Not applicable.
Not applicable.
In recent years, automobile racing has become one of the most popular sporting events in the United States and abroad. Auto racing's popularity is evidenced by the number of weekend auto races, extensive fan support and corporate sponsorship, and 24-hour cable television coverage. In addition, the sport's popularity is seen in the wide variety of race series available for drivers and spectators, including the Indy Racing League (IRL), NASCAR's WINSTON CUP, BUSCH, and Truck series, FORMULA 1, CART, and IROC.
In automobile racing, high-performance vehicles travel many times around an oval track at very high speeds. Many of these tracks utilize outer retaining or containment walls, typically in the form of substantially rigid concrete barriers, to prevent race vehicles from leaving the track. Unfortunately, race vehicles frequently lose control and impact the rigid outer containment wall, resulting in high-impact energies and, occasionally, driver injuries and fatalities. Errant vehicles and driver injuries and fatalities do not occur only on race tracks, but on highways, interstates, autobahns, and other public roadways in the United States and abroad. An improved barrier system can mitigate the severity of high-speed, high-energy automobile accidents and potentially reduce the number of injuries and fatalities on race tracks and public roadways.
Over the years, there have been many efforts to advance the state of the art of safety barrier design and construction. Some of the simpler proposed solutions consisted of loosely-stacked foam blocks placed around the outer, exterior walls of the track or roadway to reduce the severity of impact between the errant vehicle and the rigid wall. An impacting vehicle, however, can penetrate these foam blocks and strike the retaining wall with little or no impact energy having been absorbed by the blocks. Further, portions of the foam blocks can be knocked onto the track or roadway by the impacting vehicle, creating a hazard for other vehicles that follow. Other barrier designs have incorporated used rubber automobile tires banded together at selected regions of road courses. Although these tire barriers offer significant impact attenuation, these systems capture virtually all impacting vehicles, significantly increasing the total velocity change during the crash and greatly increasing the risk of driver injury or fatality. Further, tire barriers can allow vehicles to under-ride the barrier and lead to intrusion into the vehicle's occupant compartment. This type of system is generally appropriate only for locations where vehicle redirection is not practical, such as the gore areas created at tight hairpin turns.
In the late 1990's, a barrier system known as the FLAG barrier was developed. The FLAG barrier was a compression-type barrier consisting of large diameter, thick-walled resilient cylinders attached to a rigid concrete racetrack wall. The cylinders were placed adjacent one another, forming a longitudinal row of cylinders positioned along the track side. Smaller diameter cylinders were placed on the traffic-side face of the longitudinal barrier and positioned and attached at the recessed regions between the larger cylinders to minimize the potential for vehicle pocketing. This barrier system was crash tested using a 1,248 kg. vehicle impacting at a speed of 121.0 km/hr and an angle of 20.8 degrees. After compressing several of the cylinders, the test vehicle was smoothly redirected, exiting the system at a speed of 70.0 km/hr and an angle of 15.0 degrees. However, the vehicle's velocity change and exit angle were both relatively high.
In 1998, a polyethylene energy dissipating system (PEDS) was developed for use on oval racetracks. The PEDS barrier system was configured using high-density polyethylene (HDPE) cylinders covered by a thick HDPE skin on the front and top of the cylinders. To expedite construction and repair of the PEDS system, the barrier was designed and fabricated in modular units attached to the concrete wall using a cable restraint system. The cover skin was used to reduce the potential for vehicle pocketing in the front face and reduce or eliminate the potential for the driver's extremities becoming caught in the openings between the cylinders. During the running of an IROC race at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway in August, 1998, driver Arie Luyendyk was involved in a crash which resulted in his IROC car impacting rearward on the PEDS barrier installed downstream from the inside corner of turn four. The estimated impact condition for this event consisted of a 1,633 kg car striking the barrier at a speed of 209 km/hr and an angle of 32 degrees. Remarkably, the driver sustained no serious injury from this severe impact event. These relatively positive results were attributed to the PEDS barrier and the excellent energy management of IROC vehicles during rearward impacts. The PEDS barrier, however, sustained significant damage, and debris was spread across the racing surface. Based on the impact performance of the PEDS barrier, several modifications were made to increase its energy-absorbing capabilities and prevent the units from becoming dislodged.
Beginning in 1999, researchers at the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) in Lincoln, Nebr., in cooperation with IRL and NASCAR, investigated several energy-absorbing barrier concepts for use in high-speed racetrack and roadway applications using both computer simulation modeling and full-scale vehicle crash testing. The energy-absorbing and potential of both HDPE and foam materials were investigated. This testing and simulation indicated that HDPE barrier systems allowed impacting vehicles to gouge into the material and create snagging and pocketing, indicating to the MwRSF researchers that HDPE barrier faces offered no improvements or advantages over concrete barriers.
Simulation and testing of vehicle barriers indicates that lateral accelerations imparted to impacting vehicles and their occupants can be greatly reduced by adding even modest amounts of energy dissipation to rigid barrier systems. Further, testing has indicated that the utilization of relatively stiff longitudinal barrier elements would minimize vehicle rebound from the barrier. Subsequently, an energy-absorbing barrier system utilizing rubber energy absorbers with steel reinforced fiberglass fender panels was developed. This barrier design included a cable and strut mechanism by which the fender panels were attached to the vertical concrete backup structure to allow the barrier to deflect rearward with limited longitudinal motion. However, the relatively short “fish scale” fender panels and the soft energy absorbers utilized in this barrier caused the system to deform around the front of the impacting vehicle, increasing the potential for snagging and/or high rebound angles at increased impact speeds. Further, the cables and struts used to mount the barrier to the backup structure also posed potential snagging problems during high-speed impacts.
Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an energy-absorbing vehicle barrier system for use on high-speed race tracks and public roadways.
Another object of the present of the invention is to provide an energy-absorbing vehicle barrier system that reduces the potentially harmful deceleration forces experienced by an impacting vehicle and its occupants.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide an energy-absorbing vehicle barrier system that reduces or eliminates the potential for vehicle pocketing, gouging, or snagging in either direction of travel.
Yet another object of the present invention is to provide an energy-absorbing vehicle barrier system comprised of readily-available materials and that may be relatively easily and quickly repaired following a damaging vehicle impact.
The present invention provides for a high-impact, energy-absorbing vehicle barrier system. The barrier system generally includes a substantially rigid outer containment wall coupled via cable restraint assemblies with an energy-absorbing inner impact wall, and energy-absorbing cartridges strategically positioned between the impact wall and containment wall. A preferred embodiment of the barrier system of the present invention includes an impact wall comprised of a plurality of rectangular cross-sectioned structural steel tubes welded to one another to present a substantially smooth, uniform wall to passing vehicles. The impact wall generally consists of a number of impact wall sections coupled with one another by sliding splice units having beveled end faces. The face of the impact wall may be coated with a lubricant, such as zinc-rich paint, to further minimize friction between the impact wall and an errant, impacting vehicle. The energy-absorbing cartridges, which in a preferred embodiment consist of a plurality of foam sheets, compress and crush between the containment wall and impact wall and absorb energy from a vehicle striking the face of the impact wall. The deflection and deformation of the impact wall tubes toward the containment wall further dissipates energy of the impacting vehicle. The barrier system of the present invention is suitable for use on high-speed race tracks and public roadways, significantly reduces peak vehicular decelerations experienced by an impacting vehicle and its occupants, minimizes the potential for vehicle gouging, snagging, or pocketing in either direction of travel, and mitigates the severity of high-energy vehicular impacts. The cable restraint assemblies and sliding splice units provide for relatively easy and quick removal and replacement of damaged impact wall sections.
The new, high-impact, energy-absorbing barrier system of the present invention was developed to mitigate the severity of high-energy vehicular impacts. In impacts with rigid walls, vehicular decelerations are often maximized as the rigid wall does not displace and substantially all of the impact energy must be dissipated by the vehicle structure (e.g. the vehicle body, engine, transmission, tires, etc.). The new barrier system of the present invention reduces the severity of an impact when a vehicle strikes a containment wall at a high speed. The system reduces or eliminates snagging or pocketing in both directions of vehicle travel and also provides energy dissipation in both the impacting vehicle and the energy-absorbing barrier, significantly reducing peak vehicular and vehicle occupant decelerations when compared to the decelerations observed during an impact with a rigid containment wall. The mitigation of these high vehicular decelerations greatly reduces the potential for serious injury or fatality as a result of the impact with the exterior containment wall.
The barrier system of the present invention is designed primarily for use as protection for errant vehicles at high-risk locations such as on the outside of curves on race tracks and heavily congested high-speed roadways. Since this new barrier is primarily, but not exclusively, a longitudinal barrier, the technology has potential application as a roadside barrier in high accident locations such as curves in tunnels and congested roadways. The technology also has application in retrofitting rigid bridge railings and other permanent or temporary traffic barriers. For longitudinal barrier applications, the system would primarily be intended to mitigate the severity of oblique-angle vehicular impacts. However, this technology may also be applied to severe, high-impact events where perpendicular impacts to the system are anticipated. These higher-severity events include situations where crash cushions, end terminals, and truck-mounted or trailer-mounted attenuators are required.
In the accompanying drawings, which form a part of the specification and are to be read in conjunction therewith, and in which like reference numerals are used to indicate like parts in the various views:
Referring to the drawings in greater detail, and initially to
The containment wall 12 is generally constructed of heavily reinforced concrete, but may be constructed of steel, stone, or other substantially rigid material. The impact wall 14 of the present invention is configured such that it can be easily attached to an existing containment wall 12 such as those typically used at race tracks and high-speed tunnels, or an entire barrier system 10, including impact wall 14 and containment wall 12, may be constructed for newly-constructed race tracks and roadways.
As best seen in the embodiment depicted in
When welded or otherwise coupled with one another, tubes 20 form the impact wall 14 and, as seen in
The use of structural steel tubes 20 to form the impact wall 14 allows the wall 14 to be manufactured from readily-available structural materials and permits a wide range of barrier height, as measured from the track or roadway surface to the top of the device. In a preferred embodiment for use at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway in Indianapolis, Ind., impact wall 14 is formed of four (4) structural steel tubes 20 each having a rectangular cross section and a width of six (6) inches, the bottom tube 20 having a height of approximately twelve (12) inches, the two (2) inner tubes 20 each having a height of approximately eight (8) inches, and the upper tube 20 having a height of approximately ten (10) inches, for a total impact wall 14 height of approximately thirty eight (38) inches. It will be understood, however, that impact wall 14 may be constructed of a single unitary member or tube 20, or may be constructed of any number of tubes 20 or other structural members having varying dimensions and wall thicknesses.
The barrier system 10 of the present invention may include a single section of impact wall 14 (not depicted), or may be formed of a plurality of impact wall 14 sections coupled with one another by splice units 34. In a particular preferred multi-section embodiment, such as that depicted in
The internal, “hidden” splice units 34 reduce the potential that the sections of impact wall 14 will separate or that the joints between the sections of impact wall 14 will open up when a vehicle impacts the wall 14. The outer edges of the tubes 20 or wall sections 14 may be beveled at the wall 14 or tube 20 ends, such that the joints between sections of the impact wall 14 have a shallow, flat V-shaped indentation. In addition, in the event a vehicle strikes the impact wall 14 at or near a splice unit 34, the beveled end faces 36 of the splice units 34 and the beveled edges of the tubes 20 or walls 14 serve to minimize the potential that an edge or corner of the splice unit 34 will penetrate the wall of a tube 20 and contact or snag the impacting vehicle, or that an impacting vehicle will snag on an impact wall 14 joint. The configuration of the splice units 34 also results in a “bidirectional” joint between sections of impact wall 14, in that the beveled end faces 36 of splice units 34 also ensure that the face of the impact wall 14 will remain substantially smooth, continuous, and snag- and pocket-free regardless of the direction of travel of the impacting vehicle. Finally, the splice units 34 allow for relatively rapid and easy replacement of impact wall 14 sections when necessary, as will be further discussed below.
As best seen in
As best seen in
It will be understood that the energy-absorbing cartridges 18 may be constructed of any number of materials and configurations, including polystyrene foam sheets or blocks, expanded bead polystyrene foam, friable polyurethane foam sheets or blocks of varying or constant thicknesses widths, or rubber or HDPE cylinders or tubes positioned in individual or concentric, telescoping fashion between the walls 12 and 14. The energy-absorbing barrier system 10 of the present invention may be “tuned” to accommodate virtually any impact condition by adjusting the cartridge 18 material, thickness, width, height, stress rating, and configuration. It will be understood, for example, that cartridges 18 may consist of a number of sheets 54 or blocks having varying widths so that a cartridge 18 has a substantially T-shaped or trapezoidal cross-section as seen from a plan view. The cartridges 18 are relatively easy to remove from and reinstall between wall 12 and wall 14 to enable the user to tune the stiffness and other performance characteristics of the barrier system 10 to match the expected impact conditions for a given site, such as impact speed, vehicle type and weight, and impact angle, and to replace compressed, crushed, cracked, or otherwise damaged cartridges.
In one tested embodiment of the barrier system 10 of the present invention, the energy-absorbing cartridges 18 consisted of seven (7) stacked sheets 54 of OWENS CORNING extruded polystyrene foam having a rating of 15 psi, each sheet 54 having a thickness of two (2) inches, a width of twenty (20) inches, and a height of forty (40) inches. The multi-sheet cartridges 18 were spaced along and between walls 12 and 14 at approximately ten (10) foot intervals on center. This embodiment was tested with an Indy open-wheel style vehicle weighing approximately 2,035 lbs. striking the face of the impact wall 14 at an approximate speed of 143 m.p.h. and an angle of approximately 20.7 degrees. The vehicle contacted the impact wall 14 at a point approximately ten (10) feet upstream of a joint between impact wall sections 14 and slightly downstream of a cartridge 18, and exited the impact wall 14 at a velocity vector angle of approximately 4.5 degrees. With this particular tube 20 and cartridge 18 configuration, the tests indicated that the impact wall 14 did not contact or “bottom out” on the containment wall 12 and that the deceleration forces applied to the impacting vehicle and its occupant were substantially mitigated. It will be understood persons skilled in the art that the barrier system 10 may readily be tuned for specific applications. The number, material, and dimensions of tubes 20, the spacing of cartridges 18, and the configuration, thicknesses, and widths of foam sheets 54 all may be adjusted depending upon several factors, including the expected impact angle, impact velocity, and vehicle type(s) (e.g. INDY open-wheel type and/or WINSTON CUP type vehicle, standard car, truck, etc.).
The barrier system 10 of the present invention may be continuous and surround the entire periphery of a race track or road way, or the system 10 may be positioned at select locations along the periphery of the track or roadway, at turns or high-speed corners, for example. In the event the barrier system 10 is not continuous, transition sections 56 may be provided at the upstream and/or downstream ends of the impact wall 14, as seen in
In operation, an errant vehicle strikes the face of the impact wall 14. The hollow structural steel tubes 20 which comprise the impact wall 14 deflect towards the containment wall 12, compressing and/or crushing the energy-absorbing cartridges 18 between the deflected impact wall 14 and containment wall 12. To ensure that vehicle and driver deceleration forces are minimized, the tubes 20 and cartridges 18 are configured and spaced such that the deflecting impact wall 14 will not contact or “bottom out” on the substantially rigid containment wall 12, as discussed above. The energy of the impacting vehicle is absorbed by the elastic and/or plastic deformation of the tubes 20, the compression and/or crushing of the energy-absorbing cartridges 18, and the crumpling or crushing of portions of the impacting vehicle itself.
In the event of a extremely high-speed impact, a tube or tubes 20, an entire impact wall section 14, and/or one or more cartridges 18 may become plastically deformed or otherwise damaged such that replacement of a section of impact wall 14 and/or one or more cartridges 18 is desired. The barrier system 10 of the present invention allows for relatively quick and easy repair and replacement of a damaged section of impact wall 14. To replace such a section, the cable restraint assembly 16 must be uncoupled from the impact wall 14, and the splice units 34 on each end of the section to be replaced must be slidably removed from the tubes 20 of the section 14 to be replaced. To accomplish this, the brace bolts 26 and sliding splice bolts 38 are typically first removed or loosened sufficiently such that the splice units 34 are disengaged from the walls of the tubes 20 and may slide and telescope within the tubes 20. The sliding splice bolts 38 are generally grasped and pulled to the side along the length of the tube slots 28 until the splice units 34 completely clear the joint between the section of impact wall 14 to be replaced and the adjacent section(s). The threaded keyhole plug 50 is then removed from the keyhole aperture 48. The ferrule 42 and cable 40 are slid upwards from the slot in the aperture 48 into the larger diameter hole portion of the aperture 48 such that the ferrule may be removed from the keyhole aperture 48. The damaged section 14 may then be removed, and a new, undamaged section 14 installed in its place by coupling the new section 14 to the adjacent section(s) 14 via the splice units 34 and by coupling the new section 14 to the containment wall 12 via the cable restraint assemblies 16. In the event one or more energy-absorbing cartridges 18 are cracked, crushed, plastically deformed, or otherwise damaged, new cartridges 18, or parts thereof, may be readily replaced. This is accomplished by removing the damaged cartridge(s) 18 and positioning the new cartridge(s) 18 against the containment wall 12 before a wall section 14 is installed or by simply sliding new cartridge(s) 18 between already-installed and coupled walls 12 and 14.
It will be seen from the foregoing that this invention is one well adapted to attain the ends and objects set forth above, and to attain other advantages which are obvious and inherent in the device. It will be understood that certain features and subcombinations are of utility and may be employed without reference to other features and subcombinations. This is contemplated by and within the scope of the claims. It will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that the present invention is not limited to what has been particularly shown and described above. Rather, all matter shown in the accompanying drawings or described above is to be interpreted as illustrative and not limiting.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3049062 | Irwin | Aug 1962 | A |
3666055 | Walker et al. | May 1972 | A |
3674115 | Young et al. | Jul 1972 | A |
3680662 | Walker et al. | Aug 1972 | A |
3944187 | Walker | Mar 1976 | A |
4101115 | Meinzer | Jul 1978 | A |
4321989 | Meinzer | Mar 1982 | A |
4452431 | Stephens et al. | Jun 1984 | A |
4674911 | Gertz | Jun 1987 | A |
4681302 | Thompson | Jul 1987 | A |
4773629 | Yodock | Sep 1988 | A |
4815565 | Sicking et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4869617 | Chiodo | Sep 1989 | A |
4946306 | Yodock | Aug 1990 | A |
5125762 | Strassil | Jun 1992 | A |
5238228 | Moon | Aug 1993 | A |
5314261 | Stephens | May 1994 | A |
5403112 | Carney, III | Apr 1995 | A |
5425594 | Krage et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5605413 | Brown | Feb 1997 | A |
5645368 | Yunick | Jul 1997 | A |
5660496 | Muller et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5797592 | Machado | Aug 1998 | A |
5823584 | Carney, III | Oct 1998 | A |
5851005 | Muller et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5860762 | Nelson | Jan 1999 | A |
5882140 | Yodock, Jr. et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5915876 | Barbazza | Jun 1999 | A |
5921702 | Fitch | Jul 1999 | A |
5947452 | Albritton | Sep 1999 | A |
6004066 | Niemerski | Dec 1999 | A |
6007269 | Marinelli | Dec 1999 | A |
6010275 | Fitch | Jan 2000 | A |
6024341 | Gertz | Feb 2000 | A |
6048138 | Lamberson et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6082926 | Zimmer | Jul 2000 | A |
6149134 | Bank et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6488268 | Albritton | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6530560 | King | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6536986 | Anghileri et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6540434 | Hotchkin | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6551010 | Kiedaisch et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6554530 | Moore | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6604888 | Dolan | Aug 2003 | B2 |
20030081997 | Kramer | May 2003 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
20003791 | May 2000 | DE |