Cross-border funded Joint Research Programme IRDES...WP0 – Coordination and Management [WP Leader UNIFI] WP1 – Collection and harmonization of studies and standards on roadside

ERANET WORKSHOP - 13 January 2012 – The IRDES Project Francesca La Torre – UNIFI

IRDESImproving Roadside Design to Forgive Human Errors

Safety at the Heart of Road DesignCross-border funded Joint Research Programme

Prof. Ing. Francesca La TorreUniversità di Firenze – IRDES Coordinator

[email protected]


The IRDES Team

UNIFI: F. La Torre, L. Domenichini, A. Mercaldo, A. Grossi

ARSENAL (now AIT): P. Saleh, P. Nitsche

CHALMERS: H. Fagerlind, S. Othman,J. Martinsson

ANAS: E. Cesolini, G. Magarò, B. Rubino,F. Bianchin, R. Grecco

LCPC (now IFSTTAR): Y. Goyat, F. Menant


The IRDES Project

The aim of the IRDES project is to produce two

outputs with specific reference to a well identified

set of roadside features.

A practical and uniform guideline that allows the road

designer to improve the forgivingness of the

roadside;

A practical tool for assessing (in a quantitative

manner) the effectiveness of applying a given

roadside treatment.


Outline of the activities

WP0 – Coordination and Management [WP Leader UNIFI]

WP1 – Collection and harmonization of studies and standards on roadside design [WP Leader AIT]

WP2 – Assessment of Roadside Intervention Effectiveness [WP Leader CHALMERS]

WP3 – Production of a Roadside Design Guide [UNIFI]

WP4 – European Survey [WP Leader ANAS]

WP5 – Organization of Workshops and Round Tables [WP Leader IFSTTAR]


The IRDES in figures

Duration: 15/09/2009 – 15/09/2011

Total Budget: EUR 267.713,00

Kick off Meeting in Rome: 22/09/2009

Total man power: 33.8 man months

www.irdes-eranet.eu


Deliverables

Nr. Deliverable Name / Report Name Partner

Responsible

D0.1 Mid Term Project Assessment (internal document not available to the public)

UNIFI

D0.2 Final Project Report UNIFI

D1 State of the art report on existing treatments for the design of forgiving roadsides

AIT

D2 Practical Guide for the Assessment of Treatment Effectiveness CHALMERS

D3 Forgiving Roadside Design Guide UNIFI

D4 Questionnaire on roadside safety interventions and their effectiveness

ANAS

D5.1 Proceedings of Webinar 1 IFSTTAR

D5.2 Proceedings of Webinar 2 IFSTTAR

ERANET WORKSHOP - 13 January 2012 – The IRDES Project Francesca La Torre – UNIFI www.irdes-eranet.eu


THE WEBINARS

The MID TERM webinar was aimed at presenting the

deliverables of IRDES and also at proposing an interactive

discussion to optimise the further development of the

IRDES Roadside Design Guide, in line with stakeholders’

expectations.

How would you like the IRDES Roadside Design Guide to be

structured in order to be useful in practical applications by your

road administration?


THE MID TERM WEBINAR

Speakers were in the same place (in Paris) while the

attendees participated from their own offices with a

combined phone-web connection tool. A total of 14 experts

attended the webinar, 6 at the IFSTTAR and 8 in web

connection, from 9 countries (Austria, Belgium, Greece,

Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Sweden).

A total of 14 experts attended the webinar, 6 at the

IFSTTAR and 8 in web connection, from 9 countries

(Austria, Belgium, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway,

and Sweden).


THE DESIGN GUIDELINE

In the recent years several projects have been conducted to produce guidelines to design forgiving roadsides (both in Europe and in the USA)

and several national standards have been produced but different approaches are proposed. The final results of Trans-National Research Projects, aimed at identifying harmonised solutions, are often extremely

scientific but not practical and result in a lack of applicability.

Based on the results of WP1 and WP2, this WP of IRDES produced a practical

Guideline that could be applied in practice in safety design projects. The different proposed interventions are linked to the potential effectiveness defined in WP2 and in the literature in order to allow the user to perform cost-effectiveness evaluation before planning a given

treatment.


SHOULDER WIDTH

BARRIER TERMINALS

SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIPS

FORGIVING SUPPORT STRUCTURES FOR ROAD EQUIPMENT

THE ROADSIDE FEATURES CONSIDERED


STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDE• INTRODUCTION

• SECTION 1: TREATMENT/FEATURE ********

• Introduction

• Design criteria;

• Assessment of effectiveness;

• Case studies/Examples;

• References (key ref.)

• SECTION 2: TREATMENT/FEATURE ********

• Introduction

• Design criteria;

• Assessment of effectiveness;

• Case studies/Examples;

• References (key ref.)

• REFERENCES

• GLOSSARY

• ANNEX 1: STATE OF THE ART REVIEW (D1)

• ANNEX 2: EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENNESS (D2)


INTRODUCTION

• Definitions and aims;

• Forgiving roadside as part of a safety improvement issues

that links forgiving roadsides with self explaining roads;

• Short description of the other ERANET road SRO1 projects


BARRIERS TERMINALS

UNPROTECTED ……


BARRIERS TERMINALS

….. Vs. CRASHWORTHY


BARRIERS TERMINALS

CRASHWORTHY doesn’t mean only ENERGY-

ABSORBING patented terminals


BARRIERS TERMINALS

SELECTING ENERGY ABSORBING TERMINALS CLASSES

Posted speed limit (V) Minimum performance class

V ≥ 130 km/h P3

90 km /h ≤ V < 130 km/h P2

V < 90 km/h P1

ITALIAN STANDARD


BARRIERS TERMINALS

TERMINALS IN PROXIMITY TO

DRIVEWAYS

AUSTRIAN STANDARD


BARRIERS TERMINALS

LENGTH OF NEED

AASHTO ROADSIDE DESIGN GUIDE

RISER


BARRIERS TERMINALS

EFFECTIVENESS

UTeCMF

×

=0.02381

y = e0.0238x

R² = 1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

CM

F

UT (number of ostacles per km)

• NO BEFORE/AFTER ANALYSIS FOUND;

• Only rural single carriageway roads;

• CMF to be tested in wider networks.



Design criteria

• Shoulder rumble strips configuration

• Shoulder rumble strips and bicycle riding

• Shoulder rumble strips and motorcycle riding

• Noise issues

• Maintenance of shoulder rumble strips

• Selection of sites where to install shoulder rumble strips



Shoulder rumble strips configuration

PARAMETER MILLED RUMBLE

STRIPS ROLLED RUMBLE

STRIPS

A offset 0-760 mm 0-760 mm

B length 400 mm 400 mm

C width 180 mm 40 mm

D depth 13 mm 32 mm

E spacing 305 mm 170 mm

Typical

PARAMETER LESSE AGGRESSIVE MILLED

RUMBLE STRIPS

A offset 0-760 mm

B length 152 mm

C width 127 mm

D depth 10 mm

E spacing 280-305 mm

Less aggressive



Bicycle riding

• Rolled in are better for bicycle riding but less

effective;

• The “less aggressive” configuration has been

proven to be the best compromise;

• Leave bicycle gaps



EFFECTIVENESS



CASE STUDY

In Sweden:

• 200 km of treated sections;

• estimate of 27.3% reduction of crashes;

• within a 95% confidence interval the potential effect was

estimated between 8.6% and 45.7%.



Percent distribution of fixed

object crash deaths, based on

8,623 fatalities, 2008 (US)



Procedure for handling lateral

obstacles (RISER)



When an obstacle becomes and

HAZARD?

It has to be in the clear zone (refer to D1 in Annex 1 for

criteria to define the clear zone)




HAZARD?

In practice?

• The vehicle is abruptly stopped.

• The passenger compartment is penetrated

by some external object.

• The vehicle becomes unstable due to

roadside elements.




HAZARD? In practice?

• Diameter or thickness greater than 100 mm (Canada).

• Resistent moment above 5.7 kN*m (SETRA, France).

• Evaluation Table

(RISER).



Supports tested according to EN12767 are considered “passively safe” and therefore

not an hazard



Different performance classes according to EN 12767



Criteria for selecting Different performance classes according to EN 12767 (UK)



EFFECTIVENESS

• NO BEFORE/AFTER ANALYSIS FOUND;

• Positive “indications” from the literature;

• Risk assessment (UK).

Passively safe support

have a lower overall

risk than placing safety

barriers


SHOULDER WIDTH

DESIGN

Every country has it’s own

design standards

Examples from Austria,

France, Italy, Sweden


SHOULDER WIDTH

Single carriageway 2 lane roads (HSM)

EFFECTIVENESS


SHOULDER WIDTH

Multilane highways - undivided (HSM)

EFFECTIVENESS


SHOULDER WIDTH

Multilane highways - divided (HSM)

EFFECTIVENESS


SHOULDER WIDTH

Motorways

EFFECTIVENESS

CMF still under development. Currently SPFs are used to

evaluate the effectiveness of different shoulder configurations

OPEN SECTIONS

(Park, Fitzpatrick,

Lord, USA - 2010)

TUNNELS

(UPI, CH - 2004)


SHOULDER WIDTH

Combined effect of lane width and

shoulder width (France)

CASE STUDIES (D2)

Before After


SHOULDER WIDTH

Effect of paved and unpaved shoulder in

high risk bends (Austria)

CASE STUDIES (D2)

Scenario (Number) MAIS Effectiveness

No forgiving roadside (1) 6 0%

Soft Shoulder (2) 2 70%

Hard Shoulder (3,4,5) 0 100%

Tree (6) 6 0%

Safety Barrier (7) 1 90%


SHOULDER WIDTH

SPF for rural two lane roads (Italy)

CASE STUDIES (D2)

)...(221 nn

vavaaeEXPOY

×××+×=

SAFETY PERFORMANCE

FUNCTION

CRASH=EXPO*exp(a1+a2*OD+a3*AD+a4*UT+a5*SW+a16*LW+a7*AS)

Estimate

Intercept 8.89908

OD -0.03037

AD 0.61177

UT 0.02381

SW -1.02801

LW -2.87574

AS 0.46892


OTHER TREATMENTS

Deliverable D1 has been included as

an appendix in the Guide and

includes the literature review for a

wide variety of treatments


TOOLS FOR EVALUATING TREATMENTS EFFECTIVENESS

Deliverable D2 has been included as an

appendix in the Guide and includes the details

on the tools

proposed

Numerical

simulations of

black spots

with different

treatments


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A PRACTICAL guideline for designing forgiving roadsides has been provided in the IRDES project

Webinars are an extremely useful tool to be discuss, during the development of the project, the outcome so to better meet the user’s expectations

Preliminary feedback from the attendees on the Guideline was extremely positive


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Several other roadside treatments should be assessed

The assessment of the effectiveness of roadside treatment is still very rare (even for common treatments as replacing safety barriers) and should be promoted.


THANKS …….

To all the IRDES TEAM

The ERANET for funding the IRDES Project

To the PEB members who reviewed the deliverables providing some valuable suggestions to improve the drafts

To the Webinar attendees who really helped with their great inputs

To you all for listening …

Documents

Cross-border funded Joint Research Programme IRDES...WP0 – Coordination and Management [WP Leader UNIFI] WP1 – Collection and harmonization of studies and standards on roadside