You are on page 1of 54

Review Report

Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers

Disclaimer
The information contained in the report is restricted and/or privileged information and is intended only for authorised screening and/or confidential presentation of MIROS’s discretion. This report should not be disseminated, modified, copied/plagiarised or action taken in reliance upon it, unless permitted by MIROS. None of the materials provided in this report may be used, reproduced or transmitted. In any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including recording or used of any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from MIROS. Any conclusion and opinions in the report may be subject to reevaluation in the event of any forthcoming additional information or investigations. MIROS declares that all the inquiries which MIROS believes are necessary and appropriate and that nothing significance which MIROS regards as relevant have, to MIROS knowledge, been withheld from the report.

(Source of photos on cover: RMP and Sin Chew Daily)

Page

1

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers

Table of Contents
Pages 9 10 11 12 12 12 15 15 17 18 18 18 19 22 26 28 28 31 32 33 33 35 36 37 37 38 42 43 43 45 Acknowledgements Abstract 1. Introduction 2. State of Current Local Bus Construction 2.1 Bus Construction and Regulations 2.1.1 Adoption of UNECE Regulations in Malaysia 2.1.2 Overview of UNECE Regulation 66 2.1.3 Overview of UNECE Regulation 107 2.1.4 Malaysia’s Road Transport Rules 3. Physics of Rollover 3.1 Stability Issue – Determination of Centre of Gravity (CG) 3.1.1 Definition of Rollover 3.1.2 Factors of Rollover 3.1.3 Centre of Gravity Calculation 4. Longitudinal Traffic Barriers 4.1 Flexible Barrier Systems 4.1.1 General Description and Behaviour Under Impact 4.1.2 Crash Test and Result 4.1.3 Advantages and Disadvantages 4.2 Semi-Rigid Barrier Systems 4.2.1 General Description and Behaviour Under Impact 4.2.2 Crash Tests and Results 4.2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages 4.3 Rigid Barrier Systems 4.3.1 General Description and Behaviour Under Impact 4.3.2 Crash Tests and Results 4.3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages 5. Analysis of High-Deck Bus vs. Traffic Barrier Collision 5.1 Impact Severity Analysis 5.2 Rollover Analysis – Bus-Traffic Barrier Collision Page

2

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers

45 47 48 49 49 49 51 52

5.2.1 Rollover on Straight Road 5.2.2 Rollover at Curve Road 5.2.3 Design of Vehicle 6. Conclusion 7. Recommendations 7.1 Bus Construction 7.2 Traffic Safety Barrier Consideration References

Page

3

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers

List of Figures
Pages 13 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 29 34 37 41 43 45 46 Figure 2-1 Conventional frame for single-deck bus/coach Figure 2-2 Example of single-deck superstructure frame Figure 3-1 Relationship between CG and rollover Figure 3-2 Diagram of bus before pivoting Figure 3-3 Critical point of rollover Figure 3-4 Lateral component of vehicle moving with velocity ( ) and angle ( ) Figure 3-5 Longitudinal position of CG Figure 3-6 Transverse position of CG Figure 3-7 Tilting test for determining the height of CG Figure 4-1 Cross section of two typical designs of wire rope barrier system Figure 4-2 Profiles of semi-rigid safety barriers used on road shoulder and median Figure 4-3 Profiles of rigid barriers Figure 4-4 General profile of STEP barrier Figure 5-1 Impact severity plot Figure 5-2 Free Body Diagram (FBD) of bus’ turning moment Figure 5-3 FBD of bus’ turning moment for collision with rigid barrier

Page

4

Johor 34 Plate 4-4 Single-mounted W-beam guardrail median at North-South Expressway (E2) in Serdang 35 35 Plate 4-5 Plate 4-6 Double-mounted W-beam guardrail median at Kepong road Customized stacked mounted W-beam guardrail at Karak Expressway (E8) 38 38 Plate 4-7 Plate 4-8 Concrete barrier at MRR2 in Selayang Concrete barrier with antiglare screen at Karak Expressway (E8) Page 5 .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers List of Plates Pages 30 Plate 4-1 Flexible wire rope barrier at Kuala Lumpur-Karak Expressway (E8) in Gombak 30 Plate 4-2 Flexible wire rope barrier on flyover at Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2) in Gombak 31 Plate 4-3 Flexible wire rope barrier on median at Second Link Expressway (E3) near Perling toll plaza.

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers List of Tables Pages 25 28 32 36 41 43 44 47 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Test Level for Longitudinal Traffic Barrier Typical Severity Indices for Safety Barriers and Various Design Speeds Results for Deflections of Crash Tested Wire Rope Safety Barriers General Summary for Semi-Rigid Barriers Installation Crash Test Data Summary Results of Impact Severity Calculation Analysis Impact Severity Comparison Minimum Radius of a Curve Page 6 .

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used 4WD AA ADR ARRB ASI CG CRASE EN FBD FHWA Four-Wheel Drive Average Acceleration Australian Design Rules Australian Road Research Board Acceleration Severity Index Centre of Gravity Crash Safety Engineering Unit of MIROS European Norm Free Body Diagram Federal Highway Administration (A division of the United States Department of Transportation) IS LLM MIROS MOT MRR2 Impact Severity Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research Ministry of Transport Middle Ring Road 2 (Federal Route 28 which connects Kuala Lumpur and Selangor) NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program (United States) NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Association (An agency of the Executive Branch of the United States Government – Department of Transportation) OIV ORA PCB PHD PRA PWD Occupant Impact Velocity Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Portable Concrete Barrier Post-Impact Head Deceleration Protectable Rollover Accident Public Works Department (Jabatan Kerja Raya – JKR) R&R REAM Rest and Recuperate Page Road Engineering Association of Malaysia 7 .

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers RMP Royal Malaysian Police (Polis Diraja Malaysia – PDRM) RSD Road Safety Department (Jabatan Keselamatan Jalan Raya – JKJR) RTD Road Transport Department (Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan – JPJ) SI SSF THIV TL Severity Index Static Stability Factor Theoretical Head Impact Velocity Test Level TRAPTER Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering Unit of MIROS UNECE UMTRI VSB WRSB United Nations Economic Commission for Europe University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Vehicle Safety and Biomechanics Research Centre of MIROS Wire Rope Safety Barriers Page 8 .

Dr. directly or indirectly. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to: (i) Road Transport Department (RTD) of Malaysia and local coachbuilders for their cooperation in providing input related to the local bus construction and regulation. Muhammad Marizwan Abdul Manan  Crash Safety Engineering (CRASE) Unit  Publication and Knowledge Management Unit Director General Former Director General Unit Head TRAPTER Authors Aqbal Hafeez Ariffin Mohd Khairudin Rahman Mohd Syazwan Solah Khairil Anwar Abu Kassim Page 9 . Special thanks are due to the following individuals for all the help and advice to make completion of the study and its review report possible. Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS)  Prof. and (ii) Malaysian Highway Authority (LLM) for their assistance on traffic barrier matters. who have played a part. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah  Ir. throughout its completion. Wong Shaw Voon  Prof.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the considerable support and cooperation of many talented people.

As a result of a fatal accident involving a high-deck bus in Behrang (2008) which saw failure of median guardrail to contain and redirect the errant bus on track. the increasing popularity of the high-deck buses in Malaysia has become a major concern in road safety. and rigid barrier performs better than semi-rigid barrier in preventing rollover of high-deck bus during collision with traffic barriers. especially at curve road. Page 10 . From the study. it is concluded that location of CG and speed influence stability of a high-deck bus during rollover event. a feasibility study about the suitable traffic safety barrier to be used on Malaysia’s expressways specifically for single vehicle collision involving high-deck buses was initiated. The study was carried with two main objectives: (i) to analyze stability of high-deck bus in rollover collision with crash barrier using calculation method based on formulas derived in few related literatures.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Abstract Despite the positive impact of high-deck buses for the operators by increasing their profits through reduction of fuel consumption and vehicle operating maintenance as well as ability to carry more passengers per trip compared to single-deck buses. and (ii) to assess existing literatures for any type of traffic safety barriers currently available worldwide for recommendation on adopting specific crash barrier for high-deck buses to be used in Malaysia’s highways or roads.

A team from the Vehicle Safety and Biomechanics (VSB) Research Centre led by the Director took up the challenge to carry out the study which focused on (i) overview of local bus construction including adaptation of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) regulations. This is a major concern in road safety since it can lead to serious high-deck bus accidents if the use of this type of commercial vehicle kept on increasing. However. All data gathered and used to meet the objectives of this study was gained from related literatures. coach operators can cut the cost of fuel consumption and reduce vehicle operating maintenance. publications or reports since no actual crash test and research regarding high-deck bus collision with crash barrier was performed. increasing their profit. the crash test results for assessment of existing traffic safety barriers selected crash tests’ results were used for comparison purpose. only . If the high-deck bus is designed with full headroom throughout both decks. Page 11 included in this report might not cover all crash tests carried out worldwide. unless safety countermeasures are considered and implemented. by shifting the operation from single to high-deck busses. However. Introduction The use of high-deck buses as passenger vehicles for long-distance travel in Malaysia is gaining popularity among coach operators. (iii) analysis of high-deck bus collisions with crash barrier. In addition. This trend of increasing usage of high-deck buses by coach operators is most probably due to their capabilities of having more seats (able to carry more passengers per trip) compared to the single-deck buses. and (iv) recommendations on adopting specific crash barrier for high-deck buses. This study was carried out as a preliminary literature research. there is a negative impact with this shift.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 1. hence. The Malaysia Road Safety Department (RSD) formally requested the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS) to conduct a feasibility study on the suitable traffic safety barrier to be used on Malaysia’s expressways specifically for single vehicle collision involving high-deck buses. thus unsafe for travelling. there is a possibility for the bus to be top heavy and become unstable (except with the use of counterweight system). (ii) types of traffic barrier systems currently available or used in Malaysia’s highways or roads.

a grace period was given to coach builders to implement the rules so as to avoid sudden burden to the coach builders. In order to build the body of a bus. After the final structure assembly. Current State of Local Bus Construction 2. However. This failure mechanism was identified as fatigue and it influenced the structure’s integrity. a bus accident occurred in Bukit Gantang. As of to date. roof. fractures at the welding connection took place after a given period of service. Figure 2-1 shows an example of a conventional frame for single-deck bus/coach. it must consist of five separate major units: side. Adaptation of UNECE Regulation 66 – Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the Approval of Large Passenger Vehicles With Regard To the Strength of Their Superstructure into Malaysia’s Road Transport Rule was done and the new regulation was enforced by the Road Transport Department (RTD).1 Adoption of UNECE Regulations in Malaysia Conventional bus/coach structure manufacturing involves labour-intensive arc welding of tube stock. In all vehicles studied. there are a large number of coach builders and they are moving towards that to make sure their market can be expanded not only in Malaysia but also to other countries. front and rear units.1 Bus Construction and Regulations 2. the frame is subjected to grit blasting and zinc phosphate coating.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 2. Late in 2007. floor.1. many of the coach builders had already implemented the UNECE R66 in their bus or coach body construction practice. Since that incident. The regulation basically Page 12 . All of these units are constructed separately and they will be joined together later during the final assembly. Perak and killed 23 people onboard. In Malaysia. Most of the structure joining processes is done using the arc weld method. the Malaysian government reinforced the bus construction law to protect customers and coach builders. especially when the bus was involved in a serious accident such as a rollover.

the regulation also highlights the method to verify the bus or coach structure. However. 2004) Page 13 . The main frame itself must be built with a continuous transversal frame to sustain it in a rollover impact as shown in Figure 2-2. there is no specific requirement stated in the regulation to verify the integrity of the double-deck super structure. Non-continuous transversal frame Figure 2-1 Conventional frame for single-deck bus/coach (Source: F.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers focuses on the body frame’s integrity and durability.. Apart from that. which is the UNECE Regulation 107 – Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Double-deck Large Passenger Vehicle With Regard To Their General Construction. However. Lan et al. the method to verify the bus or coach structure is not valid for high-deck buses. There is a another UNECE regulation that states the special requirement for doubledeck vehicle.

Larrodé et al.. 1995) Page 14 .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Figure 2-2 Example of single-deck superstructure frame (Source: E.

The main problem is that the approval test does not appropriately separate the weak superstructure from the strong one (UNECE R66. Ultimately. intrusion to residual space with luggage should not happen and no parts from the residual space should be projected outside in the event of a rollover. an UNECE R66 approved bus is supposed to be able to withstand impact from rollover accident such that the residual space is intact during and after the accident. 2. via mitigation of injuries sustained. single-deck buses. the existing UNECE R66 regulation relates only to large. It is also acceptable to carry out the rollover or quasi-static test on body sections which are representative of the complete vehicle. There are few equivalent methods for approval test other than rollover test on a complete vehicle. Page 15 . High-deck buses are also not well represented in the UNECE R66 regulation. thus ensuring the safety of bus passengers. There is no regulation for the strength of superstructure for double-decker coaches. The existing approval test is not specifically tailored for it even though some modifications of the test can be done to better suit high-deck buses.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 2. superstructure refers to the components of a bus structure that contribute to the strength of the vehicle in the event of a rollover.1.3 Overview of UNECE R107 Regulation The following is an overview of R107 – Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Double-deck Large Passenger Vehicles with Regards to Their General Construction – Annex 9. Currently. By definition. 2006). In other words. Other equivalent tests are quasi-static calculations based on the results of component tests and computer simulation via dynamic calculations. in the case of rollover. Double-deck buses are excluded from it.1.2 Overview of UNECE Regulation 66 The UNECE R66 was initiated to prevent severe damage on buses.

the centre of gravity (CG) of the mass of 75kg representing the crew member shall be placed in the upper deck gangway at a height of 875mm.  The requirement is an additional regulation for double-deck buses. The staircase is equipped with guards or a similar provision. The number of exits (including service and emergency required for double-deck bus) depends on the number of passengers and crew onboard. Page 16 prevents the use of the staircase when the vehicle is in motion.  Annex 9 encloses the special requirements for double-deck vehicle. Annex 3 shall apply to double-deck vehicles if there is no regulation that is not stated in this requirement. However.   Fire extinguishers and first aid equipment shall be provided at two places. The baggage compartments shall not contain any baggage. and having a maximum mass exceeding five tonnes). The abstract requirements are :  Total load of vehicle should be in running order. There is an automatic device in the upper part of the staircase which device shall be easily operable in an emergency. The load of passengers shall be placed on each upper deck passenger seat. This requirement is considered to be fulfilled if at least one of the following conditions is met:    No part of the staircase is forward descending. and having a maximum mass not exceeding five tonnes) and M3 (vehicles used for the carriage of passengers. double-deck bus. comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat. comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat. one near the driver and one on the upper deck. If the vehicle is intended to be used with a crew member who is not seated.  The design of intercommunication staircases as an access way (between lower and upper deck) shall not be endangering of passengers being projected downwards during heavy braking. this .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers  The regulation applies to every type of single-deck bus. Technical requirements of each door are stated. rigid or articulated vehicle in category M2 (vehicles used for the carriage of passengers.

this free height may be reduced to 850 mm. Other requirements stated in the rules for high-deck vehicle focus on the construction of the vehicle itself.   The maximum emergency doors' steps are 850mm for lower deck and 1500mm for upper deck. This free height shall extend over the vertical projection of the whole area of the seat and the associated foot space. The gauging device is designed for upper deck to fulfil the requirement.1.  The requirement for seating position for lower and upper deck states that each seat shall have a free height of not less than 900mm measured from the highest point of the uncompressed seat cushion. The vehicle shall be tilted without rocking and without dynamic effects until it reaches unstable equilibrium and commences its rollover. Page 17 . The gangways condition is different from a single-deck vehicle. version 25th February 2008) Stability test for high-deck vehicle is also stated in Motor Vehicle Rules (Construction and Use 1959). 2. The mass of the driver and passengers can be replaced by other elements equivalent to represent the mass of the upper deck compartment. In the case of the upper deck.4 Malaysia’s Road Transport Rules (Compilation of 46 Rules. The maximum angle of tilt is 28 degrees and the vehicle shall fail if it rolls over before reaching the maximum angle.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers  Handrails or/and handhold for inter communications staircases shall be provided at each side including a grasping point available to a person standing on the lower and upper deck adjacent to the inter communication staircase.

structure of the roof is vulnerable to intrusion and projection. rocks.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 3. Rollover causes can be generally divided into two main categories. tripped and untripped (Deshmukh. Untripped rollover usually occurs because of severe steering manoeuvres such as J-hooks. turn on side equals ¼ rotation. and fast turns. all bus occupants have a higher possibility to sustain serious to fatal injury when the vehicle is toppling upside down. Turn into a ditch is between ½ and ¼ rotation. etc. Mostly. as compared to other types of crashes such as head-on and side collisions. For example. At that point of time.1 Definition of Rollover It is apparent that UNECE R66 is focusing on the ability of a vehicle to sustain its residual space after a rollover crash. in his analysis of rollover cases throughout Europe. and rollover from the road is between ½ to two full rotations. 2006). Matolcsy (2003). fall into a lake. Due to the rollover crash’s nature. Physics of Rollover 3. A tripped rollover is caused by an object that a vehicle’s tires comes in contact with. Examples of tripping objects are curbs. These three types of rollovers fall into the Protectable Rollover Accidents (PRA) category. they have a high probability of survival. the characteristics lie around the number of rotations experienced by a vehicle during the rollover event. Page 18 . a rollover followed by a fire. lane changes. Other kind of rollovers are serious rollover (more than two rotations).1 Stability Issue – Determination of Centre of Gravity (CG) 3.1. and soil. ramps. Rollover crash is by far the worst scenario possible for a vehicle to undergo because the resulting damage could be very extreme. suggested that rollovers can be categorized into different groups based on a few characteristics. a kind of rollover accident that when the bus occupants are involved. and combined rollover. abruptly stopping the lateral motion of the tire and sending it to roll around that object.

viewed from the top. It is now being contained by another support structure. it is initially formed by the tires. which is the offside of the bus.1. vehicle speed. Figure 3-1 Relationship between CG and rollover (Illustrated with gravitational patch) Page 19 . For this case. The first three factors are explained in this section while in-depth details about barrier are explained in the next section. The CG is always balanced within the gravitational geometry of some support structure.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 3. a) Centre of Gravity Rollover of a vehicle is directly related to its CG in the sense that a vehicle is unlikely to rollover if its CG is in the region of gravitational patch. and barrier as tripped factor.2 Factors of Rollover There are a few factors that can influence the probability of the occurrence of a rollover. A vehicle rolls over because its CG is no longer balanced within the gravitational geometry formed by the tires. angle of impact upon collision with barrier. These include position of the vehicle’s CG.

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers In Figure 3-1. The vehicle is about to trip at the pivot point. The figures below show more details on rollover physics. The curb provides a pivot point for the vehicle to rotate. CG Figure 3-2 Diagram of bus before pivoting Figure 3-2 shows a vehicle with height of CG. the CG has moved outside the gravitational support structure. Therefore. is moving sideways with lateral velocity. according to the basic laws of physics. which is represented by the curb. From the top. and track width. the vehicle on the left is on level ground. From the top. the CG is contained within the gravitational support structure (formed by tires). Therefore rollover will not happen. b) Speed Rollover occurs when a vehicle is moving or sliding sideways until it strikes a solid object such as a curb. . rollover will occur. Page 20 . The vehicle on the right is bus cambering to the driver side.

In a real-life rollover crash. The end result yields a formula of critical speed. r = √( ) According to Pythagoras equals the hypotenuse of a right angle with (Equation 1) Energy conservation requires that kinetic energy (lateral) before pivoting equals potential energy at the critical point. c) Angle of Impact For a vehicle to rollover as a result of sliding sideways. there shall be lateral movement of the vehicle. barrier.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers CG Figure 3-3 Critical point of rollover At this point. or solid object) at a certain angle. the vehicle is at the critical point for rollover. at the maximum CG height. (√ where The value of or widely known as Static Stability Factor (SSF) is adopted by ) (Equation 2) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as the parameter for rollover tendency. vehicle approaches pivot point (curb. Theorem. Page 21 . The critical point is achieved when the CG is at the maximum height. . sides ⁄ and . The magnitude of the angle can influence whether or not rollover will occur as illustrated in the figure below.

the longitudinal distance ( ) from the centre line of gravity. The transverse position ( ) of the vehicle’s CG needs to be determined first in order to find the vertical height ( ) of the CG. Page 22 . The CG can be calculated with or without considering the effect of the total occupant mass.3 Centre of Gravity Calculation A rollover accident is directly related to the CG of the vehicle. 3. the bus needs to be tilted longitudinally to find the load cells at the wheels of two axles while tilting. This is because the lateral component of the vehicle’s speed is less as the angle of impact decreases. To determine the position of the CG of a bus. the transverse distance ( ) from the vertical longitudinal central plane of the vehicle. Furthermore. and the vertical height ( ) above the flat horizontal ground level when the tires are inflated. (Equation 3) The theorem proves that a narrow angle of impact will certainly lower the likelihood of rollover from occurring.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Ө Figure 3-4 Lateral component of vehicle moving with velocity ( ) and angle ( ) Using trigonometry theorem.1. three parameters need to be defined. the lateral speed of the bus can be calculated by the following equation.

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers The following formulas to determine the CG of a bus are derived from UNECE R66 regulation. P6 = reaction load on the load cell under the right-hand wheel(s) of the second axle. Page 23 . P5 = reaction load on the load cell under the left-hand wheel(s) of the second axle. P3 = reaction load on the load cell under the left-hand wheel(s) of the second axle. 2006) The longitudinal position ( ) of the CG relative to the centre of the contact point of the front wheels (Figure 3-5) is given by. Ptotal = P1+P2+P3+P4+P5+P6 = Mk unladen kerb mass. = Mt total effective mass. or. L1 = wheelbase distance from 1st axle to 2nd axle. P2 = reaction load on the load cell under the right-hand wheel of the first axle. Figure 3-5 Longitudinal position of CG (Source: UNECE R66. ( ) ( ) (Equation 4) where: P1 = reaction load on the load cell under the left-hand wheel of the first axle. if fitted. P4= reaction load on the load cell under the right-hand wheel(s) of the second axle. and L2 = wheelbase distance from 2nd axle to 3rd axle.

) ( ) ( ) ) (Equation 5) Figure 3-7 Tilting test for determining the height of CG (Source: UNECE R66.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Figure 3-6 Transverse position of CG (Source: UNECE R66. which is the transverse position (t) of the CG relative to its longitudinal vertical centre plane as shown in Figure 3-6 is given by. T2 = track width of 2nd axle. Bear in mind that the CG is situated to the right of the centre line of the bus if the value of is negative and it goes the other way around if the value is positive. (( where: T1 = track width of 1st axle. 2006) The second parameter. and T3 = track width of 3rd axle. 2006) Page 24 .

In determining the vertical height ( ). and F4 = reaction load on the load cell under the right hand wheel of the 2nd axle. the inclination of the tilting test shall be determined by the equation ( ) (Equation 6) Where H is the height difference between the footprints of the wheels of the 1st and 2nd axles and is the wheelbase distance between 1st and 2nd axles. the third parameter of the CG. which is given by: ( where )( ) (Equation 8) is the height of wheel centre (on first axle) above the load cell top surface. the unladen kerb mass of the bus shall be checked as follows: (Equation 7) where: F1 = reaction load on the load cell under the left hand wheel of the 1st axle. F3 = reaction load on the load cell under the left hand wheel of the 2nd axle. the vertical height shall be determined by tilting the vehicle longitudinally and using individual load-cells at the wheels of two axles. F2 = reaction load on the load cell under the right hand wheel of the 1st axle. Initially. Next. Then. the angle measured from inclination test and the resultant loads shall be used in the vertical height calculation of the CG. Refer Figure 3-7 for more comprehension. more accurate calculation shall be obtained if the angle is greater. Page 25 .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Finally.

The following sections describe a number of typical traffic safety barriers but the list does not contain data of all available barrier systems. Page 26 .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 4. published in 1993. there are three distinct longitudinal safety traffic barriers (flexible. Longitudinal Traffic Barriers Currently. These existing traffic barriers had been adopted by the Malaysian Public Works Department (PWD) of Malaysia based on the test results of performance evaluation for road safety features carried out by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350. The report provides guidelines on the recommended testing procedure for the performance evaluation of various highway safety features. semi-rigid and rigid) being used on the roads and expressways in Malaysia. There are six Test Levels (TL) recommended in the guidelines and the summary of descriptions (including the impact severity) are shown in the table below.

[ ( where )] mass of vehicle (kg).0 132. 2006) Test Vehicle Test Level Mass (kg) 820 2000 2 820 2000 3 820 2000 4 820 2000 5 820 36000 820 6 36000 Type Small car *4WD/utility truck Small car *4WD/utility truck Small car *4WD/utility truck Small car Single-unit van truck Small car Van type semi-trailer Small car Tanker type semitrailer Test Speed (km/h) 50 50 70 70 100 100 100 80 100 80 100 80 Impact Angle (degrees) 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 15 20 15 20 15 Height of Centre of Gravity (mm) 550 700 550 700 550 700 550 1250 550 1850 550 2050 Impact Severity (kJ) 9.3 34.0 137..4 1 *Four wheel drive As shown in Table 4-1 above.3 37.5 18. Other than the calculated impact severity. impact angle (degrees).8 37.5 37.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Table 4-1 Test Level for Longitudinal Traffic Barrier (Source: Main Roads Western Australia.0 595. assessment of Occupant Impact Velocity (OIV) the test to assess the occupant’s injury risk (Große et al. (Equation 9) vehicle velocity (m/s) and impact severity (kJ). the Impact Severity (IS) is used as a basis to compare the test levels and is calculated based on the principle of kinetic energy (Main Roads Western Australia.0 595. 2004).1 67.4 37. Page 27 and Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (ORA) are also required as the main requirements for . The formula is given by. 2006).

5 3.5 4.0 2.5 3. 2006).5 3. the Severity Index (SI) is used.5 2. as compared to other existing barrier types. n. The latter is the commonly used type of flexible barrier in Malaysia. the barrier comprises three or four tensioned galvanized steel wire ropes suspended by frangible posts at varying heights between 690mm to 710mm and at an interval of 2.4 or 3. namely vertical array and twisted array wire rope safety fences. Table 4-2 shows the expected severity indices for safety barriers for all vehicles at varying speeds. 2006) Wire Rope Safety Barriers (WRSB) or also known as Wire Rope Safety Fences. Generally. Main Roads Western Australia. Because of this unique characteristic.0 2. The index is described by a value between 0 to 10.1 Flexible Barrier Systems 4. are classified as flexible barrier systems which create large deflections when impacted by vehicles. while the highest value (10) represents an expected crash with a 100% probability of a fatality (Main Roads Western Australia.0 2.. There are two types of flexible barrier systems.0 2. The upper ropes which consist of Page 28 . 2006) Safety Barriers 4 wire rope (flexible) W-beam (*G4) Thrie-beam Type F (concrete) *Blocked-out Strong Post Design Speeds (km/h) ≤ 70 80 – 90 ≥ 100 1.0 2. with the lowest value (0) representing an expected crash involving no property damage or injury.d. 2006.1. Table 4-2 Typical Severity Indices for Safety Barriers and Various Design Speeds (Source: Main Roads Western Australia.0 2. the flexible wire rope barriers cause the least damage and the smallest injury risk to the vehicles and occupants respectively.1 General Description and Behaviour Under Impact (Sources: Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Transport Research.2 meter each along the barrier.5 2.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers In order to measure the expected severity outcome of an impact with an object. Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM).

Wire rope barrier system with double curve shaped posts. The following plates (4-1.d. 4-2 and 4-3) show the typical installation of this type of barrier on Malaysian roads. and 2. there are two types of wire rope safety barrier systems used in Malaysia: 1. The other two lower ropes are normally located on rollers or wire rope.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers one or two wire ropes are located in a slot on top of the post at a height of 600mm ± 10mm from the ground. Figure 4-2 shows the general arrangement of the barrier system installation. and interwoven between each pair of line and deflection posts.) Currently. Page 29 . n. hung at a height of 500mm ± 10mm from the ground. Twisted Array Vertical Array Figure 4-1 Cross section for two typical designs of wire rope barrier system (Source: ARRB Transport Research. Wire rope barrier system with circular posts.

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Plate 4-1 Flexible wire rope barrier at Kuala Lumpur-Karak Expressway (E8) in Gombak Plate 4-2 Flexible wire rope barrier on flyover at Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2) in Gombak Page 30 .

4m and 1.7 to 3.2km/h)  ORA of 20g (maximum) Page US Test Level: Deflection: 31 . 2006) are as below. Johor 4.  Complies with TL-3  Varies with type of barrier (Typically 1.1.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Plate 4-3 Flexible wire rope barrier on median at Second Link Expressway (E3) near Perling toll plaza. Descriptions of requirement for the crash test and result (REAM.0m for 2. respectively Passenger Injury Risk:  OIV of maximum speed of 12m/s (43.4m for a 2000kg vehicle at 100km/h impact speed and 25° approach angle)  Offset from obstruction – approximately 1. the barrier system should be crash tested according to the United States (US) NCHRP Report 350 (1993) testing conditions by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or any procedures recognized internationally.7m and 1.0m post spacing.2 Crash Test and Result Prior to installation.

20 1.2 100.73 1.6 86.00 1.2 2. 2006) Anchor Spacing (m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 319.2 100.8 103.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers The following table shows some of the results of the test carried out on a 4 wire rope safety barrier system.2 2. it can be generally concluded that an increase in the post spacing increases the deflection length of the barrier system.4 90.65 From the results shown in the Table 4-3 above. 2006. 2006.7 88.86 1. Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Associations (FEMA). In .4 106.70 1. greater clearance should be provided for installation within medians.4 1. Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC). In addition. It should not be installed in median of width less than 2.3 75.0 144. the system should not be used on a vertical sag addition.3 83.0 Post Spacing (m) 1. 2000) Although the flexible barrier system has relatively large deflections.8 626.4 3.4 38.40 1.1 192. 2006.00 1. 4.1.2 319. REAM.0 3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages (Sources: Main Roads Western Australia. flexible wire rope safety barrier should not be installed and connected directly to other barriers of bridge parapets since its deflection cannot be safely guaranteed if Page 32 curve of radius less than 3000m as well as on a horizontal curve of less than 200m.2 2.5m. Table 4-3 Results for Deflections of Crash Tested Wire Rope Safety Barriers (Source: REAM.1 Measured Deflection (m) 0.4 Vehicle Mass (kg) 753 875 1260 1480 1492 1500 1505 2010 Speed (km/h) 113 104 83 115 111 113 115 102 Impact Angle (deg) 20 19 30 20 19 20 20 25 Impact Severity (kJ) 43.0 3.

they are not favoured because of poor . Page 33 are posts constructed of wood and concrete. If the wire rope system is properly installed according to guidelines.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers vehicles collided in the transition area between the flexible barrier and other barrier systems. The barrier system deforms significantly but not excessively (greater deflection properties compared to the rigid system. Thrie-beam. hence the rope barrier system provides significant cost advantage. Snagging effect is minimized during impact since its unique design enables the cables to strip from the collapsible posts. Last but not least. 4.2 Semi-Rigid Barrier Systems 4. but less than the flexible system) when impacted by vehicles and has a moderate deflection of a maximum of 1. The block out units and posts are normally constructed of steel. is purposely designed to break away so that the impact force is distributed by the beam action to a relatively large number of posts. the strong beam with strong post is purposely designed to only deflect moderately and the impact force is distributed by beam action to a smaller number of posts.1 General Description and Behaviour Under Impact (Sources: Main Roads Western Australia. 2006) There are three types of semi-rigid safety barriers commonly used on Malaysian roads which are the W-beam.2m. the maintenance costs associated with repairing the damaged barrier are minimal. The first one.2. It can be categorized into two groups. The profiles for each type of semi-rigid barriers typically installed on road shoulder are shown below in Figure 4-2. it is capable of redirecting the errant vehicles smoothly when impacted by vehicles. 2006. In contrast. and Modified Thrie-beam guardrails. Although there impact performance. REAM. The system mainly includes a steel beam attached to block out units supported on posts. which is the strong beam with weak post.

Plate 4-4 Single-mounted W-beam guardrail median at North-South Expressway (E2) in Serdang Page 34 .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Figure 4-2 Profiles of semi-rigid safety barriers used on road shoulder and median (Source: Main Roads Western Australia. 2006) The following plates illustrate the various types of semi-rigid barriers installed in Malaysia.

2 Crash Tests and Results Similar to flexible barrier system.2.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Plate 4-5 Double-mounted W-beam guardrail median at Kepong road Plate 4-6 Customized stacked mounted W-beam guardrail at Karak Expressway (E8) 4. Details of the semirigid barrier installation and test results are as shown in the following table. NCHRP Report 350 is adopted by the Malaysian government for the guidelines of standard crash test procedure to evaluate the safety performance for semi rigid barrier system to be used in Malaysia. Page 35 .

5m 2 C Sections 1 C Section 350 x 110 x 6 150 x 76 x 6 mm mm 16mm dia.5m <2. 2006) ON MEDIAN MB4S Blocked-Out W-Beam (Steel Post) MB4S Blocked-Out W-Beam (Steel Beam) with 2. REAM.9m 4 0.0m C Section 150 x 76 x 6 mm Single Thrie-beam 2.3 Advantage and Disadvantage (Sources: Main Roads Western Australia.5m 4. Page 36 .5m min <2.9m No detailed information Off Set Brackets Mountings Footing Median Width 2. Nevertheless.2.6m 3 0.5m 3 1.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Table 4-4 General Summary for Semi-Rigid Barriers Installation (Source: REAM.5m min 2. 2006.5m 2. Steel Bolts None (Except at points of transition) <2. its maintenance cost is relatively high and care should be taken to install this system on locations where the frequency of vehicles running off the road is high.5m min <2.0 Spacing BlockedOut Thrie Beam Modified Thrie Beam Blocked-Out Thrie Beam Modified Thrie beam TEST RESULTS: Test Level Maximum Deflection Passenger Injury Risk DESCRIPTIONS: Beam Post Spacing Post C Section 150 x 76 x 6 mm 2 C Sections 150 x 76 x 6 mm Double Wbeams Double Thrie2 Thrie-beams beams 2.2m 3 0.6m 4 0.0 Spacing ON SHOULDER MB4S BlockedOut WBeam (Steel Beam) with 4. 2006) The advantage of this system is that it has low initial installation cost.0m 3 1.0m C Section 150 x 110 x 6 mm 2 C Sections 150 x 110 x 6 mm Single W-beam 4.0m C Section 150 x 110 x 6 mm 1 C Section 150 x 110 x 6 mm 3 0.

Generally.g. The figure below illustrates the profiles of some of the rigid concrete barriers currently available. Main Roads Western Australia.g.3.3 Rigid Barrier Systems 4. n. Even though the barrier system is able to redirect the colliding vehicle stably without any rolling movement. Texas Constant Slope Barrier and Californian Single Slope Barrier) and multi slopes barrier (e. The rigid barrier can be classified into two categories which are single slope (e. 2006) As shown in the subsequent plates are the typical rigid barrier systems installation in Malaysia.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 4. the severity of impact experienced by the vehicle is higher compared to semi-rigid or flexible barrier.d. New Jersey Barrier and F-Type Concrete Barrier). New Jersey Profile *Note: All dimensions are in millimetres F-Type Profile Single Slope Profile Vertical Wall Profile Figure 4-3 Profiles of rigid barriers (Sources: ARRB Transport Research.. Page 37 .1 General Description and Behaviour Under Impact A concrete barrier is classified as rigid safety barrier that does not deflect upon impact. it is designed to contain and redirect errant vehicles upon impact.

Page 38 The concrete barriers are rigid and normally. they do not result into permanent .2 Crash Tests and Results deflection (if properly installed according to specification) when impacted by vehicles. If the height of the barrier is reduced to less than 725mm by pavement overlays.3.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Plate 4-7 Concrete barrier at MRR2 in Selayang Plate 4-8 Concrete barrier with antiglare screen at Karak Expressway (E8) 4.

Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers impacting vehicles may roll over the barrier (REAM. 50mm deep into the asphalt (Refer report for more detailed specification) Barrier Data: Page 39 . Ohio Department of Transportation (Report date: June 2006)  Height of 457. a) New Jersey Profile Barrier (1270mm Portable Concrete Barrier (PCB)) Test performed by Office of Research & Development. width of 610mm (base) and 240mm (top)  Barrier section length of 3810mm (each section is held together with an assembly of pin and steel bar loops)  Each section is anchored with 2 galvanized pins (25mm diameter and 750mm long). Crash tests for concrete barriers need to comply with the NCHRP requirements or other internationally recognized testing procedures (i.e. European Norm EN 1317).2mm more than the standard 32-inch New Jersey PCB  Slope of 3 degrees steeper than typical New Jersey shape (from first break point to top of barrier)  Joint connection – each section is connected with a single pin passing through 3 set of loops at each segment end US Test Level: Test Date: Test Description: Deflection: Passenger Injury Risk:  Complies with TL-3  No detailed information  2000kg pickup truck at 100km/h with impact angle of 25° (NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11)  Nil  OIV of 4.5m/s (longitudinal) and 6. 2006).4m/s (longitudinal) and -8. The followings describe results for some of the crash tests carried out on various rigid concrete barriers.6m/s (lateral) Barrier Data: b) Standard F-Type Precast Concrete Barrier Test performed by Oregon Department of Transportation (Report date: December 2001)  810mm in height.1m/s (lateral)  ORA of -5.

although the height is more (with narrow width) than the New Jersey . the base of the barrier is wider than the single slope barrier. Generally.7g (longitudinal) and 2. The general profile of the STEP barrier is shown in Figure 4-4 below. anchored in asphalt while the middle section stands freely on the asphalt US Test Level:  Complies with TL-3 Test Date: Test Description: Deflection: Passenger Injury Risk:  28 November 1995  2000kg pickup truck at 97. 9.23m/s (longitudinal) and -12. width of 610mm (base) and 150mm (top)  Footings – 3050mm (length) x 250mm (depth) footing on both ends with additional reinforcing steel.1° slope) Test performed by FHWA (Acceptance letter: February 1998)  Slip-formed and reinforced  1420mm in height.52m/s (lateral) c) Single Slope Barrier (Texas Constant Slope Type 60G. 2004) The system is a combination of the New Jersey shape and single slope barrier.80m/s (longitudinal) and -9.85m/s (lateral)  ORA of -18..51m/s (lateral)  ORA of -6.0m/s (longitudinal) and -5.3g (lateral) Barrier Data: d) Concrete STEP Barriers (from the Netherlands & Germany) (Source: Große et al. Page 40 barrier.5°  No information  OIV of 6.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers US Test Level: Test Date: Test Description: Deflection:  Complies with TL-3  17 April 2001  2000kg pickup truck at 100km/h with impact angle of 25° (NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11)  760mm max. barrier deflection (No NCHRP requirement.7km/h speed with impact angle of 25. Oregon Department of Transportation’s 914mm) requirement – Passenger Injury Risk:  OIV of 0.

1 degree) Figure 4-4 General profile of STEP barrier (Source: Große et al.. 2004) The crash tests were performed according to the European Norm EN 1317 respectively prEN 1317 and the summary of the results are shown in the following table. 50ms Average Acceleration.. Acceleration Severity Index. ASI ≈ Max. Table 4-5 Crash Test Data Summary (Note: Theoretical Head Impact Velocity. Post-impact Head Deceleration.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers (Note: 9 gon = 8. AA) (Source: Große et al. 2004) Page 41 . PHD ≈ ORA. THIV ≈ OIV.

3 Advantages and Disadvantages (Sources: Main Roads Western Australia. REAM. For this case. is that resurfacing would be possible several times (255mm overlay until height is reduced to 815mm) without affecting its performance. some rigid barriers have poor safety values and permanent delfection of more than zero (0). In addition. 2006. the single slope will result in greater vehicle damages if impacted at shallow impact angles.8 degree slope). Compared to other rigid barriers. The wall does not have the energy management feature of vehicle lifting. the New Jersey profile. especially for the vertical concrete wall and the single slope barrier (California and Texas profile). The precast concrete barrier (not suitable to be installed on median) and both pre-fabricated H2 and slip-form H4b STEP barriers are the type of rigid barriers which have permanent deflection as mentioned earlier. not all rigid barriers perform better for all type of vehicles in reducing the risk of vehicle rollover. In comparison excluding the single slope and the STEP barrier.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 4. hence avoiding big damages due to rollover. On the contrary. 2006. the F-shape performs better than the New Jersey profile barrier in reducing the tendency for vehicles to roll. Another advantage of the rigid barrier system. The F-shape. 2006..1 degree slope) has better result than the Texas (10. the vertical concrete wall only performs better for heavy vehicles except for small cars and pickup trucks with mass of less than 2000kg or motorcycles. Große et al.3. the disadvantage of the rigid barrier system is that it will result in severe collision if impacted by a vehicle with an impact angle of greater or equal to 20 degrees. Both California and Texas profile slope barriers have poor safety values. even though the California (9. the single slope and the STEP barrier (as only the vehicle tires will touch the barrier is slight collision occurs) are among the rigid barriers which have this unique characteristic. Page 42 . 2004) One of the primary advantages of the rigid barrier system is its ability to prevent vehicles (especially small cars) from the risk of rollover. MUARC. However. it will cause severe injuries to vehicle occupants and extensive damage to impacting vehicles. Hence.

8 2.4 1.5 40 38.0 15 6.4 1.684.8 25.882. Analysis of High-Deck Bus vs.382.006.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 5.9 629. Traffic Barrier Collision 5.2 494.5 1.6 772.416.3 25.8 1.9 268.3 2.5 4.6 587.091.4 11.590.7 35 30.4 890.8 102. The results are shown in Table 5-1.330.2 845.349.151.302.6 308.1 3.8 155.842.1 5.9 274.3 Velocity (km/h) Figure 5-1 Impact severity plot Page 43 .2 970.1 Impact Severity Analysis A simple calculation analysis has been carried out using the formula in Equation 9 to compute the Impact Severity (IS) of high-deck bus collision with safety barrier.503.805.174.8 11.6 1.4 175.4 86.359.7 35.504.0 98.3 4.0 211.030.8 23.3 25.5 375.6 1.978.5 44.5 761.7 604.9 509.697.1 703.0 16.7 6.2 56.4 17.8 71.451.9 1.397.8 419.6 906.7 100.691.9 422.6 5.7 157.9 6.7 3.074.5 4.4 2.698.765.5 1.8 408.2 1.4 621.7 3.099.3 229.7 2.678.144.6 45 47.9 123.7 3.0 138.8 181.4 Impact Angles (degree) 20 25 30 11.7 2.5 283.0 67.7 278.4 402.4 102.740.8 3.1 94.3 349.3 2. An approximate maximum load of 24350kg for standard double-axles high-deck bus similar to the bus in the Behrang case as mentioned earlier was used for this analysis.902.3 342.6 822.0 2.7 1.3 2.3 1.7 538.8 1. with different impact angles and velocities. Table 5-1 Results of Impact Severity Calculation Analysis Energy (kJ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 5 0.4 226.9 151.0 3.484.8 10 2.1 1.514.0 187.0 45.4 1.112.3 70.7 57.5 45.582.7 1.3 395.8 751.3 3.1 1.902.

However. it can be assumed that if a high-deck bus impacted the TL-3 barrier (presumed to be equivalent to W-beam guardrail) at an angle of 25°.7 – 157.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Based on the results above. the risk of a high-deck bus to penetrate the TL-5/6 barrier is high for travelling speed of more than 100km/h at a given angle of 15°.4 Impact Severity Analysis for High-deck Bus Collision Impact Angle 25° 15° 15° 15° Calculated IS (kJ) 67.1 – 151. Hence. it can be concluded that as the values of the impact angle and velocity increases. from the comparison analysis:   The possibility of a high-deck bus to penetrate the TL-3 barrier is high for travelling speed of more than 30km/h at a given angle of 25°.5 509.3 5 595. as well as differences in the height of the CG and bumper. The range of speed between 90 to 100km/h is required by a high-deck bus to achieve the IS value of 595. Table 5-2 Impact Severity Comparison NCHRP 350 Test Requirements Test Level IS (kJ) 3 137. Similarly.0 100. From there. the range of speed between 20 to 30km/h was needed to achieve the IS value of 137. The IS. it is to be noted that these assumptions were based solely on the calculation Page dimensions of the test vehicle. Furthermore. IS increases. which is based on the principle of kinetic energy.9 – 629. the significant change is more eminent for higher impact angle as illustrated in the Figure 5-1.8kJ obtained from the NCHRP 350 test. increases exponentially and is directly proportional to the square of vehicle’s speed. the range of speed was determined as shown in Table 5-2. 44 analysis of impact severity from the formula in Equation 5 that does not consider the .9 – 629.8 4 132.4 509. The values of IS from the NCHRP 350 were then used to find the range of calculated IS for high-deck bus collision with safety barriers.4kJ if it was to collide with the TL-5/6 barrier (which is equivalent to concrete barrier) at a 15° angle. Another analysis was carried out to compare the results of IS from the above calculation with the test results of the NCHRP 350.5 Range Speed (km/h) 20 – 30 40 – 50 90 – 100 90 – 100 From the comparison.4 6 595.

Different worst-case high-deck bus rollover scenarios at straight and curve roads were explored for this section. This situation is somewhat similar to one of the worst-case scenario when a bus collided with a failed guardrail causing the bus to rollover. 5.1 Rollover on Straight Road According to Matolcsy (2007). Figure 5-2 Free Body Diagram (FBD) of bus’ turning moment In order for a rollover to occur. as described in Figure 5-2.2 Rollover Analysis – Bus-Traffic Barrier Collision A rollover analysis was performed to study the effect of increasing the CG of a high-deck bus in relation to the height of the crash barrier. The first condition would be the rotation of the vehicle around the axis with the outside wheel as the pivot point.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 5.2. the turning moment (M). is a main factor contributing to the initiation of rollover accidents on straight roads. The bus will tip on its side given that the lateral sliding moment is larger than the turning moment: (Equation 10) and the kinetic energy of the bus is greater than the potential energy resulted from CG displacement in height to make it unstable: (Equation 11) Page 45 . the conditions explained hereafter must be satisfied.

In addition. For another worst-case scenario when a bus collided with a concrete barrier. Figure 5-3 FBD of bus’ turning moment for collision with rigid barrier The analysis shows that high-deck buses will most probably survive a collision with a impact angle of 8°. the pivot point is shifted from the outside wheel to top of the barrier (900mm high STEP barrier) as illustrated in Figure 5-3.40m is used to represent Malaysian buses. this time. However. m is the total mass of the bus. The speed of 90 and 120km/h were considered in the analysis since 90km/h is the speed limit for buses on expressways while the latter is the maximum speed on the bus tachometer. Based on the analysis. at 120km/h the bus will most likely to escape rollover even at an impact angle of 6° during collision. Similarly. similar conditions as described by Matolcsy (2007) still apply. and is the height of CG from pivot point.05m to 1. the critical CG height that will not Page 46 rigid barrier without rolling over if the vehicle is travelling at 90km/h at a maximum .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers In the figure and equations. is drag factor of the road. is the extended track width. Additionally. the range of CG height between 1. is the gravitational constant. high-deck buses in Malaysia would most likely to rollover if they were travelling at 90km/h with an impact angle of 15°. Impact angles of 15° and 25° considered were based on the minimum and maximum impact angles recommended in the NCHRP 350 test.

Table 5-3 Minimum Radius of a Curve Design Speed (km/h) 120 100 80 60 50 40 30 20 Minimum Radius (m) e=0. From this analysis. Rollover will result if the bus is travelling at high speed because the CG of the bus shifts as well. A vehicle cornering at a speed exceeding this critical speed will begin to spin around its centre of mass and leave the roadway. Subsequently. which can further lead to a rollover.2. 5. even if at a speed well below the critical speed of a curve. A vehicle with higher CG such as a high-deck bus is more vulnerable to rollover. and the coefficient of friction of the road surface.10 710 465 280 150 100 60 35 15 570 375 230 125 85 50 30 15 Apart from that.2 Rollover at Curve Road Table 5-3 was taken from A Guide on Geometric Design of Roads by Malaysian PWD. it is proven that a rigid barrier works better than a semi-rigid barrier in preventing high-deck bus rollover. As a high-deck bus is manoeuvring tire due to centrifugal force. how much bank is in the roadway. This can happen to anyone regardless of a person’s driving skill level or years of experience.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers result in rollover was found to be 1. the vehicle will lose control.06 e= 0. the weight of the vehicle together with its occupant will shift to the front outside . Page 47 a curve. the minimum radius of a curve is calculated based on the predetermined designated speed at the road stretch.56m. It lists the standard minimum radius of a curve to be used for the designated speed and maximum super elevation rates in Malaysian urban roads. In this table. the critical speed of a curve can also be determined based on how sharp the curve is.

In basic principles. The purpose of the counterweight is to stabilize the vehicle when travelling. combining improvements in rollover strength. The steel weight is the method that is usually used when constructing the bus frame. One of the setbacks when using the ballast tank is when the water is lesser than original settings. Hence. Most of the designs follow the Australian Design Rules (ADR). Page 48 . It also prevents the increment of centrifugal force associated with curvy roads. At the same time.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 5. The ballast tank is commonly placed at the rear side of the vehicle and it is filled up with water or other liquids. the Malaysia bus industry stepped forward in bus construction with new the design of high-deck buses. The structure must be rollover-proof to prevent injuries and fatalities of passengers during accidents especially in an event of a rollover. Four pieces of steel. special safety aspect should be considered such as a counterweight. each weighing 1000kg (total 4000kg) is welded on the structure to lower the CG. Adding the ballast tank helps the vehicle to lower its CG. There are several methods used as counterweights in bus constructions such as ballast tanks and steel weights. Bus manufacturers should also consider in improving the vehicle structural integrity. weight and interior configuration.3 Design of Vehicle Current design standards for Malaysia buses require modern engineering techniques to ensure the integrity of the construction to pursue the new regulation. the design of the vehicle shall differ especially in terms of dimension.2. seat and seat anchorage strength should be implemented in all types of buses in Malaysia. In order to ensure the safety of high-deck buses during travelling. This can cause increment of the CG and high tendency for rollover to occur. Additional factors can also influence the dynamics of the vehicle.

and other literature reviews. since the data obtained from the literature research is not extensive enough to carry out a thorough study regarding the cost-benefit of barrier selection and installation. the location of CG and speed highly affect the stability of a high-deck bus during rollover event.1 Bus Construction It is time for related regulations to be implemented in Malaysia towards improving local bus construction. Based on a study carried out on the rollover of heavy commercial vehicles by the University of Michigan Transport Research Institute (2000). The second objective was to assess existing literatures for any type of traffic safety barriers currently available worldwide for recommendation on adopting specific crash barrier for high-deck buses to be used in Malaysia ‘s highways or roads. Conclusion This preliminary literature study was initiated with two main objectives. Finally. 7. The first objective of the study was to carry out analyses of rollover for high-deck bus collisions with crash barriers through calculations based on formulas derived from a few related literatures. Recommendations 7. MIROS’ recommendations for high-deck bus or coach are as follows: a) Vehicle construction and testing Construction of high-deck buses must consider all the safety requirements and aspect shall be considered such as: Page in the vehicle construction that can influence a vehicle tendency to rollover. Based on the study. it is concluded that rigid barrier performs better than semi-rigid barrier in preventing rollover of high-deck bus during collision with traffic barriers. Stability of the vehicle is a crucial part .Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 6. data related to statistics of road accidents involving high-deck bus (from RMP) is required with the RSD’s assistance. Every 49 must comply with the standard regulation. especially at curved road. From the analyses.

c) Enforcement MIROS recommends that bus developers should be audited by a government body to ensure all the regulations are being followed. suspension and tire can influence the vehicle stability in manoeuvring and cornering. The inspection should cover all. b) Speed management High speed can affect the stability and controllability of the high-deck buses during manoeuvring.5 meter wide.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers (i) Location of CG The higher the CG. This can cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle and increase the tendency to rollover. the vehicle should be designed accordingly to suit the road geometric design. The CG calculation should be compulsory and properly done by a certified engineer. 4. In order to make government body. Speeding at corners can impart high centrifugal force to a vehicle especially to heavier and higher vehicles. (ii) Selection of bus chassis The track width. (iii) Dimension and design of the bus frame/body The dimension of the vehicle shall comply with regulation.57 meter high and 12 meter long. selection of the chassis is crucial to determine the maximum mass (allowable mass) that a bus can have. Driving training is a significant method to change the drivers' and fleet management's attitude. it must be tested and certified by a . The maximum allowable dimension of vehicle under the current Malaysian legislation is 2. Page 50 sure that the vehicle is safe to be used. from the initial documentation till the finish product. Furthermore. Location of the passenger seat for the high-deck bus must be done properly to ensure equal weight distribution. Also. cornering and braking. as it is also aimed at improving the efficiency of their operations and developing driving skills to provide safer services for public transport customers. The test procedure is explained in the Malaysia Road Transport Rules. the more unstable the vehicle will be.

based on the findings through literature reviews and analysis. aesthetic and environmental considerations as well as field experience. Page 51 . concrete barriers such as STEP and vertical wall which can withstand crash energy of TL-4 and up to TL-6 should be considered for installation especially on hazardous curves where high-risk of bus-rollover crashes are identified. Once the installation of barriers is justified. Several studies carried out by international road safety institutions clearly revealed that traffic safety barriers should only be installed to reduce accident severity at known spots which have a history of related run-off-road accidents. site conditions. Therefore.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers 7. deflection characteristics including occupant's risk. compatibility. as recommended in the REAM’s guidelines. consideration should be given to the cost of maintenance as compared to the cost resulted from an accident. Besides. it is not cost-effective to install safety barrier along the road. Hence. The collision maintenance should play an important role in the selection of barrier systems since the majority of maintenance costs are normally due to collision repairs. The selections are based on the unique energy management characteristics of both barriers (STEP and concrete vertical wall) in preventing vehicle rollover and lifting. specific barrier type must be selected considering the barrier’s performance capability. it is recommended for rigid barriers to be installed in areas which are known to have a history of bus-rollover accidents. In this case.2 Traffic Safety Barrier Consideration In order to select the use of suitable safety barriers. life cycle costs. the selected barriers must structurally be able to contain and redirect the vehicle (bus) as well as preventing it from undergoing rollover during collision. maintenance.

Larrodé.C. FHWA/CA/ESC-98/02. pp.. Final report of the Motorcyclists and Crash Barriers Project . United Nations.). B. Road Hazard Management Guide. E. E/ECE/TRANS/505. D. (Dec 1997). 345-356. FEMA (2000). J. Vol. Agreement (8 Oct 2004). Precast Concrete Barrier Crash Testing – Final Report. Proceeding. Große.106/Rev. Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Association. File No. Jewell. Vol. Plaxico.J. Oregon Department of Transportation. United Nations. R. Oregon.J. Energy and Resources. Single Slope. Brussels. Main Roads Western Australia – Assessment of Roadside Hazards. Laboratory of Highway Engineering. Development of NCHRP Report 350 TL-3 New Jersey Shape 50-inch Portable Concrete Barrier. Report No. Executive Summary Report. Rev. Concrete Median Barrier. 1. Suitable Concrete Barriers for Finland.. A. 2/Add. (Oct 2004). Corben. Report Submitted to the Minister of Transport Malaysia. (Dec 2001).. (Jun 2006). Monash University Accident Research Centre. California Department of Transportation.F. Wong (2008). Doc. Part 5: Journal of Automobile Engineering.. Kennedy. Vehicular Crash Tests of a Slip-formed. Tasmanian Government. Crozier. Agreement (22 Feb 2006).. U. J. M.. J.M. Helsinki University of Technology. Comparative analysis for bus side structures and lightweight optimization . Composite Structures. A. Elsevier Science Limited. J. Report No. Crashes Related to Overloading in Commercial Vehicles .. Chen & J. N. Lan. MacDonald.. C.V. Australia. 05/9104. Kirk. Miele.A. Rev.. Technology and Environment Directorate. C. P. E/ECE/TRANS/505. D06#26105.. W. Miravete & F. Road and Traffic Engineering. Material Testing and Engineering Services. Ohio Department of Transportation.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers References Abdul Rahmat. S. (Dec 2006). 218. Page 52 . 65/Rev. 66. Office of Research & Development. Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Valtonen.R. Fernández (1995).R.L. Jr. A new concept of a bus structure made of composite materials made by using continuous transversal transversal frames . Government of Western Australia (Mar 2006). 1. FHWA-OR-RD-01-07. Candappa. 107. ECE Regulation No. Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research. 32. ECE Regulation No. 1/Add.d.. Stoughton. Department of Infrastructure. A. Larsson. F. Lin (2004). ARRB Transport Research (n. Rowhani. Flexible Barrier Systems along High-Speed Roads: A Lifesaving Opportunity.

C. No. (2003). Rollover and Roof Crush Analysis of Low-Floor Mass Transit Bus. Pankaj S. Informal Document # 4. Guidelines on Design and Selection of Longitudinal Traffic Safety Barrier. Ross. D. D. Page 53 . M. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). Winkler. Master Thesis. Washington.Review Report Stability of High-Deck Bus in Rollover and Contact-Impact with Traffic Barriers Matolcsy. 4. Michie (1993). C. 31. Scientific Society of Mechanical Engineers. H. 203-214. Matolcsy. (May 2003).G.D. M. pp. Jr. Zimmer and J. Lesson and Conclusions – Learned from the Analysis of Bus Rollover th Accidents. National Academy Press. Wichita State University. Rollover of Heavy Commercial Vehicles. Vol. Deshmukh (Dec 2006). J. International Conference of Science and Motor Vehicles. 5. Severity of Bus Rollover Accidents. Transportation Research Board. F.. Effective Highway Barriers. Research Review. Sicking. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 84 GRSG 5-9. (1973). Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM) (Sep 2006).B.A. Paper Number 07-0989. Hungary.E. R. Tamanini.L. Viner. (2000). National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350: Recommended Procedure for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features..J. Vol. Elsevier.