Skip to main content

Industry AMS opts for safety in any direction

Italian company AMS explains how its crashworthy end terminals act like a crash cushion Industry AMS (Automation Manufacturing Services) has developed a crashworthy end terminal tested according to part 7 of the EN 1317 that is classified as a double-sided and bi-directional end terminal. Starting from the European version of the terminal, and based on the same architecture, AMS has designed the SMA (Safety Modular Absorber) as a reinforced end-terminal in order to be complaint with both the MASH and
January 25, 2017 Read time: 4 mins
Vehicle movement during frontal and side impacts with the SMA end terminal
Italian company AMS explains how its crashworthy end terminals act like a crash cushion

7403 Industry AMS (Automation Manufacturing Services) has developed a crashworthy end terminal tested according to part 7 of the EN 1317 that is classified as a double-sided and bi-directional end terminal.

Starting from the European version of the terminal, and based on the same architecture, AMS has designed the SMA (Safety Modular Absorber) as a reinforced end-terminal in order to be complaint with both the MASH and NCHRP 350 standards.

In particular, this reinforced version of end terminal was already able to protect against side impacts from a 2tonne pickup truck (TL 3.37) and the frontal impact from a 2.27tonnes (TL 3.31).

From the images it is clear the vehicles are well decelerated and re-directioned and more importantly that no part of the end terminal during the impact acts as a hazard for the vehicle.

Technology used by the SMA end terminal to absorb the kinetic energy of the vehicle is based on the plastic deformation of steel elements, named crashboxes. Their design maximises energy absorption. But it and also allows the device to be shorter than otherwise and so they become useful where barrier space is limited. Shorter devices also mean easier delivery logistics.

The SMA for the 110km/h class or the TL3 class is less than 6m long, meaning more units fit into a standard 12.2m (40-foot) logistics container. The SMA end terminal is also delivered fully assembled and can be connected to the ground by posts screwed into a base metal plate that is a part of the device.

The base metal plate connects the posts in a way that they can work all together upon impact. This feature allows installation of the SMA end terminal as a stand-alone system – it can sustain impact even if it is not connected to a longitudinal barrier.

The stand-alone aspect means it can be installed on a concrete base using standard anchors or a special metal frame with threaded bushings (supplied by AMS) that can be embedded in the concrete base.
Thanks to its crashbox construction, the SMA end terminal can also act as a collapsing beam. The beam can collapse along its axis but it also has a significant bending stiffness that allows it to sustain side impacts.

In order to meet the requirement that a safety device should have predictable deformation behaviour, a guide with a trolley and a rail allows only longitudinal deformation of the collapsing beam.

This rail has a double ‘T’ profile of steel that engages a rigid trolley also made of steel. The only allowed movement between the rail and the trolley is the longitudinal displacement, forbidding vertical and lateral displacement and also any kind of vehicle rotation. The trolley is then connected to the collapsing beam. The guide acts as a constraint for the deformation of the collapsing beam.

Some crash barrier systems on the market are based on the extrusion of a double or triple beam. Upon impact the forced extrusion of the steel beam causes a bending deformation. The displacement is very difficult to control and the final position of the deformed beam is not easily predicted.

However, the SMA end terminal, due to the rigid guide, remains in place after impact of the vehicle. Some end terminals on the market absorb energy through a planned fracture, whereas the SMA end terminal uses only plastic deformation of steel elements without any rupture of collapsing elements.

The characteristics described above render the SMA terminal the first device that at the same time can be used as a terminal or a crash cushion. In fact, SMA end terminal is also tested according to the EN 1317-3 and has the CE mark for a crash cushion. In one complete system we have a device compliant with European and US standards for both terminal and crash cushion.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Effective precast barrier units from Netherlands firm
    April 29, 2015
    Haitsma Beton in the Netherlands has developed a lightweight precast concrete barrier system for temporary use. This T3 system is said to make investing in vehicle guidance more cost-effective. Each HaiSafe T barrier weighs 1.5tonnes and is over 10% lighter than comparable precast concrete barriers. The system is said to be easy and quick to locate, as well as to to assemble and disassemble. A novel feature is that no anchoring is needed at the ends, because the system has been tested and approved without a
  • IRF crash cushion webinar
    October 12, 2012
    Not enough road agencies and highway engineers understand the questions to ask regarding site-specific conditions, design performance criteria and reusability requirements of crash cushions when making purchasing decisions. To address these questions, IRF held a webinar attended by over 170 highway and safety professionals in 18 countries. The webinar reviewed crash cushion applications, described current performance-based standards (NCHRP 350/MASH/EN1317) and presented the recommendations to allow road aut
  • Hardstaff Barriers to recycle all PPE
    February 8, 2022
    Hardstaff is working with Granite Workwear which has launched its own textile destruction and recycling service for old or damaged workwear and personal protective equipment - PPE.
  • Motorcycle-Guardrail Crashes: How can the risk of severe injury and fatality be reduced?
    July 23, 2012
    The problem: motorcyclist fatalities can occur from a variety of accidents. But in the United States in 2005, motorcyclists comprised 42% of fatalities due to guardrail collisions, whereas only 3% of vehicles on the roads were motorcycles (Gabler, 2007). More motorcyclists were killed in guardrail collisions than passengers of any other vehicle type in 2005 (Gabler, 2007). Guardrails cannot simply be removed to protect motorcyclists. However, improvements need to be made in several areas in order to keep mo