<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSJhbGwiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMTYiIC8+PC9wYXJhbXM+PGZpbHRlcnM+PGZpbHRlciBmaWVsZD0iaW5kZXh0ZXJtcyIgdmFsdWU9IiZxdW90O1RyYWZmaWMgYmFycmllcnMmcXVvdDsiIG9yaWdpbmFsX3ZhbHVlPSImcXVvdDtUcmFmZmljIGJhcnJpZXJzJnF1b3Q7IiAvPjwvZmlsdGVycz48cmFuZ2VzIC8+PHNvcnRzPjxzb3J0IGZpZWxkPSJwdWJsaXNoZWQiIG9yZGVyPSJkZXNjIiAvPjwvc29ydHM+PHBlcnNpc3RzPjxwZXJzaXN0IG5hbWU9InJhbmdldHlwZSIgdmFsdWU9InB1Ymxpc2hlZGRhdGUiIC8+PC9wZXJzaXN0cz48L3NlYXJjaD4=" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>High Tension Cable Median Guardrail Expected Lifespan</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2487331</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been installing High Tension Cable Barrier (HTCB) Systems for approximately 20 years along heavily traveled corridors. The objective of this research is to study the lifecycle of HTCB system and the inspection process for this critical safety equipment.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:59:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2487331</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-5010: Feasibility Study of Deploying Movable Barriers as Permanent Barriers and Temporary Traffic Barriers for Future Roadway Design, Construction, and Maintenance</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2601511</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Current highway designs typically rely on permanent barriers to separate lanes and on temporary traffic barriers and traffic control devices to establish work zones. Previous efforts have primarily focused on the safety/cost benefits of movable barriers only in work zones; however, the feasibility of deploying movable barriers as permanent barriers and temporary traffic barriers has yet to be studied through roadway life cycle. This research will conduct a comprehensive comparison to determine whether to adopt movable barriers as replacements/additions in future roadway design, construction, and maintenance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 16:09:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2601511</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design and Safety Considerations of Center Line Barriers</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558364</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Opposite-direction crashes, which involve a vehicle crossing into opposing lanes and impacting other vehicle(s) head on or in a sideswipe collision, account for more than 5,000 fatalities in the United States each year. These collisions most often occur on two-way, two-lane, high-speed rural roads, where opposing traffic is separated only by a center line pavement marking, sometimes supplemented with rumble strips. This type of roadway comprises approximately 69 percent of the national road network, totaling approximately 1.97 million miles.

NCHRP Research Report 995: Guidelines for Treatments to Mitigate Opposite Direction Crashes outlines several strategies for reducing opposite-direction collisions. Among them are center line buffer areas, which provide additional space between opposing traffic on undivided roads, and cable median barriers installed within the median of divided highways. For highways that do not have a median, a combined approach of installing barrier within a center line buffer area (hereafter referred to as center line barriers) may be effective. Only a limited number of existing sites in the United States have used this approach, and although these installations may not provide the full barrier deflection distance, a 2016 report titled Performance Evaluation of a Cable Median Barrier System on an Oregon Highway with a Narrow Median by Burns and Bell found this treatment effective in reducing opposite-direction crashes. 

Research is needed to evaluate the effects of center line barriers on roadway safety, operations, and maintenance. Additional study is also needed to investigate noteworthy practices and design considerations for implementing this treatment effectively.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to identify risk factors for opposite-direction crashes and investigate the safety, operational, and maintenance effects of center line barriers on previously undivided roadways. The research results will be used to prepare a guide with noteworthy practices, including safety performance and design considerations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2025 13:19:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558364</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impact Evaluation for Obstacles within Barrier's Working Width


</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558421</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Barriers deform and deflect when struck by vehicles, so designers provide a clear area behind the barriers to accommodate this movement. The dimensions of this expected deflection zone, referred to as the working width, are typically determined through computer modeling and crash testing under the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) impact conditions. The working width represents the maximum lateral penetration of either the MASH test vehicle or the barrier beyond the front face of the barrier.

In practice, however, most real-world impacts are less severe than MASH impact conditions and do not require the full working width to shield natural or man-made obstacles behind barriers. Furthermore, site constraints often make it impractical to relocate obstacles outside the working width. Developing a method to measure the potential for impacts with obstacles within a barrier’s working width could help state departments of transportation (DOTs) save both time and project costs.

Research is needed to develop a tool that quantifies the potential of impact(s) with a roadside obstacle based on placement of the obstacle within the working width of the barrier. Such a tool would consider impact conditions, barrier deflection behavior, and obstacle placement within the working width. Characteristics such as obstacle type, barrier length, and average annual daily traffic (AADT) are beyond the scope of this research effort.

The objective of this research is to develop a tool to measure the potential for impacts with obstacles located within a barrier’s working width based on various impact conditions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 21:48:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558421</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Modeling Wolf Creek Pass Combination of Layers of Barriers</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2431164</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the mountainous regions with rugged terrains like in Colorado and adjacent Rocky Mountain states, having sharp turns of roadways and passes to go around the terrain are common features with inherent extra safety concerns beyond ordinary consideration.  A prominent example is one of spots along Wolf Creek Pass where there were multiple severe or fatal vehicular accidents.   That spot features not only a small radius of turn but also a downward gradient which often leads to speeds higher than the posted speed limit and warning to the incoming vehicles and trucks.   
Despite the fact that numerous safety measures have been installed to warn drivers, in the past couple of years, Wolf Creek Pass has experienced a slight increase in vehicle accidents that have resulted in loss of lives and property damages in this area.  Additional safety measures are therefore required to mitigate the severity of future incidents.
The purpose of this research study is to examine one possible solution that may prevent future loss of lives in this area.  The expected outcomes of this study shall include a development of effective layers of barriers design to reduce the danger of roadway bend conditions such as those at Wolf Creek Pass where accidents can be fatal for heavy vehicles and trucks with a high center of gravity running into it at high speed.  These outcomes shall be achieved by using the advanced 3D nonlinear dynamic computer modeling and analysis of a combination of layers of barriers to absorb, redirect the kinetic energy and stop the momentum of heavy trucks as they approach at high speeds down the slopes toward the bend as well as prevent heavy freight vehicles from flipping over. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:56:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2431164</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Conduct MASH Test Level 3 (TL-3) Evaluations of Concrete Barriers on Roadside Slopes</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420100</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Concrete barriers are designed and crash tested for placement on flat terrains. In-field installations of concrete barriers are sometimes placed on slopes adjacent to roadways. By placing the barrier on a slope, the effective height of the barrier that engages an errant vehicle may be reduced since the vehicle may be airborne as it contacts the barrier on a downward slope. Consequently, the barrier may not be able to safely contain and redirect the vehicle. The research team will evaluate the performance of Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT's) 32-in tall F-shape and 42-inch tall single slope barrier when placed on roadside or median slopes of up to 4H:1V. The research team will develop guidance for placement of these barriers using finite element simulation analysis and full-scale crash testing. The guidance will determine the maximum allowable slope for each barrier type and any placement offsets required from the edge of the roadway or from the bottom of the ditch. The research team will evaluate the performance of the barriers using impact conditions and evaluation criteria in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for Test Level 3 for longitudinal barriers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 12:30:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420100</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of Critical Impact Point and Impact Angle Guidance for the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH)</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381727</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) provides criteria for full-scale crash testing and evaluation of roadside safety hardware (RSH) devices. As part of an RSH assessment, MASH requires that an RSH device be evaluated at its critical impact point (CIP), critical impact angle (CIA), or both, depending on the device category. The CIP or CIA is defined as the point or angle that maximizes the potential for failure of the device based on structural loading, vehicle stability, vehicle snagging, or other considerations.

While MASH has specific guidance for determining CIPs for several types of barriers (such as post-and-beam longitudinal barriers), CIP or CIA guidance is more general or nonexistent for many classes of RSH devices. In these cases, MASH recommends that CIP and CIA be determined by computer simulation. However, not all test laboratories have computer simulation capabilities, and MASH recognizes that using computer simulation solely to determine CIPs is often not practical. Even if computer simulation is used for this purpose, MASH does not detail what factors to consider in the CIP analysis. The limited procedures for determining critical impact conditions for these safety devices and tests has led to differences in how devices are tested and evaluated at different laboratories. This may result in inconsistent test results.

Research is needed to support state departments of transportation (DOTs) in establishing crash-test procedures for assessing RSH devices in a uniform and consistent manner.


OBJECTIVE: The project objective is to develop and validate procedures to determine CIPs and CIAs to assess the crashworthiness of RSH devices. The project will focus on RSH devices that currently have a range or limited criteria to determine CIPs and CIAs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2024 16:42:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381727</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Method for Using ISPEs in Crash-Testing Protocols</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381712</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In-service performance evaluations (ISPEs) of roadside safety features have been recommended for over 40 years. Michie recommended ISPEs for crash-test and evaluation procedures in NCHRP Report 230: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances, published in 1981. The importance of and need for ISPEs was reiterated by Ross et al. in NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features and by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). The ISPE criteria were finalized in NCHRP Research Report 1010: In-Service Performance Evaluation: Guidelines for the Assembly and Analysis of Data. These reports outline the potential use of ISPEs into establish crashworthiness without crash tests.
Although it has been established that ISPE studies could help state departments of transportation (DOTs) to establish crashworthiness without having to conduct many crash tests, additional investigation on how ISPE data can be used to determine roadside safety hardware crashworthiness in lieu of crash tests would be helpful. Research is needed to incorporate ISPE data into crash-testing and evaluation protocols for roadside safety hardware to support state DOTs in delivering a safer highway network for all users. 
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this research project is to investigate how state DOTs can incorporate collected ISPE data and results in commonly used crash-testing protocols for roadside safety hardware.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2024 15:29:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381712</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4807:  Mobile Work Barrier Implementation Study</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2270074</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project aims to provide a comprehensive guide and implementation plans for successfully adopting the mobile barrier as a positive protection system and enhancing work zone safety.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2270074</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Laboratory Evaluation of Fresh and Hardened Concrete Comprising Type IP Portland-Pozzolan Cement</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2263680</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this project is to evaluate properties of fresh and hardened concrete comprising portland-pozzolan cement with respect to current Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) specifications for cast-in-place concrete barriers. Specifically, the effects of a potentially higher water-cementitious materials ratio on the performance of the concrete in fresh and hardened states will be investigated, as well as methods of lowering the water-cementitious materials ratio to increase compliance with specifications.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2023 16:55:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2263680</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Roadside Safety Device Analysis, Testing, and Evaluation Program</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2256266</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Road to Zero has targeted a goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on Texas roadways. Recent trends in Texas indicate a continued increase in highway fatalities each of the past three years. In 2021, roadway departure crashes were responsible for 40 percent of all crash-related fatalities in Texas, which is the largest single category by crash type. In October 2021, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) designated Texas as one of 16 Roadway Departure Focus States based on being over-represented on three (3) different roadway departure crash fatality metrics. Roadside safety devices are a key element of an effective roadway departure safety strategy. These safety devices shield motorists from roadside hazards such as non-traversable terrain and fixed objects, thereby reducing injuries and fatalities associated with roadway departure crashes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:49:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2256266</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Barrier Striping for the Reduction of Accidents</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2255816</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Traffic Safety Division (TRF) of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) drafted a special specification (SS) for the vertical application of a retroreflective solid stripe on concrete barriers, approximately six (6) inches below the barrier's top. During the phase of new product approval, this SS describes an application similar to three (3) locations already installed on Texas roadways in previous years. Barrier striping increases motorist awareness of the roadway's edge and the barrier itself, particularly in low-visibility conditions (i.e., heavy rain and snow). These existing implementation sites have not been formally evaluated. Furthermore, the short-term effectiveness of the treatments has not been investigated; therefore, there is a need for long-term and short-term safety effectiveness evaluation of these treatments. The research teams will collect before-and-after collision data from Crash Record Information System (CRIS) and near-collision data from connected vehicle data vendor (e.g., Wejo) to evaluate the effectiveness of vertical application of a retroreflective solid stripe on concrete barriers. Furthermore, the research teams will install these treatments at six (6) high crash locations with different barrier types including, but not limited to concrete barriers and metal beam guard fences to evaluate their short-term effectiveness using non-traditional safety evaluation approaches. The research teams will utilize the findings to update the drafted SS for the future use across the state and beyond.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2023 13:43:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2255816</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Verification and Validation Guidelines to Use Simulation as a Alternative to Full-scale Crash Testing



</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2222558</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Historically, the safety performance of roadside safety hardware has been evaluated through full-scale vehicular crash testing, which is notably expensive and time-consuming. Additional physical crash testing may be required to approve roadside safety device modifications. Recently, certain types of finite element analysis (FEA) crash simulations have been tested and used for the approval of design modifications. Many transportation agencies are now considering the acceptance of computer simulation in lieu of full-scale crash tests to approve modifications to roadside safety hardware. The transition to computer simulation has enabled design optimization and substantially reduced the need for expensive and lengthy physical crash tests, thereby decreasing the overall development and installation costs of roadside safety hardware.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 179: Procedures for Verification and Validation of Computer Simulations Used for Roadside Safety Applications (2011) established the first standardized verification and validation (V&V) procedure for roadside safety hardware in the United States. These procedures were developed based on the requirements outlined in the NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features. However, in 2009, the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) superseded the NCHRP Report 350, emerging as the latest roadside hardware crash testing standard.

While the previous NCHRP document provided unified simulation comparisons for the rigid vertical-faced barrier, research is needed to update the V&V procedures for the broader spectrum of roadside safety hardware according to the categories and test levels specified in MASH. The revised V&V procedure is expected to enable end users, such as state departments of transportation (DOTs), to use computer simulations (e.g., FEA) as a viable alternative to full-scale crash testing for MASH hardware review and approval. In addition, there is a need to standardize the simulation reporting format beyond the V&V process to enable state DOTs to conduct more effective and consistent reviews of crash simulation testing results.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop guidelines to establish two key elements: (1) a standardized, confidence-level-based procedure for the V&V of computer simulations of roadside safety hardware, applicable across all MASH categories and test levels; and (2) a uniform reporting format for computer simulation inputs and results to facilitate consistent comparison and review.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:36:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2222558</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guidelines for Crash Testing Roadside Safety Hardware for Motorcycles</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2219019</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Motorcycle crashes with roadside hardware are a challenging issue for state departments of transportation (DOTs). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2021 the fatality rate for motorcyclists was almost 24 times the fatality rate for passenger car occupants. In the same year, 24 percent of motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with fixed objects. Overall, collisions with fixed objects in the roadside environment (including trees, sign supports, lamp posts, and barriers) represent much higher risk of fatality and incapacitating injury for motorcyclists than for passenger car occupants.

Among types of roadside hardware, crashes with longitudinal barriers are a significant issue for motorcyclists; in 2017 motorcyclists accounted for 40 percent of guardrail related fatalities. Historically, roadside safety systems such as guardrail and concrete barriers have been designed to redirect errant passenger vehicles and generally have not taken into consideration potential impacts by vulnerable users such as motorcycle riders.

International crash testing standards, such as the European CEN/TS 17342:2019 Road Restraint Systems, include consideration of motorcyclists in barrier design. In addition, several DOTs have taken independent action toward incorporating motorcyclist safety into their barrier system(s). However, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) does not currently contain protocols for testing roadside barriers for motorcyclist impacts. 

Research is needed to develop national guidelines with procedures for motorcycle testing and evaluation of roadside hardware with an emphasis on longitudinal barriers.

The objective of this research is to develop guidelines with procedures for crash testing roadside safety hardware for motorcycles with an emphasis on longitudinal barriers. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:46:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2219019</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Crashworthiness of Roadside Hardware Impacted by Battery Electric Vehicles</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2219021</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) defines the crashworthiness evaluation criteria and test conditions necessary to evaluate roadside hardware. MASH requires that test vehicles meet certain inertial and dimensional criteria and that vehicles be reasonably representative of commonly available, high-sales volume vehicles. 

Battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which are increasing in popularity, tend to be heavier than ICEVs by between 20 and 50 percent for models with similar cabin sizes and power outputs. Also, BEVs have significantly different structures than ICEVs: instead of an internal combustion engine, BEVs utilize battery packs commonly mounted in the floor pan and electrical motors that affect vehicle crush space, center-of-gravity height, and structural frame of the vehicle. 

The differences between BEVs and ICEVs could lead to incompatibilities with existing roadside hardware. However, currently little or no research is available regarding the crashworthiness of roadside hardware impacted by BEVs. 
 
Research is needed to investigate the crashworthiness of roadside hardware impacted by BEVs.

The objective of this research is to perform an initial investigation into the crashworthiness of some common generic roadside hardware when impacted by BEVs and to develop a framework for future testing.



]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:22:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2219021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>