Hubbry Logo
Impact attenuatorImpact attenuatorMain
Open search
Impact attenuator
Community hub
Impact attenuator
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Impact attenuator
Impact attenuator
Impact attenuator
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Crash Cushion on motorway
A crash cushion installed on a motorway exit in Italy

An impact attenuator, also known as a crash cushion, crash attenuator, or cowboy cushion, is a device intended to reduce the damage to structures, vehicles, and motorists resulting from a motor vehicle collision. Impact attenuators are designed to absorb the colliding vehicle's kinetic energy.[1][2] They may also be designed to redirect the vehicle away from the hazard or away from roadway machinery and workers.[3] Impact attenuators are usually placed in front of fixed structures near highways, such as gore points, crash barrier introductions, or overpass supports. Temporary versions may be used for road construction projects, including ones mounted on vehicles.

Operation

[edit]

Impact attenuators are designed to absorb the colliding vehicle's kinetic energy to bring it to a stop safely. If no impact attenuator is present, a vehicle which strikes a rigid roadside object will suddenly stop. A person inside will promptly collide with the interior of the vehicle, and that person's internal organs will collide with their chest wall, causing severe internal injuries, and possibly death. By safely dissipating the vehicle's kinetic energy, impact attenuators help prevent such injuries.[2]

Impact attenuators can be categorized by the method used to dissipate kinetic energy:

  1. Momentum transfer. Many early models used successive rows of water-filled barrels or modules. Momentum is transferred to the water, reducing the speed of the impacting vehicle.[2]
  2. Material deformation. Many newer attenuators use crushable materials (like various kinds of foam) that create a crumple zone, absorbing energy.[2] Others flatten a corrugated steel guard rail section, or split a steel box beam.
  3. Friction. Some attenuators work by forcing a steel cable or strap through an angled slot or tube, converting kinetic energy into heat.

Types

[edit]

Gating

[edit]

Gating impact attenuators allow vehicles impacting from the side to pass through them (akin to a gate).

Gating attenuators are more economical, but require a greater clear space surrounding them to be effective; without enough space, errant cars may pass through into another hazard, such as into lanes of opposing traffic.[4][5]

Water-filled attenuators

[edit]
A water-filled attenuator, as seen in Auckland, New Zealand

Water-filled attenuators consist of containers filled with water to absorb impact energy. They are typically not anchored to the ground, and therefore benefit from easy deployment and relocation using barrier transfer machines and cranes. They are non-redirective, meaning they do not deflect vehicles that impact the side back into the roadway. The energy of the impacting vehicle accelerates the water in the barrels vertically and laterally consuming that energy in work done on the water. Additionally, this work is done over time which reduces the deceleration (negative acceleration) applied to the vehicle occupants. A smaller amount of energy is consumed in the work of crumpling the plastic containers. In cold climates, water-filled attenuators are either avoided, or have additives such as magnesium chloride salt added to them to prevent freezing.

Fitch barriers

[edit]
Fitch barriers in Canada

A Fitch barrier consists of sand-filled plastic barrels, usually yellow-colored with a black lid. The "Fitch Highway Barrier System" was invented by race car driver John Fitch after the 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans race when his co-driver, Pierre Levegh rear-ended Austin-Healey driver Lance Macklin at high speed, launching his car through the air and into the spectator's area. The car burst into flames and took the lives of Pierre and 84 spectators in the worst accident in racing history. Fitch stated he was inspired by sand-filled fuel cans which he used to protect his tent from strafing during World War II.[6] Early prototypes were self funded and tested due to low initial support. As a proof of concept Fitch used liquor barrels filled with sand to create the necessary impact attenuation, then personally crashed reinforced vehicles into them while recording with a high speed camera to capture the rate of deceleration.

Fitch barriers are often found in a triangular arrangement at the end of a guard rail between a highway and an exit lane (the area known as the gore), along the most probable line of impact. The barriers in front contain the least sand, with each successive barrel containing more, so that when a vehicle collides with the barrels they shatter, the kinetic energy is dissipated by scattering the sand, and the vehicle decelerates smoothly instead of violently striking a solid obstruction, reducing the risk of injury to the occupants.

Fitch barriers are widely popular due to their effectiveness, low cost, and ease of setup and repair or replacement. Since first being used in the late 1960s, it is estimated that they have saved as many as 17,000 lives and approximately $400 million per year in property damage and medical expenses.[7][8]

Non-gating

[edit]
A telescoping crash cushion near Tanforan Shopping Center in San Bruno, California

Non-gating impact attenuators arrest the motion of vehicles that impact head-on, whilst deflecting vehicles that impact the side of the barrier. They are anchored and more expensive, but can be used in tighter spaces.[4]

Crash cushions

[edit]

Crash cushions are constructed of multiple segments, which crumple into each other when collided with to absorb the impact. Their main benefit is in their reusability; some attenuators can automatically return to their original position after a crash,[9] while others require minimal repairs.[10]

Truck mounted attenuators

[edit]
A truck-mounted attenuator (TMA) in New Zealand

Truck mounted attenuators (TMA), also known as an impact protection vehicle (IPV) are deployed on vehicles that are prone to being struck from behind, such as snow plows and road maintenance vehicles, most commonly on motorways. The TMA may be stationary or move at a slow speed. Work zone regulations often specify a minimum buffer distance between the TMA and the work area, and a minimum mass for the truck, to minimize the chances that the TMA will be pushed forward by a crash into the workers or machinery. This is especially important in mobile work zones where the TMA's parking brake may not be engaged.[11]

In some countries, such as Sweden, road safety authorities operate dedicated TMA vehicles registered as emergency vehicles, able to be dispatched to blockages or emergencies.[12]

TMA vehicles are better suited for protecting emergency or construction workers on roadways than non-specialized vehicles, such as firetrucks. TMA vehicles have several benefits over firetrucks, such as lower purchase and repair cost, improved firefighting capacity (because firetrucks are available for use and won't be damaged), and enhanced safety for the occupants of the impacting vehicles. This is because TMA vehicles are designed to absorb the energy of the impact, while firetrucks are too rigid and can cause severe injuries or death.[13]

Regulation

[edit]

In the United States, impact attenuators are tested and classified according to AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH),[14] first issued in 2016 to supersede National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features (1993).[15] Classification is based on the maximum speed of a vehicle during a collision for which the attenuator is designed. The Federal Highway Administration reviews equipment to providing hardware eligibility letters for federal aid reimbursement.[16]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Impact attenuator

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An impact attenuator, also known as a crash cushion, is a protective device designed to absorb and dissipate the of an errant during a collision, thereby gradually decelerating it to minimize injury risk and prevent direct impact with fixed roadside obstacles. These systems are essential in transportation infrastructure, redirecting or cushioning vehicles at high-risk locations such as bridge piers, median barrier ends, exit ramp gores, and temporary work zones. Impact attenuators function through mechanisms like controlled deformation, , or redirection, with varying by application to handle speeds up to limits (typically 60-70 mph) and vehicle masses from passenger cars to trucks. In work zones, truck-mounted attenuators (TMAs) attach to the rear of vehicles to shield workers from rear-end collisions, significantly reducing injury severity. Beyond roadside applications, impact attenuators are integral to design, particularly in motorsports like , where they form a frontal to protect drivers by absorbing at least 7,350 Joules of with deceleration limits of 20g average and 40g peak for a 300 kg impacting at 7 m/s. Materials such as carbon fiber composites or honeycomb structures enable progressive crushing while maintaining structural integrity. The development of impact attenuators traces back to the , with early innovations including steel drums, water-filled tubes, and sand barrels tested for crash performance, evolving through the 1970s-1980s with proprietary systems like the Fitch barrel attenuator. Standards from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), such as Report 153 (1974) and Report 350 (1993), established early crash testing protocols; these have evolved to the current AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (, 2016), ensuring devices meet federal guidelines for occupant protection and vehicle containment. Today, these devices are required in high-risk scenarios by agencies like the , contributing to reductions in fatalities from protected collisions, with a estimating a 69% decrease in fatal accidents.

Fundamentals

Definition and Purpose

An impact attenuator, also known as a , is a protective safety device engineered to absorb the of an errant upon collision, thereby decelerating the vehicle gradually and mitigating the risk of penetration into fixed roadside hazards such as bridge piers, abutments, or gore points. These devices are strategically deployed in transportation infrastructure to serve as the final line of defense against severe crashes. The primary purpose of impact attenuators is to safeguard vehicle occupants and reduce overall crash severity during head-on or angled impacts at vulnerable locations, including roadway termini, barrier transitions, and fixed obstacles, ultimately lowering the incidence of injuries and fatalities while minimizing vehicle damage. By dissipating energy in a controlled manner, they prevent direct, high-speed collisions with unyielding structures, which could otherwise result in catastrophic outcomes. Key benefits include the controlled dissipation of over an extended distance, which helps ensure compliance with established occupant risk criteria, such as limiting longitudinal and lateral ridedown accelerations to a preferred maximum of 15g to reduce the potential for . This approach significantly enhances occupant protection compared to unprotected impacts. Impact attenuators encompass both fixed installations and mobile systems, such as truck-mounted variants used in work zones. Impact attenuators emerged as part of the broader evolution of roadside safety measures in the mid-20th century, driven by rising concerns over highway fatalities from collisions with fixed objects amid increasing traffic volumes and speeds.

History and Development

The development of impact attenuators originated in the , driven by the need to mitigate vehicle impacts at roadside hazards. John A. Fitch, a driver and engineer, invented the Fitch barrel system in the early , consisting of sand-filled barrels arranged to progressively absorb crash energy. This design was inspired by the , in which his teammate and over 80 spectators died in a crash, with initial testing using sand-filled crates crashed into at speeds up to 70 mph. The system was deployed on U.S. highways to cushion errant vehicles. In the 1970s, the (FHWA) advanced the technology through the introduction of hydraulic systems, such as the Connecticut Impact Attenuating System (CIAS), and compressible foam-based designs like the HEX-FOAM Sandwich. These innovations expanded beyond simple barrels to more engineered energy dissipation. The era also saw the first full-scale crash tests for crash cushions under NCHRP Report 153, which established foundational procedures for evaluating performance and safety. The and marked a shift toward standardized, modular designs, including water-filled plastic barriers and advanced crash cushions that improved redirective capabilities. A key milestone was the publication of NCHRP Report 350 in 1993, which provided detailed guidelines for full-scale crash testing of highway safety features, including impact conditions, vehicle types, and occupant risk criteria. This report became the benchmark for federal acceptance of attenuator systems. The 2000s brought further refinement with the adoption of the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) in 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), superseding NCHRP Report 350 with updated test protocols to better reflect modern vehicles and impact scenarios. Concurrently, truck-mounted attenuators proliferated for temporary work zones following revisions to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in 2000 and 2003, which emphasized their use on shadow vehicles to protect workers. In recent years up to 2025, developments have focused on enhanced monitoring and . Post-2020 pilots have integrated smart sensors into attenuators for real-time impact detection and notification, enabling rapid response and maintenance. Additionally, FHWA guidelines have promoted the use of recycled plastics in roadside hardware construction, aligning with broader sustainability policies to reduce environmental impact while maintaining performance standards.

Principles of Operation

Energy Absorption Mechanisms

Impact attenuators function by dissipating the kinetic energy of an impacting vehicle, given by the formula E=12mv2E = \frac{1}{2} m v^2, where mm is the vehicle mass and vv is its velocity, converting it primarily into forms such as deformation, friction, or fluid displacement energy. This process ensures controlled deceleration, preventing abrupt stops that could cause severe injury. The primary energy absorption mechanisms in impact attenuators include compression, , and redirection. Compression involves the crushing of internal structures, such as deformable cells or barrels, which absorb energy through deformation and yielding. dissipates energy via sliding or shearing of components, where relative motion between parts generates resistive forces. Redirection uses angled surfaces to alter the vehicle's trajectory, converting into lateral forces that contribute to overall dissipation. Deceleration profiles in impact attenuators are engineered to provide constant or progressively increasing force, limiting peak accelerations to safe levels, such as under 20g for 100 km/h impacts according to MASH criteria. This controlled force application extends the duration of the , reducing the intensity of the acceleration pulse experienced by occupants. Impact attenuators employ either inertial or compression systems to achieve absorption. Inertial systems leverage the vehicle's to displace masses, such as sand-filled barrels that shift or roll upon impact, thereby absorbing through motion and collision. In contrast, compression systems rely on the yielding of materials without significant mass displacement, where the structure deforms to convert into . By extending the stopping distance—typically 10-30 meters—impact attenuators reduce key injury criteria, such as the (HIC), which measures the likelihood of head trauma based on acceleration exposure. This prolongation of the deceleration phase minimizes peak forces transmitted to occupants, enhancing overall crash survivability. Gating systems may allow partial penetration of the barrier to facilitate smoother energy dissipation in certain configurations.

Gating versus Non-Gating Systems

Impact attenuators are classified into gating and non-gating systems based on their and control behaviors during a crash. Gating systems permit controlled penetration of the through the upstream portion of the device while providing lateral to guide the into a designated clear zone behind the attenuator. This employs sequential absorption, such as the progressive crushing of modular barrels or cartridges, to decelerate the gradually as it advances through the system. In contrast, non-gating systems are engineered to fully contain the within the device's and stop it without penetration, typically incorporating redirective elements to maintain the parallel to the roadside and prevent rollover or on the structure. These systems often feature rigid frames or sloped surfaces that deflect the laterally while absorbing impact energy, ensuring it remains on the impact side of the device. The primary differences between gating and non-gating systems lie in their applications and spatial requirements. Gating attenuators are ideal for narrow hazards, such as bridge piers or sign supports, where space is limited laterally but a sufficient clear zone exists longitudinally for the vehicle to come to rest after penetration; this configuration allows for shorter device lengths compared to fully containing alternatives. Non-gating systems, however, are preferred for wider exposure areas or sites with constrained clear zones, such as medians or near ditches, as they emphasize complete and redirection to minimize the risk of the vehicle crossing into opposing lanes or off the roadway. Both types rely on controlled deceleration over distance to absorb , but gating prioritizes passage into a recovery area, while non-gating focuses on immediate stopping or redirection. Performance distinctions are evident in crash testing protocols, such as those outlined in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). Gating systems are evaluated for controlled penetration, often allowing the vehicle to traverse a significant portion of the device's length—up to the "length of need" point—before full deceleration, with impact angles typically between 5° and 15° for small tests to assess passage into the clear zone. Non-gating systems, tested at 15° to 25° angles, must redirect vehicles impacting anywhere along the face, limiting exit speeds to low residual velocities (generally under 16 km/h) and preventing pocketing through smooth deflection surfaces. These behaviors ensure gating systems reduce installation footprint in space-limited scenarios, while non-gating designs enhance safety by avoiding secondary collisions in high-risk environments.

Types

Gating Attenuators

Gating attenuators are fixed systems designed to protect point hazards by allowing controlled vehicle penetration, thereby dissipating impact energy through progressive deformation or displacement rather than redirection. These non-redirective devices are particularly suited for locations like bridge piers, gore areas, or supports where space is limited and full containment is unnecessary. By permitting the vehicle to enter the attenuator, gating systems manage efficiently over a longer distance, reducing occupant injury risks compared to rigid barriers. Water-filled attenuators consist of modular units, such as barrels or interconnected segments filled with , with total capacities of 1000-3000 liters across 10-15 segments to facilitate absorption. Upon impact, the modules displace sequentially, converting the vehicle's into hydrodynamic forces as is expelled, which slows the vehicle gradually. These systems are engineered for lengths of 6-10 meters to handle impacts at speeds up to 100 km/h, providing effective protection for small vehicles in head-on or angled crashes. Fitch barriers, developed in the mid-1960s by racer and engineer John Cooper Fitch, employ sand- or gravel-filled barrels arranged in triangular arrays that decrease in number toward the hazard. Configurations often use 50-100 barrels, with varying fill weights (e.g., 200-1400 pounds per barrel) to create a graduated resistance profile. The design absorbs energy through inertial displacement, where the vehicle pushes through the barrels, scattering them and dissipating force via and momentum transfer, making it non-redirective and ideal for gore points at highway ramps. Both water-filled and Fitch systems feature modular assembly, enabling quick replacement of damaged components without full system disassembly, which enhances maintenance efficiency. They undergo rigorous crash testing under Test Level 3 (TL-3) protocols, including impacts by a 1100 kg small car and a 2270 kg pickup truck at 100 km/h and up to 20° angles, to verify structural integrity and occupant safety. Many modern variants comply with the 2016 standards, superseding earlier NCHRP 350 protocols. Gating attenuators offer cost-effectiveness, with installation costs ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 per unit depending on length and configuration, alongside rapid deployment times of hours rather than days. However, water-filled variants pose freezing risks in cold climates, potentially compromising performance unless mitigated by adding or salt solutions to lower the freezing point.

Non-Gating Attenuators

Non-gating attenuators are fixed impact absorption systems designed to fully contain errant vehicles upon collision, preventing penetration and providing comprehensive for broader roadside hazards without allowing passage through the device. These systems differ from gating variants by redirecting or stopping vehicles entirely within their structure, ensuring containment for a range of impact angles and speeds. Unlike penetrative designs suited for narrow points, non-gating attenuators excel in shielding wider areas, such as bridge piers or ends, by distributing energy across modular components that deform controllably. Crash cushions represent a primary form of non-gating attenuators, typically constructed with compressible elements like high molecular weight/ (HMW/HDPE) cylinders or hydraulic cartridges housed in steel frames to absorb through staged compression. For instance, the REACT 350 model utilizes rows of HMW/HDPE cylinders that compress sequentially upon impact, dissipating energy while maintaining structural integrity for reuse in many cases. Similarly, the Smart Cushion employs hydraulic porting mechanisms that adjust resistance based on impact speed, enabling progressive deceleration. These devices generally span widths of 0.6 to 3 meters and lengths of 6 to 20 meters, accommodating hazards up to 1 meter wide while fitting constrained roadside environments. Energy absorption occurs in controlled stages, where initial bays crumple to reduce before deeper sections engage, minimizing during full . Many modern variants comply with the 2016 MASH standards, superseding earlier NCHRP 350 protocols. Redirective features in non-gating crash cushions, such as angled side panels and tapered flares, guide away from underlying hazards during oblique impacts, ensuring the remains contained and redirected toward the travel lane. These elements allow for low exit angles, typically under 15 degrees, enhancing without compromising the non-gating principle of full vehicle arrest. Systems are categorized as sacrificial, where replaceable cartridges or bays are swapped post-impact, or non-sacrificial, featuring reusable frames with minimal deformation for rapid restoration. Sacrificial designs prioritize low initial complexity, while non-sacrificial options, like the REACT 350's self-restoring cylinders, reduce long-term maintenance by allowing partial shape recovery after collisions. Among variants, sequential kinking systems use arrays of metal tubes or guardrail sections that bend progressively to absorb energy, functioning as non-gating terminals for applications. The Sequential Kinking Terminal (SKT), for example, features a rail that kinks in stages through an impact head, controlled stopping vehicles without gating. These systems have been tested to withstand impacts at 15° to 25° angles and speeds of 100 km/h, aligning with NCHRP 350 Test Level 3 criteria for small car and pickup truck scenarios. Many modern variants comply with the 2016 MASH standards, superseding earlier NCHRP 350 protocols. Non-gating attenuators trace their development to the , evolving from rudimentary block arrangements to modular, engineered cushions under federal initiatives like those from the . Early prototypes, such as the Modular Crash Cushion developed in 1970, transitioned from basic or sand-filled barriers to more reliable compression-based designs, improving containment and redirective performance. Initial costs for modern units range from $10,000 to $50,000 depending on size and test level, with sacrificial types requiring 1 to 4 hours for repairs involving cartridge replacement. Lifecycle advantages favor non-sacrificial models in high-traffic areas, where quick resets under 30 minutes can yield up to 75% savings over repeated impacts compared to full replacements.

Truck-Mounted Attenuators

Truck-mounted attenuators (TMAs) are mobile energy-absorbing devices affixed to the rear frame of shadow or support vehicles, typically heavy-duty trucks with a minimum curb weight of 15,000 pounds (6,804 kg) to ensure stability during impacts. These units feature modular designs, often incorporating folding or tilting mechanisms for compact storage and transport, such as a 180-degree tilt or double 90-degree fold that reduces deployed length to under 14 feet (4.3 m) in travel mode while extending up to 23.5 feet (7.2 m) when operational. Energy absorption occurs through crushable cartridges or hydraulic systems that dissipate from errant vehicles, providing full-width protection to prevent underride. Common models, such as the introduced in the , utilize balanced weight distribution and optional hydraulic controls for deployment on flatbed, stakebed, or dump trucks. In operation, TMAs serve as a protective tailgate for workers, equipment, and materials in dynamic zones, functioning in both stationary and moving configurations where the shadow vehicle follows operations like lane striping at speeds up to the device's rated limit. Redirective tail sections on many designs guide impacting vehicles away from the work area and mitigate underride risks by maintaining a low-profile barrier across the vehicle's width. These systems adapt non-gating principles for mobility, compressing sequentially upon to reduce deceleration forces on the host vehicle and its occupants. Compliance with the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware () Test Level 3 (TL-3) is standard for TMAs, certifying them to safely stop a 2,270-pound (1,030 kg) impacting at 62.5 mph (100 km/h) at a 0-degree angle, with new units required to meet 2016 MASH criteria since January 2023. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends TMAs for shadow vehicles in temporary traffic control, with state-specific speed thresholds; for example, mandates TL-2 or TL-3 for posted limits of 45 mph or less until 2026, while requires TL-3 for speeds exceeding 50 mph on highways. TMAs enhance portability for mobile construction applications, allowing rapid setup and relocation without fixed installations, with unit costs ranging from $40,000 to $100,000 depending on model and features. However, they necessitate trained operators to manage deployment, monitoring, and emergency responses, and are susceptible to weather-related degradation, such as moisture accumulation in inclement conditions that may affect performance or require frequent maintenance.

Design and Materials

Engineering Design Considerations

Engineers select and optimize impact attenuators based on site-specific factors to ensure effective protection against roadside hazards. Hazard types, such as bridge piers or abutments, dictate the choice of attenuator, with narrow profiles preferred for space-constrained pier installations and wider systems for abutment shielding to accommodate varying impact dynamics. Approach speeds typically range from 50 to 120 km/h, influencing the required length and energy dissipation capacity, as higher speeds demand longer attenuators to manage kinetic energy absorption. Impact angles between 0° and 25° are considered, with designs aligned to the expected vehicle path to minimize redirection forces, and vehicle mix—from small cars (e.g., 1100 kg) to pickup trucks (e.g., 2270 kg)—requires systems tested for diverse masses under current standards like AASHTO MASH Test Level 3. Optimization involves balancing dimensions for stability and integration with existing . Length-to-width ratios, such as 3.57–9.06 m length to 610–2285 mm width for systems like QuadGuard, ensure lateral stability during oblique impacts while fitting site constraints. Flare rates, often 10:1 for smooth transitions, guide the taper from the roadway edge to the attenuator, reducing snag points and integrating seamlessly with guardrails or barriers to maintain continuous protection. Performance criteria prioritize occupant safety and structural reliability. Occupant risk is assessed via thoracic ridedown acceleration limited to less than 20g (maximum over any 10-ms interval) and occupant impact velocity below 12 m/s to minimize injury potential, as defined in flail space model evaluations. Structural integrity requires no detachment exceeding 1 m post-impact to prevent secondary hazards, ensuring the attenuator remains anchored and does not intrude into the occupant compartment. Software tools aid in and economic during . Finite element analysis (FEA) simulates crash scenarios to predict deformation and energy absorption, validating designs before physical testing and optimizing configurations for specific sites. Cost-benefit analyses incorporate lifecycle expenses, including initial installation, , and replacement after impacts, to justify selections based on expected crash frequency and repair costs. Environmental adaptations ensure in varied conditions. Attenuators must accommodate slopes up to 10° for stable installation without compromising , and water-filled systems require drainage provisions to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup or freezing, often incorporating additives like 3–5% salt in sand-based variants.

Materials and Construction

Impact attenuators are primarily constructed using durable, energy-absorbing materials designed to deform controllably upon collision, thereby dissipating through crushing or displacement. Common outer materials include (HDPE) for modular barrels, which is rotomolded or blow-molded for UV resistance and lightweight , with empty barrels typically weighing 10-15 kg depending on size. frames, often galvanized for resistance with thicknesses around 5-10 mm in structural components, provide rigidity in non-deformable sections such as backup structures or tracks. Expanded foams, such as with densities of 50-100 kg/m³, are incorporated in some designs to enhance energy absorption via compression without fragmentation. Fill materials inside these barrels or modules vary to optimize inertial resistance and cost-effectiveness, directly influencing the attenuator's ability to absorb impact energy through momentum transfer. is the most economical option, offering a density of approximately 1,000 kg/m³ and easy replenishment, though it requires anti-freeze additives in cold climates to prevent freezing. or fills provide higher inertial mass at about 1,600 kg/m³, promoting gradual deceleration in non-gating systems. For lighter applications, cellular serves as a stable, low-density alternative at around 500 kg/m³, reducing overall transport weight while maintaining structural integrity during deformation. Construction techniques emphasize and rapid deployment to facilitate installation in work zones or permanent roadside setups. Modular bolting allows for quick assembly and reconfiguration of barrel arrays or frame sections, using high-strength fasteners to connect components without specialized tools. is employed for fabricating rigid elements, ensuring seamless joints in load-bearing frames that withstand environmental exposure. Advances in recycled composites, such as those incorporating post-consumer plastics and fibers, align with broader efforts to minimize material use. Durability features are integral to ensuring long-term performance in harsh outdoor conditions, with weatherproofing via UV stabilizers in HDPE and galvanized coatings on extending resistance to oxidation and fading. These systems typically achieve a lifespan of 5-15 years with minimal , such as periodic inspections for fill or bolt tension. Repairability is enhanced through modular designs, allowing cartridge or barrel replacement in as little as 2 hours using standard equipment, which reduces compared to full-system overhauls. Sustainability in impact attenuator construction has advanced through the integration of recyclable and eco-friendly materials, guided by FHWA policies promoting recycled content in applications since 2015. This includes a shift toward biodegradable fills like treated organic aggregates and recyclable HDPE variants, which reduce and embodied carbon without compromising absorption . Such practices support while meeting federal guidelines for durable roadside hardware.

Testing and Standards

Crash Testing Protocols

Crash testing protocols for impact attenuators involve full-scale vehicle impact tests conducted under standardized conditions to evaluate in absorbing , minimizing occupant injury, and ensuring vehicle stability. The primary standard is the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (), developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which outlines uniform guidelines for testing permanent and temporary safety features, including crash cushions and terminals. First published in 2002 and revised in the second edition in 2016, supersedes the earlier NCHRP Report 350 and emphasizes improved protection for smaller vehicles through updated vehicle specifications and test matrices. MASH defines six test levels (TL-1 to TL-6), categorized by impact severity based on type, mass, speed, and , with higher levels corresponding to heavier vehicles and greater energies encountered on high-speed roadways. For impact attenuators, testing typically focuses on TL-2 to TL-4 for most applications, as these represent common roadside and work zone scenarios. Key tests include a head-on impact by a small (1100C vehicle, approximately 1100 kg) at 100 km/h and 0° to assess deceleration control (Test 3-30 for TL-3), and an angled impact by a (2270P vehicle, approximately 2270 kg) at 100 km/h and 25° to evaluate redirection and energy dissipation (Test 3-31 for TL-3). These tests ensure the device can handle both low-mass, high-speed frontal crashes and heavier oblique impacts without excessive rebound or penetration. Evaluation criteria in are divided into three categories: structural adequacy, occupant risk, and . For occupant risk, measurements from instrumented anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), such as the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy, must meet limits including (HIC) below 1000 and maximum chest compression under 50 mm to minimize injury potential. criteria require no excessive roll-over (e.g., maximum roll and pitch angles not exceeding 75°) and post-impact exit speed limited to under 16 km/h to prevent secondary collisions, while structural criteria require that no detached elements, fragments, or other debris penetrate or show potential to penetrate the occupant compartment or present undue hazards to nearby traffic. Tests are conducted using high-speed video cameras (typically at 1000 frames per second) for kinematic analysis and on-board systems to record acceleration, velocity, and deformation traces throughout the event. Prior to MASH, the NCHRP Report 350 (published in ) served as the legacy standard, requiring up to 8 crash tests per device category to validate performance, but it used lighter vehicles (e.g., 820 kg small car and 2000 kg pickup) that provided less representative protection for modern, downsized automobiles. The transition to addressed these shortcomings by increasing small car mass to better simulate current vehicle fleets, leading to mandatory re-testing of legacy devices for federal eligibility. Certification follows successful completion of the required test matrix at accredited third-party laboratories, such as (SwRI), where devices undergo independent verification. Upon passing, manufacturers submit documentation to the (FHWA) for issuance of an eligibility letter, confirming the device's compliance for use on federal-aid highways. This process ensures only rigorously validated impact attenuators are deployed, prioritizing safety across diverse impact scenarios.

Regulatory Requirements

In the United States, the (FHWA) mandates that impact attenuators deployed on federal-aid highways must comply with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (), ensuring devices meet rigorous crash performance criteria for eligibility under federal programs. The 11th Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), published in 2023, specifies requirements for impact attenuators in temporary traffic control zones, including their use on shadow vehicles to shield workers from errant vehicle impacts. As of January 1, 2025, all temporary impact attenuators must fully transition to compliance, with legacy NCHRP 350-tested devices no longer eligible for new installations on federal-aid projects. State-level regulations introduce variations, particularly for truck-mounted attenuators (TMAs), where over 30 states require their use on roadways with posted speeds of 55 mph (88 km/h) or higher to enhance work zone safety. For instance, the (INDOT) mandates on-demand training and certification for installers of impact attenuators and guardrail end treatments, requiring completion of manufacturer-specific programs and submission of verification forms prior to deployment. Internationally, European standards parallel U.S. frameworks through EN 1317, which defines performance classes, impact testing protocols, and acceptance criteria for road restraint systems, including impact attenuators, to ensure consistent safety across member states. In the U.S., AASHTO guidelines promote national uniformity by endorsing MASH as the benchmark for roadside hardware evaluation and approval. Compliance is enforced through FHWA eligibility determinations, annual state audits of roadside hardware installations, and ineligibility of non-MASH-compliant devices for federal funding, which can withhold up to 10% of a state's apportionment for repeated violations.

Applications and Deployment

Roadside and Highway Installations

Impact attenuators are commonly deployed in permanent roadside and highway installations to shield fixed obstacles such as bridge abutments, median piers, and gore areas at interchanges, where the clear zone—the unobstructed area alongside the roadway—is less than 10 meters, as defined in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. These locations are particularly hazardous due to the potential for errant vehicles to strike unyielding at high speeds, and attenuators provide controlled deceleration or redirection to mitigate risk. Installation in these sites is required when relocation or breakaway design of the obstacle is infeasible, ensuring compliance with roadside standards. Installation procedures for these permanent setups emphasize secure foundation anchoring, typically using reinforced concrete pads 150-200 mm thick to provide stability against lateral forces. Transitions to adjacent guardrails involve flared connections, often with a minimum overlap of several meters to maintain continuity and prevent vehicle snagging, such as a 4-meter transition zone in standard configurations. Accompanying signage, including "End of Roadway" markers mounted above the attenuator, alerts drivers to the hazard and enhances visibility, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of these installations in reducing crash severity; for instance, analysis of highway data from 2014-2021 showed that barrel-type attenuators reduced killed-or-serious-injury crashes by 71% compared to older systems. Similarly, retrofits along I-95 in , including guiderail and attenuator upgrades at Exit 27A in Bridgeport completed in 2025, have improved safety in high-volume interchange gore areas by replacing outdated hardware with MASH-compliant systems. These interventions contribute to broader fatality reductions, with historical data indicating crash cushions are associated with very few direct fatalities nationwide. Maintenance protocols for roadside attenuators include annual inspections to assess structural integrity, damage from minor impacts, and anchoring stability, documented in state inventory management systems. Post-impact, damaged units must be repaired or replaced promptly to restore functionality, with high-traffic areas prioritizing completion within 24 hours to minimize exposure risks.

Work Zone and Maintenance Uses

Impact attenuators, particularly truck-mounted attenuators (TMAs), play a vital role in temporary work zones by shadowing crews, , and closures to protect workers from errant vehicles. In mobile operations, such as pavement resurfacing or striping, TMAs are attached to the rear of slow-moving shadow vehicles that follow directly behind the work crew, providing a buffer that absorbs impacts and redirects while enhancing through flashing lights and . This deployment is essential for dynamic environments where crews advance incrementally along highways, ensuring the attenuator remains positioned to shield vulnerable activities without obstructing workflow. Setup guidelines for TMAs in work zones emphasize precise positioning to maximize protection while complying with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Part 6, which outlines temporary traffic control standards. The shadow vehicle with the TMA should be placed 22-52 meters (74-172 feet) behind the first worker or equipment, depending on speed limits and operation type—closer for lower speeds under 72 km/h (45 mph) and farther for higher speeds to account for vehicle roll-ahead. Channelizing devices, such as cones or drums, are used to form tapers that guide traffic around the work area and toward the TMA, creating a clear transition zone that funnels vehicles safely past the closure. These configurations ensure the TMA functions as the "last line of defense" without encroaching on buffer spaces. TMAs demonstrate high effectiveness in reducing crash severity in work zones, with studies showing each TMA-involved incident saves approximately $196,855 in economic costs compared to similar crashes without attenuators, primarily through minimized injuries and vehicle damage. In highway resurfacing projects, such as those on multi-lane interstates, TMAs have protected crews during nighttime operations by capturing errant vehicles and preventing intrusions into active lanes, contributing to broader work zone safety improvements reported by the (NHTSA), including a 7% decrease in fatalities from 2021 to 2023. Overall, these devices recoup their deployment costs within a year on busy roadways through avoided rear-end collisions. Deploying TMAs in maintenance environments presents challenges, including frequent daily relocations as crews move between sites, which demands quick setup and teardown to minimize . Water-filled TMA units are particularly susceptible to impacts, such as freezing in cold conditions that can compromise structural integrity or leaking during heavy rain, requiring regular inspections and potential drainage. Operator training is crucial to address these issues, with programs covering safe positioning, equipment handling, and emergency response to ensure compliance and reduce . As of 2025, innovations like autonomous TMA (ATMA) vehicles have been tested in pilot programs to address labor-intensive shadowing, with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) completing field trials in May 2025, which were deemed successful overall, demonstrating potential for unmanned deployment in routine maintenance, lowering costs and fatigue-related risks while maintaining safety standards.

References

  1. https://www.txdot.gov/manuals/des/rdw/chapter-17-roadside-safety-design-and-roadside-saf/17-8-attenuators--crash-cushions-.html
  2. https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/m22-01/1620.pdf
  3. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/ch10atten.pdf
  4. https://www.odot.org/traffic/pdfs/AttenuatorGuideline.pdf
  5. https://dewesoft.com/blog/formula-sae-impact-attenuator-testing-and-validation
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095034921000428
  7. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trcircular/435/435-002.pdf
  8. https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/173479.aspx
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000145759500003I
  10. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/roadside-safety-hardware-identification-methods/chapter-1
  11. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/final-reports/ca08-0277-finalreport-a11y.pdf
  12. https://trafficprobeds.com/the-logic-behind-the-last-line-of-defense-understanding-truck-mounted-attenuators-tma/
  13. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/obituaries/2012/11/02/john-cooper-fitch-racing-car-driver-and-adventurer/s3VKAPFsbC5zV5VHBW313N/story.html
  14. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_153.pdf
  15. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350.pdf
  16. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/aashto-guidance
  17. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/millennium/12.18.00/6H.pdf
  18. https://hillandsmith.com/product/hs2x-wireless-impact-notification-device/
  19. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/recmatpolicy.htm
  20. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/IDEA/FinalReports/Highway/NCHRP203.pdf
  21. https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/177079.aspx
  22. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/memorandum-application-and-installation-roadside-hardware
  23. https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/other-design-docs/selection-guide/introduction_and_glossary.pdf
  24. https://www.smaroadsafety.com/en/gating-not-gating/
  25. https://www.traffixdevices.com/products/attenuators/sled-us
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0734743X14001055
  27. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/sports/autoracing/john-cooper-fitch-glamorous-racer-with-a-flair-for-danger-dies-at-95.html
  28. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/85123/dot_85123_DS1.pdf
  29. https://www.valtir.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/620097-ENERGITE-III-Fitch-PM-4-18.pdf
  30. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/faqs-barriers-terminals-transitions-attenuators-and-bridge-railings
  31. https://www.smaroadsafety.com/en/p/crash-cushion/hercules/
  32. https://www.trans-supply.com/pg/285/attenuator-sled-system
  33. https://www.atssa.com/Portals/0/WZGrant/WorkZonePositiveProtectionToolbox.pdf
  34. https://www.valtir.com/product/react-350/
  35. https://hillandsmith.com/product/smart-cushion-crash-attenuator/
  36. https://www.impactabsorption.com/impact-attenuators.html
  37. https://www.lindsay.com/usca/en/infrastructure/road-safety-products/crash-cushions/tau-crash-cushions
  38. https://roadsystems.com/nchrp-350-skt/
  39. https://www.geostabilization.com/roadguard/solutions/guardrail/impact-attenuators/
  40. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-1970-ID24348.pdf
  41. https://transpo.com/company-history/1960-crash-cushions-move-to-roadways/
  42. https://dlbinc.net/product/mash-tl-3-truck-mounted-attenuator/
  43. https://www.traffixdevices.com/products/attenuators/scorpion-tma
  44. https://www.tssco.com/product/ttma-200-trailer-truck-mounted-attenuator/
  45. https://www.traffixdevices.com/products/attenuators/scorpion2-tma
  46. https://epg.modot.org/index.php/Category:612_Impact_Attenuators
  47. https://www.traffixdevices.com/docs/traffix-devices_attenuator-guide.pdf
  48. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/construction/documents/policies-procedures-publications/cpd/cpd21-4-attachment3-a11y.pdf
  49. https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/roadway/cccc.pdf
  50. https://www.vatt.com/campsticker/vehicle/3626/2025_TrafFix_Devices_TL3_MASH_TA
  51. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/62779/dot_62779_DS1.pdf
  52. https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/tti/991-1.pdf
  53. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-a.pdf
  54. https://www.traffixdevices.com/standards/mash
  55. https://publicworks.cityofomaha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AASHTO-Roadside-Design-Guide-2011-with-2012-and-2015-errata.pdf
  56. https://highways.dot.gov/media/25986
  57. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/f0017172-ca14-2206-finalreport.pdf
  58. https://www.traffixdevices.com/docs/attenuators/big-sandy/traffix-big-sandy_hng-14.pdf
  59. https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/specifications/appr-products/Crashgard-12-27-2018-Update.pdf
  60. https://www.pss-innovations.com/safety-products/crash-cushions-channelizers-drums/crashgard-sand-barrel-system
  61. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1988/1198/1198-007.pdf
  62. https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/digitized/texasarchive/phase3/tx_ms598_1971.pdf
  63. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/enstewardship.cfm
  64. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/
  65. https://www.swri.org/markets/manufacturing-construction/reliability-engineering-services/product-assurance/aashto-mash-testing-nchrp-350
  66. https://otwsafety.com/resources/mash-testing-a-comprehensive-guide/
  67. https://roadsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-126G-MSKT-MASH-16.pdf
  68. https://iowadot.gov/media/8821/download?inline
  69. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/77975/dot_77975_DS1.pdf
  70. https://mwrsf.unl.edu/researchhub/files/Report357/TRP-03-393-19.pdf
  71. https://roadsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Summary-of-Differences-Between-MASH-and-NCHRP-350.pdf
  72. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/hardware-eligibility-letters
  73. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/part6.pdf
  74. https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/working/engineering/roadway/manuals-standards/tem/06
  75. https://www.in.gov/indot/doing-business-with-indot/contractorsconstruction/training-and-certifications/guardrail-end-treatment-and-impact-attenuator-on-demand-training-for-installers/
  76. https://www.dtc-ag.ch/en/professional-services/passive-safety/product-certification/road-restraint-system
  77. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD/reduce-crash-severity/hardware-eligibility-letters
  78. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/d.cfm
  79. https://www.odot.org/traffic/pdfs/attenuatorguideline.pdf
  80. https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/working/engineering/roadway/manuals-standards/location-design-vol-1/0600/0600
  81. https://www.njta.com/media/1419/njta-dm-section-3-attenuator-design_rev-11-2011.pdf
  82. https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/cdot-construction-specifications/2023-construction-specifications/project-special-provision-work-sheets/614ia.docx
  83. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_10.pdf
  84. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pr2cl.htm
  85. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3367&context=jtrp
  86. https://portal.ct.gov/dot/ctdot-construction-advisories/2025/guiderail-and-attenuator-upgrades-on-i95-southbound-at-exit-27a-in-bridgeport
  87. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/maintenance/documents/chapter-m3-nodisclaimer-a11y.pdf
  88. https://www.fdot.gov/docs/default-source/construction/engineers/mot/presents/Crash-Cushion.pdf
  89. https://pdl.fdot.gov/api/procedures/downloadProcedure/850-055-003
  90. https://vtrc.virginia.gov/media/vtrc/vtrc-pdf/vtrc-pdf/24-R15.pdf
  91. https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2024/10/08/truck-mounted-attenuators/
  92. https://workzonesafety-media.s3.amazonaws.com/workzonesafety/files/documents/training/fhwa_wz_grant/shad_veh_final.pdf
  93. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2458-09
  94. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/fhwa-urges-drivers-stay-alert-ensure-highway-workers-get-home-safely-part-national
  95. https://workzonesafety.org/publication/analysis-of-expected-crash-reduction-benefits-and-costs-of-truck-mounted-attenuator-use-in-work-zones/
  96. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/conferences/tsc18/presentations/construction-2/weber.pdf
  97. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/research-notes/task4159-rns-05-25-a11y.pdf
  98. https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/mobility-technology/mobility-tech-contents/atma-deployment-toolkit.pdf
  99. https://maintainroads.org/california-to-host-webinar-on-using-intelligent-truck-mounted-attenuators/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.