Transportation Institute

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Transportation Institute"

Transcription

1 .JIIIIIII"" Texas Transportation Institute SUMMARY OF TESTING ON 'l'he RENCO TRUCK MOUNTED ATTENUATOR by Wanda L. Menges Associate Research Specialist C. Eugene Buth, P.E. Senior Research Engineer and Sandra K. Schoeneman Research Associate Contract No. P Project No RNC7F Sponsored by RENCO Supply Co. May2000 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843

2 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data, and the opinions, findings and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the RENCO Supply Company, The Texas A&M University System or Texas Transportation Institute. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. In addition, the above listed agencies assume no liability for its contents or use thereof. The names of specific products or manufacturers listed herein does not imply endorsement of those products or manufacturers. KEYWORDS Truck Mounted Attenuators, TMA, work zone devices, crash cushion, crash testing, roadside safety

3 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. Technical Report Documentation Pa2e 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date SUMMARY OF TESTING ON THE RENCO TRUCK MOUNTED May2000 ATTENUATOR 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Wanda L. Menges, C. Eugene Buth, and Sandra K. Schoeneman RNC7F 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. ContractorGrantNo. College Station, Texas P Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered RENCO Supply Company Final Report P.O. Box 730 December May 2000 Pflugerville, Tx Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Research Study Title: NCHRP Report 350 testing of the RENCO RAM 1 OOk TMA Name of Contacting Representative: Ron Beyer 16. Abstract The RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA was designed to protect the occupants of errant vehicles who may impact the rear of a shadow vehicle (usually a dump truck). Vehicles tested may weigh up to 2000 kg and travel at speeds up to 70 kmlh. fu addition, the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA was crash tested in accordance with and successfully met the evaluation criteria of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 for a Test Level2 safety appurtenance. NCHRP Report 350 test 2-50 (820-kg passenger car at 70 kmlh with the support vehicle blocked to prevent movement) was performed June 29, 1998 on the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA. The dimensions of the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA were 2095 mm long by 2300 mm wide by 580 mm high. After attachment of the support frame, lights/harness, and rear jack, the TMA weighed 463 kg. RENCO Supply Company has recently developed a new TMA, designated the RENCO RAM look TMA. The RAM look was developed to meet or exceed NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 3 performance criteria. The dimensions oftherenco RAM look TMA are 3365 mmlong by 2145 mm wide by 580 mmhigh. The weight of the TMA without the mounting hardware was 427 kg (499 kg with mounting hardware). RENCO Supply Company, fuc. contracted with Texas Transportation fustitute (TTl) to crash test and evaluate the RENCO RAM look TMA to Test Level 3 (TL-3) of NCHRP Report 350. The objective of the tests reported herein.. is to evaluate and document the impact performance of the new RENCO RAM look TMA in accordance.with the guidelines presented in NCHRP Report 350 for Test Level 3 (TL-3) safety appurtenances. Crash test RNC2 reported herein is NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51 (2000-kg pick-up truck traveling 100 kmlh with the support vehicle parked free-standing, in second gear with the park brake set). fu addition, crash tests RNC6 and RNC7 reported herein correspond to the modified NCHRP Report 350 test 3-50 (820-kg passenger car traveling 100 kmlh with the support vehicle parked free-standing, in second gear with the park brake set). 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Truck Mounted Attenuators, TMA, work zone devices, crash cushion, crash testing, roadside safety Copyrighted. Not to be copied or reprinted without consent from Sponsor. 19. Security Oassif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Form DOT F (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

4 APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO Sl UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM Sl UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply by To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply by To Find Symbol LENGTH LENGTH In inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters inches In It feet meters m m meters 3.28 feet It yd yards meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd ml miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers miles ml AREA AREA In' square Inches square millimeters mm' mm' square millimeters square inches In' II' square feet square meters m' m' square meters square feet II' yd' square yards square meters m' m' square meters square yards yd' ac acres hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac ml' square miles 2.59 square kilometers km' km' square kilometers square miles ml' VOLUME VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces milliliters ml ml milliliters fluid ounces fl oz gal gallons liters L L liters gallons gal II' cubic feet cubic meters m' m' cubic meters cubic feet It' yd' cubic yards cubic meters m' m' cubic meters cubic yards yd' ~ ~ NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 I shall be-~jhown In m 3 MASS MASS oz ounces grams g g grams ounces oz lb pounds kilograms kg kg kilograms pounds lb T short tons megagrams Mg Mg megagrams short tons T {2000 lb) {or "metric ton") (or""!"") {or "t") {or "metric ton") {2000 lb) TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact) 'F Fahrenheit 5(F-32Y9 or Celclus 'C 'C Celcius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit 'F temperature (F temperature temperature temperature ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles lux lx lx lux foot..candles fc II foot-lamberts candela/nf cd/m 2 cdlrri' candela/m foot-lamberts fl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons poundforce lbf lbf/ln' poundforce per 6.89 kilopascals kpa kpa kilopascals poundforce per lbf/ln' square Inch square Inch E380.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section INTRODUCTION... 1 PROBLEM... 1 BACKGROUND... 1 OBJECTIVES... 2 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION... 3 TEST PARAMETERS... 3 Test Facility... 3 Test Article - Design and Construction... 3 Test Conditions... 7 Evaluation Criteria... 8 CRASH TEST RNC6 (NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST MODIFIED 3-50) Test Vehicle Weather Conditions Impact Description Damage to Test Article Vehicle Damage Occupant Risk Factors CRASH TEST RNC7 (NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST MODlFIED 3-50) Test Vehicle Weather Conditions Impact Description Damage to Test Article Vehicle Damage Occupant Risk Factors CRASH TEST RNC2 (NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 3-51) Test Vehicle Weather Conditions Impact Description Damage to Test Article Vehicle Damage Occupant Risk Factors SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ASSESSMENT OF TEST RESULTS CONCLUSIONS iii

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDIX A. CRASH TEST PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS o o o o 0 o ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA PROCESSING o o ANTHROPOMORPHIC DUMMY INSTRUMENTATION o o o o o o o o PHOTOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA PROCESSING TEST VEHICLE PROPULSION AND GUIDANCE o 0 0 o o o o o o 0 o o o APPENDIX B. TEST VEHICLE PROPERTIES AND INFORMATION APPENDIX C. SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o APPENDIX D. VEHICLE ANGULAR DISPLACEMENTS AND ACCELERATIONS o 0 o o o 0 o o o o o o o REFERENCES o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o iv

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Details of the RENCO RAM 1 OOk TMA... 4 RENCO RAM look TMA prior to test RNC VehicletrMA geometries for test RNC hnpacting vehicle before test RNC Vehicle trajectory after test RNC TMAaftertest RNC hnpacting vehicle after test RNC Interior of impacting vehicle for test RNC Summary of Results for test RNC6, NCHRP Report 350 test RENCO RAM look TMA prior to test RNC VehiclefTMA geometries for test RNC hnpacting vehicle before test RNC Vehicle trajectory after test RNC TMAaftertest RNC hnpacting vehicle after test RN C Interior of impacting vehicle for test RNC Summary of Results for test rnc7, NCHRP Report 350 test RENCO RAM look TMA prior to test RNC VehiclefTMA geometries for test RNC hnpacting vehicle before test RNC Vehicle trajectory after test RNC TMA after test rnc hnpacting vehicle after test RNC Interior of impacting vehicle for test RNC Summary of Results for test RNC2, NCHRP Report 350 test Comparison of TMA damage Vehicle properties fortest rnc vehicle propl':rties for test ~rnc Vehicle properties for test RNC Sequential photographs for test RNC6 (overhead and frontal views) Sequential photographs for test RNC7 (overhead and frontal views) Sequential photographs for test RNC2 (overhead and frontal views) Vehicular angular displacements for test RNC Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RN C6 (accelerometer located at center of gravity) Vehicle lateral accelerometer trace for test RNC6 (accelerometer located at center of gravity) v

8 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Vehicle vertical accelerometer trace for test RNC6 (accelerometerlocated at center of gravity) Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RNC6 (accelerometer located over rear axle) Vehicle lateral accelerometer trace for test RN C6 (accelerometer located over rear axle) Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RNC6 (accelerometer located at center of gravity on support vehicle) Vehicular angular displacements for test RNC Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RNC7 (accelerometer located at center of gravity) Vehicle lateral accelerometer trace for test RNC7 (accelerometer located at center of gravity) Vehicle vertical accelerometer trace for test RNC7 (accelerometer located at center of gravity) Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RNC7 (accelerometer located over rear axle) Vehicle lateral accelerometer trace for test RNC7 ( accelerometerlocated over rear axle) Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RN C7 (accelerometer located at center of gravity on support vehicle) Vehicular angular displacements for test RNCZ Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RNCZ (accelerometerlocated at center of gravity) Vehicle lateral accelerometer trace for test RNC2 (accelerometer located at center of gravity) Vehicle vertical accelerometer trace for test RNC2 (accelerometer located at center of gravity) Vehicle longitudinalaccelerometer trace for test RNCZ ( accelerometerlocated over rear axle) Vehicle lateral accelerometer trace for test RN C2 (accelerometer located over rear axle) Vehicle longitudinal accelerometer trace for test RNCZ (accelerometer located at center of gravity on support vehicle) vi

9 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page 1 Performance evaluation summary for impacting vehicle during test RNC6, NCHRP Report 350 Test Performance evaluation summary for support vehicle during test RNC6, NCHRP Report 350 Test Performance evaluation summary for impacting vehicle during test RNC7, NCHRP Report 350 Test Performance evaluation summary for support vehicle during test rnc7, NCHRP Report 350 Test Performance evaluation summary for impacting vehicle during test rnc2, NCHRP Report 350 Test Performance evaluation summary for support vehicle during test rnc2, NCHRP Report 350 Test Exterior crush measurements for test RNC Occupant compartment measurements for test RNC Exterior crush measurements for test RNC Occupant compartment measurements for test RNC Exterior crush measurements for test RNC Occupant compartment measurements for test RNC vii

10

11 INTRODUCTION PROBLEM Construction and maintenance operations on the Nation's highways pose hazards to both workers and motorists. Various measures are employed to route traffic around work zones, including channelizing devices (cones, barrels, etc.), signs, flaggers, and flashing arrow boards. However, these measures alone do not adequately protect the workers from errant vehicles. Inattentive drivers may not follow the detour, or for some reason may be forced into the work zone. A measure commonly used to protect maintenance workers from errant vehicles is to place a shadow truck behind the construction or maintenance operation. Shadow trucks, or barrier vehicles, are also used in slow moving operations. Shadow trucks are used to protect workers performing striping, patching, sanding, snow plowing, pavement resurfacing, bridge deck repair, guardrail and attenuator repair, and other operations. While the shadow truck is effective in protecting work crews, it does not always protect riders in vehicles which strike the shadow truck. Because of this problem, several impact attenuation devices have been developed to decrease the severity of collisions. Several truck mounted attenuators (TMAs) have been developed and tested, and are being used by various states. A TMA is a compact crash cushion which is attached to the rear of a shadow truck and is intended to reduce the accelerations felt by occupants in a vehicle striking a shadow truck. BACKGROUND The history of the development of the TMA in the United States can be traced to the early 1970's when Texas Transportation Institute (TTl) designed and tested a "crash cushion trailer."c') The TTl crash cushion trailer was 6.9 m long and 1.8 m wide creating maneuverability problems. In late 1975, the Connecticut Department of Transportation contracted with the University of Connecticut to develop a TMA which could be suspended or cantilevered off the rear of a dump truck, rather than trailered.c 2 ) Since 1975, many cantilevered TMAs have been developed. Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) has formally adopted National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 as the official guidelines for safety performance of evaluation of roadside features (including TMAs).C3J FHW A has further required that most roadside features to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) be crash tested in accordance with the NCHRP Report 350 guidelines by October Therefore, it is necessary for all new roadside features, including TMAs, to be evaluated to NCHRP Report 350. The RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA was designed to protect the occupants of errant vehicles that may impact the rear of a shadow vehicle (usually a dump truck). Vehicles tested may weigh up to 2000 kg and travel at speeds up to 70 kmlh. In addition, the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA was crash tested in accordance with and successfully met the evaluation criteria of NCHRP Report 350 for a Test Level2 safety appurtenance.c 4 ) NCHRP Report 350 test 2-50 (820-kg 1

12 passenger car at 70 km/h with the support vehicle blocked to prevent movement) was performed June 29, 1998 on the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA The dimensions of the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 TMA were 2095 mm long by 2300 mm wide by 580 mm high. After attachment ofthe support frame, lights/harness, and rear jack, the TMA weighed 463 kg. RENCO Supply Company has recently developed a new TMA, designated the RENCO RAM 1 OOk TMA. The RAM 1 OOk was developed to meet or exceed NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 3 performance criteria. The dimensions of the RENCO RAM look TMA are 3365 mm long by 2145 mm wide by580 mm high. The weight of the TMA without the mounting hardware was 427 kg (499 kg with mounting hardware) RENCO Supply Company, Inc. contracted with TTl to crash test and evaluate the RENCO RAM look TMA to Test Level 3 (TL-3) of NCHRP Report 350. OBJECTIVES The objective of the tests reported herein is to evaluate and document the impact performance of the new RENCO RAM 1 OOk TMA in accordance with the guidelines presented in NCHRP Report 350 for Test Level 3 (TL-3) safety appurtenances. Crash test RNC2 reported herein is NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51 (2000-kg pickup truck traveling 100 km/h with the support vehicle parked free-standing, in second gear with the park brake set). In addition, crash test RNC6 and RNC7 reported herein correspond to the modified NCHRP Report 350 test 3-50 (820-kg passenger car traveling 100 km/h with the support vehicle parked free-standing, in second gear with the park brake set). 2

13 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION TEST PARAMETERS Test Facility The test facilities at the Texas Transportation Institute's Proving Ground consist of an 809-hectare complex of research and training facilities situated 16 Ian northwest of the main campus of Texas A&M University. The site, formerly an Air Force Base, has large expanses of concrete runways and parking aprons well suited for experimental research and testing in the areas of vehicle performance and handling, vehicle-roadway interaction, durability and efficacy of highway pavements, and safety evaluation of roadside safety hardware. The site selected for placing of the RENCO TMAs is on the surface of a wide expanse of concrete aprons which were originally used as parking aprons for military aircraft. These aprons consist of unreinforced jointed concrete pavement in 3.8 m by 4.6 m blocks (as shown in the adjacent photo) nominally mm deep. The aprons and runways are about 50 years old and the joints have some displacement, but are otherwise flat and level. Test Article - Design and Construction RENCO's TMA absorbs energy by the use of cardboard honeycomb sections. The TMAs are constructed using a shoe box style aluminum container divided into several sections to hold combinations of "soft" and "heavy" cardboard material. The TMAs were assembled, wired, and painted before delivery to TTL The dimensions of the RENCO RAM look TMAs used in tests RNC2, RNC6 and RNC7 were3365 mm long by 2145 mm wide by 580 mm high. In tests ~RNC6 and RNC7, the weight of the TMA without the mounting hardware was 427 kg ( 499 kg with mounting hardware). In test RNC2, the weight of the TMA without the mounting hardware was 499 kg (544 kg with mounting hardware). Changes in the TMA were made between tests RNC2 and RNC6. They were reported by Mr. Beyer ofrenco to be: 1) A double row of rivets was added in the rear 457 mm of center seam of lid, and 2) A 1219 mm "heavy" honeycomb section was glued to the 610 mm "soft" section. Details of the RENCO RAM 1 OOk TMA are shown in figure 1. The RENCO RAM look TMA was then attached to a 1981 Ford F600 11,000 kg (GVWR) dump truck. The truck was ballasted to 8849 kg, which brought the total weight for the 3

14 OTY ITEM ' DESCRIPTION HYDRAULIC CYLINDER CONTROL UNIT TRUCK MOUNT ( 1 /2" PLATE W/BRACKETS) SUPPORT BRACKET BATTERY & HYDRAULIC PUMP HYDRAULIC CYLINDER ADJUSTMENT TURN SCREW TELSPAR JACKSTAND REPLACEABLE CRASH PAD TAIL LIGHTS NOTES 1. TRUCK FRAME IS HIGH CARDON STEEL. TO AVOID CRACKING DO NOT WELD OR APPLY EXCESSIVE HEAT TO BOTTOM FLANGE. 2. DO NOT CUT FRAME CROSS MEMBER WHICH TIES INTO OUTROAD LEAF SPRING HANGERS. 3. DIMENSION (XX.XX) ARE CENTIMETERS. PIVOT POINTS (3 POINTS) TO RAISE PAD 75" TO VERTICAL POSITION FOR TRANSPORTING. RAISED BY HYDRAULIC CYLINDER. HOLE FOR LOCKPINS Lg X 84 W, '~n~r~L_9 ~1"l7t~~jP=1:Jy:4-~~"Q"~2~="~=;,~,;===================- i_jda (_"_' 2_a_x_2_"_ "_1 1,L' ~: :~/~ 7 (S ~i1 ~5:1 FUL~ENGTH PAD 9 "'~GLE DETERMINE~ AT \\ eb (33.02±2.54) ~ INSTALLATION (45. MIN) ~ _/ GROUND LINE--- "" TWO ADJUSTABLE STANDS~ FRONT CORNERS (NOT SHOWN) Figure 1. Details of the RENCO RAM 1 OOk TMA.

15 1. HYDRAULIC CYLINDER, PUMP, CONTROLS AND ADJUSTMENT TURN SCREWS ARE NOT SHOWN. PAD RAISES 75" FOR WHEN NOT IN USE TWO ADJUSTABLE JACK STANDS IN FRONT OF PAD CCAG HOLDERS ADDITIONAL TAIL LIGHTS ARE ON THE UNDERSIDE FOR WHEN CUSHION IS IN RAISED POSITION ITEM ' QlY DESCRIPTION MECHANICAL SUPPORT MECHANISM CRASH CUSHION TELSPAR JACKSTANDS TAIL LIGHTS RUNNING LIGHT BACK PLATE EXTERIOR WIRING HARNESS Figure 1. Details of the RENCO RAM look TMA (continued).

16 1. DIMENSION (XX.XX) ARE CENTIMETERS. 132" r (335.") j~ 84"... """~ Figure 1. Details of the RENCO RAM look TMA (continued).

17 dump truck and TMA to 9348 kg. In all three tests, the support truck was parked freestanding in second gear with the park brake set. Nominal height from the bottom of the TMA to the pavement surface was 305 mm. Photographs of the TMAs as tested are shown with each test. Test Conditions According to NCHRP Report 350, the following tests are required to evaluate truck mounted attenuators to test level three (TL-3): NCHRP Report 350 test designation 3-50: An 820-kg vehicle impacting the truck mounted attenuator at 100 km/h and 0 degree with the centerline of the vehicle aligned with the centerline of the TMA. The support vehicle is to be parked against a rigid wall. The test is intended to evaluate the risks to occupants of a small car when impacting the TMA. NCHRP Report 350 test designation 3-51: A 2000-kg pickup truck impacting the truck mounted attenuator at 100 km/h and 0 degree with the centerline of the vehicle aligned with the centerline of the TMA. The support vehicle is to be free-standing, parked in second gear with the park brake on. The test is intended to evaluate structural adequacy of the TMA, risks to occupants, and the roll-ahead distance of the supporting truck for impacts with a heavy passenger vehicle. In a memo from FHW A, dated July 25, 1997, titled "Action: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features," the following exception was made to the above testing: The guidelines in Report 350 for assessing the crashworthiness of truck mounted attenuators (TMAs) are to be followed except that, until state-of-the-art developments indicate that practical and economic TMAs can fully meet the guidelines in Report 350 under test 3-50, the FHWA will accept a modified test 3-50, provided an unmodified test 2-50 (70 km/h, small car test with the host vehicle blocked to prevent movement) is run and passed. The modified 3-50 test the FHWA will accept for qualifying a test level] TMA is a 100 km/h small car test where the host vehicle only has its brakes set and is in second gear. This assumes all other Report 350 test level 3 requirements are met. Crash test RNC6 and RNC7 reported herein correspond to the modified NCHRP Report 350 test 3-50 (820-kg passenger car at 100 kmlh with the support vehicle free-standing, park brake set, in second gear). Crash test RNC2 corresponds to NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51 with the 2000-kg pickup truck. The crash test and data analysis procedures were in accordance with guidelines presented in NCHRP Report 350. Brief descriptions of these procedures are presented in appendix A. 7

18 Evaluation Criteria Structural adequacy of the TMA, risks to occupants of both the impacting and the support vehicle, and the roll-ahead distance of the support vehicle are the relevant factors in evaluating the safety performance of the TMA. The crash tests performed were evaluated in accordance with the criteria presented in NCHRP Report 350. As stated in NCHRP Report 350, "Safety performance of a highway appurtenance cannot be measured directly but can be judged on the basis of three factors: structural adequacy, occupant risk, and vehicle trajectory after collision." Accordingly, the following safety evaluation criteria from table 5.1 of NCHRP Report 350 were used to evaluate the crash tests reported herein. The following evaluation criteria apply to the impacting vehicle: 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. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. H. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following: Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Impact Velocitv - mls Preferred Maximum 9 12 I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Vehicle Trajectory Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Ridedown Accelerations - g 's Preferred Maximum K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. In a memo entitled: Action: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features, FHW A suggests the following supplemental evaluation factors and terminology be used for visual assessment of test results: 8

19 + PASSENGER COMPARTMENT INTRUSION 1. Windshield Intrusion a. No windshield contact b. Windshield contact, no damage c. Windshield contact, no intrusion d. Device embedded in windshield, no significant intrusion e. Complete intrusion into passenger compartment f. Partial intrusion into passenger compartment 2. Body Panel Intrusion + LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL 1. Physical loss of control 3. Perceived threat to other vehicles 2. Loss of windshield visibility 4. Debris on pavement + PHYSICAL THREAT TO WORKERS OR OTHER VEHICLES 1. Harmful debris that could injure workers or others in the area 2. Harmful debris that could injure occupants in other vehicles VEHICLE AND DEVICE CONDITION 1. Vehicle Damage a. None b. Minor scrapes, scratches or dents c. Significant cosmetic dents Windshield Damage a. None b. Minor chip or crack c. Broken, no interference with visibility d. Broken and shattered, visibility restricted but remained intact Device Damage d. Major dents to grill and body panels e. Major structural damage e. Shattered, remained intact but partially dislodged f. Large portion removed g. Completely removed a. b. c. None Superficial Substantial, but can be straightened d. e. Substantial, replacement parts needed for repair Cannot be repaired 9

20 The following evaluation criteria apply to the support vehicle: Structural Adequacy C. Acceptable test article performance may be by redirection, controlled penetration, or controlled stopping of the vehicle. OccupantEUsk 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. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Vehicle Trajectory Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Ridedown Accelerations - g 's Preferred Maximum K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. 10

21 CRASH TEST RNC6 (NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST MODIFIED 3-50) The RENCO RAM look TMA was tested and evaluated in test RNC6. The dimensions of the RENCO RAM look TMA was 3365 mm long by 2145 mm wide by 580 mm high. The weight of the TMA without the mounting hardware was 427 kg (499 kg with mounting hardware). Details of the TMA are given in figure 1. Test Vehicle The RENCO RAM look TMA was installed for this test as shown in figures 1 and 2. A 1994 Geo Metro, shown in figures 3 and 4, was used for the crash test. Test inertia weight of the vehicle was 820 kg, and its gross static weight was 896 kg. The height to the lower edge of the vehicle front bumper was 370 mm and to the upper edge of the front bumper was 455 mm. Additional dimensions and information on the vehicle are given in appendix B, figure 27. The vehicle was directed into the installation using the cable reverse tow and guidance system, and was released to be free-wheeling and unrestrained just prior to impact. Information on the support vehicle is given in Technical Discussion under Test Article. Weather Conditions The crash test was performed the morning of November 11, No rainfall was recorded for the ten days prior to the test. Weather conditions at the time of testing were as follows: Temperature: l5 C; Relative Humidity: 30 percent. hnpact Description The vehicle, traveling at 94.9 kmlh, impacted the RENCO RAM look at 0 degrees with the centerline of the impacting vehicle aligned with the centerline of the TMA. Shortly after impact, the TMA moved. At s, the rear wheels of the support vehicle moved. The impacting vehicle began to underride the TMA at s. The top edges on the side of the TMA folded in and the front of the TMA moved forward at s. :By!tb64 s, tlie hood of tlie vehicle deformed and folded toward the windshield. The hood contacted the windshield, and shattered the glass. At s, the back-up plate on the TMA deformed upward. At s, the bottom rear edge of the TMA contacted the windshield, and at s, the driver's side window shattered. The dummy's head was fully extended forward at s, and at s, the rear of the TMA extended up and over the windshield of the impacting vehicle. By s, the undercarriage of the vehicle contacted the ground surface, and by s, the impacting vehicle stopped moving forward. At s, the support vehicle and TMA moved forward slightly and then the TMA slid backward. At s, the support vehicle stopped moving forward. Brakes on the impacting vehicle were not applied, and the vehicle subsequently came to rest under the TMA. Maximum roll-ahead distance of the support vehicle was 1055 mm. Sequential photographs of the test period are shown in appendix C, figure

22 Figure 2. RENCO RAM look TMA prior to test RNC6. 12

23 Figure 3. Vehicle/TMA geometries for test RNC6. 13

24 Figure 4. Impacting vehicle before test RNC6. 14

25 Damage to Test Article The damage sustained by the RENCO RAM -1 OOk TMA is shown in figures 5 and 6. The TMA buckled on the top surface 460 mm from the front, 530 mm folded under on the rear, 496 mm rolled downward, and the bottom of the TMA folded up in front of the vehicle. The backup/support structure on the left side deformed 5 mm. Maximum dynamic crush of the RENCO RAM-lOOk TMA during the test was not attainable, but the maximum residual deformation was 2.6 m. Vehicle Damage The vehicle sustained extensive damage to the front as shown in figure 7. Structural damage was imparted to the right and left A-posts and the front strut mounts. Also damaged were the front bumper, hood, radiator and support, left and right head lights, right door, left door and window. The right and left quarter panels and the roof of the vehicle were deformed. The windshield was broken and deformed inward with significant damage, penetration of the windshield (small hole near the edge on the passenger side), and the windshield was separated from the frame on the passenger side as well (Case 2 of the FHW A windshield classification which states: Any impact that destroys or deforms the windshield to the extent that it separates from the frame). Maximum exterior crush was 190 mm at the front bumper. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 130 mm (18 percent reduction in space) in the firewall area. The interior of the vehicle is shown in fignre 8. Exterior vehicle crush and occupant compartment measurements are shown in appendix B, tables 7 and 8. Occupant Risk Factors Data from the accelerometer located at the vehicle center of gravity (e.g.) were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk and were computed as follows. Also note that the impacting speed of the vehicle was 4.9 km/h under the target speed of 100 kmlh. For the impacting vehicle: In the longitudinal direction, the occupant impact velocity was ll.5 rn!s at s, the highest s occupant ridedown acceleration was g' s from to s, and the maximum s average acceleration was g's between and s. In the lateral direction, the occupant impact velocity was 0.8 rn!s at s, the highest s occupant ridedown acceleration was -1.5 g's from to s, and the maximum s average was -1.4 g's between and s. For the support vehicle: The highest s longitudinal ridedown acceleration was 2.6 g' s at s. These data and other pertinent information from the test are summarized in figure 9. Vehicle angular displacements and accelerations versus time traces are presented in appendix D, figures 33 through

26 Figure 5. Vehicle trajectory after test RNC6. 16

27 Figure 6. TMA after test RNC6. 17

28 Figure 7. Impacting vehicle after test RNC6. 18

29 Before test After test Figure 8. Interior of impacting vehicle for test RNC6. 19

30 General Information ~ Test Agency... Texas Transportation Institute Test No RNC6 Date /30/99 Test Article Type... Truck Mounted Attenuator Name RENCO RAM-1 OOk TMA Installation Length (m) Material or Key Elements... Cardboard Honeycomb Covered with Aluminum Sh~eting Soil Type and Condition.... Concrete Pavement, Dry Test Vehicle Type Production Designation C Model Geo Metro Mass (kg) Curb Test Inertial Dummy Gross Static Impact Conditions Speed (km/h).... Angle (deg).... Exit Conditions Speed (km/h).... Angle (deg).... Occupant Risk Values Impact Velocity (m/s) x-direction.... y-direction.... THIV (km/h).... Ridedown Accelerations (g's) x-dlrection.... y-direction...,,..,..,.. PHD (g's).... ASI.... Max s Average (g's) x-direction...,..,.. y-direction.... z-direction Stopped N/A Test Article Deflections (m) Dynamic., N!A Permanent Vehicle Damage Exterior VDS... 12FD7 CDC... 12FDEW6 Maximum Exterior Vehicle Crush (mm) Interior OCDI FS Max. Occ. Compart. Defonmation (mm) Post-Impact Behavior (during 1.0 s after impact) Max. Yaw Angle (deg) Max. Pitch Angle (deg) Max. Roll Angle (deg) Figure 9. Summary of Results for test RNC6, NCHRP Report 350 test 3-50.

31 CRASH TEST RNC7 (NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST MODIFIED 3-50) The RENCO RAM look TMA was tested and evaluated in test RNC7. The dimensions of the RENCO RAM look TMA were 3365 mm long by 2145 mm wide by 580 mm high. The weight of the TMA without the mounting hardware was 427 kg ( 499 kg with mounting hardware). Details of the TMA are given in figure 1 and 11. Test Vehicle The RENCO RAM look TMA was installed on the support vehicle as shown in figure 10. A 1991 Ford Festiva, shown in figures 11 and 12, was used for the crash test. Note that the vehicle was older than allowed in NCHRP Report 350; however, prior permission was given by FHW A allowing use of this vehicle. Test inertia weight of the vehicle was 820 kg, and its gross static weight was 895 kg. The height to the lower edge of the vehicle front bumper was 380 mm and to the upper edge of the front bumper was 1530 mm. Additional dimensions and information on the vehicle are given in appendix B, figure 28. The vehicle was directed into the installation using the cable reverse tow and guidance system, and was released to be freewheeling and unrestrained just prior to impact. Information on the support vehicle is given in Technical Discussion under Test Article. Weather Conditions The crash test was performed the morning of March 23, A total of 48 mm of rainfall was recorded beginning nine days prior to the date. No rainfall was recorded for the remaining eight days prior to the test. This rainfall would have no effect on the test as the test was conducted on the concrete The refe~ence for I [EB; i wind direction is 90" vehicle fixed as surface. Weather conditions at the time of testing were as howo. follows: Wind Speed: 24 kmlh; Wind Direction: 180 degrees _ " 00 it(]h '""!Bo' with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a northerly direction); Temperature: 24 oc; Relative Humidity: 67 percent Impact Description The vehicle, traveling at a speed of kmlh, impacted the RAM-lOOk TMA at 0 degrees with the centerline of the vehicle aligned with the centerline of the TMA. Shortly after impact the TMA moved. The bottom seam at the rear of the TMA began to tear and move toward the ground at s. At s, the dummy's head moved forward. By s, the bottom of the TMA contacted the ground surface, and by s, the bottom side seam had ruptured 0.51 m and the backup/support structure plate rotated downward. The TMA slid closer to the impacting vehicle at s, and at s, the support vehicle rolled forward. At s, the front tires of the impacting vehicle rode up on the bottom shell of the TMA, and at s, the top of the shell of the TMA split at the seam. By s, the impacting vehicle moved downward 21

32 Figure 10. RENCORAM 100kTMApriortotest RNC7. 22

33 Figure 11. VehicleffMA geometries for test RNC?. 23

34 Figure 12. hnpacting vehicle before test RNC?. 24

35 toward the ground surface, and by s, the hood of the vehicle deformed toward the windshield. At s the bottom comer seam had ruptured 0.84 m and a rupture was visible in the bottom middle seam. By s the top middle seam had opened 1.06 m. The bottom center of the TMA contacted the ground surface at s, and at s, the front of the impacting vehicle lost contact with the ground. A secondary rupture began opening on the bottom comer seam at s. By s the bottom comer seam had ruptured a total of 3.13 m. The dummy's head contacted the steering wheel and instrument panel at sand s, respectively. By s, the left and right front tires lost contact with the ground, and by s, the impacting vehicle stopped moving forward. The left and right front tires contacted the ground surface at s, and at s, the support vehicle stopped moving forward. The support vehicle and impacting vehicle stopped moving at s. Brakes on the impacting vehicle were not applied and the vehicle subsequently came to rest within the TMA. The vehicle was slowed over 3.07 m until a common velocity with the support vehicle of 12.1 kmlh was attained. During this time the support vehicle was pushed forward 0.23 m. Maximum roll-ahead distance of the support vehicle was 730 mm. Sequential photographs of the test period are shown in appendix C, figure 31. Damage to Test Article The damage sustained by the RENCO RAM-lOOk TMA is shown in figures 13 and 14. The TMA was crushed somewhat evenly from left to right and top to bottom. The top seam split stopped at 400 mm from the front of the TMA. Both bottom comer seams were almost entirely ruptured leaving the bottom sheath of the TMA to remain under the vehicle. The backup/support structure on the right side deformed 2 mm. Maximum dynamic crush of the RENCO RAM-lOOk TMA during the test was not attainable. The maximum residual deformation was 2.1 m and the maximum impacting vehicle displacement relative to the support vehicle, when common velocity was attained, was 2.82 m as measured on the high speed film. It was noted that the seams on the TMA in test RNC7 ruptured more rapidly and more significantly than in test RNC2. Vehicle Damage The vehicle sustained extensive damage to the front as shown in figure 15. Structural damage was imparted to the left and right front struts. Also damaged were the bumper, hood, fan and radiator, right and left doors, and the floor pan area. The right and left front quarter panels were deformed. The windshield was broken and deformed inward with significant damage but did not separate from the frame (Case 3 of the FHW A windshield classification which states: Any impact where the windshield is cracked overall to such a degree that the driver cannot readily see to navigate). Maximum exterior crush of the vehicle was 150 mm at the front bumper. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 42 mm (6 percent reduction in space) in the firewall area. The interior of the vehicle is shown in fignre 16. Exterior vehicle crush and occupant compartment measurements are shown in appendix B, tables 9 and

36 Figure 13. Vehicle trajectory after test RNC?. 26

37 Figure 14. TMA after test RNC7. 27

38 Figure 15. Impacting vehicle after test RNC7. 28

39 Before test After test Figure 16. Interior of impacting vehicle for test RNC?. 29

40 Occupant Risk Factors Data from the accelerometer located at the vehicle e.g. were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk and were computed as follows. For the impacting vehicle: In the longitudinal direction, the occupant impact velocity was 12.3 m/s at s, the highest s occupant ridedown acceleration was g's from to s, and the maximum s average acceleration was g's between and s. In the lateral direction, there was no contact, the highest s occupant ridedown acceleration was 3.2 g's from to s, and the maximum s average was 1.0 g's between and s. For the support vehicle: The highest s longitudinal ridedown acceleration was -1.6 g' s at s. These data and other pertinent information from the test are summarized in figure 17. Vehicle angular displacements and accelerations versus time traces are presented in appendix D, figures 40 through46. 30

41 ~Dilll~ I~ c::j c::j c::j c::j s Oil ~~~" _i1?'i:)"'.~:.o.:.j., w General Information ~-'- Test Agency.... Test No..... Date.... Test Article Type.... Name.... Installation Length (m).... Material or Key Elements... Soil Type and Condition... Test Vehicle Type.... Designation.... Model.... Mass (kg) Curb.... Test Inertial.... Dummy.... Gross Static.... Texas Transportation Institute RNC? 03/23/00 Truck Mounted Attenuator RENCO RAM-1 OOk TMA 2.1 Cardboard Honeycomb Covered with Aluminum Sheeting Concrete Pavement, Dry Production 820C 1991 Ford Festiva Impact Conditions Speed (km/h) Angle (deg)... 0 Exit Conditions Speed (km/h) Stopped Angle (deg) N/A Occupant Risk Values Impact Velocity (m/s) x~direction y-direction THIV (km/h) Ridedown Accelerations (g's) x-direction y-direction PHD (g's) ASI Max s Average (g's) x-direction y-direction z-direction Test Article Deflections (m) Dynamic N/A Permanent Vehicle Damage Exterior VDS... 12FD4 CDC FDEW5 Maximum Exterior Vehicle Crush (mm) Interior OCDI FS Max. Occ. Compart. Deformation (mm) Post-Impact Behavior {during 1.0 s after impact) Max. Yaw Angle (deg) Max. Pitch Angle (deg) Max. Roll Angle (deg) Figure 17. Summary of Results for test RNC7, NCHRP Report 350 test 3-50.

42

43 CRASH TEST RNC2 (NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 3-51) TheRENCO RAM look TMA was tested and evaluated in test rnc2. The dimensions of the RENCO RAM look TMA were 3365 mm long by 2145 mm wide by 580 mm high. The weight of the TMA without the mounting hardware was 427 kg ( 499 kg with mounting hardware). Details of the TMA are given in figure 1. Test Vehicle The RENCO RAM look TMA was attached to the support vehicle as shown in figure 18. A 1994 Ford F-250 pickup truck, shown in figures 19 and 20, was used for the crash test. Test inertia weight of the vehicle was 2000 kg, and its gross static weight was 2000 kg. The height to the lower edge of the vehicle front bumper was 435 mm and to the upper edge of the front bumper was 710 mm. Additional dimensions and information on the vehicle are given in appendix B, figure 29. The vehicle was directed into the installation using the cable reverse tow and guidance system, and was released to be free-wheeling and unrestrained just prior to impact. Information on the support vehicle is given in Technical Discussion under Test Article. Weather Conditions The crash test was performed the morning of Aprill5, A total of 1 mm of rainfall was recorded nine days prior to the test and 20 mm was recorded the day before the test. This rainfall would have no effect on the test as the test was conducted on the concrete surface. Weather conditions at the time of testing were as follows: Wind Speed: 27 kmlh; Wind Direction: 340 degrees with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling northerly direction); Temperature: 14 C; Relative Humidity: 36 percent. The reference for j wind dlrecl!on Is 90 vehicle fixed as.howotjr~ ~ if(lj. ~lso' 1270 Impact Description The vehicle, traveling at kmlh, impacted the RENCO RAM-lOOk TMA at 0 degrees with the centerline of the impacting vehicle aligned with the centerline of the TMA. Shortly after impact, the rear wheels of the support vehicle began to roll. By s the comer seam had ruptured 0.44 m. The bottom rear section of the TMA contacted the ground surface at s. By s the bottom comer seam had ruptured 1.91 m. The support vehicle had moved 0.20 m by s. The front and rear tires of the impacting vehicle lost contact with the ground at sand s, respectively. A common velocity of 12.6 kmlh was attained at approximately s. Total pickup CG displacement at common velocity was 3.23 m. The front and rear tires returned to the ground surface at s, s, s, and s, respectively. The impacting vehicle stopped moving forward at s. The support truck rolled 33

44 Figure 18. RENCO RAM look TMA prior to test RNC2. 34

45 Figure 19. V ehicle/tma geometries for test RNC2. 35

46 Figure 20. Impacting vehicle before test RNC2. 36

47 forward 4.3 m. Brakes on the vehicle were not applied. Sequential photographs of the test period are shown in appendix C, figure 32. Damage to Test Article The damage sustained by the RENCO RAM-lOOk TMA is shown in figures 21 and 22. The TMA was crushed somewhat evenly from left to right and top to bottom. The middle seam split stopped at 460 mm from the front of the TMA and the bottom lower seam split stopped 1730 mm on the left side and 305 mm on the right side. There was a 16 mm tear on the top right comer 470 mm from the front of the TMA. The backup/support structure on the right side deformed 10 mm. Maximum dynamic crush of the RENCO RAM-lOOK TMA during the test was not attainable, but the maximum residual deformation was 1.7 m. Vehicle Damage The vehicle sustained damage to the front as shown in figure 23. The front bumper, hood, grill, left and right front tires, radiator and fan were damaged. The right and left front quarter panels were deformed. No deformation or intrusion into the occupant compartment occurred during the test. The interior of the vehicle is shown in figure 24. Exterior vehicle crush and occupant compartment measurements are shown in appendix B, tables 11 and 12. Occupant Risk Factors Data from the accelerometer located at the vehicle e.g. were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk and were computed as follows. For the impacting vehicle: In the longitudinal direction, the occupant impact velocity was 11.7 m/s at s, the highest s occupant ridedown acceleration was g's from to s, and the maximum s average acceleration was g's between and s. In the lateral direction, the occupant impact velocity was 0.9 m/s at s, the highest s occupant ridedown acceleration was 2.6 g' s from to s, and the maximum s average was -1.6 g' s between and... ' s. For the support vehicle: The highest s longitudinal ridedown acceleration was -3.2 g's at s. These data and other pertinent information from the test are summarized in figure 25. Vehicle angnlar displacements and accelerations versus time traces are presented in appendix D, figures 47 through

48 Figure 21. Vehicle trajectory after test RNC2. 38

49 Figure 22. TMA after test RNC2. 39

50 Figure 23. Impacting vehicle after test RNC2. 40

51 Before test After test Figure 24. Interior of impacting vehicle for test RNCZ. 41

52 '"""';~= General Information tj Test Agency.... Test No..... Date.... Test Article Type.... Name.... Installation Length (m).... Material or Key Elements... Soil Type and Condition... Test Vehicle Type.... Designation.... Model.... Mass (kg) Curb.... Test Inertial.... Dummy.... Gross Static.... Texas Transportation Institute RNC2 04/15/99 Truck Mounted Attenuator RENCO RAM-1 00 k TMA 2.1 Cardboard Honeycomb Covered with Aluminum Sheeting Concrete Pavement, Dry Production 2000P 1994 Ford F-250 Pickup Truck No dummy 2000 Impact Conditions Speed (km/h).... Angle (deg).... Exit ConditiOns Speed (km/h).... Angle (deg).... Occupant Risk Values Impact Velocity (m/s) x-direction.... y-direction.... THIV (kmlh).... Ridedown Accelerations (g's) x-direction.... y-direction.... PHD (g's).... ASI.... Max s Average (g's) x-direction.... y-direction.... z-direction Stopped N/A Test Article Deflections (m) Dynamic N/A Pennanent Vehicle Damage Exterior VDS... 12FD1 CDC... 12FDEW1 Maximum Exterior Vehicle Crush (mm) Interior OCDI FSOOOOOOO Max. Occ. Compart. Defonnation (mm) nil Post-Impact Behavior (during 1.0 s after impact) Max. Yaw Angle (deg) Max. Pitch Angle (deg) Max. Roll Angle (deg) Figure 25. Summary of Results for test RNC2, NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51.

53 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ASSESSMENT OF TEST RESULTS As stated previously, the following NCHRP Report 350 safety evaluation criteria were used to evaluate this crash test: The following evaluation criteria apply to the impacting vehicle: OccupantFtisk 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. No detached elements, fragments or other debris were present from any of the TMAs to penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard to others in the area. In crash test RNC6 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50 with the RAM look), the impacting vehicle underrode the TMA which allowed the lower rear edge of the TMA to contact the windshield area of the impacting vehicle, deformed the windshield inward causing the inner layer of glass to shatter into the occupant compartment, causing a small hole near the edge of the windshield on the passenger side, and some separation of the windshield from the frame on the passenger side. In test RNC7 (repeat of mod. test 3-50), the TMA pushed the hood into the windshield which caused the windshield to crack, the inner layer of glass to shatter slightly and the windshield deform inward. The windshield was not damaged and no deformation nor intrusion of the occupant compartment occurred in test RNC2 (the test with the pickup truck, NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51). F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. The impacting vehicles in all tests remained upright during and after the collision period. 43

54 H. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following: Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity - mls Preferred Maximum 9 12 For test RNC6 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50): Longitudinal OIV was 11.5 rn!s and lateral OIV was 0.8 rn!s.. (Also note that the impact speed was 95.1 km!h which was 4.9 km!h lower than target speed of 100 km!h. NCHRP Report 350 allows ±4 km!h.) For test RNC7 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50): Longitudinal OIV was 12.3 m/s and there was no contact in the lateral direction. For test RNC2 (NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51): Longitudinal OIV was 11.7 m/s and lateral OIV was 0.9 m!s I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Vehicle Trajectory Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Ridedown Accelerations - g 's Preferred Maximum For test RNC6 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50): Longitudinal ridedown was g' s and lateral ridedown was -1.5 g' s. For test RNC7 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50): Longitudinalridedown was g's and there was no contact in the lateral direction. For test RNC2 (NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51): Longitudinal ridedown was g's and lateral ridedown was 2.6 g's. K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. None of the impacting vehicles intruded into adjacent traffic lanes as they came to rest directly behind the TMA. 44

55 In a memo entitled: Action: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features, FHW A suggests the following supplemental evaluation factors and terminology be used for visual assessment of test results: + PASSENGER COMPARTMENT INTRUSION 1. Windshield Intrusion a. No windshield contact RNC2 b. Windshield contact, no damage c. Windshield contact. no intrusion RNC7 d. Device embedded in windshield, no significant intrusion e. Complete intrusion into passenger compartment f, Partial intrusion into passenger compartment windshield deformed inward in RNC6 No windshield contact occurred in the test with the pickup (NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51) In test RNC6 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50), the vehicle underrode the TMA which allowed the rear edge of the TMA to contact the windshield area of the impacting vehicle and dish the windshield inward causing the inner layer of glass to shatter into the occupant compartment. In test RNC7 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50), the hood deformed and was pushed into the windshield of the impacting vehicle which cracked the windshield in the lower comers. 2. Body Panel Intrusion No body panel intrusion occurred in any of the tests. + LOSS OF VEIDCLE CONTROL 1. Physical loss of control 3. Perceived threat to other vehicles 2. Loss of windshield visibility 4. Debris on pavement Loss of vehicle control was not an issue for these tests as the vehicles were subsequently brought to a controlled stop directly behind the support vehicle!tma. + PHYSICAL THREAT TO WORKERS OR OTHER VEHICLES 1. Harmful debris that could injure workers or others in the area 2. Harmful debris that could injure occupants in other vehicles None of the debris was judged to be a physical threat to occupants in other vehicles, or the workers or others in the area. 45

56 + VEIDCLE AND DEVICE CONDITION 1. Vehicle Damage a. None b. Minor scrapes, scratches or dents c. Significant cosmetic dents d. Major dents to grill and body panels e. Major structural damage (all tests) All impacting vehicles sustained major structural damage to the front of the vehicle. 2. Windshield Damage a. None RNC2 b. Minor chip or crack c. Broken, no interference with visibility d. Broken and shattered. visibility restricted but remained intact RNC7 e. Shattered, remained intact but partially dislodged RNC6 f. Large portion removed g. Completely removed In test RNC2 (NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51), the windshield was not damaged. In test RNC6 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50), the impacting vehicle underrode the TMA which allowed the lower edge of the rear of the TMA to contact the windshield area of the impacting vehicle and deform the windshield inward causing the inner layer of glass to shatter into the occupant compartment. In test RNC7 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50), the hood deformed and was pushed into the windshield of the impacting vehicle which cracked the windshield in the lower comers. 3. Device Damage a. b. c. None Superficial Substantial, but can be straightened d. Substantial, replacement parts needed for repair Cannot be repaired All tests In all tests, damage to the RENCO TMAs was substantial and could not be repaired. All the TMAs would have to be replaced. 46

57 The following evaluation criteria apply to the support vehicle: Structural Adequacy C. Acceptable test article performance may be by redirection, controlled penetration, or controlled stopping of the vehicle. Occupant Risk The RENCO TMAs brought the impacting vehicles to a controlled stop with, in most cases, minimal forward movement of the support vehicle. Maximum roll ahead distance was 4.3 m in test RNC-2 (NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51). 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. No detached elements, fragments or other debris were present from any of the TMAs to penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard to others in the area. No deformation or intrusion of the occupant compartment of the support vehicle occurred in any of the tests. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. The support vehicles remained upright during and after the collision period in all tests. I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Ridedown Accelerations - g 's Preferred Maximum For test RNC6 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50): Longitudinal ridedown was 2.6 g's. (Also note that the impact speed was 95.1 kmlh which was 4.9 km/h lower than target speed of 100 kmlh. NCHRP Report 350 allows ±4 kmlh.) 47

58 Vehicle Trajectory For test RNC7 (NCHRP Report 350 mod. test 3-50): Longitudinal ridedown was -1.6 g' s. For test RNC2 (NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51 ): Longitudinal ridedown was -3.2 g's. K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. In all tests, the support vehicle did not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. The support vehicle did roll ahead, but the distances were minimal (maximum roll ahead distance was 4.3 min test RNC2 (NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51)). CONCLUSIONS Three crash tests (RNC2, RNC6 and RNC7) were performed to evaluate the impact performance of the new RENCO RAM look TMA in accordance with the guidelines presented in NCHRP Report 350 for Test Level3 (TL-3) safety appurtenances. Test RNC2 was NCHRP Report 350 test 3-51 with the 2000 kg pickup truck test vehicle and tests RNC6 and RNC7 were the modified NCHRP Report 350 test 3-50 (support vehicle free-standing) with the 820 kg passenger vehicle. Figure 26 illustrates comparatively the RENCO RAM look TMA after being impacted by each of the two NCHRP Report 350 test vehicles, i.e., the pickup and the small car. Tests RNC6 and RNC7 failed to meet all the evaluation criteria for NCHRP Report 350 modified test Test RNC6 failed by excessive deformation and penetration into the occupant compartment through the windshield area. NCHRP Report 350 modified test 3-50 was performed again, test RNC7, and failed due to occupant impact velocity of 12.3 rn/s (maximum allowable is 12 rn/s). Evaluation criteria and test performance as related to all NCHRP Report 350 criteria are presented in tables I through 4 for tests RNC6 and RNC7. Test RNC2 successfully met the evaluation criteria for NCHRP Report 350 test Evaluation criteria and test performance as related to these criteria are presented in tables 5 and 6 for test RNC2. 48

59 RNC RNC? Figure 26. Comparison of TMA damage. 49

60 Ul 0 Table 1. Performance evaluation summary for impacting vehicle during test RNC6, NCHRP Report 350 Test Test Agency Texas Transportation Institute Test No RNC6 Test Date 11/30/99 NCHRP Report 350 Evaluation Criteria Test Results Assessment Occupant Risk D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test No detached elements, fragments or other debris article should not penetrate or show potential for were present from the RAM look TMA to penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an penetrate or to show potential for penetrating the undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel in occupant compartment, or to present undue a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the hazard to others. The impacting vehicle occupant compartment that could cause serious injuries underrode the TMA which allowed the lower should not be permitted. edge of the TMA to contact the windshield area of the impacting vehicle and deformed the windshield inward causing the inner layer of glass to shatter into the occupant compartment. '.. Marginal F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after The impacting vehicle remained upright during collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing are and after the collision period. Pass acceptable. H. Occupant impact velocities sqould satisfy the following: Longitudinal OIV was 11.5 rn/s Occupant hnpact Velocity Limits (rnls) and lateral OIV was 0.8 rn/s. (Note that the impact speed was 95,1 krn!h Component Preferred Maximum which was 4.9 krn!h lower than target speed of Longitudinal and Lateral krn!h. NCHRP Report 350 allows ±4 krn!h.) I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following:.: Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g's) Component Preferred Maximum Longitudinal and Lateral Vehicle Trajectory Longitudinal ridedown was g' s and lateral ridedown was -1.5 g's. K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's trajectory The impacting vehicle did not intrude into not intrude into adiacent traffic lanes. adiacent traffic lanes. *Cntenon IS preferable, not reqmred. Pass Pass Pass*

61 Table 2. Performance evaluation summary for support vehicle during test RNC6, NCHRP Report 350 Test T es ta gency: T ex as T ranspo rtti a on rnr s ttute T est N o.: RNC6 T est D ate: 11/30/99 NCHRP Report 350 Evaluation Criteria Test Results Structural AdeQuacx C. Acceptable test article performance may be by The RENCO RAM look TMA brought the redirection, controlled penetration, or controlled impacting vehicle to a controlled stop. Maximum stopping of the vehicle. roll ahead distance of the support vehicle was 1.1 m. Occu11ant Risk ~I D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the No detached elements, fragments or other debris test article should not penetrate or show potential for were present from the RAM 1 OOk TMA to penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an penetrate or show potential for penetrating the undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard Pass in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the to others in the area. No deformation or intrusion occupant compartment that could cause serious injuries of the occupant compartment of the support vehicle should not be permitted. occurred. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after The support vehicle remained upright during and collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing after the collision period. Pass are acceptable. I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: : Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g' s) Longitudinal ridedown was 2.6 g's Pass Component Preferred Maximum Longitudinal Vehicle Trajecton: K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's The support vehicle did not intrude into adjacent traiectorv not intrude into adiacent traffic lanes. traffic lanes. Maximum roll ahead was 1.1 m. *Cntenon ts preferable, not reqmred. Pass Pass*

62 T Table 3. Performance evaluation summary for impacting vehicle during test RNC7, NCHRP Report 350 Test A est gency: T ex as T ransportauon In' stltute T est N o.: RNC7 T est D ate: 03123/ 2000 I NCHRP Report 350 Evaluation Criteria I Test Results I Assessment I Occugant Risk D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the No detached elements, fragments or other debris test article should not penetrate or show potential for were present from the RAM look TMA to penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an penetrate or show potential for penetrating the undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard Pass in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the to others in the area. No deformation or intrusion occupant compartment that could cause serious injuries into the occupant compartment occurred. should not be permitted. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after The impacting vehicle remained upright during and collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing after the collision period. Pass are acceptable. H. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following: Occupant hnpact Velocity Limits (rn!s) Component Preferred Maximum Longitudinal and Lateral 9 12 I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g' s) Component. Preferred Maximum Longitudinal and Lateral Vehicle Trajecton: Longitudinal ON was 12.3 rn!s and there was no contact in the lateral direction. Longitudinalridedown was g's and there was no contact in the lateral direction. K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's The impacting vehicle did not intrude into adjacent traiectorv not intrude into adilicent traffic lanes. traffic lanes. *Cntenon IS preferable, not requrred. Marginal Pass Pass*

63 Table 4. Performance evaluation summary for support vehicle during test RNC?, NCHRP Report 350 Test T est A gency: T ex as T ransportation In" stitute T est N o.: RNC7 T est D ate: 03/23/2000 I NCHRP Report 350 Evaluation Criteria I Test Results I Assessment I Structural Adeguacy c. Acceptable test article performance may be by The RENCO RAM look TMA brought the redirection, controlled penetration, or controlled impacting vehicle to a controlled stop. Maximum stopping of the vehicle. roll ahead distance of the support vehicle was 0.7m. Occu11ant Risk D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the No detached elements, fragments or other debris test article should not penetrat,e or show potential for were present from the RAM look TMA to penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an penetrate or show potential for penetrating the undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard Pass in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the to others in the area. No deformation or intrusion occupant compartment that could cause serious injuries of the occupant compartment of the support vehicle should not be permitted. occurred. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after The support vehicle remained upright during and collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing after the collision period. Pass are acceptable. I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g's) Longitudinal ridedown was -1.6 g' s Pass Component Preferred Maximum Longitudinal Vehicle Trajectory K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's The support vehicle did not intrude into adjacent trajectory not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. traffic lanes. Maximum roll ahead was 0.7 m. *Criterion is preferable, not required. Pass Pass*

64 Table 5. Performance evaluation summary for impacting vehicle during test RNC2, NCHRP Report 350 Test T est A gency: T ex as T ransportation In' stitute T N RNC2 est o.: - T D est ate: 04115/9 9 NCHRP Report 350 Evaluation Criteria Test Results Assessment Occunant Risk D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the No detached elements, fragments or other debris test article should not penetrate or show potential for were present from the RAM 1 OOk TMA to penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an penetrate or show potential for penetrating the undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard Pass in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the to others in the area. No deformation or intrusion occupant compartment that could cause serious injuries into the occupant compartment occurred. should not be IJerrnitted. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after The impacting vehicle remained upright during and collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing after the collision period. Pass are acceptable. H. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following: Occupant Impact Velocity Limits (rnls) Longitudinal ON was 11.7 m/s and lateral ON was 0.9 m/s Component Preferred Maximum Pass Longitudinal and Lateral 9 12 I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g's) Longitudinal ridedown was g's and lateral ridedown was 2.6 g' s. Component Preferred Maximum Pass Longitudinal and Lateral Vehicle Trajectory K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's The impacting vehicle did not intrude into adjacent tr!liectorv not intrude into adiacent traffic lanes. traffic lanes. *Cntenon 1s preferable, not requrred. Pass*

65 Table 6. Performance evaluation summary for support vehicle during test RNC2, NCHRP Report 350 Test T est A gency: T ex as T ransportatwn In" stltute T est N o.: RNC2 T est D ate: 04115/99 I NCHRP Report 350 Evaluation Criteria I Test Results I Assessment I Structural Adeguacy c. Acceptable test article performance may be by The RENCO RAM look TMA brought the redirection, controlled penetration, or controlled impacting vehicle to a controlled stop. Maximum stopping of the vehicle. roll ahead distance of the support vehicle was 4.3 m. Occugant Risk D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the No detached elements, fragments or other debris test article should not penetrate or show potential for were present from the RAM 1 OOk TMA to penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an penetrate or show potential for penetrating the undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard Pass in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the to others in the area. No deformation or intrusion occupant compartment that could cause serious injuries of the occupant compartment of the support vehicle should not be permitted. occurred. F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after The support vehicle remained upright during and collision although moderate roll, pitching and yawing after the collision period. Pass are acceptable. I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following: Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g's) Longitudinal ridedown was -3.2 g's Pass Component Preferred Maximum Longitudinal Vehicle TrajectoO' K. After collision it is preferable that the vehicle's The support vehicle did not intrude into adjacent traiectorv not intrude into adiacent traffic lanes. traffic lanes. Maximum roll ahead was 4.3 m. *Cntenon IS preferable, not reqmred. Pass Pass*

66

67 APPENDIX A. CRASH TEST PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS The crash test and data analysis procedures were in accordance with guidelines presented in NCHRP Report 350. Brief descriptions of these procedures are presented as follows. ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA PROCESSING The test vehicle was instrumented with three solid-state angular rate transducers to measure roll, pitch, and yaw rates; a triaxial accelerometer near the vehicle center of gravity (e.g.) to measure longitudinal, lateral, and vertical acceleration levels; and a back-up biaxial accelerometer in the rear of the vehicle to measure longitudinal and lateral acceleration levels. These accelerometers were ENDEVCO Model2262CA, piezoresistive accelerometers with a ±100 grange. The accelerometers are strain gage type with a linear millivolt output proportional to acceleration. Rate of tum transducers are solid state, gas flow units designed for high g service. Signal conditioners and amplifiers in the test vehicle increase the low level signals to a ±2.5 volt maximum level. The signal conditioners also provide the capability of an R-Cal or shunt calibration for the accelerometers and a precision voltage calibration for the rate transducers. The electronic signals from the accelerometers and rate transducers are transmitted to a base station by means of a 15 channel, constant bandwidth, Inter-Range Instrumentation Group (l.r.i.g.), FMIFM telemetry link for recording on magnetic tape and for display on a real-time strip chart. Calibration signals, from the test vehicle, are recorded minutes before the test and also immediately afterwards. A crystal controlled time reference signal is simultaneously recorded with the data. Pressure-sensitive switches on the bumper of the impacting vehicle are actuated just prior to impact by wooden dowels to indicate the elapsed time over a known distance to provide a measurement of impact velocity. The initial contact also produces an "event" mark on the data record to establish the exact instant of contact with the installation. The multiplex of data channels, transmitted on one radio frequency, is received at the data acquisition station, and demultiplexed onto separate tracks of a 28 track, (l.r.i.g.) tape recorder. After the test, the data are played back from the tape machine, filtered with Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE J211) filters, and digitized using a microcomputer, at 2000 samples per second per channel, for analysis and evaluation of impact performance. All accelerometers are calibrated annually according to SAE J by means of an ENDEVCO 2901, precision primary vibration standard. This device along with its support instruments is returned to the factory annually for a National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) traceable calibration. The subsystems of each data channel are also evaluated annually, using instruments with current NIST traceability, and the results factored into the accuracy of the total data channel, per SAE J211. Calibrations and evaluations will be made at any time a data channel is suspected of any anomalies. 57

68 The digitized data were then processed using two computer programs: DIGITlZE and PLOT ANGLE. Brief descriptions of the functions of these two computer programs are provided as follows. The DIGITIZE program uses digitized data from vehicle-mounted linear accelerometers to compute occupant/compartment impact velocities, time of occupant/compartment impact after vehicle impact, and the highest 10-ms average ridedown acceleration. The DIGITlZE program also calculates a vehicle impact velocity and the change in vehicle velocity at the end of a given impulse period. In addition, maximum average accelerations over 50-ms intervals in each of the three directions are computed. For reporting purposes, the data from the vehicle-mounted accelerometers were then filtered with a 60-Hz digital filter and acceleration versus time curves for the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions were plotted using a commercially available software package (Excel). The PLOT ANGLE program uses the digitized data from the yaw, pitch, and roll rate transducers to compute angular displacement in degrees at s intervals and then instructs a plotter to draw a reproducible plot: yaw, pitch, and roll versus time. These displacements are in reference to the vehicle-fixed coordinate system with the initial position and orientation of the vehicle-fixed coordinate system being that which existed at initial impact. ANTHROPOMORPHIC DUMMY INSTRUMENTATION An Alderson Research Laboratories Hybrid Il, 50th percentile male anthropomorphic dummy, restrained with lap and shoulder belts, was placed in the driver's position of the 820C vehicle. The dummy was uninstrumented. Use of a dummy in the 2000P vehicle is optional according to NCHRP Report 350 and there was no dummy used in the tests with the 2000P vehicle. PHOTOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA PROCESSING Photographic coverage of the test included three high-speed cameras: one overhead with a field of view perpendicular to the ground and directly over the impact point; one placea perpendicular to the left side of the TMA; and a third placed to have a field of view perpendicular to the right side of the TMA. A flash bulb activated by pressure-sensitive tape switches was positioned on the impacting vehicle to indicate the instant of contact with the installation and was visible from each camera. The films from these high-speed cameras were analyzed on a computer-linked Motion Analyzer to observe phenomena occurring during the collision and to obtain time-event, displacement, and angular data. A BetaCam, a VHS-format video camera and recorder, and still cameras were used to record and document conditions of the test vehicle and installation before and after the test. 58

69 TEST VEHICLE PROPULSION AND GUIDANCE The test vehicle was towed into the test installation using a steel cable guidance and reverse tow system. A steel cable for guiding the test vehicle was tensioned along the path, anchored at each end, and threaded through an attachment to the front wheel of the test vehicle. An additional steel cable was connected to the test vehicle, passed around a pulley near the impact point, through a pulley on the tow vehicle, and then anchored to the ground such that the tow vehicle moved away from the test site. A two to one speed ratio between the test and tow vehicle existed with this system. Just prior to impact with the installation, the test vehicle was released to be free-wheeling and unrestrained. The vehicle remained free-wheeling, i.e., no steering or braking inputs, until the vehicle cleared the immediate area of the test site, at which time brakes on the vehicle were activated to bring it to a safe and controlled stop. 59

70

71 APPENDIX B. TEST VEHICLE PROPERTIES AND INFORMATION DAlE' _c1_o_1 L/.><3-><0L/_,9.><9 TEST,0. 'EAR,1_,9_,9~4~--- TIRE INFLATION PRESSURE: RNC6 VI',o,, 2C1 MR2463R MAKE: GEO MODEL:~Moc=E_,_T,Ro,Oc ODOMETER: L7-"4-'!4c<2J;8L ~ TIRE SIZE: 145 8QR 12 1st Use 2nd or More Use:~ Minor Domoge Charged to Project: MASS DISTRIBUTION (kg) CF,2c_,5!_!7c CR!1'..{7_o,6> RR!1~5"4t DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE TO VEHICLE PRIOR TO TEST: 0 ACCELER~METERS note N WHEEL / '~' ::::J -l::::j \I \r, '+' /( '.. (j'; VEHICLE l r-" Wl-IEEL ENGINE 1YPE 3 CYL. ENGINE CID: c1~ 0<0.=l TRANSMISSION TYPE: WHEEL Oil\~ ' 1- u!-r,: ~ I I, IP:; ~ 1--' GEOMETRY - TIRE DIA-1-e- [--o- ~T- M, (mm) ' c v ' )---- TEST INERT111L C.M. n.!![~~ ~ 1M \l \ M,,_ R f l f I X AUTO _MANUAL OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: DUMMY DATA" TYPE: 50th perceowe mqle MASS:-'"-'"------~ SEAT POSITION:~-~-- A c 2270 G D 1325 H 675 ' K ' M R 340 s u 2445 MASS - (kg) CURB TEST INERTIAL GROSS STATIC M, 482 M, 284 M, Figure 27. Vehicle properties for test RNC6. 61

72 Table 7. Exterior crush measurements for test RNC6. VEIDCLE CRUSH MEASUREMENT SHEET' Complete When Applicable End Damage Side Damage Undeformed end width Bowing: Bl -- XI -- Comer shift: AI B2 -- X2 A2 -- End shift at frame (CDC) Bowing constant (check one) XI + X2 = <4inches 2 -- z 4 inches Note: Measure Cl to C6 from Driver to Passenger side in Front or Rear impacts Rear to Front in Side impacts. Direct Damage Specific Impact Plane* of Width** Max*** Field Number C-Measurements (CDC) Crush L** c, c, c, c, c, c, ±D 1 At front bumper 'Table taken from National Accident Sampling System (NASS). *Identify the plane at which the C-measurements are taken (e.g., at bumper, above bumper, at sill, above sill, at beltline, etc.) or label adjustments (e.g., free space). Free space value is defined as the distance between the baseline and the original body contour taken at the individual C locations. This may include the following: bumper lead, bumper taper, side protmsion, side taper, etc. Record the value for each C-measurement and maximum crush. **Measure and document on the vehicle diagram the beginning or end of the direct damage width and field L (e.g., side damage with respect to undamaged axle). ***Measure and document on the vehicle diagram the location of the maximum crush. Note: Use as many lines/columns as necessary to describe each damage profile. 62

73 Table 8. Occupant compartment measurements for test RNC6. Small Car Occupant Compartment Deformation BEFORE AFTER F A A A ~ LJ ~--c,--l LJ C C C D D D E E F G H

74 DATE 03/23/00 TEST ' RNC? VI'" ' KNJPT06H6M YEAR: 1991 MAKE: FORD MODEL: FESTIVA TIRE INFIJ\TION PRESSUREc ODOMETER: S,!8S,!8CL7~3'.<2'----- TIRE SIZE: 155R 12 1st Use:~ 2nd or More Use:_ Minor Damage Charged to Project: MASS DISTRIBUTION (kg) LF -~2o-5o,9; RF_~2"'4~1, LR 1ec7Cc9; RR c1~4_c1 DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE TO VEHICLE PRIOR TO TEST: 1\ ACCELEROMETERS note: N WHEEl '~' ~::J ::J j_ +' I II ~ \r- '+' ~VEHICLE l WHEEL ['~' ENGINE TYPE 4 CYL. ENGINE CID:_1~ ~3~l~--- TRANSMISSION TYPE: ~ ~~~~ t--o GEOMETRY - R 'l TIRE DIA-1-e- WHE L DIA- t-o- I----T- M, (mm) ' c c ' )---- TEST INERTIAL C.M. /n II~~ l II\ ' M,,_ f f I X AUTO _MANUAL OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: DUMMY DATA: lype: 50th rerceofle mq!e MASS: ~"-1"' SEAT POSITION:-Crrr= A 1500 E 550 B c 2300 G D 1460 H R ' s 500 ' 1195 p 535 T 940 M 380 Q 330 u 2380 MASS - (kg) CURB TEST INERTIAL GROSS STATIC M, 567 M, 287 M, Figure 28. Vehicle properties for test RNC7. 64

75 Table 9. Exterior crush measurements for test RNC?. VEHICLE CRUSH MEASUREMENT SHEET 1 Complete When Applicable End Damage Side Damage Undeformed end width Bowing: Bl -- XI -- Comer shift: AI B2 -- X2 A2 -- End shift at frame (CDC) Bowing constant (check one) Xl + X2 = < 4 inches 2 -- > 4 inches Note: Measure Cl to C6 from Driver to Passenger side in Front or Rear impacts Rear to Front in Side impacts. Direct Damage Specific Impact Plane* of Width** Max*** Field Number C-Measurements (CDC) Crush L** c, c, c, c, c, c, ±D I Front bumper 700! !50! 'Table taken from National Accident Sampling System (NASS). *Identify the plane at which the C-measurements are taken (e.g., at bumper, above bumper, at sill, above sill, at beltline, etc.) or label adjustments (e.g., free space). Free space valne is defmed as the distance between the baseline and the original body contour taken at the individual C locations. This may include the following: bumper lead, bumper taper, side protrusion, side taper, etc. Record the value for each C-measurement and maximum crush. **Measure and document on the vehicle diagram the beginning or end of the direct damage width and field L (e.g., side damage with respect to undamaged axle). ***Measure and document on the vehicle diagram the location of the maximum crush. Note: Use as many lines/columns as necessary to describe each damage profile. 65

76 Table 10. Occupant compartment measurements for test RNC?. Small Car Occupant Compartment Deformation BEFORE AFTER A1 A2 A C1 C2 C E1 E2 F G H ;9;.;;0.;..0_

77 DATE' _0~4~/~15~/~99~- YEAR: ~1 ~9~9~4~---- TEST NO., o4c,0"'0"'0"'0"1_-..cr_,n~c"2=... ~ VIN NO., 2FTHF25H7RCA20456 MAKE:,F_,o,.r_,d, _ MODEL: F 250 Pickup Truck TIRE INFLATiON PRESSURE: METER:.c1"0>'6"'8,e:0oc0<o ~ TIRE ""''--'L~T'-'2"'3'-'7'--'8""5"'R-'-1"6"---- MASS DISTRIBUTION (kg) LF 547 RF_~5-"6='4 LR,4'-'3"'9 RR,4'-'5-"0'--- DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE TO VEHICLE PRIOR TO TEST: A N f~g I 1---,_ L --' TIRE IliA- : WHEEL OIA- f- o- r1 r- r~ I, "' I= '"" 0 - " 0~ c---, ~ ~ ~- ~ mr '"m'" ' " ~ :/ ':"I --. ' ' c ~ """""' -1 D-.-- fl ' ' J,_ 0 [ WHEEL TF!ACK e Denotes accelerometer location. NOTES: ENGINE TYPE 8 CYL ENGINE CID:~5,c.cC8ccl~--- TRANSMISSION TYPE: X AUTO _MANUAL OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: DUMMY DATA: TYPE:------~ MASS: SEAT POSITION :--- GEOMETRY - (mm),_.1~9-'-1,_o_ 800 c 3390 D 1855 E 1210 F 5400 G " K c7_c1"'0-80,_.,4"'-3,5_ N-'1"6"'8"'0- o-'1"6"'4"'5_.,,7_,8"'0_. 0,4,.,4"'5_. 750,,9'-"2'-"0' "--'4'-'1"0"0'--- MASS - (kg) CURB TEST INERTIAL GROSS STATIC M, M, M, Figure 29. Vehicle properties for test RNC2. 67

78 Table II. Exterior crush measurements for test RNCZ. VEIITCLE CRUSH MEASUREMENT SHEET 1 Complete When Applicable End Damage Side Damage Undeformed end width Bowing: Bl -- XI -- Comer shift: A 1 - B2 -- X2 A2 -- End shift at frame (CDC) Bowing constant (check one) XI + X2 = < 4 inches 2 -- > 4 inches Note: Measure Cl to C6 from Driver to Passenger side in Front or Rear impacts Rear to Front in Side impacts. Direct Damage Specific Impact Plane* of Width** Max*** Field Number C-Measurements (CDC) Crush L** c, c, c, c, c, c, ±D I At front bumper 'Table taken from National Accident Sampling System (NASS). *Identify the plane at which the C-measurements are taken (e.g., at bumper, above bumper, at sill, above sill, at beltline, etc.) or label adjustments (e.g., free space). Free space value is defmed as the distance between the baseline and the original body contour taken at the individual C locations. This may include the following: bumper lead, bumper taper, side protrusion, side taper, etc. Record the value for each C-measurement and maximum crush. **Measure and document on the vehicle diagram the beginning or end of the direct damage width and field L (e.g., side damage with respect to undamaged axle). ***Measure and document on the vehicle diagram the location of the maximum crush. Note: Use as many lines/columns as necessary to describe each damage profile. 68

79 Table 12. Occupant compartment measurements for test RNC2. Occupant Compartment Deformation BEFORE AFTER A1 A2 A C1 C2 C E1 E2 F G H

80

81 APPENDIX C. SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS s s s s Figure 30. Sequential photographs for test RNC6 (overhead & perpendicular views). 71

82 0.167 s s s s Figure 30. Sequential photographs for test RNC6 (overhead & perpendicular views) (continued). 72

83 0.000 s s s s Figure 31. Sequential photographs for test RNC7 (overhead & perpendicular views). 73

84 0.268 s s s s Figure 31. Sequential photographs for test RNC7 (overhead & perpendicular views) (continued). 74

85 0.000 s s s s Figure 32. Sequential photographs for test RNC2 (overhead & perpendicular views). 75

GUARDRAIL TESTING MODIFIED ECCENTRIC LOADER TERMINAL (MELT) AT NCHRP 350 TL-2. Dean C. Alberson, Wanda L. Menges, and Rebecca R.

GUARDRAIL TESTING MODIFIED ECCENTRIC LOADER TERMINAL (MELT) AT NCHRP 350 TL-2. Dean C. Alberson, Wanda L. Menges, and Rebecca R. GUARDRAIL TESTING MODIFIED ECCENTRIC LOADER TERMINAL (MELT) AT NCHRP 350 TL-2 Dean C. Alberson, Wanda L. Menges, and Rebecca R. Haug Prepared for The New England Transportation Consortium July 2002 NETCR

More information

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843 NCHRP REPORT 350 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING ROADSIDE SAFETY HARDWARE by C. Eugene Buth, P.E. Senior Research Engineer Wanda L. Menges Associate Research Specialist and Sandra K. Schoeneman Research Associate

More information

NCHRP Report 350 Test 4-12 of the Modified Thrie Beam Guardrail

NCHRP Report 350 Test 4-12 of the Modified Thrie Beam Guardrail NCHRP Report 350 Test 4-12 of the Modified Thrie Beam Guardrail PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-99-065 DECEMBER 1999 Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown

More information

July 10, Refer to: HSA-10/CC-78A

July 10, Refer to: HSA-10/CC-78A July 10, 2003 Refer to: HSA-10/CC-78A Barry D. Stephens, P.E. Senior Vice President of Engineering ENERGY ABSORPTION Systems, Inc. 3617 Cincinnati Avenue Rocklin, California 95765 Dear Mr. Stephens: Your

More information

NCHRP Report 350 Crash Testing and Evaluation of the S-Square Mailbox System

NCHRP Report 350 Crash Testing and Evaluation of the S-Square Mailbox System TTI: 0-5210 NCHRP Report 350 Crash Testing and Evaluation of the S-Square Mailbox System ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building

More information

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE Test Level 2 Evaluation of the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 Truck Mounted Attenuator by C. Eugene Buth Senior Research Engineer and Wanda L. Menges Associate Research Specialist Contract

More information

Form DOT F (8-72) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Form DOT F (8-72) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-02/4162-1 Technical Report Documentation Page 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle EVALUATION OF TEXAS GRID-SLOT PORTABLE CONCRETE BARRIER

More information

February 8, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/CC-104

February 8, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/CC-104 February 8, 2008 200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 In Reply Refer To: HSSD/CC-04 Barry D. Stephens, P.E. Sr. Vice President Engineering Energy Absorption Systems, Inc. 367 Cincinnati Avenue

More information

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-04/9-8132-1 4. Title and Subtitle TESTING AND EVALUATION OF THE FLORIDA JERSEY SAFETY SHAPED BRIDGE RAIL 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 5. Report Date February

More information

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843 NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 3-11 OF THE NEW YORK DOT PORTABLE CONCRETE BARRIER WITH I-BEAM CONNECTION (RETEST) by Roger P. Bligh, P.E. Assistant Research Engineer Wanda L. Menges Associate Research Specialist

More information

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843 NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 3-11 OF THE STEEL-BACKED TIMBER GUARDRAIL by D. Lance Bullard, Jr., P.E. Associate Research Engineer Wanda L. Menges Associate Research Specialist and Sandra K. Schoeneman Research

More information

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 4-21 OF THE ALASKA MULTI-STATE BRIDGE RAIL THRIE-BEAM TRANSITION by C. Eugene Buth Senior Research Engineer William F. Williams Assistant Research Engineer Wanda L. Menges Associate

More information

CRASH TEST AND EVALUATION OF 3-FT MOUNTING HEIGHT SIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM

CRASH TEST AND EVALUATION OF 3-FT MOUNTING HEIGHT SIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM TTI: 9-1002-15 CRASH TEST AND EVALUATION OF 3-FT MOUNTING HEIGHT SIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building

More information

A MASH Compliant W-Beam Median Guardrail System

A MASH Compliant W-Beam Median Guardrail System 0 0 0 0 0 A MASH Compliant W-Beam Median Guardrail System By A. Y. Abu-Odeh, R. P. Bligh, W. Odell, A. Meza, and W. L. Menges Submitted: July 0, 0 Word Count:, + ( figures + tables=,000) =, words Authors:

More information

NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 4-12 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS S3-TL4 STEEL BRIDGE RAILING MOUNTED ON CURB AND SIDEWALK

NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 4-12 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS S3-TL4 STEEL BRIDGE RAILING MOUNTED ON CURB AND SIDEWALK TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE NCHRP REPORT 350 TEST 4-12 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS S3-TL4 STEEL BRIDGE RAILING MOUNTED ON CURB AND SIDEWALK by C. Eugene Buth Research Engineer and Wanda L. Menges Associate

More information

STI Project: Barrier Systems, Inc. RTS-QMB Longitudinal Barrier. Page 38 of 40 QBOR1. Appendix F (Continued) Figure F-3

STI Project: Barrier Systems, Inc. RTS-QMB Longitudinal Barrier. Page 38 of 40 QBOR1. Appendix F (Continued) Figure F-3 Barrier Systems, Inc. RTS-QMB Longitudinal Barrier STI Project: QBOR1 Page 38 of 40 Appendix F (Continued) Figure F-3 t=.500sec 115 meters overall 37.1 Impact Severity (kj).. 141.6 Angle (deg).. 25 Speed

More information

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 2009 vii PREFACE Effective traffic barrier systems, end treatments, crash cushions, breakaway devices,

More information

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-03/0-4138-3 4. Title and Subtitle PERFORMANCE OF THE TXDOT T202 (MOD) BRIDGE RAIL REINFORCED WITH FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER BARS

More information

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-05/9-8132-P7 4. Title and Subtitle TL-4 CRASH TESTING OF THE F411 BRIDGE RAIL 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 5. Report Date October 2004 Technical Report Documentation

More information

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5527-1 4. Title and Subtitle DEVELOPMENT OF A LOW-PROFILE TO F-SHAPE TRANSITION BARRIER SEGMENT 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. Technical Report Documentation

More information

MASH Test 3-11 on the T131RC Bridge Rail

MASH Test 3-11 on the T131RC Bridge Rail TTI: 9-1002-12 MASH Test 3-11 on the T131RC Bridge Rail ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building 7091 Bryan, TX 77807 Test

More information

Product Specification. ABSORB 350 TM TL-2 Non-Redirective, Gating, Crash Cushion Applied to Quickchange Moveable Barrier

Product Specification. ABSORB 350 TM TL-2 Non-Redirective, Gating, Crash Cushion Applied to Quickchange Moveable Barrier TB 000612 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 9 Product Specification ABSORB 350 TM TL-2 Non-Redirective, Gating, Crash Cushion Applied to Quickchange Moveable Barrier I. General The ABSORB 350 TM TL-2 System is a Non-Redirective,

More information

MASH08 TEST 3-11 OF THE ROCKINGHAM PRECAST CONCRETE BARRIER

MASH08 TEST 3-11 OF THE ROCKINGHAM PRECAST CONCRETE BARRIER Proving Ground Report No. 400001-RPC4 Report Date: July 2009 MASH08 TEST 3-11 OF THE ROCKINGHAM PRECAST CONCRETE BARRIER by C. Eugene Buth, P.E. Research Engineer William F. Williams, P.E. Assistant Research

More information

VERIFICATION & VALIDATION REPORT of MGS Barrier Impact with 1100C Vehicle Using Toyota Yaris Coarse FE Model

VERIFICATION & VALIDATION REPORT of MGS Barrier Impact with 1100C Vehicle Using Toyota Yaris Coarse FE Model VERIFICATION & VALIDATION REPORT of MGS Barrier Impact with 1100C Vehicle Using Toyota Yaris Coarse FE Model CCSA VALIDATION/VERIFICATION REPORT Page 1 of 4 Project: CCSA Longitudinal Barriers on Curved,

More information

Evaluation and Design of ODOT s Type 5 Guardrail with Tubular Backup

Evaluation and Design of ODOT s Type 5 Guardrail with Tubular Backup Evaluation and Design of ODOT s Type 5 Guardrail with Tubular Backup Draft Final Report Chuck A. Plaxico, Ph.D. James C. Kennedy, Jr., Ph.D. Charles R. Miele, P.E. for the Ohio Department of Transportation

More information

VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS I. GENERAL A. The VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 (VULCAN TL-3) shall be a highly portable and crashworthy longitudinal barrier especially suited for use as a temporary barrier

More information

CRASH TESTING OF RSA/K&C ANTI-RAM FOUNDATION BOLLARD PAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SD-STD-02.

CRASH TESTING OF RSA/K&C ANTI-RAM FOUNDATION BOLLARD PAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SD-STD-02. CRASH TESTING OF RSA/K&C ANTI-RAM FOUNDATION BOLLARD PAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SD-STD-02.01 REVISION A Prepared for RSA Protective Technologies, LLC FINAL REPORT

More information

Technical Report Documentation Page Form DOT F (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Technical Report Documentation Page Form DOT F (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-05/0-4162-3 4. Title and Subtitle 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-DEFLECTION PRECAST CONCRETE ARRIER 5. Report Date January 2005 Technical

More information

VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS I. GENERAL A. The VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 (VULCAN TL-3) shall be a highly portable and crashworthy longitudinal barrier especially suited for use as a temporary barrier

More information

PR V2. Submitted by. Professor MIDWEST Vine Street (402) Submitted to

PR V2. Submitted by. Professor MIDWEST Vine Street (402) Submitted to FINAL REPORT PR4893118-V2 ZONE OF INTRUSION STUDY Submitted by John D. Reid, Ph.D. Professor Dean L.. Sicking, Ph.D., P.E. Professorr and MwRSF Director MIDWEST ROADSIDE SAFETY FACILITY University of Nebraska-Lincoln

More information

June 5, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/B-178. Mr. Kevin K. Groeneweg Mobile Barriers LLC Genesee Trail Road Golden, CO Dear Mr.

June 5, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/B-178. Mr. Kevin K. Groeneweg Mobile Barriers LLC Genesee Trail Road Golden, CO Dear Mr. June 5, 2008 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 In Reply Refer To: HSSD/B-178 Mr. Kevin K. Groeneweg Mobile Barriers LLC 24918 Genesee Trail Road Golden, CO 80401 Dear Mr. Groeneweg: This

More information

CRASH TEST AND EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY WOOD SIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR LARGE GUIDE SIGNS

CRASH TEST AND EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY WOOD SIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR LARGE GUIDE SIGNS TTI: 9-1002-15 CRASH TEST AND EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY WOOD SIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR LARGE GUIDE SIGNS ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100

More information

MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TxDOT T222 BRIDGE RAIL

MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TxDOT T222 BRIDGE RAIL TTI: 9-1002-12 MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TxDOT T222 BRIDGE RAIL ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building 7091 Bryan, TX 77807 Test

More information

CRASH TEST OF MILE POST MARKER. T. J. Hirsch Research Engineer. and. Eugene Buth Assistant Research Engineer. Research Report Number 146-8

CRASH TEST OF MILE POST MARKER. T. J. Hirsch Research Engineer. and. Eugene Buth Assistant Research Engineer. Research Report Number 146-8 CRASH TEST OF MILE POST MARKER by T. J. Hirsch Research Engineer and Eugene Buth Assistant Research Engineer Research Report Number 146-8 Studies of Field Adaption of Impact Attenuation Systems Research

More information

MASH 2016 Implementation: What, When and Why

MASH 2016 Implementation: What, When and Why MASH 2016 Implementation: What, When and Why Roger P. Bligh, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Research Engineer Texas A&M Transportation Institute June 7, 2016 2016 Traffic Safety Conference College Station, Texas Outline

More information

SUMMARY CHANGES FOR NCHRP REPORT 350 GUIDELINES [NCHRP (02)] Keith A. Cota, Chairman Technical Committee on Roadside Safety June 14, 2007

SUMMARY CHANGES FOR NCHRP REPORT 350 GUIDELINES [NCHRP (02)] Keith A. Cota, Chairman Technical Committee on Roadside Safety June 14, 2007 SUMMARY CHANGES FOR NCHRP REPORT 350 GUIDELINES [NCHRP 22-14 (02)] Keith A. Cota, Chairman Technical Committee on Roadside Safety June 14, 2007 BACKGROUND Circular 482 (1962) First full scale crash test

More information

MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TxDOT SINGLE SLOPE BRIDGE RAIL (TYPE SSTR) ON PAN-FORMED BRIDGE DECK

MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TxDOT SINGLE SLOPE BRIDGE RAIL (TYPE SSTR) ON PAN-FORMED BRIDGE DECK TTI: 9-1002 MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TxDOT SINGLE SLOPE BRIDGE RAIL (TYPE SSTR) ON PAN-FORMED BRIDGE DECK ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground

More information

Virginia Department of Transportation

Virginia Department of Transportation TEST REPORT FOR: Virginia Department of Transportation SKT SP 350 50 (15.24 m) System PREPARED FOR: Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23219 TEST REPORT NUMBER: REPORT

More information

MASH TEST 3-37 OF THE TxDOT 31-INCH W-BEAM DOWNSTREAM ANCHOR TERMINAL

MASH TEST 3-37 OF THE TxDOT 31-INCH W-BEAM DOWNSTREAM ANCHOR TERMINAL TTI: 9-1002 MASH TEST 3-37 OF THE TxDOT 31-INCH W-BEAM DOWNSTREAM ANCHOR TERMINAL ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building

More information

Remote Combination Adaptive Driving Equipment Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number G 1990 Ford Bronco Arizona October

Remote Combination Adaptive Driving Equipment Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number G 1990 Ford Bronco Arizona October Remote Combination Adaptive Driving Equipment Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number 2007-76-131G 1990 Ford Bronco Arizona October 2007 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship

More information

Universal TAU-IIR Redirective, Non-Gating, Crash Cushion

Universal TAU-IIR Redirective, Non-Gating, Crash Cushion TB 110927 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 5 Product Specification Universal TAU-IIR Redirective, Non-Gating, Crash Cushion I. General The Universal TAU-IIR system is a Redirective, Non-Gating Crash Cushion in accordance

More information

I I TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS

I I TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE THE TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TEXAS TRANSPORTATON NSTTUTE Testing and Evaluation of the Vermont W-Beam Guardrail Terminal for Low Speed Areas by Althea G. Arnold Assistant Research Engineer Wanda L. Menges Associate Research Specialist

More information

(Item 1) PSS - Type III barricade with a lightweight light attachment, and with a variation in the panel spacing;

(Item 1) PSS - Type III barricade with a lightweight light attachment, and with a variation in the panel spacing; Refer to: HSA-10/WZ-102 Mr. Chuck Bailey Plastic Safety Systems, Inc. 2444 Baldwin Road Cleveland, OH 44104 Dear Mr. Bailey: Thank you for your letter of February 19, 2002, requesting Federal Highway Administration

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY HONDA MOTOR COMPANY 2007 HONDA ACCORD 4-DOOR SEDAN

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY HONDA MOTOR COMPANY 2007 HONDA ACCORD 4-DOOR SEDAN REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL-07-05 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY HONDA MOTOR COMPANY 2007 HONDA ACCORD 4-DOOR SEDAN NHTSA NUMBER: C75304 CALSPAN TEST NUMBER: 8832-F301-05 CALSPAN

More information

Appendix D. Figure D-1. ENCLOSURE 1 (4 Pages) SafeGuard TM Gate System

Appendix D. Figure D-1. ENCLOSURE 1 (4 Pages) SafeGuard TM Gate System Appendix D Figure D-1 SafeGuard TM Gate System ENCLOSURE 1 (4 Pages) Appendix D (Continued) Figure D-4 SafeGuard TM Gate System Appendix D (Continued) Figure D-9 SafeGuardTM Gate System Page D-9 Figure

More information

Evaluation of the Sequential Dynamic Curve Warning System Summary of Full Report Publication No. FHWA-15-CAI-012-A November 2015

Evaluation of the Sequential Dynamic Curve Warning System Summary of Full Report Publication No. FHWA-15-CAI-012-A November 2015 Evaluation of the Sequential Dynamic Curve Warning System Summary of Full Report Publication No. FHWA-15-CAI-012-A November 2015 Source: ISU/TTI Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship

More information

Safe-Stop TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

Safe-Stop TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS Safe-Stop TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS I. GENERAL A. All Safe-Stop Truck Mounted Attenuators (Safe-Stop TMA) shall be designed and manufactured by Energy Absorption Systems, Incorporated,

More information

Technical Report Documentation Page

Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-13/0-6707-1 4. Title and Subtitle WORKER SAFETY DURING OPERATIONS WITH MOBILE ATTENUATORS Technical Report Documentation Page 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

More information

Advances in Simulating Corrugated Beam Barriers under Vehicular Impact

Advances in Simulating Corrugated Beam Barriers under Vehicular Impact 13 th International LS-DYNA Users Conference Session: Automotive Advances in Simulating Corrugated Beam Barriers under Vehicular Impact Akram Abu-Odeh Texas A&M Transportation Institute Abstract W-beam

More information

MASH TEST 3-10 ON 31-INCH W-BEAM GUARDRAIL WITH STANDARD OFFSET BLOCKS

MASH TEST 3-10 ON 31-INCH W-BEAM GUARDRAIL WITH STANDARD OFFSET BLOCKS TTI: 9-1002 MASH TEST 3-10 ON 31-INCH W-BEAM GUARDRAIL WITH STANDARD OFFSET BLOCKS ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building

More information

ASTM F TEST M30 ON THE RSS-3000 DROP BEAM SYSTEM

ASTM F TEST M30 ON THE RSS-3000 DROP BEAM SYSTEM Proving Ground Test Report No.: 510602-RSS3 Test Report Date: January 2014 ASTM F2656-07 TEST M30 ON THE RSS-3000 DROP BEAM SYSTEM by Dean C. Alberson, Ph.D., P.E. Research Engineer Michael S. Brackin,

More information

Development of Combination Pedestrian-Traffic Bridge Railings

Development of Combination Pedestrian-Traffic Bridge Railings TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1468 41 Development of Combination Pedestrian-Traffic Bridge Railings D. LANCE BULLARD, JR., WANDA L. MENGES, AND C. EUGENE BUTH Two bridge railing designs have been developed

More information

Development and Validation of a Finite Element Model of an Energy-absorbing Guardrail End Terminal

Development and Validation of a Finite Element Model of an Energy-absorbing Guardrail End Terminal Development and Validation of a Finite Element Model of an Energy-absorbing Guardrail End Terminal Yunzhu Meng 1, Costin Untaroiu 1 1 Department of Biomedical Engineering and Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,

More information

Evaluation of Barriers for Very High Speed Roadways

Evaluation of Barriers for Very High Speed Roadways TTI: 0-6071 Evaluation of Barriers for Very High Speed Roadways ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building 7091 Bryan, TX 77807

More information

CRASH TESTING AND EVALUATION OF WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

CRASH TESTING AND EVALUATION OF WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Paper No. 980627 CRASH TESTING AND EVALUATION OF WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES by King K. Mak Phone: 210-698-2068 Fax: 210-698-2068 e-mail: king@tti3a.tamu.edu Texas Transportation Institute The Texas

More information

Performance Level 1 Bridge Railings

Performance Level 1 Bridge Railings 80 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1500 Performance Level 1 Bridge Railings DEAN C. ALBERSON, WANDA L. MENGES, AND C. EUGENE BUTH Twenty-three states, FHW A, and the District of Columbia sponsored the project

More information

TRACC. Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion

TRACC. Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion TRACC Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion CSP Pacific Business Unit of Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure Limited 306 Neilson Street Onehunga, Auckland Phone: (09) 634 1239 or 0800 655 200 Fax: (09) 634

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY 2009 FORD F150 2-DOOR PICKUP

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY 2009 FORD F150 2-DOOR PICKUP REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL-09-03 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY 2009 FORD F150 2-DOOR PICKUP NHTSA NUMBER: C90206 CALSPAN TRANSPORTATION SCIENCES

More information

Development of Turning Templates for Various Design Vehicles

Development of Turning Templates for Various Design Vehicles Transportation Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report University of Kentucky Year 1991 Development of Turning Templates for Various Design Vehicles Kenneth R. Agent Jerry G. Pigman University of

More information

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH 2003 Anti-Ram Bollards Prepared for: RSA Protective Technologies, LLC 1573 Mimosa Court Upland, CA 91784 Test

More information

November 16, 1998 Refer to: HNG-14. Mr. David Allardyce Mechanical Engineer B&B Electromatic Main Street Norwood, Louisiana 70761

November 16, 1998 Refer to: HNG-14. Mr. David Allardyce Mechanical Engineer B&B Electromatic Main Street Norwood, Louisiana 70761 November 16, 1998 Refer to: HNG-14 Mr. David Allardyce Mechanical Engineer B&B Electromatic 14113 Main Street Norwood, Louisiana 70761 Dear Mr. Allardyce: In your August 31 letter, you presented some preliminary

More information

Side Curtain Air Bag Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number DS Subaru B9 Tribeca Nebraska May 2008

Side Curtain Air Bag Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number DS Subaru B9 Tribeca Nebraska May 2008 Side Curtain Air Bag Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca Nebraska May 2008 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation

More information

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH 2003 Anti-Ram Bollards Prepared for: RSA Protective Technologies, LLC 1573 Mimosa Court Upland, CA 91784 Test

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA-2009-001 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS THOMAS BUILT BUSES 2009 THOMAS MINOTOUR SCHOOL BUS NHTSA NO.: C90901 PREPARED BY: MGA RESEARCH

More information

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( C) 1998 Nissan Altima Texas August/1998

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( C) 1998 Nissan Altima Texas August/1998 Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( 1998-49-136C) 1998 Nissan Altima Texas August/1998 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession

More information

MASH TEST 3-21 ON TL-3 THRIE BEAM TRANSITION WITHOUT CURB

MASH TEST 3-21 ON TL-3 THRIE BEAM TRANSITION WITHOUT CURB TTI: 9-1002-12 MASH TEST 3-21 ON TL-3 THRIE BEAM TRANSITION WITHOUT CURB ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building 7091 Bryan,

More information

BarrierGate. General Specifications. Manual Operations General Specifications

BarrierGate. General Specifications. Manual Operations General Specifications BarrierGate General Specifications Manual Operations General Specifications BarrierGate GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS I. GENERAL A. The BarrierGate system (the gate) shall be designed and manufactured by Energy

More information

AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015

AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015 AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, 2015 AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015 Full Scale MASH Crash Tests (NCHRP 22-14(02)) Conducted several

More information

ALPHA 70K TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

ALPHA 70K TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS ALPHA 70K TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS I. GENERAL A. All ALPHA 70K Truck Mounted Attenuators (ALPHA 70K TMA) shall be designed and manufactured by Energy Absorption Systems, Incorporated,

More information

April 22, In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/WZ-206. Mr. Jan Miller TrafFix Devices 220 Calle Pintoresco San Clemente, California Dear Mr.

April 22, In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/WZ-206. Mr. Jan Miller TrafFix Devices 220 Calle Pintoresco San Clemente, California Dear Mr. April 22, 2005 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/WZ-206 Mr. Jan Miller TrafFix Devices 220 Calle Pintoresco San Clemente, California 92672 Dear Mr. Miller: Thank you

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA-2010-007 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY LTD 2010 NISSAN CUBE NHTSA NUMBER: CA5205 PREPARED BY: MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION

More information

ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS

ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS Evaluation of small car - RM_R1 - prepared by Politecnico di Milano Volume 1 of 1 January 2006 Doc. No.: ROBUST-5-002/TR-2004-0039

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION 2008 MAZDA CX-9 SUV

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION 2008 MAZDA CX-9 SUV REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL-08-03 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION 2008 MAZDA CX-9 SUV NHTSA NUMBER: C85401 CALSPAN TRANSPORTATION SCIENCES CENTER

More information

GENERAL SPECIFICATION

GENERAL SPECIFICATION ALPHA 2001 MD TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator GENERAL SPECIFICATION I. GENERAL A. All ALPHA 2001 MD Truck Mounted Attenuators (ALPHA 2001 MD TMA) shall be designed and manufactured by Energy Absorption systems,

More information

14. Sponsoring Agency Code McLean, Virginia

14. Sponsoring Agency Code McLean, Virginia TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. FHWA-RD-93-069 4. Title and Subtitle TESTING OF NEW BRIDGE RAIL AND TRANSITION DESIGNS Volume XII: Appendix K Oregon Transition

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL-09-01 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY 2009 HYUNDAI ACCENT 4-DOOR SEDAN NHTSA NUMBER: C90503 CALSPAN TRANSPORTATION

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA-2007-002 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. 2006 NISSAN PATHFINDER LE 4X2 NHTSA NUMBER: C65200 PREPARED BY: MGA RESEARCH

More information

I. 22. Price. Technical Report Documentation Page

I. 22. Price. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. TX-00/1914-5 1 2. Government Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle THE 1995 PERFORMANCE RESULTS FOR SLOPE PROTECTION PRODUCTS, HYDRAULIC MULCHES, AND FLEXIBLE CHANNEL LINERS Technical Report

More information

Crash Testing Growth Common Roadside Hardware Systems Draft FHWA and AASHTO Requirements for Implementing MASH 2015

Crash Testing Growth Common Roadside Hardware Systems Draft FHWA and AASHTO Requirements for Implementing MASH 2015 64 th Annual Illinois Traffic Safety and Engineering Conference October 14, 2015 Crash Testing Growth Common Roadside Hardware Systems Draft FHWA and AASHTO Requirements for Implementing MASH 2015 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature

More information

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( J) 1998 Dodge Caravan Indiana

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( J) 1998 Dodge Caravan Indiana Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number (1998-073-111J) 1998 Dodge Caravan Indiana September/1998 Technical Report Documentation Page 1.

More information

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( J) 1998 Ford Taurus station

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( J) 1998 Ford Taurus station Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number (1999-79-122J) 1998 Ford Taurus station wagon California September/1999 Technical Report Documentation

More information

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE FREE-STANDING TEMPORARY BARRIER UPDATE TO NCHRP 350 TEST NO (2214TB-1)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE FREE-STANDING TEMPORARY BARRIER UPDATE TO NCHRP 350 TEST NO (2214TB-1) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE FREE-STANDING TEMPORARY BARRIER UPDATE TO NCHRP 350 TEST NO. 3-11 (2214TB-1) Submitted by Karla A. Polivka, M.S.M.E., E.I.T. Research Associate Engineer Dean L. Sicking, Ph.D.,

More information

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( E) 1998 Mercury Tracer

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( E) 1998 Mercury Tracer Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number (1998-082-801E) 1998 Mercury Tracer Washington July/1998 Technical Report Documentation Page 1.

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 111-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111 SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

REPORT NUMBER: 111-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111 SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS REPORT NUMBER: 111-MGA-05-002 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111 SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS Girardin Minibus Inc. 2005 Minibus NHTSA No. C50902 PREPARED BY: MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION 5000 WARREN

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA-2011-008 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION 2011 MAZDA 2 SPORT MT NHTSA NUMBER: CB5400 PREPARED BY: MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION

More information

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems FINAL REPORT NUMBER 225-MGA-06-002 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 2006 HUMMER H3 NHTSA No. C60102 MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION 446 Executive Drive Troy, Michigan 48083 Test

More information

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA-2010-005 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY LTD 2010 NISSAN CUBE NHTSA NUMBER: CA5201 PREPARED BY: MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION

More information

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE MODIFIED G4(1S) GUARDRAIL UPDATE TO NCHRP 350 TEST NO WITH 28" C.G. HEIGHT (2214WB-2)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE MODIFIED G4(1S) GUARDRAIL UPDATE TO NCHRP 350 TEST NO WITH 28 C.G. HEIGHT (2214WB-2) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE MODIFIED G4(1S) GUARDRAIL UPDATE TO NCHRP 350 TEST NO. 3-11 WITH 28" C.G. HEIGHT (2214WB-2) Submitted by Karla A. Polivka, M.S.M.E., E.I.T. Research Associate Engineer Dean

More information

DEVELOPMENT OF A MASH TL-3 MEDIAN BARRIER GATE

DEVELOPMENT OF A MASH TL-3 MEDIAN BARRIER GATE TTI: 9-1002 DEVELOPMENT OF A MASH TL-3 MEDIAN BARRIER GATE ISO 17025 Laboratory Testing Certificate # 2821.01 Crash testing performed at: TTI Proving Ground 3100 SH 47, Building 7091 Bryan, TX 77807 Research/Test

More information

Child Safety Seat Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. / Case Number: DS Mercedes-Benz 190E California January 2008

Child Safety Seat Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. / Case Number: DS Mercedes-Benz 190E California January 2008 Child Safety Seat Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. / Case Number: DS08001 1985 Mercedes-Benz 190E California January 2008 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation

More information

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems FINAL REPORT NUMBER 225-MGA-06-007 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION 2006 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER NHTSA No. C65101 MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION 446 Executive Drive Troy, Michigan 48083

More information

FHW A-RD TESTING OF NEW BRIDGE RAIL AND TRANSITION DESIGNS Volume IX: Appendix H Illinois Side Mount Bridge Railing

FHW A-RD TESTING OF NEW BRIDGE RAIL AND TRANSITION DESIGNS Volume IX: Appendix H Illinois Side Mount Bridge Railing TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Goverrunent Accession No. FHW A-RD-93-066 4. Title and Subtitle TESTING OF NEW BRIDGE RAIL AND TRANSITION DESIGNS Volume IX: Appendix H Illinois Side

More information

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( E) 1998 Buick Century Colorado

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( E) 1998 Buick Century Colorado Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number (1998-075-803E) 1998 Buick Century Colorado October, 1998 Technical Report Documentation Page 1.

More information

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER Research Report KTC-08-10/UI56-07-1F KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER EVALUATION OF 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN KENTUCKY OUR MISSION We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology

More information

REPORT NO. TR-P NC SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 223 REAR IMPACT GUARDS 2007 TRANSFREIGHT TECHNOLOGY NHTSA NO.

REPORT NO. TR-P NC SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 223 REAR IMPACT GUARDS 2007 TRANSFREIGHT TECHNOLOGY NHTSA NO. REPORT NO. SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 223 REAR IMPACT GUARDS 2007 TRANSFREIGHT TECHNOLOGY NHTSA NO. RIG 009 PREPARED BY: KARCO ENGINEERING, LLC. 9270 HOLLY ROAD ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA 92301 SEPTEMBER

More information

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems FINAL REPORT NUMBER 225-MGA-10-003 SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 NISSAN MOTORS 2010 NISSAN ROGUE NHTSA No. CA5202 MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION 446 Executive Drive Troy, Michigan 48083 Test Date:

More information

DEFLECTION LIMITS FOR TEMPORARY CONCRETE BARRIERS

DEFLECTION LIMITS FOR TEMPORARY CONCRETE BARRIERS Midwest State s Regional Pooled Fund Research Program Fiscal Year 1998-1999 (Year 9) NDOR Research Project Number SPR-3(017) DEFLECTION LIMITS FOR TEMPORARY CONCRETE BARRIERS Submitted by Dean L. Sicking,

More information

Plastic Safety Systems

Plastic Safety Systems Plastic Safety Systems CrashGard Sand Barrel System Manual On the Roadway for Safety Version 4.4 11/12 Download full-line PSS Product Catalog. General Information Manual Contents: This manual provides

More information

Final Report Federal Highway Administration August September Georgetown Pike

Final Report Federal Highway Administration August September Georgetown Pike TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. FHW A-RD-93-065 4. Title and Subtitle TESTING OF NEW BRIDGE RAIL AND TRANSITION DESIGNS Volume VIII: Appendix G BR27C Bridge

More information

Wyoming Road Closure Gate

Wyoming Road Closure Gate 38 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1528 Wyoming Road Closure Gate KING K. MAK, ROGER P. BLIGH, AND WILLIAM B. WILSON Road closure gates are used to close certain highways when driving conditions become

More information