KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering Transportation Engineering

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004

pp. 135~139

A Study on the Characteristics of Rolling Barriers

By Kyung-Whan Kim* and Bu-Yong Shin**

···············································································································································································································································

Abstract

In 2001, there were 3,638 traffic accidents on the freeways of Korea, with 54.2 percent composed of vehicles that crashed into longitudinal
barriers. Such accidents can be drastically reduced if more safe barriers are installed for traffic safety. A small Korean manufacturing
company invented a new concept longitudinal barrier, the Rolling Barrier (RB), which has continuous pipes covered with urethane rings. This
study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the RB, and to understand the RB’s characteristics of crash cushioning, how to correct the vehicle’s
running direction, and the required strength of barriers. Experiments with barrier performance and crashing vehicle behavior at curved
sections using a 1.3-ton passenger car and a 3.5-ton truck showed satisfactory vehicle behavior as they ran parallel with the RB after crashing.
The structural problem of the RB was not found during the time of the crash. In the strength performance test using the 8-ton truck and in the
passenger protection test using the 1.3-ton passenger car, the RB satisfied the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s “Guidelines for
Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities.” The differences between the RB and conventional barriers where crash cushioning
and required strength of barriers were involved were verified by mathematical equations. The RB can be effectively used in curved road
sections, ramps, medians, and entrance/exit ramps in parking garages.
Keywords: traffic barrier, longitudinal barrier, rolling barrier, vehicle collision experiment

···············································································································································································································································

1. Introduction Road Safety Facilities” published by the Ministry of Construction and

In 2001, there were 3,638 traffic accidents on the freeways of
Korea, with 54.2 percent composed of vehicles that crashed into
longitudinal barriers. Such accidents can be drastically reduced if
more safe barriers will be installed on our roads. In spite of this
situation, only partial improvement of conventional barriers was
achieved. We must recognize the importance of longitudinal barriers,
and thus conceive a revolutionary structure that will reduce accidents
drastically.
A small Korean manufacturing company invented a new concept
longitudinal barrier, the Rolling Barrier (RB), a structure equipped
with continuous pipes covered with urethane rings. Its general
feature resembles an erected abacus. As the RB activates the rolling
friction when vehicles hit the barrier, the RB reduces the severity of
traffic accidents. After the RB was installed at two downgraded and
curved road sections in Busan, the accidents at the sections were
reduced by more than 50 percent in a year. Meanwhile the economic
feasibility for one section was as high as the first year benefit cost
ratio of the section - the estimate was at 26.1 percent.
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the RB, and to
understand the RB’s features in crash cushioning, correcting the
vehicle’s running direction and required strength of the barriers. The
road sections most suitable for RB will also be recommended in this
study.
2. The Ideal Functions of Longitudinal Barriers and
the Problems of Conventional Barriers
2.1. The Ideal Functions of Longitudinal Barriers
According to the “Guidelines for Installation and Management of
Transportation (MOCT), longitudinal barriers are meant to (1) prevent
the errant car from running out of the road, or into opposing lanes or
walkways, (2) reduce passenger injury and vehicle damage, and (3)
return the errant car to its normal running direction. Barriers also
guide the driver’s sight and prevent pedestrians from jaywalking.
Conventional longitudinal barriers have steel W-beam guard railings
or concrete safety shapes, while cable barriers are much less common.
The ideal functions of the barriers can be summarized as follows:
2.1.1. Strength
The dilemma about having barriers that are too strong is that
though they can withstand impact from large vehicles, small vehicles
on the other hand risk serious damage when they crash into them. In
order to mitigate this problem, flexibility is added to the barriers but
the problem associated with large and small vehicles cannot be easily
surmounted. However, if the barriers no longer absorb impact and
instead, simply correct the direction of errant vehicles, the problem
can be solved.
2.1.2. Small Reflection Angle
The crashing vehicle should not run out of the carriage way. It is
ideal for the errant vehicle to have a reflection angle of zero when the
vehicle crashes into the barrier. However, in a real situation such a
reflection angle is impossible. A reflection angle that is less than 60
percent of its crashing angle is deemed satisfactory. When a vehicle
crashes the barrier at a 20o crashing angle, the vehicle reflects at 12o.
If the vehicle’s speed is 36 km/hr, the vehicle runs laterally at 6.2 m
from the barrier after 3 seconds; so the bounded vehicle invades the
adjacent two lanes. In a real traffic accident where vehicles crash into
steel W-beam or concrete barriers, the large reflection angle induces

*Member, Professor, Urban Engineering Major, Division of Construction Engineering, College of Engineering; Director, Environment & Regional Development
Institute, Gyeongsang National University, Korea (E-mail: kwkim@nongae.gsnu.ac.kr)
**President, Transportation & Environment Research Institute, Ltd.

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004 − 135 −

 Kyung-Whan Kim and Bu-Yong Shin
the second traffic accidents.
2.1.3. Small Speed Reduction
When vehicle speed abruptly decreases in a crash, inertia will
cause the passengers inside the vehicle to crash against the interiors,
and thus injure themselves. The US NCHRP Report 230 regulates
that the speed reduction after a crash should be less than 24 km/hr.
However, this speed reduction is the value that can be obtained with
the physical characteristics of the conventional barriers, but not the
value, which guarantees the safety of the driver and the passengers.
At that speed the driver and passengers can be injured seriously. So
as not to abruptly reduce speed, the barriers do not absorb the impact
abruptly. To reduce the forward speed reduction, both the reduction
of absolute speed and the reflection angle should be small. These
functions, however, cannot be expected at conventional barriers.
2.1.4. Mitigates Impact and Ensures Passenger Safety
The barriers should absorb the impact as much as possible just in
case they cannot correct the running direction of errant vehicles.
However, the deformation (which absorbs impact) is regulated at no
more than 1 meter since excessive deformation will tend to enlarge
the reflection angle. Concrete barriers cannot mitigate the impact
either since the deformation will tend to be too small.
2.2. Problems of Conventional Barriers
The conventional steel W-beam railing or concrete barriers do not
have the ideal functions mentioned above, so they cannot guarantee
passengers’ safety satisfactorily when they impact the barriers. As
the revolutionary concept of this new kind of barrier is still not
possible with the present technology, we can still say that we are
satisfying the demands of the present standard.
3. Possibilities in Improving Barrier Functions
According to the “Guidelines for Installation and Management of
Road Safety Facilities,” the crashing impact, IP, to vehicles or
barriers at the time of the crash is calculated with the following
equation,
IP = 1 ⁄ 2 ⋅ m ( v ⁄ 3.6sin θ )
2
(1)
where,
m = the mass of vehicle,
v = the speed (km/hr),
θ = the crashing angle.
In Eq. (1) the friction coefficient between the vehicle and the
barrier is not considered. In a real situation, the magnitude of the
impact at the time of the crash depends on the kinetic energy and the
friction coefficient between the vehicle and the barrier. The friction
coefficient deserves deeper study.
The frictions of the same material differ depending on surface
treatment (Serway et al., 2000). The surface roughness, used in fluid
mechanics often of commercial steel, is 4.5 e−5 meters, that of
concrete is 3.0 e−4 meters, and that of asphalt cast iron, reduced to
1.2 e−4 meters. The coefficient of static friction is quite different from
that of kinetic friction. The static friction coefficient for “steel on
steel” is 0.74, but the kinetic friction coefficient for them is 0.57. The
influence of these characteristics is not negligible in stress analysis
and the structure design of the barriers.
− 136 −
Fig. 1. General Features of the Rolling Barrier
The rolling friction is different from kinetic friction. In “steel on
steel”, the rolling coefficient of friction for train wheels is reduced to
1/100 of the kinetic friction coefficient. The rolling coefficient of
friction for ordinary car tires on dry pavement is reduced from 0.8 of
the kinetic friction coefficient to 0.015, or 1/53 of the kinetic friction
coefficient. Therefore, the barriers are designed to activate the rolling
friction instead of the kinetic friction. It can then be inferred that the
impact of vehicles upon barriers will be reduced to 1/50~1/100 when
using conventional barriers. The reflection angle and the speed
reduction will also be greatly reduced.
4. An Analysis on the Characteristics of the Rolling
Barrier (RB)
4.1. General Features of the Rolling Barrier
The RB, manufactured by a company in Busan, Korea, is a
longitudinal barrier that applies rolling friction. The RB has
continuous pipes that are covered with urethane rings, with the
barrier’s general feature something like an erected abacus. The
barrier meets the errant vehicle as the roller activates the rolling
friction. In this way, the barrier corrects the running direction of the
vehicle while using the momentum of the speed to deflect the vehicle
away instead of absorbing the impact. This prevents secondary traffic
accidents like rear collision; it also promotes passenger safety and
reduces barrier maintenance expenses as the barrier drastically
reduces collision energy, which is charged by the vehicle and the
barrier.
4.2. Collision Experiments of the RB (Geodo, 2000, 2003)
Two collision experiments were conducted in order to evaluate the
performance of the RB. In the first experiment, since the RB would
be installed in hazardous sections (i.e. curved sections) only due to its
high cost, the experiment had the RB installed in a curved section of
200 m radius. Here, the experiment on barrier performance and
crashing vehicle behavior was conducted. The second experiment
was conducted in a straight section to evaluate whether the RB could
satisfy the Korean standard.
In the first experiment, a 1.3-ton passenger car and a 3.5-ton truck
were used. The crashing angles for the two vehicles were set at 15o, a
degree often common in actual accidents.
The crashing speed of the car was 72.1 km/hr and after 0.1 second
from the crashing, the car turned its direction and ran parallel to the
RB, at a speed of 69.2 km/hr. The car then ran 2 meters parallel to the
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 A Study on the Characteristics of Rolling Barriers

RB before escaping from the RB at 18 o. But after the rear of the car The second collision experiment was conducted in straight sections
hit the RB, the car ran into the barrier. Then the car ran 42 meters to test whether the strength performance and the passenger protection
parallel to the RB before it came to a stop. The car’s longitudinal performance could satisfy the MOCT’s “Guidelines for Installation
deceleration, which had great influence on passenger safety, was 7.7 and Management of Road Safety Facilities.” In the strength
m/sec2 (0.8 g), while lateral deceleration was 50.8 m/sec2 (5.2 g). performance test, an 8-ton truck was used at a speed and crashing
While crashing, the structural problem of the RB was not found, but angle of 65.0 km/hr and 15o, respectively. In the passenger protection
there were crashing marks on the car. performance test, a 1.3-ton car was employed, with a speed and
The crashing speed of the truck was 64.8 km/hr. 0.16 seconds after crashing angle at 50 km/hr and 20o, respectively. The main test
impact, the truck ran parallel with the RB at a speed of 62.5 km/hr. results are in Table 1.
Then, the truck ran 1.5 m parallel with the RB before escaping from In the strength performance test, the RB satisfies the MOCT
the RB at 12.75o. The rear of the truck hit the RB, then ran 70 m standards - crashing deformation is less than 0.3 meters, reflection
parallel with the RB before it came to a stop. The longitudinal speed is more than 60 percent of crashing speed, while the reflection
deceleration of the crashing truck was 3.8 m/sec2 (0.39 g) while the angle is less than 60 percent of the crashing angle. In the passenger
lateral deceleration was 28.4 m/sec2 (2.9 g). Deceleration was smaller protection test, the RB also satisfies the MOCT standards: the
than that of the car. During the time of the crash, the structural theoretical head impact velocity is less than 9 m/sec, while the post-
problem of the RB was not found, but crashing marks were found on impact head deceleration is less than 20 g ′ s.
the truck. The conditions of the RB and vehicles before/after the crash are
shown in Figs. 2 and 3:
Table 1. Strength and Passenger Protection Performance Test Results
for RB 4.3. The Characteristics of the RB
Classification Test Items Test Results The RB differs from conventional barriers where crash cushioning,
. Crashing deformation . Maximum deformation 0.015 m vehicle reorientation function, and required strength of barriers are
. Vehicle turnover . Smoothly directs the vehicle’s involved. These are:
Strength running direction
Performance . Reflection speed . 69 percent of crashing speed
Test of crashing vehicle (45 kph) 4.3.1. Crash Cushioning
. Reflection angle . 24 percent of crashing angle The RB does not absorb the shock power in order to cushion the
of crashing vehicle (3.65o)
impact when the vehicle crashes the barrier, but instead deflects the
. Vehicle’s turnover . Smoothly directs the vehicle’s vehicle toward the right direction. This is because the power to
running direction
. Theoretical head . 5.95 m/s (21.42 kph) absorb impact is generated by the deformation and destruction of
Passenger impact velocity vehicles and barriers, thus injuring drivers and passengers. When the
Protection . Post-impact head . 5.59 g ′ s impact is absorbed much, the speed of the crashing vehicle also
Performance deceleration
Test . Reflection speed . 60 percent of crashing speed decreases much, or the vehicle stops, thus causing great impact to the
of the crashing vehicle (48 kph) drivers and passengers.
. Reflection angle . 47.5 percent of crashing angle
of the crashing vehicle (9.5o)
In the actual crash experiment, the deceleration rates of vehicles
crashing into the RB were at 4~40 percent, so deceleration by

Fig. 2. Conditions of the RB and Car Before/After Impact

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004 − 137 −

 Kyung-Whan Kim and Bu-Yong Shin
Fig. 3. Conditions of the RB and Truck Before/After Impact
crashing into the RB doesn’t seem much. Unlike the RB, conventional
barriers often have the vehicle bouncing after impact. This is caused
by elasticity and leads into secondary accidents. Thus, since more
serious accidents would occur if the speed does not decelerate,
barriers should absorb a considerable amount of impact energy.
In case the RB was installed in the curved section, it was observed
that the vehicle ran through continuous contact with the RB. This,
strictly speaking, means that the vehicle crashed into the RB many
times. During the process, the kinetic energy of the vehicle was
scattered in small amounts.
To compare the passenger impact at the time of the crash between
impact absorbing barriers and direction correcting barriers, it is
necessary to compare the kinetic energy produced by these two
barrier types after the crash.
For the conventional barrier,
1 2 1 2
--- ms1 = --- ms2 + ( Ebf + Ebd ) + Ec
2 2
where,
m = the vehicle’s mass,
s1 = the vehicle speed before the crash,
s2 = the vehicle speed just after the crash,
Ebf = the energy absorbed by the friction between the vehicle and
the barrier
Ebd = the energy absorbed by the barriers with crash and
deformation
Ec = the energy absorbed by the vehicle.
For the RB,
1 2 1
--- ms1 = --- ms′22 + ( E′bf + E′bd ) + E′c
2 2
where, ‘ ′ ’ refers to RB.
The difference of the energy absorbed by the vehicle while
crashing between the conventional barrier and the RB is
1
Ec – E′c = --- m ( s′22 – s22 ) + ( E′bf – Ebf ) + ( E′bd – Ebd ) (4)
2
In Eq. (4), E′bf is near zero and Ebf can be neglected as the friction
distance is very short while hitting impact at usual barrier crash
accidents. If it is assumed that the energies absorbed by the barrier
with crash and deformation for both barriers are the same, Eq. (4) can
be rewritten as follows:
1
Ec – E′c = --- m ( s′22 – s22 ) (5)
2
As shown in Eq. (5), the difference of energy absorbed by the
vehicle while crashing between the two barriers is proportional to the
difference of the squared after-crash-speed of the two barriers.
Therefore, the RB produces less impact upon passengers because its
deceleration is smaller than the conventional barrier; the RB does not
absorb the impact energy but instead corrects the running direction of
(2)
the vehicles at impact.
4.3.2. Correcting the Vehicle’s Running Direction
As mentioned above, the RB aims to correct the vehicle’s running
direction by minimizing deceleration after impact rather than
absorbing crashing impact.
For conventional barriers, the large reflection angle after crashing
is a serious problem. However, in the actual experiment, the vehicles
crashing into the RB escape shortly and then run parallel to the RB.
When the RB forms a curve, the RB corrects the vehicle’s running
direction as the vehicle is deflected by the RB’s continuous contact
with it.
4.3.3. Momentum Used at Impact
(3)
When a vehicle crashes into the barriers, if the momentum acting
toward the barriers is big, the barriers will be destroyed. Repairing
damaged barriers is costly, hinders traffic, and increases traffic
hazards. As mentioned earlier, when the momentum acting towards
− 138 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 A Study on the Characteristics of Rolling Barriers
the barriers is big, the momentum acting towards the vehicles and the
impact on the passengers will also be big. Therefore, if the running
direction of the crashed vehicles can be deflected correctly, it is better
that the momentum acting towards the barriers be small.
For comparison purposes, the momentum destroying barriers when
vehicles crash at angle ‘θ ’ can be computed as follows:
For conventional barriers, the momentum parallel to the barriers is
designated as horizontal and the momentum perpendicular to the
barriers is designated as vertical. In this case, both the vertical
momentum and the friction component of the horizontal momentum
acts towards the barriers, so that the total momentum acting toward
barriers, Kgb is
Kgb = ( ms1 sin θ ) + ( ms1 cos θ ⋅ µ )
2 2
(6)
= ms1 sin θ 1 + ( µ ⁄ tan θ )
2
where,
µ = friction coefficient.
For the RB, since the vertical momentum acts alone, the
momentum acting toward barriers, Krb is
Krb = ms1 sin θ
Thus, the momentum acting toward the RB is less than the
momentum towards conventional barriers by 1 ⁄ 1 + ( µ ⁄ tan θ ) .
2
5. Applying the RB
The RB can be applied effectively at the following locations:
5.1. Barriers in Curved Road Sections and Ramps
With frequent vehicular accidents in the ramps of expressways and
at the curved sections of highways, we often find destroyed barriers
or those that have tire marks on the surface. In some places, used tires
are attached on barriers in curved ramps. If the RB is installed in
curved road sections, accidents will be minimized while maintaining
barriers will be easy.
5.2. Median Barriers
With the same logic used above, the RB can be used as a median
barrier in curved road sections. Since the RB is designed as a roller
for both sides, the road space required to install median barriers will
be reduced. Even if the road is not a curved section, the RB can still
Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004 − 139 −
be installed wherever median barriers are needed.
5.3. Entrance /Exit Ramps at Parking Spaces
As the ramps of the underground parking garages in buildings
don’t have enough turning radii, entering vehicles will tend to hit the
walls of the ramps, thus damaging walls or causing them to have
black marks. Such incidents do not damage buildings, but they do
damage vehicles, which can cost the owner much money and time in
repairs. Installing RB in ramps will reduce such incidents drastically.
6. Conclusion
A small Korean manufacturing company invented a new concept
longitudinal barrier. The RB is equipped with continuous pipes that
are covered with urethane rings. This study was undertaken to
evaluate the effectiveness of the RB, to understand the RB’s
characteristics in crash cushioning, and to correct the vehicle’s
running direction and the required strength of the barriers.
In the experiments on barrier performance and crashing vehicle
behavior at curved sections, a 1.3-ton passenger car and a 3.5-ton
truck showed satisfactory vehicle behavior as they ran parallel to the
RB after impact. The structural problem of the RB was not found
during the time of the crash. In the strength performance test, using
the 8-ton truck, and in the passenger protection test using the 1.3-ton
passenger car, the RB satisfies the MOCT’s “Guidelines for
Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities.”
Different characteristics of the RB from conventional barriers in
crash cushioning and the required strength of barrier were verified
through mathematical equations. The RB can be effectively used in
curved road sections, ramps, medians, and entrance/exit ramps in
parking garages.
References
Geodo Industry Cop. (2000). “A Study on the Protection Performance of
Rolling Barrier Systems.” Busan, Korea.
Geodo Industry Cop. (2003). “Application for new techniques:
Manufacturing and installation techniques of the Rolling Barrier, which
activates rolling friction.” Busan, Korea.
Michie, J.D. (1980). “Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance
Evalution of Highway Appurtenances.” NCHRP Report 230, TRB,
Washington, D.C.
Serway, R.A. and Beicher, R.J. (2000). Physics for Scientists and Engineers,
4th Edition. Thomson Learning, pp. 126.
(Received on August 8, 2003 / Accepted on November 18, 2003)