SUMMARY CHANGES FOR

NCHRP REPORT 350

GUIDELINES
[NCHRP 22-14 (02)]

Keith A. Cota, Chairman

Technical Committee
on Roadside Safety
June 14, 2007
 BACKGROUND

• Circular 482 – (1962) – First full

scale crash test procedures
• Circular 191 – (1978)
• NCHRP Report 230 – (1980)
• NCHRP Report 350 – (1993)
• NCHRP 22-14(02) – Adoption
2007/08 ?
 350 Category Changes

• Test matrices and conditions.

• Test installation.
• Test vehicle specifications.
• Evaluation criteria.
• Test documentation.
• In-service performance evaluation.
 TEST MATRICES AND
CONDITIONS
• Small car impact angle (20 degree to 25 degree).
• Impact speed for single unit truck test (80 km/h to 90
km/h).

• Occupant risk for length-of-need tests.

• 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).
 TEST MATRICES AND
CONDITIONS (Cont’d)
• Barrier testing heights (Establish max. for small vehicle
and min. height for pickup test).
• CIP’s for terminals and redirective crash
cushions (Test CIP at barrier change from redirective to gating
or capture point) .
• 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 TMA’s) .
 TEST MATRICES AND
CONDITIONS (Cont’d)
• 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).
 TEST INSTALLATION
• 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).
 TEST VEHICLES
• Test vehicles (change small vehicle and pickup).
• Single unit truck mass (from 8000 kg to 10,000 kg).
• Light truck test vehicle (Minimum 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).
 EVALUATION CRITERIA
• 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) .
 TEST DOCUMENTATION

• CAD drawings (AutoCAD or Micro Station drawing files)

• Test report (More detailed documentation on conducted of the test
and the test results).
 IN-SERVICE EVALUATION
• 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.
 NCHRP 22-14(02)
Full Scale Crash Tests
• Strong Post W-Beam System (with 5000 #
pickup truck) – passed TL-3 test criteria
• Midwest Guardrail System (with 5000 # pickup
truck & 2400 # small vehicle) – passed TL-3 test
criteria
• New Jersey Shaped Concrete Barrier (with 2400
# small vehicle) – passed TL-3 test criteria
• F-Shape temp. concrete barrier with 3-loop
connection (with 5000 # pickup truck) – passed
TL-3 criteria
 NCHRP 22-14(02)
Full Scale Crash Tests, Con’t
• Iowa Transition (with 5000 # pickup
truck) – passed TL-3 criteria
• Tangent Guardrail terminal (with 2400 #
sedan) – passed TL-3 criteria
• New Jersey Shaped Concrete Barrier (32
inches) (with 10,000 kg single unit truck)
– did not pass TL-4 criteria
Old vs. New
W-Beam Guardrail
Midwest Guardrail System
 Evaluation of 25° Impact Angle
w/MGS Guardrail Mounted at 32”
 AASHTO/FHWA
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

DRAFT
 Draft AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan for the
Manual for Evaluating the Safety-Performance of Highway
Features, 2007
Background

NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance

Performance Evaluation of Highway Features
contains the existing guidelines for evaluating the safety performance
performance of highway features, such as
longitudinal barriers, terminals, crash cushions, work zone elements,
elements, and breakaway structures. This
document was published in 1993 and was formally adopted as the national
national standard by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) later that year with an implementation
implementation date of late 1998.

Officials (AASHTO) created a Task Force on

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
NCHRP 350 Implementation and in July 1998, AASHTO and FHWA agreed agreed that most types of safety
features installed along the National Highway System must meet the
the safety-
safety-performance evaluation
criteria contained in NCHRP Report 350.
350. One outcome of these task force efforts was the
recommendation that AASHTO play a stronger role in the future development,
development, approval, and maintenance
of the evaluation procedures. The process of accepting hardware under NCHRP Report 350 on the
National Highway System has been undertaken by FHWA. AASHTO, through through its Technical Committee on
Roadside Safety, has undertaken the role of establishing and updating
updating the evaluation criteria.

Safety-Performance of Highway Features 2007 (MESPHF 2007)

The draft AASHTO Manual for Evaluating the Safety- 2007)
has been developed under NCHRP Project 22- 22-14(02), "Improvement of Procedures for the Safety-
Safety-
Performance Evaluation of Roadside Features." MESPHF 2007 contains revised criteria for safety-
safety-
performance evaluation of virtually all highway safety features, based primarily on changes in the vehicle
fleet, and will replace NCHRP Report 350.
350.

Requirements in Section 1408 of SAFETEA-

SAFETEA-LU state that “The Secretary, in cooperation with the Association
[i.e., AASHTO], shall publish updated guidance regarding the conditions
conditions under which States, when
choosing to improve or replace highway features on the National Highway System, should improve or
replace such features…”
features…”..
 Implementation Plan
Implementation of the MESPHF 2007 on the
National Highway System will be as follows:

• The AASHTO Technical Committee on

Roadside Safety is responsible for
developing and maintaining the evaluation
criteria as adopted by AASHTO. FHWA shall
continue its role in the review and
acceptance of highway safety hardware.
Implementation Plan, Con’t

• All highway safety hardware

accepted prior to adoption of
MESPHF 2007 using criteria
contained in NCHRP Report 350
may remain in place and may
continue to be manufactured and
installed.
Implementation Plan, Con’t

• Upon adoption of MESPHF

2007 by AASHTO, any new
highway safety hardware not
previously evaluated shall
utilize MESPHF 2007 for
evaluation and testing.
Implementation Plan, Con’t
• Any new or revised highway safety
hardware under development at
the time the MESPHF 2007 is
adopted may continue to be tested
using the criteria in NCHRP Report
350. However, FHWA will not issue
acceptance letters for new or
revised highway safety hardware
tested using NCHRP Report 350
criteria after January 1, 2010.
Implementation Plan, Con’t

• Highway safety hardware

installed on new construction
and reconstruction projects
shall be those accepted under
NCHRP Report 350 or MESPHF
2007.
Implementation Plan, Con’t

• Agencies are encouraged to

upgrade existing highway safety
hardware that has not been
accepted under NCHRP Report 350
or MESPHF 2007:
o during reconstruction projects,
o during 3R projects, or
o when the system is damaged beyond repair.
Implementation Plan, Con’t

• Highway safety hardware not

accepted under NCHRP Report
350 or MESPHF 2007 with no
suitable alternatives available
may remain in place and may
continue to be installed.
TCRS Schedule for Adoption
• TCRS met on May 15 & 16, in Woods Hole, MA to
review final draft document from NCHRP 22-
14(02) panel & finalize “Draft Implementation
Plan” with FHWA;
• Ballot of TCRS results to be completed by July 15,
2007;
• Ballot to SCOD in Summer of 2007; TCRS to
review results at Sept. 2007 TCRS meeting in
Seattle, Wash;
• Ballot to SCOH in Winter of 2007/08;
• Complete NCHRP 22-14(03) with additional full
scale crash testing of non-proprietary devices
using the new criteria (Completion in 2008/09).
CONTACT INFORMATION

Keith A. Cota, Chairman

AASHTO – Technical Committee on Roadside
Safety
New Hampshire DOT
Hazen Drive, PO Box 483
Concord, NH 03302-0483
Tel: 603-271-1615
Email: kcota@dot.state.nh.us