NBN EN 1317

Road Restraint Systems

Parts 3 and 4

There are 3 elements that effect road safety

the driver
The car

and the road

We all know that the vehicles on our roads should be

safe and well maintained.

We also know that the motorist can be less than

perfect when it comes to safe driving.

Distractions
Drinking
and
Drowsiness
can all contribute to driver
error

CAR, DRIVER, ROAD

If any one of these three
basic elements are not safe
the results can be
disastrous

10

11

Part of the highway engineers challenge is to

identify these potential hazards and make them
safer for the motorist.

12

There are 4 positive actions that can be taken once a

hazard has been identified:

Eliminate
Relocate
Make breakaway
Shield

13

The best solution is to

ELIMINATE THE HAZARD

However, this is often the most expensive option

14

If it is not possible to eliminate the hazard

MOVE THE HAZARD AWAY FROM THE ROAD

15

if it is not possible to eliminate or move the

hazard...

16

MAKE THE HAZARD BREAKAWAY

17

if it is not possible to eliminate the hazard,

to move the hazard
or to make the hazard breakaway...

18

shield the hazard with a

Barrier or Crash Cushion

19

20

The first crash cushions were simple

21

One solution was

the use of water
as the energy
absorbing
element

HI-DRO SANDWICH SYSTEM

22

The concept was improved

23

However,
Non redirected impacts
could still be very serious

The next generation of products needed to be

redirective

NON-REDIRECTIVE

REDIRECTIVE

25

NARROW

WIDE

26

These crash cushions

telescope when hit on the nose to decelerate
vehicles travelling up to 110 km/h

27

These crash cushions

are reusable

28

Crash cushions DO make a difference!

NO PROTECTION

WITH PROTECTION
29

Nobody walked away from this accident

but a crash cushion could have made a
big difference

30

Identifying hazards is not

too difficult

31

especially if the hazard has

caused accidents before

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Understanding
the European
legislation:

EN 1317

57

EN 1317 - Road restraint systems

Part 1 - Terminology and general criteria for test methods. EN 1317-1
Part 2 Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test
methods for safety barriers. EN 1317-2
Part 3 Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test
methods for crash cushions. EN 1317-3
Part 4 Impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for
terminals and transitions of safety barriers. ENV 1317-4
The following parts are still being prepared:
Part 5 - Durability and evaluation of conformity. EN 1317-5
Part 6 Pedestrian road restraint systems, pedestrian parapets. EN 1317-6
58

After years of hard work and consultation the final version was
approved and published in April 2000 and the following member states
are now bound to implement this European standard:

Ireland
Austria

Italy

Belgium

Luxembourg

Czech Republic

Netherlands

Denmark

Norway

Finland

Portugal

France

Spain

Germany

Sweden

Greece

Switzerland

Iceland

UK
59

Understanding

EN 1317-3
(Crash cushions)

60

Manufacturers can supply either:

A single crash cushion system

(with one width and one length)
or

A system type tested crash cushion (family)

(A multiple performance product that can be assembled to form
different models from the same set of components, to obtain
different shapes and performances, with the same working
mechanism for the system and its components.)

61

Testing can be broken down into 3 distinct areas:

Approach

Test vehicle mass

Impact speed

62

APPROACH CODE NUMBERS FOR TESTS

TC1

TC2
L/ 3
L/2
L (length)

TC 5

TC 4

TC1

Head-on centre

TC2

Head-on vehicle width offset

TC3

Nose (centre) at 15

TC4

Side impact at 15

TC5

Side impact at 165

TC3

63

What approach code is this?

TC 1 - head on centre
64

What approach code is this?

TC 3 nose (centre) at 15
65

What approach code is this?

TC 4 - side impact at 15
66

CODE NUMBERS FOR TEST VEHICLE MASS

900 kg vehicle (1)

1300 kg vehicle (2)
1500 kg vehicle (3)

67

900 kg vehicle

1300 kg vehicle

1500 kg vehicle
68

IMPACT SPEED

50 km/h
80 km/h
100 km/h
110 km/h
69

THESE DIFFERENT CRITERIA ARE INDICATED IN THE TEST CODES

For example, this test is for a head-on approach from a

1300 kg vehicle at 100 km/h

TC 1. 2. 100

Approach code

Vehicle mass code

Impact speed
70

TABLE 1
This table is part of EN 1317-3 and sets out the vehicle impact test criteria for the various tests.
VEHICLE IMPACT TEST CRITERIA FOR CRASH CUSHIONS
Test
TC 1.1.50
TC 1.1.80
TC 1.1.100
TC 1.2.80
TC 1.2.100
TC 1.3.110
TC 2.1.80
TC 2.1.100
TC 3.2.80
TC 3.2.100
TC 3.3.110
TC 4.2.50
TC 4.2.80
TC 4.2.100
TC 4.2.110
TC 5.2.80
TC 5.2.100
TC 5.3.110

Approach

Head-on centre

Total vehicle mass

kg
900
900
900
1300
1500

Head-on vehicle
offset
Nose (centre) at
15

Side impact at 15

Side impact at
165

900
1300
1300
1500
1300
1300
1300
1500
1300
1300
1500

Velocity km/h
50
80
100
80
100
110
80
100
80
100
110
50
80
100
110
80
100
110

Figure 1 Test No.

1
1
2

71

NBN EN 1317-3 considers the

forces experienced by the occupant
of the vehicle during impact.
These include:
THIV Theoretical head impact velocity
PHD Post-impact head deceleration
ASI Acceleration severity index
72

ASI Acceleration Severity Index

ASI is a function of time for the components of
acceleration along the x, y and z axes, averaged over
a moving time interval of 50 ms.
It is intended to give a measure of the severity of the
vehicle motion for a person.

73

ASI Acceleration Severity Index

x
_ + _y + _z
12

10

74

ASI Acceleration Severity Index

TABLE 4 - Vehicle impact severity values

Index values

Impact severity levels

ASI < 1.0

ASI < 1.4

THIV < 44 km/h in tests 1,2 and 3

THIV < 33 km/h in tests 4 and 5
THIV < 44 km/h in tests 1,2 and 3
THIV < 33 km/h in tests 4 and 5

PHD < 20g

PHD < 20g

NOTE 1 Impact severity level A affords a greater level of safety for the occupants of an errant
vehicle than level B and is preferred
NOTE 2 The limit value of THIV is higher in tests 1, 2 and 3 because experience has shown that
higher values can be tolerated in frontal impacts (also because of better passive safety in this
direction). Such a difference in tolerance between frontal and lateral impacts is already considered
in the ASI parameter, which therefore does not need to be changed.

75

Performance levels

TABLE 2 - Performance levels for redirective crash cushions

Acceptance test

Level
50

TC 1.1.50

TC 4.2.50

80 / 1

TC 1.2.80

TC 2.1.80

TC 4.2.80

80

TC 1.1.80

TC 1.2.80

TC2.1.80

TC 3.2.80

TC 4.2.80

TC 5.2.80*

100

TC 1.1.100

TC 1.2.100

TC 2.1.100

TC 3.2.100

TC 4.2.100

TC 5.2.100*

110

TC 1.1.100

TC 1.3.110

TC 2.1.100

TC 3.3.110

TC 4.3.110

TC 5.3.110*

Tests marked (*) will not be required where the vehicle approach is not possible (e.g. when traffic is in one
direction only or at a toll booth/gate).

76

Table 5 EXAMPLE
For a family of bi-directional redirective (R) crash cushions to qualify
at 110 km/h, 100 km/h and 80 km/h levels, 12 tests are required.
6 tests on the narrowest system (as set out in Table 2)
2 further tests on the narrowest (minimum) system (shorter lengths)
4 further tests on the widest (maximum) system (various lengths)
TABLE 5 - Parent Crash Cushion with minimum taper/width, 110km/h
Taper/width

Velocity class
(km/h)

Minimum

110

All tests

100

TC 1.2.100

TC 4.2.100**

80

TC 1.2.80

TC 4.2.80**

50

TC 1.1.50

TC 4.2.50**

Intermediate

Maximum
TC 1.1.100
TC 4.3.110**

NOTE Tests marked (**) will not be required for non-redirective crash cushions

77

Table 5 EXAMPLE in diagram

TC 1.1.100

TC 1.1.100
TC 1.3.110

TC 2.1.100

wide
TC 4.3.110

TC 3.3.110
TC 5.3.110

6 tests, as set out in Table 2,

TC 4.3.110

2 further tests on
the widest system at
100 km/h and 110 km/h

on the narrowest system

TC 1.2.100

wide
TC 4.2.100

1 further test on the narrowest system at 100 km/h

1 further test on
the widest system at 100 km/h

TC 1.2.80

wide

3
TC 4.2.80

1 further test on
1 further test on the narrowest system at 80 km/h

the widest system at 80 km/h

78

EVIDENCE
Dont just rely on a products
advertising or marketing material.
Remember, tests can be
performed and still fail so make
sure that you see the
authenticated test passes.

All test documentation should be

from a recognised test laboratory
that conforms to a minimum
standard of ISO 17025

79

EUROPEAN PROCUREMENT DIRECTIVES

EC Directive 93/37, Article 10, Clause 2 states:

Without prejudice to the legally binding national technical rules and insofar as
these are compatible with Community law, the technical specifications shall
be defined by the contracting authorities by reference to national
standards implementing European standards, or by reference to European
technical approvals or by reference to common technical specifications.

80

EUROPEAN PROCUREMENT DIRECTIVES

EC Directive 93/37, Article 10, Clause 6 states:

Unless such specifications are justified by the subject of the contract, Member
States shall prohibit the introduction into the contractual clauses relating to
a given contract of technical specifications which mention products of a
specific make or source or of a particular process and which therefore favour
or eliminate certain undertakings. In particular, the indication of trade marks,
patents, types, or of a specific origin or production shall be prohibited.

81

82

A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO THINK ABOUT

Is it legal for companies to offer
products for installation on Member
State highways that have not
performed to the minimum number
of tests required?

Is it legal for a government

procurement body of a Member State
to continue to accept/purchase
product for installation on national
road networks, knowing full well that
the product has not been fully
tested?
83

If it is your responsibility to
ensure that the correct
products are being installed
on your highways

Make sure you

know your

EN 1317-3!
84

UNDERSTANDING
ENV 1317-4
Terminals and
Transitions for
Safety Barriers

85

Examples
of
Terminals

86

87

Transition

88

CODE NUMBERS FOR TEST VEHICLE MASS

(Same as Part 3)

(1) 900 kg vehicle

(2) 1300 kg vehicle

(3) 1500 kg vehicle

89

IMPACT SPEED
(Similar to Part 3 but not covering 50 km/h)

50 km/m
80 km/h
100 km/h
110 km/h
90

As in EN1317-3, the different criteria are indicated in the test codes

For example, this test is for a head-on nose, offset to

roadside approach from a 900 kg vehicle at 100 km/h

TT 2. 1. 100

Approach code

Vehicle mass code

Impact speed
91

Table 1 Terminals: Vehicle impact test criteria and performance classes

Tests
Performance
class

Location

P1

U
P2

Approach

Approach
reference

Vehicle
Mass (kg)

Velocity
(km/h)

Test
Code1)

head-on nose 1/4

offset to roadside

900

80

TT 2.1.80

head-on nose 1/4

offset to roadside

900

80

TT 2.1.80

side, 15 2/3 L

1 300

80

TT 4.2.80

side, 165 1/2 L

900

80

TT 5.1.80

head-on nose 1/4

offset to roadside

900

100

TT 2.1.100

head-on centre

1 300

100

TT 1.2.100

side, 15 2/3 L

1 300

100

TT 4.2.100

side, 165 1/2 L

900

100

TT 5.1.100

head-on nose 1/4

offset to roadside

900

100

TT 2.1.100

head-on centre

1 500

110

TT 1.3.110

side, 15 2/3 L

1 500

110

TT 4.3.110

side, 165 1/2 L

900

100

TT 5.1.100

A
D

U
P3

U
P4

D
1) Test

code notation is as follows:

TT
Test of
Terminal

2
Approach

Test
vehicle

100
Impact
speed

mass
NOTE 1 To avoid ambiguity, the numbering of the approach path in Table 1 and in Figure 3 is the same as in EN 1317-3; approach 3 is
present in EN 1317-3 as test 3 for crash cushions, but it is not required for Terminals.
NOTE 2 The test with approach 5 is not run for a flared terminal when, at the relevant impact point, the angle () of the vehicle path to the
traffic face of the terminal is less than 5.

92

Approach paths for 2 alternative shapes of terminal (a and b)

93

Table 5 Terminals: Vehicle Impact Severity Classes

Impact severity
classes

Index values

ASI 1,0

ASI 1,4

THIV < 44 km/h in tests 1 and 2

THIV < 33 km/h in tests 4 and 5
THIV < 44 km/h in tests 1 and 2
THIV < 33 km/h in tests 4 and 5

PHD 20 g
PHD 20 g

NOTE 1 Impact severity class A affords a greater level of safety for the occupants of an
errant vehicle than class B and is preferred when other considerations are the same.
NOTE 2 The limit value for THIV is higher in tests 1 and 2 because experience has shown
that higher values can be tolerated by occupants in frontal impacts (also because of better
passive safety in this direction). Such a difference in human tolerance between frontal and
lateral impacts is already considered in the ASI parameter, which therefore does not need to
be changed.

94

Table 6 Permanent lateral displacement zones for terminals

Class code

Displacement (m)

1
x

0,5
Da

1,5

3,0

1,0

2
3
4

Dd

2,0
3,5
>3,5

The distances Da and Dd are shown by lines Aa and Ad below

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123