|
Accident
Reconstruction Network > Research >Guardrails > News Articles
Accident reconstruction research
Effects
of Presence of Light Poles on Vehicle Impact of Roadside Barriers
by James Kennedy
(Battelle Memorial Institute, 505 W. King Ave., Columbas,OH 43201-2693)(Aug
1995).
[TD 100: OH 95-17]
This report evalutes whether the presence of light poles immediately
behind guardrails reduces safety. The conclusion is that it does
not.
When light
poles are installed within the deflection zone of guardrails, they
may influence the ability of the guardrail to redirect an impacting
vehicle safely. Although most highway light poles are designed to
"break away upon impact," insufficient data exist to verify that
as a vehicle deflects a guardrail into a light pole, the light pole
breaks away effectively.
A concern is
that light poles may act in a manner similar to bridge abutments.
There is evidence that in crash situations where the vehicle pushes
the guardrail into the abutment, it generally pivots about the relatively
rigid abutment and is injected back into the traffic stream in an
uncontrolled, unsafe manner (for example, spinning). While the size,
mass, and stiffness properties of a light pole are much different
than a bridge abutment, they may be sufficient to degrade the redirecting
performance of the guardrail.
If light poles
have an adverse effect on the performance of guardrails, then significant
and costly modifications and replacements may need to be made to
existing barriers and light poles. Required actions could include
moving existing light poles out of the deflection zone of the guardrail,
stiffening the guardrails to reduce their maximum deflections (which
in turn could degrade their redirecting performance), retrofitting
existing light poles with new, more frangible bases, and replacing
entire light pole assemblies.
To shed light
on these concerns, particularly safety and potential costs, the
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in conjunction with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) authorized a project that
included full-scale testing and limited modeling to assess if and
how existing light pole designs affect the redirecting performance
of guardrails under vehicle impact conditions.
Four pickup
truck-style (2000P) vehicles were impacted at an angle of 25 degrees
and a speed of 100 km/h (60 mph) into a guardrail/light pole system
typically employed in Ohio. All tests conformed to the requirement
of NCHRP Report 350. The location of the impact position relative
to the position of the light pole along the guardrail length of
need varied according to the specific requirement of each test.
None of the impact scenarios resulted in snagging of the 2000P vehicle
with the guardrail/light pole. Additionally, the 2000P vehicles
showed no tendency to pitch, roll, ramp, or vault throughout contact
and exit with the guardrail as a result of the impact. However,
excessive exit angles were observed in three of the four 2000P vehicle
field tests.
Two small cars
(820C) were also impacted into the guardrail/light pole system at
an angle of 20 degrees and a speed of 100 km/h, which is consistent
with the requirements of NCHRP Report 350. Neither of these tests
indicated a tendency for snagging of the 820C vehicle with the guardrail/light
pole system as a result of impact. It can therefore be concluded
that for the vehicle type tested, the guard/light pole system typically
used in Ohio does not cause snagging and/or subsequent unstable
motion of the vehicle due to impact. The vehicles (both 820C and
2000P) exited the guardrail in a stable manner after impact.
From the results
of the project, no changes in the arrangement of light poles behind
the Type 5 guardrail is recommended. The redirecting function of
the guardrail was not compromised as a result of placement of the
light pole behind the guardrail. The field tests and computer model
results indicated that the redirecting function was for placement
of the light pole at various distances from the impact point. The
field tests also indicated that the functional integrity of the
guardrail was maintained for both base designs ("X" and "A") prominent
in field usage in Ohio.
An evaluation
of excessive exit angle situations that occurred in three out of
the four field tests involving the 2000P vehicle may be warranted.
However the guidelines in NCHRP Report 350 regarding exit angle
values are based on impact of the vehicle with the barrier and not
the barrier and the light pole. Therefore this situation must be
considered when judging the behavior of the system regarding exit
angle values. Also the exit angle values from these three tests
should be viewed considering the fact that the impact conditions
employed for these tests were extreme, and the likelihood of this
situation occurring under everyday highway usage may be small.
|