CRASH PERFORMANCE OF ENERGY-ABSORBING GUIDE RAIL TERMINALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy-absorbing guide rail terminals (EAGRTs) are a form of end treatment designed to absorb energy during a collision and prevent intrusion into the impacting vehicle. After several years of use in New Brunswick there is evidence to suggest these systems may not always perform as desired. This study was conducted to evaluate the real-world performance of EAGRT systems in collisions throughout the Province. A retrospective review of 103 collisions that occurred prior to the study was supplemented with an in-depth analysis and reconstruction of 18 collisions that occurred during the study period. The study involved two EAGRT systems; the ET-Plus and the SKT-350. In most cases the EAGRT absorbed a significant amount of energy (an average of 315 KJ per crash); however, several observations were made. It was determined that not all EAGRT systems are being installed in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines. Intrusion of system components into the vehicle was documented in two collisions. It was also observed that many of the collision configurations were outside the boundaries defined by both the NCHRP Report 350 and MASH. The major recommendations focused on installation and maintenance issues. The study also revealed areas in need of further research. These areas include the feasibility of using systems that maximize lateral offset to reduce snowplow damage, and whether an impact offset greater than one quarter would be more critical than an impact with only a quarter offset, which is currently used in the NCHRP Report 350 (and MASH) Test 3-30. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201211RT334E.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".