Scientia Iranica A (2011) 18 (6), 12221230

Sharif University of Technology

Scientia Iranica
Transactions A: Civil Engineering
www.sciencedirect.com

Research note

Safety performance audit for roadside and median barriers using

freeway crash records: Case study in Jiangxi, China
Y.G. Wang a, , K.M. Chen a , Y.S. Ci b , L.W. Hu c
a

School of Highway, Changan University, Xian 710064, China

School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
c
Faculty of Transportation Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650224, China
b

Received 4 April 2011; revised 15 September 2011; accepted 2 October 2011

KEYWORDS
Road safety audit;
Roadside crash;
RGF project;
Clear recovery zone;
Barrier design;
Safety performance.

Abstract Globally, the Road Safety Audit (RSA) concept has been recognized as an effective tool in
examining the crash potential of in-service and future roadways in planning and design stages. As such,
there is critical need for a practical tool that focuses on the safety of the existing, as-built, local road
facilities. As requested by the World Bank, the RSA process has been developed for this purpose, giving
specific recognition to the safety performance of roadside and median barriers for three existing, typical
freeways in Jiangxi, China, and to the gathering of design experience for a new RGF project. On top
of a routine road safety audit process, a total of 172 roadside crashes are collected, with 74 belonging
to single vehicle Run-off-Road crashes, and crash records are analyzed to supplement the qualitative
auditing suggestions. The structure and safety performance of the roadside and median barriers in the
three freeways reviewed are evaluated and compared with their counterparts in the US barrier system.
Several critical issues were identified and improvement suggestions were recommended, including less
attention being paid to the roadside Clear Recovery Zone (CRZ), weak barrier structures, un-protected
roadside obstacles (i.e. barrier ends, advertisement signs, drainage ditches, etc.), and poor connections or
transitions of rails. Based on these observations, detailed pertinent countermeasures for each issue have
been suggested in a roadside safety audit report for guiding roadside safety design in the RGF project.
2012 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Open access under CC BY license.

1. Introduction
Each year roadside safety accidents account for about onethird of the total number of casualties (injured and dead) for
China highways, especially in mountainous areas [1]. It has been
estimated that crashes and collisions involving fixed roadside
objects (e.g., trees, poles, drainage devices, mailboxes, bridge
supports and safety barriers, etc.) exceed three billion dollars
annually [2]. The increasing count of roadside collisions and the

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sdqdwyg@163.com (Y.G. Wang).

1026-3098 2012 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by

Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY license.
Peer review under responsibility of Sharif University of Technology.
doi:10.1016/j.scient.2011.11.020

alarming severity of crashes have made roadside improvement

a focal point of safety research [35]. Safety professionals have
strived to address this problem and have had some success.
Further improvement in roadside safety will depend on a deep
understanding of the causes that lead to injuries and fatalities
associated with run-off road crashes.
A recent study performed by Holdridge et al. details that
rigid poles and tree stumps on roadsides are more prone to
cause fatal injuries [6]. Through analyzing crash records and
roadside data from two-lane, rural roads in Spain, PardilloMayora et al. found that roadside slope, non-traversable
obstacle distance from the roadway edge, and safety barrier
installation and alignment have homogeneous effects on the
frequency and severity of roadside injury crashes [7]. In
Australia and New Zealand, roadside steel W-beams also induce
fatal motorcyce-roadside barrier collisions, typically on a bend
in the horizontal alignment of the highway [8]. Therefore, much
research about roadside safety devices has been developed
since the 1960s to improve the safety of the roadside, including
roadside posts, breakaway luminaire and sign supports, betterperforming barriers, end treatment and transition designs, in

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

order to contain and redirect vehicles, and safety treatments for

drainage structures [9].
Like other roadside objects, there also exists a great deal of
research focused on the safety performance of medians [9,10].
Highway medians present a special case, in that, while the
choice of median treatment may be considered as roadway
design element, the characteristics of the median itself are
more closely related to roadside conditions. Elements of median
design (e.g. width, slope, type of raised or depressed, etc.) may
influence crash frequency or severity. Wide medians reduce
the likelihood of a head-on collision. Median slope and design
can affect the incidences of rollover and other single vehicle
(fixed object) crashes, as well as head-on collisions [11]. Such
breakaway structures (e.g., cushion, barrier, median, etc.) are
designed to yield to impact force and, thereby, control the
counter force sustained by the vehicle striking the breakaway
support. However, such structures are hazards themselves
and, as such, should only be employed when the severity of
impacting the crash cushion would be less than the severity of
impacting the original hazard [12].
Based on all kinds of studies about roadside safety, AASHTO
(American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials) recommends the treatment of roadside obstacles
(source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
AASHTO, 2001):
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Eliminate the hazard;

Relocate the hazard;
Use breakaway devices to reduce the hazard, or
Use a cost-effective traffic barrier to reduce crash severity.

A road safety audit is a formal examination or process, conducted by a team of qualified, properly trained and experienced
traffic safety, highway design, and other related professionals,
to identify the issues that may cause potential or secondary
collisions [13]. A road safety audit has proved to be an effective practice in enhancing road safety. It is a proactive strategy
rather than an interactive response, and provides independent
assessment and recommendations that should be considered by
the client or the designer [14]. The road safety audit presents
the issues of concern, but not necessarily the solutions to the
identified safety issues [15].
Therefore, the primary purpose of this research is to examine
the roadside safety performance of mountainous highways, following a safety audit procedure, and using crash observations
from three typical freeways in Jiangxi, China. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explains the safety audit process in
three steps; in Section 3, various combinations of safety auditing practices and findings are presented point to point, including crash distribution features, the performance of barrier crash
prevention and severity reduction, comparison of the safety effectiveness of barrier structures, and safety improvement specifications for barriers. Finally, in Section 4, the paper ends with
some conclusions and remarks.
2. Safety audit process
2.1. Forming audit team
Road safety auditing is an emerging procedure aimed at
examining the safety performance of in-service or future
roadways by an independent audit team [13]. As required by the
World Bank, a safety performance audit is conducted for three

1223

freeways in Jiangxi, China, as shown in Figure 1, to proactively

improve the future safety performance of a 117 km RuijinGanzhou Freeway (RGF) project funded by the World Bank, and
a section of the Xiamen-Chendu Freeway, during the planning
and design stages, and to identify safety issues in existing
freeway facilities [16].
To carry out the safety performance audit process, an audit
team is formed including five member groups:
Group 1: General members with extensive experience and
qualifications of freeways;
Group 2: Researchers in human factors and crash data
analysis;
Group 3: Traffic managers in accident scene investigation;
Group 4: Engineers of freeway geometric design;
Group 5: Experts and workers in roadside facility design and
maintenance [16].
The audit has been developed mainly by record analysis
and site surveys into three typical selected freeways. A kick-off
meeting is held to understand the task and content of a safety
audit, to analyze the documents and crash records and schedule
a multiple site visit for identifying barrier-related collisions and
roadside facility design. Finally, a checklist is conducted to guide
and evaluate the auditing process [17].
2.2. Obtaining crash and RGF design data
With help from the Department of Transport of Jiangxi
Province and Jiangxi Research Institute of Communications,
a total of 172 roadside and median crashes over the years
20072009 are collected from three freeways, namely, Changzhang Freeway (30 km), Liwen Freeway (245 km) and Taijing
Freeway (62 km). Detailed crash descriptions include time, site,
injured/fatally injured drivers and passengers, involved vehicles, weather, pavement conditions, and causes, etc. Moreover,
the investigation process, collision diagrams and scene photos
are also made available to help understand the crash occurrence
more clearly, as shown in Figure 2.
The RGF background messages were obtained from the
Department of Transport of Jiangxi Province and Jiangxi
Research Institute of Communications including Feasibility
Study Reports, Construction Design Documents and Traffic Volume
Statistics. The audit team also took into account Guidelines for
a safety audit of freeways (JTG/T B05-2004) and Guidelines for
design of highway safety facilities (JTG D81-2006) released by
the Ministry of Communications and the reported procedures,
manuals, guidelines, experience and latest techniques of previous researchers [1820] to guide and prompt the safety audit
process.
2.3. Performing audit process and application
The audit team members reviewed crash records and original documents and learnt a basic lesson regarding crash occurrences and police treatment. Moreover, the team members
are required to make direct visits and reviews of crash sites, repaired and un-repaired, so as to gain firsthand knowledge about
the severity and characteristics of roadside facility involved
crashes. Then, team members worked individually and gave
personal opinions on crash causes and facility performances.
The audit team then finalized a group recommendation concerning document reviews and site visit results.
Consequently, the audit findings are documented in a
freeway safety audit report for the Department of Transport of

1224

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

Figure 1: Location of three audited freeways in Jiangxi.

Source: The World Bank.

Figure 2: Example of roadside crash. (a) crash scene; and (b) crash record diagram.

Jiangxi Province to take necessary action for the World Bank

funding RGF project, mainly to revise geometric standards and
roadside facility design. The summarized suggestions are also
used to improve the current roadside safety design policy and
develop new strategies for Jiangxi Province and other regions in
China.

3. Findings and discussion

3.1. Crash record analysis
A total of 172 barrier related crash records in four years are
obtained from three typical freeways in Jiangxi, among which

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

1225

Table 1: Distribution of 74 single vehicle ROR crashes.

Source: http://www.jmnews.com.cn/c/2009/03/28/11/c_1022075.shtml.
Variable

Crash count

Variable

Crash count

Type of involved vehicle

Passenger car
Bus
Trucks
Semis

53
3
11
7

Length damaged
08 m
816 m
1632 m
>32 m

12
27
24
11

Type of roadside barrier

Roadside transitional barrier
Exit ramp
Roadside embankment
Roadside cut slope
Drainage ditch

6
4
19
4
13

Weather condition
Fine
Cloudy
Rainy
Fogy
Windy

18
14
32
7
3

Type of median barrier

Median curb
Median transitional barrier
Median opening barrier
Median bridge piers

16
4
5
3

Hour distribution
6:0010:00
10:0014:00
14:0020:00
20:006:00

9
33
24
8

Causes judgment
Overspeeding
Fatigure/alcohol driving
Long slope or brake false
Inclement weather involvement
Inattention
Geometric influence
Work zone

38
11
19
21
4
8
3

Week distribution
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Thursday
Wednesday
Friday
Saturday

8
2
13
11
11
20
9

Barrier response with Collision

Second collision induced? Y/N
Run over roadside barrier? Y/N
Run into median? Y/N
Run across median? Y/N

43/31
26/48
11/63
7/67

Month distribution
122
35
68
911

21
15
27
11

Note: One or more factors may play a part in any situation of crash occurrence, for example, a minibus broken the median barrier and collided with two heavy
tractors in opposite direction that caused 20 deaths and 11 injuries on Hukun Freeway with the area of Fengcheng, Jiangxi on Mar. 27, 2009, due to overspeeding,
rainy weather and driving false.

36 crashes are from Changzhang Freeway, and 107 and 29 from

Liwen and Taijing Freeways, respectively. Let us denote the
United Crash Rate Index (UCRI) as the average crash counts, per
kilometer, per year. Then, we can reach UCRI CZ = 36/(30 3) =
0.400 cc/(km year) for Changzhang Freeway, and UCRI LW =
0.146 cc/(km year) and UCRI TJ = 0.156 cc/(km year) for
the other two freeways. Obviously, the Changzhang Freeway
has the poorest roadside safety performance and its crash
occurrence probability per kilometer is about 2.74 and 2.56
times the crash involvement that Liwen Freeway and Taijing
Freeway have witnessed.
All these crashes are reviewed carefully and it is found
that 74 crashes (19 for Changzhang Freeway + 41 for Liwen
Freeway + 14 for Taijing Freeway), or 43.0% belong to single
vehicle Run-off-Road (ROR) type of crash. Clearly, ROR crashes
are the most popular type of accident on Jiangxi Freeways. Then,
the characteristics of 74 ROR type crashes (65 injuries and 9
deaths) are further analyzed in detail as shown in Table 1.
Obviously, it can be easily inferred that roadside and
median barriers are the most frequently involved roadside
fixed objects in single vehicle ROR crashes [21]. In the selected
74 ROR crashes, roadside and median barriers are involved
48 and 26 times, respectively. Moreover, ROR crashes cause
significant casualties. For the 74 crashes reviewed, 131 persons
were injured and 7 were killed; the average casualty is 1.86
persons per crash. Such a high rate of casualties is partly
due to the greatly increasing number of vehicles in Jiangxi,
as well as on the China mainland. However, it certainly
indicates that current roadside environment designs (i.e., trees,
embankments, drainage ditches, safety facilities, advertisement

boards, etc.) guided by out-of-date ideas have to be improved in

consideration of human safety.
Moreover, a leading percentage of single vehicle ROR crashes
is caused by over-speeding. As shown in Table 1, 38 out of 74
crashes occurred due to over-speeding. On the other hand, a
long slope segment is a typically dangerous location for crashes.
Brake failure is also more prone to cause a ROR type of crash and
this is especially true on long slope segments [22]. Inclement
weather conditions, such as rain and fog, are also significant
contributory factors to crashes. 32 and 7 out of 74 records
reviewed happened on rainy and foggy days, respectively.
Moreover, the data showed that about 44.6% of the collisions
were concentrated in the 4-h period from 10 am to 2 pm, and
one may also expect an alarming percentage of crashes on hot
summer days, especially on Fridays.
3.2. Barrier safety performance
Barrier response is another safety performance measure.
W-beam guardrails are the most cost-effective crash barrier
designed to reduce the severity of run-off-road accidents,
prevent vehicular impact with roadside hazards, and lessen
the frequency of vehicles overturning. A recent survey by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) shows guardrails are at
least 97% effective in reducing injuries and fatalities (source:
www.southernguardrail.com).
According to the statistics of these three surveyed freeways,
31 out of 74 crashes reviewed incurred severe damage. In
31 cases, roadside barriers were broken through by colliding

1226

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

Figure 3: Typical broken barriers and repair treatments. (a) damaged barrier; and (b) repair treatment.

Figure 4: Typical Gr-A-4E roadside barriers. (a) W-beam; and (b) steel tube post.

vehicles in 23 crashes, and 8 cases saw median barriers run

over and traffic flow interrupted in the opposite direction. In
one extreme case, the vehicle out of control even sideswiped an
oncoming van, fully-loaded with passengers. Therefore, these
cases require the freeway administration bureau to pay more
attention.
A second collision means that the vehicle involved collides
with other roadside obstacles, such as embankment slopes,
drainage ditches, advertisement boards, roadside trees or
vehicles coming in the opposition direction, after collision
with roadside or median barriers [23]. Compared with barrier
performances in the US and other countries, the current design
of barriers in China is more prone to cause a second collision,
for the vehicle involved in the first collision would not be able
to stop shortly, particularly for over-speeding passenger cars
or heavy trucks. Such vehicles may hit barriers, other roadside
obstacles on the other side or the traveling vehicles after being
bounced back to the lane. Among 74 crashes reviewed, 43
cases involved a second collision. 16 crashes hit the opposite
barriers, 4 crashes ran over the median barrier and collided
with vehicles traveling in the opposite direction, 7 crashes
ended with vehicles rolled over and severe injuries, 10 crashes
hit the embankment slope and/or the drainage ditch at the
bottom of the embankment, and 6 crashes hit other types of
roadside obstacle apart from barriers. There are many factors
that contribute to second collisions. However, the root of
this type of severe crash mainly lies in the intolerant design
philosophy of roadside safety design and must be avoided [24].
Review of crash records also reveals that the current height
of roadside barriers is too short to protect over-speeding
vehicles, especially trucks, from a ROR type of crash. As shown
in Figure 3(a), the short roadside barrier is run over by a big
truck; there is a ROR crash and a continuous rolling over action
to the bottom of the barrier-protected high embankment.
Unfortunately, the barrier is put back following the original
short design (Figure 3(b)): the next roll-over is just on the road.

Therefore, the audit team strongly recommends that the barrier

height be raised to provide sufficient protection for truck traffic.
3.3. Comparison with US barrier structures [16]
Currently, three types of barrier are employed, using a

140 4.5 steel tube post on the Jiangxi freeway, including

Gr-A-4E for less than a 6 m high embankment (see Figure 4),
Gr-A-2E for a 612 m high embankment and Gr-SB-2E for a
1220 m high embankment. Both Gr-A-4E and Gr-A-2E barriers
use a 4 mm-thick W-beam with crash standard A, according
to JTG/T B05-2004. Nevertheless, the only difference between
them lies in the post space: 4 m for Gr-A-4E and 2 m for Gr-A2E. Gr-SB-2E uses a three-beam rail with a thickness of 3 mm
and a 2 m post space, which is designed to crash standard SB
by design standards in 2004. Due to the limits of mountainous
and hilly freeways, the Gr-A-4E barrier is widely used on Jiangxi
freeways.
Due to the lack of evaluation standards in China, the AASHTO
standard for roadside barriers (i.e., SGR02, SGR04, SGR09,
etc.) is employed to evaluate three typical roadside barriers
(source: AASHTO 2001). Table 2 presents a comparison of the
cross-sectional properties and post dimensions between Jiangxi
barriers and those of AASHTO.
The SGR02 barrier of AASHTO uses a W-beam rail and Ssection steel with 3.81 m post space, and is mainly equipped for
high speed freeways under perfect geometric conditions. The
SGR04 barrier in interstate freeways utilizes a W-section steel
post with 1.9 m space. Obviously, the SGR09 barrier with the
thrie-beam has the same post size as SGR04. Compared with
US SGR02 barriers, the Gr-A-4E type also uses W-beam rails
with similar dimensions. However, it has a bigger post space
in cross section than SGR02, and may produce great dynamic
deflections under being impacted and increase vehicle snagging
danger at the post. The Gr-A-4E barrier performs poorly in
protecting errant vehicles in ROR crashes. As illustrated by

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

1227

Table 2: Comparison of cross-sectional properties and post dimensions.

Variable

W-beam/thrie-beam

Steel post

Area of
W-beam or
thrie-beam/cm2

Area of steel
post/cm2

Length of
post/cm

Buried depth
of post/cm2

Postspace/cm2

Gr-A-4E
Gr-A-2E
Gr-SB-2E

310 85 4
310 85 4
506 85 4

140 4.5
140 4.5
140 4.5

19.16
19.16
19.16

215
215
250.3

140
140
165

400
200
200

SGR02
SGR04
SGR09

312 83 3.43
312 83 3.43
506 83 3.43

S75 8.5
W150 13.5
W150 13.5

17
17
26

11
17
17

160
198
198

82.4
115.3
115.3

381
190.5
190.5

Note: Dash () indicates data not applicable or unavailable.

Figure 5: Single vehicle second collision of hitting the drainage ditch.

Figure 5, an errant vehicle broke through the roadside Wbeam barrier directly and rolled down to the bottom of the
embankment.
For the Gr-A-2E barrier, the post space is reduced to
almost half that of the Gr-A-4E for better crash performance
consideration. In reality, it employs similar W-beams and
post spaces as those of the SGR04 barrier, but the crosssectional properties are smaller. This indicates that the crash
performance of the Gr-A-2E barrier will be no better than that
of the SGR04 barrier (Source: NCHRP Report 350). Also, the
Gr-A-2E barrier may produce greater dynamic deflection during
impact compared with the SGR04 barrier, and even exceeds
900 mm in some extreme cases. Since the Gr-A-2E barrier is
used for embankments 612 m in height, it is possible that an
errant vehicle may slide underneath the roadside barrier and
roll over the embankment.
Both Gr-SB-2E and SGR09 barriers employ similar thriebeam and post space. But, the cross-sectional area of the Gr-SB2E post is bigger than that of the SGR09 post, and the material
is also different: the Gr-SB-2E is steel around the tube post
and the SGR09 has a W-section steel post. The structure of
the tube post may cause some difficulties in installing spacer
blocks. As a result, the Gr-SB-2E barrier may have a poorer crash
performance, compared with US standards, and even produce
as great as 5060 cm dynamic deflection, in some extreme
states. However, the Gr-SB-2E barrier is currently used for
1220 m high embankments in the audited Jiangxi freeways
and may not provide sufficient safety protection.
3.4. Safety improvement specification
For all three audited freeways in Jiangxi, the roadside Clear
Recovery Zone (CRZ) refers to the shoulders from the edge of the

vehicle lane to the face of the roadside/median barrier, which

should be no more than 3 m [25]. Beyond the roadside barrier,
there is generally a tall embankment, with a 1:1.5 slope and a
U-shaped drainage ditch at the bottom, or with a cut slope of
1:1.2 or less. Due to the shortage of investment, the roadside
environment is not treated seriously and, therefore, it is not
surprising to see further records of roadside related crashes at
these locations [26].
Unfortunately, the current Technical Standards for Highway Engineering pays no attention to specifications of the
roadside clear recovery zone. Trees, traffic signs, advertisement
boards or other types of roadside obstacle are extensively installed on roadside shoulders or just meters away without protection and treatment, and must be changed in the near future.
Figure 6(a) and (b) compare the CRZ treatment through removing roadside green material and keeping a sufficient mud shoulder. Obviously, this acts just as a buffer and helps reduce the
severity of ROR crashes. Figure 6(c) and (d) also give before and
after treatments of a roadside drainage ditch. Of course, such
safety improvement specification has also achieved positive results.
As shown in Figure 7(a) and (b), the guardrail is not
connected to the bridge rails very well and the concrete bridge
rail end has a gap unconnected to the barrier end. All these
gaps leave some potential dangers and may result in severe
injury if traveling vehicles hit the concrete end. Therefore, it
is strongly recommended that barriers be connected to bridge
rails by transitional segments, so as to increase the rigidity
of the roadside barrier, as shown in Figure 7(c). Even much
stronger three wave barriers are suggested for installation at
such dangerous locations as bridges and high embankments, as
shown in Figure 7(d).
According to previous research [27,28], it is found that
crashes are seven times more likely to be fatal when a vehicle
pockets or penetrates through, under, or over the barrier at the
connections to a bridge end. Therefore, appropriate connections
or transitions should be installed between roadside barriers and
bridge rails for future roadside safety improvement projects of
Jiangxi Province.
For the work zone area, the height of barriers could not
necessarily be on a rollover protective basis, due to the new
asphalt or cement concrete surface paved over old pavements.
Generally, the old barrier is removed and replaced by a new
one. It is obviously not an economic necessity. Figure 8 gives
a procedure for heightening rails by pipe bushing:
(1) A bushing pipe is riveted inside the inner steel pipe of the
rail and reaches the required height.
(2) A new steel pipe is connected with the original steel pipe of
the rail through the riveted bushing pipe.

1228

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

Figure 6: Roadside safety improvement treatments. (a) Removing trees; (b) keeping shoulders; (c) maintaining underdrain; and (d) dish drainage channel.

Figure 7: Space between bridge rail and guardrail and improvement treatments. (a) Dangerous space; (b) weak connection; (c) riveted connection; and (d) three
wave barrier on bridge or high embankment locations.

Figure 9 presents the structure of the overall bushing

system. (Figures 8 and 9 provide the procedure and structure of
heightening railings by the bushing method, based on research
findings from X. L. Zhao in his doctoral thesis Research on the
Traffic Safety Analysis and Facilities Setting in Reconstruction
and Extension Work Zone of Highways, Harbin Institute of
Technology, 2007.)

4. Conclusion
A road safety audit is a proactive and cost-effective examination or practice to identify issues employed in the
design phase or operation period that may cause potential
collisions. At required by the World Bank, a roadside safety
audit was successfully performed for three typical freeways
(Changzhang, Liwen and Taijing) in Jiangxi, China, aiming at

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

1229

Figure 8: Procedure of heightening railings by bushing method. (a) Original rail; (b) riveted bushing pipe; and (c) heighted rail by bushing pipe.

Figure 9: Structure of cable barrier column (mm). (a) Bracket structure; (b) element dimension of bracket; and (c) connection part of rail.

developing safer roadside safety design and qualitative suggestions for the Ruijin-Ganzhou Freeway (RGF) project. A total of
172 roadside related crashes are collected, including 74 single
vehicle Run-off-Road (ROR) crashes. Following a routine road
safety audit process, the safety performance of roadside and
median barriers is evaluated, compared with their US freeway
counterparts. Several critical issues are identified with recommended countermeasures.
Seriously, the importance of a safe roadside environment
is usually underemphasized in Chinese freeway design and
maintenance, and the current design is silent about the
dimension specifications of the roadside Clear Recovery Zone
(CRZ), which could not provide a sufficient buffer for roadside
crashes. Such concerns should be specified in future standard
improvements beyond grade or curvature geometrics. The
existing Gr-A-4E barrier is not strong enough in preventing
heavy trucks from ROR crashes at high embankment segments
and should be strengthened, perhaps with concrete. When
roadside and median guardrails meet bridge/structure rails,
appropriate connections and transitions should be provided.
Otherwise, the ends of bridge rails become unprotected
roadside fixed objects with potential ROR danger.
The authors believe that the subject of this paper will become an important topic that has not drawn intensive attention in the past. Further research will focus on a system design
of safety management and improvement for roadside locations
in the overall freeway system.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (No. 2011M501434). Special thanks to Dr. Laifa Xie
and other talented researchers and engineers in the Department

of Transport of Jiangxi Province and Jiangxi Research Institute of

Communications for providing crash data and the cooperation
of site visits. Here, we also wish to thank the editors of
SCIENTIA IRANICA, anonymous reviewers, and the authors of
cited papers, for their detailed suggestions, precise comments
and continuous help.
References
[1] Wang, Y.G., Chen, K.M., Hu, L.W. and Pei, Y.L. Voluntary killer: multivariate highway geometric factors contributing to crashes and collisions in Chinas mountainous regions, Technics Technologies Education
ManagementTTEM, 5(3), pp. 531543 (2010).
[2] Dixon, K., Liebler, M. and Hunter, M. Urban roadside safety: cluster-crash
evaluation, Transportation Research Record, 2120, pp. 7481 (2009).
[3] Shankar, V.N., Chayanan, S., Sittikariya, S., Shyu, M.B., Juwa, N.K. and
Milton, J.C. Marginal impacts of design, traffic, weather, and related
interactions on roadside crashes, Transportation Research Record, 1897,
pp. 156163 (2004).
[4] Tung, S.H., Wong, S.V., Law, T.H. and Umar, R.S.R. Crashes with roadside
objects along motorcycle lanes in Malaysia, International Journal of
Crashworthiness, 13(2), pp. 205210 (2008).
[5] Gabauer, D.J. and Gabler, H.C. Comparison of roadside crash injury
metrics using event data recorders, Accident Analysis and Prevention,
40(2), pp. 548558 (2008).
[6] Holdridge, J.M., Shankar, V.N. and Ulfarsson, G.F. The crash severity
impacts of fixed roadside objects, Journal of Safety Research, 36(2),
pp. 139147 (2005).
[7] Pardillo-Mayora, J.M., Dominguez-Lira, C.A. and Jurado-Pina, R. Empirical
calibration of a roadside hazardousness index for Spanish two-lane rural
roads, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(6), pp. 20182023 (2010).
[8] Jama, H.H., Grzebieta, R.H., Friswell, R. and McIntosh, A.S. Characteristics
of fatal motorcycle crashes into roadside safety barriers in Australia and
New Zealand, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(3), pp. 652660 (2011).
[9] Daniel, M. and Dana, M. Multi-criteria evaluation of crash barrier systems
types, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 4(3), pp. 108114
(2009).
[10] Porter, R.J., Mahoney, K.M. and Ullman, G.L. Placement guidance for
temporary concrete barriers in construction work zones: developed with
roadside safety analysis, Transportation Research Record, 1984, pp. 2130
(2006).

1230

Y.G. Wang et al. / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 12221230

[11] Sicking, D.L., De Albuquerque, F.D.B., Lechtenberg, K.A. and Stolle, C.S.
Guidelines for implementation of cable median barrier, Transportation
Research Record, 2120, pp. 8290 (2009).
[12] Alberson, D.C., Bligh, R.P., Buth, C.E. and Bullard Jr., D.L. Cable and
wire rope barrier design considerations: review, Transportation Research
Record, 1851, pp. 95104 (2003).
[13] Lechtenberg, K.A., Bielenberg, R.W., Rosenbaugh, S.K., Faller, R.K. and
Sicking, D.L. High-performance aesthetic bridge rail and median barrier,
Transportation Research Record, 2120, pp. 6073 (2009).
[14] Jamil, S., Aeiker, J.D. and Crow, D.R. Auditing is key, IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine, 16(1), pp. 4756 (2010).
[15] Heaslip, K., Jones, J., Harpst, T. and Bolling, D. Implementation of road
safety audit recommendations: case study in Salt Lake City, Utah,
Transportation Research Record, 2182, pp. 105112 (2010).
[16] Xie, L.F., Liao, X.F. and Wang, Z.R. Roadside safety audit for three
expressway facilities in China, IEEE 2nd International Conference on
Computing, Control and Industrial Engineering, Wuhan, China, pp. 5055
(2011).
[17] Kar, K. and Blankenship, M.R. Road safety audit: findings from
successful applications in Arizona, Transportation Research Record, 2182,
pp. 113120 (2010).
[18] Pietrucha, M.T., Pieples, T.R. and Garvey, P.M. Evaluation of pennsylvania
road safety audit pilot program, Transportation Research Record, 1734,
pp. 1220 (2000).
[19] Pikunas, A. and Pumputis, V. Road safety auditpossibility to avoid a
dangerous road section, Transport, 20(5), pp. 181185 (2005).
[20] Mahgoub, H., Skorseth, K., Marshall, R. and Selim, A. Local rural road safety
audit guidelines and case studies, Transportation Research Record, 2182,
pp. 97104 (2010).
[21] Torbic, D., Hutton, J.M., Bokenkroger, C.D., Bauer, K.M., Donnell, E.T.,
Lyon, C. and Persaud, B. Guidance on design and application of rumble
strips, Transportation Research Record, 2149, pp. 5969 (2010).
[22] Kornelija, R. Model for the substantiation of road safety improvement
measures on the roads of Lithuania, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge
Engineering, 5(2), pp. 116123 (2010).
[23] Rosey, F., Auberlet, J.M., Bertrand, J. and Plainchault, P. Impact of
perceptual treatments on lateral control during driving on crest vertical
curves: a driving simulator study, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40(4),
pp. 15131523 (2008).
[24] Zhong, X.M., Jia, J., Zhang, J. and Wang, Y.Y. Applying safety audit concept
in the pre-opening and trial operation stage of a freeway project, 10th
International Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals, Beijing,
China, vol. 382, pp. 11321142 (2010).
[25] Graham, J.L. and Harwood, D.W. Effectiveness of clear recovery zones,
Transportation Research Record, 1983, pp. 7286 (1983).

[26] Olivarez, D.R. 30-foot clear zone concept: a guide, not a standard, ITE
Journal, 58(9), pp. 4546 (1988).
[27] Sturt, R. and Fell, C. The relationship of injury risk to accident severity in
impacts with roadside barriers, International Journal of Crashworthiness,
14(2), pp. 165172 (2009).
[28] Polivka, K.A., Coon, B.A., Sicking, D.L., Faller, R.K., Bielenberg, R.W.,
Rohde, J.R. and Reid, J.D. Midwest guardrail system W-beam-to-thriebeam transition, Transportation Research Record, 2025, pp. 4550 (2007).
Yonggang Wang received his M.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the School
of Civil Engineering at the Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, China, in 2001, and
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Hydraulic Engineering at the Ocean University of
China, and in Transportation Engineering at the Harbin Institute of Technology,
China, in 2004 and 2009, respectively. He has been Assistant Professor in
the School of Highways, Changan University, China, since March 22, 2010.
He is an enrolled scientific member of ASCE and IAENG. He is editor of the
International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology and serves as
reviewer for a number of international ISI journals, such as Transport, Promet
Traffic & Transportation, etc. He is a registered engineer in Civil Engineering
in China and has published 13 SCI articles since 2010, focusing primarily on:
methodological approaches in transportation and mass rail transit planning,
and traffic accidents analysis.
Kuanmin Chen received his Ph.D. degree in Transportation Engineering
from Changan University in 2003. He is currently Professor in the School
of Highways, Changan University, Xian, China, with research interests in
transportation planning theory and methods, especially for mass rail transit.
Yusheng Ci received his Ph.D. degree in Transportation Engineering from
Harbin Institute of Technology in 2008. He has been Assistant Professor in
the School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of
Technology, China. Since 2005, he has undertaken scientific research into
Transportation Engineering, especially in the field of planning. He has published
more than 20 papers in prestigious journals and several conference proceedings
and finished several research projects, including one 863 and two NSFC
projects, etc.
Liwei Hu received his B.S. degree in Transportation Engineering from the
Faculty of Transportation Engineering at the Kunming University of Science and
Technology in 2005. He is currently a Ph.D. degree candidate at Harbin Institute
of Technology, China, and his research interests include traffic accident analysis
and evaluation, traffic simulation, etc.