COMPARISON OF THE COLLISION OF RIGID TRUCKS AND ARTICULATED TRUCKS AGAINST ROAD SAFETY BARRIERS

By Vittorio Giavotto Professor Department of Aerospace Eng. Politecnico di Milano Via La Masa, 34 - 20158 Milan - Italy Phone +39+02 23998330 Fax +39+02 23998334 giavotto@aero.polimi.it and Mariano Pernetti Researcher Department of Transportation Engineering “Luigi Tocchetti” University of Naples “Federico II” Via Claudio, 21 - 80125 Naples – Italy Phone +39+081 7683614 Fax +39+081 2390366 peruetti@cds.unina.it

80th TRB Annual Meeting January 7-11, 2001

Another important subject of the study has been the comparison of the tests TB81 and TB71 established by the European Standard EN1317 The results obtained show that collision of articulated trucks is less severe than the one of rigid trucks and this happens because of the greater length. Keywords: safety barriers. four analytical expression have been found that relate the impact energies producing the same maximum transversal displacements or vehicle roll angle for the two type of vehicle. rigid truck. the single features that characterize each type of vehicle are tested. The first part compares the overall behaviour of the two types of vehicles during collisions. Impact Severity. In the second phase. suspension stiffness and inertia.Giavotto-Pernetti ABSTRACT 1 Heavy vehicles used for road transport are essentially rigid trucks. . rigid trucks with trailer and articulated trucks. in order to detect the most responsible factors. has been divided into three parts. carried out by computer simulation. articulated truck. Collision of such vehicles against safety barriers may have different outcome depending on the vehicle characteristics. However the difference in the behaviour depends on kinetic impact energy and side friction coefficient. The third phase tries to define some relationship between the two type of vehicles. side friction coefficient. With reference to the relationships. The study. The present paper is aimed at finding the factors responsible for the different behaviour of rigid and articulated trucks during collision. even when impact energy is the same. The study concerning the European tests on safety barriers shows that a hierarchy exists between them and it depends on side friction coefficient.

rigid trucks with trailer and articulated trucks. In this way it was possible to test a variety of situations with a good rate of precision (4.2) for the containment level H4a and H4b have been also compared.80 m Hg 1.15 m.7 m 1. the single features that characterize each type of vehicle are tested: configuration. Collision of such vehicles against safety barriers may have different outcome depending on the vehicle characteristics.30 m Wheel base 5. even when impact energy is the same. The tests TB81 and TB71 established by the European Standard (1. This occurs generally because these vehicles are different in terms of configuration. with maximum height above ground (top of rail) equal to 1.44 m Articulated 27’000 15. and 2 nodes cubic beam using Eulero-Bernoulli beam theory for posts and chains. in fact.5) at cost lower than that required for the experimental approach. It may occur. a post spacing of 1.Giavotto-Pernetti INTRODUCTION 2 Heavy vehicles used for road transport are essentially rigid trucks. length. which involves simulating collisions against safety barriers through non-linear dynamic finite element analysis (3). failure stress = 360 MPa). The elements used to model the barrier were: 4 nodes doubly curved shell with six degrees of freedom for rails and block out. The third phase tries to define a relationship between the two type of vehicles with respect to maximum transversal barrier displacement and maximum vehicle roll angle. inertia. that a barrier is able to contain an articulated truck but it is not able to contain a rigid truck. The first parts compares the overall behaviour of the two types of vehicles during collisions. During the second phase. The study carried out has been divided into three parts. length.44 m . This was done in order to point out which of these characteristics impact more heavily on the different behaviour. etc. The barrier modeled is a steel blocked-out three-beam barrier (width of the beam element = 0. The vehicles considered in the numerical analyses are a rigid truck and an articulated truck whose main features are in table 1 and in figure 1. inertia. The ground was modeled by a finite number of systems attached to the posts along the embedded part.50 m). TABLE 1 Vehicle specifications Feature Truck Total test mass 27’000 Length 8. Each system was composed by a point mass connected to a subsystem made by an elasto-plastic spring and a parallel dashpot. The material model employed accords with the mechanical behavior of steel Fe 360 (yield stress = 235 MPa.40 m 11.33 m and posts (with C section) embedded 1 m in the soil (see FIGURE 1). FEATURE OF ANALYSIS The study was performed with a numerical approach. The present paper is aimed at finding the most influential factors responsible for the different behaviour of rigid and articulated trucks during collision against steel safety barriers and at establishing a relationship between them. The vehicle specifications concerning the comparison between the containment levels H4a and H4b of the European Standards EN1317-2 (2) instead are in table 2 at the end of the paper. etc. in order to detect the most responsible factor.

aimed at reproducing rolling friction. contact between tires and pavement. sliding contact between vehicle and barrier. The analyses carried out here take into consideration the most important aspects of vehicle collision with roadside safety features: three dimensional and dynamic phenomenon. large displacements. and the higher in the transverse direction. 1. visco-elasto-plastic behaviour of materials. Each wheel was modelled by a contact element having two friction coefficients: the lower in the longitudinal direction. The vehicle’s suspensions were modelled by elastic springs and parallel dashpots.Giavotto-Pernetti 3 Tire-pavement friction was simulated taking into account that tires produce longitudinal as well as transverse side friction.15 FIGURE 1 Barrier and vehicles modeled. orthotropic friction between tires and . both directions of which were considered in relation to the vehicle’s local reference system. aimed at reproducing side sliding friction.

Re-entryof vehicle incarriageway FIGURE 2 Four consecutive phases of a rigid truck collision against a safety barrier.2). axle breakage. 1. Lateralscrapingagainstsafetybarrier 3. Collision of vehicle’s front corner. The results allow us to assess whether the barrier might not be able to contain the vehicle due to excessive displacement. The analyses provide both values of barrier displacement and lowering and values of vehicle roll and acceleration. BEHAVIOUR OF THE TWO TYPES OF VEHICLE DURING THE COLLISION In order to analyse the difference between rigid and articulated trucks it is worthwhile to look at the behaviour during the collision and the role the tire-pavement friction plays in it. Collisionof vehicle’srear corner 4. The vehicle hits the safety barrier with its front end. which allows to consider all of the aspects above mentioned. General behaviour of rigid trucks The collision of a rigid truck with a safety barrier can be split up in four consecutive phases (see fig. the restraint system causes the vehicle to reduce its translation speed and to rotate about its yaw . and if the vehicle might pass over the barrier or roll over. By comparing the outcomes of simulations and real crash tests in terms of maximum dynamic displacement and roll angle it is possible to see the discrepancies between simulation and crash test results are less than 20%. in relation to surroundings. The feature of the model used for the vehicle doesn’t allow to take account of the effects due to local vehicle deformation. etc. a good record (6).Giavotto-Pernetti 4 pavement. The capability of this type of analysis and model to reproduce full scale crash tests has been tested comparing results obtained from some crash tests carried out in Italy. Collisionof vehicle’s front corner Friction forces 2. wheel damage. The simulations were performed using the ABAQUS/Standard finite element program. as described below.

During this phase the vehicle collides with its rear part against the barrier that increases its displacement to the point where it reaches maximum value. This dissipation is affected positively by vehicle wheel base. Therefore they. The friction forces also reduce and consequently their effects. as well as about its roll and pitch axes. In this phase the vehicle’s front corner loses velocity in its transversal direction towards the barrier and the rear part scrapes alongside the barrier. 4) whereas maximum barrier displacement is more or less constant (see A’-B’ of fig. 3 and fig. In this part of collision the vehicle-barrier interaction is very reduced and its moment about the roll axis is lower than the one due to the vehicle mass that is stabilizing. The transversal maximum barrier displacement and vehicle roll angle increase (see O-A’ of fig. The instabilizing moment about the vehicle roll axis is also generally greater. The resulting actions arising from these forces are: an unstabilizing moment about the vehicle roll axis. 4). in fact. (see B’-C’ in FIGURE 3). on one hand contribute to the impact energy dissipation but on the other hand increase the instabilizing moment about the roll axis. The side friction forces upon frontal axles. The vehicle-barrier interaction is greater than the one in the first phase and produces the reduction up to the inversion of yaw and transversal speed. The intensity of the barrier's action on the vehicle diminishes. and a force and a moment about the yaw axis which induce a dissipation of the kinetic impact energy. that the rail of the barrier is lower and the centre of gravity is higher due to the roll angle the vehicle experiences. It happens. the velocity of rear axles instead is very reduced and in opposite direction. Lateral scraping against safety barrier. Re-entry of vehicle in carriageway. hence. bringing about a reduction in roll speed (see A’-B’ of fig. The side friction forces upon rear axles are fully developed and have a greater intensity than the ones upon frontal axles (which are in the opposite direction). The combined effect of translation and yaw motion is that the transversal velocity (in the local reference system of the vehicle) of the front axles is high and directed away from the barrier. Collision of vehicle’s rear part.Giavotto-Pernetti 5 axis with increasing speed. 3). are fully developed and are directed toward the barrier whereas those upon rear axles are reduced and directed away from the barrier. In this phase all the friction forces upon the vehicle axles are directed away from the barrier. This happens because of the greater load upon rear axles. Longer vehicles show a better behaviour with respect to the roll motion because in this phase they are subjected to a lower unstabilizing moment stemming from the interaction with the barrier. in fact vehicles with greater distance between extreme axles have higher friction induced moment about yaw axis. induced by the lower distance of centre of gravity. This is because they collide against a part of barrier with lesser displacements and so against a higher barrier. . and this is not only due to the greater interaction but also to its greater distance from the center of gravity. The resulting action of these forces reduces the vehicle-barrier interaction and is stabilizing with respect to the vehicle roll motion.

40 E C 0.40 0. time (SFC=0.00 1.80 2.00 0.60 -1.00 -10.00 max transversal barrier displacement [m] -0.60 0.00 D’ 35.60 1.20 F O -5.20 -1.00 0.00 A’ D A B 0.20 -0.80 2.2 .00 1.00 time [s] FIGURE 4 Vehicle roll angle vs.40 1.80 -1. .60 1.20 1. time (SFC=0.Ect=500 kJ).00 5.Ect=500 kJ).00 30.40 -1.40 -0.60 0.00 20.20 0.Giavotto-Pernetti O 0.40 1. 40.80 C’ FIGURE 3 Maximum transversal barrier displacement vs.2.00 roll angle [°] C’ 15.20 1.80 6 time [s] 1.00 rigid articulated (trailer) B’ 10.60 A B B’ D A’ C F E D’ rigid articulated -0.80 1.00 -1.00 25.

This phase has a double function: to restrain the remaining transversal motion of tractor and to begin to restrain the trailer. The differences with the first . Lateral scraping of tractor. The friction forces are very similar to the ones of the previous phase and therefore they have the same effects. the friction forces are also upon its rear axle and have greater intensity because of the heavier load. After.Giavotto-Pernetti General behaviour of articulated trucks 7 The collision of an articulated truck against a safety barrier can be split up in six consecutive phases (see fig.5). as described below. as well as about its roll and pitch axes. The resulting actions are: a “braking” force and moment about the yaw axis. At beginning of the phase the friction forces are relevant only upon tractor’s front axle and are directed toward the barrier. when the tractor has a considerable yaw motion. FIGURE 5 Six consecutive phases of an articulated truck collision against a safety barrier Collision of tractor’s front corner. and an unstabilizing moment about the roll axis. The maximum transversal displacement of the barrier remains practically unchanged (see A-B in figure 4) Collision of tractor’s rear part . The trailer is subjected to a longitudinal and transversal deceleration and to a feeble yaw motion which reduce the angle formed with the barrier. The tractor hits the safety barrier with its front corner. the restraint system causes the tractor to reduce its translation speed and to rotate about its yaw axis with increasing speed. This phase is characterized by a relevant yaw rotation of the tractor which induce a considerable angle with the trailer.

The greater length of the trailer. In this phase the trailer’s front corner loses velocity in its transversal direction towards the barrier and the rear part scrapes alongside the barrier. the instabilizing moment of the vehicle-barrier interaction about the roll axis is greater than the one in the first phase of rigid truck collision. After the lateral scraping of the trailer its rear part collides heavily against the barrier that increases its displacement to the point where it reaches maximum value (see D-E in figure 5). In fact. and so higher. has the result that its rear part collides against a section of barrier with lesser displacements. The maximum transversal displacement at first is nearly constant and then decreases (see C-D in figure 4). COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM TRASVERSAL BARRIER DISPLACEMENT AND VEHICLE ROLL ANGLE Rigid and articulated trucks experience different maximum barrier displacement and vehicle roll angle in relation to the side friction coefficient. Re-entry of vehicle in carriageway. The impact energy of the trailer is lower than the one it would have if it was alone: its motion has been already restrained during the tractor’s front corner collision. The vertical load available to stabilize the roll motion is heavier than the mass of the trailer because here also acts a part of the tractor mass. The friction forces are similar to the ones in the previous phase unless the force upon tractor frontal axle. In this last part of collision the vehicle-barrier interaction is very reduced and its moment about the roll axis is lower than the one. their effect however is the same. This behaviour depends on the greater length and on the direction of the friction forces that are nearly always directed away from the barrier (see figures 2 and 5) . the transversal velocity of the tractor rear axle (respect to its direction) is directed toward the barrier whereas the one of the rigid truck front axles is directed away from the barrier. With regard to the impact energy dissipation however these forces play a positive role. When the rear part of the tractor hits the barrier this has assumed a configuration in which the stiffness of the restrain system is greater and the height of the rail is lower than the original one. The overall effect of all friction forces upon the trailer axles are positive as regards the barrier transversal displacement but negative with respect to the roll motion because they induce an increase in the instabilizing moment about the roll axis. The friction forces reduce and so their effects. the direction of the friction forces. The consequent instabilizing moment due to vehicle barrier interaction thereforeis lower. Lateral scraping of the trailer. the barrier already deformed and the vehicle mass. in relation to the rigid truck. This arises from the direction upon the tractor rear axle that is opposite to the one of the friction forces upon the rigid truck frontal axles. Collision of trailer’s rear part . stabilizing.Giavotto-Pernetti 8 phase of rigid truck collision concern the lower impact energy. During this phase the vehicle-barrier interaction decreases and so the instabilizing moment due to it is lower than the one stemming from the mass. The angle formed between tractor and trailer in the second phase gets the friction forces upon the tractor rear axle to be different in direction from the ones upon rigid truck’s rear axles (compare phase 1 in figure 2 with phase 3 in figure 5). The resulting stabilizing moment however is adversely affected by friction forces and the negative influence is greater in comparison with the rigid truck situations. due to the vehicle mass. Figure 6 shows that the maximum displacement concerning articulated trucks is always lower and has a greater reduction with increasing the tire-pavement friction. As a consequence.

8 Maximum transversal displacement [m] 1.6 1.4 0. This because friction forces have both an instabilizing and a stabilizing effect.2 0 0 0. . In order to evaluate the influence of each of them. given from the lesser transversal barrier displacement. This occurs. the second provided with the greater suspension stiffness.6÷0. The maximum roll angle versus the side friction coefficient is depicted in figure 8 along with the ones of to the rigid and articulated truck.Giavotto-Pernetti 9 1.4 for rigid trucks and is in the range 0.6 0. suspension stiffness. At first the unstabilizing effect prevails on the stabilizing one and than the opposite occurs.2 0. This change in the behaviour happens for a side friction coefficient of about 0.4 1. because the “instabilizing” friction forces are both upon rear axles of trailer and upon rear axle of tractor.8 1 Side Friction Coefficient FIGURE 6 Maximum barrier displacement vs. four artificial vehicles have been modelled: the first having the length of the articulated trailer. moment of inertia and vehicle configuration.4 0.8 for articulated trucks. which induces a lower instabilizing moment due to the vehicle-barrier interaction. with regards to articulated trucks. Side Friction Coefficient Both vehicles have the same behaviour on regard to the maximum vehicle roll angle (see figure 7): at first it increases and then decreases or is nearly constant with increasing of the tire-pavement friction. The stabilizing effect depends on the lesser lowering of the rail.8 0.6 0.2 1 rigid articulated 0. The first is brought on by the eccentricity of friction forces acting in the contact zone between tires and pavement. and by the direction of these forces which are nearly always directed from the barrier toward the vehicle. the third having the greater moment of inertia and the fourth consisting in a truck and in a trailer without connection (the trailer is provided with frontal axles). The contributing factors to the lower roll motion of the articulated trucks are: greater length.

8 1 Side Friction Coefficient FIGURE 7 Vehicle roll angle vs. This occurs because it brings together all the contribute above said and it doesn’t suffer the adverse effect of the direction of the friction forces upon the tractor rear axle of the articulated trucks. an analysis aimed at evaluating the relationship between the two types of vehicle has been carried out.2 0. at least for the barrier and vehicles considered in the study. As far as the moment of inertia is concerned. This happens because the greater length induce an higher impact energy dissipation and the rear part of vehicle collides in a section of barrier with lesser displacement. At this aim many computer simulations have been performed in order to obtain the diagrams maximum displacement-impact energy and maximum roll angle-impact . The reduction is a direct result of the greater length of the second phase.Giavotto-Pernetti 10 45 40 Maximum roll angle [° deg] 35 30 25 rigid articulated 20 15 10 5 0 0 0. RIGID AND ARTICULATED TRUCK RELATIONSHIP As seen above the collision of articulated trucks against road safety barriers is less severe than the one of rigid trucks and the difference in terms of maximum displacement and roll angle changes with the impact energy and tire-pavement friction. One of the consequences is that highway engineers cannot consider only one type of vehicle in their evaluation about road safety barriers. The “vehicle” consisting in tractor and trailer without connection has the lowest roll motion. Side Friction Coefficient The diagram concerning the vehicle with greater length show that the roll motion is always lower than the one of rigid truck. the maximum roll angle reduces instead only slightly. in which the stabilizing moment arising from the mass prevails on the instabilizing one stemming from friction forces and vehicle barrier interaction.4 0.6 0. Trying to solve this problem. The roll motion reduces considerably also with suspension stiffness and it occurs because the stabilizing moment due to the mass begins to be completely available for a lower roll angle.

the impact energy of the articulated truck and of the rigid one producing the same result both in terms of displacement and roll angle.Giavotto-Pernetti 11 energy for the two types of vehicle.8 1 Side Friction Coefficient Vehicle 1: Rigid truck having the length of trailer of the articulated truck Vehicle 2: Rigid truck having the suspension stiffness of the articulated truck Vehicle 3: Rigid truck having the inerzia of the articulated truck Vehicle 4: Truck and trailer without connection FIGURE 8 Vehicle roll angle vs. The side friction coefficients 45 40 Maximum roll angle [°deg] 35 30 vehicle 4 25 vehicle 3 vehicle 2 20 vehicle 1 rigid articulated 15 10 5 0 0 0.4 0. The expressions found.6 0. For the same maximum transversal barrier displacement: Is art = 865.4 and 0. These values are close to the side friction coefficients in which the rigid and articulated trucks have shown respectively the worst behaviour. relating the impact energy of the articulated truck to the one of rigid truck. The obtained diagrams have been used to evaluate. The mass considered has been 27’000 kg and the impact angle equal to 20°. are the following. Side Friction Coefficient included in the study have been 0.006 * (Is rigid)^2 [SFC =0.2 – 3.4 and impact energy into the range 300:480 kJ] .392 * (Is rigid) + 0.8. with the procedure depicted in figure 9.2 0.

8 For equality of maximum vehicle roll angle and SFC equal to 0. and the opposite happens in condition of moderate friction 50 45 maximum roll angle [°deg] 40 35 30 articulated (trailer) rigid 25 20 15 10 5 0 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Impact severity (1/2 m (v sin o)^2) [kJ] FIGURE 9 Vehicle roll angle vs.4 and impact energy into the range 300:480 kJ] Is art = 131.8 These results show that in friction favouring condition the articulated trucks perform better in terms of displacement than in terms of vehicle roll angle.4 For equality of maximum vehicle roll angle and SFC equal to 0.8 and impact energy into the range 300:490 kJ] The maximum and minimum differences evaluated between the two vehicles are: 80:130 kJ 130:170 kJ 100:180 kJ 30:70 kJ For equality of maximum transversal barrier displacement and SFC equal to 0.4 For equality of maximum transversal barrier displacement and SFC equal to 0.1 – 0.789 * (Is rigid) [SFC =0.Giavotto-Pernetti 12 Is art = -15 + 1.4) .2553 * (Is rigid) + 0.8 and impact energy into the range 300:380 kJ] For the same maximum vehicle roll angle: Is art = 463.8 + 0. 5 * (Is rigid) [SFC =0. Impact Severity (SFC =0.0011 * (Is rigid)^2 [SFC =0.

The results obtained are in figure 10.14 m centre of gravity from front axle Heigth above ground of the 1.8. In order to evaluate which are the situation where the first test is heavier than the second.20 m 1.90 m COMPARISON OF TB71 AND TB81 TESTS OF EUROPEAN STANDARD The European standard 1317 considers two alternative tests for very high containment capacity safety barriers.6 and 0.2.25 m 1s+4 6.Giavotto-Pernetti TABLE 2 CEN Vehicle specifications (EN 1317-1) Feature Rigid truck Vehicle mass 30’000 kg Wheel track 2. Afterwards four safety barriers have been designed able to restrain without tolerance the articulated truck for the following side friction coefficients: 0. The first is carried out with a rigid truck with 30'000 Kg of mass and an impact energy of 572 kJ. The results above seen have shown that the “correspondence” between the two types of vehicle changes with tire pavement friction and impact energy. For “lower” friction condition the test with the articulated truck is less heavy.4.00 m 11. The standard. underlines that the two tests should not be regarded as equivalent and no hierarcy is given between them. a rigid and an articulated truck according to CEN specification (table 2) have been modelled.00 m Whell base 6. however. Each one of these barriers then has been tested with many rigid trucks in order to define the limit impact energy of this type of vehicle.70 m (between extreme axles) Number of axles 2s+2 Longitudinal distance of the 4. which shows that the two tests are roughly equivalent for a side friction coefficient of about 0. 0.5. . 0.90 m centre of gravity of load 13 Articulated truck 38’000 kg 2. the second instead is performed by an articulated truck with 38'000 kg of mass and an impact energy of 721 kJ.

suspension stiffness and inertia.3 0. The study carried out has also analyzed the tests TB71 and TB81 of the European standard for safety barriers.1 0. The factors contributing to the better behaviour are the greater length.Giavotto-Pernetti 14 800 Maximum rigid truck impact energy [kJ] 700 724 kJ 600 TB 81 more severe than TB 71 572 kJ TB 71 more severe than TB 81 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0. For “lower” friction condition the test with the articulated truck is less heavy. varies in the range 30. . The vehicle configuration instead adversely affect the advantages stemming from these factors. Four expressions have been found relating the impact energy of the articulated truck to the one of rigid truck.5 0.5.7 0.8 0.2 0. at least for the situation considered. 170 kJ.6 0. however is not always the same.9 1 Side Friction Coefficient FIGURE 10 Maximum rigid truck impact energy for barriers able to contain at limit the vehicle of the test TB81 CONCLUSIONS The study carried out show that the articulated truck collisions against road safety barriers is less heavy than the one of rigid truck. It depends in fact on tyre-pavement friction and impact energy. It has pointed out that the test with the articulated truck (TB81) is roughly equivalent to the other for side friction coefficients of about 0.4 0. The difference among the collision outcomes. They show that the difference in the impact energy in order to have the same displacement and roll angle. in particular in friction favouring conditions. in terms of maximum transversal barrier displacement and vehicle roll angle.

Wekezer. Washington. J. 4. 61-71 6. Italy. 5. Martin. 1993. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Road restraint systems – Part 1: Terminology and general criteria for test methods. Zimmer.. H. D.C. Crash impact analysis of the G2 guardrail: a validation study. April 1998. National Research Council. R. Road restraint systems – Part 2: Performance classes. TRB. D. M.C. Proceedings of the Conference: “La sicurezza intrinseca delle infrastrutture stradali”. European Committee for Standardization. Use of finite element analysis in roadside hardware design. European Committee for Standardization. . Indagine sul comportamento del veicolo e della barriera in una prova di crash mediante analisi numerica. USA. O. 1996. Washington. S. Washington D. Report 350. Ross. H. 2. 3. In Transportation Research Circular 453. pp. Ray. E.. impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers. L. pp.C. 271-301. presented at 77th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Recommended procedures for the safety performance evaluation of highway features.. Brussels. Sicking. 1997. Rome. April 1998. M.Giavotto-Pernetti REFERENCES 15 1. Brussels. A. D. W. EN 1317-2. 10-15 January 1998. Pernetti. EN 1317-1.

Giavotto-Pernetti LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Vehicle specifications ……………………………………………………… 2 16 TABLE 2 CEN Vehicle specifications (EN 1317-1) …………………………………. 10 ..

….. time (SFC=0..Ect=500 kJ).……. Side Friction Coefficient ……………………………….…. 7 FIGURE 7 Vehicle roll angle vs.2 .2.. Side Friction Coefficient …… …………. 3 FIGURE 2 Four consecutive phases of a rigid truck collision against a safety barrier.…….10 FIGURE 10 Maximum rigid truck impact energy for barriers able to contain at limit the vehicle of the test TB81……………………………………………………………………….Giavotto-Pernetti 17 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Barrier and vehicles modeled.…. Impact Severity (SFC =0. 5 FIGURE 5 Six consecutive phases of an articulated truck collision against a safety barrier…6 FIGURE 6 Maximum barrier displacement vs. time (SFC=0. 5 FIGURE 4 Vehicle roll angle vs. 9 FIGURE 9 Vehicle roll angle vs. ….4) ……………………………. ……………………………………………………….Ect=500 kJ). Side Friction Coefficient …………………………………. ……… 4 FIGURE 3 Maximum transversal barrier displacement vs. . 11 . ……………………………. 8 FIGURE 8 Vehicle roll angle vs.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful