Abstract:
In an effort to assess the efficacy of the crashworthiness requirements in the new Manual for Assessing of Safety Hardware (MASH) funding was provided for the testing of seven commonly-used longitudinal barriers in NCHRP Project 22-14(3). Each of these barriers had been previously approved under NCHRP Report 350 crashworthiness requirements. These crash tests were conducted using the Silverado pick-up truck as the 2270P test vehicle to exploit the unique opportunity to further validate the newly developed Chevrolet Silverado quad-cab pick-up truck finite element (FE) model. The Silverado conforms with all the generic specifications for a 2270P MASH test vehicle. In another effort, FHWA provided funding to simulate each of the seven crash tests to allow comparison of crash test and simulation results for validation purposes. These comparisons further confirmed that the 2270P vehicle model could be used to effectively replicate MASH Test 3-11 impacts for various types of longitudinal barriers. The comparisons of crash test data and simulation results also provided an opportunity to assess the new verification and validation (V&V) procedure for the individual cases. This paper provides a comparison of a set of V&V summaries in the interest of better understanding their relevance and implications of the findings and to support further implementation of the procedures. The results for the seven barriers were compared using “traditional” methods, as well as the new verification and validation (V&V) procedures. The individual V&V comparisons suggest that the structured assessment across multiple factors reflected in the PIRT tables and statistical measures of test and simulation results provided a more robust validation. This analysis was motivated by a concern that there may not be a full appreciation of how the metrics were derived or the implications of variations in the results. Some variations across the tests were expected due to the differences in barrier design features, but since they all involved Test 3-11, the differences were assumed to be minor. Questions are raised in the comparison of specific results across tests that need to be answered for effective use of the V&V procedures and to establish a common understanding among roadside safety professionals about the implications of the V&V results.
