1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

June 10, 2011

FHWA:HSST:WLongstreet:ms:x60087:6/1/11

File: h://directory folder/HSST/ B212_053111.docx

cc: HSST Will Longstreet 

In Reply Refer To:

HSST/B-212

Ms. Karla A. Lechtenberg, MSME, EIT

Research Associate Engineer

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility

130 Whittier Research Center

2200 Vine Street

Lincoln, NE 68583-0853

Dear Ms. Lechtenberg:

This letter is in response to your request for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

acceptance of a roadside safety system for use on the National Highway System (NHS).

Name of system: Midwest Guardrail System 

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

Test Level: AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 

Test Level 3

Testing conducted by: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility

Date of request: December 18, 2010

Date initially acknowledged:

Task Force 13 Designator:

December 18, 2010

SGR20 a-b

You requested that we find this system acceptable for use on the NHS under the provisions of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Manual for 

Assessing Safety Hardware” (MASH). 

Requirements 

Roadside safety devices should meet the guidelines contained in the MASH.

Decision

The following device was found acceptable, with details provided below:

• Midwest Longitudinal Guardrail System (MGS)

Description

The test installation consisted of 55.25 meters (181 feet 3 inches) of standard 2.66 millimeters

(12-gauge) thick W-beam guardrail supported by steel posts. Anchorage systems similar to those 

used on tangent guardrail terminals were utilized on both the upstream and downstream ends of 
2

the guardrail system. The entire system was constructed with twenty-nine guardrail posts. Post 

numbers 3 through 27 were galvanized ASTM A36 steel W152 x 13.4 (W6 x 9) sections 

measuring 1,829 millimeters (6 feet) long. Post numbers 1, 2, 28, and 29 were timber posts 

measuring 140 millimeters wide x 190 mm deep x 1,080 millimeters long (5.5-inch x 7.5-inch x 

42.5-inch) and were placed in 1,829 millimeters (6 feet) long steel foundation tubes. The timber 

posts and foundation tubes were part of anchor systems designed to replicate the capacity of a 

tangent guardrail terminal. Post numbers 1 through 29 were spaced 1,905 millimeters

(75 inches) on center with a soil embedment depth of 1,016 millimeters (40 inches). The posts 

were placed in a compacted coarse, crushed limestone material that met Grading B of AASHTO 

M147-65 (1990) as per MASH. For post numbers 3 through 27, 152-millimeters wide x 305

millimeters deep x 362 millimeters long (6-inch x 12-inch x 14.25-inch) wood spacer blockouts 

were used to block the rail away from the front face of the steel posts. Standard 2.66 millimeters

(12-gauge) thick W-beam rails with additional post bolt slots at half post spacing intervals were 

placed between post numbers 1 and 29. The following test vehicles were used at indicated 

guardrail heights:

1. Test Vehicle 1100C: The W-beam’s top rail height of 813 millimeters (32 inches) with

a 657 millimeters (25 7/8-inch) center mounting height.

2. Test Vehicle 2270P: The W-beam’s top rail height was 787 millimeters (31 inches) with

a 632 millimeters (24 7/8 inches) center mounting height. 

The rail splices have been moved to the center of the span location. All lap-splice connections 

between the rail sections were configured to reduce vehicle snag at the splice during the crash 

test. Design details are provided as enclosure to this correspondence.

Crash Testing

Physical crash test for Test Level 3 as per MASH requires that longitudinal barrier systems be 

subjected to the following two full-scale vehicle crash tests:

1. Test Designation 3-10. A 1,100-kg (2,425-lb.) small car impacting the W-beam system at 

a nominal speed and angle of 100 km/h (62.1 mph) and 25 degrees, respectively.

2. Test Designation 3-11. A 2,268-kg (5,000-lb.) pickup truck impacting the W-beam 

system at a nominal speed and angle of 100 km/h (62.1 mph) and 25 degrees, 

respectively.

Findings 

The MGS strong-post W-beam guardrail system was constructed and crash tested. Full-scale 

vehicle crash tests using a 1100C small car vehicle and a 2270P pickup truck vehicle were

performed and was determined to be acceptable according to the TL-3 safety performance 

criteria presented in MASH. All physical crash test summaries are included as enclosure to this 

correspondence. 

Therefore, the system described in the requests above and detailed in the enclosed drawings is 

acceptable for use on the NHS under the range of conditions tested, when such use is acceptable 

to a highway agency.
3

Please note the following standard provisions that apply to FHWA letters of acceptance:

• This acceptance provides a AASHTO/ARTBA/AGC Task Force 13 designator that 

should be used for the purpose of the creation of a new and/or the update of existing 

Task Force 13 drawing for posting on the on-line ‘Guide to Standardized Highway 

Barrier Hardware’ currently referenced in AASHTO ‘Roadside Design Guide’.

• 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. 

• 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 the 

AASHTO MASH.

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

B-212 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. 

• 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 acceptance letter is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the 

candidate system, and 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 
 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

June 10, 2011

In Reply Refer To:

HSST/B-212

Ms. Karla A. Lechtenberg, MSME, EIT

Research Associate Engineer

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility

130 Whittier Research Center

2200 Vine Street

Lincoln, NE 68583-0853

Dear Ms. Lechtenberg:

This letter is in response to your request for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

acceptance of a roadside safety system for use on the National Highway System (NHS).

Name of system: Midwest Guardrail System 

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

Test Level: AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 

Test Level 3

Testing conducted by: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility

Date of request: December 18, 2010

Date initially acknowledged:

Task Force 13 Designator:

December 18, 2010

SGR20 a-b

You requested that we find this system acceptable for use on the NHS under the provisions of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Manual for 

Assessing Safety Hardware” (MASH). 

Requirements 

Roadside safety devices should meet the guidelines contained in the MASH.

Decision

The following device was found acceptable, with details provided below:

• Midwest Longitudinal Guardrail System (MGS)

Description

The test installation consisted of 55.25 meters (181 feet 3 inches) of standard 2.66 millimeters

(12-gauge) thick W-beam guardrail supported by steel posts. Anchorage systems similar to those 

used on tangent guardrail terminals were utilized on both the upstream and downstream ends of 
2

the guardrail system. The entire system was constructed with twenty-nine guardrail posts. Post 

numbers 3 through 27 were galvanized ASTM A36 steel W152 x 13.4 (W6 x 9) sections 

measuring 1,829 millimeters (6 feet) long. Post numbers 1, 2, 28, and 29 were timber posts 

measuring 140 millimeters wide x 190 mm deep x 1,080 millimeters long (5.5-inch x 7.5-inch x 

42.5-inch) and were placed in 1,829 millimeters (6 feet) long steel foundation tubes. The timber 

posts and foundation tubes were part of anchor systems designed to replicate the capacity of a 

tangent guardrail terminal. Post numbers 1 through 29 were spaced 1,905 millimeters

(75 inches) on center with a soil embedment depth of 1,016 millimeters (40 inches). The posts 

were placed in a compacted coarse, crushed limestone material that met Grading B of AASHTO 

M147-65 (1990) as per MASH. For post numbers 3 through 27, 152-millimeters wide x 305

millimeters deep x 362 millimeters long (6-inch x 12-inch x 14.25-inch) wood spacer blockouts 

were used to block the rail away from the front face of the steel posts. Standard 2.66 millimeters

(12-gauge) thick W-beam rails with additional post bolt slots at half post spacing intervals were 

placed between post numbers 1 and 29. The following test vehicles were used at indicated 

guardrail heights:

1. Test Vehicle 1100C: The W-beam’s top rail height of 813 millimeters (32 inches) with

a 657 millimeters (25 7/8-inch) center mounting height.

2. Test Vehicle 2270P: The W-beam’s top rail height was 787 millimeters (31 inches) with

a 632 millimeters (24 7/8 inches) center mounting height. 

The rail splices have been moved to the center of the span location. All lap-splice connections 

between the rail sections were configured to reduce vehicle snag at the splice during the crash 

test. Design details are provided as enclosure to this correspondence.

Crash Testing

Physical crash test for Test Level 3 as per MASH requires that longitudinal barrier systems be 

subjected to the following two full-scale vehicle crash tests:

1. Test Designation 3-10. A 1,100-kg (2,425-lb.) small car impacting the W-beam system at 

a nominal speed and angle of 100 km/h (62.1 mph) and 25 degrees, respectively.

2. Test Designation 3-11. A 2,268-kg (5,000-lb.) pickup truck impacting the W-beam 

system at a nominal speed and angle of 100 km/h (62.1 mph) and 25 degrees, 

respectively.

Findings 

The MGS strong-post W-beam guardrail system was constructed and crash tested. Full-scale 

vehicle crash tests using a 1100C small car vehicle and a 2270P pickup truck vehicle were

performed and was determined to be acceptable according to the TL-3 safety performance 

criteria presented in MASH. All physical crash test summaries are included as enclosure to this 

correspondence. 

Therefore, the system described in the requests above and detailed in the enclosed drawings is 

acceptable for use on the NHS under the range of conditions tested, when such use is acceptable 

to a highway agency.
3

Please note the following standard provisions that apply to FHWA letters of acceptance:

• This acceptance provides a AASHTO/ARTBA/AGC Task Force 13 designator that 

should be used for the purpose of the creation of a new and/or the update of existing 

Task Force 13 drawing for posting on the on-line ‘Guide to Standardized Highway 

Barrier Hardware’ currently referenced in AASHTO ‘Roadside Design Guide’.

• 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. 

• 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 the 

AASHTO MASH.

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

B-212 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. 

• 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 acceptance letter is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the 

candidate system, and 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 
56

Figure A-1. Layout of Midwest Guardrail System Design (English)
57

Figure A-2. Midwest Guardrail System Rail Details (English)
58

Figure A-3. Midwest Guardrail System Post Details (English)
59

Figure A-4. Midwest Guardrail System Anchorage Details (English)
60

Figure A-5. Midwest Guardrail System Anchorage Details (English)
61

Figure A-6. Midwest Guardrail System Anchorage Details (English)
63

0.118 sec 0.222 sec 0.378 sec 0.466 sec 0.000 sec

! Test Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MwRSF! Test Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2214MG-1! Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/7/04! NCHRP 350 Update Test Designation . . 3-11! Appurtenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Midwest Guardrail System

! Total Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 ft - 3 in.

! Key Elements - Steel W-Beam

Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 gaugeTop Mounting Height . . . . . . . . . . . 31 in.

! Key Elements - Steel Posts

Post Nos. 3 - 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W6x9 by 6 ft long

Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 in.

! Key Elements - Wood Posts

Post Nos. 1 - 2, 28 - 29 (BCT) . . . . 5.5 in. x 7.5 in. by 42.5 in. long

! Key Elements - Steel Foundation Tube . 6-ft long! Key Elements - Wood Spacer Blocks

Post Nos. 3 - 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 in. x 12 in. by 14.25 in. long

! Type of Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grading B - AASHTO M 147-65 (1990)

! Test Vehicle

Type/Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2270PMake and Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002 GMC 2500 3⁄4-ton PickupCurb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,700 lbsTest Inertial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000 lbsGross Static . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000 lbs

! Impact Conditions

Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.6 mphAngle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 degreesImpact Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ft - 10.5 in. upstream splice btwn posts 14 & 15

! Exit Conditions

Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.5 mphAngle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appx. 7 degreesExit Box Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pass

! Post-Impact Trajectory

Vehicle Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SatisfactoryStopping Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 ft - 11 in. downstream

Against traffic-side face

! Occupant Impact Velocity (350 Update)

Longitudinal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06 ft/s < 39.4 ft/sLateral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.80 ft/s < 39.4 ft/s

! Occupant Ridedown Deceleration (350 Update)

Longitudinal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.77 Gs < 20 GsLateral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.34 Gs < 20 Gs

! THIV (not required) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.52 ft/s! PHD (not required) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.41 Gs! Test Article Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moderate! Test Article Deflections

Permanent Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.875 in.Dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.0 in.Working Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.3 in.

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

VDS5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-RFQ-4

CDC6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-RYEN3

Maximum Deformation . . . . . . . . . 1 in. at right-center floorpan

Figure B-1. Summary of Test Results and Sequential Photographs (English), Test 2214MG-1