U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

of Transportation Washington , D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

September 28, 2016 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1/B-265 REVISED 

Mr. Rajesh Taneja 

New York State Thruway Authority 

200 Southern Blvd., P.O. Box 189 

Albany, NY 12201-0189 

Dear Mr. Raj esh Taneja 

This letter is in response to your July 21, 2016 request for the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHW A) to revie\v 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 FHW A control number B-265 and is valid until a subsequent letter is issued by FHW A 

that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

The following devices are eligible, with details provided in the form which is attached as an 

integral part of this letter: 

• Modified Three-Tube Bridge Rail (BR208) 

Scope of this Letter 

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

crash test and evaluation criteria contained in the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) Report 350. 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 FHWA, 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 perfom1ance of this device. Proper 

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

tested. 
2 

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. 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

FHW A previously issued an eligibility letter for the roadside safety system described in your 

pending request. Your pending request now identifies a modification to that roadside safety 

system. 

The original roadside safety device information is provided here: 

Name of system: BR208 Bridge Rail 


Type of system: Longitudinal Barrier 


Date of original request: April 18, 2003 


Date of original FHW A eligibility letter: April 22, 2003 


FHWA Control number: B 118 


The pending modification(s) consists of the following changes: 

1. Changing the post type from a W8x24 to W 6x25. 

2. Decreasing the post spacing from 9.84 feet on center to 4 feet on center. 

3. Increasing the overall top-of-rail height from 42 inches to 45 inches. 

4. Eliminating the block out sections for lower rails and changing the rail sections to TS 6 x 6 x 

3/16 inch for all three rails. The design also includes a 1/2-inch thick shim plate between the 

post and rails, which was not included in the model. With the shim plate the resulting 

distance from the traffic face of the rails to the front flange of the posts is 6.5 inches, which is 1

12 inch less than the BR208. 

5. Replacing the 3/4-inch diameter stud bolts that fasten the rails to the posts in the original 

system with 3/4-inch diameter round-head bolts for the top and middle rails. The lower rail in 

the modified design is supported on an L5 x 5 x 5/8 inch angle section with a single 3/4-inch 

diameter bolt passing vertically through the tube and angle support bracket. The support is 

fastened to the post using two 3/4-inch bolts with nuts and washers. 

6. Increasing the number of mounting bolts used to fasten the bridge rail to the top of the curb 

from 4 bolts to 5 bolts. The additional bolt is placed on the traffic side ofthe mount-plate 

(tensile side) in-line and at the midpoint of the other two mounting bolts. 

7. Increasing the embedment depth for the anchor bolts from 14 inches to 16.75 inches. 

8. Increasing the curb width by 3/4-inch (i.e., increasing from 19.5 inches to 20.25 inches). 

FHW A concurs with the recommendation of the accredited crash testing laboratory as stated 

within the attached form. 

Full Description of the Eligible Device 

The device and supporting documentation, including Finite Element Analysis (FEA) report, 

reports of the base-line crash tests or other testing done, videos of base-line crash testing, and/ or 

drawings of the device, are described in the attached form. The NYST A is expected to be 

responsive to users or other agencies relying on this eligibility letter on questions that may arise 
3 

from this documentation and if necessary provide the same data that was submitted to FHWA for 

review. 

Notice 

If a manufacturer makes any modification to any oftheir roadside safety hardware that has an 

existing eligibility letter from FHWA, the manufacturer must notify FHWA of such modification 

with a request for continued eligibility for reimbursement. The notice of all modifications to a 

device must be accompanied by: 

o 	 Significant modifications - For these modifications, crash test results must be 

submitted with accompanying documentation and videos. 

o 	 Non-signification modifications - For these modifications, a statement from the 

crash test laboratory on the potential effect of the modification on the ability of 

the device to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 

FHWA's determination of continued eligibility for the modified hardware will be based 

on whether the modified hardware will continue to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 

Any user or agency relying on this eligibility letter, is expected to use the same designs, 

specifications, drawings, installation and maintenance instructions as those submitted for review. 

· Any user or agency relying on this eligibility letter, is expected to ensure that the hardware used 

has the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for review, and 

that it will meet the test and evaluation criteria ofthe NCHRP Report 350. 

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 infomrntion 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. 

Standard Provisions 

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

control number B-265 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. 
4 

• 	 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. 

• 	 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. 

Sincerely yours, 

~~~- ichael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 1 of 12 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility of

Highway Safety Hardware using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Submitter

 Date of Request: July 21, 2016 New Resubmission 

Name: Chuck A. Plaxico, Ph.D. 

Company: RoadSafe, LLC 

Address: 12 Main Street, Canton, ME 04221 

Country: United States of America

 To: Michael S. Griffith, Director 

FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies 

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

highway program. 

System Type Submission Type Device Name / Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Barriers (Roadside, 

Median, Bridge Railings) FEA & V&V Analysis Modified Three-Tube 

Bridge Rail (BR208) 

NCHRP Report 350 TL4 

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 NCHRP Report 350 (Report 350) and that the 

evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the Report 350. 

Identification of the individual or organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Rajesh Taneja Same as Submitter 

Company Name: New York State Thruway Authority Same as Submitter 

Address: 200 Southern Blvd., P.O. Box 189, Albany, NY 12201-0189 Same as Submitter 

Country: United States of America Same as Submitter 

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

Eligibility Process for Safety Hardware Devices' document. 

RoadSafe, LLC is a paid Consultant for NYSTA for this eligibility request. The barrier is non-proprietary and 

RoadSafe, LLC has no further financial interest in the use of this barrier. 

This request is for a determination of Federal-aid reimbursement eligibility using Finite Element 

Analysis and Verification and Validation Analysis [NCHRP Web-Only Document 179] 

(WD-179) for a structural change to previously eligible hardware where the effect on the crash 

test performance of the hardware is Non-Significant - Effect is Positive or Inconsequential. 
FEA PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

FEA PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

FEA PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

Modification to Existing 

Hardware Non-Significant - Effect is Positive or Inconsequential 

The baseline BR208 bridge rail consists of three TS 7 x 4 x 1⁄4 inch tubes supported by W8x24 steel posts on 9.84­

ft (118 in) centers. The distance from the deck surface to the center of the lower rail element is 16 inches; the 

distance from the deck to the center of the middle rail element is 28.8 inches; and the distance from the deck to 

the center of the top rail element is 40 inches. The two lower rails are blocked out from the support posts with 

TS 7 x 3 x 1⁄4 inch steel tubes that are 6.5 inches long. The top tube is installed with the narrow side against the 

post. A single 3⁄4-inch diameter stud bolt is welded onto the backside of the tubes at each post location, and 

each rail is then fastened to the W8x24 post using a flat-washer, lock-washer and nut. The posts are welded to a 

12” x 13” x 1” steel plate; the plate is then mounted onto the top of a 7-inch high curb using four 7/8-inch 

diameter A325 steel bolts. 

The modified design consists of three TS 6 x 6 x 3/16 inch tubes supported by W6x25 steel posts on 4-ft centers. 

The distance from the deck surface to the center of the lower rail element is 18 inches; the distance from the 

deck to the center of the middle rail element is 30 inches; and the distance from the deck to the center of the 

top rail element is 42 inches. The rails are blocked out from the support posts using 1⁄2-inch thick shim plates (as 

necessary) such that the face of the rail is flush with the curb face of the curb. The top two rail elements are 

each fastened to the post using two 3/4-inch diameter round-head bolts. The lower rail is supported on an L5 x 

5 x 5/8-inch angle section with a single 3/4-inch diameter bolt passing vertically through the tube and angle 

support bracket. The support is fastened to the post using two 3/4-inch bolts with nuts and washers. The posts 

are welded to a 16.5” x 12.25” x 1.5” steel plate; the plate is then mounted onto the top of a 7-inch high curb 

using five 7/8-inch diameter A325 steel bolts. 

The key modifications to the system include: 

1) Changing the post type from a W8x24 to W6x25. 

2) Decreasing the post spacing from 9.84 feet on center to 4 feet on center. 

3) Increasing the overall top-of-rail height from 42 inches to 45 inches. 

4) Eliminating the blockout sections for the lower rails and changing the rail sections to TS 6 x 6 x 3/16 inch for 

all three rails. The design also includes a 1/2-inch thick shim plate between the post and rails, which was not 

included in the model. With the shim plate the resulting distance from the traffic face of the rails to the front 

flange of the posts is 6.5 inches, which is 1⁄2 inch less than the BR208. 

5) Replacing the 3/4-inch diameter stud bolts that fasten the rails to the posts in the original system with 3/4­

inch diameter round-head bolts for the top and middle rails. The lower rail in the modified design is supported 

on an L5 x 5 x 5/8 inch angle section with a single 3/4-inch diameter bolt passing vertically through the tube 

and angle support bracket. The support is fastened to the post using two 3/4-inch bolts with nuts and washers. 

 

6) Increasing the number of mounting bolts used to fasten the bridge rail to the top of the curb from 4 bolts to 5 

bolts. The additional bolt is placed on the traffic side of the mount-plate (tensile side) in-line and at the 

midpoint of the other two mounting bolts. 

7) Increasing the embedment depth for the anchor bolts from 14 inches to 16.75 inches. 

8) Increasing the curb width by 3/4-inch (i.e., increasing from 19.5 inches to 20.25 inches). 

 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 2 of 12 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 3 of 12 

FEA PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

9) Increasing depth of the curb and deck by 6.12 inches (i.e., increasing from 14.88 inches to 21 inches). 

Based on strength calculations performed according to the procedures contained in Appendix A13.2 of the 

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Ed. 2012, the modified bridge rail design is approximately 53 

percent stronger than the baseline design. The modified design also results in better distribution of the load 

between the bridge rail and curb to reduce the possibility for damage to the curb and deck. 

FEA ANALYSIS OF BASELINE CRASH 

Description shall include comparison of FEA results 

Required 

Baseline Crash 

Test Number 

Narrative Description FEA Analysis Results 

According to Report 350? 

V&V Analysis Results in 

accordance to WD-179? 

4-10 (820C) 

The 820C vehicle model impacted 

the modified bridge rail at 62.6 mph 

at an impact angle of 19.7 degrees, 

which was consistent with the fullscale test. The impact point was 3.61 

feet upstream of the critical post, or 

1.6 feet upstream of the rail splice. 

The results of the showed that the 

system would successfully contain 

and redirect the vehicle with 

negligible damage to the bridge rail. 

The maximum dynamic deflection of 

the rail was 0.315 inches (8 mm) on 

the lower rail element at the splice 

connection, and the maximum 

permanent deformation was 0.0236 

inches (0.6 mm) on the lower rail just 

upstream of the splice. The occupant 

risk measures and the vehicle 

trajectory also met the criteria 

specified in R350. The overall 

phenomenological behavior of the 

barrier and the vehicle was very 

similar for both the baseline and 

modified designs. There was good 

agreement with respect to event 

timing, overall kinematics of the 

vehicle, barrier damage and barrier 

deflections. Both the qualitative and 

quantitative comparisons of the 

time-history data indicated that the 

analysis of the modified design 

sufficiently replicates the results of 

the crash test on the baseline 

design. Based on these assessments 

it was concluded that the 

performance of the modified design 

meets the FHWA criteria for a nonsignificant change. 

PASS YES 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 4 of 12 

Required 

Baseline Crash 

Test Number 

Narrative Description FEA Analysis results 

according to AASHTO MASH? 

V&V Analysis Results in 

accordance to WD-179? 

S4-10 (700C) 

This test involves the 700C vehicle 

impacting at 62.2 mph and 20 

degrees. This is a non-critical test 

and was not performed on the 

baseline design. This test was also 

not simulated for the modified 

design. 

NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 5 of 12 

4-11 (2000P) 

The vehicle model used in the 

analysis was the NCAC C2500D 

version 5B. The impact conditions 

for the analysis involved the 4,577-lb 

pickup model striking the bridge rail 

at 3.94 feet upstream of Post 8 (or 

1.94 feet upstream of the splice) 

traveling at a speed of 62.6 mph 

(100.7 km/hr) and at an angle of 25.4 

degrees with respect to the bridge 

rail. These conditions are consistent 

with those used in the assessment of 

the baseline bridge rail system in the 

full-scale crash test 404201-8 and 

the baseline FE analysis cases, 

except that the impact point was 

approximately 4 inches closer to the 

critical post for the analysis of the 

modified barrier. This impact point 

was considered to be more critical 

based on the closer spacing of the 

bridge rail posts in the modified 

design and is also consistent with 

recommendations in R350. The 

results of the FEA of the 2000P 

vehicle model impacting the 

proposed three-rail (modified 

Oregon 3-Tube rail) bridge rail under 

R350 Test 4-11 impact conditions 

showed that the system would 

successfully contain and redirect the 

vehicle with minimal damage to the 

bridge rail. The occupant risk 

measures and the vehicle trajectory 

also met the criteria specified in 

R350. In the full-scale test of the 

baseline design, the concrete curb 

ruptured the critical post 

downstream of the rail splice 

connection, resulting in higher 

lateral deflections of the bridge rail 

compared to the deflections for 

modified design. The decreased 

spacing of the posts in the modified 

design, as well as the increased 

reinforcing of the curb, therefore, 

resulted in better performance 

regarding the structural capacity of 

the bridge rail and the integrity of 

the curb/deck system. Based on 

these assessments it was concluded 

that the performance of the 

modified design meets the FHWA 

criteria for a non-significant change. 

PASS YES 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 6 of 12 

4-12 (8000S) 

The vehicle model used in analysis 

was the 8000S single unit truck 

model developed at the National 

Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) in 

Ashburn, VA which has been further 

modified by various researchers over 

the years to improve their fidelity in 

analysis of impact conditions 

corresponding to R350 Test 4-12. The impact conditions for the 

analysis involved the 17,363-lb 

(7,876 kg) single unit truck model 

striking the bridge rail at speed of 

50.5 mph and at an impact angle of 

15 degrees. These conditions are 

consistent with those used in the 

assessment of the baseline bridge 

rail system in the full-scale crash test 

and the baseline FE analysis cases. 

Recall that the impact point for the 

baseline case was approximately 4.6 

feet upstream of a bridge rail post 

and approximately 2.63 feet 

downstream of the tube-rail splice. 

For the analysis of the modified 

design, the impact point was set to 

4.92 feet upstream of the critical 

post (based on the critical impact 

point recommended in Report 350) 

located immediately downstream of 

the rail-tube splice. This 

corresponded to an impact point of 

2.93 feet upstream of the splice. The 

results of the analysis showed that 

the system would successfully 

contain and redirect the 8000S with 

minimal damage to the bridge rail. The occupant risk measures and the 

vehicle trajectory also met the 

criteria specified in R350. The overall 

phenomenological behavior of the 

barrier and the vehicle for Test 4-12 

was also very similar for both the 

baseline and modified designs. There was good agreement with 

respect to event timing, overall 

kinematics of the vehicle, barrier 

damage and barrier deflections. 

Both the qualitative and quantitative 

comparisons of the time-history data 

indicated that the analysis of the 

modified design sufficiently 

replicates the results of the crash 

test on the baseline design. Based 

on these assessments it was 

concluded that the performance of 

the modified design meets the 

FHWA criteria for a non-significant 

change. 

PASS YES 
 

 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 7 of 12 

4-20 (820C) 

This test is considered optional in 

R350 and is recommended only 

when there is a reasonable 

uncertainty regarding impact 

performance with smaller passenger 

vehicles. The bridge rail in this case 

is connecting to a rigid concrete 

parapet. Since both the railing and 

the concrete parapet are rigid 

systems (e.g., rail deflection was 

0.315 inches) a transition is not 

required and the railing can be 

connected directly to the concrete 

parapet. 

NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED 

S4-20 (700C) 

This test is optional and was not 

evaluated for the same reasons as 

stated for Test 4-20. 

NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED 

4-21 (2000P) 

This test is considered optional in 

R350 and is recommended only 

when there is a reasonable 

uncertainty regarding impact 

performance with larger passenger 

vehicles. The bridge rail in this case 

is also considered rigid since the 

deflection under Test 4-11 was only 

0.7 inches; thus a transition is not 

required and the railing can be 

connected directly to the concrete 

parapet. 

NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED 

4-22 (8000S) 

This test is considered optional in 

R350 and is recommended only 

when there is a reasonable 

uncertainty regarding strength 

capacity of the section in containing 

and redirecting the heavy test 

vehicle. The bridge rail in this case is 

also considered rigid since the 

deflection under Test 4-12 was only 

0.55 inches; thus a transition is not 

required and the railing can be 

connected directly to the concrete 

parapet. 

NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED NON-CRITICAL, TEST NOT CONDUCTED 

VALIDATION /VERIFICATION PHENOMENA IMPORTANCE RANKING TABLES 

Check all of the following model validation forms that are included as enclosures to this eligibility submission. In 

addition for each submitted form provide commenary on results and all relevant exceptions including a list of 

all model parameter variances within in the submitted analysis. 

TYPE OF REPORT 

PART I: BASIC INFORMARTION 

PART II: ANALYSIS SOLUTION 

PART III: TIME HISTORY EVAL. 

PART IV: PIRT ROADSIDE 

PART V: PIRT TEST VEHICLE 

TYPE OF REPORT 

Two validation reports for the baseline design model were submitted. These include comparison of FEA vs fullscale tests 404201-8 (i.e., R350 Test 4-11) and 404201-9 (i.e., R350 Test 4-12). Three validation reports for the 

modified design model were submitted. These include comparison of FEA for modified design vs full-scale tests 

of baseline design for simulation of Tests 404201-7 (Test R350 Test 4-10), 404201-8 (i.e., R350 Test 4-11) and 

404201-9 (i.e., R350 Test 4-12). FEA Summary Sheets for these cases are included with this FORM. Additional 

analysis results were included in the final report which was submitted separately. 

PART I: BASIC INFORMARTION 

The system type is a longitudinal barrier named “Modified Three-Tube Bridge Rail (BR208)”. The barrier was 

tested using NCHRP Report 350 criteria to a Test Level 4. 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 8 of 12 

PART II: ANALYSIS SOLUTION 

The analysis verification met NCHRP Report W179 in all cases without exceptions, except for the baseline 

validation for Test 4-11 (2000P test). The increase in energy was assumed to be related to the failure of the 

concrete (including the erosion of the failed concrete elements) and possibly the release of the constraints 

between the rebar and the failed concrete elements. This was further verified in a later analysis involving the 

same model in which the concrete did not fail and the change in total energy was 0%. 

PART III: TIME HISTORY EVAL. 

The multi-channel evaluation of the time-history data passes all criteria without exceptions for all cases. 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 9 of 12 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 10 of 12 

PART IV: PIRT ROADSIDE 

2000P Vehicle FEM: The finite element model used for the 2000P vehicle was the NCAC C2500D version 5B 

model. This model has been used extensively over the past decade in simulating R350 TL3 impact scenarios 

with great success. [Plaxico06; Plaxico07; Marzougui08; Marzougui10; Plaxico15] It has also been validated 

against NHTSA end-cap tests [Zaouk96]. Additional validation PIRTs for the model were provided by George 

Mason University and are included with this report as Appendix M. Modifications to the model included 

remeshing various parts in the impact region of the model and changing the element type to the fully 

integrated shell element (i.e., type 16 in LS-DYNA). 

2000P References: 

Marzougui08: Marzougui, D. and S. Kan, “Advanced Crash Analyses to Improve Safety & Security”, FHWA 

Contract DTFH61-09-D-00001, National Crash Analysis Center, George Washington University, VA (2008). 

Marzougui10: Marzougui, D., M. Zink, A. Zaouk, C.D. Kan, and N. Dedewi, “Development and Validation of a 

Vehicle Suspension Finite Element Model for Use in Crash Simulations,” International Journal of 

Crashworthiness, 9:6, 565-576, DOI: 10.1533/ijcr.2004.0311 (2010). 

Plaxico06: Plaxico, C.A., J.C. Kennedy and C.R. Miele, “Development of an NCHRP Report 350 TL-3 New Jersey 

Shape 50-inch Portable Concrete Barrier,” Final Report No. FHWA/OH-2006/16, Ohio Department of 

Transportation, Columbus, OH (June 2006). 

Plaxico07: Plaxico, C.A., Kennedy, J.C., and Miele, C.R., “Evaluation and Redesign of a Culvert Guardrail and 

Transition System,” Technical Report, Ohio Department of Transportation, 2007. 

Plaxico15: Plaxico, C.A., M.H. Ray, C.E. Carrigan, T.O. Johnson, and A. Ray, “Criteria for Restoration of 

Longitudinal Barriers, Phase II,” Final Report, NCHRP Project 22-28, National Academy of Sciences, Washington 

D.C. (2015). 

Zaouk96: Zaouk, A.K., N.E. Bedewi, C.D. Kan, and D. Marzougui, “Validation of a Non-Linear Finite Element 

Vehicle Model Using Multiple Impact Data,” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1996). 

8000S Vehicle FEM: The 8000S single unit truck finite element model used in this study was developed at the 

National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) in Ashburn, VA and has been further modified by various researchers 

over the years to improve its fidelity in analysis of impact conditions corresponding to R350 Test 4-12. [Miele05; 

Mohan07; Plaxico13] For this impact case, the model of the ballast was modified in order to calibrate the mass 

inertial properties of the vehicle model to the properties of the test vehicle. The ballast was modeled as a rigid 

block with dimensions 48 inches wide x 52 inches long x 30.5 inches tall. 

8000S References: 

Miele05: Miele, C.R., C.A. Plaxico, J.C. Kenedy, S. Simunovic and N. Zisi, “Heavy Vehicle-Infrastructure Asset 

Interaction and Collision,” Final Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of transportation, Cooperative 

Agreement No. DTFH61-03-X-00030, McLean, Virginia (2005). 

Mohon07: Mohan, P.D. Marzougi and C.D. Kan, “Validation of a Single Unit Truck Model for Roadside Hardware 

Impact,” Int. J. of Vehicle Systems Modeling and Testing, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-15 (2007). 

Plaxico13: Plaxico, C.A. and M.H. Ray, “Modified NETC 4-Bar Bridge Rail for Steel Through-Truss Bridges,” Final 

Report No. 14-0224, Performed for Structal Bridges, Inc., Performed by RoadSafe LLC, Canton, ME (December 

2013). 

820C Vehicle FEM: The 820C vehicle model used in this study was the Geo Metro reduced element model 

version V02c developed at the NCAC with updates to the tires and suspension made by researchers at 

Polytechnic Di Milano. Researchers in the European community have used the 820C vehicle model much more 

extensively than U.S. researchers and have made significant improvements to the model. Dr. Marco Anghileri at 

Politechnico di Milano has made the most notable improvements to the model. In a previous study conducted 

by Dr. Plaxico for Plastic Safety Systems, Inc. Dr. Anghileri’s model was used to evaluate a sand barrel crash 

cushion under R350 Test 3-40 and 3-42 impact conditions. [Plaxico05] The front suspension showed an overly 

stiff response (probably due to the characterization of the shock absorber model), but overall the model 

performed reasonably well based on comparisons to the full-scale tests. Professor Anghileri’s version of the 

Geo Metro model was used in this study with additional modifications made by the research team in this 

project. The modifications were limited to adding hourglass control to all shell element parts and 

modifications to the self-contact definitions for the vehicle components. 

820C References: 

Plaxico05: Plaxico, C.A., Kennedy, J.C., and Miele, C.R., “Analysis of Plastic Safety System’s Crashgard Sand Barrel 

System,” Technical Report, Ohio Department of Transportation, 2005. 

Plaxico07: Plaxico, C.A., Kennedy, J.C., and Miele, C.R., “Evaluation and Redesign of a Culvert Guardrail and 

Transition System,” Technical Report, Ohio Department of Transportation, 2007. 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 11 of 12 

PART V: PIRT TEST VEHICLE 

2000P Vehicle FEM: The finite element model used for the 2000P vehicle was the NCAC C2500D version 5B 

model. This model has been used extensively over the past decade in simulating R350 TL3 impact scenarios 

with great success; it has also been validated against NHTSA end-cap tests [see final report for references]. 

Additional validation PIRTs for the model were provided by George Mason University and are included as 

Appendix M. Modifications made to the model for this study included remeshing various parts in the impact 

region of the model and changing the element type to the fully integrated shell element (i.e., type 16 in LSDYNA). 

8000S Vehicle FEM: The 8000S single unit truck finite element model used in this study was developed at the 

National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) in Ashburn, VA and has been further modified by various researchers 

over the years to improve its fidelity in analysis of impact conditions corresponding to R350 Test 4-12 [see final 

report for references]. For this study the model of the ballast was modified to calibrate the mass and inertial 

properties of the vehicle model to the properties of the test vehicle. The ballast was modeled as a rigid block 

with dimensions 48 inches wide x 52 inches long x 30.5 inches tall. 

820C Vehicle FEM: The 820C vehicle model used in this study was the Geo Metro reduced element model 

version V02c developed at the NCAC with updates to the tires and suspension made by researchers at 

Polytechnic Di Milano. Researchers in the European community have used the 820C vehicle model much more 

extensively than U.S. researchers and have made significant improvements to the model. Dr. Marco Anghileri at 

Politechnico di Milano has made the most notable improvements to the model. In a previous study conducted 

by Dr. Plaxico for Plastic Safety Systems, Inc. Dr. Anghileri’s model was used to evaluate a sand barrel crash 

cushion under R350 Test 3-40 and 3-42 impact conditions [see final report for references]. The front suspension 

showed an overly stiff response (probably due to the characterization of the shock absorber model), but overall 

the model performed reasonably well based on comparisons to the full-scale tests. Professor Anghileri’s version 

of the Geo Metro model was used in this study with some additional modifications, which were limited to 

adding hourglass control to all shell element parts and modifications to the self-contact definitions for the 

vehicle components. 

The submitted Finite Element Analysis was conducted in compliance with FHWA 

Memorandum ‘Roadside Safety Hardware -Federal-Aid Reimbursement Eligibility Process’, 

dated May 21, 2012 including all updates to this memorandum by the following accredited 

laboratory (cite laboratory’s accreditation status in the FEA Analysis final report): 

I certify that the product(s) was (were) analyzed in conformity with the NCHRP Report 350 and that the 

evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the Report 350. 

FEA & V&V Laboratory Name: Roadsafe LLC, Canton ME. 

FEA & V&V Laboratory Contact: Chuck A. Plaxico, Ph.D Same as Submitter 

Address: 12 Main Street, Canton, ME 04221 Same as Submitter 

Country: United States of America Same as Submitter 

Submitter Signature*:
 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 

Finite Element Analysis using LS-Dyna that shows the modified hardware will perform in a 

similar manner to the NCHRP Report 350 crash testing that was first used to evaluate roadside 

hardware. 
 Version 1.0FEA (09/15) 

Page 12 of 12 

2) Validation and Verification (V&V) analysis and report conforming to Appendix E as per the 

NCHRP W 179 [NCHRP Web-Only Document 179 ] shall be submitted for both the original 

model compared to the baseline test and the model of the non-significant change compared to 

the baseline test. 

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 key to understanding the performance 

of the device should also be submitted to facilitate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter AASHTO TF13 

Number Date Designator Key Words 
Table 20. Summary of validation metrics for the model in simulation of Test 404201-8 (pickup test). 

System Type: Comparison:

Device Name:/Variant: Submissions Type: Non-Significant -- Effect is Uncertain

Testing Criterion: Non-Significant -- Effect is Positive 

Test Level: Non-Significant -- Effect is Inconsequential

FHWA Letter: X Baseline Validation of Crash Test to FEA Analysis. Crash Test FEA Analysis

Test Number: Test FEA Occupant Risk (cont.) Test FEA

Vehicle: yes yes H2 – Long. OIV 5.0m/s 5.1 m/s

Vehicle Mass: 4.3 in 5.1 in H3 – Lat. OIV -8 m/s -9.3 m/s

Impact Speed: 11.9 ft 10.8 ft I2 – Long. ORA 4.2 g 7.8 g

Impact Location: yes yes I3 – Lat. ORA 9.3 g 10.5 g

Tested Hardware: Original Design no no Vehicle Trajectory

FEA Hardware: Original Design no no K – Intruded into travel lanes? no no

no no N – Travel behind barrier? no no

Total Energy: 14% No Test FEA

Hourglass Energy: 0% Pass no no Sprague-Geer Magnitude < 40 13.6 Pass

Mass Added: 0% Pass 2 7.2 Sprague-Geer Phase < 40 22.8 Pass

Shooting Nodes: no Pass 4 2 ANOVA Mean 1.2 Pass

Negative Volumes: no Pass 29.7 31.1 ANOVA Standard Deviation 20.6 Pass

Baseline Crash Test

W-179 Table E-1: Verification Evaluation Summary

W-179 Table E-3 (Multi-Channel Method)

W-179 Table E-5: Roadside PIRTS

Summary of FEA vs. Test Validation Metrics

TTI 404201-8

1995 Chrevrolet Chyenne 2500

4,577 lb

62.6 mph

51.2" upstream of Post 4

Bridge Rail

Oregon Three-Tube Bridge Rail

Report 350

TL4

B118

 F2 – Max. Vehicle Roll 

 F3 – Max. Vehicle Pitch

 F4 – Max. Vehicle Yaw

Crash tested original design to FEA of original design

 A5 – Barrier Rupture?

 A7 – Wheel Snagging?

 A8 – Vehicle Snagging?

Occupant Risk

 D – Detached elements?

Structural Adequacy 

 A1 - Acceptable perf.?

 A2 – Permanent Deflection:

 A3 – Contact Length

A4 - Component Failure

Time = 0.0 sec 0.1 sec 0.2 sec 0.3 sec 0.4 sec

67
 
Table 21. Summary of validation metrics for the model in simulation of Test 404201-9 (SUT test). 

System Type: Comparison:

Device Name:/Variant: Submissions Type: Non-Significant -- Effect is Uncertain

Testing Criterion: Non-Significant -- Effect is Positive 

Test Level: Non-Significant -- Effect is Inconsequential

FHWA Letter: X Baseline Validation of Crash Test to FEA Analysis. Crash Test FEA Analysis

Test Number: Test FEA Occupant Risk (cont.) Test FEA

Vehicle: yes yes H2 – Long. OIV 1.7 m/s 2.5 m/s

Vehicle Mass: 2 in 1.6 in H3 – Lat. OIV 4.9 m/s 4.3 m/s

Impact Speed: 17 ft 20.5 ft I2 – Long. ORA 2.3 g 2.1 g

Impact Location: no no I3 – Lat. ORA 9.2 g 7.3 g

Tested Hardware: Original Design no no Vehicle Trajectory

FEA Hardware: Original Design no no K – Intruded into travel lanes? no no

no no N – Travel behind barrier? no no

Total Energy: 0% Pass Test FEA

Hourglass Energy: 0% Pass no no Sprague-Geer Magnitude < 40 30.7 Pass

Mass Added: 0% Pass 4.3 7.3 Sprague-Geer Phase < 40 30.6 Pass

Shooting Nodes: no Pass 1.3 4.5 ANOVA Mean 1.7 Pass

Negative Volumes: no Pass 18.3 17.7 ANOVA Standard Deviation 30.8 Pass

Baseline Crash Test

W-179 Table E-1: Verification Evaluation Summary

W-179 Table E-3 (Multi-Channel Method)

W-179 Table E-5: Roadside PIRTS

Summary of FEA vs. Test Validation Metrics

TTI 404201-9

1996 GMC single-unit truck

17,363 lbs

50.5 mph

55.1" upstream of Post 4

Bridge Rail

Oregon Three-Tube Bridge Rail

Report 350

TL4

B118

 F2 – Max. Vehicle Roll 

 F3 – Max. Vehicle Pitch

 F4 – Max. Vehicle Yaw

Crash tested original design to FEA of original design

 A5 – Barrier Rupture?

 A7 – Wheel Snagging?

 A8 – Vehicle Snagging?

Occupant Risk

 D – Detached elements?

Structural Adequacy 

 A1 - Acceptable perf.?

 A2 – Dynamic Deflection:

 A3 – Contact Length

A4 - Component Failure

Time = 0.0 sec 0.2 sec 0.4 sec 0.6 sec 0.8 sec

68
 
Table 45. Summary of comparison metrics for the modified design (FEA) and baseline design (full-scale test) for 

NCHRP Report 350 test 4-10 impact conditions. 

System Type: Comparison:

Device Name:/Variant: Submissions Type: Non-Significant -- Effect is Uncertain

Testing Criterion: Non-Significant -- Effect is Positive 

Test Level: X Non-Significant -- Effect is Inconsequential

FHWA Letter: Baseline Validation of Crash Test to FEA Analysis. Baseline Modified

Test Number: Test FEA Occupant Risk (cont.) Test FEA

Vehicle: yes yes H2 – Long. OIV 3.6 m/s 4.1 m/s

Vehicle Mass: 2 mm 2.4 H3 – Lat. OIV -8.4 m/s -7.1 m/s

Impact Speed: 7.8 ft 7.3 ft I2 – Long. ORA -5.2 g -2.9 g

Impact Location: yes no I3 – Lat. ORA 13.0 g 15.8 g

Tested Hardware: Original Design no no Vehicle Trajectory

FEA Hardware: Modified Design no no K – Intruded into travel lanes? yes probable

no no N – Travel behind barrier? no no

Total Energy: 0% No Test FEA

Hourglass Energy: 0% Pass no no Sprague-Geer Magnitude < 40 10.7 Pass

Mass Added: 0% Pass 7.3 1 Sprague-Geer Phase < 40 18.6 Pass

Shooting Nodes: no Pass 3.1 1.1 ANOVA Mean 2.2 Pass

Negative Volumes: no Pass 32.4 34.7 ANOVA Standard Deviation 17.2 Pass

 F2 – Max. Vehicle Roll 

 F3 – Max. Vehicle Pitch

 F4 – Max. Vehicle Yaw

Crash tested original design to FEA of modified design

 A5 – Barrier Rupture?

 A7 – Wheel Snagging?

 A8 – Vehicle Snagging?

Occupant Risk

 D – Detached elements?

Structural Adequacy 

 A1 - Acceptable perf.?

 A2 – Permanent Deflection:

 A3 – Contact Length

A4 - Component Failure

Baseline Crash Test

W-179 Table E-1: Verification Evaluation Summary

W-179 Table E-3 (Multi-Channel Method)

W-179 Table E-5: Roadside PIRTS

TTI 404201-7

1995 Geo Metro

1,975 lb

62.6 mph

59.1" upstream of Post 4

Bridge Rail

Oregon Three-Tube Bridge Rail

Report 350

TL4

B118

Time = 0.0 sec 0.05 sec 0.1 sec 0.15 sec 0.2 sec 0.25 sec 0.3 sec 

0.4 sec

143
 
Table 46. Summary of comparison metrics for the modified design (FEA) and baseline design (full-scale test) for NCHRP 

Report 350 test 4-11 impact conditions. 

System Type: Comparison:

Device Name:/Variant: Submissions Type: Non-Significant -- Effect is Uncertain

Testing Criterion: Non-Significant -- Effect is Positive 

Test Level: X Non-Significant -- Effect is Inconsequential

FHWA Letter: Baseline Validation of Crash Test to FEA Analysis.

Baseline Modified

Test Number: Test FEA Occupant Risk (cont.) Test FE

Vehicle: yes yes H2 – Long. OIV 5 m/s 4.8 m

Vehicle Mass: 4.3 in 0.7 in H3 – Lat. OIV -8 m/s -9.2 

Impact Speed: 11.9 ft 10.2 ft I2 – Long. ORA 4.2 g 8.6 

Impact Location: yes no I3 – Lat. ORA 17.1 g 13.9 

Tested Hardware: Original Design no no Vehicle Trajectory

FEA Hardware: Modified Design no no K – Intruded into travel lanes? yes proba

no no N – Travel behind barrier? no no

Total Energy: 0% No Test FEA

Hourglass Energy: 0% Pass no no Sprague-Geer Magnitude < 40 14.7 Pa

Mass Added: 0% Pass 2 2.8 Sprague-Geer Phase < 40 23.2 Pa

Shooting Nodes: no Pass 4 3.5 ANOVA Mean 3.1 Pa

Negative Volumes: no Pass Pa

 F2 – Max. Vehicle Roll 

 F3 – Max. Vehicle Pitch

Crash tested original design to FEA of modified design

 A5 – Barrier Rupture?

 A7 – Wheel Snagging?

 A8 – Vehicle Snagging?

Occupant Risk

 D – Detached elements?

Structural Adequacy 

 A1 - Acceptable perf.?

 A2 – Dynamic Deflection:

 A3 – Contact Length

A4 - Component Failure

Baseline Crash Test

W-179 Table E-1: Verification Evaluation Summary

W-179 Table E-3 (Multi-Channel Method)

W-179 Table E-5: Roadside PIRTS

TTI 404201-8

1995 Chrevrolet Chyenne 2500

4,577 lb

62.6 mph

51.2" upstream of Post 4

Bridge Rail

Oregon Three-Tube Bridge Rail

Report 350

TL4

B118

Time = 0.0 sec 0.1 sec 0.2 sec 0.3 sec 0.4 sec

144
 

 F4 – Max. Vehicle Yaw 29.7 34.6 ANOVA Standard Deviation 20.8
Table 47. Summary of comparison metrics for the modified design (FEA) and baseline design (full-scale test) for NCHRP 

Report 350 test 4-12 impact conditions. 

System Type: Comparison:

Device Name:/Variant: Submissions Type: Non-Significant -- Effect is Uncertain

Testing Criterion: Non-Significant -- Effect is Positive 

Test Level: X Non-Significant -- Effect is Inconsequential

FHWA Letter: Baseline Validation of Crash Test to FEA Analysis. Baseline Modified

Test Number: Test FEA Occupant Risk (cont.) Test FEA

Vehicle: yes yes H2 – Long. OIV 1.7 m/s 1.5 m/s

Vehicle Mass: 2 in 0.63 in H3 – Lat. OIV 4.9 m/s 4.0 m/s

Impact Speed: 17 ft 15.4 ft I2 – Long. ORA 2.3 g 1.6 g

Impact Location: no no I3 – Lat. ORA 9.2 g 9.2 g

Tested Hardware: Original Design no no Vehicle Trajectory

FEA Hardware: Modified Design no no K – Intruded into travel lanes? no no

no no N – Travel behind barrier? no no

Total Energy: 0% Pass Test FEA

Hourglass Energy: 0% Pass no no Sprague-Geer Magnitude < 40 23.4 Pass

Mass Added: 0% Pass N.A. 19 Sprague-Geer Phase < 40 29.3 Pass

Shooting Nodes: no Pass 1.3 2.8 ANOVA Mean 1.5 Pass

Negative Volumes: no Pass 18.3 20.6 ANOVA Standard Deviation 25.1 Pass

Baseline Crash Test

W-179 Table E-1: Verification Evaluation Summary

W-179 Table E-3 (Multi-Channel Method)

W-179 Table E-5: Roadside PIRTS

TTI 404201-9

1996 GMC single-unit truck

17,363 lbs

50.5 mph

55.1" upstream of Post 4

Bridge Rail

Oregon Three-Tube Bridge Rail

Report 350

TL4

B118

 F2 – Max. Vehicle Roll 

 F3 – Max. Vehicle Pitch

 F4 – Max. Vehicle Yaw

Crash tested original design to FEA of original design

 A5 – Barrier Rupture?

 A7 – Wheel Snagging?

 A8 – Vehicle Snagging?

Occupant Risk

 D – Detached elements?

Structural Adequacy 

 A1 - Acceptable perf.?

 A2 – Dynamic Deflection:

 A3 – Contact Length

A4 - Component Failure

Time = 0.0 sec 0.2 sec 0.4 sec 0.6 sec 0.8 sec

145
 
• • 

~ <D 

N "' 
 Ill 


I 


0 "' 
 I 

"'­

-
-


~ ;;:: 

-


..., ~ ~ 

;.. a 
 ~ ~ ·~ " ID 

I 

" N 

I " ADJUST SHIM PLATES SUCH THAT 

CL OF EXPANSION 	 y CL. POST (TYP.l

SPLICE, 2' -0' 	MIN. 4'-0' (TYP.l SEE NOTE 8 

MAX. SPACING 48'-0' 


MIN. SPACING 20'-0' 


" " .c 

Ill 

·;: -

:J 

c 

0 

a. 

Ill 

I 

c 

0 

"' I

-

-

-

i

,

-u 

2

-

"',

N 

0

..;

-

~ I .. 0 0: 

I 

' I 

o~; I ;-.=~r.====:;:r.:: ' ' " I II I I I I 

' I• I II I I I I 

I 110 I II I I I I 

I __ _!1 __ I 1--c•-----r.L­

-------------­ ---------== ===== '~= 0 I• 0 .... .... •,, 

"

I• 

' 01· I ;-I =-~I.==: =-~'I.:: 

' " I II I I I I 

' I• I II I I I I 

I 110 I II I I I I 

I __ ii __ 1 1--c1-----cL­

-------------­ ---------== ===== ·~= 

0 1: 0 .... .... 

0 •O -------------­ - 11:1 . - - - - - - - - - -I~_-, c-_-_---=-:; :1---= ' ' II I I I I ' 1111 ' ' " ' II I I I I 

' " ' II I I I I "• 1::=c ' ' 1 =====c~=

.... .... 

Iii ,-#­ .,. • ' I 

.. 

• -1-1­ f -1-1­

-g ""@. 

I 

' 

I 

' 

' I 

I 

' 

I 

' 

I 

' 

' 

I 

' 

I 

' I 

I 

' 

' I 

I 

' I 

I 

I I 

' ' I I 

:,I:::::1:::J::1 1oi' ;o~; ·o• . 

·o• I I I I 11 I ' ' ' ' ;o• ' " ' ' " ' ' . ' ' . ' I I I I 11 I ' . ' I• ' ' I• ' ' . ' ' . ' I I I I II I ' . ' ·:o ' ' "0 I I II 0 --'IL----:r,L-11 1 ' ' • 0 ' ' • 0 ' ' ' --~-- .__________________________________________ .__ ,__ -.,;;' --.,;;'.,;;'.:;:" .;;".r_ - - - - - - - - ' ·---'-­ ' I - - j_ ' -----------------------------------------­ -----------------------------------------­ -----------------------------------------­ -----­ .... .... 0 

• 

I• 0 0 .. 

i; 0 OjO O!O O!O

• ,, ! ! ! " I• 

"

I• 

:,I::::: • • •

1::J::1 101· • Io~I • ·o• • ·o• • ·o• • I I I I 11 I " • . " • • • • • • • • • • I I I I 11 I I• • • I• • • • • • • • • • • I I I I 11 I 110 I I __ i: Q :__________________________________________ :__ ;~ • :__ ;g • :__ ;_q • --cL----:r.L-11 1 __ J1 __ 1__________________________________________ 1 -..: --..:..:..: ....:.r_ - - - - - - - • • • -----------------------------------------­ -----------------------------------------­ -----­ .... .... 0 1: 0 0 1: 0 0!0 0!0 0!0 

0 :; 0 0 •O 0 0 0 0 0 0 

: :;:i:::: :Is: :1- - - - - - - - -11:1 - -----------------------------------------­ - 11:1 

- -----------------------------------------­ --1!• - -----------------------------------------­ --1!• - -----------------------------------------­ --1!• - ---- ' • • • • • • • • • I I I I 11 ' 1111 • • 1111 • • '!' • • '!' • • '!' I I I I 11 • ' " • • " • • " • • " • • " I I I I 11 • ' " • • " • • " • • " • • " • ==t.~====:r.~=~ :1~1 ' • • 

"

" • • • • • • • • • • 

.... .... ... 

Iii bdb Iii Iii ~ Iii Iii ~ ~ Iii Iii Iii .,.~ ,-#­ ,,. I • • .,. • ' I I • • I • • ', . • • I • • I I • • ., . • • I 

. .'. . . . . . .. . .,. . . 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

JV(• • 

• 

• 

•

• 

• I I I I 

• • • • I I I I 

-1-1­ f -1-1­ -1-1­

f -1-1­ -1-1­f -1-1­ -1-1­f -1-1­

:g =v: -g ""@. -g ""@. -g ""@. -g ""@. 

' 

I I I I I 

' ' ' ' ' 

-

/ 

/ 

C.I.P. INFILL JOINT 

AT EDGE GIRDER 

EDGE GIRDER 

PEDESTRIAN FENCE AND CONDUITS STEEL BRIDGE RAILING FOR MAIN SPANS - ELEVATION 

SCALE: \12' = l'-0' 

NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY 

I 

!... CL.POST 6\la' I

---r----+o--i 3~s· 

1o/is'x1Yt6' SLOTTED HOLE IN 

TUBULAR RAIL (TYP.l, SEE 

NOTE 7 2~· 6' 

SYMM ABT c BASE p 

JlL• 

TZ 1\12' ~CL. OF ROUND HEAD BOLT 

WITH HEX NUT, OVERSIZED 

WASHER AND SPRING LOCK 

WASHER (TYP.l (SEE DETAIL> 

,,.-----,--,-----t-?-----<.. (Typ.l 

Y2 

' 

~ o/is 

_.--BASE PL. 1\12" THICK 

-

~ (X) 

3~s· 

@) 

I 

' 

SECTION A-A 

SCALE: I'= 1'-0' 

l7{6'x2' SLOTTED HOLE 

FOR Ya' DIA. ANCHOR STUD 

(TYP.l 

4' 


c 

0 

a. 

a. 

~ J!) 

" 

c 

E

, 

g 

~ :c 

I 

N,__ 

~ :c 

~ a. •


OUTSIDE FACES OF 

ALIGNS WITH FACE 

TS 

OF 

6'x6' 

CURB 

11{6' x l~' SLOTTED 

HOLE IN W6 POST 

(TYP.l 

SEE NOTE 7 

PEDESTRAIN FENCE, 

SEE NOTE 10 

W6x25 POST 

VERTICAL 

1'" GROUT PAD (NOMINAL> ~ 

FOR UTILITY CONDUIT 


ENVELOPE, 


SEE REF. I & 3 


NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY~ 

C.I.P. INFILL JOINT 

AT EDGE GIRDER 

ITEM 555.97000099-----.__ 

2 -	 CIRCULAR WASHER, 

SEE NOTE 11 

0: 

::i HEAVY HEX NUT 

" 

" 

~ 

ALTERED ON: 

SIGNATURE: 


STAMP: 


(TYP.l-~ 

r--\12' THICK SHIM PLATE GALV. C/W 11\s' 

HOLES (TYP.l ADJUST THICKNESS TO SUIT 

8%' 3 - TS 6'x6'xtls'

WHERE SHIM p IS NOT REQUIRED 

FOR ALIGNMENT, SEE RAIL SUPPORT 

D TAIL WI HOUT SHIM PLATE, REF. 2 

•

t.O 


• 


~1· r---	 = t.O 

~·1 = t.O 

•

N 

• (") ' • CL. OF 1'' DIA. BOLT WITH

t.O 

" = " t.O " " " 

L5'x5'x%' 

(SEE DETAIL) 

,J...t-.---- CURB, SEE NO E 9 

• 

HEX NUT, OVERSIZED WASHER -·-·-·-·-·-·- o 0. -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- .... 
 AND SPRING LOCK WASHER --------- -- c ------------ .:;::, 
 --+ 

IN 11{6'x1Yts' SLOTTED HOLE<;S __-+---t!1:;i: ! 

IN RAIL :.::. 	 : :•: : =------1 

-TOP OF CONCRETE 

LOCK NUT (TYP.l ____,1 

3~s· 

•

(") ' ·-·-·-·-·~·-~·-·-·-·-·-·- -·-·­

--------- -- --• ------------ ---+­

~ -· 

M - - SLOT'! $ !' -: ------ +-----+-- ------------:---~------------ -­

---+- ~ 

~ -·-·-·-·-·-· ~O=-:·:-=-i·-·-·-·-·-·-·---+· -

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE 

ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 

ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR, 

TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF 

A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER, 

ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR SHALL STAMP 

THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED 

BY THEIR SIGNATURE. THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A 

SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. 

~ 

-'

_,,,___CL. OF 1'' BOLTS WITH 

HEX NUTS AND 

OVERSIZED WASHERS, 

FULLY TORQUED 

CL. EDGE GIRDER_____.,......, 

STEEL BRIDGE RAILING DETAILS STEEL BRIDGE RAILING SECTION SCALE: \12' = 1'-0' 

SCALE: \12' = 1'-0' 

AFFIXED ON: 

REFERENCES SIGNATURE: 

STAMP: REF. 	NO. DRAWING TITLE 

1 FASCIA FENCE SUPPORT (UNIT 12> 	 SPECIFICATION ITEM NUMBERS 

2 SUPERSTRUCTURE - BRIDGE BARRIERS-OUTLINE &REINFORCEMENT 3 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 

3 LIGHTING AND POWER PLANS (UNIT 13l 568 BRIDGE RAILING 

4 SUPERSTRUCTURE - FRAMING PLAN (EASTBOUNDl2 555.97000099 CONCRETE FOR STRUCTURES 

5 SUPERSTRUCTURE - FRAMING PLAN (WESTBOUND> 2 

UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL REFERENCED DRAWINGS 

ARE WITHIN THIS DESIGN PACKAGE. 

• .. - - .. 1- . 

..___OVERSIZED WASHER, 7{6' THK. (TYP.l 

HEAVY HEX NUT (TYP.l ~ 

~LEVELLING NUT (TYP.l 

HEAVY HEX NUT (TYP.l ~-..Jo 

'----- 3 - ANCHOR PL 1''x2JA'x2JA' C/W 


17{6' DIA. HOLE, 


SEE NOTES 4 & 11 


DATE DESCRIPTION 	 BY 

SYM. 

1----+----------------+------l---1 

5' 


SLOTTED ROUND HEAD BOLT 


SCALE: 2' = I'-0' 

slfi· 

CL. OF rs· DIA. HOLE 3~6" 

B 

I I 

-<O·-·--G)- -·-· 

~ 1~s· 3~' 1~s· 

FOR 1'' DIA. BOLT 

~CL. OF rs· DIA. HOLES 

FOR 1'' SOL TS 

L5x5x%' 

PLAN 

-+---- .. 

SECTION B-B 

RAIL ANGLE DETAILS 

SCALE: 1" = 1'-0' 

NOTES: 

1. 	 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL RAILING IS TO BE FABRICATED AND 


ERECTED ACCORDING TO SECTION 568 OF THE STANDARD 


SPECIFICATIONS. 


2. 	 ANCHOR STUDS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A193 GRADE B7 AND SHALL 

BE GALVANIZED (MECHANICALLY CLEANED>. 

3. 	 ANCHOR STUDS SHALL BE TORQUED TO SNUG TIGHT CONDITION WITH THE 

HEAVY HEX NUT.EXPOSED ANCHOR STUD NUT SHALL BE SECURED BY A 

LOCK NUT.ANCHOR STUD THREADS SHALL NOT BE CUT OR DAMAGED. 

ANCHOR STUD SHALL NOT BE FLAME CUT. 

4. 	 ANCHOR PLATES FOR ANCHOR STUDS SHALL CONFORM TD ASTM A573 GR 

70 OR APPROVED EQUAL GALVANIZED. 

5. 	 PRIOR TO GALVANIZING THE ASSEMBLED POST, GRIND ALL 

MINIMUM RADIUS OF Yt6'. 

6. 	 BOLTS IN TUBULAR RAILS SHALL BE TORQUED SNUG TIGHT 

(APPROXIMATELY 100 ft-lb.l. 

7. 	 ALL BOLT HOLES IN TUBULAR RAILS ANO POSTS SHALL BE 

PARALLEL TO THE AXIS OF THE MEMBER. 

EDGES TO A 

SLOTTED 

8. 	 FOR SPLICE DETAILS, SEE REF.2.SPLICES SHALL BE SPACED AS 

SHOWN.ADDITIONALLY, SPLICES SHALL BE PROVIDED TO COINCIDE WITH 

LOCATIONS OF CENTERLINE OF EDGE GIRDER SPLICES GS313 AND 

GS713, SEE REF. 4 & 5. 

FOR CURB REINFORCEMENT, SEE REF.2. 

FOR DETAILS OF PEDESTRIAN FENCE AND CONNECTION TO RAILING, SEE 


REF. !. 


ANCHOR PLATES AND WASHERS AT ANCHOR STUD ENDS SHALL BE 


SECURED IN PLACE TO PREVENT DISLODGING DURING CASTING OF 


CONCRETE. 


GALVANIZED STEEL AND ANCHOR STUDS SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN 


CONTACT WITH SHEAR STUDS AND WEATHERING STEEL UNLESS 


INSULATION IS PROVIDED. 


13. 	 PRIOR TD BRIDGE BEING SUBJECT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, FULL SCALE 

CRASH TESTING PER MASH OF THE SUBJECT BARRIER SYSTEM SHOWN IN 

THE DRAWINGS MUST BE COMPLETED, OR PRIOR DETERMINATION MUST BE 

RECEIVED FROM FHWA AND NYSTA THAT THE BARRIER DESIGN IS 

SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR IN PERFORMANCE WITH SUCCESSFULLY CRASH 

TESTED BARRIER SYSTEMS AND THAT THE MASH REQUIREMENTS TO LD 

ISi 

CRASH TEST THE BARRIER SYSTEM I IS WAIVED. a::

-

La:

0 

0 

LJ 

1---------------------------~---------R-E_V_I_S_I_O_N_S---------~------~------------~-TIT-LE-OF-P-RO-JE-CT---------~CO-NT-RA-CT_N_U-MB_ER_:----<G 

NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY 

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 

200 SOUTHERN BLVD., ALBANY, N.Y. 12209 

LOCATION OF 

BARRIER CRASH TEST 

SIMULATION 

PROJECT 

~ 

Cj 

1----------1<1: 

DATE: g: 

TITLE OF DRAWING 04/19/2016 ~ 

UNIT 11 - SUPERSTRUCTURE 1-D-RA_W_ING_N_U_MB-ER-.----t~ 

BRIDGE BARRIERS 

OUTLINE & REINFORCEMENT 2 

§

° 

USER:$USERNAD!l$E5/ 4/2016 Tltv1El2:32:49 PNLE$F ILES$ 


­ ­

­ ­ ­

­

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

­

­

­

­

­