# Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Review

## 3. Materials and Methods

#### 3.1. Data Description

#### 3.2. Methodology

#### 3.2.1. Mixed Logit Model

#### 3.2.2. Marginal Effect

#### 3.2.3. Likelihood Ratio Test

## 4. Results

#### 4.1. Driver Characteristics

#### 4.2. Work Zone Characteristics

#### 4.3. Collision Characteristics

#### 4.4. Roadway and Environmental Characteristics

#### 4.5. Temporal Characteristics

## 5. Discussion

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Khattak, A.J.; Targa, F. Injury severity and total harm in truck-involved work zone crashes. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2004**, 1877, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse. National Estimates of Total and Injury Work Zone Crashes. 2022. Available online: https://workzonesafety.org/ (accessed on 29 July 2022).
- Ahmed, F.; Siddiqui, C.; Huynh, N. Analysis of contributing factor of truck involved crashes at work zones in south Carolina and their temporal stability. J. Transp. Res. Board Transp. Res. Rec.
**2022**, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - South Carolina Department of Public Safety. South Carolina Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2020–2024. 2022. Available online: https://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/bitstream/handle/10827/36727/DPS_Strategic_Highway_Safety_Plan_2020-2024.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 29 July 2022).
- Khattak, A.J.; Schneider, R.J.; Targa, F. Risk factors in large truck rollovers and injury severity: Analysis of single-vehicle collisions. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2003**, 40, 1–22. [Google Scholar] - Khorashadi, A.; Niemeier, D.; Shankar, V.; Mannering, F. Differences in rural and urban driver-injury severities in accidents involving large-trucks: An exploratory analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2005**, 37, 910–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Uddin, M.; Huynh, N. Truck-involved crashes injury severity analysis for different lighting conditions on rural and urban roadways. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2017**, 108, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Uddin, M.; Huynh, N. Injury severity analysis of truck-involved crashes under different weather conditions. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2020**, 141, 105529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, S.; Zhang, S.; Xing, Y.; Lu, J. Identifying the factors contributing to the severity of truck-involved crashes in Shanghai River-Crossing Tunnel. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
**2020**, 17, 3155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, P.; Fan, W. Analyzing injury severity of rear-end crashes involving large trucks using a mixed logit model: A case study in North Carolina. J. Transp. Saf. Secur.
**2022**, 14, 723–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gupta, R.; Asgari, H.; Azimi, G.; Rahimi, A.; Jin, X. Analysis of fatal truck-involved work zone crashes in Florida: Application of tree-based models. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2021**, 2675, 1272–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility. 2005. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/41325 (accessed on 4 April 2023).
- Islam, M. An analysis of motorcyclists’ injury severities in work-zone crashes with unobserved heterogeneity. Int. Assoc. Traffic Saf. Sci.
**2022**, 46, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Islam, M.; Alnawmasi, N.; Mannnering, F. Unobserved heterogeneity and temporal instability in the analysis of work-zone crash-injury severities. Anal. Method Accid. Res.
**2020**, 28, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, E.; Tarko, A.P. Modeling safety of highway work zones with random parameters and random effects models. Anal. Methods Accid. Res.
**2014**, 1, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mannering, F.L.; Shankar, V.; Bhat, C. Unobserved heterogeneity and the statistical analysis of highway accident data. Anal. Methods Accid. Res.
**2016**, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anderson, J.; Hernandez, S. Roadway classifications and the accident injury severities of heavy-vehicle drivers. Anal. Method Accid. Res.
**2017**, 15, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khodabakhshi, A.; Ahmed, M.M. Practical advantage of crossed random intercepts under Bayesian hierarchical modeling to tackle unobserved heterogeneity in clustering critical versus non-critical crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2021**, 149, 105855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Behnood, A.; Mannering, F. The effect of passengers on driver-injury severities in single-vehicle crashes: A random parameters heterogeneity-in-means approach. Anal. Methods Accid. Res.
**2017**, 14, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Behnood, A.; Al-Bdairi, N.S.S. Determinant of injury severities in large truck crashes: A weekly instability analysis. Saf. Sci.
**2020**, 131, 104911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Seraneeprakarn, P.; Huang, S.; Shankar, V.; Mannering, F.; Venkataraman, N.; Milton, J. Occupant injury severities in hybrid-vehicle involved crashes: A random parameters approach with heterogeneity in means and variances. Anal. Methods Accid. Res.
**2017**, 15, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Islam, M.; Mannering, F. The role of gender and temporal instability in driver-injury severities in crashes caused by speeds too fast for conditions. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2021**, 153, 106039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anastasopoulos, P.C.; Mannering, F.L. An empirical assessment of fixed and random parameter logit models using crash- and non-crash-specific injury data. Accid. Anal.Prev
**2011**, 43, 1140–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Chang, L.Y.; Chien, J.T. Analysis of driver injury severity in truck-involved accidents using a non-parametric classification tree model. Saf. Sci.
**2013**, 51, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Weng, J.; Meng, Q.; Yan, X. Analysis of work zone rear-end crash risk for different vehicle-following patterns. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2014**, 72, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Osman, M.; Paleti, R.; Mishra, S.; Golias, M.M. Analysis of injury severity of large truck crashes in work zones. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2016**, 97, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, M.; Ma, C.; Zheng, C.; Chen, Z.; Yang, T. Injury severity of truck-involved crashes in work zones on rural and urban highways: Accounting for unobserved heterogeneity. J. Transp. Saf. Secur.
**2022**, 14, 83–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, K.; Hassan, M. Identifying the Factors Contributing to Injury Severity in Work Zone Rear-End Crashes. J. Adv. Transp.
**2019**, 2019, 4126102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, F.; Mingtao, S.; Ma, X. Investigation on the injury severity of drivers in rear-end collisions between cars using a random parameters bivariate ordered probit model. Int. J. Envrion. Res. Public Health
**2019**, 16, 2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dong, B.; Ma, X.; Chen, F.; Chen, S. Investigating the differences of single-vehicle and multivehicle accident probability using mixed logit model. Adv. Traffic Saf. Methodol. Technol.
**2018**, 2018, 2702360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ma, X.; Chen, F.; Chen, S. Empirical analysis of crash injury severity on mountainous and non-mountainous interstate highways. J. Adv. Transp.
**2015**, 16, 715–723. [Google Scholar] - Milton, J.C.; Shankar, V.N.; Mannering, F.L. Highway accident severities and the mixed logit model: An exploratory empirical analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev
**2008**, 40, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Islam, S.; Jones, S.; Dye, D. Comprehensive analysis of single- and multi-vehicle large truck at-fault crashes on rural and urban roadways in Alabama. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2014**, 67, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Washington, S.; Karlaftis, M.G.; Mannering, F.; Anastasopoulos, P. Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis, 1st ed.; Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- O’donnell, C.; Connor, D.H. Predicting the severity of motor vehicle accident injuries using models of ordered multiple choice. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**1996**, 28, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wang, K.; Shirani-Bidabadi, N.; Shaon, M.R.R.; Zhao, S.; Jackson, E. Correlated mixed logit modeling with heterogeneity in means for crash severity and surrogate measure with temporal instability. Accid. Anal. Prev.
**2021**, 160, 106332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Naik, B.; Tung, L.W.; Zhao, S.; Khattak, A.J. Weather impacts on single-vehicle truck crash injury severity. J. Saf. Res.
**2016**, 58, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). Work Zone Management Program. Available online: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/designbuild.htm (accessed on 4 April 2023).

**Figure 1.**Number of crashes in work zones in South Carolina from 2014 to 2019: (

**a**) total, and (

**b**) truck-involved.

Authors | Focus | Methodology | Injury Severity Levels | Primary Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|

Khattak and Targa [1] | Compare injury | Ordered probit | Fatality, severe injury, | Crashes involving |

severity of truck- | moderate injury, | trucks led to more | ||

involved and | minor injury, | severe injuries | ||

non-truck involved | no injury | than non-truck | ||

crashes | involved crashes | |||

especially in work | ||||

zones | ||||

Osman et al. [26] | Investigate causal | Multinomial logit, | Serious injury, | GORL works best. |

factors contributing | nested logit, | injury, no injury | Primary factors include | |

to injury severity | ordered logit, | high speed limits, daytime, | ||

in truck involved | generalized ordered | no control of access, | ||

crashes | logit (GORL) | rural principal arterials | ||

Yu et al. [27] | Compare factors for | Mixed logit (MXL), | Fatality/incapacitating/ | PPO outperforms MXL. |

rural and urban | partial proportional | non-incapacitating, | Lack of restraint & DUI | |

highways | odds logit (PPO) | possible injury, PDO | are most influential. | |

Unique factors across | ||||

rural and urban highways | ||||

Zhang and Hassan [28] | Rear-end crashes | Random parameter | Severe injury, | Speeding, foggy weather, |

ordered probit | injury, no injury | weekends, nighttime, | ||

heavy vehicles are more | ||||

likely to lead to | ||||

severe injury | ||||

Gupta et al. [11] | General truck-involved | Ordered logistic | Fatal, injury, | Pedestrian involvement, |

work zone crashes | decision trees, | PDO | lighting conditions, safety | |

random forests | equipment, driver condition | |||

and age, and work zone | ||||

location are the primary | ||||

contributors to fatal crashes |

Speed Category | Total Observation | Injury (%) | PDO (%) |
---|---|---|---|

Less than 60 mph | 1748 | 305 (17.45) | 1443 (82.55) |

Greater than or equal to 60 mph | 1305 | 260 (19.92) | 1045 (80.08) |

Variables | Speed < 60 mph | Speed ≥ 60 mph | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

Mean | Std. Dev. | Mean | Std. Dev. | |

Driver Characteristics | ||||

Gender (1 if female driver is at | ||||

fault in a crash, 0 otherwise) | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.11 | 0.32 |

Younger drivers (1 if age of at-fault | ||||

driver are group below 35 years, 0 otherwise) | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0.25 | 0.43 |

Middle-aged drivers (1 if age of at-fault | ||||

driver is between 35 and 50 years, 0 otherwise) | 0.24 | 0.47 | 0.24 | 0.43 |

Older drivers (1 if age of at-fault driver | ||||

is above 50 years, 0 otherwise) | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.29 | 0.46 |

Driving too fast (1 if the contributing factor | ||||

of crash is driving too fast, 0 otherwise) | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.49 |

Distracted (1 if the contributing factor | ||||

of crash is distracted, 0 otherwise) | 0.04 | 0.2 | 0.01 | 0.08 |

Failed (1 if the contributing factor of crash | ||||

is failed to yield right of way, 0 otherwise) | 0.08 | 0.27 | 0.02 | 0.15 |

Improper usage (1 if the contributing factor | ||||

of crash is improper lane usage, 0 otherwise) | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.49 |

Under influence (1 if the contributing factor | ||||

of crash is under the influence, 0 otherwise) | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.14 |

Crash Characteristics | ||||

1 vehicle (1 if the number of vehicles | ||||

involved in a crash is 1 or more, 0 otherwise) | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.23 |

2 vehicles (1 if the number of vehicles | ||||

involved in a crash is 2, 0 otherwise) | 0.84 | 0.37 | 0.77 | 0.42 |

3+ vehicles (1 if the number of vehicles | ||||

involved in a crash is 3 or more, 0 otherwise) | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 0.37 |

Rear end (1 if manner of collision | ||||

is rear end, 0 otherwise) | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.48 |

Sideswipe (1 if manner of collision | ||||

is sideswipe, 0 otherwise) | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.38 | 0.48 |

Angle (1 if manner of collision | ||||

is angle, 0 otherwise) | 0.16 | 0.36 | 0.08 | 0.28 |

Fixed object (1 if 1st harmful event is | ||||

fixed object, 0 otherwise) | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.28 |

Not fixed object (1 if 1st harmful event is | ||||

not fixed object, 0 otherwise) | 0.91 | 0.28 | 0.89 | 0.31 |

No collision (1 if 1st harmful event is | ||||

no collision, 0 otherwise) | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.015 |

Roadway Characteristics | ||||

SC, US Primary (1 if crash occurred in | ||||

SC or US Primary, 0 otherwise) | 0.25 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.12 |

Interstate (1 if crash occurred in | ||||

interstate, 0 otherwise) | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0.98 | 0.14 |

County/secondary/ramp (1 if crash occurred | ||||

in county, secondary, or ramp, 0 otherwise) | 0.16 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 0.07 |

Curve (1 if crash occurred in a curve, | ||||

0 otherwise) | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.17 |

Straight on grade (1 if crash occurred | ||||

in a straight on grade, 0 otherwise) | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.33 |

Straight level (1 if crash occurred in a | ||||

straight level, 0 otherwise) | 0.83 | 0.37 | 0.84 | 0.37 |

Roadway (1 if first harmful event | ||||

occurred on roadway, 0 otherwise) | 0.90 | 0.29 | 0.89 | 0.32 |

Two-way undivided (1 if traffic-way | ||||

is two-way undivided, 0 otherwise) | 0.27 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.07 |

Environmental Characteristics | ||||

Dark (1 if crash occurred in a dark | ||||

lighting condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.44 |

Dawn or dusk (1 if crash occurred in a dawn | ||||

or dusk lighting condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.19 |

Daylight (1 if crash occurred in a daylight | ||||

lighting condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.69 | 0.46 | 0.69 | 0.46 |

Clear (1 if crash occurred in a clear | ||||

weather condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.87 | 0.34 | 0.85 | 0.36 |

Dry (1 if crash occurred in a dry | ||||

surface condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.89 | 0.30 | 0.89 | 0.32 |

Work Zone Characteristics | ||||

Shoulder/median (1 if work zone type is | ||||

shoulder or median, 0 otherwise) | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.56 | 0.5 |

Lane closure (1 if work zone type is | ||||

lane closure, 0 otherwise) | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.25 | 0.44 |

Lane shift/crossover (1 if work zone | ||||

type is lane shift or crossover, 0 otherwise) | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.1 | 0.3 |

Activity area (1 if work zone location is | ||||

activity area, 0 otherwise) | 0.71 | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.48 |

Before first sign (1 if work zone location | ||||

is before first sign, 0 otherwise) | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.5 |

Advanced warning (1 if work zone location | ||||

is advanced warning area, 0 otherwise) | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.32 |

Termination/transition (1 if crash location is | ||||

termination or transition area, 0 otherwise) | 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.40 |

Workers present (1 if workers present, | ||||

0 otherwise) | 0.62 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.5 |

Temporal Characteristics | ||||

Weekday (1 if crash happens on weekday, | ||||

0 otherwise) | 0.89 | 0.30 | 0.87 | 0.33 |

Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic | $\mathit{\rho}$-Value | Marginal Effects | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Injury | PDO | ||||

Defined for injury | |||||

Rear end | |||||

(standard deviation of | |||||

parameter distribution) | 0.86 (1.037) | 4.02 (1.68) | 0.000 (0.09) | 0.064 | −0.064 |

Constant | −0.49 | −2.31 | 0.020 | ||

Two vehicles | −1.24 | −8.67 | 0.000 | −0.109 | 0.109 |

Interstate | −0.42 | −3.36 | 0.000 | −0.039 | 0.039 |

Dark | 0.42 | 3.52 | 0.000 | 0.017 | −0.017 |

Female | 0.53 | 3.54 | 0.000 | 0.011 | −0.011 |

Weekday | −0.40 | −2.62 | 0.009 | −0.441 | 0.441 |

Lane shift/crossover | −0.49 | −2.25 | 0.025 | −0.004 | 0.004 |

Under influence | −1.04 | −2.76 | 0.006 | 0.004 | −0.004 |

Model statistics | |||||

Number of observations | 3064 | ||||

Log-likelihood at zero, LL(0) | −2123.8 | ||||

Log-likelihood at convergence, | |||||

LL($\beta $) | −1329.4 | ||||

${\rho}^{2}$ = 1 − LL($\beta $)/ LL(0) | 0.37 |

Speed Limit Category | Speed Limit Category | |
---|---|---|

<60 mph | ≥60 mph | |

<60 mph | - | 32.69 (10) ($p<0.001$) |

≥60 mph | 28.28 (12) ($p=0.005$) | - |

Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic | $\mathit{\rho}$-Value | Marginal Effects | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Injury | PDO | ||||

Defined for injury | |||||

Two vehicles | |||||

(standard deviation of | |||||

parameter distribution) | −2.37 (2.72) | −3.13 (3.12) | 0.002 (0.002) | −0.0044 | 0.0044 |

Constant | −2.40 | −5.78 | 0.000 | ||

SC, US primary | 1.10 | 3.85 | 0.000 | 0.2880 | −0.2880 |

Dark | 0.67 | 2.78 | 0.005 | 0.0176 | −0.0176 |

Female | 0.71 | 2.25 | 0.024 | 0.0096 | −0.0096 |

Age less than 35 | 0.51 | 2.32 | 0.020 | 0.0133 | −0.0133 |

Activity area | 0.49 | −2.12 | 0.034 | 0.0304 | −0.0304 |

Driving too fast | 1.09 | −4.48 | 0.000 | 0.0404 | −0.0404 |

Sideswipe | −0.86 | 2.81 | 0.005 | −0.0171 | 0.0171 |

Workers present | 0.45 | −2.01 | 0.004 | 0.0249 | −0.0249 |

Fixed object | −1.28 | 3.53 | 0.000 | −0.0097 | 0.0097 |

Model statistics | |||||

Number of observations | 1748 | ||||

Log-likelihood at zero, LL(0) | −1211.62 | ||||

Log-likelihood at convergence, | |||||

LL($\beta $) | −730.77 | ||||

${\rho}^{2}$ = 1 − LL($\beta $)/ LL(0) | 0.397 |

**Table 7.**Parameter estimates and marginal effects for truck-involved crashes in work zones with posted speed limit greater equal 60 miles per hour.

Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic | $\mathit{\rho}$-Value | Marginal Effects | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Injury | PDO | ||||

Defined for injury | |||||

Constant | −2.42 | −7.40 | 0.000 | ||

Shoulder median | |||||

(standard deviation of | |||||

parameter distribution) | −1.1 (2.62) | 2.13 (3.74) | 0.033 (0.000) | 0.0325 | −0.0325 |

Multi vehicles | 1.82 | 7.20 | 0.000 | 0.0484 | −0.0484 |

Driving too fast | 0.61 | 2.52 | 0.012 | 0.0330 | −0.0330 |

Rear end | 0.96 | 3.86 | 0.000 | 0.0526 | −0.0526 |

Weekday | −0.71 | −2.68 | 0.007 | −0.0607 | 0.0607 |

Before first sign | 0.64 | −1.80 | 0.072 | 0.0051 | −0.0051 |

Dark | 0.95 | −4.16 | 0.000 | 0.0308 | −0.0308 |

Female | 0.65 | −2.35 | 0.019 | 0.0094 | −0.0094 |

Model statistics | |||||

Number of observations | 1305 | ||||

Log-likelihood at zero, LL(0) | −904.56 | ||||

Log-likelihood at convergence, | |||||

LL($\beta $) | −567.27 | ||||

${\rho}^{2}$ = 1 − LL($\beta $)/ LL(0) | 0.37 |

Variable | Speed <60 mph | Speed ≥60 mph | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

Injury | PDO | Injury | PDO | |

SC, US primary | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||

Dark | ⇑ | ⇓ | ⇑ | ⇓ |

Female | ⇑ | ⇓ | ⇑ | ⇓ |

Younger drivers | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||

Activity area | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||

Driving too fast | ⇑ | ⇓ | ⇑ | ⇓ |

Sideswipe | ⇓ | ⇑ | ||

Workers present | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||

Fixed object | ⇓ | ⇑ | ||

3+ vehicles | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||

Rear end | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||

Before 1st sign | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||

Weekday | ⇓ | ⇑ |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Madarshahian, M.; Balaram, A.; Ahmed, F.; Huynh, N.; Siddiqui, C.K.A.; Ferguson, M.
Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, 7188.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097188

**AMA Style**

Madarshahian M, Balaram A, Ahmed F, Huynh N, Siddiqui CKA, Ferguson M.
Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates. *Sustainability*. 2023; 15(9):7188.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097188

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Madarshahian, Mahyar, Aditya Balaram, Fahim Ahmed, Nathan Huynh, Chowdhury K. A. Siddiqui, and Mark Ferguson.
2023. "Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates" *Sustainability* 15, no. 9: 7188.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097188