1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

June 10, 2011 

In Reply Refer To: 

 HSST/B-211A 

Mr. Dean L. Sicking, Ph.D., P.E. 

Director, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 

P.O. Box 880601 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0601 

Dear Dr. Sicking: 

This letter is in response to Messrs. Robert Bielenberg and Ronald Faller request for the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of a wood post alternative to the steel post 

Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) installed adjacent to a 2H:1V fill slope.

Name of system: Midwest Guardrail System placed adjacent to a 2H:1V fill slope 

Type of system: Wood Post and W-beam roadside barrier 

Test Level: NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 3 

Testing conducted by: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility

Date of request: December 21, 2010 

Date initially acknowledged: December 23, 2010 

Task Force 13 Designator: SGR38 

You requested that we find a wood post MGS barrier design to be an acceptable alternative to the 

recently-accepted steel post design when installed at the hinge point of a 2H:1V fill slope. You 

further requested that the wood post option also be accepted for use on the National Highway 

System (NHS) as a TL-3 barrier under the provisions of the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350. 

Requirements

Roadside safety devices should meet the guidelines contained in NCHRP Report 350 when 

tested prior to January 1, 2011, and the guidelines in American Association of State Highway 

Transportation Official’s Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware after that date. The FHWA 

memorandum “ACTION: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features” of July 24, 1997, 

provides further guidance on crash testing requirements of longitudinal barriers and crash 

cushions. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
2 

Decision

The following barrier design was found acceptable, with details provided below: 

• MGS adjacent to a 2H:1V fill slope with 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long wood posts 

Description

The MGS system has been successfully crash-tested when installed at the hinge point of a 2H:1V 

fill slope with 9 feet (2.74 meters) long W6 x 9 (W152 x 13.4) steel posts at a standard spacing 

of 75 inches (1902 millimeters) on centers. This design was accepted by the FHWA for use on 

the NHS via acceptance letter B-211. Subsequently, the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility was 

requested to develop a 6 inches x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) wood post 

alternative to the steel post design. This alternative design used 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long wood 

posts on 75 inches (1902 millimeters) centers to support the W-beam rail element at the MGS 

height of 31 inches (78.7 millimeters). 

Crash Testing

Surrogate testing of single posts was performed using a rigid frame bogie weighing 

approximately 1800 pounds (820 kilograms) and accelerated to 15 mph (24 km/h). Since the 

objective of the test program was to determine a wood post size that corresponded closely to the 

9 feet (2.74 meters) steel posts previously crash-tested, two of the 7 bogie tests used the steel 

posts set at the 2H:1V slope breakpoint. The remaining five bogie test used 6 inches x 8 inches 

(152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) standard wood posts with lengths of 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) 

and 8 feet (2.44 meters) and with embedment depths from 58 to 64 inches (1,473 to 

1,626 millimeters). All posts were installed with the center of each post at the slope breakpoint, 

one foot (30.5 millimeters) away from the road side of the 3 feet (914 millimeters) diameter 

drilled shafts that were then backfilled with compacted 8 inches (203 millimeters) lifts.

Findings

A summary of all bogie testing results is shown in the enclosure to this letter. Review of the data 

from all seven impact tests found that the 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, 6 inches x 8 inches 

(152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) SYP wood posts provided the best alternative to the 9 feet 

(2.74 meters) long, W6 x 9 (W152 x 13.4) steel posts. Three tests of 8 feet (2.44 meters) long, 

6 inches x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) SYP wood posts resulted in post fracture 

due to the post-soil forces exceeding the capacity of the wood post. The wood fracture prevented 

effective rotation of the post in the soil and resulted in insufficient energy absorption during the 

impact. Thus, the 8 feet (2.44 meters) long, wood posts were deemed unsuitable for the MGS 

when installed adjacent to a 2H:1V fill slope. In contrast, the 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, 6 inches

x 8 inches (152 millimeters x 203 millimeters) SYP wood posts correlated reasonably well with 

the data obtained from the 9 feet (2.74 meters) long, W6 x 9 (W152 x 13.4) steel post tests. The 

7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long posts did not fracture during impact and rotated through the soil. The 

average peak force for the two 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, wood post tests was only 5.7 percent 

greater than the average peak force of the two W6 x 9 (W152 x 13.4) steel post tests. Similarly, 

the average total energy of the two 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, wood post tests was only 

6.5 percent greater than the average total energy of the two W6 x 9 (W152 x 13.4) steel post 

tests. The average force levels for the 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, wood post tests were 23 

percent greater through 15 inches (381 millimeters) of deflection than the values obtained from 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
3 

the steel post testing. Thus, the two 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, wood posts compared very well 

with the steel posts in terms of peak force and total energy absorbed, while being slightly higher 

in terms of average force. It is not believed that the reasonably small differences observed 

between the 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, wood post and the 9 feet (2.74 meters) long, steel post 

would have any adverse effects on the performance of the MGS system.

In subsequent e-mail correspondence, Mr. Bielenberg noted that a standard W-beam barrier was 

successfully tested at the breakpoint of a 2H:1V slope using 7 feet (2.13 meters) wood posts at 

1/2 the standard post spacing. We believe that the use of slightly longer posts, combined with 

the additional height of the W-beam and the use of the deeper offset blocks in the MGS system, 

would result in crash performance similar to that seen in the successfully tested steel post design. 

Based on the above considerations, the FHWA agrees that the 7.5 feet (2.29 meters) long, 

6 inches x 8 inches (152-millimeter x 203-millimeter) SYP wood post provides a suitable 

alternative to the 9 feet (2.74 meters) long, W6 x 9 (W152 x 13.4) steel post.

Please note the following standard provisions that generally apply to all the FHWA letters of 

acceptance:

• This acceptance letter provides an AASHTO/ARTBA/AGC Task Force 13 designator 

that should be used for the purpose of creating a new or revised Task Force 13 drawing. 

• This acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the systems and does 

not cover their structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (when applicable). 

• Any changes that may adversely influence the crashworthiness of the system will require 

a new acceptance letter.

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

performance reveals unacceptable safety problems, or that the system being marketed is 

significantly different from the version that was crash tested, we reserve the right to 

modify or revoke our acceptance. 

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

installation requirements to ensure proper performance.

• You will be expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has 

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

acceptance, and that it will meet the crashworthiness requirements of the FHWA and 

NCHRP Report 350. 

• To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of acceptance is designated as number 

B-211A 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. 

• The MGS barrier design is not a patented product, nor is it considered proprietary. 

However, if any proprietary devices are specified by a highway agency for use on 

Federal-aid projects, except exempt, non-NHS 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 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
4 

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. 

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

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

holder. The FHWA is neither prepared nor required to 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 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes