Renewable hybrid roadside barrier: Optimization of timber thickness

Abstract

Researchers have recently focused on new and original roadside barriers that prioritize aesthetic, and environmental concerns by employing natural materials. In this study, the safety performance (Acceleration Severity Index (ASI), Theorical Head Impact Velocity (THIV)), structural performance (Working Width (W), Exit Angle (α)), and failure analysis (visual deformation) of a newly developed Renewable Hybrid Barrier (RHB) system at different timber thicknesses were tried to be determined by pendulum crash test and Finite Element (FE) models. The FE models were calibrated and validated based on pendulum crash test results, and then the most suitable timber thickness in terms of safety and structural performance was determined via FE analyses. The results revealed that as the timber thickness decreased, the safety parameters, such as ASI and THIV, decreased, thus the barrier safety increased. However, it was observed that the deflection and deformations in the barrier increased as the timber thickness decreased. In this sense, the safest and the most structurally durable barrier was determined through conducting virtual optimization tests. Studies on diversification of the usage areas of natural/renewable materials should be increased in the future.

Full Article

Renewable Hybrid Roadside Barrier: Optimization of Timber Thickness

Huseyin Yorur,^a Sedat Ozcanan,^b Halil Ibrahim Yumrutas,^c,* and Emre Birinci ^d

Researchers have recently focused on new and original roadside barriers that prioritize aesthetic, and environmental concerns by employing natural materials. In this study, the safety performance (Acceleration Severity Index (ASI), Theorical Head Impact Velocity (THIV)), structural performance (Working Width (W), Exit Angle (α)), and failure analysis (visual deformation) of a newly developed Renewable Hybrid Barrier (RHB) system at different timber thicknesses were tried to be determined by pendulum crash test and Finite Element (FE) models. The FE models were calibrated and validated based on pendulum crash test results, and then the most suitable timber thickness in terms of safety and structural performance was determined via FE analyses. The results revealed that as the timber thickness decreased, the safety parameters, such as ASI and THIV, decreased, thus the barrier safety increased. However, it was observed that the deflection and deformations in the barrier increased as the timber thickness decreased. In this sense, the safest and the most structurally durable barrier was determined through conducting virtual optimization tests. Studies on diversification of the usage areas of natural/renewable materials should be increased in the future.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.18.1.804-826

Keywords: Timber; Wood material; Renewable material; Natural material; Wood mechanic; Numerical analysis

Contact information: a: Department of Wood Industry Engineering, Karabuk University, Box 78050, Karabuk, Turkey; b: Department of Civil Engineering, Sirnak University, Box 73000, Sirnak, Turkey; c: Department of Civil Engineering, Karabuk University, Box 78050, Karabuk, Turkey; d: Department of Forestry and Forest Products, Kastamonu University, Box 37000, Kastamonu, Turkey;

* Corresponding author: iyumrutas@karabuk.edu.tr

INTRODUCTION

One of the problems related to the increase in mobilization, especially in developing countries, is ensuring roadside traffic safety. To prevent or reduce the problems caused by traffic accidents, highway and traffic engineers make intense efforts and offer different solutions (Wright 1983; Roque et al. 2015; Ramiani and Shirazian 2020; Yumrutaş and Othman Ali 2022).

One of the solutions that serve this purpose is road restraint systems placed on the roadsides. There are various road restraint systems that are designated to redirect errant vehicles with a specified performance level and can provide guidance for risky/vulnerable roadsides such as sidewalks, bus stops, playgrounds, and petrol stations. These systems are guardrails, bollard systems, ditches, berms, fences, walls, planters, blockers, etc. They can be produced using different materials to serve different purposes. However, research studies have generally focused on the barrier types made of conventional materials such as concrete and steel. For this reason, steel guardrails, New Jersey concrete barriers, and cable barriers can be counted as barrier types that are generally accepted and frequently encountered in practice.

A few studies in the literature have focused on the use of only timber barriers or the reinforcement of timber barriers with steel or fiber additives (Lohrey et al. 1997; Ad 1999; Zhang et al. 2004, 2006; Bocchio et al. 2001; Leijten 2000, 2001; Davids et al. 2006; Kubojima et al. 2006; Watts and Morgan 2007; Faller et al. 2009; Marzougui et al. 2010; Wacker et al. 2010; Goubel et al. 2011; Cecháková et al. 2012; Pilia et al. 2012; Borovinšek et al. 2013; Bielenberg et al. 2014; Pilia and Maltinti 2014; Noda et al. 2016; van de Kuilen 2019).

Limited studies on new barrier types produced from innovative materials are available. Muller and Majerus (2002) explored the potential of recycled plastic bottles for use in roadside barriers and evaluated the effectiveness of the new barrier system employing computer software to reach the optimal solution. Amato et al. (2011) developed a new barrier type using low-cost building materials (stone and soil) to meet cost, aesthetic, and engineering requirements. The design consisted of linked steel gabions filled with stones, a type of structure generally used as a retaining wall but with different linkages. They observed the performance via real and virtual experiments. Anderson et al. (2012) added a flexible fabric material below the conventional guard rail and in front of the posts to provide a continuous protection system, especially for motorcyclists. They compared before and after crash statistics at a selected site and observed the contribution of the new material to existing guardrails in terms of performance. Atahan et al. (2002) manufactured guardrail posts from recycled materials and evaluated them for possible use in conventional steel guardrail systems. Static laboratory tests were conducted to determine the basic physical and mechanical properties of posts, and pendulum impact tests were performed to determine the dynamic response performance of the posts.

Recently, Yumrutaş et al. (2021) developed an innovative roadside barrier called “renewable hybrid barrier” (RHB) employing wood and sand material together. They conducted experimental pendulum crash tests and virtual tests to evaluate the efficiency of the novel barrier type. The results were successful for possible future novel barrier types. Yumrutaş and Ali (2022) developed renewable hybrid barriers using waste materials (slag and tyre). In this regard, they conducted pendulum crash tests to assess the performance considering the EN 1317 (2010) road restraint systems standard. The results indicated that hybrid barriers made of waste materials can be alternative to conventional barriers in terms of cost, environment, and aesthetics.

In this study, performance analyses for the normal (N2) containment level of wood material thickness in the renewable hybrid barrier (RHB) system, which was originally produced by Yumrutaş et al. (2021) using wood and sand, were revealed by virtual tests. In this context, verification and validation processes were completed based on the previous pendulum crash test data. After the model was verified, virtual full-scale tests based on the finite element method were applied for the TB 11 and TB 32 acceptance tests in line with the EN 1317 (2010) standard. The effects of timber thicknesses on the crash performance of RHBs were observed by considering the Acceleration Severity Index (ASI), Theoretical Head Impact Velocity (THIV), Working width (W), Exit angle (α)/exit box, and failure (visual deformation) parameters, and then the optimal timber thickness was determined.

EXPERIMENTAL

The Design of Renewable Hybrid Barrier

Renewable Hybrid Barriers (RHBs) comprise four main elements: timber, sand, concrete base, and steel frame. The concrete base is designed to separate timber materials from rainwater on the road platform. It is produced with C 30/37 grade cast in-situ concrete with the dimensions depicted in Fig. 1. The male and female parts enable interlocking with adjacent barriers, thus resisting impact energy together.

Fig. 1. Concrete base; all units are in mm

The steel frame that was made of S 235-grade rectangular section steel tube profile with 40 × 20 × 3 mm³ dimensions was used to fix timbers on it with screws and to give an F-shape form of RHBs (Fig. 2). They were inserted into the holes on the concrete base.

Fig. 2. Steel frame and the dimensions; all units are in mm

Wooden materials were produced from fir timbers (Abies nordmanniana subsp. equi-trojani) with thickness of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 cm. The half-lap method was applied to the joints of wooden timbers.

The main purpose of using sand in the design of RHBs is to benefit from the high energy absorption capacity of sand (Lambert et al. 2009; Sabet et al. 2009; Ho et al. 2013; Sy Ho and Masuya 2013; Bhatti 2015; Chian et al. 2017) and to diminish the cost. Crushed stone sand 0 to 5 mm in dimensions was not filled inside RHBs directly but first filled into the bags and then placed in the RHBs from the bottom level to the top. In this way, scattering pieces of the sand could be prevented after any accident, thus preventing a probable subsequent accident.

For each crash test, 3 RHBs were employed, and the finished product is presented in Figure 3 with the dimensions (Yumrutaş et al. 2021).

Fig. 3. The finished product of RHB; all units are in mm

Design and Concept of the Crash Pendulum System

The crash pendulum system includes a rigid frame, rammer, crane, and chains to suspend the rammer (Fig. 4). The pendulum rammer was lifted to a certain height with the help of a crane and released for free fall to generate the same energy for each experiment.

Fig. 4. Crash pendulum system (Yumrutaş et al. 2021)

The work of the pendulum system depends on the rule of preservation of energy. In position 1 the rammer has potential energy, and after release, it is converted to kinetic energy in position 2. Then it crashes into the barrier system with this energy. In this pendulum system, the rammer was lifted to 1.73 m height and generated 25.5 kJ energy for every test cycle (Yumrutaş et al. 2021).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Process

There are various standards that can be used to assess the crash performance of vehicle barrier types, such as Road Restraint Systems standard EN 1317 (2010), Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH 2016), Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features (Ross et al. 1993), Roadside Design Guide (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2006), Standard test method for crash testing of vehicle security barriers (ASTM F2656 (2015), Impact test specifications for vehicle security barrier systems (BSI PAS 68 (2013), Vehicle security barriers (IWA 14 (2013), Road safety barrier systems (AS/NZS 3845 (1999), etc. In this study, EN 1317 (2010) Road Restraint Systems instructions were determined for optimization studies. The next step was the design of the RHBs and the design of the experimental crash pendulum system (Yumrutaş et al. 2021). The crash pendulum experiments provided verification data for virtual pendulum tests and a validation process for virtual full-scale crash tests was conducted. The last step was the optimization study to obtain the most suitable timber thickness resisting and absorbing the vehicle crash energy in terms of safety and structural performance, as well as cost. Figure 5 explains the research process step by step.

Fig. 5. Research process

Performance Metrics

The output assessment of the RHBs was controlled in accordance with EN 1317 (2010) Road Restraint Systems standard. This standard presents test techniques and impact test acceptance criteria that any barrier system needs to provide. The following performance criteria shall be met to restrain road vehicles (EN1317 (2010):

• The containment level;
• The acceleration severity index (ASI) and theoretical head impact velocity (THIV);
• The displacement as defined by the working width (W)

Road restraint systems shall meet the crash test requirements expressed in Table 1 and shall meet the requirements of Table 2 when tested following the impact test criteria presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Vehicle Impact Test Descriptions (EN1317 2010))

Table 2. Containment Levels (EN1317 (2010))

Because of their aesthetic view, there was a need for RHBs, particularly for scenic mountainous, touristic, and historical roadsides that have low traffic volume and are utilized predominantly by light vehicles. For this reason, TB 11 and TB 32 acceptance tests for N2 containment level were performed.

EN 1317 (2010) describes the ASI as a “measure of the severity of the motion for a person within a vehicle during an impact with a road restraint system” and the W as “the lateral distance between any part of the barrier on the not deformed traffic side and the maximum dynamic position of any part of the barrier.” The THIV idea was created to assess occupant impact severity for vehicles involved in crashes with barrier systems. These are basic qualities to demonstrate the productivity of road restraint systems. A barrier’s efficiency to keep the errant vehicle on the road platform decreases with the increased working width, so it should be within satisfactory cut-off points determined in standards. The ASI value is one of the signs of traveller security in the vehicle because of any impact with the barrier. The size of the speed of the THIV is a sign of the vehicle-to-restraint system impact severity. In this way, the ASI is determined by Eq. 1, and the THIV is determined by Eq. 2,

(1)

where _x(t) is the maximum acceleration in x direction (m/s²), _y(t) is the maximum acceleration in y direction (m/s²), and _z(t) is the maximum acceleration in z direction (m/s²). Equation 2 for theoretical head impact velocity (THIV, km/s) is as follows,

(2)

Where V_x (t) is the impact velocity of the head along x direction (km/s), and V_y (t) is the impact velocity of the head along y direction (km/s).

The limit values of ASI and THIV safety parameters are given in Table 3. For assessing the safety performance of RHB, the following parameters were used.

Table 3. Impact Severity Levels (EN 1317 (2010))

Two metrics were used to observe structural performance. These are W and exit box/exit angle (α). Working width limits in EN 1317 (2010) are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Working Width Levels (EN 1317 (2010)

Exit box criteria shall be considered in virtual full-scale tests. The errant vehicle behavior after any accident shall be exceptionally critical and essential. An effective guardrail is supposed to put back the errant vehicle to pass over or supposed to redirect to the road platform at a small angle. In this way, a second probable car crash because of the errant vehicle that passes over the guardrail to the opposite lane or redirects back to the center of the initial traffic lanes can be prevented. The exit box can be determined with A and B values as shown in Table 5 and as illustrated in Fig. 6.

Table 5. Distance for Exit Box Criterion (EN 1317 (2010))

Fig. 6. The visual explanation of exit box concept (EN 1317 (2010))

Additionally, failure analysis needs to be observed by visual inspection. Finally, relative absolute error (RAE) metric was performed to verify and correctly control of the simulation results with the pendulum test results, taking into account Eq. 3,

(3)

where y_p and y_s are the pendulum result and the simulation result, respectively.

In this study, virtual tests were employed by experimentally verified data considering the performance metrics of related standards.

VIRTUAL TESTS

Roadside barriers (bollard systems) must undergo full-scale crash tests that have high costs and long processes to test their safety and structural performance. However, the performance of roadside barriers (bollard systems) can be simulated by finite element (FE) analyses more quickly, reliably, and economically than real tests (Apak 2019). The modelling and simulation of traffic accidents improved considerably, allowing researchers to model and analyze the performance of roadside barriers. Therefore, FE analyses have become an important tool to analyze roadside barriers with cost-effective solutions (Atahan and Cansiz 2005; Atahan 2006, 2010; Atahan et al. 2014). In this regard, LS-DYNA finite element simulation software that is used primarily in dynamic crashworthiness analysis was effectively applied in many studies (Wright and Ray 1996; Eskandarian et al. 1997; Ray 1997; Plaxico et al. 1998; Uddin and Hackett 1999; Atahan 2002, 2006; Tiso et al. 2002; Kirkpatrick et al. 2003; Bligh et al. 2004; Reid 2004; Whitworth et al. 2004; Wu and Thomson 2004; Griškevičius et al. 2007; Vesenjak et al. 2007; Tabacu and Pandrea 2008; Štych 2010; Ferdous et al. 2011; Amato et al. 2013; Borovinšek et al. 2013; Neuenhaus et al. 2013; Mirdamadi 2014; Mojdeh 2015; Teng et al. 2016; Yin et al. 2016; Soltani et al. 2017; Tabiei and Wu 2000, 2020; Baranowski and Damaziak 2021; Apak et al. 2022) and also will be applied in this study. Pendulum crash tests have also been conducted widely in the literature to verify and validate the virtual simulation tests (Gatchell and Michie 1974; Bank and Gentry 2001; Frp et al. 2001; Atahan et al. 2002; Mitchell et al. 2006; Atahan and Sevim 2008; Faller et al. 2009; Marzougui 2009; Ucar and Cengiz 2012; Kuilen 2019; Luo et al. 2020).

Verification Process of the Virtual Pendulum Test System

The experimental pendulum tests data used for verification was provided from the study by Yumrutaş et al. (2021). The wooden materials (timbers) of 2 and 4 cm in thickness were evaluated by crash pendulum tests. The results were employed for the verification process of virtual pendulum tests. Figure 7 shows the pendulum system and the FE models that were used for verification.

Fig. 7. (A) Pendulum system and (B) its FE model

The pendulum crash tests and virtual full-scale tests for TB 11 and TB 32 acceptance criteria were conducted considering the experiment matrix in Table 6.

Table 6. Experiment Matrix

Validation Process of Virtual Full-scale Crash Tests

Virtual full-scale tests were completed as TB 11 and TB 32 acceptance tests for N2 containment level using Ls-Dyna (Livermore Software Technology, Version R12.1.0, Livermore, CA, USA) simulation software. The sufficient barrier length was determined as 25 m to be able to observe the collaborative crash-resistant behavior of the RHBs and to observe the trajectory of the car on the road platform after any accident.

In this study, considering the TB 11 and TB 32 acceptance tests for N2 containment level, 900 kg, and 1500 kg in weight passenger car model that was validated by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was utilized as presented in Fig. 8 (NHTSA 2008). The original model was 900 kg, and the 1500 kg vehicle was adjusted to 1500 kg with the help of defined mass points (MassD) in the original model.

Fig. 8. The virtual passenger car validated by NHTSA 900 and 1500 kg in weight (NHTSA 2008)

The first grade (first quality) fir timbers were used. Consistent with the experimental data, input parameters of LS-DYNA were specified for the timber elements as follows. The moisture content of the timbers are % 8, bending strength is 72,92 N/mm², modulus of elasticity is 9691,27 N/mm², tensile strength parallel to fibers is 51.84 N/mm², compressive strength parallel to fibers is 51.29 N/mm², air dry density is 0.57 gr/cm³.

The exit box was determined as given in Table 7 and by utilizing the dimensions of the validated vehicle model, which was 3.75 m in length and 1.56 m in width (Fig. 9). According to the exit box, the maximum exit angle was calculated as approximately 24°, assuming that the crashed vehicle leaves within the short side of the exit box.

Fig. 9. The exit box boundaries for validated passenger car

RESULTS

The system had enough structural capacity to withstand the impact of the test vehicle and absorb the impact energy. In addition, the system also was able to contain and redirect the vehicle to the desired exit box boundaries. However, this study aimed to find the optimum timber thickness to attain the safest and the most cost-effective solution.

Real-Time/Virtual Pendulum Test Results

The real-time pendulum test results (Yumrutaş et al. 2021) were checked against the virtual pendulum model results for accurate verification.

Fig. 10. The visual deformation results of real-time and virtual pendulum tests: a) 2 cm timber in thickness, b) 4 cm timber in thickness

In Fig. 10, the visual results obtained from the real-time pendulum test were checked against the virtual pendulum results and similar deformations occurred on the traffic face and no deformation occurred on the back face of the RHBs.

Through employing deceleration and W values, a quantitative verification was also conducted in addition to this qualitative verification. The RAE evaluation in Table 7 exhibits acceptable values for accurate verification. Therefore, the virtual results revealed consistency with the real-time pendulum test results and within the acceptable limits according to the standard, EN 16303 (2020). This means that virtual models verified with the help of results from the real-time pendulum tests can be used for the validation process of full-scale virtual crash models.

Table 7. Comparison of Real Time and Virtual Pendulum Test Results

The consistency of the real-time pendulum tests with the virtual pendulum tests based on timing is depicted in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. The consistency of real-time and virtual pendulum tests results depending on the timing:

(a) 2 cm in timber thickness, (b) 4 cm in timber thickness

After verification of the virtual pendulum model, the validation process of the full-scale crash for TB 11 and TB 32 acceptance tests was conducted.

Safety Performance of RHBs from Virtual Full-scale TB 11 Tests Results

The test in which a barrier safety is measured in the EN 1317 (2010) standard is TB 11. With this test, safety parameters, such as ASI and THIV, are measured. Therefore, in this study, the ASI and THIV values obtained for different timber thicknesses as a result of the TB 11 tests performed for RHB are presented in Table 8. Accordingly, ASI and THIV values increased as the wood thickness increased.

Table 8. Quantitative Performance Values for Virtual Full-scale TB 11 Test

In addition, the ASI comparison for all timber thicknesses is given in Fig. 12. The ASI values demonstrated that RHBs, which were produced with 2, 4, 6, and 8 cm timber in thicknesses, are safer with B class ASI value than the ones which were produced with 10 cm timber in thickness with C class ASI value. However, all of them met the required performance criteria specified in EN 1317 (2010). It was also observed (Table 8) that THIV values were lower than the limit value given in EN 1317 (2010).

Fig. 12. Comparison of ASI values of RHBs with different timber thicknesses

In addition to the quantitative comparisons given above, a visual comparison of RHBs of different timber thicknesses is depicted in Fig. 13. Results show that the heights of the vehicles after crashing were different. The higher the vehicles and the greater the displacement, the lower the ASI value will be due to this flexibility. It was understood that as the timber thickness increased, the ASI values increased undesirably due to the increase in the barrier mass and its more rigid behavior.

Fig. 13. A visual comparison of ASI and THIV values of RHBs with TB 11 tests

Structural Performance of RHBs from Virtual Full-scale TB 32 Tests Results

For N2 level in the EN 1317 (2010) standard, the test in which the barrier structural performance is determined is TB 32. The barrier’s W and α values are the criteria that determine the barrier’s structural performance. The results obtained in the test for barriers with different timber thicknesses are presented in Table 9. The table indicated that, as the timber thicknesses increased, the W decreased due to the increase in the barrier mass. The exit angle values remain almost the same for all timber thicknesses, much smaller than the maximum exit angle of 24° calculated for the specified exit box.

Table 9. Quantitative Performance Values for Virtual Full-scale TB 32 Test

In addition to the quantitative performance (W, α) values, qualitative performance results were obtained and are presented in Fig. 14.

Fig. 14. Qualitative comparison of the TB 32 with W and α values

When the results for TB 32 tests were examined, the RHBs for all timber thicknesses were similar but exhibited different deflections during the crash of the vehicle and provided the same W value as W3 class. Thereafter, the vehicle stopped and stayed within the exit box boundaries for all RHBs with different timber thicknesses. These results proved the success of all timber thicknesses to contain and redirect the errant vehicles in the desired trajectories, which is nearly parallel to the barrier. Results also proved that the timber thicknesses did not allow vehicles to pass over the barriers.

Failure Analysis of RHBs from TB 11 and TB 32 Tests Results

Each of the RHBs was produced 1.25 m in length and the sufficient total barrier length was determined as 25 m in virtual tests. This allowed observation of the collaborative crash-resistant behavior of the RHBs. The virtual failure analysis results of TB 11 and TB 32 tests are presented in Table 10. For both tests, deformation (cracks) occurred only at timber thicknesses of 2 and 4 cm. However, no disruption of integrity in the whole barrier system for all thicknesses was observed. The deformations on the surface of each RHBs are indicated in Fig. 15.

Table 10. Failure Analysis of RHB

As can be seen in Fig. 15, deformations occurred more prominently in the TB 32 test due to the vehicle mass and speed, but as in the TB 11 test, deformations occurred only in RHBs with 2 and 4 cm timber thicknesses. As a result, it was understood that the critical thickness of the timber in terms of deformation resistance was 6 cm.

Fig. 15. TB 11 and TB 32 test performance of the RHB and timber failure

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the safety performance (ASI, THIV), structural performance (working width W, and exit angle α), and failure analysis (visual deformation) of a newly developed F-shape type renewable hybrid barrier (RHB) system at different timber thicknesses were tested via pendulum test and finite element (FE) models. The FE models were calibrated and validated based on pendulum test results, and then the most suitable timber thickness in terms of safety and structural performance was tested with the help of FE analyses. As a result of the study, the following outputs were achieved:

1. As a result of TB 11 tests, the safest timber thickness numerically was determined as 2 cm. As the timber thickness increased, the safety parameters, such as ASI and THIV, increased, thus decreasing the barrier safety. The ASI value falls within the same range (B) for RHBs up to 8 cm timber thickness. The THIV value meets the EN 1317 (2010) requirements in all timber thicknesses.
2. As a result of TB 32 tests, the W value of all timber thicknesses remained within the W3 level of EN 1317 (2010). This showed that the thickness of the timber has little effect on the W value. At the same time, the small α values ​​confirmed that the crashing vehicle left the barrier in a way that would not pose a traffic hazard and that it met the EN 1317 (2010) requirements.
3. As a result of TB 11 and TB 32 tests, deformations were observed in RHBs only 2 and 4 cm in thickness. In the impact, only the timbers were damaged, depending on the thickness; however any damage was not possible for the sand material. It is obvious that the main material affecting the performance of RHBs is sand, and the cost of sand is low, thus diminishing the total barrier cost.
4. When the results are examined, it is understood that the timber thicknesses in the RHBs have little effect on the ASI and W values​​. In the light of the ASI, THIV, W, α, and deformation values ​​obtained as a result of the TB 11 and TB 32 tests, the most suitable RHB timber thickness should be around 6 cm; however, the most suitable thickness will be 2 cm in terms of safety and cost without considering the deformation after any collision.
5. In this study, dry crushed stone sand, 0 to 5 mm in dimensions, was used. However, the effect of physical parameters of sand (dimensions, shape, density, and water content) on crash performance parameters should be researched in future studies.
6. It is highly recommended to consider more research in this field with various shapes and various waste materials as filling materials to improve the severity levels of RHBs.
7. Wooden barrier types in the literature are not widely used in practice due to high costs. In the production of renewable hybrid barriers, the cost was reduced due to the use of sand in addition to wood, and it is supposed to be much more applicable than its similar alternatives.
8. Enriching the usage areas of wood and wood-based materials instead of materials with higher greenhouse gas emissions in their production will contribute to reducing global warming.
9. In future studies, different types of wooden materials can be employed instead of fir timber and additionally the effect of heat treatment and impregnation process on the performance and thickness can be observed.

This research contributes to developing novel barrier types as an alternative to traditional steel and concrete materials as an aesthetic and environmentally friendly solution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) with the project number 118M753.

REFERENCES CITED

AASHTO (2006). Roadside Design Guide, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA.

Amato, G., O’Brien, F., Ghosh, B., and Simms, C. K. (2013). “Multibody modelling of a TB31 and a TB32 crash test with vertical portable concrete barriers: Model verification and sensitivity analysis,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: Journal of Multi-body Dynamics 227(3), 245-260. DOI: 10.1177/1464419313485235

Amato, G., O’Brien, F., Simms, C., and Ghosh, B. (2011). “Development of roadside safety barriers using natural building materials,” in: Proceedings of the Itrn 2011, University College Cork, Corcaigh, Ireland, pp. 1-8.

Anderson, C., Dua, A., and Sapkota, J. (2012). “Motorcycle safety barrier trials in South Australia: Case study–Adelaide Hills,” in: Australasian College of Road Safety Conference, Sydney, Australia, pp. 1-16.

Apak, M. Y. (2019). Developing Protective and Preventive Security Bollard Against Traffic Accidents for Urban Roadside Fixed Natural Gas Distribution Stations, Ph.D. Dissertation, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Apak, M. Y., Ergun, M., Ozen, H., Buyuk, M., Ozcanan, S., Atahan, A. O., and Yumrutas, H. I. (2022). “Finite element simulation and failure analysis of fixed bollard system according to the PAS 68:2013 standard,” Engineering Failure Analysis 135, article ID 106151. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106151

AS/NZS 3845 (1999). “Road safety barrier systems,” Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Sydney, Australia/Wellington, New Zealand.

ASTM F2656 (2015). “Standard test method for crash testing of vehicle security barriers,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

Atahan, A. O., Bligh, R. P., and Ross, H. E. (2002). “Evaluation of recycled content guardrail posts,” Journal of Transportation Engineering 128(2), 156-166. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2002)128:2(156)

Atahan, A. O. (2002). “Finite element simulation of a strong-post W-beam guardrail system,” Simulation 78(10), 587-599. DOI: 10.1177/0037549702078010001

Atahan, A. O., and Cansiz, O. F. (2005). “Impact analysis of a vertical flared back bridge rail-to-guardrail transition structure using simulation,” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 41(4), 371-396. DOI: 10.1016/j.finel.2004.07.003

Atahan, A. O. (2006). “Finite-element crash test simulation of New York portable concrete barrier with I-shaped connector,” Journal of Structural Engineering 132(3), 430-440. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:3(430)

Atahan, A. O., and Sevim, U. K. (2008). “Testing and comparison of concrete barriers containing shredded waste tire chips,” Materials Letters 62(21–22), 3754-3757. DOI: 10.1016/j.matlet.2008.04.068

Atahan, A. O. (2010). “Vehicle crash test simulation of roadside hardware using LS-DYNA: A literature review,” International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems 17(1), 52–75. DOI: 10.1504/IJHVS.2010.029623

Atahan, A. O., Yücel, A. Ö., and Erdem, M. M. (2014). “Crash testing and evaluation of a new generation L1 containment level guardrail,” Engineering Failure Analysis 38, 25-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.01.003

Bank, L. C., and Gentry, T. R. (2001). “Development of a pultruded composite material highway guardrail,” Composites – Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 32(9), 1329-1338. DOI: 10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00086-0

Baranowski, P., and Damaziak, K. (2021). “Numerical simulation of vehicle–lighting pole crash tests: Parametric study of factors influencing predicted occupant safety levels,” Materials 14(11), article 2822. DOI: 10.3390/ma14112822

Bhatti, A. Q. (2015). “Falling-weight impact response for prototype RC type rock-shed with sand cushion,” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions 48(10), 3367-3375. DOI: 10.1617/s11527-014-0405-5

Bielenberg, R. W., Reid, J. D., Faller, R. K., Rosenbaugh, S. K., and Lechtenberg, K. A. (2014). “Performance of the Midwest guardrail system with rectangular wood posts,” Transportation Research Record 2437(2214), 27-40. DOI: 10.3141/2437-04

Bligh, R. P., Abu-Odeh, A. Y., Hamilton, M. E., and Seckinger, N. R. (2004). Evaluation of Roadside Safety Devices Using Finite Element Analysis (Report No. FHWA/TX-04/0-1816-1), Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Implementation Office, Austin, TX, USA.

Bocchio, N., Ronca, P., and Van de Kuilen, J.-W. (2001). “Impact loading tests on timber beams,” in: IABSE Conference: Innovative Wooden Structures and Bridges, Lahti, Finland, pp. 349-354. DOI: 10.2749/222137801796348818

Borovinšek, M., Vesenjak, M., and Ren, Z. (2013). “Improving the crashworthiness of reinforced wooden road safety barrier using simulations of pre-stressed bolt connections with failure,” Engineering Failure Analysis 35, 625-635. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.06.006

BSI 16303 (2020). “Road restraint systems — Validation and verification process for the use of virtual testing in crash testing against vehicle restraint system,” The British Standards Institution, London, England.

BSI PAS 68 (2013). “Impact test specifications for vehicle security barrier systems,” The British Standards Institution, London, England.

Cecháková, V., Rosmanit, M., and Fojtík, R. (2012). “FEM modeling and experimental tests of timber bridge structure,” Procedia Engineering 40, 79-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.07.059

Chian, S. C., Tan, B. C. V., and Sarma, A. (2017). “Projectile penetration into sand: Relative density of sand and projectile nose shape and mass,” International Journal of Impact Engineering 105(103), 29-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.03.026

Davids, W. G., Botting, J. K., and Peterson, M. (2006). “Composite-reinforced timber highway guardrail: Development and structural testing,” in: 9^th World Conference on Timber Engineering 2006, Portland, OR, USA, pp. 703–710.

EN 1317 (2010). “Road restraint systems,” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.

Eskandarian, A., Marzougui, D., and Bedewi, N. E. (1997). “Finite element model and validation of a surrogate crash test vehicle for impacts with roadside objects,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 2(3), 239-258. DOI: 10.1533/cras.1997.0048

Faller, R. K., Reid, J. D., Kretschmann, D. E., Hascall, J. A., and Sicking, D. L. (2009). “Midwest guardrail system with round timber posts,” Transportation Research Record 2120(1), 47-59. DOI: 10.3141/2120-06

Ferdous, M. R., Abu-Odeh, A., Bligh, R. P., Jones, H. L., and Sheikh, N. M. (2011). “Performance limit analysis for common roadside and median barriers using LS-DYNA,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 16(6), 691-706. DOI: 10.1080/13588265.2011.623023

Gatchell, C. J., and Michie, J. D. (1974). Pendulum Impact Tests of Wooden and Steel Highway Guardrail Posts (Report No. NE-311), Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Forest Service, Upper Darby, PA, USA.

Goubel, C., Massenzio, M., and Ronel, S. (2011). “Wood-steel structure for vehicle restraint systems,” in: 8^th European LS-DYNA Users Conference, Strasbourg, France, pp. 1-16.

Griškevičius, P., Zeleniakiene, D., Ostrowski, M., and Holnicki-Szulz, J. (2007). “Crashworthiness simulations of roadside restraint systems,” in: Transport Means – Proceedings of the International Conference, Kaunas, Lithuania, pp. 282-285.

Ho, T. S., Masuya, H., and Takashita, N. (2013). “Experimental study concerning impact characteristics by collision of weight on sand cushion over steel beam,” International Journal of GEOMATE 4(1), 471-476. DOI: 10.21660/2013.7.2112

IWA 14 (2013). “Vehicle security barriers,” International Workshop Agreement, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kirkpatrick, S., MacNeill, R., and Bocchieri, R. (2003). “Development of an LS-DYNA occupant model for use in crash analyses of roadside safety features,” TRB Annual Meeting 2003, Washington, D.C., USA, pp. 1-15.

Kubojima, Y., Ohsaki, H., Kato, H., and Tonosaki, M. (2006). “Fixed-fixed flexural vibration testing method of beams for timber guardrails,” Journal of Wood Science 52(3), 202-207. DOI: 10.1007/s10086-005-0754-3

Kuilen, J. W. G. (2019). ” The first full timber guardrail for highways,” in: 7^th – International Scientific Conference on Hardwood Processing, ISCHP 2019, München, Germany, pp. 278-285.

Lambert, S., Gotteland, P., and Nicot, F. (2009). “Experimental study of the impact response of geocells as components of rockfall protection embankments,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 9(2), 459-467. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-9-459-2009

Leijten, A. J. M. (2000). “Literature review of impact strength of timber and joints,” Materials Science 2000, 1-6.

Leijten, A. J. M. (2001). “Impact crash and simulation of timber beams,” Transactions on Modelling and Simulation 30, 859-868.

Lohrey, E. C., Carney, J. F., Bullard, D. L., Alberson, D. C., and Menges, W. L. (1997). “Testing and evaluation of Merritt Parkway guiderail,” Transportation Research Record 1599(1), 40-47. DOI: 10.3141/1599-05

Luo, Q., Olszko, E., Phillips, A. R., and Bender, D. A. (2020). “Bending and impact testing of wood guardrail posts evaluated using stress wave timing inspection,” Transportation Research Record 2674(10), 299-309. DOI: 10.1177/0361198120939097

MASH (2016). Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA.

Marzougui, D., Story, C., Nix, L., Dao, C., Kan, S., and Powers, R. D. (2009). Development of a New End Treatment for Steel-Backed Timber Guardrail : Phase I Conceptual Design (Report No. NCAC 2009-W-006), The National Crash Analysis Center, Ashburn, VA, USA.

Marzougui, D., Story, C., Nix, L., Dao, C., Kan, S., and Powers, R. D. (2010). Development of a New End Treatment for Steel-Backed Timber Guardrail : Phase II Conceptual Design (Report No. NCAC 2010-R-002), The National Crash Analysis Center, Ashburn, VA, USA.

Mirdamadi, A. (2014). Deterministic and Probabilistic Simple Model for Single Pile Behavior Under Lateral Truck Impact, Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.

Mitchell, G., Tolnai, M., Gokani, V., Picon, R., Yang, S., Klingner, R. E., and Williamson, E. B. (2006). Design of Retrofit Vehicular Barriers Using Mechanical Anchors (Report No. FHWA/TX-07/0-4823-CT-1), Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report Research and Technology Implementation Office, Austin, TX, USA.

Mojdeh, S. (2015). Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Impact Loads on a Group of Piles, Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.

Muller, M. K., and Majerus, J. N. (2002). “Usage of recycled plastic bottles in roadside safety devices,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 7(1), 43-56. DOI: 10.1533/cras.2002.0205

Neuenhaus, D. H. J. F., Geßler, U. J., and Feldmann, M. (2013). “Using multibody-system modeling to make accurate predictions of vehicle impacts on road restraint systems,” International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 53, 24-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2012.10.011

NHTSA (2008). “Finite element model archive,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-simulation-vehicle-models), Accessed 11 Jan 2022.

Noda, R., Kayo, C., Yamanouchi, M., and Shibata, N. (2016). “Life cycle greenhouse gas emission of wooden guardrails: A study in Nagano Prefecture,” Journal of Wood Science 62(2), 181-193. DOI: 10.1007/s10086-015-1530-7

Pilia, F., and Maltinti, F. (2014). “Environmentally friendly road barriers,” in: Sustainability, Eco-Efficiency and Conservation in Transportation Infrastructure Asset Management – Proceedings of the 3^rd International Conference on Tranportation Infrastructure, ICTI 2014, Pisa, Italy, pp. 743–750.

Pilia, F., Maltinti, F., and Annunziata, F. (2012). “Preliminary results on a new safety road barrier made completely of wood,” Environmental Semeiotics 5(2), 11-23. DOI: 10.3383/es.5.2.1

Plaxico, C. A., Patzner, G. S., and Ray, M. H. (1998). “Finite-element modeling of guardrail timber posts and the post-soil interaction,” Transportation Research Record 1647(1), 139-146. DOI: 10.3141/1647-17

Ramiani, M. B., and Shirazian, G. (2020). “Ranking and determining the factors affecting the road freight accidents model,” Civil Engineering Journal (Iran) 6(5), 928-944. DOI: 10.28991/cej-2020-03091518

Ray, M. H. (1997). “The use of finite element analysis in roadside hardware design,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 2(4), 333-348. DOI: 10.1533/cras.1997.0053

Reid, J. D. (2004). “LS-DYNA simulation influence on roadside hardware,” Transportation Research Record 1890(1), 34-41. DOI: 10.3141/1890-04

Roque, C., Moura, F., and Lourenço Cardoso, J. (2015). “Detecting unforgiving roadside contributors through the severity analysis of ran-off-road crashes,” Accident Analysis & Prevention 80, 262-273. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.012

Ross, Jr., H. E., Sicking, D. L., and Zimmer, R. A. (1993). Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features (NCHRP Report 350), Transportation Research Board National Research Council, Washington, D.C., USA.

Sabet, A. R., Beheshty, M. H., and Rahimi, H. (2009). “Experimental study of sharp-tipped projectile perforation of GFRP plates containing sand filler under high velocity impact and quasi-static loadings,” Polymer Composites 30(10), 1497-1509. DOI: 10.1002/pc.20720

Soltani, M., Topa, A., Karim, M. R., and Sulong, N. H. R. (2017). “Crashworthiness of G4(2W) guardrail system: A finite element parametric study,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 22(2), 169-189. DOI: 10.1080/13588265.2016.1243636

Štych, J. (2010). “Improving passive safety by computer simulation,” in: 5^th Theoretical and Practical Issues in Transport Conference, Pardubice, Czech Republic, pp. 167-170.

Sy Ho, T., and Masuya, H. (2013). “Finite element analysis of the dynamic behavior of sand-filled geocells subjected to impact load by rockfall,” International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering 6(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.13101/ijece.6.1

Tabacu, S., and Pandrea, N. (2008). “Numerical (analytical-based) model for the study of vehicle frontal collision,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 13(4), 387-410. DOI: 10.1080/13588260802030588

Tabiei, A., and Wu, J. (2000). “Roadmap for crashworthiness finite element simulation of roadside safety structures,” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 34(2), 145-157. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-874X(99)00035-9

Tabiei, A., and Wu, J. (2020). “Validated crash simulation of the most common guardrail system in the USA,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 5(2), 153-168. DOI: 10.1533/cras.2000.0131

Teng, T. L., Liang, C. C., and Tran, T. T. (2016). “Development and validation of a finite element model for road safety barrier impact tests,” Simulation 92(6), 565-578. DOI: 10.1177/0037549716644507

Tiso, P., Plaxico, C., and Ray, M. (2002). “Improved truck model for roadside safety simulations: Part II – Suspension modeling,” Transportation Research Record 1797(1), 63-71. DOI: 10.3141/1797-08

Ucar, M., and Cengiz, A. (2012). “Crash pendulum energy absorption test system,” Experimental Techniques 36(3), 33–38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-1567.2010.00693.x

Uddin, W., and Hackett, R. M. (1999). “Three-dimensional finite element modelling of vehicle crashes against roadside safety barriers,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 4(4), 407-418. DOI: 10.1533/cras.1999.0115

Vesenjak, M., Borovinšek, M., and Ren, Z. (2007). “Computational simulations of road safety barriers using LS-DYNA,” in: 6. LS-DYNA Forum, Frankenthal, Germany.

Wacker, J. P., Kretschmann, D. E., Wang, X., and Rammer, D. R. (2010). Condition Assessment of Treated-Timber Guardrail Posts (Report No. WI-09-10), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, USA.

Watts, G., and Morgan, P. (2007). “Measurement of airborne sound insulation of timber noise barriers: Comparison of in situ method CEN/TS 1793-5 with laboratory method EN 1793-2,” Applied Acoustics 68(4), 421-436. DOI:10.1016/j.apacoust.2006.03.001

Whitworth, H. A., Bendidi, R., Marzougui, D., and Reiss, R. (2004). “Finite element modeling of the crash performance of roadside barriers,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 9(1), 35-43. DOI: 10.1533/ijcr.2004.0270

Wright, A. E., and Ray, M. H. (1996). “Characterizing cuardrail steel for LS-DYNA3D simulations,” Transportation Research Record 1528(1), 138-145. DOI:10.3141/1528-15

Wright, P. H. (1983). “Effectiveness of roadside crash countermeasures,” Transportation Planning and Technology 8(3), 155-159. DOI: 10.1080/03081068308717248

Wu, W., and Thomson, R. (2004). “Compatibility between passenger vehicles and road barriers during oblique collisions,” International Journal of Crashworthiness 9(3), 245-253. DOI: 10.1533/ijcr.2004.0281

Yin, H., Fang, H., Wang, Q., and Wen, G. (2016). “Design optimization of a MASH TL-3 concrete barrier using RBF-based metamodels and nonlinear finite element simulations,” Engineering Structures 114, 122-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.009

Yumrutaş, H. İ., Birinci, E., Yörür, H., and Atahan, A. O. (2021). “An innovative approach on the renewable hybrid barrier: Combined use of wood and sand,” CERNE 27(1), 1-10. DOI: 10.1590/01047760202127012821

Yumrutaş, H. İ., and Othman Ali, Z. (2022). “Experimental performance evaluation of an innovative hybrid barrier system filled with waste materials,” Construction and Building Materials 316, article 125231. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125231

Zhang, R., Nakazawa, T., Iimura, Y., and Kanemaru, K. (2006). “Collision test of log – Concrete composite bridge guardrail system,” in: 9^th World Conference on Timber Engineering 2006, WCTE 2006, Portland, OR, USA, pp. 2660-2663.

Zhang, R., Kanemaru, K., Nakazawa, T., Iimura, Y., and Nakamura, M. (2004). “Timber guardrail combined of round log rails and concrete posts,” in: 8^th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Lahti, Finland, pp. 271-276.

Article submitted: September 30, 2022; Peer review completed: November 18, 2022; Revised version recieved and accepted: November 23, 2022; Published: December 1, 2022.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.18.1.804-826