Report Result

TRP-03-469-24

Bob Bielenberg, Ronald Faller, James Holloway, Karla Lechtenberg (Polivka), Erin Urbank

2024-12-16

<p>Guardrail end terminals have been developed to shield the end of a longitudinal barrier and function as a redirective barrier when struck along the side. The use of curbs is commonly required adjacent to guardrail and guardrail end terminals, but placement of curbs adjacent to W-beam guardrail may affect terminal performance due to the curb altering the vehicle trajectory and interaction with the end terminal. A 2017 study funded by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) investigated curb placement in front of tangent, energy-absorbing guardrail end terminals to determine if curbs significantly degraded terminal performance on high-speed roadways. LS-DYNA computer simulation results from a generic, energy-absorbing, W-beam end terminal model determined that 6-in. tall curbs changed the vehicle and barrier system behavior the greatest. The research recommended full-scale crash testing be conducted on tangent and flared end terminals in conjunction with 4-in. tall or shorter sloped curbs, especially under criteria for Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) test designation nos. 3-30 and 3-32, to further evaluate the effects of curbs on end terminal performance. This report documents two full-scale crash tests conducted to evaluate the safety performance of an energy-absorbing, W-beam end terminal adjacent to a 4-in. tall AASHTO Type C curb according to the MASH Test Level 3 (TL-3) criteria. Test nos. CET-1 and CET-2 were conducted in accordance with MASH test designation nos. 3-30 and 3-32, respectively. In test no. CET-1, a 1100C small car impacted the end terminal adjacent to 4-in. curb at a speed of 60.7 mph and an angle of 0.5 degrees. In test no. CET-2, a 1100C small car impacted the end terminal adjacent to 4-in. curb at a speed of 61.2 mph and an angle of 5.5 degrees. In both tests, the end terminal successfully contained and safely redirected the vehicles. All occupant risk measurements were found to be within the established MASH 2016 limits. Therefore, test nos. CET-1 and CET-2 were deemed to have satisfied all safety performance criteria for MASH TL-3.</p>

<p>Highway Safety, Crash Test, Roadside Appurtenances, Compliance Test, MASH, Guardrail End Terminal, Curb</p>

TRP-03-469-24.pdf