Design,Development,and Qualification of New Guardrail Post

Abstract

The basic design concepts for strong-post w-beam guardrail systems were developed more than 30 years ago. Although the vehicle fleet today differs significantly from vehicles for which the systems were designed, those systems are still in widespread use. One of the changes in the vehicle fleet with the most influence on the performance of guardrails and other safety barriers is the emergence of pickup trucks and SUVs. These vehicles are heavy and have relatively high centers of gravity, so in addition to overloading the guardrail, such vehicles are highly unstable during redirection and are likely to roll over. One of the most serious problems with these systems is the front impact-side wheel snagging on the guardrail posts. Conventional post types used in strong-post guardrail systems consist of either large wooden posts or steel I-beam section posts, both of which are unforgiving when impacted by a wheel. Recently, HALCO, LLC, developed the HALCO X-44 post, a guardrail post that is lightweight, strong, and designed to be used in strong-post w-beam guardrail applications as an alternative to conventional post types. The X-44 post was designed to be more forgiving when crashed into by the wheel of a vehicle, yet strong enough to limit guardrail deflection under NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 3 impact conditions. In this study the HALCO X-44 post was evaluated in a length-of-need section of w-beam guardrail. A finite element model of the guardrail system was developed, and the finite element program LS-DYNA was used to assess its performance under NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 impact conditions. A full-scale crash test was subsequently conducted after favorable results from the finite element analysis. The system successfully passed the safety requirements of NCHRP Report 350 for Test Level 3. This paper discusses the evaluation procedure and presents results of the HALCO X-44 post and guardrail system analysis.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ross

H. E.

Sicking

D. L.

and Perrara

H. S.

. NCHRP Report No. 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 1993.

Development of an Improved Roadside Barrier System—Phase I. NCHRP Research Results Digest No. 273. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2003.

Ray

M. H.

and McGinnis

R. G.

. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 244: Guardrail and Median Barrier Crashworthiness. TRB National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.

Bullard

Menges

and Alberson

. NCHRP Report 350 Compliance Test 3-11 of the Modified G4(1S) Guardrail with Timber Blockouts. FHWA Contract DTFH61-95 C-00090. Research Project 405421-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Jan. 1996.

Mak

Bligh

R. P.

and Menges

W. L.

. Crash Testing and Evaluation of Existing Guardrail Systems. Test Report No. 471470-26. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Dec. 1995.

Karlsson

J. E.

Design of a Non-Snagging Guardrail Post. MS thesis. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Mass., June 2000.

Rohde

J. R.

Sicking

D. L.

and Reid

J. D.

. Development of the Midwest Guardrail System. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1797, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 44–52.

Alberson

D. C.

Menges

W. L.

and Schoeneman

S. K.

. NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 of the G4 W-Beam Guardrail System with Central Fabricators, Inc., Steel Post and Plastic Blockout. Texas Transportation Institute. Texas A&M University System, College Station, Jan. 2001.

LaTurner

J. F.

NCHRP Report 350 Crash Test Results for the HALCO X-40 Post. Final Report, Project No. 41-1655. E-Tech Testing Services, Inc., Rocklin, Calif., Aug. 2001.

10.

Zaouk

A. K.

Bedewi

N. E.

Kan

and Marzougui

. Development and Evaluation of a C-1500 Pickup Truck Model for Roadside Hardware Impact Simulation. George Washington University, FHWA/NHTSA National Crash Analysis Center, Washington, D.C., 1996.

11.

Tiso

Improvements to the Suspension of the NCAC C2500 Pickup Truck Finite Element Model. MS thesis. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Mass., 2001.

12.

Tiso

Plaxico

and Ray

. Improved Truck Model for Roadside Safety Simulations: Part II—Suspension Modeling. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1797, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 63–91.

13.

Plaxico

C. A.

Design Guidelines for the Use of Curbs and Curb/Barrier Combinations Along High-Speed Roadways. Dissertation thesis. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Mass., 2002.

14.

Plaxico

C. P.

and Ray

M. H.

. Simulation and Analysis of a Guardrail System Impacted by a 3/4-Ton Pickup Truck. Project 222150-1. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Mass., Oct. 2001.

15.

Plaxico

C. A.

Patzner

G. S.

and Ray

M. H.

. Finite-Element Modeling of Guardrail Timber Posts and the Post–Soil Interaction. In Transportation Research Record 1647, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 139–146.

16.

A Standardized Guide to Highway Barrier Hardware. AASHTO, Association of General Contractors, American Road and Transportation Builder's Association Joint Committee, Washington, D.C., 1979.

17.

LS-DYNA User's Manual Version 970. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, Calif., April 2003.

18.

LS-PRE/POST User's Manual—Version 1.0. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, Calif. Aug. 2002.

19.

Epperson

Bligh

and Ross

. Test Risk Assessment Program (TRAP) Version 2.0: User's Manual. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 1999.

20.

LaTurner

J. F.

NCHRP Report 350 Crash Test Results for the HALCO X-44 Post. Final Report No. 210. Project No. 41-1792. E-Tech Testing Services, Inc., Rocklin, Calif., May 2003.

21.

AASHTO Guide Specifications for Highway Construction, Sections 304.5 and 304.7. AASHTO, National Safety Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.

22.

Vehicle Damage Scale for Traffic Accident Investigation. Society of Automotive Engineers, Chicago, Ill., 1984.

23.

Collision Damage Classification, Recommended Practice J244a. Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, 1972.