CIVIL 5 SEMESTERHIGHWAY ENGINEERING

PANKAJ KUDECHA:- 130180106052PATEL MAULIK:- 120180106043CHAUDHRI DINESH:- 120180106083PARESH PARMAR :-120180106104SHARMA HARSH :- 120180106095

GUIDED BY:PRO.D.R.PATEL

GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE , DAHOD

Schedule for Adoption Final chapter reviews and Technical

Committee balloting at September 2009 meeting in Delaware

Ballot to SCOD in Fall 2009 TCRS to address SCOD ballot comments,

Sept 2010 (or sooner) Ballot to SCOH in Fall 2010 (or sooner)

2

Schedule

AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware

(MASH)

Technical Committee on Roadside Safety

33

1962: HRCS Circular 482 – one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle

for crash tests1973: NCHRP Report 153 – 16-page document, based on

technical input from 70+ individuals and agencies and a special ad-hoc panel

1978: TR Circular 191 – addressed minor issues 1980: NCHRP Report 230 – 36-page document, brought

procedures up to date with available technology and practices, updated the evaluation criteria

1993: NCHRP Report 350 – Comprehensive update of 2302009: Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH)

44

Test matrices and conditions Test installation Test vehicle specifications Evaluation criteria Test documentation In-service performance evaluation

55

Small car impact angle (20 degree to 25 degree). Impact speed for single unit truck test (80

km/h [50 mph] to 90 km/h [56 mph]).

Impact angle for terminals and crash cushions (20 degree to 25 degrees).

Gating terminal/crash cushion (Reduce angle from 15 degrees to 5 degrees).

Mid-size car test (Add 1500A test vehicle for staged impact attenuation devices).

66

Test Matrices and ConditionsTest Matrices and Conditions

Barrier Testing Heights (Establish max. for small vehicle and min. height for pickup test)

Critical Impact Points (CIPs) for reverse direction impacts

TMA optional tests to mandatory (Define max/min truck weight, control ballast shifting and vehicle braking)

Variable message sign and arrow board trailers (Require same test criteria as TMAs)

77

Support structures and work zone traffic control devices (Add light truck test in addition to the small vehicle testing criteria)

Longitudinal channelizing barricades (Add new category and recommended test matrix)

EDR data collection (Provide data on impact conditions and accelerations from vehicle)

88

Test Matrices and ConditionsTest Matrices and Conditions

Soil Condition (soil type, gradation, compaction and density)

Embedment of Posts (not necessary with reporting of soil conditions)

Components (provide documentation of components used)

Installation Lengths (document length of test installation)

99

Test vehicles (change small vehicle and pickup) Single unit truck mass (from 18000 # to 22000 #) Light truck test vehicle (Min. c.g. height of 28 inches) Vehicle age (six years older or less) Truck box attachment (limit detachment, reduce

inconclusive testing results) Vehicle damage (document external vehicle crush

damage using NASS procedures) Crushable nose characteristics (develop updated

surrogate vehicle testing from 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit) TMA support vehicle (Report maximum weight of

support vehicle)

1010

1111

Occupant risk (Modify calculations for Occupancy Impact Velocity and Ridedown Acceleration with vehicle yawing)

Windshield damage (Provides more quantitative criteria; apply criteria to structural support devices the same for work zone devices)

Occupant compartment damage (Set objective criteria) Marginal pass (Strictly pass or fail criteria results) Maximum roll angle (Roll and pitch angle at 75 degrees) Exit conditions (Report lane intrusions and exit angle

with exit box criteria) Vehicle rebound for crash cushions (reporting criteria)

1212

Encourage in-service evaluation to demonstrate satisfactory field performance.

Pool resources (partnering) between State proprietary device manufacturers.

Disseminate information through resource channels like National Technical Information Services (NTIS), FHWA regional resource centers, and State pooled fund consortiums.

Consider the establishment of new national center on in-service evaluation.

1313

Conducted several full-scale crash tests of existing hardware, including: Strong Post W-Beam System Midwest Guardrail System New Jersey Shaped Concrete Barrier F-Shape temp. concrete barrier with 3-loop

connection Iowa Transition Tangent Guardrail terminal New Jersey Shaped Concrete Barrier (32 inches),

failed TL-4 under MASH1414

All highway safety hardware accepted using criteria contained in NCHRP 350 may remain in place and may continue to be manufactured and installed.

Highway safety hardware accepted using NCHRP Report 350 criteria is not required to be retested or recertified using MASH criteria.

1515

AASHTO/FHWA Joint AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation PlanImplementation Plan

If highway safety hardware that has been accepted by FHWA using criteria contained in NCHRP Report 350 fails testing using MASH criteria, AASHTO and FHWA will jointly review the test results and determine a course of action.

Upon adoption of MASH by AASHTO, any new highway safety hardware not previously evaluated shall utilize MASH for evaluation and testing.

1616

MASH ImplementationMASH Implementation

Any new or revised highway safety hardware under development at the time the MASH is adopted may continue to be tested using the criteria in NCHRP 350.

However, FHWA will not issue acceptance letters for new or revised highway safety hardware tested using NCHRP Report 350 criteria after January 1, 2011.

1717

MASH ImplementationMASH Implementation

Agencies are encouraged to upgrade existing highway safety hardware that has not been accepted under NCHRP Report 350 or MASH: during reconstruction projects, during 3R projects, or when the system is damaged beyond repair.

1818

MASH ImplementationMASH Implementation

Highway safety hardware not accepted under NCHRP Report 350 or MASH with no suitable alternatives available may remain in place and may continue to be installed.

1919