Road safety barriers are used to minimise the severity of road accidents and protect lives and property. There are several types of barrier in use today. This paper reports the initial phase of research carried out to study the impact response of portable water-filled barrier (PWFB) which has the potential to absorb impact energy and hence provide crash mitigation under low to moderate speeds. Current research on the impact and energy absorption capacity of water-filled road safety barriers is limited due to the complexity of fluid-structure interaction under dynamic impact. In this paper, a novel fluid-structure interaction method is developed based on the combination of Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) and Finite Element Method (FEM). The sloshing phenomenon of water inside a PWFB is investigated to explore the energy absorption capacity of water under dynamic impact. It was found that water plays an important role in energy absorption. The coupling analysis developed in this paper will provide a platform to further the research in optimising the behaviour of the PWFB. The effect of the amount of water on its energy absorption capacity is investigated and the results have practical applications in the design of PWFBs.
Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics [BITRE], Road crash costs in Australia in 1996. 2000, Australian Goverment: Canberra. p. 116.
2.
Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics [BITRE], Road deaths Australia – 2009 statistical summary. 2010, Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics [BITRE],: Canberra.
3.
SorockG.S.RanneyT.A., and LehtoM.R., Motor vehicle crashes in roadway construction workzones: An analysis using narrative text from insurance claims. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 1996. 28(1): P. 131–138.
4.
GoverR.GuY.T.ThambiratnamD.P.GudimetlaP, Impact characteristics of a flexible road barrier and vehicle crash response. 2008, CRC Press (Taylor ans Francis Group).
5.
GrzebietaR.H.ZouR.JiangT.CareyA., Roadside hazard and barrier crashworthiness issues confronting vehicle and barrier manufacturers and Government regulators. 2008.
6.
BorovinsM.VesenjakM.UlbinM.RenZ.Simulation of crash tests for high containment levels of road safety barriers. 2006.
7.
UlkerM.B.C.RahmanM. S.ZhenR.MirmiranA., Traffic barriers under vehicular impact: From computer simulation to design guidelines. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2008. 23(6): P. 465–480.
8.
GrzebietaR.CameronJ.CareyA.ZouR., Water-filled plastic safety barrier systems. Road and Transport Research, 2001. 10(Compendex): P. 66–83.
9.
RenZ. and VesenjakM., Computational and experimental crash analysis of the road safety barrier. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2005. 12(6): P. 963–973.
10.
YuanC. and XianlongJ., Dynamic response of flexible container during the impact with the ground. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2010. 37(10): P. 999–1007.
11.
SouliM.OuahsineA., and LewinL., ALE formulation for fluid-structure interaction problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2000. 190(5–7): P. 659–675.
12.
WangJ. and GadalaM.S., Formulation and survey of ALE method in nonlinear solid mechanics. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 1997. 24(4): P. 253–269.
13.
GadalaM.S. and WangJ., ALE formulation and its application in solid mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1998. 167(1–2): P. 33–55.
14.
TabriK.BroekhuijsenJ.MatusiakJ.VarstaP., Analytical modelling of ship collision based on full-scale experiments. Marine Structures, 2009. 22(1): P. 42–61.
15.
SarrateJ.HuertaA., and DoneaJ., Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation for fluid-rigid body interaction. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2001. 190(24–25): P. 3171–3188.
16.
DoneaJ.GiulianiS., and HalleuxJ.P., An arbitrary lagrangian-eulerian finite element method for transient dynamic fluid-structure interactions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1982. 33(1–3): P. 689–723.
17.
AnghileriM.CastellettiL.-M.L., and TirelliM., Fluid-structure interaction of water filled tanks during the impact with the ground. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2005. 31(3): P. 235–254.
18.
ToumiM.BouazaraM., and RichardM.J., Impact of liquid sloshing on the behaviour of vehicles carrying liquid cargo. European Journal of Mechanics – A/Solids, 2009. 28(5): P. 1026–1034.
19.
HousnerG., Dynamic pressures on accelerated fluid containers. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1957. 47(1): P. 15.
20.
BabuS.S. and BhattacharyyaS.K., Finite element analysis of fluid-structure interaction effect on liquid retaining structures due to sloshing. Computers & Structures, 1996. 59(6): P. 1165–1171.
21.
ChoJ.R. and LeeH.W., Numerical study on liquid sloshing in baffled tank by nonlinear finite element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2004. 193(23–26): P. 2581–2598.
22.
TabriK.MatusiakJ., and VarstaP., Sloshing interaction in ship collisions—An experimental and numerical study. Ocean Engineering, 2009. 36(17–18): P. 1366–1376.
23.
GodderidgeB.TurnockS.TanM.EarlC., An investigation of multiphase CFD modelling of a lateral sloshing tank. Computers & Fluids, 2009. 38(2): P. 183–193.
24.
ArmenioV. and La RoccaM., On the analysis of sloshing of water in rectangular containers: Numerical study and experimental validation. Ocean Engineering, 1996. 23(8): P. 705–739.
25.
DelormeL.IglesiasSouto A., and PérezAbril S.. Sloshing loads simulation in LNG tankers with SPH. 2005.
26.
YeZ. and BirkA., Fluid pressures in partially liquid-filled horizontal cylindrical vessels undergoing impact acceleration. Journal of pressure vessel technology, 1994. 116: P. 449.
27.
FaltinsenO.RognebakkeO.LukovskyI.TimokhaA., Multidimensional modal analysis of nonlinear sloshing in a rectangular tank with finite water depth. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2000. 407: P. 201–234.
28.
AnghileriM.CastellettiL.FrancesconiE.MilaneseA.PittofratiM., Rigid body water impact-experimental tests and numerical simulations using the SPH method. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011. 38(4): P. 141–151.
29.
LiuG.R. and LiuM.B., Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: A meshfree particle method. 2003, New Jersey: World Scientific. xx, 449 p.
30.
LiuM.B. and LiuG.R., Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH): An overview and recent developments. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2010. 17(1): P. 25–76.
31.
LiuM.B.LiuG. R.LamK. Y.ZongZ., Smoothed particle hydrodynamics for numerical simulation of underwater explosion. Computational Mechanics, 2003. 30(2): P. 106–118.
32.
SwaddiwudhipongS.IslambM., and LiuZ., High Velocity Penetration/Perforation Using Coupled Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics-Finite Element Method. International Journal of Protective Structures, 2010. 1(4): P. 489–506.
33.
LucyL., A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. The Astronomical Journal, 1977. 82: P. 1013–1024.
34.
GingoldR.A. and MonaghanJ.J., Smoothed particle hydrodynamics-theory and application to non-spherical stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1977. 181: P. 375–389.
35.
StellingwerfR.F. and WingateC.A., Impact Modelling with Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics. Societa Astronomica Italiana, 1994.
36.
MonaghanJ., Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Reports on Progress in Physics, 2005. 68: P. 1703.
37.
FulbrightM.S.BenzW., and DaviesM.B., A method of smoothed particle hydrodynamics using spheroidal kernels. The Astrophysical Journal, 1995. 440: P. 254–262.
38.
CrespoA.Gómez-GesteiraM., and DalrympleR.A., Modeling dam break behavior over a wet bed by a SPH technique. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2008. 134: P. 313.
39.
Gomez-GesteiraM., Using a three-dimensional smoothed particle hydrodynamics method for wave impact on a tall structure. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 2004. 130: P. 63.
40.
MonaghanJ.J. and LattanzioJ.C., A refined particle method for astrophysical problems. Astronomy and astrophysics, 1985. 149: P. 135–143.
41.
CengelY.A. and CimbalaJ.M., Fluid mechanics: Fundamentals and applications. McGraw-Hill series in mechanical engineering. 2006, Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. xxv, 956.
42.
MunsonB.R.YoungD.F.OkiishiT.H.HuebschW.W., Fundamentals of fluid mechanics. 5th Edition, 1998.
43.
GuY., Meshfree methods and their comparisons. International Journal of Computational Methods, 2005. 2(4): P. 477–516.
44.
JohnsonG.R., Linking of Lagrangian particle methods to standard finite element methods for high velocity impact computations. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1994. 150(2–3): P. 265–274.
45.
JohnsonG.R. and BeisselS.R., Normalized smoothing functions for sph impact computations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1996. 39(16): P. 2725–2741.
46.
SauerM., “Adaptive Kopplung des netzfreien SPH-Verfahrens mit finiten Elementen zur Berechnung von Impaktvorgaengen”. Adaptive Kopplung des netzfreien SPH-Verfahrens mit finiten Elementen zur Berechnung von Impaktvorgaengen, 2000.
47.
CampbellJ.VignjevicR., and LiberskyL., A contact algorithm for smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2000. 184(1): P. 49–65.
48.
De VuystT.VignjevicR., and CampbellJ.C., Coupling between meshless and finite element methods. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2005. 31(8): P. 1054–1064.
49.
ChieragattiR.EspinosaC.LacomeJ.L.LimidoJ.MabruC.SalaünM., Modelling high speed machining with the SPH method. 2008.
50.
VignjevicR.CampbellJ., and LiberskyL., A treatment of zero-energy modes in the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2000. 184(1): P. 67–85.
51.
RandlesP.W. and LiberskyL.D., Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: Some recent improvements and applications. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1996. 139(1–4): P. 375–408.
52.
GuY. and LiuG., Hybrid boundary point interpolation methods and their coupling with the element free Galerkin method. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 2003. 27(9): P. 905–917.
53.
GuY.T. and LiuG.R., A coupled element free Galerkin/boundary element method for stress analysis of two-dimensional solids. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2001. 190(34): P. 4405–4419.
54.
MonaghanJ.J., SPH without a Tensile Instability. Journal of Computational Physics, 2000. 159(2): P. 290–311.
55.
VignjevicR.de VuystT., and CampbellJ., The use of a homogeneous repulsive force for contact treatment in sph.WCCM V, 2002.
56.
LiuM.B.LiuG. R.LamK. Y.ZongZ., A new technique to treat material interfaces for smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Computational Mechanics – New Frontiers for New Millennium, 2001: P. 977–982.
National Crash Analysis Center and G.W. University.Finite element model archive. 2010 06/09/2010 [cited 2010 08/26]; Available from: http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/
59.
Council, T.R.B.N.R., NCHRPReport 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features. 1993.
60.
SeoJ.LinzellD.G., and RadoZ., Computational and experimental modification of portable sign structure design following NCHRP 350 criteria. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 2011. 16(2): P. 111–116.
61.
KennedyJ.KennedyJamesShahQasim H.ChenShen-YehThiyahuddinM. I., SPH interface with FE meshed elements in SPH interface with FE meshed elementsYahoo, Editor. 2000.
62.
LiuM.B.LiuG.R., and LamK.Y., Investigations into water mitigation using a meshless particle method. Shock Waves, 2002. 12(3): P. 181–195.
63.
DavisR.O., Further comments on thermodynamic response of Mie-Gruneisen materials. Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter, 1973. 17(1): P. 63–70.
64.
LohseC.VelinskyS., and BennettD., Temporary barrier usage in work zone. 2007, UC Davis: Davis.
