FULL-SCALE VEHICLE CRASH TEST ON NEBRASKA BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER

WITH A MODIFIED NEW JERSEY SHAPE

by

Mr. John A. Magdaleno, E.LT. Graduate Research Assistant

Mr. Ronald K. Faller, E.I.T. Dr. Edward R. Post, P.E. Graduate Research Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

Sponsored by

Nebraska Department 01 Roads RES1 (0099)P426

Transportation Research Report TRP..{)3..()l6-as

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT W348 NEBRASKA HALL

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA--lINCOLN LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68568-0531

(402) 472-2371

March 1989

ABSTRACT

The New Jersey Shape Ba~rier is one of the most popular

shaped concrete barriers implemented today on American highways.

Previous tests using this barrier have shown that it is worthy of

being a standard for bridge rail barriers on an international

level. This investigation was an attempt to modify the New

Jersey Shape Barrier by increasing the 3 inch initial step to 4

1 /2 :'nches. This extra 1 1 /2 inches would allow more of an

ehposed vertical face which is beneficial in applying future deck

ove rlays. To determine whether or not this modification was

acceptable, a full-scale crash test was performed on the modified

bar r ier shape using an 1800 lb . 1982 Honda Civic at an impact

speed of 60 mph and an impact angle of 20 degrees. The test

results showed that a minicompact sedan, such as the 1982 Honda

Civic, would likely roll under theSE test conditions and barrier

modifications.

List of Tables ..... .

List o f Figures

Acknowledgements

Introduction ... .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. ....... .. ..... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . .. . ... . .. . . . . ... . . ................................

Page

ii

iii

iv

1

A. Problem Statement ....•... •. . . .•. ........ .. • . . ..•.... 1

B. Objective ...

C. Goals

Technical Discussion

A. Test Conditi ons

A. l. Test Facility .....

h.2. Test Article

A.3. Test Vehicle

...................

A.4. Data Acquisition Systems ........ .

A. 5 . Tes't Parame'ters ..... . ......... .

A. 6 . Performance Evalua'tion Criteria

B. Test Results ....................... .

Conclusions . . .

References

Appendices

...............

h. Test Facili'ty .

B. Data Acquisition Systems.

C . Graphs o f Accelerome ter Data

i

............ . .. . ........

2

3

4

4

4

4

11

14

15

16

1 7

25

29

30

31

3 8

47

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Crash Test Conditions 19

2 . NCHRP 230 Criteria f or Evaluating

Bridge Rail Crash Tests ..... ... .... ... ..... . .•• . . •• . ... 27

3. AASHTO Criteria for Evaluating

Bridge Rail Crash Tests ........... .. . ... . . . . . • . . . ... . .. 28

11

LIST OF FIGURES

1. 10 ft. Precast New Jersey Concrete Barrier Section

2. NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier

3. Sche~atic of Rigid Steel Frame Backup System ... ... ..... .

4. Photographs of Rigid Steel Frame Backup System .... .• . . ..

5. Surrogate NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier .................• ....

6. Test Vehicle Weights and Dimensions ............ • .... ....

7. Photographs of Test Vehicle ..................... .. ......

8. Test Results and Sequential Photographs ..... ..• . ... • ... .

9. ?hotographs of Barrier Damage ......................... . .

Page

5

7

8

9

10

12

13

20

21

10. Vehicle Trajectory and Final Stopping Position .......... 22

11. Photographs of Test Vehicle Damage . . .. .......... .. ...... 23

12. Roll, Pitch, and Yaw of Test Vehicle .....• ... .... . .•.... 24

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation and thanks to

the f o llowing people who made a contribution to the outcome o f

t his research project.

Nebraska Department of Roads

Dalyce Ronnau (Materials and Test Division - Research Engineer ) Leona Kolbet (Materials and Test Division - Research Coordinator ) Ge orge Woolstrum (Materials and Test Division

- Special Projects Engineer )

Federal Highway Administration

Milo Cress (Bridge Engineer-Lincoln Division Office ) Charles McDevitt (Project Manager and Research Structural

Engineer-Washington, D.C. Office of Research )

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Eugene Matson (C.E. Research Technician ) James Dunlap (Photographic Productions Manager ) To~ Grady (E.E. Technician ) Gerald Fritz (Electronics Shop Manager ) Nichael Cacak (Automobile Support Services Manager ) Patrick Barrett (Automobile Support Services Assistant Manager ) William Kelly (Professor and C.E. Chairman) Ron Hoffman (University Maintenance Electrician ) Brian Pfeifer (M.E. Student ) Jim Holloway (C.E . Student ) Todd Noble (C.E. Student ) Virgil Oligmueller (C.E. Student > Mary Lou Tomka (C.E. Administrative Assistant) Narilyn Hues (C.E. Secretary ) Mary Lou Wegner (C.E. Secretary )

iv

INTRODUCTION

A. Proble~ Statement

Over the years, concrete safety shaped barriers have become

more and more familiar on American highways due to its

satisfactory performance in redirecting a vehicle; the most

popular being the New Jersey Shaped Barrier (NJ Barrier> The

Nebraska Department. of Roads (NDOR) has designed a bridge rail

that uses the general shape of the NJ Barrier face; however, one

modification was made to the barrier face. HDOR has increased

the 3-in. initial step to 4 1 / 2-in. The modification stemmed

from a desire to increase the initial step of the barrier since

the step provides a complementary edge for future deck overlays.

The problem wi th increasing the ini tial step is tha t the

slope break point of the barrier face is also raised 1 1 / 2-in. to

a height of 14 1 /2-in . above the road surface. The slope break

point is the point o f intersection between the two sloped

surfaces of the barrier face and has been found to be the key

parameter in vehicle rollover potential. One purpose of the

lower sloped surface of any safety shaped barrier is to lift the

vehicle just enough to reduce the friction between the tires of

the vehicle and the road surface.

of the vehicle by the barrier.

This allows easier redirection

However, too much lift of the

vehicle can cause a hazard in vehicle rollover potential . Thus ,

keeping the slope break point to a minimum height is imperative .

1

This problem has also been a concern of others such as the

Department of the Environment (DO E ) or of the Department of

Transport (DOT) in Crow thorn , Berkshire; England. The Transport

and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) has already conducted a test

for t.he DOE and DOT in England on a barrier similar to the NJ

Barrier, but having a 6-in. initial step instead of a 3-in. step

which raised the slope break point of the barrier to a height of

l6-in. above the road surface (1). The test conducted by TRRL

was unsatisfactory because of vehicle r ollover. Because of the

unsatisfactory performance of the barrier in Europe , the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) and NDOR were concerned about the

vehicle rollover potential of the NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier due to

the 14 1 / 2-in. height o f the slope break point.

B. Objective

The primary objective of this study was to test the

modification of increasing the height of the slope break point

on the NJ Barrier face to 14 1 / 2-in. and to evaluate the results.

Testing procedures and evaluation of the results were to be in

accordance with the saftey performance criteria inferred from the

"Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of

Highway Appurtenances" by the National Cooperative Highway

Research Program Report 230 (NCHRP 230) (~), and the "Standard

Specifications for Highway Bridges" by the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (~) .

2

J

C. Goals

Goals for this test are (1) that the vehicle should be

smoo'thly redirec'ted, (2) that the vehicle shall remain upright

throughout the collision, and (3) its after-collision trajectory

should not present undue hazard to other traffic.

As stated in NCHRP 230 and AASHTO, "Keeping vehicles upright

during all crash tests is a worthy goal as occupant risks are

generally more severe and less predictable in vehicle rollover."

3

TECHNICAL DISCUSS I ON

A. Test Conditions

A.l Test Facility

The test site facility where the full-scale vehicle

crash testing is conducted is located approximately 7 miles

northwest from the University at the Lincoln Municipal Airport on

the northwest end of the west apron. Appendix A expl ains the

facility in greater detail and shows the guidance and towing

methods used.

A.2 Test Article

It was decided by NDOR and the FHWA that since the

barrier to be tested was similar to the New Jersey Safety Shape,

that 10 ft. precast sections of temporary New Jersey Concrete

Barrier, shown in Figure 1, could be used as a surrogate for the

NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier as long as certain requirements were

met . The first requirement was that the dimensions of the face

for the precast barrier sections be made identical to that of

NDOR's bridge barrier shown in Figure 2. This only called for

elevating the precast barrier sections 1 1/2-in . above the road

surface so that the initial step of the barr i er would be 4 1 / 2-

in. instead of 3-in. No other change in the dimensions of the

precast barrier sections were necessary since elevating

4

, •

'\ r- 24"-1

A-A

FIGURE 1 .

I • -0 f--19 0

I I 10" - f--• I

" L..A ~ , 10 10 ft. Precast New Jersey Concrete Barrier Section

them 1 1/2-in. made all face dimensions between the precast

sect ion barriers and the NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier identical. The

second requirement was that the precast barrier sections be

reinforced on the opposite side of impact with a rigid steel

frame backup system to provide lateral support for the barrier.

This was imperative so that the section barri.:rs would not

deflect in any way, simulating the NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier.

Figure 3 shows the reinforcement details used in making the

precast barrier sections rigid while Figure 4 shows the rigid

steel frame backup system in place behind the precasted barriers.

Using the 10 ft: precasted sections of barri er instead of

constructing an actual bridge rail barrier, as well as the bridge

deck , was a significant savings in co nducting the full - scale

crash test. The barrier was 100 ft. long (ten 10 ft . precasted

barrier sections) and was elevated to the desired height by

setting the barrier sections on constructed wooden pallets that

were 1 1/2-in. thick. Thre e vertical joints between the 10 ft.

5

barrier sections were grouted near the point of impact to provide

a smooth transi tion for an impacting vehicle, as would be with

the NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier . The grouted vertical joints were

the vertical joint upstream from the point of impact and the next

two downstream; all other vertical joints were not grouted

because of the anticipated duration of time that the vehicle

would be in contact with the barrier . The barrier system was

also grouted underneath the precast barriers at impact to give a

uniform initial step near the area of impact. Photographs of the

grouted surrogate NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier are shown in Figure 5.

6

'-3" Gutter Une

7" 2',' 6"

.... -~~

~ I

t • , ~ ...

~ ......

• '"S ~ ~-~~ ~ 0) ,

::fn.' £I] F ~ Q "-, mn [Ij

• ~---_IJ

___ -.;r- (-

----•

). }i\ • ~ •

Center of .81 ft. GravIty

"*" C oomfer /J 17 rryplco

No.4 Bar * s at 15" rna x. I~' CI.m.1n.

No.5 at 15"

Bors* max.

FIGURE 2. NCOR Bridge Rail Barrier

7

1'95" 9 "BOLT 1~"¢x I2 "BOLT --------~,

2-SPAC£RS 3 "" ~" ,

" 3 I,D. PIPE 1/ II S/ /1

2 - TS 5 ,, 3x / /1.

I 1/ /I 3-1/2 r/>x 6 BOLTS ---"

2 -BA RS 4"" I " --_____ ---,

:~J

II "j ll 2-TS 3,,2,,)4

H

.~-H"' "'i'----..., I I

",..+0/0 S;!'"""..s50-.. J

2 "

\

11 I

" ,I r'-/----l-2/~-~" ~ " II ~~ - -khf----+----;--:-.;;;----j..=±'~' -+--

" 1/+ ¢x 12"BOLT

2 -SPAC E_R-"S=-3,","X_I __ ~ _______ ---f,..~,'1~~:a-+ -~- , __ ~ _ ,t!!'i , __ ~ ~ +12" 'I: PL ?/~ J2/~ ~ " ~~ L ~L6/~4~ %" C;j

NOTES, ~ 4 -%"Jlfx 3 H BOLTS "'f/ ANCHORS I, STRUCTURAL TUBI NG - TS

2. PLATE - PL SCALE: ( = /0 " FIGURE 3. Schematic of Rigid Steel Frame Backup System

FIGURE 4. Photographs of the Rigid Steel Frame Backup System

9

FIGURE 5. Surrogate NDOR Bridge Rail Barrier

10

h.3 Test Vehicle

The test vehicle was a 1982 Honda Civic 3-door weighing

approximately 1800 lbs. The vehicle's dimensions and relative

weights are shown in Figure 6, while photographs of the test

vehicle are shown in Figure 7 . The test vehicle was prepared for

testing by removing such articles as the driver's seat, rear seat

(f ront passenger seat was left in the vehicle for anthropomorphic

dummy), and the spare tire and rim in order to get the desired

weight recomreended by the NCHRP Report 230 (£) guidelines for a

1800 lb. minicompact sedan. The vehicle was instrumented with

two triaxial accelerometer units , brake system, anthropormorphic

dummy, and an FH multiplexer. Camera targets and flashbulbs were

also positioned on the vehicle to aid in the high-speed film

analysis. This instrumentation and high-speed film analysis is

explained in greater detail in Appendix B.

The front wheels of the vehicle were aligned to a toe-in

valUE of zero-zero so that the vehicle would track properly along

the guide cable .

11

I

• p "heel base

Tiro db ___ +.....;rL+_

\/h .. 1 db ----h-----"-tt--

b

'v.. I

Geometry - I in. ) a. 62 . 2 d. 53 . 2 b. 29.5 e . 28 . 0 c. 88 . 6 t. 148.4

Test Mass - lb. Inert.ial

Ml l150 M2 650 MT 1800 h - (in . ) 33.0 9 - (in. ) 21. 5

---

.-h

•

f

g. 21. 5 1. 33.0 j. 18.0 n. 4.5 k . 21. 5 o. 10.0

Gross • Static • •

1965

* Ready for test but excludes passenger /cargo payload

p . r. s .

.* Gross ready for test including passenger/cargo payload

FIGURE 6. Test Vehicle Weights and Dimens ions

12

ct vehlc:1e

f d

53.5 14 . 2 22.6

FIGURE 7 . Photographs o f Test Vehicle

13

~.4 Data Acquisition Systems

The data acquisition systems used in the full-scale

crash tescing includes piezoresistive accelerometers, high-speed

ph o tography, and an electronic speed trap. The six

accelerometers placed in the test vehicle were used to measure

the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations of the

vehicle. One triaxial unit (three accelerometers ) was placed at

the center of gravity of the vehicle and the other triaxial unit

v,'as placed at a known distance from the C . G. Figures and

p:J.otographs of the accelerometer positions are included in

Appendix 8 where the data acquisition systems are explained in

greater detail.

The high-speed photography included three l6mm cameras that

ran at approximately 500 frames per second. The cameras were

st.rategically placed for analysis and documentation of the test

resl.!lts. Appendix B gives a more in-depth explanation o f the

camera positions as well as a schematic of the camera layouts .

A speed trap made of tape pressure switches was also used as

one source to determine the speed of the vehicle before and after

i:r:pact. Appendix B also explains the speed trap in greater

de-r.a il.

A.5 TesL Parameters

The full-scale crash test was conducted on Lhe Nebraska

Department of Roads Bridge Rail Barrier with a Modified New

Jersey Shape as men~ioned in part A. 2 of the Technical

Discussion. An 1800 lb. 1982 Honda Civic 3-Door impacted the

barrier at a target impact speed of 60 mph and a target impact

angle of 20 degrees.

The location of impact on the barrier was at a point 35 ft.

from the upstream end of the cons~ructed barrier. Since the main

concern of this test was the roll motion of the vehicle af~er

impact due to the critical inertial properties of the vehicle,

the veh i cle was impacted at the center of one of these 10 ft.

barrier sections. This insured that the vehicle trajectory was

caused solely by the interaction of the vehicle and the barrier

faCe; not by barrier deflection or vehicle snagging.

15

A.6 Performance Evaluation Criteria

The safety performance objective of a highway appurtenance

is to minimize the consequences of a vehicle leaving the roadway

to create an off-road incident. The safety goal is satisfactory

when the appurtenance smoothly redirects the vehicle away from

another hazardous situation wi thout subjecting the vehicle

occupants to forces which may produce major injury .

Because test conditions are sometimes difficult to control,

a co~posite tolerance limit, called the impact severity ( IS ), is

presented in the NCHRP Report 230 (~)

target and actual. are given in Table 1.

The IS values, both

The formula used t o

calculate impact severity is given as follows:

IS = ~m{vsine)2

where, m = vehicle test inertial mass (slugs)

v = impact velocity (fps)

e = impact angle (degrees)

Safety performance of a highway appurtenance cannot be

measured directly, but can be evaluated by three major factors

which are defined and explained by both NCHRP 230 (~) and hASHTO

( ~). The factors are: (l) structural adequacy , (2) occupant

risk, and (3) vehicle trajectory, A matrix of these factors for

both NCHRP 230 and ASSHTO are shown in Tables 2 and 3 in the

Conclusion of this report (pp . 26 and 27).

16

B. Test Results

A matrix of the crash test conditions is given in Table 1,

while a summary of the full-scale crash test is presented ~n

Figure 8.

Immediately after impact, the vehicle started to climb up

the face of the barrier, as shown from the tire marks in Figure

9, and became completely "air-born" at a time of approximately

0 . 142 seconds. A point marked on the rear part of the vehicle

and at the C.G. height of 21 1/2-in., showed that at that point,

the vehicle's maximum distance from the ground surface was

approximately 54 inches . After losing contact with the barrier,

the vehicle started a looping trajectory path back toward the

extended centerline of the barrier. Figure 10 shows a schematic

of the vehicle's trajectory as well as a photograph of the

vehicle's final stopping position which was 203 ft. downstream

from the point of impact. The vehicle started to roll at a time

of 1.82 seconds and was rolled over onto its roof at a time of

3.08 seconds when the brakes were applied in the vehicle.

Sequential photographs during the time when the vehicle was

in contact with the barrier are shown Figure 8. At a time of

O. 074 seconds, the anthropomorphic dummy in the vehicle breaks

the passenger door window. At 0.110 seconds, the damaged right

front end of the vehicle loses contact with the barrier and at

0.162.seconds, the vehicle is parallel with the barrier.

Finally, at 0 .270 seconds, the rear part of the vehicle loses

contact with the barrier.

17

Longitudinal and lateral accelerometer traces for the tes't

may be found in Appendix C. The accelerometer traces show the

deceleration of the vehicle, the vehicle change in velocity, and

the occupant displacement for both triaxial units. From this

data, one can find the occupant impact velocity and the average

10 millisecond occupant ridedown acceleration as presented in

Figure 8.

Photographs of the vehicle damage are shown in Figure 11,

while Figure 12 shows

vehicle after impact.

the roll, pitch, and yaw of the test

The damage of the vehicle was classified

according ~o the Traffic Accident Data (TAD) scale ( ! ) , and the

Vehicle Damage Index (VDl) scale (~). Classifications of the

vehicle damage are also presented in Figure 8 .

18

TARGET IMPACT TARGET nIP ACT EVALUATION

APPURTENANCE TEST VEHICLE SPEED ANGLE SEVERITY I '1 PACT pOIln CRITERIA

DESIGNATION TYPE (mph) (deg ) (ft-kips) (IICHRP 230)

Longitudinal Barrier

NOOR Bridge S13 1800 lb. 60 20 25 -2 , +4 35 f t. from A. O. E, F-H . I Rail Barrier ±50 upstream end

of barrier

TABLE 1. Crash Test Conditions

N o

0.270 s 0.162 s

Vehicle

TEST NO .............................. NDR-1 DATE . ............................. 9-20-88 INSTALLATION .. . ...... . MODIFIED NEW JERSEY

SECTION BARRIER LENGTH ... . .. . ............. 100 ft. VEHICLE

MODEL ............... 1982 HONDA CIVIC WEIGHT -

- TEST INERTIAL ...... 1800 lb. - DUMMY ............... 165 lb. - GROSS .............. 1965 lb.

SPEED (mph) IMPACT .............. 60.0, (88.0 fps) EXIT ....... . ........ 53.4, (78.4 fps)

0.110 s 0.074 5 Impact

VEHICLE REBOUND DISTANCE . .....•....... 15.0 ft. ANGLE (degrees)

IMPACT ..... . . . . . .. .. .... . ... . .• .. .... 20.9 EXIT ......... .. . .. .............. . . . . < 1.0

OCCUPANT IMPACT VELOCITY (fps) LONGITUDINAL ......................... 17.2 LATERAL .. .... ... .. .... . ...•.......... 17.2

OCCUPANT RIDEDOWN ACCELERATION (g's)

FIGURE 9. Phot ographs of Barrier Damage

21

- - ' ----- 201 -' ------------·~I --v-- IZ __ FINAL VEHICLE

/ POSITION I

8- " ,B~R ,RI,E~ " = - Ic't -- -, - J - - --- --- ----- - - ----C;~~JECTORY OF- -VEHICLE e.G.

FIGURE 10. Vehicle Trajectory and Final Stopping Position

22

·'

_ ""r. ... ___ ... _ ... _

. . '''-...

F I GURE 1 1.

Photographs of Test Veh icl e Damage

23

~------------'--~~~~~~---'~~~~~~~--------------~ R'_' LL. ~r~J:~ A tU , 'H~_' __ '~ _TEST \}CIC

CONCLUS I ONS

A summary of the safety evaluation guidelines , as provided

by NCHRP 230 (~) and AASHTO (~.l for longitudinal barriers, is

gi ven in Tables 2: and 3.

There was no barrier deflection or vehicle snagging during

the test and the impact severity was within the allowable limits.

Therefore, the results from this test with the constructed

surrogate barrier for the Nebraska Bridge Rail Barrier were

considered valid. Results of the full-scale crash tes~ revealed

the following:

1. Though the change to the New Jersey Barrier face seemed

small, raising the slope break point from the standard

13-in. to 14 1/2-in. proved to be unsatisfactory as far

as keeping the vehicle upright is concerned . ThE!

barrier redirected the vehicle at an exit angle

which was satisfactory; however, the lift of the vehicle

was excessive. The vehicle lift. along with the roll

and yaw motions of the vehicle, caused the vehicle to

roll.

o .. The occupant impact velocities and occupant ridedown accelerations Here satisfactory as well as the all of

the evaluation criteria. except the vehicle rollover

specifications. This sugge:.ts that if the vehicle

would have remained upright , it may !",ave been deemed an

acceptable bridge rail barrier.

25

3. The after-impact trajectory of the vehicle showed the

vehicle's lateral rebound distance to be 15 ft. The

rebound distance was measured from the impact face of

the barrier to the ~ide of the vehicle closest to the

barrier. This distance of 15 ft. was acceptable

according to the AASHTO performance criteria . but was

marginal according NCHRP 230.

In summary. it is believed that the increased height of the

slope break point was the cause of the rollover motion of the

test vehicle. As previous tests have shown . the dynamics of a

vehicle impacting a bridge barrier gradually change once the

initial step of the barrier exceeds 3- in. The higher the initial

step . the more drastic the change and therefore. the less

predictable is the vehicle ' s performance. It is the belief of

the University of Nebraska Civil Engineering Department that had

the slope break point for the Nebraska Bridge Rail Barrier been

designed at the standard height of 13-in .• the barrier may have

passed . This may have been achieved by decreasing the slope of

the lower sloped surface of the barrier face. The University of

Nebraska Civil Engineering Department realizes that this

suggestion is purely speculative and cannot be proven without

confirmation from a full-scale crash test.

Based upon the results of this test . the Nebraska Bridge

Rail Barrier with a Modified New Jersey Shape is deemed

unacceptable according to NCHRP 230 and AASHTO safety perfo rmance

guidelines.

26

E",;aluation Criteria N!:OR Tesr

Par~ ' _. Test art:.cle shaL s:TOOthly redire:t the ·,;eluele ; the v€lucl€ shall not ". penetrate or go OVer the installation although controll€'3 lateral deflection of Sans:actorj the test a:ticl€ is acceptable.

Part D: Detached e:enH.tS , fra~nts or other debris from the test article shall not pel1arate or shall' p:::ltential for penetratl1lg the passenger ca:Lpartment or SatisfactOl-j present undue hazard to other traffic.

Pi'.!'"~ =.: ~ne vehicle shall terrain upright during and after collision although moderate roll , pitching, and yaWlIlg are acceptable. Integrity of the passenger Unsatlsfactory coo.))a,rtment must be maintained with essentially no deformation or intrusion.

Pa!·t F: lnpa~t veloclty of hypothetical front seat passenger against vehicle interior, calculated froc vehicle accelerations and 24 in. forward and 12 in . lateral Satisfactor'y m.spla::-ene.l"l.t, shall be less than:

Cccupant Impact Velocity : ~ !.oogJ.tudinal Lateral

30 20

and vehicle hlqhest 10 IDS average accelerations subsequent to instant of hypotheti:::a1 passenger ir;I.pact should be less than:

Cccupant Ridedown Accelerations: [2: Longi tui!inal Lateral

15 15

:Part p.: Afte:- collislon, vehicle trajectory and final stopping lXlsition shall Harginal llltruOl;;- a min:imum distance, if at all, intO adjacent traffic lanes.

Pa!'"t I: In test where the vehicle is judged to be redirected into or stopped while lil adjacent traffic lanes , vehicle speed change dU!"ing test article collision Satisfacto:-y snoulc be less than 15 ~ and the exit angle frar: the- test artich, should be iess tha~ 60 percent of test impact angle, both measured at tine of vehicle loss of conta:::t with test deviCE:.

PCHP,P Criteria For Evalue:ing Bridge Rai~ C~ash Tes:~

~cUuation Criteria NOOR Test

A: The test article shall contain the vehicle; neither the vehicle nor its cargo shall penetrate or go over the installatioo. Coo.trolled. lateral deflectioo of the test Satisfactory article is acceptable.

B: Detached elements. fragments , or other debris fran the test article shall not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the passenger canpartment or present Satisfactory undue hazard to other traff i c.

c: Integrity of the passenger canpartment Il!USt be maintained with no intrusion and Satisfactory essentially no deformatioo.

D: The Vehicle shall remain upright during and after collision. Unsatisfactory

r : The test article shall smoothly redirect the vehicle. ;. redirection is deemed srrootrl if the rear of the vehicle does not yaw IOOre than 5 degrees away fran the Satisfacto=1' raihng fran time of impact unt il the vehicle separates f ran the railing .

: : Tho; SI!;O;Jthness of the vehicle-railing interaction is fur t her assessed by the effectlve coefficien~ of friction ~; where u = (c0s8 - Vp/ v )/ sine. Sat isfactory

~ Assessment 1 lFO.09 0.0 - 0.25 Good

0.26 - 0.35 Fair ) 0.35 Marginal

G: ThE. l.T,'.lact velocity of a hyp:lthetica1 f ront-seat passenger against the vehicle mte~·ior . calculated fran vehlc1e accelerations and 2.0 ft. longitudnal and 1.0 ft. Satisfacto~"y l at eral dlsp~acements . shall be less than:

O:c\lpant ~ Velocity : ~ Ipngi tudinal Lateral

30 25

a~ for the vehicle highest ID-ms average accelerations subsequent to the instant :Jf hypothetical passenger impaC't should be l ess than:

Occupant Ridedown ~elerations : !l2. Longitudinal Lateral

15 15

H: Vei'.l.c1c exit angle froo. the barrier shall not be IOClte than 12 degrees. Vithin 10:1 ft. ph)!; !.he length of the test vehicle fran the p:lint of initial impact with Satisfacto~' thE.- r allmg . the railing side of the vehicle shall move no morE. than 20 ft. fra:-th: l ine of the traffi c face of the railing .

~a bl e 3 . hSSHTO C~iteria For Evaluating Bridge Ra~l Crash Tes ts

28

1. Jehu, V.J., Passenger Transport Berkshire;

REFERENCES

Pearson. L . e., "Impacts of European Coach Against Shaped Concrete and Road Research Laboratory ,

England , TRRL Laboratory Report 801.

Cars and a Barriers. " Crowthorn.

1977 .

2. NCHRP 230 Report . "Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances," National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report, Transportation Research Board, March 1981.

3. AASHTO. "Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings. An hlternative to Bridge Railing Specifications in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges ," American hssociation of State Highway and Transportati on Officials , Proposed March 7 , 1988.

4. "Vehicle Damage Scale for Traffic Accident Investigators," Traffic Accident Data Project Technical Bulletin No.1 , National Safety Council, Chicago, Ill., 1971.

5 . "Collision Deformation Classificacion, Recommended Practice J224 Mar 80. " SAE Handbook Vol. 4. society of Automocive Engineers . Warrendale . Penn., 1985 .

6 . Hinch, J .• Yang, T-L. and Owings. R. , "Guidance Systems for Vehicle Testing," ENSCO , Inc . , Springfield. VA, 1986.

29

APPENDICES

30

Appendix A. Test Facility

31

1. Test Site

The location of the test site. with respect to the Lincoln

Municipal Airport is shown in Figure AI . An 8 ft. high chain-

linked fence surrounds the facility to ensure security for the

test article and any test equipment that is setup and left on the

facility grounds.

2. Vehicle Tow System

A reverse cable tow system. with a 1:2 mechanical advantage.

was used to propel the test vehicle. Using this tow system

allows the tow vehicle to travel half the distance at half the

speed than that of the test vehicle. A sketch of the cable tow

system is shown in Figure A2. The test vehicle was released from

the tow cable approximately 10 ft . before impact with the

Nebraska Bridge Rail Barrier. Photographs of the tow vehicle and

the attached fifth-wheel are shown in Figure A3. The fifth-

wheel . built by Nucleus Corporation. was used f o r accurately

towing the test vehicle at the required target speed with the aid

of a digital speedometer in the tow vehicle .

32

3. Vehicle Guidance System

A vehicle guidance system, developed by Hinch (£), was used

to steer the test vehicle. A sketch of the guidance system is

shown in Figure A2, while photographs of the guidance system

before and after impact are shown in Figure A4. The guide flag

was attached to the front left wheel of the test vehicle and was

sheared off (at the distances stated above) before impact with

the Nebraska Barrier. The 3/8 in. diameter cable was tensioned

to 3,000 Ibs . . and was supported laterally and vertically every

100 ft . by hinged stanchions which stood upright while holding up

the guide cable. When the vehicle passed, the guide flag struck

each stanchion and knocked it to the ground. The vehicle

guidance system was approximately 1,000 ft. in length.

33

.-

UNL TESTING

ElEV 1195

ANNUAl lATE Of CHANGE V JULY ~ 171-J5R 0.2- W 546, T60 P:wy 17R·35l ....... 5100, 1"100, n.oo

f(WY 14-32 5100, Tl70.

•

fIElD ElE'" 121"

.,

~, , 'LfV 1110

~

GENERAL AVIATION

-", PARKING

,/

~ ,

&;>

NEIRASKA •• ,~,"\ NATIONAL GUARD •

.. ",

Elf'" 1175

1,

FIGURE Al . Full-Scale Vehicle Crash Testing Facility 34

GUIDE WI FLAG ~ 1 SHEARED ' OFF

I '---Co-I J T E

(TOW CABLE)

, RELEASED I

~-I I

" l }s DIA. GUI:JE I CABL E

I "

I~ ['/1'.. TOW 16 CABLE

Tal'! VEHICLE

rSTANCHIONS

I .l I I

1

FIGURE A2.

/: 2 MFCHAN/~;'L AD V~NTAGE

YC SCAL E

and Guidance Systems Sketch of Tow 35

FIGURE A3. Photographs of Tow Vehicle with Fifth-Wheel

36

FIGURE A4. Photographs of Vehicle Guidance System

37

Appendix B. Data Acquisition Systems

38

1. Accelerometers

Endev co triaxial piezoresistive accelerometers (Model 7264)

with a range of 200 g's were used to measure the accelerations in

the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions of the test

The accelerometers were rigidly attached to metal

blocks mounted at the center of mass and at the rear of the test

veh:'cle. A photograph of the accelerometers mounted in the test

vehicle is shown at the top of Figure 61, while Figure 62 shows a

schematic of the accelerometer locations. The signals from th~

a cc=lerometers w.ere received and conditioned by an onboard

vehicle I'letraplex unit shot-m at the bottom of Figure 61. The

~ul tiplexed signal was then sent through a single coaxial cable

to the Honeywell (l01) Analog Tape Recorder in the central

control van. Photographs of the system located in the centrally

contr~:'led step-van are shown in Figures 63 and 64, and a

flowc~ :~ t of the accelerometer data aquisition syste~ is shown in

figure 65 . The latest state-of-the-art computer software: ,

. Conputerscope' and . nsP' "'z.s used to analyze and plot thE:-

acceleromet.er data on a Cyclone 386 / AT , "'h ich uses a very high

speed data aquisition board.

~. High-Speed Photography

Thr ee high-speed IG mm came ras were used to fil m the crash

tEoStS. The cameras ran at approximately 500 frames per second.

The overhead camera was a Red Lake Loc arr. wit.h a wide angle :2.5

:i . il:'i!C.e~e r le!".s. It was placed 50 ft. abOV e the concrete apron

39

over the point of impact . The perpendicular camera was a Photec

IV with a 55 millimeter lens and was located 165 ft. from the

vehicle point of impact. The parallel upstream camera was also a

Photec IV with a 80 millimeter lens. It was located 185 ft.

upstream from the point of impact and was in line with the

barriers front face.

in Figure B6.

A schematic of the camera layouts is shown

A 100 ft. long by 20 ft. wide grid layout was painted on the

concrete slab in front of the barrier. The white grid was

incremented with 5 ft. divisions to produce a visible reference

system which could be used in the analysis of the overhead high-

speed film.

3. Speed Trap Switches

Eight tape pressure switches spaced at 5 ft. intervals were

used to determine the speed of the vehicle before and after

impact. Each tape switch fired a blue 5B flashbulb located near

each switch on the concrete slab as the left front tire of the

test vehicle passed over it . The average speed of the test

vehicle between the tape switches was determined by knowing the

distance between the tape switches, the calibrated camera speed,

and the number of frames, from the high-speed film, between

flashes. In addition. the average speed was determined from

electronic timing mark data recorded on the oscilloscope software

used with the 386/AT computer as the test vehicle passed over

each tape switch.

40

FIGURE 81. Photographs of Onboard Data Acquisition System

41

FIGURE B2.

... ~ul. '0. 5uhl '0. Caill> •. hn ... .... , "'. .... , IP24N .... , .,,,. N ... 4 IUlH .... , 1J1>2H '0. • In7N

NO.4 ~

3,211 .vlR 2.IB .v/ , 2.640.v/, 2.22' .v/, 2.438.v/, 2.~46 .\'1 , fFRONT

19 •

IVO./~

17'% ..

64.4 ..

~

61 ~"

IVQ 6

¥ r... ' Ir-I~

NO. 2

20" "

GROUND SURFACE~

·1 I ,

-I "- IV O. 5

'1 "- NO. 3

64 %,"

Schematic of Accelerometer Locations in Vehicle

42

FIGURE 83. Photographs of Central Control Van

FIGURE B4. Photographs of 38G/AT Computer and Computer Software

44

L

Con.t.roI. v ••

I L

End.G¥CO End .... eo PICIOn=.IeIIn: P,e1.CI"U",U", ,"OUM rom. to. r l.C

-P""~lz

BARRIER t----- 18s'-----...j~1 ,S'-j

, 16S

nl

I

OVERHEAD LOCAM (SO')

_L--__ 181 PHOTEC rr

181 PHOTEC JY:

20°

L VEHICLE PATH

FIGURE B6. Schematic of High-Speed Camera Locations

Appendix C. Graphs of Accelerometer Data

47

---------._--

-

,[ ( . , (! - - --c--.-- ----,------ ------

.. ----. ----t-.---- - .-.----

" , f) - - ~ N- Lo.,N --------1----- ---- ----~.-. ---

_ ..

-" .. -

NDOR DATE : GRAPH

-

CONCRETE BRIDG 9-20- 88 OF LONGITUDIN

-------_.-. ', " .

E RAIL BARRIER TEST

AL DECELERATION AT e.G . .. 0 "" VERTICAL UNITS ...... .... •. G' s HORIZONTAL UNITS .... ACCELEROMETER NO. J

--

..... . seconds (AM44 )

---+---- - .--

~~F 1tE-' 'L. -- f' r, r··, ,~ ... '-'- V v'l'"

---- .. - .---- ._ .. ,---. ,---_ .. . . --" • 0) o , , 'J , !! " . .. ,.' , , " .

~~----~-~~---" • :::: __ ...c'...c' , :. ___ '_ .. ' ..:. • ..;',_ '.' , ':0 1 ."

rr/~,£'"c) .,.+ ' __ .' ~.

----:-==:=====_= __ ===_=_::1:_ =---- ==---=-==r ----- ------:==

-------- ---------- --- ---- -- --------t--- ------ ---7"

;,::- I! , 0", - __ , ___ _

1 0,0 - ----- ------1---

,' , , (I n , ;::

" -'

--------------

MOOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL RAP.RIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY AT C.G. VERTICAL UNITS .. __ .• _ .... _ft/sec HORIZONTAL UNITS ......... . s~conds ACCELEROMETER NO. 3 (AM44)

--f--- --J---------L-- ----.--L- -1-------,', , ,+ ':' . !:' " , ,;: .:' • :" (, , . t, , ':0 j , " ._--_ .... _.

'" o

----_____ ......,,.,.. __ ... _.~...,...,..,..,.,.-- --...,.---0_----___ 0 _________ _ r,1 ,'1.111 111:1 i . (·tJC., "I ll', J T ', IIPl .'E

,- " , ,",

" . "

- t" . (.

I, • I) ,~ I) , 1 (I

----.----~------

NOOR CONCRETF. BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST OATE: 9-20- 88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY AT C.G . VERTICAL UNITS ............ ft / sec HORIZONTAL UNITS .....•. . .. s~conds ACCELEROMETER NO. 3 (AM44)

" ,. '.' ,., , ~; I;

---------~~----".

L··tl'-, [._r :"; 1"'LI'=I CF:" I I r::11 I , • tI , .)- .. , . '-' - ._._- --- ------ ------ -- --- --T -- -- -- - -- - - --

,:. 1"1 () . 0 f--- - - - -- -.' .r

/" NDOR CONCRF.TE BRIDGE RAIL 8,1\RRIER TEST /'

/' DATE : 9-20-88 /' "II • 0 --- GRAPH OF LONGITUDIN1\L DISPLACEMENT AT C.G. ---- ----17 ... ··• - f--- ---VERTICAL inches .' UNITS. . . . . . . . - - - - //. HORIZONTAL UNITS . - - - . - - - . . seconds

ACCELEROMETER NO. J (AM44 , , ...... ." ," r-~' --

--~.".... """ ---"",,

I (0 l' , ., --"-- - - - -.,-..... -----"

--.-" --

, -' .... -.-~ ------' ,-, , .) - - - -- -- - -- - - --- - .- -_.--:---- ----- ----,- -- - -- ------- - -- - ----- ---'"-' - - ---"-- ---,-_.-,-, • 1) ".1 (' . ;::; ( .. 7;: 0) • '-1 .) • r:: ,) , ,- ( .. 0 " -' 0) , .[ " -

-----,-- '--..,,-----'-- :::";";7""~=_:c~~=--"-- ,---------

~ ' .. , . (,

'I /, , I)

" " • (I

, I)

I " . r)

" , ,", -

I ,', , (0

_ I ': 11 , t.'

r 1_ I.'!. t " \.! I' L I .! I ~ ',' r.r'::: !' l 11' "" , ri l l' LlI'?'.}r'.:

------- ----

-----.- ---+--

----------j---

------ ---------

... ,.~ ..

~' .' ---.. ---- '---'-"-------;,-;::» ,"

NOOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9- 20-88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL DISPLACEMENT AT C_G_ VERTICAL UNITS ..... . . .. .. . inch e s HORIZONTAL UNITS ... .. ... . . s ~ c onds ACCELEROMETER NO_ 3 (AM44)

------- -- I ._-,-_ .. _--_ .. _-> ... _ ....... ,- --I ---- -- -- " .. _._-- --'-_, _____ ·c'..;..' "(0",'-_____ ...::";..:., -',~') _______ '_' ! ' ________ " , • " 0) , ,;: ,- ',', .. :::,-, '. r:

L 1"""1 T E R 1'1 L n I . .' I, r;> (I' 01' ------.-,-.-.. -.~ ._._._-----.-----~ - .- _._----- - --_.-

,-" ,. , 'J - ---·--HI

1 0 , 0 -1-----11--1+1--- - .. -- ._---1--

._----

NDOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL D~RRIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LATERAL DECELERATION AT C. G. VERTICAL UNITS ....... . .... G' s HORIZONTAL UNITS .......... seconds ACCELEROMETER NO. 5 !SJ62H)

.- -------·--·>----1

- t (, ,0 ··1------ -,----+ --- --- -_._--+-_._.- -------_ .. --_.- - --- ....

" .. -, " . .,'--__ t, , " .- -_ ... _-_.-----

L. I-I T ERAI_ C I-II-.II' r I t! '.!E I_n , 'l r , 0: F r ; EC: :. 0_+ ': . '.' , -- - ---.------ ----- ----- -- _._-----_.- ~---_ =--=.::- --=----r--===--::r::; -.--==.- -::=- = - -.= . c:.:==. ----:,-: = =-: r : .. -==--

/ --"."

3 " ,0 - .- - r y · .... f' _._--

j'fV ... --..... -................ " \....1 ..... " ... '-- r --· ....... "'-.. - ' -----", ......--."' --' ......... - ..... .

(' f-----;:' " , (, - - - ---_. -----

( t (. , (. - - / .- .- .- - ----. --

/ NDOR CONCRF.TE BRIDGE RUL BARRIER. TEST -j

DATE: 9 -20-88 GRAPH OF LATERAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY AT C.G. .-.

" . " - - - . -- VERTICAL tmITS . . .. . · ..... . ft /sec HORIZONTAL UNITS. . . · . . . . . .s f'!cond~ ACCELEROMETER NO. 5 (RJ62H)

------- --_._._- _. -1---- I . I .- I .--1----. .. _ . . -" . (. ': . . , " ,~ " ~ " , ' I " , " · ,; " : c, ~: " .. ,_._-" .

, ( , , (I -f---I--

" , t,

- 1 (, , (I

(I • 1 (I (, • 1'~

,.'--.,.----,- ~- ----~-- , ---

-1~--+--1- -- I--j---j---

-----+--- --- ~ -~--

,------j--+--,- - +-- f------

NDOR CONCRF.TR BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9-20- 88 GRAPH OF LATERAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY AT C. G. VERTICAL UNITS _ ...... __ . _ . ft / sec HORIZONTAL UNITS . _0 ••••••• sp.conds ACCELEROMETER NO. 5 (SJ62H)

-----~~ --~--l~-~-L=J~~~~l-- --- r-=--J--_-",.:0..:,..:,..:'-' ___ ..:':;." ';" .::2..:' ____ ~')~ .. -,·,.::.' ___ ,_..:.:..:,~~, ___ "..:' 4,. __ _

--,-------

,', (! (t -1-----+----4------

.'": ,., ( • • D +----+-----1 --- --

i ··.... () +----+- ----1----

.... ,...-. ",..-.-----.-

,-, • ('! - ------l-~"

----1------+---

• 0'" ,"

------ ------- -- - -- _. - --,-_.---- - .. --- _ ._- -----

.. ,., , ~ ...

-1------,----+--- - - --I-----f--- -

-+--_.- --- --------

-- -1--"""'.-' ... , .... ~ . ..--" -- -- - -----,-~' .. /

NDOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9-20 - 88

___ . GRAPH OF LATERAL DISPLACEHENT AT e . G. VERTICAL UNITS . .. . ..... ... inches HORIZONTAL UNI TS. ___ ..... . ~econds ACCELEROMETER NO _ 5 CBJ62 " i

------_ -J -- - .I ___ I L--.. -'-, ____ '~'.:..;,:.' __ ...:O'-'--'J ___ ~':.' .:..:2'-__ .:.":..:.. ____ ;;(':..:..' ::4 ___ :;"-,-":..· __ ~ ____ " ____ ::'''''':''-' ____ :';.' :..,:' ___ _

E'L ,"I .l t l Ll r ' L I"'1 TEF'AL r' t :~ p L.I1 C E r i F. IJ T ,U F"f------- ---------~ --- ---_ ..

2

- --'-'--....' ----,------ --"-1 "(o ' "~ G, ,"1"(" i" "I" '('F'': f~ I _ I ::: Ffil1..('11 '" "::r)-BI'IC I ,F ''1,:11 --,--,-_. __ ._-,-, -----",--_._, . - --_ .. _--" - -,-~ -,--- ,- ---"- - --,-~.,-

1'-' , 0)

,.., ,I) - ."'--'-'.".'-

- lo', , ':' -, - '------

,. '.' , (I

" , f' ,., " " 1 " "

tl\.:-f 'I:;".-f'--/ \;_,J::J" '[\.t;. ,-' L~~':;""',:r

\, J \)

I I

U NDOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL DECELERATION VERTICAL UNITS .....••. • ... G·s

AT BACK OF VEHICLE

HORIZONTAL UNITS .. ........ seconds ACCELEROMETER NO. 6 (BF57H)

" , ," ,-, , "'I" ,', " 'I"

'" '"

l (,t-.l( •• ---------- --- --- -- r --- - -- ----,--

, 0.0 -1------1-----1 --,--- I- -- -'~. --.,.......-

-~--- -~ -~ ~ ~----

.-0-""'- ,,-.-'

~-' ." •• 0 -1---- 11-- 7 .-Ji; ~~=~....f::=""'---:::"·:....j------I-----' 1-----

I " . 0 -1----+-1'- ---, I

// f, .1,1 -v-~-- .---" --

NOOR CONCRETE BRIDGE R~IL B~RRIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY VERTICAL UNITS .... ... . .... ft/sec HORIZONTAL UNITS .. . .. . . . . . seconds ACCELEROMETER NO. 6 (BF57H)

AT BACK OF VEHICLE

---1.--- --L-.-- -1.---.. J .- -.-- I 1,1 ;;: t) I '!:: " , ;: ,-, I , '.; I (, ~! ,', t, ,'I'

---r---

-- ---, ------------

l (0 0 ( ) - --- ----I-- -/

/ - - ./ /

. /~/

Co 0 ( 0 - i- ,--- ~.:: 1-- -- --,--"'

-~ 0 (0 +- --- --"-'- --'-'-1---, -~-I----,

- OJ 0 (I ;:: ( I 0 'J ,:;

,

---,---_.,- -- , ------~---.. ' -- ............ -. .r"'- • , __ r~r-~E/'-\ /\

/ J '--"

t=~--~-~ --- ----"

NDOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY AT BACK OF VEHICLE VERTICAL UNITS ............ ft/sec HORIZONTAL UNITS._ ...... . . seconds ACCELEROMETER NO. 6 (BF57H)

-t--~ 1~~~~--- L -~,- =--~1----1-= (I 0 1 "

'" ...

I. (t C' , .;,

HDOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL DISPLACEMENT AT BACK OF VEHICLE VERTICAL UNITS . •..... .. ... inches HORIZONTAL UNITS ....... .. . seconds ACCELEROMETER NO. 6 (BF57HI

," ,

" ,

,J ",

. ' ,~

, "

"

, . ,/

,. 'Jt

'" N

';:--;-:7:7:'"--::-:;C:-:::7":::-:::';:-T.~;-;-~7-------'-----·-"---~~-'BL,:tI ·1I1 UP L t)tl(., to I""Pl f l'-E H EtJ r f ' LJP ')E ,------- ----,-----------, ----,,-, -- ---------

' f Co , (.

---

- "- 1.1 , OJ

" -... _-

_~ .... I

",..:::::::::: ____ ,. __ ' ___ 0-_.>.,. __ • _____ ' ••• __ , __ , •• ______ • ____ • __

NOOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LONGITUDINAL DISPLACEMENT AT BACK OF VEHICLE VERTICAL UNITS .......... . . inches HORIZONTAL UNITS .......... seconds ACCELEROMETER NO_ 6 (BF57H)

'" -,-1---,--L -,- --1-,,--.-, , ~: (, I,' • "

'" w

,,"'-- ----:-=,... --~--------------- ... _,-------------'-' t_n T. n', ' '::' . j,' r ,l~ D E ',:E L E r::' A TT, " tt .:0:- ':f:!' P r=:I C " ( ' .r " '-'. H.

~. (, , ( , - ---------,-

L (, • I) - -._-- _._-- - ---"

NDaR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL B~RRIER TEST DATE : 9-20 - 88 GRAPH OF LATERAL DECELERATION AT BACK OF VEHICLE VERTICAL tJNITS ....•.. .. . .. G ' 5 HORIZONTAL UNITS .......... seconds ACCELEROMETER NO . 4 IBR47~'

._.-:.':...' :... ':....,_ __.:c':':....:..;., _____ "_. =' ______ :.:.' ... , ~: .- .. - -~ '--"._---" . y

-------:-::-:-:-::--:::-::-::-'---"-----"-7":-------------'-·

L .'~ T , I~.H_'-_II!':'~_·I! ! ,~_' ~_-_LOC l. T, .: F"r .,- ''''.F."O::c::' __ I rt£~_' '}':"" ~ '.:.., 11,_,'--__ _

-------..,--------T--- .,-_._------ --------- - -----------

--. ~ ....... "'I:;: = "' .

/ ..........-~-. .-..'"

---+---- -- .- ---------

RAIL BARRIF.R TEST

AT BACK OF VEHICLE

(' :? Ii , (I -I--------+ -------¥-

// '0," +------- --.rj --.-- -NOOR CONCRETE- :RIDGE

/

' DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LATERAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY

-..J,.....,r ... , VERTICAL UNITS ............ ft/sec (I , 0 - ",,-=-,,~-'----.-,- --_.-.---"-_ .. - HORIZONTAL UNITS .. ........ second s

ACCELEROMETER NO. 4 (BR47H)

I --- ,

e---._-- ------.- .. -- -.--- ----L ___ -,";.c.' :.;" _____ ..;:;,'..:'.;,'-" ____ ...:.":..:..' "-':' (~ , :;' " . "j .', , ' " , " ~----.-~~.----.-,-----.-.. _,,---,---- _.- -_.- -_.

::.: I) , 0,) -1------

::: (. , 0 -f-- +---- ---- ----

------_._--- .. ---. ----- .. _ -f---+-

----\--+-/

-+---1/-

........ . / /

VI

.r"~-'

-----

.. ~............ . --'--

lO:' , r:. +-- 1---- - .. - .. --- ---- -"._-' (

--I-i --~--> - --- -. ------... -

" , 0) - _ -- - -..r::::=-

- I " , (I

~' ... ~-.'.

NDOR CONCRETE nRIOGE RAIL B~~RIF,R TEST DATE: 9-20-88 GRAPH OF LATERAL CHANGE IN VELOCITY AT BACK OF VEHICLE VERTICAL UNITS . . ...... . ... ft/sec HORIZONTAL UNITS ....... ___ s econds ACCELEROMETER NO. 4 (BR47H)

'---- 1------ -- ---- 1--- -1-. -- 1 - -I J -- I ____ ~O::.:,~,)::.:.:" _ ____ ~'::..:' . .-. y r, , " " , J .:; ___ ". I, ,. ,', . ,; '~ ,. 'w ____ , __ ' .. _"" .... _ ' .. _,_... _ . __ ' __ ._, __ ,_. __ . ________ ' __ •

'" '"

LATERAL DlSP l. ACEMEN'!" ( IN '

._---- --- - - ---

:=:. 0) (I , I) -r ------·-l-----·------l

NDOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9-20-88

lS0 , (, ------- GRAPH OF LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT BACK OF VEHICLE _.,_,., ___ . __

1 (I';' , .)

VERTICAL UNITS •••••••.•.•• inches HORIZONTAL UNITS .......... seconds ACCELEROMETER NO. 4 COR07H)

._ ---_.- --_._--_._.

... r-'~

",'

- _._---_._._._. - ------"'-,/

.-'" " .. "-.-------~.--.- .....,.., ... --.--.--,-.-~- ' ----_ .. -......

// , .......... ~

, .... ~~ -' . ....----~ .... ' .; (I , (0 -~----.---i===.----... - ---"-----._. -.----.------... _. .._--'--_.'-- ,.- .---,_._-'----'-'- -,._--.'_.--' -' -'-"-'-

\-____ • ___ ._ L. ____ ... ___ ... _._. _____ ._. _ __ _ __ .

I) , (I '-' , to), :::: . .:,. . -: ___ (. , ',' ____ _ . . - ._--- ---- 0' • ",. " , ,;;

r------------::c~7:_:_~~_;==;___,=_===~~~;;;;_:~-------- .J!'!_ ') 1,1 I I LIP L I-='TEEAL :C1_t:3F'LHCEt'11~~IIT C UR"!! 1----------------- --------- ----------- ---!~ II , (0

I-I i, • (0 _

NOOR CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL BARRIER TEST DATE: 9 - 20-88 GRAPH OF LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT BACK OF VEHICLE VERTICAL UNITS .. ......... . inches HORIZONTAL UNITS ........ .. s~conds ACCELEROMETER NO. 4 (BR47H)

----- ---- ----_.- ----

---_. __ .---- --.-- --_._- . --_.

t ,., , (I ---.------- -

.-. • I) !' f' • I ,., , ___ .:..c...:; __ _

---1-'----

,,-,,-

--r····,; /'

--- ---1-- ---

....-./

.'

.-..... ---.'

--,r