T 2.1.2 T T Test Barrier Design and Construction T ......................................................................................... 3
T 2.1.3 T T Test Vehicles T ............................................................................................................................... 7
T 2.1.4 T T Data Acquisition System T ............................................................................................................. 7
T 2.2 T T Test Results - Crash Tests T ................................................................................................................... 8
T 2.2.1 T T Impact Description - Test 631 T ..................................................................................................... 8
T 2.2.2 T T Vehicle Damage - Test 631 T ....................................................................................................... 14
T 2.2.3 T T Barrier Damage - Test 631 T ........................................................................................................ 14
T 2.2.4 T T Impact Description - Test 632 T ................................................................................................... 15
T 2.2.5 T T Vehicle Damage - Test 632 T ....................................................................................................... 21
T 2.2.6 T T Barrier Damage - Test 632 T ........................................................................................................ 21
T 2.2.7 T T Dummy Response - Test 632 T .................................................................................................... 21
T 2.2.8 T T Impact Description - Test 633 T ................................................................................................... 21
T 2.2.9 T T Vehicle Damage - Test 633 T ....................................................................................................... 27
T 2.2.10 T T Barrier Damage - Test 633 T ........................................................................................................ 27
T 2.2.11 T T Dummy Response - Test 633 T .................................................................................................... 27
T 2.2.12 T T Impact Description - Test 634 T ................................................................................................... 27
T 2.2.13 T T Vehicle Damage - Test 634 T ....................................................................................................... 34
T 2.2.14 T T Barrier Damage - Test 634 T ........................................................................................................ 34
T 2.3 T T Discussion of Test Results - Crash Tests T .......................................................................................... 35
T 2.3.1 T T General - Evaluation Methods ( Tests 631, 632, 633 and 634) T .................................................. 35
T 2.3.2 T T Structural Adequacy T .................................................................................................................. 35
T 2.3.3 T T Occupant Risk T ........................................................................................................................... 40
T 2.3.4 T T Vehicle Trajectory T ..................................................................................................................... 40
T 3 T T CONCLUSION T ............................................................................................................................... ..... 41
T 4 T T RECOMMENDATION T ....................................................................................................................... 42
T 5 T T IMPLEMENTATION T .......................................................................................................................... 42
T 6 T T REFERENCES T ............................................................................................................................... ..... 43
vi
T 7 T T APPENDICES T ............................................................................................................................... ...... 44
T 7.1 T T Test Vehicle Equipment T .................................................................................................................... 44
T 7.2 T T Test Vehicle Guidance System T .......................................................................................................... 50
T 7.3 T T Photo - Instrumentation T .................................................................................................................... 50
T 7.4 T T Electronic Instrumentation and Data T ............................................................................................... 55
T 7.5 T T Detailed Drawings T ............................................................................................................................ 73
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
T Figure 2- 1 – New rebar spliced with existing rebar for new bridge deck T ..................................................................... 4
T Figure 2- 2 – New bridge deck in place for Type 90 bridge rail T .................................................................................... 5
T Figure 2- 3 – Type 90 formwork in place for the concrete curb T ..................................................................................... 5
T Figure 2- 4 – Type 90 concrete curb with cast- in anchor bolts T ...................................................................................... 6
T Figure 2- 5 – Type 90 with the steel rail in place T ........................................................................................................... 6
T Figure 2- 6 – Test vehicle for Test 631 T .......................................................................................................................... 9
T Figure 2- 7 – Test vehicle after Test 631 T ........................................................................................................................ 9
T Figure 2- 8 – Right front corner of test vehicle after Test 631 T ..................................................................................... 10
T Figure 2- 9 – Floorboard deformation of test vehicle after Test 631 T ............................................................................ 10
T Figure 2- 10 – Vehicle windshield before Test 631 T ..................................................................................................... 11
T Figure 2- 11 – Vehicle windshield after Test 631 T ........................................................................................................ 11
T Figure 2- 12 – Test article prior to Test 631 T ................................................................................................................. 12
T Figure 2- 13 – Type 90 barrier face after Test 631 T ....................................................................................................... 12
T Figure 2- 14 – Test 631 Data Summary Sheet T .............................................................................................................. 13
T Figure 2- 15 – Right side of test vehicle for Test 632 T .................................................................................................. 16
T Figure 2- 16 – Front of test vehicle for Test 632 T .......................................................................................................... 16
T Figure 2- 17 – Type 90 test article prior to Test 632 T .................................................................................................... 17
T Figure 2- 18 – Front right corner of test vehicle after Test 632 T ................................................................................... 17
T Figure 2- 19 – Right side of test vehicle after Test 632 T ................................................................................................ 18
T Figure 2- 20 – Type 90 bridge rail face after Test 632 T ................................................................................................. 18
T Figure 2- 21 – Barrier face scraping after Test 632 T ...................................................................................................... 19
T Figure 2- 22 – Test 632 Data Summary Sheet T .............................................................................................................. 20
T Figure 2- 23 – Right side of test vehicle for Test 633 T .................................................................................................. 22
T Figure 2- 24 – Front right corner of test vehicle for Test 633 T ...................................................................................... 23
T Figure 2- 25 – Test article prior to Test 633 T ................................................................................................................. 23
T Figure 2- 26 – Right side of test vehicle after Test 633 T ................................................................................................ 24
T Figure 2- 27 – Front right corner of test vehicle after Test 633 T ................................................................................... 24
T Figure 2- 28 – Type 90 bridge rail face after Test 633 T ................................................................................................. 25
T Figure 2- 29 – Barrier face scraping after Test 633 T ...................................................................................................... 25
T Figure 2- 30 – Test 633 Data Summary Sheet T .............................................................................................................. 26
T Figure 2- 31 – Test vehicle for Test 634 T ...................................................................................................................... 29
T Figure 2- 32 – Front right wheel of test vehicle for Test 634 T ....................................................................................... 29
T Figure 2- 33 – Test article prior to Test 634 T ................................................................................................................. 30
T Figure 2- 34 – Right side of test vehicle after Test 634 T ................................................................................................ 30
T Figure 2- 35 – Post 3 Close- up after Test 634 T .............................................................................................................. 31
viii
T Figure 2- 36 – Post 4 Close- up after Test 634 T .............................................................................................................. 31
T Figure 2- 37 – Type 90 barrier face after Test 634 T ....................................................................................................... 32
T Figure 2- 38 – Ballast strapped down in cargo bed of test vehicle after Test 634 T ........................................................ 32
T Figure 2- 39 – Test 634 Data Summary Sheet T .............................................................................................................. 33
T Figure 7- 1 – Camera Locations T ............................................................................................................................... ... 53
T Figure 7- 2 – Tape Switch Layout T ............................................................................................................................... 54
T Figure 7- 3 – Vehicle Accelerometer Sign Convention T ................................................................................................ 56
T Figure 7- 4 – Test 631 Vehicle Accelerations Vs Time T ............................................................................................... 57
T Figure 7- 5 – Test 631 Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time T ..................................... 58
T Figure 7- 6 – Test 631 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time T .............................................. 59
T Figure 7- 7 – Test 631 Vehicle Roll, Pitch, and Yaw Vs Time T .................................................................................... 60
T Figure 7- 8 – Test 631 Vehicle Acceleration Severity Index ( ASI) Vs Time T ............................................................... 61
T Figure 7- 9 – Test 632 Vehicle Accelerations Vs Time T ............................................................................................... 62
T Figure 7- 10 – Test 632 Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time T ................................... 63
T Figure 7- 11 – Test 632 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time T ............................................ 64
T Figure 7- 12 – Test 632 Vehicle Roll, Pitch, and Yaw Vs Time T .................................................................................. 65
T Figure 7- 13 – Test 632 Vehicle Acceleration Severity Index ( ASI) Vs Time T ............................................................. 66
T Figure 7- 14 – Test 633 Vehicle Accelerations Vs Time T ............................................................................................. 67
T Figure 7- 15 – Test 633 Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time T ................................... 68
T Figure 7- 16 – Test 633 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time T ............................................ 69
T Figure 7- 17 – Test 633 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time T ............................................ 70
T Figure 7- 18 – Test 633 Vehicle Roll, Pitch, and Yaw Vs Time T .................................................................................. 71
T Figure 7- 19 – Test 633 Vehicle Acceleration Severity Index ( ASI) Vs Time T ............................................................. 72
T Figure 7- 20 – Type 90 Details T ............................................................................................................................... ..... 75
T Figure 7- 21 – Cross section and attachment detail for the Type 90 T ............................................................................ 76
ix
LIST OF TABLES
T Table 1- 1 – Intended Test Conditions T ........................................................................................................................... 2
T Table 2- 1 – Test Vehicle Masses T ............................................................................................................................... ... 7
T Table 2- 2 – Test 631 Assessment Summary T ................................................................................................................ 36
T Table 2- 3 – Test 632 Assessment Summary T ................................................................................................................ 37
T Table 2- 4 – Test 633 Assessment Summary T ................................................................................................................ 38
T Table 2- 5 – Test 634 Assessment Summary T ................................................................................................................ 39
T Table 2- 6 – Vehicle Trajectories and Speeds T .............................................................................................................. 40
T Table 7- 1 – Test 631 Vehicle Dimensions T .................................................................................................................. 46
T Table 7- 2 – Test 632 Vehicle Dimensions T .................................................................................................................. 47
T Table 7- 3 – Test 633 Vehicle Dimensions T .................................................................................................................. 48
T Table 7- 4 – Test 634 Vehicle Dimensions T .................................................................................................................. 49
T Table 7- 5 – Test 631 Camera Type and Location T ....................................................................................................... 50
T Table 7- 6 – Test 632 Camera Type and Location T ....................................................................................................... 51
T Table 7- 7 – Test 633 Camera Type and Location T ....................................................................................................... 51
T Table 7- 8 – Test 634 Camera Type and Location T ....................................................................................................... 52
T Table 7- 9 – Accelerometer Specifications T ................................................................................................................... 56
x
This page intentionally left blank.
1. INTRODUCTION
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem
In recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on aesthetics in bridge rail design.
During this time substantial effort has been afforded to develop bridge rails that are crashworthy,
aesthetically acceptable and low- maintenance. The most recent aesthetic bridge rail designs
developed by the Department include the TL- 4 Type 80 P
( 1)
P and the pedestrian- friendly TL- 2 Type
80SW P
( 2)
P . Both the Type 80 and the Type 80SW are made of concrete and incorporate a 300- mm
square rail element running the length of the bridge, elevated 280 mm above a curb. The Type
80/ 80SW bridge rail designs were proved to be crashworthy and low- maintenance but their " see-through"
characteristics are relatively limited. To satisfy local agencies and the public, the
Department must develop a bridge rail design for use on scenic highways that not only complies
with Test Level 4 of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program ( NCHRP) Report
350 P
( 3) P for crashworthiness and is low- maintenance, but also is aesthetically pleasing and easy to
see through.
1.2 Objective
To develop and crash test a low- maintenance, aesthetic, see- through bridge rail that will
meet the NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 4 criteria for longitudinal barriers. Three tests will need
to be successful in order to comply with Report 350: The first will involve a 2000- kg pickup
truck impacting the barrier at 100 km/ h with an impact angle of 25°, the second will be with an
820- kg small car traveling at 100 km/ h and 20°, the last test will be an 8000- kg single unit van
traveling at 80 km/ h impacting at 15°.
1.3 Background and Significance of Work
In the early 1990' s California crash tested the Type 115 bridge rail P
( 4)
P , which consists of
two structural steel rails on structural steel posts that are mounted on the side of the bridge deck.
Even though the design could structurally withstand impacts from pickup trucks at 100 km/ h,
there were some problems with front wheel snagging on the posts during the tests. The railing
was consequently downgraded to a PL- 1 level as defined in the AASHTO " Guide Specifications
for Bridge Railings" P
( 5)
P and is only recommended for use on narrow, low- volume, low- speed
roads.
In the late 1990' s the Type 80 and Type 80SW were developed to meet the district desires
for a see- through concrete bridge rail that could be an alternative to the solid concrete parapet
bridge rail, which was the current standard. These bridge rails were designed using the
AASHTO " Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings" requirements, and were tested according to
NCHRP Report 350. Utilizing a large gap between the curb and the rail, the early design of the
Type 80 had acceptable see- through characteristics. However, crash testing demonstrated a
potential for snagging during the small car test, leading to a redesign and a smaller gap. While
2. INTRODUCTION ( CONTINUED)
2
the final design of the Type 80 bridge rails proved to be both crashworthy and have good low-maintenance
characteristics, concerns developed over the limited see- through potential.
In an effort to develop more acceptable bridge rail options, the Department has recently
conducted an intensive study of aesthetic barriers that have been developed by others. After
looking at all known rail designs that meet NCHRP Report 350 test criteria, several rails were
identified that potentially offered improved see- through characteristics, particularly the
Wyoming and Alaska rails. Nevertheless, each has its own disadvantages. These include
unsuitability for use on a sidewalk, possible maintenance problems, and even some crash
performance issues. The conclusion of the Department and the California Coastal Commission
is that better aesthetic rail designs need to be developed to meet the needs of local communities
in scenic areas.
1.4 Literature Search
A literature search using the TRIS, NTIS, and the Compendex Plus databases was
conducted at the beginning of the project to find research reports or publications related to the
objectives of this project. There were no reports that involved crash testing of bridge rails
similar to the Type 90.
1.5 Scope
A representative section of the Type 90 bridge rail was constructed at the Caltrans
Dynamic Test Facility in West Sacramento. Data were collected from four vehicular crash tests
under the intended conditions shown in X Table 1- 1 X . These data were analyzed to determine if the
Type 90 met the criteria set forth in NCHRP Report 350.
Table 1- 1 – Intended Test Conditions
CALTRANS NCHRP Report 350
Test #
Barrier type Mass
( kg)
Speed
( km/ h)
Angle
( deg) Test Designation Vehicle
631 Type 90 2000 100 25 4- 11 2000P
632 Type 90 820 100 20 4- 10 820C
633* Type 90 820 100 20 4- 10 820C
634 Type 90 8000 80 15 4- 12 8000S
* Test 633 was added as a re- test of Test 632, in which the vehicle did not achieve the intended speed.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
3
2 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
2.1 Test Conditions - Crash Tests
2.1.1 Test Facilities
Each of the crash tests was conducted at the Caltrans Dynamic Test Facility in West
Sacramento, California. The test area is a large, flat, asphalt concrete surface. There were no
obstructions nearby except for a 2 m- high earth berm 40 m downstream from the bridge rail. An
existing concrete anchor block ( 0.9 m deep by 1.1 m wide by 24.3 m long) at the North end of
the test area was used as a simulated bridge deck for the construction of the Type 90 bridge rail.
2.1.2 Test Barrier Design and Construction
The Type 90 bridge rail was designed by the California Department of Transportation’s
Division of Engineering Services, with input from the Office of Landscape Architecture and the
Division of Research and Innovation. Applied Research Associates, Inc. performed the finite
element modeling to determine the optimal design. The bridge rail was designed with post
spacing far apart so that good see- through characteristics could be achieved and far enough back
to minimize hood snagging. The reverse slope and rail height were designed to minimize roll
and maximize vehicle stability.
The bridge rail is a steel post and beam system atop a concrete curb. What is unusual is
that the curb has a “ reverse- slope” of 5.2°, raising the reaction point of impacting vehicles,
which reduces roll. The concrete curb is 550 mm high, 500 mm wide at the top, and 450 mm
wide at the base. The top of the steel rail is 925 mm above the travel way. The steel rail consists
of 254x102x6.4- mm tube steel beams welded to 178x127x7.9- mm tube steel posts spaced 3 m
apart. Two 6- mm thick steel plates are welded to the backside of the rail and the back of each
post to add stiffness to the post- rail connection. The posts are welded to a base plate that is
rigidly attached to the concrete curb with anchor rods cast into the curb. See Appendix X 7.5 X for
design drawings.
Altman General Engineering was awarded the contract for construction of the Type 90
test section. The test section of bridge rail constructed at the Caltrans Dynamic Test Facility was
24.23 m long. Three expansion joints were placed 6.096 m apart in both the concrete curb and
the steel rail to aid constructability as well as creating flexibility in choosing vehicle impact
points for the crash testing.
First, the existing concrete bridge overhang was demolished, leaving the transverse # 16
rebar in place for the new overhang. Where the rebar was not salvageable, new # 16 rebar was
lap spliced with the existing rebar or drilled and bonded into the anchor block with epoxy. All
rebar had a yield- strength of 414 MPa. Additional # 16 rebar was shaped and then tied to the
existing/ new rebar ( with the upper portion left exposed after the overhang pour) to anchor the
( future) concrete curb to the new overhang.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
4
The new overhang and concrete curb were constructed in separate concrete pours. After
the pour for the overhang was completed, the rebar for the curb was lap- spliced to the exposed
rebar. The curb was then poured, leaving the ends of all- thread anchor rods exposed to attach
the steel posts and rail. Concrete from both pours had a minimum 28- day compressive strength
of 28.8 MPa.
The steel rails were fabricated in approximately 6- m lengths to assist in ease of delivery
and handling. Although not required, deflection joints were placed in the concrete curb at the
same locations as the expansion joints in the steel rail to ensure adequate locations to test
snagging potential during the crash tests. All structural steel including the posts, rail, backing
plates, base plates, and anchor bolts and nut conformed to ASTM A36. See X Figure 2- 1 X through
X Figure 2- 5 X for pictures of the barrier during various stages of construction.
Figure 2- 1 – New rebar spliced with existing rebar for new bridge deck
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
5
Figure 2- 2 – New bridge deck in place for Type 90 bridge rail
Figure 2- 3 – Type 90 formwork in place for the concrete curb
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
6
Figure 2- 4 – Type 90 concrete curb with cast- in anchor bolts
Figure 2- 5 – Type 90 with the steel rail in place
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
7
2.1.3 Test Vehicles
The test vehicles complied with NCHRP Report 350. For all tests, the vehicles were in
good condition, free of major body damage and were not missing any structural parts. All of the
vehicles had standard equipment and front- mounted engines. The vehicle inertial masses for all
tests except Test 632 were within acceptable limits ( X Table 2- 1 X ). It should be noted that the
ballast CG height for the 8000S vehicle was lower than the limits specified by NCHRP Report
350 to keep the vehicle inertial mass CG height within Report 350 limits.
Table 2- 1 – Test Vehicle Masses
The Chevrolet 2500 pickup truck and the GMC TopKick single- unit van were self-powered.
The 1992 Geo Metro was a manual transmission and partially self- powered, meaning
that it was push- started while in gear. It was then self- powered. The Chevrolet 2500 pickup and
the Geo Metro used a speed control device to limit acceleration once the impact speed had been
reached. The TopKick impact speed was achieved by running it under full acceleration for a
pre- determined distance. The 1994 Metro was towed to the impact speed using a 2: 1- mechanical
advantage pulley system, with a speed control device installed in the tow vehicle. Remote
braking was possible at any time during all tests via a wireless remote control. A short distance
before the point of impact, the vehicles for tests 631, 632, and 634 were released from the
guidance rail and the ignition system was deactivated. In Test 633, the vehicle was released first
from the tow cable and second from the guidance rail a short distance from the point of impact.
A detailed description of the test vehicle equipment and guidance system is contained in
Appendices X 7.1 X and X 7.2 X .
2.1.4 Data Acquisition System
The impact event of each crash test was recorded with 7 high- speed digital video
cameras, one normal- speed digital camcorder, and one digital camera in sequence mode. The
test vehicles and the barrier were photographed before and after impact with a normal- speed
digital camcorder and a digital camera. Two sets of three orthogonal accelerometers were
mounted at the center of gravity in the 2000P and 820C vehicles. Rate gyro transducers were
Test No. Vehicle Ballast ( kg) Test Inertial ( kg)
631 1997 Chevrolet 2500 0 2029
632 1992 Geo Metro 2- door hatchback 0 789
633 1994 Geo Metro 4- door hatchback 0 810
634 2000 GMC TopKick 2600 8056
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
8
also placed at the center of gravity of the 2000P and 820C vehicles to measure the roll, pitch, and
yaw. The data were used in calculating the occupant impact velocities, ridedown accelerations,
and maximum vehicle rotation.
A 50 P
th
P percentile, Hybrid III, anthropomorphic dummy was used in the 820C tests.
A high- performance data acquisition system manufactured by GMH Engineering ( Data
Brick) was used to record electronic data during Tests 631, 632, 633, and 634. Since
accelerometers and rate gyros are not used on the 8000S vehicle, the Data Brick was used to
record only event channel data such during Test 634. The digital data were analyzed with
custom DADiSP workbooks.
2.2 Test Results - Crash Tests
A digital video report with edited footage from all tests has been compiled and is
available for viewing.
2.2.1 Impact Description - Test 631
The impact angle was set at 25° by placement of the guide rail. The vehicle impacted the
barrier at 25.2°. The impact speed of 100.5 km/ h was obtained by optical switch data and
confirmed by an average of two different speed traps located just upstream from the impact
point. The intended impact point was 120 mm upstream of the joint between posts 2 and 3. The
vehicle impacted the barrier approximately 50 mm farther upstream than intended ( 5.9 m from
the upstream end of the barrier). The top right corner of the vehicle hood rode over the top of
the steel rail to a maximum extension of 549 mm as measured from the traffic side of the barrier
face. The front- left tire lost contact with the pavement at approximately 0.12 seconds. The right
front of the vehicle continued to deform moderately as the vehicle began to yaw slightly left
( negative) until the back right side of the vehicle contacted the barrier 0.19 seconds after the
initial impact. At about 0.16 seconds after impact, the left rear tire lost contact with the
pavement as the right side of the vehicle contacted the barrier. This secondary impact by the
right side of the vehicle caused slight damage to the door and rear quarter section of the truck
and also caused the vehicle to begin a positive roll into the barrier. During this secondary
impact, the vehicle leaned into the rail with the left front corner reaching a maximum height of
about 150 mm. At 0.31 seconds after initial impact the vehicle lost contact with the barrier.
Through video analysis the exit speed and angle were determined to be 78.3 km/ h and 9°,
respectively.
The vehicle stayed in contact with the barrier for about 3.1 m. The rear of the vehicle
lost contact with the barrier slightly upstream ( approximately 0.5 m) from where the front of the
vehicle lost contact with the barrier. The vehicle remained upright throughout and after the
collision. The brakes were applied 0.76 s after initial contact with the rail and the stopping point
was 45.7 m from the point of last contact with the rail.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
9
X Figure 2- 6 X through X Figure 2- 13 X show the pre- test and post- test condition of the test
vehicle and test article. Sequence photographs of the impact for Test 631 are shown on X Figure
2- 14 X on page X 13 X .
Figure 2- 6 – Test vehicle for Test 631
Figure 2- 7 – Test vehicle after Test 631
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
10
Figure 2- 8 – Right front corner of test vehicle after Test 631
Figure 2- 9 – Floorboard deformation of test vehicle after Test 631
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
11
Figure 2- 10 – Vehicle windshield before Test 631
Figure 2- 11 – Vehicle windshield after Test 631
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
12
Figure 2- 12 – Test article prior to Test 631
Figure 2- 13 – Type 90 barrier face after Test 631
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
13
Figure 2- 14 – Test 631 Data Summary Sheet
t = 0.0 sec t = 0.08 sec t = 0.16 sec t = 0.24 sec
t = 0.32 sec t = 0.40 sec t = 0.48 sec t = 0.56 sec
Test Barrier
Type: Type 90 bridge rail
Length: 24.23 m, total length consisting of 4 segments of about 6 m each.
Test Date: November 1, 2006
Test Vehicle:
Model: 1997 Chevrolet 2500
Inertial Mass: 2029 kg
Test Dummy:
Type: None used
Weight/ Position: N/ A
Impact/ Exit Conditions:
Impact / Exit Velocity: 100.5 km/ h / 78.3 km/ h
Impact / Exit Angle: 25.2° / 9°
Impact Severity: 141.9 kJ
Test Data:
Occ. Impact Velocity ( Long / Lat): 6.20 m/ s / 8.17 m/ s
Ridedown Acceleration ( Long / Lat): - 7.39 g / - 10.54 g
ASI 1.77
Exterior: VDS P
( 6)
P / CDC P
( 7)
P FR- 5, RD- 6/ 02RFEW9
Interior: OCDI P
( 3)
P RF0210001
Max. Roll/ Pitch/ Yaw Angles: - 7.41° / 7.01° / 39.71°
Barrier Damage: Maximum dynamic deflection in steel rail of 38 mm, superficial concrete spalling,
and no permanent lateral deflection.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
14
2.2.2 Vehicle Damage - Test 631
The right front corner of the vehicle was moderately damaged in the initial impact with
the barrier. The right front fender, hood, bumper, headlamp area, grille, and suspension
components were all affected. The passenger side doorframe was deformed outward but the
door remained latched. The right front tire was also ruptured. The steel rail caused denting
along the entire length of the passenger side as the vehicle continued to contact the barrier after
the initial impact. The right front tire was pushed rearward and slightly into the passenger side
foot well area. The maximum amount of passenger compartment deformation was 124 mm1
FT ,
which occurred in the floorboard2
FT . The entire windshield spider- cracked but did not separate or
enter the occupant compartment. However, this cracking was not caused entirely by the test.
The windshield was inadvertently damaged ( see X Figure 2- 10 X ) on the impact side shortly before
the test was run and it was decided that the damage was not significant enough to warrant
postponing the test. Post- crash photos show the initial crack to be the weak point and the source
of future cracking.
2.2.3 Barrier Damage - Test 631
There was only minimal permanent damage to the barrier during Test 631. The steel rail
scraped a small amount of paint off the vehicle along the length of contact. The vehicle caused
some minor concrete spalling at the downstream vertical face of the expansion joint near the
impact point and along the top of the curb for approximately 1.5 m. No rebar was exposed so
there was no structural damage to warrant immediate repair. For aesthetic reasons and because
the concrete cover over the rebar has been compromised, the damage should be repaired by
maintenance crews.
There was no permanent deflection in the concrete curb or steel rail. As the vehicle
impacted the barrier, the dynamic deflection in the steel rail was 38 mm, as measured from the
overhead camera.
T
1
T It was discovered after the test that there was significant corrosion of some non- structural components of
the front grill above the bumper, which may have adversely affected the occupant compartment deformation.
T
2
T NCHRP Report 350 does not specify a maximum allowable limit for occupant compartment deformation.
However, the Federal Highway Administration has established an informal limit of 150 mm that is generally
accepted by the roadside safety community.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
15
2.2.4 Impact Description - Test 6321
FT
( Although test 632 did not achieve acceptable impact speed, it is reported here as
supplemental impact data.)
The impact point was intended to be 160 mm downstream of the midpoint between posts
3 and 4. The impact angle was set at 20° by placement of the guide rail. The vehicle deviated
slightly from this angle prior to impact, achieving a 19.5° impact angle. The impact speed of
76.5 km/ h, well below the desired impact speed of 100 km/ hr TF
2
FT , was obtained by optical switch
data and confirmed ( within 0.1 km/ h) by an average of two different speed traps located just
upstream from the impact point. The test vehicle impacted the barrier approximately 420 mm
downstream of the intended impact point ( 9.6 m from the upstream end). The front right corner
of the vehicle hood rode over the top of the concrete curb to a maximum extension of 112 mm as
measured from the traffic side of the curb face. The right front and right side of the vehicle
crushed as the vehicle began to yaw sharply left ( negative). The sharp left yaw and right side
deformation continued until about 0.18 s when the rear of the vehicle contacted the rail. The
vehicle lost contact with the barrier at about 0.264 s. Through video analysis the exit speed and
angle were determined to be 61 km/ h and 8°, respectively. The timing of the application of the
brakes was indeterminable3
FT The vehicle stayed in contact with the barrier for about 2.7 m. The
vehicle remained upright throughout and after the collision, coming to rest 29.1 m from the point
of last contact with the rail.
See HX Figure 2- 15 XH through X Figure 2- 21 X for the pre- test and post- test condition of the test vehicle
and test article. Sequence photographs of the impact for Test 632 are shown on X Figure 2- 22 X on
the Data Summary Sheet ( page X 20 X ).
T
1
T The vehicle used in Test 632 had a test inertial mass of 789 kg. The vehicle impact speed was 76.5
km/ hr. Both are outside the limits given in NCHRP Report 350 for the 820C test vehicle and Test 2- 10. The impact
angle was 19.5°, which is within the limits given in NCHRP Report 350 for Test 2- 10. The impact severity was
19.8 kJ and within the limits of Report 350 for Test 2- 10. Because the vehicle mass and impact speed were only
slightly outside the Report 350 limits and because the impact severity was near the upper Report limit, the test
should be considered as a valid TL- 2 test.
T
2
T The vehicle did not achieve the desired impact speed because the attempted high- speed push start failed
leaving the vehicle to coast into the barrier. It is unknown exactly why the vehicle failed to start but the most
plausible explanation is that the transmission slipped out of gear during the push.
T
3
T The timing of the brake application could not be determined because the vehicle- mounted brake flash
never fired and the high- speed video did not show any evidence of brake application. However, since the high-speed
video did not show any slowing of the front tires in the field of view, it was surmised that the brakes were
applied well after the vehicle had lost contact with the barrier
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
16
Figure 2- 15 – Right side of test vehicle for Test 632
Figure 2- 16 – Front of test vehicle for Test 632
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
17
Figure 2- 17 – Type 90 test article prior to Test 632
Figure 2- 18 – Front right corner of test vehicle after Test 632
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
18
Figure 2- 19 – Right side of test vehicle after Test 632
Figure 2- 20 – Type 90 bridge rail face after Test 632
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
19
Figure 2- 21 – Barrier face scraping after Test 632
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
20
Figure 2- 22 – Test 632 Data Summary Sheet
t= 0.00 sec t= 0.06 sec t= 0.12 sec t= 0.18 sec
t= 0.24 sec t= 0.30 sec t= 0.36 sec t= 0.42 sec
Test Barrier
Type: Type 90 bridge rail
Length: 24.23 m, total length consisting of 4 segments of about 6 m each.
Test Date: January 10, 2007
Test Vehicle:
Model: 1992 Geo Metro 2- door Hatchback
Inertial Mass: 789 kg
Test Dummy:
Type: Hybrid III 50 P
th
P %
Weight / Position: 75 kg / Front Passenger
Impact/ Exit Conditions:
Impact / Exit Velocity: 76.5 km/ h / 61.0 km/ h
Impact / Exit Angle: 19.5° / 8°
Impact Severity: 19.8 kJ
Test Data:
Occ. Impact Velocity ( Long / Lat): 3.29 m/ s / 5.72 m/ s
Ridedown Acceleration ( Long / Lat): - 2.68 g / - 9.95 g
ASI 1.18
Exterior: VDS P
( 6)
P / CDC P
( 7)
P FR- 2, RD- 6/ 02RFEW9
Interior: OCDI P
( 3)
P RF0000000
Max. Roll/ Pitch/ Yaw Angles: 2.58° / 1.20° / - 31.65°
Barrier Damage: No dynamic deflection in steel rail, minor superficial concrete spalling.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
21
2.2.5 Vehicle Damage - Test 632
The right front corner of the vehicle was moderately damaged. The right front bumper
and right fender were pushed rearward. The right front tire and wheel assembly were pushed
rearward about 146 mm into wheel well, deforming it. The entire right side of the vehicle was
moderately damaged. There was no significant passenger compartment or floorboard
deformation. The passenger- side mirror was broken off.
2.2.6 Barrier Damage - Test 632
There was essentially no permanent damage to the barrier during Test 632. The steel rail
scraped a small amount of paint off the vehicle along the length of contact. There was a
negligible amount of concrete spalling on the concrete curb. There would be no need for repair
by a maintenance crews.
2.2.7 Dummy Response - Test 632
The dummy was lap and shoulder belted. The dummy remained upright and secure
throughout the test, though the head protruded through the passenger window but did not strike
the barrier. While the dummy’s head was protruding through the window, it is inconclusive
whether or not the head was struck by the passenger- side mirror that had broken off from the
mirror enclosure. The final resting position of the dummy was upright in the passenger seat.
2.2.8 Impact Description - Test 633
The impact point was intended to be 160 mm downstream of the midpoint between posts
3 and 4. The impact angle was set at 20° by placement of the guide rail and the vehicle did not
deviate from this angle prior to impact. The recorded impact speed of 99.2 km/ h was obtained
by optical switch data and confirmed by an average of two different speed traps located just
upstream from the impact point. The test vehicle impacted the barrier 460 mm downstream of
the intended impact point ( 9.2 m from the upstream end). The front right corner of the vehicle
hood rode over the top of the 550- mm high concrete curb to a maximum extension of 170 mm as
measured from the traffic side of the curb face. The right front and right side of the vehicle
continued to deform as the vehicle began to yaw sharply left. The sharp left yaw and right side
deformation continued until about 0.13 s after impact when the rear of the vehicle contacted the
rail. The vehicle lost contact with the barrier at about 0.19 s. Through video analysis the exit
speed and angle were determined to be 83.1 km/ h and 8°, respectively. The timing of the
application of the brakes was impossible to determine because the vehicle- mounted brake flash
never fired and the high- speed video did not show any evidence of brake application. However,
the high- speed video did not show any slowing of the front tires in the field of view either,
indicating that the brakes were applied well after the vehicle had lost contact with the barrier.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
22
The vehicle stayed in contact with the barrier for about 2.7 m. The vehicle remained upright
throughout and after the collision. The vehicle came to rest 47.9 m from the point of last contact
with the rail.
X Figure 2- 23 X through X Figure 2- 29 X show the pre- test and post- test condition of the test vehicle and
test article. Sequence photographs of the impact for Test 633 are shown on X Figure 2- 30 X on the
Data Summary Sheet on page X 26 X .
Figure 2- 23 – Right side of test vehicle for Test 633
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
23
Figure 2- 24 – Front right corner of test vehicle for Test 633
Figure 2- 25 – Test article prior to Test 633
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
24
Figure 2- 26 – Right side of test vehicle after Test 633
Figure 2- 27 – Front right corner of test vehicle after Test 633
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
25
Figure 2- 28 – Type 90 bridge rail face after Test 633
Figure 2- 29 – Barrier face scraping after Test 633
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
26
Figure 2- 30 – Test 633 Data Summary Sheet
t= 0.00 sec t= 0.04 sec t= 0.08 sec t= 0.12 sec
t= 0.16 sec t= 0.20 sec t= 0.24 sec t= 0.28 sec
Test Barrier
Type: Type 90 bridge rail
Length: 24.23 m, total length consisting of 4 segments of about 6 m each.
Test Date: March 29, 2007
Test Vehicle:
Model: 1994 Geo Metro 4- door Hatchback
Inertial Mass: 810 kg
Test Dummy:
Type: Hybrid III 50 P
th
P %
Weight / Position: 75 kg / Front Passenger
Impact/ Exit Conditions:
Impact / Exit Velocity: 99.2 km/ h / 83.1 km/ h
Impact / Exit Angle: 20.0° / 8°
Impact Severity: 36.0 kJ
Test Data:
Occ. Impact Velocity ( Long / Lat): 3.89 m/ s / 6.33 m/ s
Ridedown Acceleration ( Long / Lat): - 4.59 g / - 14.77 g
ASI 1.70
Exterior: VDS P
( 6)
P / CDC P
( 7)
P FR- 4, RD- 3/ 02RFEW9
Interior: OCDI P
( 3)
P RF0001000
Max. Roll/ Pitch/ Yaw Angles: 6.35° / - 2.65° / - 33.61°
Barrier Damage: No dynamic deflection in steel rail, minor superficial concrete spalling.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
27
2.2.9 Vehicle Damage - Test 633
The right front corner of the vehicle was moderately damaged in the initial impact with
the concrete curb. The right front bumper and right fender were pushed rearward. The right
front tire and wheel assembly was pushed rearward about 130 mm into wheel well, deforming it.
The entire right side of the vehicle was moderately damaged. There was no significant
passenger compartment or floorboard deformation.
2.2.10 Barrier Damage - Test 633
As in Test 632, there was essentially no permanent damage to the barrier during Test
633. The steel rail scraped a small amount of paint off the vehicle along the length of contact.
There was a negligible amount of concrete spalling on the concrete curb. There would be no
need for repair by a maintenance crews.
2.2.11 Dummy Response - Test 633
The dummy was lap and shoulder belted. The dummy remained upright and secure
throughout the test, though the head protruded through the passenger window but did not strike
the barrier. The final resting position of the dummy was upright in the passenger seat.
2.2.12 Impact Description - Test 634
The impact angle was set at 15° by placement of the guide rail. The vehicle veered
slightly toward the barrier after detaching from the guide arm and impacted the barrier at 16°.
The impact speed of 78.3 km/ h was measured by optical switch data and confirmed ( within 0.2
km/ h) by averaging the results of two different speed traps located just upstream from the
impact point. The intended impact point was 89 mm upstream of the centerline of post 3 and
was chosen to maximize the load imposed on a post. The test vehicle impacted the barrier 120
mm downstream of the intended impact point ( 7.52 m from the upstream end). The left front
tire lost contact with the pavement at approximately 0.128 seconds after impact. The front right
corner of the vehicle hood rode over the top of the steel rail to a maximum extension of 500 mm
as measured from the traffic side of the barrier face at 0.138 s after impact. The right front of
the vehicle continued to deform as the vehicle began yawing to the left. This continued until
the vehicle became parallel with the barrier about 0.34 seconds after the initial impact. At this
point the roll of the cab measured from the downstream camera was about 14.9° right. The roll
angle of the cargo box measured from the upstream camera was 9.6° right. At 0.348 seconds
after the initial impact, the dynamic lateral deflection of the steel rail reached its maximum of
less than 50 mm. The roll angle of the cab reached a maximum of 25.4° at approximately 0.536
seconds after initial impact. The roll angle of the cargo box reached a maximum of 18.7° at
approximately 0.618 seconds after the initial impact. From the high- speed video the vehicle
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
28
lost contact with the rail approximately 1.31 seconds after impact. Through video analysis the
exit angle was determined to be approximately 5°. However, there was not enough information
to accurately determine the exit speed. Because the vehicle- mounted brake flash never fired,
the video record could not be used to determine the exact time of brake application. However,
an electronic data channel that records certain “ events”, including brake application, showed
that the brakes were applied approximately 0.56 seconds before the vehicle lost contact with the
barrier1
FT . The impact of the right front tire with the barrier caused failure of several suspension
components, including the right- side U- bolts which secure the axle to the leaf springs as well
the end of the leaf spring on the right side. This allowed the front axle to begin to rotate about
its connection point on the left side of the vehicle. The vehicle never fully lost contact with the
ground and was able to right itself as it continued into the run- out area. The vehicle stayed in
contact with the barrier for about 12.2 m, with the rear of the vehicle making contact with the
barrier approximately 0.75 m upstream of the point of initial impact by the front of the vehicle.
The vehicle remained upright throughout and after the collision. The vehicle came to rest 32.6
m from the point of last contact with the rail.
The vehicle exit speed was estimated to be 61.1 km/ h ± 11 km/ h. This speed was
estimated using the pan camera footage because it was not possible to determine the exit speed
from any other camera angle.
See X Figure 2- 31 X through X Figure 2- 38 X for the pre- and post- test condition of the test
vehicle and test article.
The 2041 kg of ballast was comprised of two separate plywood boxes and the associated
mounting hardware all bolted and strapped down to the cargo floor. The boxes were constrained
by 150- mm angle iron. The sandbags were held down by 100- mm nylon straps as shown in
X Figure 2- 38 X . The sandbags shifted slightly, but did not brake lose during the test.
Sequence photographs of the impact for Test 634 are shown on X Figure 2- 39 X on the Data
Summary Sheet ( page X 33 X ).
T
1
T Although the brakes were applied before the vehicle lost contact with the barrier, it was concluded that
there was little or no effect on the outcome of the test. This conclusion was reached based on several underlying
conditions: 1) The vehicle had already been redirected without rollover, 2) The vehicle had already reached max roll
and was in the process of righting itself, 3) Only one tire was in contact with the ground when the brakes were
applied, so the early application of the brakes did not significantly slow the vehicle down.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
29
Figure 2- 31 – Test vehicle for Test 634
Figure 2- 32 – Front right wheel of test vehicle for Test 634
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
30
Figure 2- 33 – Test article prior to Test 634
Figure 2- 34 – Right side of test vehicle after Test 634
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
31
Figure 2- 35 – Post 3 Close- up after Test 634
Figure 2- 36 – Post 4 Close- up after Test 634
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
32
Figure 2- 37 – Type 90 barrier face after Test 634
Figure 2- 38 – Ballast strapped down in cargo bed of test vehicle after Test 634
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
33
Figure 2- 39 – Test 634 Data Summary Sheet
t= 0.00 sec t= 0.16 sec t= 0.32 sec t= 0.48 sec
t= 0.64 sec t= 0.80 sec t= 0.96 sec t= 1.12 sec
Test Barrier
Type: Type 90 bridge rail
Length: 24.23 m, total length consisting of 4 segments of about 6 m each.
Test Date: July 18, 2007
Test Vehicle:
Model: 2000 GMC Topkick 6500
Inertial Mass: 8056 kg
Test Dummy:
Type: None used
Impact/ Exit Conditions:
Impact / Exit Velocity: 78.3 km/ h / 61.1± 11 km/ h
Impact / Exit Angle: 16.0° / 5°
Impact Severity: 144.8 kJ
Test Data:
Occ. Impact Velocity ( Long / Lat): Not Measured
Ridedown Acceleration ( Long / Lat): Not Measured
ASI Not Measured
Exterior: VDS P
( 6)
P / CDC P
( 7)
P FR- 4, RD- 2/ 02RFEW5
Interior: OCDI P
( 3)
P RF0000000
Max. Roll/ Pitch/ Yaw Angles: Not Measured
Barrier Damage: Maximum dynamic deflection in steel rail of < 50 mm and < 15 mm of permanent
lateral deflection, moderate concrete spalling from vehicle lug nuts scraping, and
< 15 mm of permanent lateral deflection.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
34
2.2.13 Vehicle Damage - Test 634
The impact of the right front tire with the barrier caused failure of several suspension
components, including the right- side U- bolts which secure the axle to the leaf springs as well the
end of the leaf spring on the right side. The axel shifted rearward 650 mm on the impact side
and forward 160 mm on the driver side. When the front passenger side wheel was driven
rearward, it crushed the battery box, the OEM fuel tank, the fender, and the door. Additionally,
the front passenger side shock mounting bolt was sheared, a wheel stud on the front passenger
tire sheared off, the passenger side of the front bumper was bent rearward, the rear passenger
side wheel was damaged, and the bottom of the cargo bed was scraped at support locations from
scraping the top of the steel rail. The passenger- side door remained latched even though the
battery box was pushed upward into the bottom of the door, causing significant deformation.
There was no significant passenger compartment or floorboard deformation. Additionally, all
tires were still fully inflated after the test, despite the impact- side rims being bent and/ or scraped
during impact.
2.2.14 Barrier Damage - Test 634
Unlike the previous tests, there was some permanent damage to the barrier. The vehicle lug nuts
and rims caused gouging and spalling of the top of the concrete curb from just upstream of the
initial impact point to where the rear tire lost contact with the rail, about 4.5 meter downstream
of the impact point. At posts 3 and 4 the spalling extended to the front edge of the post base
plate. As in Test 631, the gouging and spalling were superficial and not structural as evidenced
by the lack of exposed rebar1
T . More significantly, there was minor weld cracking at Post 3 ( the
post nearest the impact location) where the post was attached to the base plate. The welds were
cracked approximately 6 mm on each side of all four corners, with a 0.05- mm gap at the crack
locations. The center of the base plate was also bent upwards on the traffic and upstream sides,
with the maximum deformation of 5 mm occurring on the traffic side. Additionally, the steel rail
had a permanent lateral deflection of less than 15 mm. Because the weld cracking was minor, it
is unlikely that damage to the steel rail would pose a safety concern to other vehicles before
maintenance crews could repair the damage.
T
1
T The damage to the concrete, although not aesthetically pleasing, would not likely have an adverse affect
on the crashworthiness of the barrier.
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
35
2.3 Discussion of Test Results - Crash Tests
2.3.1 General - Evaluation Methods ( Tests 631, 632, 633 and 634)
NCHRP Report 350 P
( 1)
P stipulates that crash test performance be assessed according to
three evaluation factors: 1) Structural Adequacy, 2) Occupant Risk, and 3) Vehicle Trajectory.
These evaluation factors are further defined by evaluation criteria and are shown for each test
designation in Table 3.1 of NCHRP Report 350. Test 631 of this report has a NCHRP Report
350 test designation of 4- 11, for Tests 632 and 633 it is 4- 10, and for Test 634 it is 4- 12. The
evaluation criteria are detailed in Chapter 5 of NCHRP Report 350 and are summarized in Table
5.1 of that same report.
2.3.2 Structural Adequacy
The structural adequacy of the Type 90 bridge rail is acceptable. There was negligible
movement of the rail during any of the tests. During the time of contact between the test
vehicles and the barriers there were minor amounts of scraping and gouging. A detailed
assessment summary of structural adequacy is shown in X Table 2- 2 X through X Table 2- 5 X .
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
36
Table 2- 2 – Test 631 Assessment Summary
Test No. 631 ( NCHRP Report 350, TL 4- 11)
Date November 1, 2006
Test agency California Dept. of Transportation
Evaluation Criteria Test Results Assessment
Structural Adequacy
A. Test article should contain and redirect the
vehicle; the vehicle should not penetrate,
underride, or override the installation although
controlled lateral deflection of the article is
acceptable.
The vehicle was contained and
smoothly redirected
pass
Occupant Risk
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, or personnel in a work
zone. Deformation of, or intrusions into, the
occupant compartment that could cause serious
injuries should not be permitted.
Only moderate amounts of scraping and
gouging were created during impact.
There was no significant debris from the
vehicle or the barrier.
The maximum floorboard deformation
was 124 mm. (< 150mm)
There was moderate occupant
compartment deformation.
pass
pass
pass
F. The vehicle should remain upright during and
after collision although moderate roll, pitching,
and yawing are acceptable.
The observed levels of roll, pitch, and
yaw were deemed acceptable.
pass
Vehicle Trajectory
K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle’s
trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.
The vehicle maintained a relatively
straight course after exiting the barrier.
pass
L. The occupant impact velocity in the longitudinal
direction should not exceed 12 m/ sec and the
occupant ridedown acceleration in the
longitudinal direction should not exceed 20 g.
Long. Occ. Impact Vel. = 6.20 m/ s
Long. Occ. Ridedown = - 7.39 g
pass
M. The exit angle from the test article preferably
should be less that 60 percent of the test impact
angle, measured at time of vehicle loss of contact
with test device.”
Exit angle = 9°, 36% of the impact
angle.
pass
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
37
Table 2- 3 – Test 632 Assessment Summary
( Supplemental)
Test No. 632 ( NCHRP Report 350, TL 4- 10)
Date January 10, 2007
Test agency California Dept. of Transportation
Evaluation Criteria Test Results Assessment
Structural Adequacy
A. Test article should contain and redirect the
vehicle; the vehicle should not penetrate,
underride, or override the installation although
controlled lateral deflection of the article is
acceptable.
The vehicle was contained and
smoothly redirected
pass
Occupant Risk
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, or personnel in a work
zone. Deformation of, or intrusions into, the
occupant compartment that could cause serious
injuries should not be permitted.
Only moderate amounts of scraping and
gouging were created during impact.
There was no significant debris from the
vehicle.
The amount of floorboard deformation
was too low to measure.
There was no significant occupant
compartment deformation.
pass
pass
pass
F. The vehicle should remain upright during and
after collision although moderate roll, pitching,
and yawing are acceptable.
The observed levels of roll, pitch, and
yaw were deemed acceptable.
pass
H. Occupant Impact Velocities ( OIV) in both
longitudinal and lateral directions should be less
than the following: 9 m/ s ( preferred) or 12 m/ s
( maximum).
Long. OIV = 3.29 m/ s
Lateral OIV = 5.72 m/ s
pass
I. Occupant ridedown accelerations in both the
longitudinal and lateral directions should be less
than the following: 15 g’s ( preferred) or 20 g’s
( maximum)
Long. Ridedown accel. = - 2.68 g
Lateral Ridedown accel. = - 9.95 g
pass
Vehicle Trajectory
K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle’s
trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.
The vehicle maintained a relatively
straight course after exiting the barrier.
pass
M. The exit angle from the test article preferably
should be less that 60 percent of the test impact
angle, measured at time of vehicle loss of contact
with test device.”
Exit angle = 8°, 41% of the impact
angle.
pass
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
38
Table 2- 4 – Test 633 Assessment Summary
Test No. 633 ( NCHRP Report 350, TL 4- 10)
Date March 24, 2007
Test agency California Dept. of Transportation
Evaluation Criteria Test Results Assessment
Structural Adequacy
A. Test article should contain and redirect the
vehicle; the vehicle should not penetrate,
underride, or override the installation although
controlled lateral deflection of the article is
acceptable.
The vehicle was contained and
smoothly redirected
pass
Occupant Risk
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, or personnel in a work
zone. Deformation of, or intrusions into, the
occupant compartment that could cause serious
injuries should not be permitted.
Only moderate amounts of scraping and
gouging were created during impact.
There was no significant debris from the
vehicle.
The amount of floorboard deformation
was 20 mm (< 150 mm).
There was no significant occupant
compartment deformation ( 20 mm).
pass
pass
pass
F. The vehicle should remain upright during and
after collision although moderate roll, pitching,
and yawing are acceptable.
The vehicle was stable. The observed
levels of roll, pitch, and yaw were low.
pass
H. Occupant Impact Velocities ( OIV) in both
longitudinal and lateral directions should be less
than the following: 9 m/ s ( preferred) or 12 m/ s
( maximum).
Long. OIV = 3.89 m/ s
Lateral OIV = 6.33 m/ s
pass
I. Occupant ridedown accelerations in both the
longitudinal and lateral directions should be less
than the following: 15 g’s ( preferred) or 20 g’s
( maximum)
Long. Ridedown accel. = - 4.59 g
Lateral Ridedown accel. = - 14.77 g
pass
Vehicle Trajectory
K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle’s
trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.
The vehicle maintained a relatively
straight course after exiting the barrier.
pass
M. The exit angle from the test article preferably
should be less that 60 percent of the test impact
angle, measured at time of vehicle loss of contact
with test device.”
Exit angle = 8°, 40% of the impact
angle.
pass
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
39
Table 2- 5 – Test 634 Assessment Summary
Test No. 634 ( NCHRP Report 350, TL 4- 12)
Date July 18, 2007
Test agency California Dept. of Transportation
Evaluation Criteria Test Results Assessment
Structural Adequacy
A. Test article should contain and redirect the
vehicle; the vehicle should not penetrate,
underride, or override the installation although
controlled lateral deflection of the article is
acceptable
The vehicle was contained and
smoothly redirected
pass
Occupant Risk
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, or personnel in a
work zone. Deformation of, or intrusions into,
the occupant compartment that could cause
serious injuries should not be permitted.
There was not any significant debris
from the test article and negligible
deformation of the occupant
compartment.
pass
G. It is preferable, although not essential, that the
vehicle remain upright during and after
collision.
The vehicle remained upright pass
Vehicle Trajectory
K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle’s
trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes
The vehicle maintained a relatively
straight course after exiting the barrier
pass
M. The exit angle from the test article preferably
should be less that 60 percent of the test impact
angle, measured at time of vehicle loss of
contact with test device.”
Exit angle = 5°, 30% of the impact
angle.
pass
2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ( CONTINUED)
40
2.3.3 Occupant Risk
The occupant risk for the Type 90 is also acceptable. None of the tests indicated
potential for material from the barrier to penetrate the occupant compartment of the vehicles. All
of the calculated occupant ridedown accelerations and occupant impact velocities were within
the “ preferred” range. Please refer to X Table 2- 2 X through X Table 2- 5 X .
2.3.4 Vehicle Trajectory
The post- impact vehicle trajectory is also acceptable for the Type 90. The detailed
assessment summary of vehicle trajectories may be seen in X Table 2- 2 X through X Table 2- 5 X .
X Table 2- 6 X summarizes the impact and exit trajectories and speeds of all test vehicles.
Because the exit speed of Test 634 had to be estimated with a pan camera view, there is a large
degree of uncertainty in the exit speed. Therefore, the change in speed for Test 634 is reported
as a range.
Table 2- 6 – Vehicle Trajectories and Speeds
Test
Number
Impact
Angle
( deg)
60% of
Impact
Angle
( deg)
Exit
Angle
( deg)
Impact
Speed, Vi
( km/ h)
Exit
Speed, Ve
( km/ h)
Speed
Change
Vi - Ve
( km/ h)
631 25.2 15.1 9.3 100.5 78.3 22.2
632 19.5 11.7 7.8 76.5 61.0 15.5
633 20.0 12 3.4 99.2 83.1 16.1
634 16.0 9.6 2.6 78.3 61.1± 11 6.1- 28.2
3. CONCLUSION
41
3 CONCLUSION
Based on the testing of the Type 90 discussed in this report, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. The Type 90 can successfully contain and redirect a 2000- kg pickup truck impacting at 25°
and 100 km/ h. ( There was moderate occupant compartment deformation, mainly in the cab
floorboard area. This deformation was judged to be insufficient to cause serious injury to
vehicle occupants).
2. The Type 90 can successfully contain and redirect an 820- kg small car impacting at 20° and
100 km/ h.
3. The Type 90 can successfully contain and redirect an 8000- kg, single unit, van- bodied truck
impacting at 15° and 80 km/ h.
4. Damage to the Type 90 in accidents similar to the tests conducted for this project will result
in small to moderate amounts of scraping and gouging of the rail. Therefore, the majority of
impacts into the rail will not require urgent repairs.
5. The Type 90 meets the criteria set in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s
Report 350 “ Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway
Features” under Test Level 4 for longitudinal barriers.
With the exception of Test 632, all impact angles, impact speeds, and impact severities
were within Report 350 limits.
In Test 631 ( pickup truck) and Test 633 ( small car) all of the barrier structural adequacy,
occupant risk, and vehicle trajectory criteria, as outlined in NCHRP Report 350, were within
acceptable limits. The exit angles were small enough that the vehicle would not impose undue
risks to other motorists. No debris was scattered in such a way that it would create hazards to
other motorists. The vehicles were safely contained and redirected by the barrier and remained
upright throughout the test.
In Test 634 ( large truck) all of the barrier structural adequacy and vehicle trajectory
criteria, as outlined in NCHRP Report 350, were within acceptable limits. None of the detached
pieces of the vehicle penetrated or even showed the possibility of penetrating the passenger
compartment of the test vehicle.
None of the damage done to the barrier during Tests 631, 632, and 633 would pose safety
concerns for other vehicles which may impact the same location before repairs could be
accomplished by maintenance crews. It is unlikely that any damage done to the barrier during
Test 634 would pose significant safety concerns for other vehicles.
4. RECOMMENDATION
42
4 RECOMMENDATION
The Type 90 is recommended for use as new or retrofit bridge railing on high- speed
highways at Test Level 4.
5 IMPLEMENTATION
The Office of Structures Design will be responsible for the preparation of standard plans
and specifications for the Type 90, with technical support from Materials Engineering and
Testing Services, Division of Research and Innovation and the Traffic Operations Program.
6. REFERENCES
43
6 REFERENCES
1. Meline, Robert, Jewell, John, and Peter, Rich, " Vehicle Crash Tests of Type 80 Bridge
Rail", California Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA/ CA/ ESC- 98/ 06 Part
3, March 1999.
2. Meline, Robert, Jewell, John, and Peter, Rich, " Vehicle Crash Tests of Type 80SW
Bridge Rail", California Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA/ CA/ ESC-
98/ 06, August 1998 revised August 1999.
3. “ Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway
Features”, Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 350, 1993.
4. Jewell, John, et al., “ Vehicle Crash Tests of Steel Bridge Barrier Rail Systems for Use on
Secondary Highways”, California Department of Transportation, Report No.
FHWA/ CA/ TL- 93/ 01, March 1993.
5. “ Guide Specifications For Bridge Railings”, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 1989.
6. “ Vehicle Damage Scale for Traffic Accident Investigators”, Traffic Accident Data
Project, National Safety Council, 1968.
7. “ Collision Deformation Classification” - SAE J224 MAR80, SAE Recommended
Practices, 1980.
7. APPENDICES
44
7 APPENDICES
7.1 Test Vehicle Equipment
The test vehicles were modified as follows for the crash tests:
• The gas tanks on the test vehicles for Tests 631, 632, and 634 were disconnected from the
fuel supply line and drained. For Test 631, a 12- L safety gas tank was installed in the
truck bed and connected to the fuel supply line. For Test 632, a 1- L safety gas tank was
installed in the trunk area and connected to the fuel supply line. For Test 634, a 10- L
custom safety gas tank was installed in the cargo box and connected to the fuel supply
line. The stock fuel tanks had dry ice or gaseous CO2 added in order to purge fuel
vapors. For Test 633, no safety gas tank was installed because the vehicle was not self-powered.
• One pair of 12- volt wet cell motorcycle storage batteries was mounted in each vehicle.
The batteries powered the GMH Engineering DataBrick transient data recorders. A 12-
volt deep cycle gel cell battery operated the Electronic Control Box.
• A 1725- kPa CO2 system, actuated by a solenoid valve, controlled remote braking after
impact and emergency braking if necessary. Part of this system was a pneumatic ram
that was attached to the brake pedal. The operating pressure for the ram was adjusted
through a pressure regulator during a series of trial runs prior to the actual test.
Adjustments were made to assure the shortest stopping distance without locking up the
wheels. When activated, the brakes could be applied in less than 100 milliseconds.
• The remote brakes were controlled via a radio link transmitter at a console trailer. When
the brakes were applied by remote control from the console trailer, the ignition was
automatically rendered inoperable by removing power to the coil.
• For tests 631 and 634, an accelerator switch was located on the rear of the vehicle. The
switch opened an electric solenoid which, in turn, released compressed CO2 from a
reservoir into a pneumatic ram that had been attached to the accelerator pedal. The CO2
pressure for the accelerator ram was regulated to the same pressure of the remote braking
system with a valve to adjust CO2 flow rate.
• For tests 631 and 632, a speed control device, connected in- line with the primary winding
of the coil, was used to regulate the speed of the test vehicle based on the signal from a
speed sensor output from the vehicle transmission. This device was calibrated prior to
the test by conducting a series of trial runs through a speed trap comprised of two tape
switches set a specified distance apart and a digital timer.
• For test 634, the speed control device was not functional with the test vehicle. Therefore,
the test vehicle was driven under full acceleration until impact. Trial runs were
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
45
conducted before the test in order to determine the travel distance necessary in order to
reach the intended impact speed.
• For test 632, the vehicle was to be partially self- propelled. A 1- ton pickup pushed the
test vehicle, which was in third gear, up to approximately 60 km/ h. At this point the
engine of the test vehicle was supposed to have “ push- started”. The test vehicle was then
supposed to continue accelerating to the desired impact speed. The speed was to be
limited by the speed control device used in test 631. Due to an undetermined problem,
the test vehicle never started, resulting in a much lower desired impact speed.
• For test 633, the test vehicle was towed to the desired impact speed using a 2: 1 tow
system, meaning the tow vehicle traveled half the distance and to half the speed as the
test vehicle. The maximum speed of the tow vehicle was limited by the same speed
control device that had been used in test 631.
• For tests 631, 632, and 634, a microswitch was mounted below the front bumper and
connected to the ignition system. A trip plate on the ground near the impact point
triggered the switch when the car passed over it. The switch would open the ignition
circuit and shut off the vehicle’s engine prior to impact.
• X Table 7- 1 X through X Table 7- 4 X give specific information regarding vehicle dimensions and
weights for Test 631- 634.
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
46
Table 7- 1 – Test 631 Vehicle Dimensions
DATE: 10/ 04/ 06 TEST NO: 631 VIN NO: 1GCFC24M4VE247803 MAKE: CHEVROLET
MODEL: 2500 YEAR: 1997 ODOMETER: 90314 ( MI) TIRE SIZE: LT 245/ 17R16
TIRE INFLATION PRESSURE: 50 ( PSI)
MASS DISTRIBUTION ( kg) LF 573.5 RF 569.4 LR 411.1 RR 400.1
DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE TO VEHICLE PRIOR TO TEST: No damage.
ENGINE TYPE: Gas V8
ENGINE CID:
TRANSMISSION TYPE :
X AUTO
MANUAL
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
Air Conditioning
DUMMY DATA:
TYPE: NA
MASS: NA
SEAT POSITION: NA
A 187.0 D 178.50 G 144.1 K 60.0 N 172.0 Q 44.0
B 87.0 E 30.0 H L 8.5 O 154.0
C 334.0 F 451.0 J 104.0 M 39.0 P 75.0
MASS - ( kg) CURB TEST INERTIAL GROSS STATIC
M1 1142.9 1153.7 1153.7
M2 811.2 874.9 874.9
MT 1954.1 2028.6 2028.6
GEOMETRY ( cm)
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
47
Table 7- 2 – Test 632 Vehicle Dimensions
DATE: 12/ 27// 06 TEST NO: 632 VIN NO: 2C1MR2462N6743224 MAKE: GEO
MODEL: METRO YEAR: 1992 ODOMETER: 41007 ( MI) TIRE SIZE: 155R12
TIRE INFLATION PRESSURE: 30 ( PSI)
MASS DISTRIBUTION ( kg) LF 230.8 RF 222.3 LR 151.3 RR 150.0
DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE TO VEHICLE PRIOR TO TEST: No major damage. Small 2” x1” dent on lip of right front fender.
ENGINE TYPE: Gas 3- cylinder
ENGINE CID: 1- liter
TRANSMISSION TYPE :
AUTO
X MANUAL
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
Air Conditioning, small towing
hitch.
DUMMY DATA:
TYPE: Hybrid III 50 P
th
P %
MASS: 75 kg
SEAT POSITION: Passenger Front
A 142.5 D 134.0 G 92.7 K 52.0 N 135.0 Q 33.0
B 80.0 E 70.0 H L 9.0 O 134.2
C 227.0 F 377.0 J 62.5 M 23.0 P 55.0
MASS - ( kg) CURB TEST INERTIAL GROSS STATIC
M1 453.1 466.9 502.0
M2 301.3 322.2 367.3
MT 754.3 789.1 869.3
GEOMETRY ( cm)
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
48
Table 7- 3 – Test 633 Vehicle Dimensions
DATE: 25/ 07 TEST NO: 633 VIN NO: 2C1MR6462R6763258 MAKE: Geo
MODEL: Metro YEAR: 1994 ODOMETER: ? ( MI) TIRE SIZE: P155R12?
TIRE INFLATION PRESSURE: 32 ( PSI)
MASS DISTRIBUTION ( kg) LF 225.5 RF 229.6 LR 156.2 RR 145.3
DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE TO VEHICLE PRIOR TO TEST: None.
ENGINE TYPE: Gas 3- cylinder
ENGINE CID: 1- liter
TRANSMISSION TYPE :
AUTO
X MANUAL
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
Air Conditioning
DUMMY DATA:
TYPE: Hybrid III 50 P
th
P %
MASS: 75 kg
SEAT POSITION: Passenger Front
A 153.0 D 136.5 G 98.8 K 48.0 N 134.5 Q 33.0
B 76.0 E 65.0 H L 9.0 O 134.5
C 237.0 F 378.0 J 65.0 M 21.0 P 51.0
MASS - ( kg) CURB TEST INERTIAL GROSS STATIC
M1 455.0 473.3 513.0
M2 301.5 337.0 376.9
MT 755.6 810.3 889.9
GEOMETRY ( cm)
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
49
Table 7- 4 – Test 634 Vehicle Dimensions
DATE: 6/ 20/ 07 TEST NO: 634 VIN NO: 1GDJ7H1DGYJ904727 MAKE: GMC
MODEL: TOP KICK YEAR: 2000 ODOMETER: 104666 ( MI) TIRE SIZE: G357 11R225
MASS DISTRIBUTION ( kg) LF RF LR RR
DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE TO VEHICLE PRIOR TO TEST: None
A 242.5 D 375.5 G 306.8 K 77.5 N 10.5 Q 184.5
B 83.0 E 235.0 H L 123.0 O 62.0 R 104.0
C 530.0 F 848.0 J 166.0 M 96.0 P 202.0 S 59.0
MASS - ( kg) CURB TEST INERTIAL GROSS STATIC
M1 2277.0 2585.5 2585.5
M2 3129.8 5470.3 5470.3
MT 5406.8 8055.8 8055.8
GEOMETRY ( cm)
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
50
7.2 Test Vehicle Guidance System
A rail guidance system directed the vehicle into the barrier. The guidance rail, anchored
at 3.8- m intervals along its length, was used to guide a mechanical arm, which was attached to
the front left wheel of each of the vehicles. A rope was used to trigger the release mechanism on
the guidance arm, thereby releasing the vehicle from the guidance system before impact.
7.3 Photo - Instrumentation
Several high- speed video cameras recorded the impact during the crash tests. The types
of cameras and their locations are shown in X Table 7- 5 X through X Table 7- 8 X and X Figure 7- 1 X .
All of these cameras were mounted on tripods except the three that were mounted on a
10.7- m high tower directly over the impact point of the test barrier.
A video camera and a digital still camera were turned on by hand and used for panning
during the test. A tape switch located on the ground and connected to a computer was used to
trigger the high- speed cameras. Both the vehicle and the barrier were photographed before and
after impact with a normal- speed beta video camera and a digital still camera. Individual video
reports of each test in this project have been assembled using selected portions of the crash
testing coverage.
Table 7- 5 – Test 631 Camera Type and Location
Camera Camera Focal Rate: Coordinate ( m)
Label Type Length ( mm) ( fr./ sec.) X Y Z
V1 ( Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 85 500 22.2 - 0.076 1.2
V2 ( Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 105 500 - 68.9 - 0.381 1.2
V3 ( Across) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 24 500 - 1.8 - 21.4 1.2
V4 ( Behind) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 35 500 - 27 10.3 1.8
V5 ( Tower Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0.61 0 9.1
V6 ( Tower Center) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0 0 9.1
V7 ( Tower Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 7 500 - 0.61 0 9.1
C ( Pan Digital Camera) Canon XL- 1
Vareis ( zoom
lens) 30 - 5.8 - 25.2 4.5
N ( Digital SLR Camera) Nikon D2X 35 N/ A - 5.8 - 25.1 4.5
Note: X, Y, and Z distances are relative to the impact point. ( See X Figure 7- 1 X )
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
51
Table 7- 6 – Test 632 Camera Type and Location
Camera Camera Focal Rate: Coordinate ( m)
Label Type Length ( mm) ( fr./ sec.) X Y Z
V1 ( Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 85 500 34.3 0 1.2
V2 ( Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 105 500 - 64.3 - 0.178 1.2
V3 ( Across) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 24 500 1.3 - 21.5 1.2
V4 ( Behind) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 35 500 - 25.5 7.2 1.8
V5 ( Tower Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0.61 0 9.1
V6 ( Tower Center) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0 0 9.1
V7 ( Tower Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 7 500 - 0.61 0 9.1
J ( Pan Digital Camera) JVC GY- HD100
Vareis ( zoom
lens) 30 - 1.3 - 22 4.5
N ( Digital SLR Camera) Nikon D2X 35 N/ A - 2.4 - 22.6 4.5
Note: X, Y, and Z distances are relative to the impact point. ( See X Figure 7- 1 X )
Table 7- 7 – Test 633 Camera Type and Location
Camera Camera Focal Rate: Coordinate ( m)
Label Type Length ( mm) ( fr./ sec.) X Y Z
V1 ( Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 85 250 34.5 0.05 1.2
V2 ( Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 105 500 - 64.7 0.228 1.2
V3 ( Across) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 24 500 0.787 - 22 1.2
V4 ( Behind) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 35 500 - 26.5 7.3 1.8
V5 ( Tower Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0.61 0 9.1
V6 ( Tower Center) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0 0 9.1
V7 ( Tower Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 7 500 - 0.61 0 9.1
J ( Pan Digital Camera) JVC GY- HD100
Vareis ( zoom
lens) 30 - 1.8 - 23.3 4.5
N ( Digital SLR Camera) Nikon D2X 35 N/ A - 3.1 23.3 4.5
Note: X, Y, and Z distances are relative to the impact point. ( See X Figure 7- 1 X )
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
52
Table 7- 8 – Test 634 Camera Type and Location
Camera Camera Focal Rate: Coordinate ( m)
Label Type Length ( mm) ( fr./ sec.) X Y Z
V1 ( Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 85 500 29.2 0.228 1.2
V2 ( Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 105 500 - 67.4 0.203 1.2
V3 ( Across) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 24 500 0.127 - 21.4 1.2
V4 ( Behind) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 35 500 - 29.9 5.7 1.8
V5 ( Tower Upstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0.61 0 9.1
V6 ( Tower Center) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 20 500 0 0 9.1
V7 ( Tower Downstream) Weinberger SpeedCam Visario 1500 7 500 - 0.61 0 9.1
J ( Pan Digital Camera) JVC GY- HD100
Vareis ( zoom
lens) 30 - 2.8 - 22.2 4.5
N ( Digital SLR Camera) Nikon D2X 35 N/ A - 3.8 - 22.2 4.5
Note: X, Y, and Z distances are relative to the impact point. ( See X Figure 7- 1 X )
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
53
Figure 7- 1 – Camera Locations
The following are the pretest procedures that were required to enable video data
reduction to be performed using video analysis software:
1) Butterfly targets were attached to the top and sides of the test vehicle. The targets
were located on the vehicle at intervals of 500 mm ( 1.64 ft) and 1000 mm ( 3.28 feet.). The
targets along the side of the vehicle were located 0.90 m above the pavement. The targets
established scale factors and horizontal and vertical alignment.
2) Flashbulbs, mounted on the test vehicle, were electronically triggered to establish a)
initial vehicle- to- barrier- contact, and b) the time of the application of the vehicle brakes. The
impact flashbulbs begin to glow immediately upon activation, but have a delay of several
milliseconds before reaching full intensity.
3) High- speed digital video cameras were all time- coded through the use of a
portable computer and were triggered as the test vehicle passed over a tape switch located on the
vehicle path upstream of impact.
V7 V6 V5
V2
INTENDED POINT
OF IMPACT
BRIDGE
RAIL
+ Y
+ X
V1
V3 C J N
V4
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
54
Speed Trap
" A"
( 4- m spacing)
Rigid
Frame w/
3 Retro-reflective
Strips at
1 m O. C.
Engine Cut- off
Speed Trap
" B
( 4- m spacing)
Figure 7- 2 – Tape Switch Layout
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
55
7.4 Electronic Instrumentation and Data
Transducer data were recorded on two separate GMH Engineering, DataBrick, Model II,
digital transient data recorders ( TDRs) that were mounted in the vehicle for all tests. The
transducers mounted on the vehicle include two sets of accelerometers and one set of rate gyros
at the center of gravity. The TDR data were reduced using a desktop personal computer running
DADiSP 2002.
The rate gyro and accelerometer specifications are shown in X Table 7- 9 X . The vehicle
accelerometer and gyro sign convention used throughout this report is the same as that described
in NCHRP Report 350 and is shown in X Figure 7- 3 X .
A rigid stand with three retro- reflective 90° polarizing tape strips was placed on the
ground near the test article and alongside the path of the test vehicle ( X Figure 7- 2 X ). The strips
were spaced at carefully measured intervals of 1.000 m. The test vehicle had an onboard optical
sensor that produced sequential impulses or “ event blips” that were recorded concurrently with
the accelerometer signals on the TDR, serving as “ event markers”. The impact velocity of the
vehicle could be determined from these sensor impulses and timing cycles and the known
distance between the tape strips. A pressure- sensitive tape switch on the front bumper of the
vehicle closed at the instant of impact and triggered two events: 1) an “ event marker” was added
to the recorded data, and 2) a flashbulb mounted on the top of the vehicle was activated. Two
other pressure- sensitive tape switches, connected to a speed trap, were placed 4.000 m apart just
upstream of the test article specifically to establish the impact speed of the test vehicle. The
layout for all of the pressure- sensitive tape switches is shown in X Figure 7- 2 X .
The data curves are shown in X Figure 7- 4 X through X Figure 7- 19 X and include the
accelerometer and rate gyro records from the test vehicles. They also show the velocity and
displacement curves for the longitudinal and lateral components. These plots were needed to
calculate the occupant impact velocity defined in NCHRP Report 350. All data were analyzed
using software written by DADiSP and modified by the Department.
NOTE: There are no data plots for Test 634 because NCHRP Report 350 does not require
accelerometer data for the 8000S test series.
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
56
Table 7- 9 – Accelerometer Specifications
TYPE LOCATION RANGE ORIENTATION TEST NUMBER
Endevco VEHICLE C. G. 100 G Longitudinal
( primary)
631,632,633
Endevco VEHICLE C. G. 100 G Lateral ( primary) 631,632,633
Endevco VEHICLE C. G. 100 G Vertical ( primary) 631,632,633
Endevco VEHICLE C. G. 100 G Longitudinal
( secondary)
631,632,633
Endevco VEHICLE C. G. 100 G Lateral ( secondary) 631,632,633
Endevco VEHICLE C. G. 100 G Vertical ( secondary) 631,632,633
BEI Systron
Donner Inertial
191 mm ( 7.5- in)
behind the C. G.
( along the X- axis)
500 deg/ sec Roll 631,632,633
BEI Systron
Donner Inertial
191 mm ( 7.5- in)
behind the C. G.
( along the X- axis)
500 deg/ sec Pitch 631,632,633
BEI Systron
Donner Inertial
191 mm ( 7.5- in)
behind the C. G.
( along the X- axis)
500 deg/ sec Yaw 631,632,633
Figure 7- 3 – Vehicle Accelerometer Sign Convention
57
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 4 – Test 631 Vehicle Accelerations Vs Time
58
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 5 – Test 631 Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time
59
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 6 – Test 631 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time
60
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 7 – Test 631 Vehicle Roll, Pitch, and Yaw Vs Time
61
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 8 – Test 631 Vehicle Acceleration Severity Index ( ASI) Vs Time
62
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 9 – Test 632 Vehicle Accelerations Vs Time
63
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 10 – Test 632 Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time
64
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 11 – Test 632 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time
65
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 12 – Test 632 Vehicle Roll, Pitch, and Yaw Vs Time
66
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 13 – Test 632 Vehicle Acceleration Severity Index ( ASI) Vs Time
67
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 14 – Test 633 Vehicle Accelerations Vs Time
68
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 15 – Test 633 Vehicle Longitudinal Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time
69
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 16 – Test 633 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time
70
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 17 – Test 633 Vehicle Lateral Acceleration, Velocity, and Distance Vs Time
71
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 18 – Test 633 Vehicle Roll, Pitch, and Yaw Vs Time
72
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
Figure 7- 19 – Test 633 Vehicle Acceleration Severity Index ( ASI) Vs Time
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
73
7.5 Detailed Drawings
The following two pages are proposed standard plan drawings of the Type 90 and were
produced by the designers at Caltrans, Structures Design. Please contact Caltrans, Structures
Design for the most current and complete plans.
California Department of Transportation
Engineering Service Center
Structures Design
1801 30 P
th
P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Tillat Satter
Telephone: ( 916) 227- 8676
7. APPENDICES ( CONTINUED)
74
This page intentionally left blank.
75
Figure 7- 20 – Type 90 Details
76
Figure 7- 21 – Cross section and attachment detail for the Type 90