4.3 Article

Design of motorcyclist-friendly guardrail using finite element analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 567-577

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13588260802293186

关键词

guard-rail design; motorcyclist-friendly; FE simulation; W-beam; crash

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conventional barrier systems have performed well for occupants of passenger cars and trucks, but their effects on other road user groups, especially motorcyclists, usually result in greater injuries. This study is purposed to improve the safety features of an existing guardrail system with regard to motorcyclists. It is aimed to reduce the severity of injuries sustained by the motorcyclists during the event of impact and containing the motorcycles and the riders. There is a relative lack of published materials regarding the nature of motorcycle collisions with roadside barriers. Various features of existing guardrail systems particularly the barrier posts were identified in the literature, presenting significant risks to fallen motorcyclists. Numerous strategies have been employed to better protect the motorcyclists from impacts with guardrails. The present study has employed polypropylene as material coupled with V-profile rails to give the new guardrail design. Weighing procedures were also conducted to determine the centre of gravity of the motorcycle. Three-dimensional computer models which consist of a newly designed V-beam guardrail and equivalent kinetic characteristics of a motorcycle were developed. The event of collision between the motorcycle and the guardrail was then simulated using computer finite element program, Algor. The simulations were conducted for three impact configurations, with the impact angle between the motorcycle and the guardrail at 90, 45 and 20 at an impact velocity of 60 km/h. The results show the newly designed V-beam guardrail has more forgiving and better energy-absorbed characteristics than the existing design the conventional W-beam design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据