A model for predicting Acceleration Severity Index in impacts with road safety barriers

References

• Gabauer D, Gabler HC. Evaluation of the acceleration severity index threshold values utilizing event data recorder technology. Transport Res Rec: J Transport Res Board. 2005;1904:37–45.
   Google Scholar
• European Committee for Standardization. EN 1317-1:2010 Road restraint systems - Part 1: terminology and general criteria for test methods. Brussels (Belgium): CEN; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• European Committee for Standardization. EN 1317-2:2010 Road restraint systems - part 2: performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers including vehicle parapets. Brussels (Belgium): CEN; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Manual for assessing safety hardware (MASH). Washington (DC): AASHTO; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Standards Australia. AS/NZS 3845.1:2015 Road safety barrier systems. Strathfield (NSW) (Australia); Wellington (New Zealand): Standards Australia; Standards New Zealand; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Shojaati M. Correlation between injury risk and impact severity index ASI. Paper presented at 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference; Monte Verità, Ascona, Switzerland: 2003 Mar 19-21.
   Google Scholar
• Roque C, Cardoso JL. Observations on the relationship between European standards for safety barrier impact severity and the degree of injury sustained. IATSS Res. 2013;37:21–29. doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2013.04.002.
   Google Scholar
• Li N, Fang H, Zhang C, et al. A numerical study of occupant responses and injuries in vehicular crashes into roadside barriers based on finite element simulations. Adv Eng Software. 2015;90:22–40. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schram R, Leneman F, van der Zweep C, et al. Assessment criteria for assessing energy-absorbing front underrun protection on trucks. Int J Crashworthiness. 2006;11(6):597–604. doi:10.1533/ijcr.2006.0154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt R, Fell C. The relationship of injury risk to accident severity in impacts with roadside barriers. Int J Crashworthiness. 2009;14(2):165–172. doi:10.1080/13588260802614365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burbridge A, Troutbeck R. Feasibility of predicting light vehicle occupant injury disutility from impacts with road safety barriers. 1st International Roadside Safety Conference; San Francisco (CA): Transportation Research Board; 2017. p. 250–265.
   Google Scholar
• Montella A, Pernetti M. Vehicle occupant impact severity in relation to real world impact conditions. 2nd International Congress on New Technologies and Modeling Tools for Roads; Florence, Italy: 2004 Oct 27-29.
   Google Scholar
• Borkowski W, Hryciów Z, Rybak P, et al. Numerical simulation of the standard TB11 and TB32 tests for a concrete safety barrier. J KONES. 2010;17(4):63–71.
   Google Scholar
• Kunc R, Omerović S, Ambrož M, et al. Comparative study of European tunnel emergency-stop-area-wall protection measures. Accident Anal Prev. 2014;63:9–21. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kammel C. Safety barrier performance predicted by multi-body dynamics simulation. Int J Crashworthiness. 2007;12(2):115–125. doi:10.1080/13588260701433255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naish DA, Burbridge A. Occupant severity prediction from simulation of small car impact with various concrete barrier profiles. Int J Crashworthiness. 2015;20(5):510–523. doi:10.1080/13588265.2015.1048177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraham N, Ghosh B, Simms C, et al. Assessment of the impact speed and angle conditions for the EN1317 barrier tests. Int J Crashworthiness. 2016;21(3):211–221. doi:10.1080/13588265.2016.1164444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonin G, Cantisani G, Loprencipe G. Analysis of laboratory data from crash test on road safety barriers. Paper presented at 3rd International SIIV Congress; Bari, Italy: 2005 Sep 22-24.
   Google Scholar
• Burbridge A, Troutbeck R. Decompartmentalising road safety barrier stiffness in the context of vehicle occupant risk. J Australasian College Road Safety. 2017;28(1):11–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burbridge A, Troutbeck R. A desktop model for computing Acceleration Severity Index (ASI) for rigid barrier impacts as a function of impact configuration. Paper presented at Australasian Road Safety Conference; Perth, WA, Australia: Australasian College of Road Safety; 2017 Oct 9-12.
   Google Scholar
• Hammonds BR, Troutbeck RJ. Crash test outcomes for three generic barrier types. Paper presented at 25th ARRB Conference – Shaping the future: linking research, policy and outcomes; Perth, WA, Australia: Australian Road Research Board; 2012 Sep 25-28.
   Google Scholar
• Anghileri M, Luminari M, Williams G. ROBUST - road barrier upgrade of standards - deliverable D.2.1. Analysis of test data from European laboratories. Milan (Italy): 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Ray MH, Carrigan CE, Plaxico CA, et al. NCHRP 22-27 roadside safety analysis program (RSAP) update. (ME) (USA): RoadSafe LLC; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Anghileri M. ROBUST - road barrier upgrade of standards - deliverables D.3.1 D.3.2. Milan (Italy): 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Maika K, Yusuke M, Jonas P, et al. Development of occupant injury prediction algorithms for advanced automatic collision notification by numerical crash reconstructions. Paper presented at 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles; Seoul, Korea: 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver AA, Talton JW, Barnard RT, et al. Estimated injury risk for specific injuries and body regions in frontal motor vehicle crashes. Traffic Inj Prev. 2015;16(sup1):S108–S116. doi:10.1080/15389588.2015.1012664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buth CE, Menges WL. NCHRP report 350 test 4-12 of the modified thrie beam guardrail. McLean (VA): Federal Highway Administration; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Buth CE, Menges WL. NCHRP report 350 test 3-11 of the strong wood post thrie beam guardrail. McLean (VA): Federal Highway Administration; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Mak KK, Bligh RP, Menges WL. Testing of state roadside safety systems volume I: technical report (report no. FHWA-RD-98-036). (VA) (USA): US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Plaxico C, Ray MH. Effects of guardrail post deterioration on crash performance of wood post W-beam guardrails. 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC, USA: Texas Transportation Institute; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Buth CE, Menges WL, Schoeneman SK. NCHRP report 350 test 3-11 on the modified Penn DOT type 2 guardrail. College Station (TX): Texas Transportation Institute; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Bullard LD Jr., Menges WL, Schoeneman SK. NCHRP report 350 test 3-11 of the steel-backed timber guardrail. College Station (TX): 2001.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B80 HALCO X-48 guardrail post. Washington (DC): 2001.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B80A HALCO X-40 guardrail post. Washington (DC): 2001.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B96 Cable barrier with Marion steel posts. Washington (DC): 2002.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-119 Cable Safety System (CASS). Washington (DC): 2003.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-119A Cable Safety System (CASS). Washington (DC): 2003.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-109B P-Block. Washington (DC): 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Wu W, Thomson R. Compatibility between passenger vehicles and road barriers during oblique collisions. Int J Crashworthiness. 2004; [2004/06/01];9(3):245–253. doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-137 Gibraltar. Washington (DC): 2005.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-140 T-31 W-beam guardrail. Washington (DC): 2005.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-141 CASS cable barrier. Washington (DC): 2005.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B82B Brifen wire rope safety fence. Washington (DC): 2005.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-96A SAFERoads cable rail. Washington (DC): 2005.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-137B Gibraltar cable barrier system. Washington (DC): 2006.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSA-10/B-141B CASS cable barrier. Washington (DC): 2006.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSSD/B-162 Nucor. Washington (DC): 2007.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSSD/B-162B Nucor. Washington (DC): 2008.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSSD/B-167 Nucor wire rope barrier system. Washington (DC) (USA): 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Whitesel D, Jewell J, Meline R. Development and crash testing of an aesthetic, see-through bridge rail, type 90. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Transportation; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSSD/B-184A Nu-Cable. Washington (DC) (USA): 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Bullard LD Jr., Bligh RP, Menges WL, et al. NCHRP Web-only document 157: volume 1: evaluation of existing roadside safety hardware using updated criteria- technical report. College Station (TX): Texas Transportation Institute; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Her V, Jewell J, Meline R. Development and testing of a low-profile barrier. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Transportation; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry D, Jackson C. Test report: BR2009/017 G4 W-beam safety barrier. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry D, Jackson C. Test report: BR2009/018 G4 W-beam safety barrier. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry D, Jackson C. Test report: BR2009/019 G4 W-beam safety barrier. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry D, Jackson C. Test report: BR2009/028A wire rope safety barrier. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry D, Jackson C. Test report: BR2009/029 wire rope safety barrier. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry D, Jackson C. Test report: BR2009/030 wire rope safety barrier. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Bligh RP, Abu-Odeh AY, Menges WL. MASH test 3-10 on 31-inch W-beam guardrail with standard offset blocks. College Station (TX): Texas Transportation Institute; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Whitesel D, Jewell J, Meline R. Development of weed control barrier beneath metal beam guardrail. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Transportation; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST/B-222 Armorwire. Washington (DC): 2012.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST/B-227 high tension 3-cable median and roadside barriers. Washington (DC): 2012.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST/B-229 Ezy-Guard. Washington (DC): 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes Solutions New Zealand. VicRoads public domain longitudinal W-beam guard rail with ACP plastic block-outs. Christchurch (New Zealand): 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes Solutions New Zealand. VicRoads public domain longitudinal W-beam guard rail with Ingal plastic block-outs. Christchurch (New Zealand): 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lai A, Jackson C. Test report: BR2013/033 ASEBAL motorcycle protection system on G4 W-beam VT Commodore crash test. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lai A, Jackson C. Test report: BR2013/034 HIASA motorcycle protection system on G4 W-beam VT Commodore crash test. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lai A, Jackson C. Test report: BR2013/039 public domain motorcycle protection system on G4 W-beam VT Commodore crash test. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Abu-Odeh AY, Bligh RP, Mason ML, et al. Development and evaluation of a MASH TL-3 31-inch W-beam median barrier. College Station (TX): Texas Transportation Institute; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt J, Meyer CL, Lechtenberg KA, et al. Energy analysis of vehicle-to-cable barrier impacts. Lincoln (NE): Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Nebraska Transportation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Bielenberg RW, Reid JD, Faller RK, et al. Performance of the Midwest Guardrail System with rectangular wood posts. Transport Res Rec: J Transport Res Board. 2014;2437:27–40.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST/B-247 Ezy-Guard. Washington (DC): 2014.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST/B-250 non blocked BMS2-TL3 single steel guardrail. Washington (DC): 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lai A, Jackson C. Test report: BR2014/024 HIASA motorcycle protection system on G4 W-beam VT Commodore crash test. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lai A, Jackson C. Test report: BR2014/026 public domain motorcycle protection system on G4 W-beam VT Commodore crash test. Huntingwood (NSW) (Australia): NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Williams WF, Menges WL, Kuhn DL. MASH TL-4 evaluation of the Lake Pontchartrain causeway single-rail bridge rail (39-inch tall - option A). College Station (TX): Texas Transportation Institute; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST-1/B-273 Ezy-Guard. Washington (DC): 2017.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST-1/B-274 Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) bridge rail. Washington (DC): 2017.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Letter ref. HSST-1/B-267 ArcelorMittal TL5 Steel median safety barrier. Washington (DC): 2017.
   Google Scholar