Design and safety assessment of a novel GFRP lattice-rubber sandwich anti-collision island: Full-scale real-vehicle crash test
Source abstract
Abstract
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have garnered significant interest in impact protection engineering owing to their exceptional mechanical properties and energy dissipation capabilities. Conventional reinforced concrete anti-collision islands, characterized by inherent rigidity and inadequate energy absorption, frequently induce catastrophic structural failures and occupant injuries during vehicular collisions. This investigation proposes an innovative GFRP lattice-rubber sandwich structure to enhance impact mitigation performance. Experimental evaluations through hammer impact testing revealed substantial force attenuation, with peak impact forces measuring 307.34 kN (3 m) and 364.64 kN (6 m), demonstrating 72.8% and 68.3% reductions compared to conventional concrete counterparts (970.37 kN and 1344.44 kN, respectively). Full-scale real-vehicle crash test further validated the system’s efficacy, exhibiting limited superficial damage in the composite layer alongside markedly reduced vehicular structural deformation. Data indicated compliance with occupant safety thresholds, as evidenced by controlled dummy acceleration profiles and force distribution metrics. The observed temporal decoupling between vehicular and anti-collision island acceleration maxima (Δt = 0.24s) substantiates the energy dissipation mechanism through controlled elastomeric deformation, effectively prolonging impact duration while mitigating peak load intensity. The findings provide experimental support for the application of GFRP-lattice structures in highway anti-collision Islands, demonstrating their promising prospects for engineering applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Transportation Safety and Impact Analysis · Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics · Cellular and Composite Structures
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Beijing University of Technology
Chongqing Research Institute, Beijing University of Technology
University of Science and Technology Beijing
Road and Bridge International Communication Technology Company Limited
Beijing 2nd Municipal Engineering Co., Ltd
Funding
The Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Silva PF, Dong P, Hamdar SH, et al. Possible methodology for probabilistic assessment of bridge safety against collisions. Tech Rep United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2024. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/74439.
2. 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.04510.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.045 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.04010.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.040 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.10710310.1016/j.istruc.2024.107103 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.10756610.1016/j.istruc.2024.107566 ↗
6. New W. Road safety annual report 2021. International Transport Forum. 2021; 45–72.
7. Liu ZH, Lu ZM, Zhang R, et al. State of-the art review of bridge impact research in 2020. J Civ Environ Eng 2021; 43(S1): 242–251.
8. Gu MY, Ma YD, Chen YH, et al. Construction technology of flexible anti-collision structure of safety island based on high performance composite materials. Municipal Engineering Technology 2021; 39(11): 123–129.
9. 10.1016/j.rineng.2024.10351110.1016/j.rineng.2024.103511 ↗
10. Sun JH, Su NJ, He ZQ, et al. Durability of concrete-encapsulated GFRP bars subjected to seawater immersion. Case Stud Constr Mater 2024; 20: 20e03249.
11. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13105910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131059 ↗
12. Yongyu D, Xiaogang L, Yue L, et al. Environmental impact on the durability of FRP reinforcing bars. J Build Eng. 2021; 43: e04764.
13. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11964910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119649 ↗
14. 10.3390/polym710150110.3390/polym7101501 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11269110.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112691 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.10503510.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.105035 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.11066710.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.110667 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13663310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136633 ↗
19. 10.1088/1742-6596/1948/1/01223310.1088/1742-6596/1948/1/012233 ↗
20. 10.3390/buildings1411357310.3390/buildings14113573 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.tws.2023.11154610.1016/j.tws.2023.111546 ↗
22. 10.1088/2053-1591/ac493e10.1088/2053-1591/ac493e ↗
23. Zhuang GZ, Sun ZJ. Experimental study on the basic mechanical characteristics of foam filled 3-D spacer fabric composites. Acta Mater Compos Sin 2009; 26(05): 27–32.
24. 10.1023/B:JMSC.0000041707.68685.7210.1023/B:JMSC.0000041707.68685.72 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11841210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118412 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.01610.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.016 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.10383510.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.103835 ↗
28. Latifzadeh F, Keshavarzi A, Saeidi Googarchin H. Crashworthiness of adhesively bonded bio-inspired AL/CFRP hybrid tubes under lateral loading. Mech Adv Mater Struct. 2025; 266: 108959.
29. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.05810.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.058 ↗
30. Wu XD, Xin F, Wu XQ. Work on low-velocity impact properties of foam sandwich composites with various face sheets. Fiber Composites 2010; 27(04): 8–11.
31. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.06.02710.1016/j.compositesb.2017.06.027 ↗
32. Betts D Sadeghian P Fam A. Impact behaviour of sandwich panels made of flax fiber-reinforced bio-based polymer face sheets and foam cores. In: Structures congress 2018: buildings and disaster management. Fort Worth TX USA 19–21 April 2018. ASCE Press pp. 89–92.10.1061/9780784481349.036 ↗
33. Jones E Liu W. Effect of core materials on compression after impact strength of composite sandwich panels subject to low velocity impact damage. In: 21st international composites conference Xi’an China 20–25 August 2017 pp. 329–331.
34. Mocian OA, Constantinescu DM, Sandu M, et al. Influence of core thickness on the impact behavior of sandwich panels with polystyrene foam core experimental and numerical investigation. UPB Scientific Bulletin, Series D: Mech Eng 2019; 81(1): 179–190.
35. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11204010.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112040 ↗
36. 10.1007/s10853-018-2799-x10.1007/s10853-018-2799-x ↗
37. He YB, Yao XH, Cheng SC, et al. Experimental investigation into dynamic response of composite foam sandwich plates under low-energy impact. J S China Univ Technol 2016; 44(10): 57–64.
38. 10.1080/13588265.2020.179734610.1080/13588265.2020.1797346 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.04.00610.1016/j.compstruct.2013.04.006 ↗
40. Xia L, Xu F, Li Q, et al. Low-velocity impact damage analysis on composites foam core sandwich structure. Advances in Aeronautical Science and Engineering 2011; 2(04): 425–431.
41. Lian W, Wang MY, Lv J. Simulation on the composite foam sandwich structure under low energy impact. Fiber Composites 2018; 35(02): 20–26.
42. Yue L Ping L Xi Z et al. “Bridge pier anti-collision component based on FRP lattice-rubber.” CN202010446173.1 2020-08-21. https://patents.google.com
43. Yue L Ping L Xi Z et al. “A flexible anti - collision device for toll station safety island based on FRP lattice - rubber.” CN202010446162.3 2020-08-25. https://patents.google.com
44. Liu WQ, Fang T, Zhu L, et al. Ship-bridge collision force mechanism and composite anti-collision system. J Southeast Univ 2013; 43(05): 1080–1086.
45. General design specifications for highway bridges and culverts. JTG D60—2015. Beijing: China Communication Press, 2015.
46. Ministry of Transport of the People′s Republic of China. Design Specifications for Highway Safety Facilities.JTG D81―2017. Beijing: China Communications Press, 2017.
47. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2017.
48. 10.1061/JCCOF2.CCENG-438310.1061/JCCOF2.CCENG-4383 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12834010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128340 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10909010.1016/j.tws.2022.109090 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12157210.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121572 ↗
52. General Administration of Quality Supervision. Inspection and quarantine of the people's Republic of China, national standardization administration of China. Occupant protection in frontal collision of automobiles: GB11551—2014. Beijing: China Standards Press, 2014.
53. National Highway Trale Safely Administration. Federal motor vehicle safety standards: occupant crash protection, FMVSS 208. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2012.
54. EURO-NCAP. European NCAP VRU test protocol version 9.0.3. Belgium: European New Car Assessment Programme, 2023.