MASH TL-4 crash testing and evaluation of the RESTORE barrier.

PDFTech ReportTRP-03-318-15Impact testsMedian barriersSpallingEvaluationHighway safetyNebraskaNebraska. Dept. of RoadsSchmidt, Jennifer D.Schmidt, Tyler L.Rosenbaugh, Scott K.Faller, Ronald K.Bielenberg, Robert W.Reid, John D.Holloway, Jim C.Lechtenberg, Karla A.Midwest Roadside Safety FacilityUnited States. Federal Highway AdministrationUS Transportation CollectionThree full-scale vehicle crash tests were conducted according to the MASH Test Level 4 (TL-4) safety performance criteria on arestorable and reusable energy-absorbing roadside/median barrier, designated the RESTORE barrier. The system utilized for test nos.SFH-1 through SFH-3 was 240 ft (73.2 m) long with a nominal height of 38\ue2\u2026? in. (981 mm). The barrier consisted of an upper steel tuberail attached to the top of 20-ft (6.1-m) long x 22\uc2\ubc-in. (565-mm) wide precast concrete beams connected with wedge-shaped joints andsupported by 11\ue2\u2026?-in. (295-mm) tall rubber posts and steel skids.In test no. SFH-1, a 5,021-lb (2,277-kg) pickup truck impacted the barrier at 63.4 mph (102.1 km/h) and 24.8 deg. The barriersuccessfully contained and redirected the vehicle. Slight spalling occurred at the impacted joint, but no structural damage occurred andthe barrier fully restored. The peak lateral acceleration was reduced by up to 47 percent as compared to similar impacts on rigid barriers.In test no. SFH-2, a 2,406-lb (1,091-kg) small car impacted the same barrier at 64.3 mph (103.5 km/h) and 24.8 deg. The barriersuccessfully contained and redirected the vehicle. The front face of two of the rubber posts were cut by the wheel rim, which did notallow the system to fully restore. The peak lateral acceleration was reduced by up to 23 percent as compared to similar impacts on rigidbarriers. In test no. SFH-3, a 21,746-lb (9,864-kg) single-unit truck impacted the same barrier as test nos. SFH-1 and SFH-2 at 56.5 mph(91.0 km/h) and 14.9 deg. The barrier successfully contained and redirected the vehicle. The front face of the barrier experienced gougingand spalling as well as cracking and spalling between five joints. Modifications were recommended to strengthen the concrete at thejoints to prevent spalling and to mitigate wheel interaction with the posts