4.7 Article

Impact performance of W-beam guardrail installed at various flare rates

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 476-485

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.08.006

关键词

Roadside safety; W-beam guardrail; Crash analysis; Flare rates

资金

  1. National Cooperative Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential to increase suggested flare rates for strong post, W-beam guardrail systems and thus reduce guardrail installation lengths is investigated. This reduction in length would result in decreased guardrail construction and maintenance costs, and reduce impact frequency. If the W-beam guardrail can withstand the higher impact angles, with only modest increases in accident severity, total accident costs can be reduced. Computer simulation and five full-scale crash tests were completed to evaluate increased flare rates up to, and including, 5:1. Computer simulations indicated that conventional G4(1S) guardrail modified to incorporate a routed wood block could not successfully meet NCHRP Report 350 crash test criteria when installed at any steeper flare rates than the 15:1 recommended in the Roadside Design Guide. However, computer modeling and full-scale crash testing showed that the Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) could meet NCHRP Report 350 impact criteria when installed at a 5:1 flare rate. Impact severities during testing were found to be greater than intended, yet the MGS passed all NCHRP 350 requirements. Hence, flaring the MGS guardrail as much as 5:1 will still provide acceptable safety performance for the full range of passenger vehicles. Increasing guardrail flare rates will reduce the overall number of guardrail crashes without significantly increasing risks of injury or fatality during the remaining crashes. Therefore, it is recommended that, whenever roadside topography permits, flare rates should be increased to as high as 5:1 when using the MGS. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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