report on the update to nchrp report 350 - american...

24
Ben Buchan Georgia DOT AASHTO Subcommittee on Design June 27, 2005 Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350

Upload: others

Post on 25-Mar-2021

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Ben BuchanGeorgia DOT

AASHTO Subcommittee on Design

June 27, 2005

Report on the

Update to NCHRP Report 350

Page 2: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Primary Issues

• Test Vehicles.

• Impact Conditions.

• Deformation/Intrusion.

• Occupant risk.

• Soil specifications.

• Critical impact points.

• Test specifications.

• Reporting requirements.

Page 3: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Test Vehicle Selection

• Light truck:

�¾ ton pickups weigh more than 2000 kg.

• Small car:

�No 820 kg vehicles.

• Midsize vehicles:

�Concern about staged attenuation devices.

• TL-3 Strength Test More Severe than TL-4

Page 4: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

2000P Test Vehicle

• ~ 22% of all vehicles sold in 2002

weighed more than 2000 kg (4400 lb).

• 12% of light trucks and 6.2% of all

vehicles sold in 2002 weighed more than

2270 kg (5000 lb).

• Recommend that new test vehicle weigh

near 2270 kg (5000 lb) – Same as ¾-ton

regular cab and ½-ton crew cab pickups.

Page 5: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Proposed Test Vehicle

• 4-door ½-ton crew cab pickups weigh 5000 lb.

• Higher c. g. – more representative of large SUV’s.

• High sales volumes.

• Higher cost.

• Loss of knowledge base on ¾-ton regular cab pickups.

Page 6: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Light Truck C.G. HeightsCurb C.G. Height

Make/Model Weight, kg (lb) mm (in.)

Dodge Ram Van 2188 (4820) 743 (29.2)

Ford Expedition 2391 (5267) 742 (29.2)

Chev. Tahoe (2WD)* 2292 (5050) 742 (29.2)

Toyota Sequoia 2301 (5070) 734 (28.9)

Chev. Suburban* 2246 (4947) 734 (28.9)

Land Rover Discovery 2157 (4752) 731 (28.6)

Mitsubishi Montero 2173 (4788) 696 (27.4)

Dodge Durango 2203 (4852) 680 (26.8)

Page 7: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Quad Cab Pickups (2WD)

Curb C.G. Height

Make/Model Weight, kg (lb) mm (in.)

2002 Chev. Avalanche* 2507 (5523) 741 (29.2)

2002 Ford F150* 2195 (4836) 693 (27.3)

2002 Dodge Ram 1500* 2314 (5098) 720 (28.4)

2002 Ford F150# 2162 (4761) 682 (26.8)

2002 Dodge Ram 1500 2296 (5057) 718 (28.3)

2002 Dodge Ram 1500 2286 (5035) 722 (28.4)

* - reported by NHTSA

# - worn tires

Page 8: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

PROPOSED SMALL CAR

TEST VEHICLE

• Small passenger car test vehicle should

be representative of the 98th percentile

smallest vehicle by sales volume.

• Increase weight of small passenger car

test vehicle to 1100 kg (2420 lb).

Page 9: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

PROPOSED TL-4

TEST Conditions

• Under Report 350, TL-4 test less severe than

TL-3.

• Increasing pickup truck mass will aggravate

problem

• Propose to increase mass of single unit truck

from 8000 kg to 12000 kg and increase test

speed from 80 km/hr to 100 km/hr

Page 10: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Impact Speed

Impact Speed (km/h)

Source > 100 > 110

Pole/Narrow Bridge Study

Rural Arterial 0.1445 0.1082

Freeway 0.1800 0.1200

NASS CDS, SL > 55 mph

Raw 0.0793 0.0412

Weighted 0.1091 0.0642

Page 11: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

IMPACT SPEED & ANGLE

• Recent data collected under high speed limit

conditions does not indicate significantly higher

impact speeds

• Data does not support lowering impact angles

• No support for lower impact angles for small

passenger vehicles

• Propose 100 km/hr and 25 deg. testing for both

light truck and small car test vehicles

Page 12: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Standard W-beam Guardrail

Page 13: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Standard W-beam Guardrail

Page 14: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Midwest Guardrail System

Page 15: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Midwest Guardrail System

Page 16: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Free Standing Temporary Barrier

Page 17: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Evaluation of 25 deg.

Impact Angle w/ NJ Barrier

Page 18: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Evaluation of 25 deg. Impact Angle

w/ MGS Guardrail Mounted at 32”

Page 19: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Deformation/Intrusion Issues

• NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and

subjective in nature.

• FHWA guidelines on deformation/intrusion and

windshield damage are state of practice

• Deformation/intrusion an issue with 2000P test

vehicle.

• Windshield damage an issue with temporary work

zone traffic control devices.

• Insurance Institute for Highway Safety allows

greater deformation than FHWA guidelines

Page 20: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Proposed Guidelines

• No penetration into occupant compartment allowed

• Roof deformation limited to 100 mm (4 in.)

• Elsewhere - generally follow IIHS guidelines

Location Maximum Deformation

Wheel well & toe pan < 22.5 cm (9 in.)

Side above seat < 22.5 cm (9 in.)

Side below seat < 30 cm (12 in.)

Side forward of A pillar < 30 cm (12 in.)

Transmission tunnel < 30 cm (12 in.)

Page 21: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Proposed Guidelines

• No breakage of side window due to contact

with test article.

• Windshield:

�No tearing of plastic liner.

�Maximum deformation of 3 in.

�Apply FHWA vision obstruction criteria to

work zone traffic control devices only.

Page 22: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Other Recommendations

• Require better tracking of material mill certifications.

• Improve documentation of

�Test article construction.

�Component strength.

�Soil type and condition.

Page 23: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

Other Recommendations

• Require in-situ soil testing.

• Develop new critical impact location.

guidelines for transitions, terminals, and

gating crash cushions.

• Test TMA’s with maximum allowable support

truck mass.

• Test breakaway structures at most severe

angle up to 90 degrees.

Page 24: Report on the Update to NCHRP Report 350 - American ...sp.design.transportation.org/Documents/Buchan-NCHRP350...•NCHRP Report 350 criteria not well defined and subjective in nature

QUESTIONS?