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

Similar documents
Implementation of AASHTO s Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) 2016

1962: HRCS Circular 482 one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle for crash tests.

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

MASH 2016 Implementation: What, When and Why

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

Illinois Safety Program IDOT District ATSSA Workshop

Guide Rail Safety Symposium

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware

Roadside Safety MASH

Advances in Simulating Corrugated Beam Barriers under Vehicular Impact

July 17, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/B-176A

METAL BEAM GUARDFENCE TRANSITION AND END TREATMENT IDENTIFICATION GUIDE

VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

Median Barriers in North Carolina

A MASH Compliant W-Beam Median Guardrail System

SAFETY PERFORMANCE OF WORK-ZONE DEVICES UNDER MASH TESTING

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

June 27, In Reply Refer To: HSSD/B-176

SGR52 TOP-MOUNTED WEAK-POST GUARDRAIL ATTACHED TO CULVERT PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW DETAIL B DETAIL A SHEET NO. DATE: 37 1/2" 953 (TYP) 150" 3810

Median Barriers in North Carolina -- Long Term Evaluation. Safety Evaluation Group Traffic Safety Systems Management Section

VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

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

DEFLECTION LIMITS FOR TEMPORARY CONCRETE BARRIERS

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

Guardrail/Bridgerail Recommendations for Very Low Volume Local Roads in Kansas

DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSITION BETWEEN FREE-STANDING AND REDUCED-DEFLECTION PORTABLE CONCRETE BARRIERS PHASE I

CrashGard. Sand Barrel System Product Guide

EXTENDING TL-2 SHORT-RADIUS GUARDRAIL TO LARGER RADII

ROBUST PROJECT Norwegian Public Roads Administration / Force Technology Norway AS

Technical Report Documentation Page 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-09/

DISTRIBUTION: Electronic Recipients List TRANSMITTAL LETTER NO. (15-01) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. MANUAL: Road Design English Manual

Midwest Guardrail System Without Blockouts

Assessing Options for Improving Roadside Barrier Crashworthiness

Improving Roadside Safety by Computer Simulation

Wentzville Parkway South Phase 2 & 2A

Evaluation of the Midwest Guardrail System Stiffness Transition with Curb

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

CRITICAL FLARE RATES FOR W-BEAM GUARDRAIL DETERMINING MAXIMUM CAPACITY USING COMPUTER SIMULATION NCHRP 17-20(3)

Evaluating The Relevancy Of Current Crash Test Guidelines For Roadside Safety Barriers On High Speed Roads

TRACC. Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion

2018 LOUISIANA TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE. Mohsen Shahawy, PHD, PE

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

Florida s Turnpike Enterprise High Tension Median Cable Barrier Pilot Project. William H. Cook, P.E. Florida s Turnpike Assistant Roadway Engineer

AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

Development and Implementation of the Simplified MGS Stiffness Transition

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

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

MINIMUM EFFECTIVE LENGTH FOR THE MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM

Research Project Number SPR-P1(13)M326 DEVELOPMENT OF A MASH TL-3 TRANSITION BETWEEN GUARDRAIL AND PORTABLE CONCRETE BARRIERS.

Mr. Dave Gertz Director of Engineering TrafFix Devices, Inc. 220 Calle Pintoresco San Clemente, California Dear Mr. Gertz:

Development of Combination Pedestrian-Traffic Bridge Railings

Plastic Safety Systems

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

Evaluation of the Midwest Guardrail System stiffness transition with curb

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

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

TEST MATRICES FOR EVALUATING CABLE MEDIAN BARRIERS PLACED IN V-DITCHES

LOADS BRIDGE LOADING AND RATING. Dead Load. Types of Loads

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

ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

CHARACTERIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRUCK LOAD SPECTRA FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE PAVEMENT DESIGN PRACTICES IN LOUISIANA

SMART CUSHION INNOVATIONS

Temporary Traffic Control Plans

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

D-25 Speed Advisory System

Connected Vehicles for Safety

INCREASED SPAN LENGTH FOR THE MGS LONG-SPAN GUARDRAIL SYSTEM PART III: FAILURE ANALYSIS

Live Load Distribution in Multi-Cell Box-Girder Bridges and its Comparison with Current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

On-Road Emissions Reductions and the Regional Comprehensive Goods Movement Plan Background and Policy Questions

Petition for Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection

MDOT Load Rating Program

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

INCREASED SPAN LENGTH FOR THE MGS LONG-SPAN GUARDRAIL SYSTEM

3.17 Energy Resources

Appendix C SIP Creditable Incentive-Based Emission Reductions Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard

Probability based Load Rating

Maine Turnpike Authority

Insights into WLTP and RDE

Impact & Asset Protection Systems Strong - Lightweight - Maneuverable - Interlocking

W-Beam Approach Treatment at Bridge Rail Ends Near Intersecting Roadways

Development of Iowa Dot Combination Bridge Separation Barrier with Bicycle Railing

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM

safedirection.com.au Ref: PM 017/02

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION. X-Tension DS. is suitable for all road types: Motorways, country roads, city streets for speed categories up to 110 km/h.

irap Innovation Workshop 2016 Maximising Travel on 3-Star or Better Roads

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

PARAPETS / RAILS / MEDIANS / SIDEWALKS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25

MASH Test 3-11 on the T131RC Bridge Rail

DEVELOPMENT OF A MASH TL-3 TRANSITION BETWEEN GUARDRAIL AND PORTABLE CONCRETE BARRIERS

NCUTCD Proposal for Changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Exhibit F - UTCRS. 262D Whittier Research Center P.O. Box Lincoln, NE Office (402)

MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TxDOT T222 BRIDGE RAIL

Technical Report Documentation Page

Letter EL652 City of Mercer Island. Page 1. No comments n/a

Workshop Agenda. I. Introductions II. III. IV. Load Rating Basics General Equations Load Rating Procedure V. Incorporating Member Distress VI.

The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007

BarrierGate. General Specifications. Manual Operations General Specifications

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

OPTIMIZATION OF THRIE BEAM TERMINAL END SHOE CONNECTION

DG CLIMA studies on CO2 emissions from vehicles

Transcription:

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 full-scale crash tests of existing hardware, including: Strong Post W-Beam System Midwest Guardrail System New Jersey Shaped Concrete Barrier F-Shape temp. concrete barrier with 3-loop connection Iowa Transition Tangent Guardrail terminal New Jersey Shaped Concrete Barrier (32 inches), failed TL-4 under MASH

MASH TL-3 27 in. W-Beam Strong Post (Wood)

MASH TL-3, 31 in. MGS

RECENT MASH TL-4 CRASH TESTS Test No. (Funding Agency) 476460-1 (NCHRP) 420020-9B (TxDOT) Impact Conditions Vehicle Weight (lb) Speed (mph) Angle (deg) 22,090 57.4 14.4 22,000 57.2 16.1 Barrier Height (in.) 32 36 Barrier Type NJ Safety Shape Single Slope Barrier Result Vehicle rolled over Test Pass Based on crash testing and finite element impact simulations, a height of 36 in. has been selected as the minimum barrier height required for vehicle stability for MASH TL-4

MASH TL-4 TEST ON 32-INCH JERSEY BARRIER

MASH TL-4 TEST ON 36-INCH SINGLE SLOPE BARRIER

CONCLUSIONS FOR MASH TL-4 LOADS Lateral force increases as barrier height increases Vehicle contact area changes (box structure engaged) Less vehicle roll (more mass engaged) Comparison of contact area 36 in. Tall Barrier 42 in. Tall Barrier

CONCLUSIONS FOR MASH TL-4 LOADS Minimum barrier height for truck stability = 36 inches. Magnitude and resultant height of lateral impact force (F t ) varies with barrier height. For 36-inch tall barrier: F t = 67.2 kips and H e = 25.1 in. For 42-inch tall barrier: F t = 79.1 kips and H e = 30.2 in. Although F t has 24% increase for 36-inch tall MASH TL-4 barrier compared to Table A13.2-1 Design Forces for Traffic Railings, associated moment for deck cantilever design does not change. Table A13.2-1 54 kips x 32 in. = 1,728 in-kips MASH 36-inch barrier 67.2 kips x 25.1 in. = 1,687 in-kips

MASH 2009 to MASH 2015 Parameter MASH 2009 MASH 2015 Hood Height Measurement Reference Point N/A Clarification for rounded hoods on new vehicle models Tractor Trailer Maximum Overall Length Cargo Bed Height 50 ft 52 in. (+/- 2 in.) 53 ft * 50 in. (+/- 2 in.)* * Proposed to match current fleet based on testing experience and manufacturers survey (1) Allows 1 tolerance on impact angle at target impact speed

MASH 2009 to MASH 2015 Parameter MASH 2009 MASH 2015 Single Unit Truck Cargo Bed Height 51 in. (+/- 2 in.) 49 in. (+/- 2 in.)* Impact Severity Tolerances TL-3: ±8% TL-4: ±8% TL-5: ±8% TL-3: ±8% TL-4: ±13% (1) TL-5: ±13% (1) * Proposed to match current fleet based on testing experience and manufacturers survey (1) Allows 1 tolerance on impact angle at target impact speed

Test No. MASH 2009 to MASH 2015 Vehicle Type Barrier Position Key Evaluation Metrics 3-10 1100C Level Terrain Stability & Occ. Crush/Penetration 3-11 2270P Level Terrain Working Width & Barrier Strength 3-13 2270P Front Slope* Override & Stability 3-14 1100C Front Slope* Penetration, Stability, & Occ. Crush 3-15 1100C Back Slope* Underride, Stability, & Occ. Risk 3-16 1100C Back Slope* Override (Bounce) & Occ. Crush 3-17 1500A Front Slope (1) Penetration & Occ. Crush 3-18 2270P Back Slope* Override (Bounce) & Stability * Exact locations within ditch provided based on ditch slope and intended use of barrier (1) Barrier positioned to maximize potential for vehicle penetration

MASH Implementation Plan

Current Implementation Agreement As of January 1, 2011, all newly developed hardware must be tested using MASH NCHRP 350-compliant hardware does not have to be retested to MASH NCHRP 350-compliant hardware may remain in-place and continue to be installed Non-compliant hardware with no suitable alternatives may be left in place and continue to be installed

Innovation? Parallel approach was supposed to allow manufacturers time to develop new products Over four years later, very few proprietary MASH systems exist Additional safety benefits of MASH can only be realized if new hardware is developed Sunsetting 350 would provide the incentive Joint FHWA/AASHTO/TCRS group formed

Proposed Implementation Agreement Applies to National Highway System TCRS develops and maintains the evaluation criteria (MASH) FHWA continues reviewing and determining eligibility of highway safety hardware for federal-aid reimbursement

Proposed Implementation Agreement All NCHRP 350- or MASH 2009-compliant permanent hardware may remain in place unless damaged beyond repair Existing NCHRP 350- or MASH 2009-compliant temporary devices, including portable concrete barrier, may continue to be used through their normal service lives

Proposed Implementation Agreement Upon adoption of MASH 2015, any newly developed hardware must utilize MASH 2015 for evaluation and testing Modifications of eligible hardware shall utilize MASH 2015 for re-evaluation and/or retesting Non-significant modifications of eligible hardware that have a positive or inconsequential effect on performance may continue to be evaluated using Finite Element Analysis FHWA will not issue eligibility letters for new or revised hardware tested using MASH 2009 criteria after December 31, 2016

Proposed Implementation Agreement Utilization of MASH 2015-compliant hardware will be required on new permanent installations and full replacements for projects let after the dates below W-beam barrier and cast-in-place concrete barrier: December 31, 2017 W-beam terminals: June 30, 2018 Cable barrier, cable barrier terminals, and crash cushions: December 31, 2018 Bridge rails, transitions, all other longitudinal barriers (including portable barriers installed permanently), all other terminals, sign supports, and all other breakaway hardware: December 31, 2019

Proposed Implementation Agreement Urges agencies to establish a process to replace existing hardware that has not been successfully tested to NCHRP Report 350 or later criteria. Encourages agencies to upgrade existing hardware to comply with the MASH 2015 when: Damaged beyond repair, or Agency s policies require an upgrade to the safety hardware

Anticipated Costs Testing of non-proprietary devices NCHRP Pooled-fund program Individual states (unique designs they may use) MASH-compliant longitudinal barrier systems Multiple systems currently available (various types) No increase in cost versus previous system MASH-compliant terminals Few systems currently available Initial increase in cost ($200-$700)

Questions / Discussion