Finite Element Analysis and Investigation of Critical Impact Point of Steel Guardrails Affecting Safety and Structural Performance

Öz

After the guardrails are designed, the structural adequacy and safety criteria are determined by the relevant standards and full-scale crash tests. One of the widely used standards is European Norm 1317 (EN1317). Guardrail systems generally consist of rails and posts. The guardrails are more rigid around the posts, which are mounted on the ground or embedded in soil at certain intervals. Therefore, it is important for driver/passenger and roadside safety to determine the most critical point in terms of structural and safety performance and design according to the most unfavourable situation. With this motivation, in this study, the effect of different impact points on the structural and safety performance of the H1W4 guardrail was investigated by finite element (FE) analysis. For this purpose, first of all, the finite element models of the H1W4-A system were calibrated and validated with real crash test data. Then, with the help of the validated models, analyses were completed for different impact points as 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 meters with a half-meter difference for the standard 2-meter post spacing. In the light of the measured safety parameters such as Acceleration Severity Index (ASI), Theoretical Head Impact Velocity (THIV) and structural performance criteria such as working width (W) and exit angle (α), the critical impact point for the guardrail was determined. Contrary to what is generally known, crashing vehicles into flexible points (0.5 and 1.0 m) rather than impacting rigid points (1.5 and 2.0 m) creates a more negative situation in crash tests.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Guardrail
• EN1317
• ASI
• THIV
• finite element analysis

Kaynakça

1. EN1317-2, Road restraint systems - Part 2: Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers including vehicle parapets Dispositifs. 2010.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Manual for assessing safety hardware, 2009. 2009, p. 259.
3. R. R. Neves, H. Fransplass, M. Langseth, L. Driemeier, and M. Alves, “Performance of some basic types of road barriers subjected to the collision of a light vehicle,” Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1–14, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s40430-018-1201-x.
4. T. L. Teng, C. C. Liang, and T. T. Tran, “Effect of various W-beam guardrail post spacings and rail heights on safety performance,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1–16, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1687814015615544.
5. T.-L. Teng, C. Liang, C. Hsu, C. Shih, and T. Tran, “Impact Performance of W-beam Guardrail Supported by Different Shaped Posts,” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 59, 2016, doi: 10.11648/j.ijmea.20160402.14.
6. K. Wilde, S. Burzyński, D. Bruski, J. Chróścielewski, and ..., “TB11 test for short w-beam road barrier,” 2017, [Online]. Available: https://mostwiedzy.pl/pl/publication/tb11-test-for-short-w-beam-road-barrier,141616-1%0Ahttps://mostwiedzy.pl/pl/publication/download/1/tb11-test-for-short-w-beam-road-barrier_8832.pdf
7. W. Borkowski, Z. Hryciów, P. Rybak, and J. Wysocki, “Numerical Simulation of the Standard Tb11 and Tb32 Tests for a Concrete Safety Barrier,” Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, vol. 17, no. 4, 2010.
8. S. Ozcanan and A. O. Atahan, “Minimization of Accident Severity Index in concrete barrier designs using an ensemble of radial basis function metamodel-based optimization,” Optimization and Engineering, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 485–519, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11081-020-09522-x.

9. H. I. Yumrutas, S. Ozcanan, and M. Y. Apak, “Experimental and numerical comparative crashworthiness analysis of innovative renewable hybrid barrier with conventional roadside barriers,” International Journal of Crashworthiness, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–17, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13588265.2022.2075124.
10. M. Y. Apak et al., “Finite element simulation and failure analysis of fixed bollard system according to the PAS 68:2013 standard,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 135, no. February, p. 106151, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106151.
11. İ. Yılmaz, İ. Yelek, S. Özcanan, A. O. Atahan, and J. M. Hiekmann, “Artificial neural network metamodeling-based design optimization of a continuous motorcyclists protection barrier system,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 4305–4323, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s00158-021-03080-1.
12. M. Büyük, A. O. Atahan, and K. Kurucuoǧlu, “Impact performance evaluation of a crash cushion design using finite element simulation and full-scale crash testing,” Safety, vol. 4, no. 4, 2018, doi: 10.3390/safety4040048.
13. D. Bruski and W. Witkowski, “Numerical studies on the influence of selected construction features and road conditions on the performance of road cable barriers,” MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 231, 2018, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201823101003.
14. K. Long, Z. Gao, Q. Yuan, W. Xiang, and W. Hao, “Safety evaluation for roadside crashes by vehicle–object collision simulation,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1–12, 2018, doi: 10.1177/1687814018805581.
15. R. Sturt and C. Fell, “The relationship of injury risk to accident severity in impacts with roadside barriers,” International Journal of Crashworthiness, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 165–172, 2009, doi: 10.1080/13588260802614365.
16. A. O. Atahan, J. M. Hiekmann, J. Himpe, and J. Marra, “Development of a continuous motorcycle protection barrier system using computer simulation and full-scale crash testing,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 116, no. December 2016, pp. 103–115, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.04.005.
17. K. Wilde, A. Tilsen, S. Burzyński, and W. Witkowski, “On estimation of occupant safety in vehicular crashes into roadside obstacles using non-linear dynamic analysis,” MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 285, p. 00022, 2019, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201928500022.
18. M. H. Ray, “Repeatability of Full-Scale Crash Tests and Criteria for Validating Simulation Results,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1528, no. 1, pp. 155–160, 1996, doi: 10.1177/0361198196152800117.
19. Z. Ren and M. Vesenjak, “Computational and experimental crash analysis of the road safety barrier,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 12, no. 6 SPEC. ISS., pp. 963–973, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2004.12.033.
20. M. Borovinšek, M. Vesenjak, M. Ulbin, and Z. Ren, “Simulation of crash tests for high containment levels of road safety barriers,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 14, no. 8 SPEC. ISS., pp. 1711–1718, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.11.068.
21. W. Borkowski, Z. Hryciów, P. Rybak, and J. Wysocki, “The researches of effectiveness of road restraint systems,” Journal of Konbin, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 53–64, 2010, doi: 10.2478/v10040-008-0136-1.
22. T. Niezgoda, W. Barnat, P. Dziewulski, and A. Kiczko, “Numerical modelling and simulation of road crash tests with the use of advanced CAD/CAE systems,” Journal of Konbin, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 95–108, 2012, doi: 10.2478/jok-2013-0041.
23. L. Pachocki and K. Wilde, “Numerical simulation of the influence of the selected factors on the performance of a concrete road barrier H2/W5/B,” MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 231, 2018, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201823101014.
24. LSTC, “LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume,” vol. I, no. February. 2018.
25. J. Chell, C. E. Brandani, S. Fraschetti, J. Chakraverty, and V. Camomilla, “Limitations of the European barrier crash testing regulation relating to occupant safety,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 133, no. July, p. 105239, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2019.07.015.
26. S. Ozcanan and A. O. Atahan, “RBF surrogate model and EN1317 collision safety-based optimization of two guardrails,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 343–362, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00158-019-02203-z.
27. NCAC (2008) Finite element model archive, George Washington University FHWA/NHTSA National Crash Analysis Center, http:// www.ncac.gwu.edu/vml/models.html, Virginia (Accessed 2008)
28. Europan Norm, “BS EN 16303:2020 BSI Standards Publication Road restraint systems — Validation and verification process for the use of virtual testing in crash testing against vehicle restraint system,” 2020.
29. S. Ozcanan and A. O. Atahan, “Radial basis function surrogate model-based optimization of guardrail post embedment depth in different soil conditions,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 234, no. 2–3, pp. 739–761, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0954407019848548.
30. CSI (2017) Crash testing of H1 and H2 guardrails systems. 0021\ME\HRB\17, Bollate, Italy
31. N. Abraham, B. Ghosh, C. Simms, R. Thomson, and G. Amato, “Assessment of the impact speed and angle conditions for the EN1317 barrier tests,” Int. J. Crashworthiness, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 211–221, 2016, doi: 10.1080/13588265.2016.1164444.
32. C. Jurewicz, A. Sobhani, J. Woolley, J. Dutschke, and B. Corben, “Exploration of Vehicle Impact Speed - Injury Severity Relationships for Application in Safer Road Design,” Transp. Res. Procedia, vol. 14, pp. 4247–4256, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.396.