The analysis of the deformation state of the double-wave guardrail mounted on bridges and viaducts of the motor roads in Lithuania and Ukraine.
Prentkovskis, Olegas ; Tretjakovas, Jurijus ; Svedas, Audrius 等
1. Introduction
It is believed that the development of road transport has a
positive effect on economic and social development. Motorization level
has been increasing in recent years and is likely to be increasing in
the near future. However, it has a number of negative effects as well -
these are traffic accidents and a decrease in traffic safety in some
countries. According to the statistical data (Fig. 1), the total number
of people killed (per million population) in road accidents in the EU
Member-States in 2011 is equals the one in 1772 (Accident Rate
Information 2011).
Traffic safety mainly depends on vehicles, pedestrians and road
infrastructure. High accident rate on the roads of Lithuania (and other
countries) is accounted for by such factors as irresponsible behaviour
of drivers and pedestrians on the road, poor traffic control, the road
state, etc. Traffic culture, mutual respect and mutual aid of people on
the road are still rather low.
The main causes of traffic accidents are as follows: traffic rules
are violated by car drivers (who exceed the speed limit, ignore the road
signs and signals, etc.); traffic rules are violated by pedestrians (who
cross the road where they like, are absent-minded, etc.; technical
vehicle defects (in the brakes, steering gear, etc.); poor state of the
road (slippery pavement, poor lighting and insufficiently developed road
infrastructure, etc.).
Every year, the Traffic Police of Lithuania register traffic
accidents (Accident Rate Information 2011). The dynamics of the traffic
accidents registered in 2000-2011 is shown in Fig. 2. In 2011, 3312
traffic accidents were registered. Their distribution (in percent) is
given in Fig. 3. In Fig. 4, the percent distribution of traffic accident
guilty parties in 2011, is shown.
The dependences graphically presented in Figs 2-4 show that:
--in recent years, the number of the registered traffic accidents
in Lithuania has been decreasing;
--the largest number of traffic accidents are associated with
'Collision of vehicles', 44%;
--most of the traffic accidents are caused by 'Drivers',
66%;
--the smallest number of traffic accidents are associated with
'Grounding on an obstacle', 3.5%, which may be a guardrail, a
lamp post, a tree, a gate, etc.
On highways, the heaviest traffic accidents are associated with
crossing of the dividing strips by a vehicle and its collision with side
obstacles on the junction or road bridge exit. These accidents often
occur, when vehicles, running at a high speed, collide with obstacles,
which may cause human injuries. In such cases, the probability of
fatalities or heavy injuries to people in a traffic accident is very
high.
Guardrail (known as civil engineering element and traffic safety
element) installation may help to reduce the number of human injuries
and fatalities caused by traffic accidents. It is assumed that
guardrails should be installed only at dangerous road exits or for
preventing from driving into the obstacles, the collision with which may
cause more serious accidents than the collision with a guardrail. The
dividing guardrails on multilane roads should prevent from the accidents
associated with crossing the dividing strip. Crashworthy guardrails are
power absorbing structures which are installed in front of stationary
obstacles, making a part of road structure, e.g. an underpass approach,
overbridge elements of the junction exit at various levels or a bridge
pier.
Ideally, a guardrail should 'grip' a vehicle and guide it
to the controlled stop. It is of paramount importance that a vehicle,
colliding with a guardrail, should not be thrown back on the lane at the
same speed at which it was running. Moreover, guardrails should be
installed so that they could not reduce visibility on the road,
particularly, on the route sections with decreased visibility.
The transport system of any country has three constituent parts:
road (route), passengers (goods) and vehicles. All of them, taken
individually or in interaction, strongly affect road traffic safety. The
researchers all over the world investigate the problem of traffic
safety. In particular, some of them (Mucinis et al. 2009; Ambroziak,
Korzeniowski 2010; Hassan, Al-Jabri 2011; Hartleb, Ketting 2011; Wang et
al. 2011a; Sivilevicius 2011a; Sivilevicius et al. 2011; Krayushkina et
al. 2012; Li et al. 2012, etc.) focus on the study of pavement quality,
while others (Beljatynskij et al. 2009; Prentkovskis et al. 2009, 2010a,
b; Cerniauskas et al. 2010; Ziliute et al. 2010; Darguzis et al. 2011;
Dell'Acqua, Russo 2011; Kopczynski et al. 2011; Maksymowicz et al.
2011; Kersys et al. 2011; Mucha et al. 2011; Sapragonas, Darguzis 2011;
Wang et al. 2011b; Ptak et al. 2012, etc.) concentrate on investigating
active and passive measures, ensuring vehicle safety. There are also
works, dealing with the problems of passengers and freight safety in
transportation (Grislis 2010; Jahangiri et al. 2011; Jovic, Doric 2010;
Matis 2010; Ziliute et al. 2010; Jablonskyte et al. 2011; Sharma et al.
2011; Stanic et al. 2011, etc.) and interaction between various elements
of transport systems (Beljatynskij et al. 2009; Prentkovskis et al.
2009, 2010b; Jakimavicius, Burinskiene 2010; Abtahi et al. 2011; Bien
2011; Darguzis et al. 2011; Iluk, Rusinski 2011; Jablonskyte et al.
2011; Sivilevicius 2011b; Kersys et al. 2011; Ptak et al. 2012), etc.
Road traffic infrastructure plays an important part in ensuring
traffic safety on urban roads and highways. It includes guardrails,
speed bumps, pedestrian safety islands, traffic regulation systems, road
information infrastructure, etc.
The problems, associated with the investigation and increase of
motor road guardrail safety, have been in the focus of the researchers
in various countries for many years. Let us describe some of them:
--Cable guardrail systems received the increased attention due to
their low installation cost and excellent safety performance. This led
to an increase in the use of non-linear finite element modelling for the
design and analysis of such systems. However, previously used wire rope
models were not validated with physical testing. Stolle and Reid (2011)
developed a wire rope model for cable guardrail simulation;
--Ferdous et al. (2011) carried out limit performance analysis for
common roadside and median barriers using LS-DYNA software. In the
considered research, finite element models, developed for four widely
used guardrail systems, were analysed. The selected guardrail systems
are the modified G4(1S) W-beam and three-beam guardrails, as well as
Midwest guardrail system and modified weak post W-beam guardrail.
LS-DYNA simulations, using these guardrail models, were validated, based
on the results obtained in the commonly used crash tests performed on
flat terrain;
--Tan et al. (2008) focussed on designing motorcyclist-friendly
guardrails, using finite element analysis. They developed
three-dimensional computer models, consisting of a newly designed V-beam
guardrail and the equivalent kinetic characteristics of a motorcycle.
The collision between a motorcycle and a guardrail was then simulated,
using the finite element computer program--ALGOR. The simulations were
conducted for three impact configurations, with the impact angle between
the motorcycle and the guardrail making 90[degrees], 45[degrees] and
20[degrees] at the impact velocity of 60 km/hr. The results showed that
the newly designed V-beam guardrail had better energy absorption
characteristics than the existing conventional W-beam guardrail design;
--Wu and Thomson (2005) investigated the effects of the front
wheels and steering-suspension systems during the oblique vehicle
collisions with a flared guardrail terminal. The Swedish National Road
Administration presented a new design for terminals of roadside
guardrails, i.e. a flared guardrail terminal, mounted on the inner
embankment of a ditch. The flared guardrail terminal was modelled and
two vehicle models were modified with LS-DYNA to simulate an oblique
impact situation. The goal of the simulations was to improve the vehicle
models by refining their wheels and steering-suspension systems for
better prediction and reproduction of the vehicle behaviour during
oblique collisions with guardrails;
--In their another work, Wu and Thomson (2007) carried out a study
of the interaction between a guardrail post and soil during quasi-static
and dynamic loading. A parametric study was subsequently conducted to
investigate the influence of gravel stiffness on the soil-post
interaction through computer simulations using LS-DYNA;
--Finite element modelling and validation of a 3-strand cable
guardrail system was carried out by Mohan et al. (2005). In this work, a
detailed finite element model of a three-strand cable guardrail was
developed and validated against a previously conducted full-scale crash
test. The full-scale crash test and simulation were set up for an impact
of the cable guardrail with a 2000 kg pickup truck at an angle of
25[degrees] and the initial velocity of 100 km/hr. The detailed methods
for system simulation involving dynamic interactions of soil/post,
post/hook bolts, cable/hook bolts and cable/truck were also discussed;
--Crash performance of a strong-post W-beam guardrail with missing
blockouts was investigated by Hampton and Gabler (2012). Missing
blockouts in a strong-post W-beam guardrail, a condition most commonly
associated with environmental decay or crash damage, has never been
thoroughly investigated. Finite element models were developed for three
pendulum tests. The simulation results indicated that wheel snagging was
not a major problem. Although a missing blockout increases the maximum
rail tension and deflection by as much as 13%, such guardrails are still
capable of safely redirecting the vehicles;
--Bayton et al. (2008) examined the effect of a full impact vehicle
crash test on the joint material and the mechanical fasteners that form
part of the safety barrier beam-to-beam connection joint;
--Ren and Vesenjak (2005) carried out computational and
experimental crash analysis of the road safety barrier. A computational
model of a vehicle, guardrail and its interaction was designed in
LS-DYNA software. The new road safety guardrail was tested in a
full-scale crash test The crash test was carried out with the FIAT Uno
as the impacting vehicle under the same initial impact conditions as
those used in the simulations. The comparison of computational and
experimental results proved the correctness of the computational model;
--It should be noted that the above investigations make only a part
of the research works in the area of guardrail application. In fact,
thousands of them have been performed.
Guardrails of various types are installed on the roads of Lithuania
and Ukraine. Guardrails, consisting of metal posts of the profile 2 and
a protective beam of the profile W, i.e. 'double-wave
guardrails' (see Fig. 5), are among the most commonly used ones.
The authors of this paper present the analysis of the deformation
state of a double-wave guardrail (describing the strains and stresses of
its elements).
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
2. The application of the finite element method to the analysis of
guardrails
2.1. General information
A modern concept of the finite element method (FEM) is very broad.
It embraces not only the approximate mathematical solution of
differential equations by applying partial derivatives, but is often
perceived as calculation methodology and even a universal approach to
performance analysis of physical and engineering objects or systems
(Zienkiewicz et al. 2005; Moaveni 2008; Logan 2011). FEM is an
approximate mathematical method aimed at solving differential equations
of partial derivatives. However, as regards its engineering application,
it is more suitable to relate it to the particular classes of some
applied problems and their specific features.
A motor road guardrail (Fig. 5) is modelled, using 3-D finite
elements SOLID186 (Fig. 6). SOLID186 is a higher order 3-D 20-node solid
element that exhibits quadratic displacement behavior. The element is
defined by 20 nodes having three degrees of freedom per node:
translations in the nodal X, Y, and Z directions. The element supports
plasticity, hyper elasticity, creep, stress stiffening, large deflection
and large strain capabilities (http://www. ansys. com).
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
2.2. Theoretical aspects of guardrail analysis
A guardrail is a mechanical system. To derive an equation of motion
of the finite element, the Lagrange equation of the second kind is used
(Zienkiewicz et al. 2005; Prentkovskis et al. 2009, 2010a).
Then, the expressions of the kinetic and potential energy, as well
as dissipative finite element function and the vector of the external
forces, acting on the finite element, are written (Prentkovskis et al.
2009, 2010a), taking into account that the displacements in the finite
element are approximated as follows:
{[u.sup.(e)]} = [N] {[q.sub.(e)]}, (1)
where: {[u.sup.(e)]} is the displacement in the finite element; [N]
denotes the finite element shape functions; {[q.sub.(e)]}, is the vector
of generalized displacements of the finite element.
Substituting the expressions of the kinetic and potential energy,
the dissipative function of the finite element and the vector of the
external forces, acting on it, into the Lagrange equation of the second
kind, a system of motion equations for the finite element is obtained in
the matrix form:
[[M.sup.(e)]] {[[??].sub.(e)]} + [[C.sub.(e)]] {[[??].sub.(e)]} +
[[K.sub.(e)]] {[q.sub.(e)]}, = {[F.sub.(e)]}, (2)
where: [[M.sup.(e)]], [[C.sup.(e)]], [[K.sup.(e)]] are matrices of
finite element masses, mechanical energy suppression and stiffness;
{[[??].sub.(e)]}, {[[??].sub. {[F.sub.(e)]}, {qM} are vectors of
generalized accelerations, velocities and displacements of the finite
element.
Integrating the motion equations of all finite elements into a
general system, a system of motion equations is obtained for a motor
road guardrail:
[[M.sub.guardrail]]{[[??].sub.guardrail]} + [[C.sub.guardrail]]
{[[??].sub.guardrail]} + [[M.sub.guardrail]] {[q.sub.guardrail]} =
{[F.sub.guardrail]}, (3)
where: [[M.sub.guardrail]], [[M.sub.guardrail]] ,
[[K.sub.guardrail]] are matrices of guardrail masses, mechanical energy
suppression and stiffess; {[[??].sub.guardrail]},
{[[??].sub.guardrail]}, {[q.sub.guardrail]} are vectors of
accelerations, velocities and displacements of all guardrail nodes;
{FgMardrai/} is the vector of generalized forces, acting on the
guardrail:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (4)
where: NE is the number of finite elements.
To obtain the matrices of masses, mechanical energy suppression and
finite element stiffness, the deformation of the finite element is
investigated (Prentkovskis et al. 2009, 2010a).
The mass matrix [[M.sub.guardrail]], the mechanical energy
suppression matrix [[M.sub.guardrail]] and the matrix of the finite
element stiffness [[M.sub.guardrail]], the displacement vector
{[[??].sub.guardrail]}, the vector of velocities {[[??].sub.guardrail]}
, the displacement vector {qguardrail} of the finite element and the
vector of the generalized forces {[F.sub.guardrail]} are presented in
the local system of the coordinates. Then, the matrices and the vectors
are transformed into the global system of the coordinates.
2.3. A brief description of FEM software packages
The finite element method aims to break up large parts into a
number of finite details. Then, each of them is calculated individually
as an independent body with its own loads and stresses. When the
calculation is over, a general stress and strain state of the part is
presented.
A great number of universal and specialized computer programs,
based on the finite element method, have been created. The universal
programs, such as ANSYS, ALGOR, ABAQUS, COSMOS, etc., allow designers to
investigate, check or predict the properties of the designed systems at
the design stage. In fact, almost all academic or research institutes
use lots of specialized finite element programs, created by their
researchers for research or solution of particular engineering problems.
Coupled with automatic geometric design and integrated programs (e.g.
AutoCAD, MicroStation, CATIA, ProEngineer, Euclid, etc.), finite element
programs make a powerful mathematical tool for modelling geometric and
physical systems (Moaveni 2008).
The authors of the present paper chose the finite element software
package ANSYS for investigating the guardrails of the motor roads.
ANSYS is a multifunctional finite element software package aimed at
analysing and solving engineering and physical problems. This software
package allows for solving both research and applied engineering
problems. It has some supplements adapted to solving the particular area
problems, for example, ANSYS Workbench, which is used for solving
mechanical problems (Moaveni 2008).
2.4. The creation of a discrete model
To save computer resources and to reduce the number of
calculations, only a fragment of the motor road guardrail is analysed.
The models consist of two posts and the connecting beam (Fig. 7).
The distance between the posts is 2 m. Posts of three various
profiles and beams of two various profiles are modelled. The guardrail
posts and beams are chosen according to the Standard Construction
Recommendations R37-1 in 'Guardrails of Motor Roads' (2001)
issued by the Board of Directors of the Lithuanian Road Administration
under the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of
Lithuania (valid till 2010), and according to both the Design Rules of
Road Restraint Systems KPT TAS 09 (2010) and the Lithuanian Standard LST
EN 1317 'Road Restraint Systems'. The analogical standards are
valid for guardrails mounted in Ukraine (GOST 26804-86 valid till 30
November 2012, DSTU 2735-94, DSTU 3587-97, DSTU B V.2.3-28:2011 valid
since 1 December 2012). The dimensions of the considered guardrail posts
and beams correspond to those, given in the above document (Fig. 8).
Analysing the guardrail by the software package ANSYS, the authors
divided the guardrail model into 3-D finite elements (SOLID 186) (Figs
6, 9). Each of these elements has 20 nodes, while each node has three
degrees of freedom, X, Y and Z, in the direction of the axes.
The case, when the guardrail is mounted on the bridge or viaduct is
analysed. The posts of the guardrail are concreted to the depth of 15 cm
from the road surface (boundary conditions in cyan colour, Fig. 9). This
part of the guardrail is firmly fixed. In modelling, based on the use of
the software package ANSYS, it is assumed that the displacements (degree
of freedom of the nodes) of the part concreted into the base of bridge
or viaduct are equal to zero in any direction.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
The developed models are acted upon by the force of 150 kN. The
force value was selected to meet the requirements of the Construction
Regulations STR 2.05.04:2003 'Impacts and Loads'. The forces
were applied at six points near the outward bends of the beams to
imitate the width of the vehicle frame.
The results of the modelling are presented graphically in the
software package ANSYS. The deflections and stresses of the guardrail
posts and beams are also shown.
3. The results obtained in computer-aided simulation and their
analysis
As mentioned above, the model of the motor road guardrail was
developed and solved, using the software package ANSYS. In this section,
the results obtained in computer-aided testing and their analysis are
presented.
3.1. The analysis of the guardrail posts
The calculation of the post models, using ANSYS, yielded the
results, which are given in Figs 10-12. The most valuable data refer to
deflections and first principal stresses of structural elements (both
maximum and those found at any point of the structure).
The analysis of the model for the case, when the posts were
concreted at the depth of 15 cm on bridges or viaducts has shown that
the post MST-2 had the largest deflection of 4.9 cm (Fig. 11). Smaller
deflections of 4.4 cm and 2.6 cm, respectively, were found in the posts
MST-3 (Fig. 12) and MST-1 (Fig. 10). Since the post MST-1 has the
smallest deflection, it is preferable for use on bridges or viaducts
because, in this case, it is highly important that a vehicle should
remain in the traffic lane after the collision with a guardrail. The
smaller the deflection, the higher the probability that a vehicle will
stay on the road.
The stresses of the posts of the guardrails mounted on a bridge or
a viaduct are similarly distributed in all models. The highest stresses
are found near the road pavement (Figs 10-12). The stresses are
weakening in the direction of the top of the post. It is clear that
there are also contact stresses, but they are outside the scope of the
present study.
3.2. The analysis of the guardrail beams
The comparative analysis of the deflections of the guardrail beams
yielded some unexpected results (Figs 13-14).
The deflection of the beam MS-B (6.7 cm, Fig. 14) was larger than
that of the beam MS-A (3.5 cm, Fig. 13). This shows that the beam MS-B
is more easily deformed than the beam MS-A and, therefore, absorb more
impact energy during the collision of a vehicle with a guardrail
(Prentkovskis et al. 2009, 2010a). Thus, the beam MS-B is preferable for
guardrails, though, until now, the beam MS-A has been mostly used on
Lithuanian and Ukrainian roads.
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 13 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 14 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 15 OMITTED]
The stresses developed in the guardrail beams MS-A and MS-B were
similarly distributed. The highest stresses were found in the middle
part of the beam, acted upon by the impact force of the vehicle, and, in
the areas, where the beam was fixed to the posts (Figs 13-14).
4. General results of guardrail analysis
The comparative analysis of the models, describing the guardrail as
a whole, has shown that the deformation found in the model, representing
the guardrail made of the posts MST-2 and the beam MS-B, was the
highest. The deflection of 9.3 cm found in this model, was the largest
(Fig. 15).
The main function of the guardrail, mounted on a bridge or a
viaduct, is to keep a vehicle, colliding with it, on the road. In this
case, the deflection of the guardrail should be as small as possible.
Therefore, for guardrails mounted on bridges or viaducts, the the posts
MST-1 and the beam MS-A (with the deflection of 5.7 cm) are preferable.
However, the comparative analysis shows that the numerical values of
deflections do not differ considerably.
The largest deflection (9.3 cm) was found for the model,
representing the guardrail made of the posts MST-2 and the beam MS-B
(Fig. 15). The guardrail of this model is the best in absorbing the
impact energy, produced by a vehicle colliding with a guardrail. The
deflection of 9.3 cm is not large and, in this case, the guardrail
should keep the vehicle, colliding with it in the traffic lane.
Therefore, taking into account all the data obtained in the analysis, it
may be concluded that the guardrail, consisting of the posts MST-2 and
the beam MS-B, is the best alternative for bridges or viaducts.
5. Conclusions
1. The presented statistical data on traffic accidents on the roads
of Lithuania show that, in recent years, their number has decreased,
though many people are still killed on the road. Therefore, to improve
traffic safety in various countries, public education on the problems of
traffic safety, as well as the control of traffic rules violation should
be more effective.
2. The analysis of the literature on the problem has shown that
testing of motor road guardrails may be performed for the whole
guardrail or for its separate parts. The comparative analysis of the
results obtained in computer simulation and real tests shows that
computer models are sufficiently accurate and well suited for guardrail
testing, while their cost is considerably lower.
3. According to the Standard Construction Recommendations R37-1,
Design Rules KPT TAS 09 and Lithuanian Standard LST EN 1317 metal beam
guardrails, consisting of the components given below, are used on
Lithuanian and Ukrainian roads (the analogical standards are valid for
guardrails mounted in Ukraine - GOST 26804-86 valid till 30 November
2012, DSTU 2735-94, DSTU 3587-97, DSTU B V.2.3-28:2011 valid since 1
December 2012): the beams MS-A (a metal beam A) and MS-B (a metal beam
B), the posts MST-1 (a metal post 1), MST-2 (a metal post 2) and MST-3
(a metal post 3). The posts MST-2 and the beams MS-A are most commonly
used.
4. Based on the use of the guardrail model, created and
investigated with the help of the software package ANSYS, it may be
stated that, in the guardrail model used on a bridge or a viaduct, the
smallest deflection is in the post MST-1 (2.6 cm), while the largest -
in the post MST-2 (4.9 cm). The bridge or viaduct guardrails should be
deformed as little as possible to be able to keep the vehicles,
colliding with them, in their traffic lanes. The kinetic energy,
transferred by a vehicle colliding with a guardrail, becomes a minor
problem in this case.
5. The results obtained in the analysis of the guardrail beams were
contradictory. Unexpectedly, the beam MS-B turned out to be more heavily
deformed than the beam MSA. Their deflections were 6.7 cm and 3.5 cm,
respectively. Thus, it may be concluded that the beam MS-A is preferable
for guardrails, mounted on bridges or viaducts.
6. The tests performed with all guardrail models showed that, for
the guardrail mounted on a bridge or a viaduct, the threshold deflection
(5.7 cm) was the smallest in the case, when the posts MST-1 and the beam
MS-A were used. However, the numerical values of the largest threshold
deflection for the guardrail, consisting of the post MST-2 and the beam
MS-B, was not large (9.3 cm). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe
that this guardrail should be able to keep the vehicle, colliding with
it, in its traffic lane (meaning that the vehicle would not fall down
from the bridge or viaduct) and absorb more impact energy of a vehicle
than the guardrail with the posts MST-1 and the beam MS-A.
doi:10.3846/13923730.2012.731252
References
Abtahi, S. M.; Tamannaei, M.; Haghshenash, H. 2011. Analysis and
modeling time headway distributions under heavy traffic flow conditions
in the urban highways: case of Isfahan, Transport 26(4): 375-382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.635694
Accident Rate Information. 2011. The Lithuanian Road Administration
under the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of
Lithuania. Available from Internet:
http://www.lra.lt/en.php/traffic_safety/accident_rate_ information/106
Ambroziak, A.; Korzeniowski, M. 2010. Using resistance spot welding
for joining aluminium elements in automotive industry, Archives of Civil
and Mechanical Engineering 10(1): 5-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60126-5
Bayton, D. A. F.; Jones, T. B.; Fourlaris, G. 2008. Analysis of a
safety barrier connection joint post-testing, Materials and Design
29(5): 915-921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2007.04.010
Beljatynskij, A.; Kuzhel, N.; Prentkovskis, O.; Bakulich, O.;
Klimenko, I. 2009. The criteria describing the need for highway
reconstruction based on the theory of traffic flows and repay time,
Transport 24(4): 308-317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2009.24.308-317
Bien, J. 2011. Modelling of structure geometry in bridge management
systems, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 11(3): 519-532.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60099-5
Cerniauskas, E.; Kersys, A.; Lukosevicius, V.; Sapragonas, J. 2010.
Investigation of anti-intrusion beams in vehicle side doors, Mechanika
(6): 11-16.
Darguzis, A.; Sapragonas, J.; Pilkauskas, K. 2011. Dynamic
processes of a vehicle moving over step-shaped obstacles, Journal of
Vibroengineering 13(3): 536-543.
Dell'Acqua, G.; Russo, F. 2011. Safety performance functions
for low-volume roads, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering
6(4): 225-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2011.29
DSTU 2735-94. Ogorodzhennia dorozhni i napriamniprystroji. Pravila
vykorystannia. Vymogy bezpeky dorozhniogo ruchu (in Ukrainian).
DSTU 3587-97. Bezpeka dorozhniogo ruhu. Avtomobil'ni dorogy,
vulyci ta zaliznychni perejizdy. Vymogy do ekspluatacijnogo stanu (in
krainian).
DSTU B V.2.3-28:2011. Ogorodzhuvannia dorozhni metalevi
bar'jernogo tipu. Tehnichi umovy (in Ukrainian).
Ferdous, M. R.; Abu-Odeh, A.; Bligh, R. P.; Jones, H. L.; Sheikh,
N. M. 2011. Performance limit analysis for common roadside and median
barriers using LS-DYNA, International Journal of Crashworthiness 16(6):
691-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2011.623023
Grlslis, A. 2010. Longer combination vehicles and road safety,
Transport 25(3): 336-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.41
GOST 26804-86. Ograzhdeniia dorozhnyje metallicheskie
bar'jernogo tipa. Technicheskie usloviia (in ussian).
Hampton, C. E.; Gabler, H. C. 2012. Crash performance of
strong-post W-beam guardrail with missing blockouts, International
Journal of Crashworthiness 17(1): 93-103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2011.626931
Hartleb, J.; Ketting, M. 2011. Stable algorithm to simulate dynamic
undercarriage loads of tracked vehicles, Archives of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering 11(4): 867-874.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60083-1
Hassan, H. F.; Al-Jabri, K. 2011. Laboratory evaluation of hotmix
asphalt concrete containing copper slag aggregate, Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering 23(6): 879-885.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000246
Iluk, A.; Rusinski, E. 2011. Strength analysis of the kinematic
pairs of a mobile collapsible bridge, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 11(4): 875-884.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60084-3
Jablonskyte, J.; Ilgakojyte-Bazariene, J.; Kersys, A.; Pakalnis, A.
2011. Research of congestions in urban transport network using cellular
automation model, Transport 26(2): 158-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.586107
Jahangiri, A.; Afandizadeh, S.; Kalantari, N. 2011. The
optimization of traffic signal timing for emergency evacuation using the
simulated annealing algorithm, Transport 26(2): 133-140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.584959
Jakimavicius, M.; Burinskiene, M. 2010. Route planning methodology
of an advanced traveller information system in Vilnius city, Transport
25(2): 171-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.21
Jovic, J.; Doric, V. 2010. Traffic and environmental street network
modelling: Belgrade case study, Transport 25(2): 155-162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.19
Kersys, A.; Pakalnis, A.; Lukosevicius, V. 2011. Investigation of
occupant fatalities and injuries during the impact of vehicle and road
safety barrier, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 6(1):
5-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2011.01
Kopczynski, A.; Ptak, M.; Harnatkiewicz, P. 2011. The influence of
frontal protection system design on pedestrian passive safety, Archives
of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 11(2): 345-364.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60148-4
KPT TAS 09. 2010. Automobiliii keliii transporto priemoniii apsau
giniii atitvarii sistemiprojektavimo taisykles (in Lithuanian).
Krayushkina, K.; Prentkovskis, O.; Bieliatynskyi, A.; Junevicius,
R. 2012. Use of steel slags in automobile road construction, Transport
27(2): 129-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2012.690093
Li, W.; Sun, P.; Zhang, C. 2012. Laboratory test study on asphalt
concrete with steel slag aggregates, Applied Mechanics and Materials
152-154: 117-120. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.152-154.117
Logan, D. L. 2011. A First Course in the Finite Element Method. 5th
edition. CL Engineering. 992 p.
LST EN 1317. Apsauginiii kelio atitvarii sistemos [Road Restraint
Systems].
Maksymowicz, M.; Cruz, P. J. S.; Bien, J. 2011. Load capacity of
damaged RC slab spans of railway-bridges, Archives of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering 11(4): 963-978.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60089-2
Matis, P. 2010. Finding a solution for a complex street routing
problem using the mixed transportation mode, Transport 25(1): 29-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.05
Mohan, P.; Marzougui, D.; Meczkowski, L.; Bedewi, N. 2005. Finite
element modeling and validation of a 3-strand cable guardrail syste,
International Journal of Crashworthi ness 10(3): 267-273.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/ijcr.2005.0345
Moaveni, S. 2008. Finite Element Analysis: Theory and Application
with ANSYS. 3rd edition. Pearson Education. 822 p.
Mucha, J.; Kascak, L.; Spisak, E. 2011. Joining the car-body sheets
using clinching process with various thickness and mechanical property
arrangements, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 11(1):
135-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60179-4
Mucinis, D.; Sivilevicius, H.; Oginskas, R. 2009. Factors
determining the inhomogeneity of reclaimed asphalt pavement and
estimation of its components content variation parameters, The Baltic
Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 4(2): 69-79.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1822-427X.2009A69-79
Prentkovskis, O.; Beljatynskij, A.; Prentkovskiene, R.; Dyakov, I.;
Dabuleviciene, L. 2009. A study of the deflections of metal road
guardrail elements, Transport 24(3): 225-233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2009.24.225-233
Prentkovskis, O.; Beljatynskij, A.; Juodvalkiene, E.;
Prentkovskiene, R. 2010a. A study of the deflections of metal road
guardrail post, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 5(2):
104-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2010.15
Prentkovskis, O.; Sokolovskij, E.; Bartulis, V. 2010b.
Investigating traffic accidents: a collision of two motor vehicles,
Transport 25(2): 105-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.14
Ptak, M.; Rusinski, E.; Karlinski, J.; Dragan, S. 2012. Evaluation
of kinematics of SUV to pedestrian impact - lower leg impactor and dummy
approach, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 12(1): 68-73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.03.016
R37-01. 2001. Automobilii kelii apsauginiai atitvarai. Statybos
rekomendacijos. 32 p. (in Lithuanian).
Ren, Z.; Vesenjak, M. 2005. Computational and experimental crash
analysis of the road safety barrier, Engineering Failure Analysis 12(6):
963-973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2004.12.033
Sapragonas, J.; Darguzis, A. 2011. Model of radial deformations of
protector of vehicle tire, Mechanika 17(1): 2129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.mech.17.L199
Sharma, N.; Arkatkar, S. S.; Kumar, A. 2011. Study on heterogeneous
traffic flow characteristics of a two-lane road, Transport 26(2):
185-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.593120
Sivilevicius, H. 2011a. Application of expert evaluation method to
determine the importance of operating asphalt mixing plant quality
criteria and rank correlation, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge
Engineering 6(1): 48-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2011.07
Sivilevicius, H. 2011b. Modelling the interaction of transport
system elements, Transport 26(1): 20-34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.560366
Sivilevicius, H.; Podvezko, V.; Vakriniene, S. 2011. The use of
constrained and unconstrained optimization models in gradation design of
hot mix asphalt mixture, Construction and Building Materials 25(1):
115-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.conbuildmat.2010.06.050
Stanic, B.; Tubic, V.; Celar, N. 2011. Straight lane saturation
flow and its rate in Serbian cities, Transport 26(3): 329-334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.623762
Stolle, C. S.; Reid, J. D. 2011. Development of a wire rope model
for cable guardrail simulation, International Journal of Crashworthiness
16(3): 331-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2011.586609
STR 2.05.04:2003. Statybos techninis reglamentas: poveikiai ir
apkrovos (in Lithuanian).
Tan, K. S.; Tan, W.; Wong, S. V. 2008. Design of
motorcyclistfriendly guardrail using finite element analysis,
International Journal of Crashworthiness 13(5): 567-577.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588260802293186
Wang, G.; Thompson, R. G.; Wang, Y. 2011a. Hot-mix asphalt that
contains nickel slag aggregate, Transportation Research Record 2208:
1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2208-01
Wang, Y.-G.; Chen, K.-M.; Pei, Y.-L.; Wang, Y. 2011b. Integrating
before and after crash features into measuring the effectiveness of
intersection safety improvement project in Harbin, Transport 26(1):
111-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2011.565599
Wu, W.; Thomson, R. 2005. Effects of front wheels and
steering-suspension systems during vehicle oblique collisions with a
flared guardrail terminal, International Journal of Crashworthiness
10(5): 495-503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/ijcr.2005.0364
Wu, W.; Thomson, R. 2007. A study of the interaction between a
guardrail post and soil during quasi-static and dynamic loading,
International Journal of Impact Engineering 34(5): 883-898.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.04.004
Zienkiewicz, O. C.; Taylor, R. L.; Zhu, J. Z. 2005. The Finite
Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals. 6th edition.
Butterworth-Heinemann. 752 p.
Ziliute, L.; Laurinavicius, A.; Vaitkus, A. 2010. Investigation
into traffic flows on high intensity streets of Vilnius city, Transport
25(3): 244-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.30
Olegas Prentkovskis (1), Jurijus Tretjakovas (2), Audrius Svedas
(3), Andrii Bieliatynskyi (4), Alfonsas Daiiifmas (5) , Kateryna
Krayushkina (6)
(1) Department of Transport Technological Equipment, Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University, Plytines g. 27, LT-10105 Vilnius,
Lithuania
(2) Department of Strength of Materials, Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
(3) Forensic Science Centre of Lithuania, Lvovo g. 19a, LT-09313
Vilnius, Lithuania
(4,6) Department of Airport Reconstruction and Automobile Roads,
Institute of Airports, National Aviation University, Kosmonavta Komarova
ave 1, 03680 Kiev, Ukraine
(5) Department of Steel and Timber Structures, Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
E-mails: (1)
[email protected] (corresponding author);
(2)
[email protected]; (3) audrius.svedas@gmail. com; (4)
[email protected]; (5) alfonsas.
[email protected]; (6)
[email protected]
Received 29 Nov. 2010; accepted 5 Jan. 2012
Olegas PRENTKOVSKIS. Doctor, Associate Professor, Department of
Transport Technological Equipment, Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University, Lithuania. Research interests: vehicles dynamics, simulation
of traffic accidents, traffic safety problems, transport infrastructure,
numerical methods.
Jurijus TRETJAKOVAS. Doctor, Associate Professor, Department of
Strength of Materials, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Lithuania. Research interests: finite element method, nonlinear
mechanics, fracture mechanics.
Audrius SVEDAS. MSc, Traffic Accidents Expert, Forensic Science
Centre of Lithuania. Research interests: investigation of traffic
accidents, traffic safety problems.
Andrii BIELIATYNSKYI. Doctor, Professor, Department of Airport
Reconstruction and Automobile Roads, Institute of Airports, National
Aviation University, Ukraine. Research interests: motor road
engineering, traffic flow, traffic safety problems.
Alfonsas DANIUNAS. Doctor, Associate Professor, Department of Steel
and Timber Structures, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Lithuania. Research interests: analysis and optimization of elastic and
plastic steel structures, numerical methods, semi-rigid joints of steel
structures.
Kateryna KRAYUSHKINA. Engineer, Doctoral Student, Department of
Airport Reconstruction and Automobile Roads, Institute of Airports,
National Aviation University, Ukraine. Research interests: road building
materials and technologies, de-icing materials, traffic safety problems.
Fig. 1. The distribution of the number of people killed (per
million population) in road accidents in the EU Member-States
in 2011
United Kingdom 32
Netherlands 33
Sweden 33
Denmark 40
Malta 41
Ireland 42
Germany 49
Spain 50
Finland 54
Slovakia 59
France 61
Austria 62
Hungary 64
Italy 65
Slovenia 69
Luxemburg 70
Czech Republic 73
Portugal 74
Estonia 75
Belgium 77
Latvia 80
Bulgaria 88
Cyprus 88
Lithuania 93
Romania 94
Greece 97
Poland 109
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 2. The dynamics of traffic accidents registered by
the Traffic Police of Lithuania in 2000-2011
Year
2000 5807
2001 5972
2002 6090
2003 5963
2004 6372
2005 6772
2006 6658
2007 6448
2008 4795
2009 3827
2010 3530
2011 3312
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 3. The percent distribution of traffic accidents in Lithuania
in 2011 (total number of registered accidents--3312)
Others 7.9%
Grounding on an obstacle 3.5%
Overturning 10.1%
Collision of vehicles 44.0%
Running on pedestrians 34.5%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Fig. 4. The percent distribution of traffic accidents guilty parties
in Lithuania in 2011 (total number of registered accidents--3312)
Others 17%
Cyclists 7%
Pedestrians 10%
Drivers 66%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
