Noise barriers are commonly used to reduce the adverse effects of traffic noise in both urban and suburban settings. While conventional systems constructed from concrete and steel provide reliable acoustic and structural performance, they raise sustainability concerns due to high embodied energy and carbon emissions. Glued-laminated (glulam) timber has emerged as a sustainable alternative, offering a reduced carbon footprint, aesthetic appeal, and effective acoustic performance. However, the crashworthiness of timber-based noise wall systems remains under investigated, particularly with respect to the safety criteria established in the 2016 edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). This study presents the full-scale crash testing and evaluation of glulam rubrail and noise wall systems under MASH Test Level 3 (TL-3) impact conditions. Building on a previously tested system compliant with National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350, modifications were made to increase rubrail dimensions to meet higher lateral design loads. Three full-scale vehicle crash tests were conducted using 1100C and 2270P vehicles at 100 km/h and 25 degrees, covering both front- and back-mounted wall configurations. All tested systems demonstrated acceptable structural performance, effective vehicle redirection, and compliance with MASH 2016 occupant risk criteria. There was no penetration or potential for debris intrusion into the occupant compartment, and all measured occupant risk values remained well below allowable thresholds. Minimal damage to structural components was observed. The results confirm that the modified glulam noise wall system meets current impact safety standards and is suitable for use along high-speed roadways. This work supports the integration of sustainable materials into roadside safety infrastructure without compromising crash performance.
Yosef et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: