US. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Highway July 10, 2014 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Administration 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST/B-236 Revised 

Mr. Scott Rosenbaugh 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

130 Whittier Research Center 

P. 0. Box 830853 

Lincoln, NE 68583-0853 

Dear Mr. Rosenbaugh: 

This letter is in response to your request for revisions to the existing eligibility letter B-236 dated 

May 30, 2012, and for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to review a roadside safety 

system for eligibility for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. 

Name ofsystem: Wood-Post 31-inch (787-millimeter) Midwest Guardrail 

System (MGS) to Thrie Beam Approach Guardrai l Transition 

Type of system: W-Beam Guardrail Transition 

Test Level: AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, TL-3 

Testing conducted by: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Date of Original request: January 19, 2012 

Date of Revision Request: April 10, 2014 

Task Force 13 Designator: STG03b 

Based on a review of submitted revisions to existing eligibility letter dated May 30, 20 12 and 

crash test results submitted by the manufacturer certifying the device described herein meets the 

crash test and evaluation criteria of the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), the device 

is eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. Eligibility for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program does not establish approval or 

endorsement by FHWA for any particular purpose or use. 

The FHWA, the Department of Transportation, and the United States Government do not 

endorse products or services and the issuance of a reimbursement eligibility letter is not an 

endorsement of any product or service 

Decision 

The following device is eligible, with details provided below: 

• Wood-Post 31-inch (787-millimeter) Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) to Thrie Beam 

Approach Guardrail Transition 
2 

Requirements 

To be found eligible for Federal-aid funding, roadside safety devices should meet the crash test 

and evaluation criteria contained in the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials' Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). 

Description 

For many years the roadside safety community has considered 6-in. x 8-in. (152 millimeters x 

203 millimeters) wood posts and W6x9 (WI 52x13.4) steel posts as interchangeable options for 6 

feet (1.8 meters) long guardrail posts. However, the posts in these older systems were embedded 

43 inches (1,092 millimeters) to 44 inches (1,118 millimeters) in the soil, while MOS posts are 

embedded only 40 inches (1,016 millimeters). Blockout depth and splice location differences 

make the behavior ofthe MOS different from older W-beam systems. Therefore a review of 

previous testing (post-in-soil component testing and full-scale crash testing) was conducted to 

compare the performance of 6 inches x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood posts 

and W6x9 (W152x13.4) steel posts when used in the MOS. However, no such tests have been 

conducted on either W6x15 (W152x22.3) steel posts or large cross section wood posts. 

Therefore, a series of dynamic component tests were conducted to determine the post-soil 

interaction force characteristics for these large post sizes in an effort to find an equivalent wood 

post for the W6x15 (W152x22.3) steel posts utilized in the steel-post MOS stiffness transition to 

thrie beam. · 

This research objective was met through a combination of historical data review, dynamic 

component testing, and computer simulation and analysis as follows. 

I. Historical Data Review: 

A. 	 W6x9 (W152x13.4) steel posts: 

A literature review was conducted on post-soil resistance for both W6x9 (Wl52x13.4) 

steel posts and 6 inches x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood posts and 

conclusions were made regarding these standard post sizes. In a recent dynamic testing 

study, two 6 inches x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood posts and two 

W6xl6 (Wl52x23.8) steel posts were embedded 40 inches (l,016 millimeters) in a highly 

compacted soil and impacted at 20 mph (32 km/h). The W6xl6 (Wl52x23.8) posts have 

the same flange width and overall depth as a W6x9 (Wl52xl3.4) so the soil resistances 

for the two posts are considered the same. This testing showed these particular wood and 

steel posts provided very similar soil resistances throughout the impact event. 

B. 	 W6xl5 (Wl52x22.3) steel posts: 

A literature review conducted on post-soil resistance for W6x15 (W152x22.3) steel posts 

found no past research was conducted. 

C. 	 MASH Crash Testing: 

Two full-scale MASH 3-11 crash tests were selected to compare the W6x9 (Wl52x13.4) 

steel-post and the 6 inches x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood-post 

performance when installed in the MOS. Test no. I (2214M0-2) utilized steel posts, while 

test no. 2 (MOSWP-1) utilized the wood posts. Both test installations were 181 feet 3 

inches (55.2 meters) long 
3 

II. Physical Testing: 

A. 	 Dynamic Component Testing: 

Dynamic component testing was conducted to determine the post-soil resistance 

characteristics of W6x15 (W152x22.3) steel transition posts embedded 54 inches (1,372 

millimeters) in soil as well as wood posts ofmultiple cross-sections and embedment 

depths. Twenty dynamic component tests were conducted on W6x15 (W152x22.3) steel 

posts and various wood-post sizes in soil. The target impact conditions for all tests were 

20 mph (32 km/h) at an angle of 0 degrees, creating a classical "head-on" or full-frontal 

impact and strong axis bending. The posts were impacted 24 Ys inches ( 63 2 millimeters) 

above the ground line. Four ofthese dynamic component tests specified AASHTO Grade 

B Moderate Compaction Soil (NCHRP350), and the remainder ofthe tests specified 

AASHTO Grade B Heavy Compaction (AASHTO MASH). 

III. Computer Simulation and Analysis: 

After determining equivalent wood posts for both steel post sizes used in the MOS approach 

transition, BARRIER VII computer simulations were conducted to compare the performance 

ofthe wood and steel post systems. The steel-post BARRIER VII model was validated 

against the full-scale crash testing ofthe steel-post transition system under MASH safety 

standards (Test no. MWTSP-2) and served as the basis for comparison and evaluation ofthe 

wood-post transition system. 

After the wood-post transition system was determined to be an adequate alternative via physical 

component testing and computer simulation and analysis, the final design drawings were created. 

Details ofthis system are included in this correspondence as an enclosure. 

Crash Testing 

All physical testing was conducted at the test facilities at the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility. 

This research uses both existing physical cash test results, bogie testing results and 

BARRIERVII analysis. 

A. Dynamic Component Testing: 

Bogie testing program was conducted to identify a wood post that provided similar force vs. 

deflection, or energy absorption, characteristics to the 7 feet (2.1 meters) W 6x15 

(W152x22.3) steel posts utilized in the original MGS approach transition system. Although 

Grade 1 Southern Yellow Pine posts (SYP) were utilized during all ofthe tests, wood 

defects are inevitable in timber posts, especially with the larger cross sectional dimensions. 

Therefore, posts utilized in actual installations would be expected to have some natural 

defects that may lead to premature post fracture. Posts that fracture absorb far less energy 

and do not provide any resistance after fracture, typically within the first few inches of 

deflection. From a guardrail transition design perspective, this lack ofresistance can have 

negative effects on the safety performance ofthe system in this sensitive region ofthe 

barrier. Similar performance results are expected for a transition system in which a post 

fractured prematurely. Therefore, posts that showed a propensity for fracture before rotating 

were removed from consideration as equivalent posts to the W6x15 (W152x22.3) steel 

posts. Post fracture was prevalent in tests conducted on 7 feet (2.1 meters) long versions of 8 
4 

inches x 8 inches (203 millimeters x 203 millimeters) and 6 inches x 10 inches (152 

millimeters x 254 millimeters) wood posts. As a result, these posts were not recommended 

for use in the MOS approach transition. 

The individual test results for each post size were averaged together in order to compare the 

various posts. The 6.5 feet (2.0 meters) long 8 inches x I 0 inches (203 millimeters x 254 

millimeters) wood posts provide average force characteristics that best match those of 

W6xl5 (WI52x22.3) steel posts when the soil was heavily compacted. At I5 inches (38I 

millimeters) of deflection, the 8 inches x l 0 inches (203 millimeters x 254 millimeters) 

wood posts averaged 17. 7 kips (78.8 kN), only I. I percent higher than the steel posts. 

Although the average force of 8 inches x 10 inches (203 millimeters x 254 millimeters) 

wood posts showed an increase of 15.5 percent over the steel post at I 0 inches (254 

millimeters) of deflection, the average forces were relatively close. 

B. 	 Physical Crash Testing: 

Two full-scale crash tests were selected to compare the W6x9 (W l 52x 13.4) steel-post and 

the 6 inches x 8 inches (I 52 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood-post performance when 

installed in the MOS. Test no. 2214M0-2 utilized steel posts, while test no. MOSWP-1 

utilized the wood posts. Both 181 feet 3 inches (55.2 meters) long test installations satisfied 

all MASH safety performance criteria of test designation no. 3-1 I. The two systems 

behaved similarly during the test in terms of maximum dynamic deflection, contact length, 

and exit conditions, as shown in Table 2. Further, the Occupant Impact Velocities (OIV) and 

Occupant Ridedown Accelerations (ORA) were very similar, thus suggesting the forces 

imparted to the vehicle were very similar. Similar performance between W6x9 (WI52x 13.4) 

steel and 6 inches x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood guardrail posts has 

been documented in both dynamic component testing and full scale testing. Therefore, the 

6 inches x 8 inches ( 152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood posts was selected as the 

alternative for the W 6x9 (W l 52x 13 .4) steel posts found in the MOS to thrie beam stiffness 

transition. 

C. 	 The BARRIER VII analysis simulations used in this research verified that the wood posts 
 

did not adversely affect the safety performance of the stiffness transition. 
 

Summary and Standard Provisions 

A. 	 At the conclusion ofthe bogie testing program, the 8 inches x I 0 inches (203 millimeters 

x 254 millimeters) wood post with an embedment depth of 48 inches (1,219 millimeters) 

best resembled the performance of the W6x 15 (W l 52x22.3) steel transition post and was 

recommended for further analysis in the MOS approach transition. 

B. 	 The existing MASH crash testing included both systems that behaved similarly during the 

test in terms of maximum dynamic deflection, contact length, and exit conditions, as 

described below. 

• 	 Test no. 2214M0-2 featured a 5,174-lb (2,347-kg) 4-door pickup truck that impacted 

the MOS W6x9 (Wl 52x l 3.4) Steel post barrier at a speed of 62.8 mph (99.6 km/h) 

and at an angle of25.5 degrees. The MOS rail successfully redirected the vehicle 

whi\e meeting all required safety criteria and sustaining a maximum deflection of 31 % 

in. (803 mm). 
5 

• 	 Test no. MGSWP-1, featured a 5,174-lb (2,347-kg) 4-door pickup truck that impacted 

the MGS Wood 6 in. x 8 in. (152 mm x 203 mm) post barrier at a speed of 63.8 mph 

(99.6 km/h) and at an angle of25.6 degrees. The MGS rail successfully redirected the 

vehicle while meeting all required safety criteria and sustaining a maximum deflection 

of 31% in. (803 mm). 

Crash Test Summary details ofthis system are provided as enclosures to this 

correspondence. 

C. 	 At the conclusion ofBARRIERVII analysis, the wood-post MGS stiffness transition 

outperformed the original steel-post transition system in all three ofthe evaluation 

criteria. The maximum deflections for the wood-post system were consistently 15 to 30 

percent lower than the original steel-post system. This deflection reduction was the result 

ofthe wood posts having a higher stiffness and resistance to rotation than their steel 

counterparts. The wood-post system also consistently showed a 5 to 25 percent reduction 

in the maximum pocketing angle. Thus, the wood post system is expected to reduce the 

risk of vehicle instability. Finally, the propensity for wheel snag was found to be lower 

for the wood-post system. The reduction in system deflection significantly reduced the 

estimated wheel snag for the 6-in. x 8-in. (152-mm x 203-mm) wood post. However, the 

wheel snag estimations for the larger 8-in. x 10-in. (203-mm x 254-mm) wood transition 

posts were found to be closer to (or slightly higher) the estimations for the steel W6x15 

(W152x22.3) steel posts. Thus, the potential benefits (as far wheel snag are concerned) of 

deflection reduction were offset by the reduction in embedment depth. 

Therefore, this system as described is eligible for reimbursement and should be installed under 

the range of conditions tested, when such use is acceptable to a highway agency. Please note the 

following standard provisions that apply to the FHW A eligibility letters: 

• 	 This letter includes an AASHTO/ARTBA/AGC Task Force 13 designator that should be 

used to identify any new or updated Task Force 13 drawings. 

• 	 This finding of eligibility does not cover other structural features ofthe systems, nor 

conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

• 	 Any changes that may influence system conformance with MASH will require a new 

reimbursement eligibility letter. 

• 	 Should the FHWA discover that the qualification testing was flawed, that in-service 

performance reveals safety problems, or that the system is significantly different from the 

version that was crash tested, we reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter. 

• 	 You are expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design and 

installation requirements to ensure proper performance. 

• 	 You are expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has the same 

chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for review, and that it 

will meet the test and evaluation criteria of the MASH. 

• 	 To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter is designated as number B-236, and 

shall not be reproduced except in full. This letter and the test documentation upon which 

it is based are public information. All such letters and documentation may be reviewed at 

our office upon request. 
6 

• 	 This letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHWA to use, 

manufacture, or sell any patented device for which the applicant is not the patent holder. 

The finding of eligibility is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics ofthe candidate 

device, and the FHWA does not become involved in issues concerning patent law. Patent 

issues, if any, are to be resolved by the applicant. 

Sincerely yours, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
November 28, 2011 

MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-243-11 

Table 2. Comparison of Wood and Steel Post from Full-Scale Crash Testing 

Test No. Test No. 

System 

Posts 

Vehicle 

Impact Speed 

Impact Angle 

Exit Speed 

Exit Angle 

Contact Length 

Maximum 

2214MG-2 [1] MGSWP-1 [10) 

181-ft 3-in. (55.2-m) long MGS 18 I-ft 3-in. (55.2-m) long MGS 

W6x9 (Wl52xl3.4) Steel Wood 6 in. x 8 in. (152 mm x 203 mm) 

2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 2003 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 

62.8 mph (101.l km/h) 63.8 mph (102.7 km/h) 

25.5° 25.6° 

39.6 mph (63.7 km/h) 39.6 mph (63.7 km/h) 

13.5° 16.6° 

33 ft- 8 in. (10.3 m) 30 ft- 6 in. (9.3 m) 

Dynamic 

Deflection 

System 

Permanent Set 

Longitudinal OIV 

Lateral OIV 

Longitudinal 

ORA 

Lateral ORA 

43.9 in. (l,115 mm) 46.3 in. (1, 176 mm) 

31 o/s in. (803 mm) 33% in. (857 mm) 

15.32 ft/s (4.67 mis) 15.27 ft/s (4.65 mis) 

15.62 ft/s (4.76 mis) 16.14 ft/s (4.92 mis) 

8.23 g's 8.25 g's

6.93 g's 10.13g's 

2.3 Conclusions 

Similar performance between W6x9 (Wl52xl3.4) steel and 6-in. x 8-in. (152-mm x 203­

mm) wood guardrail posts has been documented in both dynamic component testing and fullscale testing. Therefore, 6-in. x 8-in. (152-mm x 203-mm) wood posts were selected as the 

alternative for the W6x9 (Wl52xl3.4) steel posts found in the MGS to thrie beam stiffness 

transition. BARRIER VII simulations were used to verify the wood posts did not adversely affect 

the safety performance ofthe stiffuess transition, as described in Chapter 5. 

7 
· - -:-:-...... . ' ' :...:. .-;--­

.:'\.r..-. ' I 

0.000 sec 0.140 sec 0.264 sec 0.342 sec 	 0.458 sec 

........ 
 r

• Test Agency ...... . .. ..... .. .. .. . . MwRSF 

• Test Number . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . 22 14MG-2 

• Date .... . .. ........ .. . .. .... . .. . 10/6/04 	 • Exit Conditions 
 

• NC I IRI' 350 Update Test Designation . . 3- 11 	 Speed ..... . ... . . . .. . .. ... .. . 63.7 km/h , ...... 


• Appunenancc .. .. ... ....... .. . ... . Midwest Guardrail System 	 Angle ...... ......... ..... . . . 13. 5 degrees 
 

• Tota l Length . .. . ... .. . . .... . ..... . 55.25 m 	 Exit 13ox Criterion ...... ... .. . . Pass 
 

l • 	 Key Elements - Steel W-Bcam • Post-I mpact Trajectory 

Thickness ................ . . . . 2.66 mm Vehicle Stability ..... . ... .... . . Satisfactory 

Top Mounting I !eight . . ... .. ... . 787 mm Stopping Distance ..... . ...... .. 47. 18 m downstream 

• 	 Key Elements - Steel Posts 15.56 m laterally behind 

Post Nos. 3 - 27 ..... . . .... . ... WI 52x 13.4 by 1.829 mm long • Occupant Impact Velocity (350 Update) 

Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.905 mm Longitudinal . . . . . . ... . .. . .. . .. 4.67 m/s < 12 m/s 

• 	 Key Elements - Wood eosts Lateral ........ . ... .. ........ 4.76m/s < l2 m/s 

Post Nos. I - 2. 28 - 29 (BCT) . . . . 140 mm x 190 mm by 1.080 mm long • Occupant Ridcdown Deceleration (350 Update) 

• Key Elements - Steel Foundation Tube . 1.829 mm long 	 Longitudinal .. .. .... . .... . .... 8.23 Gs < 20 Gs 
 

• 	 Key Elements - Wood Spacer Blocks Lateral ...... .. .. . ........... 6.93 Gs < 20 Gs 
 

Post Nos. 3 - 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 mm x 305 mm by 362 mm long • THIV (not required) . . . . ..... . ... . . . 6.9 1 m/s 
 

• Type of Soil ....... .. .. . . . . ... .... Grading 13 - AASHTO M 147-65 ( 1990) • PHO (not required) . .. .. . . . . ..... . .. 10.76 Gs 
 

• 	 Test Vehicle • Test Aniclc Damage ... . ..... . ...... Moderate 
 

Type/Designation .. . . . . ... . .... 2270P • Test Aniclc Dcllcctions 
 

Make and Model . .. . . ..... .... 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab Pickup Permanent Set ... .. .. ........ . . 803 mm 
 

Curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.292 kg Dynamic . ....... . . . . ........ . 1.11 4 mm 
 

Test lncnial ... . . . ... . . ...... . . 2.268 kg Working Width . . ... .. ........ . 1.234 mm 
 

Gross Static . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.268 kg • Vehicle Damage .. . .. . .. . ... .. . . .. . Moderate 
 

• Impact Conditions 	 voss ... .... .. ..... ..... .... . l-RFQ-4 
 

Speed .................... .. . IOI.I km/h CDC6 . .... .. • . ..•.•.•••• • . .. l-RYEN2 
 

Angle ................. . .. .. . 25.5 degrees Maximum Defom1ation 19 mm at right-center lloorpan 
 

Impact Location .. ........... .. 5.25 m upstream splice between posts 14 & 15 
 

Figure 14. Summary ofTest Results and Sequential Photographs, Test 22 l 4MG-2 
--­-

": . ' '. 

0.000 sec 0.1 78 sec 0.356 sec 0.682 sec 

'/'--.... . 25.6' 

31 [787 mm] 1 2345678 

I

32 [813 mm] 

f----­-------142'-5 [43.4 m]----------1 

Tcs1Agency ..........................................................................................MwRSF 
 

53'-1 1" [t6.4 m Test Number. .................................................. . .................. .... MGSWP- 1 
 

Date .. .. .... ... ... ...... .. ...... .. .. ... ..... ......... .. . .. ... . . . . . ......................... 4/ 2/20 I 0 
 

MASH Test Designation ................ . ............... 3- 1I 
 40 [1016 mm] 

Test Article ................................................... MGS with White Pine Wood Posts 
 

Total Length ....... . ....... I 75 fl (53.3 rn) 
 

Key Component - White Pinc Wood Posts 
 

Post Spacing ....................................... .. 75 in. (J,905 rnm) 
 

Post Dimensions ........................... 6 x 8 x 72 in. ( 152 x 203 x 1,829 mm) 
 Test An icle Deflections 
 

J Key Component - Wood Spacer Blocks 
 

x x 

~ Permanent Set.. .................................................................. 33% in. (857 mm) 
 Blockout Dimensions ................. 6 12 14 Y. in. ( 152 x 305 x 362 mm) 
 Dynamic ......................................................................... 46.3 in. ( I, I 76 rnrn) 
 Key Component - Steel MGS Rail 
 

Working Width .............................................................. 58.4 in. (J,483 mm) 
 Thickness ................................................................... 12 gauge (2.66 mm) 
 Maximum Ang ular Displacements 
 Top Mounting Height.. .................................................... 3 I in. (787 mm) 
 Roll ...................................... ................ ....... ... ... 7 ° < 75° 
 Soil Type .............. ..Grad ing 13 of AAS HTO M 147-65 ( 1990) 
 Pitch. .... ............................................. ............ ...-3 ° < 75° 
 

Vehicle Make /Model... ................................. 2003 Dodge Ram I 500 Quad Cab 
 Yaw.... .. ................ . ... ........................... ...... . .................... 78 ° 
 Curb ... . ................................................... 4,979 lb (2,258 kg) 
 Impact Severity (JS)............................. I 3 1.5 kip-ft (I 78.3 kJ) > I06 kip-ft ( 144 kJ) 
 Test Inertial ................................................................ 4,999 lb (2,268 kg) 
 

Gross Static .................... .................... .... 5, I 69 lb (2,345 kg) 
 

Impact Conditions 
 

Speed ............................. .. ................... ... 63. 8 mph ( I 02. 7 km/ h) 
 

Angle ............................................................... .......................... 25.6 deg 
 

Location . ... 13 ft 4 Y, in. (4. Im) US of splice between posts 14 and 15 
 

Exit Conditions 
 

Speed ........................................................ 39.6 mph (63. 7 km/h) 
 

Angle ......................................................................................... 16.6 deg 
 

Exit Box Criterion ..................... ..................................................... Pass 
 

Vehicle Stability ............................................................................... Satisfactory 
 

Vehicle Stopping Distance....... .. ....... 142 fl - 5 in. (43.4 m) downstream 
 

53 ft - I I in. ( 16.4 m) laterally behind 
 

Vehicle Damage ......... ...................................... Moderate 
 

vos1 111....................................................................... ....... 0 1-Rr-Q-4 
 

coc11•1....................................................................................0 1-R YEN-3 
 

Maximum Interio r Deformatio n .............. I in. (25 mm), door be low seat 
 

Test Article Damage ............................................................................. Moderate 
 

Transducer Data 
 

Transducer
 Eval uation Criteria MASl l Limit EDR-3 DTS Set I DTS Set 2 

- 15.38 -1 5.27 -15.75 :5 40 O IV Longitudinal (-4.69) (-4.65 ) (-4.80) ( 12.2) ft/s - 14.95 -1 6. 14 -1 5.91 :5 40 (mi s) Lateral 1-4.56) 1-4.92) (-4 85) 112.2) 

Longitudinal -8.08 -8.25 -8.25 :5 20.49 ORA 

g's Lateral -9.32 -1 0. 13 -9.86 :5 20.49 

2 1.23 not TH IV - ft/s (mis) NA NA (6.47) reauircd 

not PHO - g's NA 12.36 NA reauircd 

not ASI 0.69 0.77 NA reauired 

Figure 19. Summary ofTest Results and Sequential Photographs, Test No. MGSWP- 1 

­
0.000 sec 0.072 sec 0.184 sec 0.246 sec 0.506 sec 

Test Agency ............................................................................................ MwRSF 
 ~-~· [10.0 m] 

Test Numbcr .......................................................... .............................. MWTSP-2 
 RIGHT 

Date ... .. ..... . . ... ................................................................... ........ 717108 
 

MASH Test Designation .. ............................................................................ 3-21 
 

Test Anicle ...................... .............. ....... Stiffness Transition between MGS and 
 

Tlirie Beam Transition 

Total Length ........................................................................ 87 ft - 6 in. (26. 7 m) 

I leight to Top of Rail .... ........................................................... 3 1 in. (787 mm) 

Key Components - Steel W-Beam Guardrail 

Thickness .................................................................. 12 gauge (2.66 mm) 
 

Key Components - Steel W-Beam to Thrie Beam Transition 

Thickness......................................................... .. .... 10 gauge (3.42 mm) 

Segmenl Length ........................................................... 75 in. ( 1.905 mm) 

Key Components - S1cel Thrie Beam 

Thickness.................. ....... ........... .. ... ........ .. ..... 12 gauge (2.66 mm) 

Key Componenls - Steel Posts 

Post Nos. 3 - 15 ................. 72 in. ( 1,829 mm) long. \V6x9 (\V I52x13.4) 

Post Nos. 16 - 18 ............. 84 in. (2, 134 111111) long, W6x 15 (WI 52x22.3) 

Post Nos. 19 - 21 ............. 295

/ 8 in. (752 111111 ) long. W6x20 (WI 52x29.8) 

Post Spacing 

Post Nos. I - 8. 19 - 21 ................................................. 75 in. ( 1,905 mm) 

Post Nos. 8 - 12, 16 - 19 .... ........................... ............... 371

/ 2 in. (953 111111 ) 

Post Nos. 12- 16 .......................................................... 18'/. in. (476 mrn) 

Type of Soil .................................................... Grading B - AASI ITO M 147-65 
 

Vehicle 
 

Make and Model ................................ 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 
 

Curb ............................................................. ............... 5, 138 lb (2.33 I kg) 
 

Test lnen ial ................................................................ 4,993 lb (2.265 kg) 
 

Gross Static ................................................................ 5, 158 lb (2,340 kg) 
 

Impact Conditions 

Speed ...................................................................... 6 1.2 mph (98.5 km/h) 

Angle ........................................................................................... 26.3 deg 

Impact Location ............................... 75 in. (1 ,905 mm) US of Post No. 9 

Exit Condi1ions 

Speed ...................................................................... 37.3 mph (60.0 km/h) 

Angle ............... ............................................................................ 22.0 deg 

Vehicle Stability ................................................................................ Satisfa ctory 
 

Exit Box Criteria ....................................................................................... Passed 
 

Vehicle Damage .................................................. .................................. Moderate 
 

VDS1281 

.......... ................................. ...... .. ......... ..... ...................... .. 1-RFQ-5 


CDC129 

' .................. ... .............. ........... ... ................ ...... .............. 0 l-RFEW2 
 

m] 

43°-8" 

[ tJ.J m] 

263"-7" '-------------[80.J ---------- ~ 

Vehicle Slopping Distance ................................... 263 ft (80.2 111) DS of Impact 
 

43.7 ft ( 13.3 m) Laterally Behind the System 

Tesl Article Damage ............................................................................ Moderate 

Test An icle Oenections 

Perrnanenl Set .............................................................. 25'/. in. (654 m111 ) 
 

Dynamic ....................................................................... 32.8 in. (833 nun) 
 

Working Width ......................................................... 51 .6 in. ( 1.3 10 mm) 
 

Maximum Angular Displacements 

Roll ............................................................................................. 13° < 75° 

Pilch ........................................................................................... 10° < 75° 

Yaw .......................... ................... . .............................................. 51° 

Impact Severity ................... .. . 126.8 kip-ft ( 17 1.9 kJ) > I 06 kip-ti ( 144 kJ) 


Transducer Data 

Transducer MASll Evaluation Criteria 

EDR-3 EDR-4 DTS Limit 

-2 1.21 5 40 OIV Longi1 udinal NA NA (-6.46) ( 12.2) ft/s - 16.9 1 5 40 (mis) Lateral NA NA (-5. 15) ( 12.2) 

Longitudinal - 12.03 NA NA 5 20.49 O RA 

g's Lateral -9.87 NA NA 5 20.49 

nol T l ll V - ft/s (mis) - NA NA required 

not Pll D - g's - NA NA required 

not ASI 0.9 1 NA NA 

required 

Figure 64. Summary ofTest Results and Sequential Photographs, Test No. MWTSP-2