Cody S. Stolle, Ph.D.
Ronald K. Faller, Ph.D.
Joshua S. Steelman, Ph.D.
Date of this Version
Hinojosa, M.A., MASH 2016 Test Level 3 and Test Level 4 Evaluation of Roadside Safety Barrier with Pedestrian Features, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, April 23, 2021.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) desires to use a vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian combination bridge railing system along pedestrian and bicycle bridge paths. The system was evaluated per MASH 2016.
In full-scale crash test no. MNPD-3, the system was evaluated according to MASH test designation no. 3-11. The 2014 Dodge Ram 1500 crew cab pickup truck impacted the system 71¼ in. upstream from the centerline of post no. 4 with a speed of 63.4 mph at an angle of 25.3 degrees. The combination railing system was found to meet the AASHTO MASH 2016 TL-3 impact safety criteria.
MnDOT uses a combination bridge railing system that consisted of a 21-in. tall concrete parapet with a 6-in. tall and 2-in. wide brush curb at the lower front face and eight rail and post assemblies. The system was evaluated per MASH 2016.
In full-scale crash test nos. MNCBR-1, MNCBR-2, and MNCBR-3. The 2013 International Durastar 4300 SBA single-unit truck impacted the system 60⅛ in. upstream from the centerline of the splice between post nos. 6 and 7 with a speed of 57.4 mph at an angle of 15.4 degrees. The 2014 Dodge Ram 1500 crew cab pickup truck impacted the system 69.9 in. upstream from the centerline of post no. 23 with a speed of 63.9 mph at an angle of 25.1 degrees. The 2009 Kia Rio small car impacted the system 70⁷∕₁₆ in. upstream from the centerline of post no. 23 with a speed of 62.5 mph at an angle of 25.5 degrees. The combination bridge railing system was found to meet the AASHTO MASH 2016 TL-4 impact safety criteria.
Two full system simulation models were developed to facilitate future research. Both TL-4-12 and 4-11 simulation model results were compared to the full-scale crash tests MNCBR-1 and MNCBR-2 data. The results observed during the comparison process were deemed to be reasonable within the parameters observed in testing with the exception of the pickup model’s roll.
Advisor: Cody Stolle