1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590 

May 17,2018 In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1 / B-305 

Ms. Melissa Batula, Chief 

Highway Delivery Division 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

Bureau of Design 

400 North Street, 7th Floor 

Harrisburg, PA. 17120 

Dear Melissa Batula: 

This letter is in response to your April 23 , 2018 request for the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to review a roadside safety device, hardware, or system for eligibility for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. This FHW A letter of eligibility is 

assigned FHWA control number B-305 and is valid until a subsequent letter is issued by FHWA 

that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

The following device is eligible within the length-of-need, with details provided in the form 

which is attached as an integral part of this letter: 

• G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail System 

Scope of this Letter 

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

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

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

However, the FHWA, the Department of Transportation, and the United States Government do 

not regulate the manufacture of roadside safety devices. Eligibility for reimbursement under the 

Federal-aid highway program does not establish approval, certification or endorsement of the 

device for any particular purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by the FHW A, the Department of Transportation, or the United 

States Government that a vehicle crash involving the device will result in any particular 

outcome, nor is it a guarantee of the in-service performance of this device. Proper 

manufacturing, installation, and maintenance are required in order for this device to function as 

tested. 

This finding of eligibility is limited to the crashworthiness of the system and does not cover other 

structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 
2 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

Based solely on a review of crash test results and certifications submitted by the manufacturer, 

and the crash test laboratory, FHWA agrees that the device described herein meets the crash test 

and evaluation criteria of the AASHTO's MASH. Therefore, the device is eligible for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program if installed under the range of tested 

conditions. 

Name of system: 02 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail System 

Type of system: Longitudinal Barrier 

Test Level: MASH Test Level 3 (TL3) 

Testing conducted by: Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

Date ofrequest: April 25, 2018 

FHW A concurs with the recommendation of the accredited crash testing laboratory on the 

attached form. 

Full Description of the Eligible Device 

The device and supporting documentation, including reports of the crash tests or other testing 

done, videos of any crash testing, and/or drawings of the device, are described in the attached 

form. 

Notice 

This eligibility letter is issued for the subject device as tested. Modifications made to the device 

are not covered by this letter. Any modifications to this device should be submitted to the user 

(i.e., state DOT) as per their requirements. 

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

maintenance 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 AASHTO's MASH. 

Issuance of this letter does not convey property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege. This 

letter is based on the premise that information and reports submitted by you are accurate and 

correct. We reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter if: (1) there are any inaccuracies in 

the information submitted in support of your request for this letter, (2) the qualification testing 

was flawed, (3) in-service performance or other information reveals safety problems, ( 4) the 

system is significantly different from the version that was crash tested, or (5) any other 

information indicates that the letter was issued in error or otherwise does not reflect full and 

complete information about the crash worthiness of the system. 
3 

Standard Provisions 

• To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of eligibility designated as FHW A 

control number B-305 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 upon request. 

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

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

• This FHW A eligibility letter is not an expression of any Agency view, position, or 

determination of validity, scope, or ownership of any intellectual property rights to a 

specific device or design. Further, this letter does not impute any distribution or licensing 

rights to the requester. This FHW A eligibility letter determination is made based solely 

on the crash-testing information submitted by the requester. The FHW A reserves the 

right to review and revoke an earlier eligibility determination after receipt of subsequent 

information related to crash testing. 

• Ifthe subject device is a patented product it may be considered to be proprietary. If 

proprietary systems are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal-aid projects: 

(a) they must be supplied through competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented 

items; (b) the highway agency must certify that they are essential for synchronization 

with the existing highway facilities or that no equally suitable alternative exists; or ( c) 

they must be used for research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short 

sections of road for experimental purposes. Our regulations concerning proprietary 

products are contained in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411. 

. 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

( ~ ;\

Enclosures 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1 of 4 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

ofHighway Safety Hardware 

... 

Cl)

..,

.., .E 

Date of Request: April 23, 2018 r. New r Resubmi ssion I 

Name: Melissa Batula 

Company: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

Address: Keystone Building, 7th Floor 400 North St, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106-7100 

.c 

:, 

V') Country: USA 

To: Michael S. Griffith, Di rector 

FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies 

I request the following devices be considered eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid 

highway program. 

Qgvite &Testing Critgrion - Enter from right to left starting with Te~t Level ~ 

System Type Submission Type Device Name/ Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Rigid/Semi-Rigid Barriers 

(Roadside, Median, Bridge 

Railinasl 

(e Physical Crash Testing 

(' Engineering Analysis 

G2 Weak Post W-Beam 

Guardrail System 

AASHTOMASH Tl3 

By submitting this request for review and evaluation by the Federal Highway Administration, I certify 

that the product(s) was (were) tested in conformity with the MSHTO Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware and that the evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the MASH. 

Individual or Organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Hassan Raza Same as Submitter -S 

Company Name: Pennsylvania Dept of Transportation Same as Submitter [2j 

Address: Keystone Building, 7th Floor 400 North St, Harrisburg, a n. ---··'··-·-=- .. ,,,.,.,. "'l11"\I"\ 

Same as Submitter [2j 

Country: USA Same as Submitter [2j 

Enter below all disclosures of financial interests as required by the FHWA ' Federal-Aid Reimbursement 

Eligibility Process for Safety Hardware Devices' document. 

There are no shared financial interests in the G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail System between the Pennsylvania 

Department ofTransportation (Pennoon, and Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI), other than the costs 

involved in the actual crash testing and the reports thereof for th is submission to FHWA. 

Trinity Highway Products (THP) provided the 3-10 test article materials, and THP and TTI have testing and 

royalty-bearing license agreements between them. 
Version 10.0 (05/16} 

Page 2 of 4 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

(e New Hardware or (' Modification to 

• Significant Modification Existing Hardware 

Construct #1 (May 2009) 

For the 3-11, 2270P test, the PennDOT G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail System wa s comprised of a 32-

inch tall W-beam guardrail system utilizing PennDOT Type 2-W S3 x 5.7 guardrail posts, each 63 inches in length 

with a 1 /4-inch x 8-inch x 24-inch soil plate (PLS0l) on posts 7-26, and a 31 ft-3 inch long ET-Plus guardrail 

terminal on each end. Posts 7 to 26 were equally spaced at 12 ft-6 inches, and with terminal posts spaced at 6 

ft-3 inches, resulted in a total installation length of 325 ft-00 inches. Standard 12-gauge W-beam guardrail 

(type RWM02a) was used in the system, and guardrail splices were located mid-span be tween every post 

except within the ET-Plus terminal lengths. Each ET-Plus end terminal was 31 inches tall, and the 32-inch tall 

guardrail transitioned to the 31-inch tall ET-Plus terminals over a 12 ft-6 inch long section adjacent to each 

terminal. 

The guardrail and a RWB0l a back-up plate were secured to each post with an ASTM F568, Class 4.6, 5/16-

inch diameter x 21/s-inch long hex bolt, two 1 3⁄4-inch x1/s-in ch thick square plate washers on the traffic face of 

the rail, a 5/16-inch flat washer, and two ASTM A563M hex nuts. The first nut was hand tightened plus one 

turn, and then secured with the second nut. The bottom edge of the W-beam gua rdrail was supported on 

each post by an ASTM F568, Class 4.6, 9/16-inch diameter x 1-5/8-inch long sh elf hex bolt with two ASTM 

A563M hex nuts. 

The posts were embedded 30 inches in 2-ft diameter drilled holes that were backfilled with standard soil 

meeting AASHTO specifications for "Materials for Aggregate and Soil Aggregate Su bbase, Base, and Surface 

Courses), designated M 147-65(2004), Grading B crushed limestone road base, com pacted to 95% standard 

proctor density. 

Construct #2 (July 2017) 

For the 3-10, 11 00C test, the PennDOT G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail System was comprised of a 32-

inch tall W-beam guardrail system utilizing PennDOT Type 2-W S3 x5.7 guardra il posts, each 65 inches in length 

with a 1/4-inch x 8-inch x 24-inch soil plate (PLS01) on posts 3-23, and a 9 ft-41⁄2 inch long Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) Downstream Anchor Terminal (DAT-1 4) on each end. Posts 3 to 23 were equally 

spaced at 12 ft-6 inches, and with the terminals, resulted in a total installation length of 281 ft-3 inches. 

Standard 12-gauge W-beam guardrail (type RWM02a) was used in the system, and guardrail splices were 

located mid-span between every post. Each DAT-14 end terminal was 31 inches tall and the 32-inch tall 

guardrail transitioned to the 31-inch tall DAT terminals over a 25-ft long section adjacent to each terminal. 

The guardrail and a RWB0l a back-up plate were secured to each post with a ASTM A307 5/16-inch 

diameter x 21/s-inch long hex bolt, two 1 3⁄4-inch x1/s-inch thick square plate washers on the traffic side of the 

rail, a 5/16-inch flat washer, and two heavy hex nuts. The first nut was hand tightened plus one turn, and then 

secured with the second nut. The bottom edge of the W-beam guardrail was supported on each post by a 

ASTM A307 1⁄2-inch diameter x 1 1⁄2-inch long shelf hex bolt and two heavy hex nuts. 

The posts were embedded 32 inches in 2-ft diameter drilled holes drilled that v1ere backfilled with 

standard soil meeting AASHTO specifications for "Materials for Aggregate and Soil Aggregate Subbase, Base, 

and Surface Courses), designated M 147-65(2004), Grad ing B crushed limestone road base, compacted to 95% 

standard proctor density. 

CRASH TESTING 

By signature below, t he Engineer affiliated with the testing laboratory, agrees in support of this submission that 

all of the critica l and relevant crash tests for this device listed above were conducted to meet the MASH test 

criteria. The Engineer has determined that no other crash tests are necessary to determ ine the device meets 

the MASH criteria. 

Engineer Name: D. Lance Bullard, Jr. P.E. 

Engineer Signature  :

Address: 3135 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: USA Same as Submitter C8J 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 3 of 4 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation 

Results 

3-10 (1 l00C) 

The results of the test conducted on July 14, 

2017, and installed as described in 

"Construct #2" above, are foμnd in TTI Test 

Report No. 608221 -1. 

The G2 Weak Post W-beam guardrail system 

contained and redirected the 11 00C vehicle. 

The vehicle did not penetrate, underride, or 

override the installation. Maximum 

dynamic deflection of the guardrail was 71.8 

inches. A few of the W-beam backup plates 

separated from the installation, however, 

these did not penetrate, or show potentia l 

for penetrating, the occupant 

compartment, or present undue hazard for 

others in the area. Maximum occupant 

compartment deformation was 0.5 inch in 

the floor pan/toe pan area. No intrusion of 

the occupant compartment occurred. The 

11 00C vehicle remained upright during and 

after the collision period. Maximum roll and 

pitch angles were 12 degrees and 6 

degrees, respectively. Occupant risk factors 

were within the preferred limits of MASH. 

PASS 

3-11 (2270P) 

The results of the test conducted on May 5, 

2009, and installed as described in 

"Construct #1' above, are found in TTI Test 

Report No. 476460- 1-7 and NCHRP Project 

No 22-14(3), Appendix J. 

The Modified G2 Weak Post W-beam 

guardrail system contained and redirected 

the 2270P vehicle. The vehicle did not 

penetrate, underride, or override the weak 

post guardrail. Maximum dynamic 

deflection of the ra il during the test was 8.6 

ft. The rail element detached from several 

posts, however, did not penetrate or show 

potential for penetrating the occupant 

compartment, or to present hazard to 

others in the area. Maximum occupant 

compartment deformation was 0.25 inch in 

the lateral area across the cab at the driver's 

side hip area. The 2270P vehicle 

remained upright during and after the 

collision event. Maxim um roll and pitch 

angles were -12 degrees nad -4 degrees, 

respectively. Occupant risk factors were 

within the limits specified in MASH. The 

2270P vehicle remained within the exit box. 

PASS 

3-20 (11 00C) Test 3-20 is not appl ica ble for this type of 

system. (i.e. not a Transition) Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

3-21 (2270P) Test 3-21 is not applicable for this type of 

system. (i.e. not a Transition) Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 4 of 4 

Full Scale Crash Testing was done in compliance with MASH by the following accredited crash test 

laboratory (cite the laboratory's accreditation status as noted in the crash test reports.): 

Laboratory Name: Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

Laboratory Signature: Digitally signed by Darrell L. Kuhn Darrell L. Kuhn Date: 2018.03.21 16:26:42 -05'00' 

Address: 3135 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Same as Submitter D 

Country: USA Same as Submitter ~ 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Dates of current 

Accreditation period : 

ISO 17025 Laboratory, 

A2LA Testing Certification No. 2821.01 

Expires April 30, 2019 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 

1) Additional disclosures of related financial interest as indicated above. 

2) A copy of the full test report, video, and a Test Data Summary Sheet for each test conducted in 

support of this request. 

3) A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that conform to the Task Force- 13 Drawing Specifications 

[Hardware Guide Drawing Standards]. For proprietary products, a single isometric line drawing is 

usually acceptable to illustrate the product, with detailed specifications, intended use, and contact 

information provided on the reverse. Additional drawings (not in TF-13 format) showing details that 

are relevant to understanding the dimensions and performance of the device should also be submitted 

to facilitate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter 

Number Date I Key Words 

I 
INTENDED USE 

Weak-post W-beam guardrails are commonly used where dynamic deflection s of at least 87 inches 

[2200 mm] are acceptable. This system must be anchored with a suitable terminal system; 

crashworthy W-beam terminals can be transitioned to and used with this guardrai l system. SGR-02b 

is a Test Level 3 barrier. 

COMPONENTS 

Unit length = 150 inches [3810 mm] 

Designator Component Number 

FBB0I Splice bolts and nuts 8 

FBX08a Rail-post bolt (1.5 [40]) and nut 

FBXl4a Rail support bolt (1 .5 [40]) and nut 

FWR0I Guardrail washer 

PSE03 Post 

RWB0la W-beam back-up plate 

RWM02a W-bea m rai l 

APPROVALS 

FHWA Acceptance Letter B-64A. 

REFERENCES 

M.H. Ray , K. Engstrand, C.A. Plaxico, and R.G. McGinnis, ''Improvements to the Weak-Post WBeam Guardrail,'' Transportation Research Record I 743, pp. 88-96, 200 I. 

M.E. Bronstad, J. E. Michie and J.D . Mayer, Jr., Pe,formance ofLongitudinal Traffic Barriers, 

Nationa l Cooperative Highway Resea rch Program Report Number 289, Tran spo rtation Research 

Board, June , 1987. 

J.D. Michie, L.R. Calcote, and M.E. Bronstad, Guardrail Performance and Design, National 

Cooperative Highway Research Prog ram Report Number 115 , Highway Research Board, 1971. 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington , DC 20590 

202-366-22 88 

WEAK-POST W-BEAM GUARDRAIL 

SGR02b 

SHEET NO. DATE 

2 of2 07/20/2005 
-3 

?=' 

z 

0 

O'\ 

0 

00 

tv 

tv 

I 

~ 

0.000 s 0.450 s 0.900 s 1.575 s 

248' : · 

914. ' -, ~ ,,_,,,. 20·7 I 3( I t_t::l:.T ''< , + L Gill I f ' ~'- 25.2° 

<, f' -....j 

\~~Angle Box Exit Path Impact Path _j 14.6' X 32.8' 

tv L

0 

General Information Impact Conditions Post-Impact Trajectory 

Test Agency .................. . Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) Speed ................................ 62.0 mi/h Stopping Distance ..................... 248 ft downstream 

Test Standard Test No...... . MASH Test 3-10 Angle .................. .. ............. 25.2 degrees 20 ft twd traffic 

TTI Test No. 608221-1 Location/Orientation .. .. ....... 32.5 inches upstnn Vehicle Stability 

Test Date 2017-07-14 of Post 12 Maximum Yaw Angle 36 degrees 

Test Article Impact Severity.... .... ...... .. ... . 57 kip-ft Maximum Pitch Angle 6 degrees 

Type Longitudinal Barrier - Guardrail Exit Conditions Maximum Roll Angle 12 degrees 

Name ................ . G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail Speed ...................... .......... 45.6 mi/h Vehicle Snagging No 

Installation Length ............ . 281 ft 3 inches Angle .......... .............. ......... 3.7 degrees Vehicle Pocketing No 

Material or Key Elements .. . 32-inch tall W-beam guardrail system with Occupant Ris k Values Test Article Deflections 

PennDOT Type 2-W S3x5.7 posts with Longitudinal OIV ................ 13.4 ft/s Dynamic ................. ............. ... ... 71.8 inches 

soil plates, and TxDOT DAT-14 terminals Lateral OIV ....................... .. 13.8 ft/s Permanent ... .......... .............. ..... 28.0 inches 

Soil Type and Con dition ..... AASHTO M147-65(2004), grading B Soil Longitudinal Ridedown ....... 4.8 g Working Width ........................ ... 92.0 inches 

(crushed limestone), Damp Lateral Ridedown ............... 5.9 g Height of Working Width .......... . 35.6 inches 

Test Vehicle THIV ............ ... ................... 20.4 km/h Vehicle Damage 

Type/Designation 1100C PHO .................... .. ............. 6.0 g VOS ............................ .............. 01RFQ4 

Make and Model 2011 Kia Rio 0.45 CDC .......................................... 01FREW4 

tv Cu~.................................. . 24951b Max. 0.050-s Average Max. Exterior Defonnation ......... 9.25 inches 

0 Test Inertial 24431b Longitudinal ... ...... ........... -3.6 g OCDI .. .......................... .... .... ..... RF0001000 ~ Dummy 1651b Lateral. .... .............. .......... -3.6 g Max. Occupant Compartment ---..l 

0 

I Gross Static 26081b Vertical. ................... ........ -2.4 g Deformation ............... .. .. ........ 0.5 inches 

\0 

I 

~ Figure 5.11. Summary of Results for MASH Test 3-10 on G2 Weak Post W-Beam Guardrail System. 
PY V o I u m e I : E v a I u a I i o n o f E x i s t I n g R a a d s i d e S a f e t y H a rd w a r e U s i n g U p d a t e d C r i t e r I a T e ch n i c a 1 R e p a r t 

0.000 s 0. 183 s 0.364 s 

General Information Impact Conditions Po1t-lmp1ct Trajectory 

Test Agency ... ... Texas Transportation Institute Speed ...62.4 mi/h Stopping Distance ..................... 83.5 ft downstream 

Tesl No. ............ RF476460-1-7 Anglo .. 24.6 degrees Adjacent traffic face 

Date .......................... 2009--05-01 Veh icle Stablllly 

Te st Article Exit Condlllona Maximum Yaw Angle . ................. 43 degrees 

Type ........ . ..... Longitudinal Barrier Speed .... . ..Slopped Maximum Pitch Angle ... ... -4 degrees 

Name ......................... ....... Modified G2 Weak Posl W•Beam guardrail Angle .... . ....... 0 degrees Maxin,um Roll Angle.... . .... -12 degrees 

Installation Length ............ 325 ft Occupant Risk Va lues Veh1c.e Snagging........ . ... No 

Material or Key Elements .. W-beam rail element on S3x5.7 posts Impact Velocity Voh,c e Pocketing ......... .. ... No 

spaced 12 ft apart Longitudinal.. .. ............... 9.5 fVs Test Article Oen ect1 on1 

Lateral . ..10 5 fVs Dynamic 8.6 ft 

Soll Type and Condition .... Crushed Limestone, Dry Ride-down Accelerations Pefmdnent .. . 5.8 ft 

Test Vehicle Longitudinal ... . -3.4 G Wor1... 1n g Width ... .. .... 9.0 ft 

Type/Designation... . .... 2270P Lateral . 4.5 G Vehicl e Dam age 

Make and Model.. . 2007 Cnevrolet Si!verado Pickup THIV .. .. .. 13.9 km/h VO S .. 11LF03 

Mass PHO .. .. . .. 4.6 G CDC ... .. ............. 11FLEW3 

Curb ....... . . .... 4868 lb Max. 0 OSO•s Average Ma:.<. Exterior Vehicle Crush ... ... 5.5 inches 

Tesl Inertial .... .......... 5004 lb Longitudinal ... . ....... -2 2 G Ma" Occupant Compartment 

Gross Stabc ........... 5004 lb Lateral .. ... 3.1 G Ooformabon ........... ............... . O 25 inches 

Vertical. ...... 1 6 G 

Figure 8 1. Summ a ry of Results for MASH Test 3- 11 on the Modified G2 Weak Post W-Bcam G ua rdrail. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rig hts reserved.