Crash tests on guardrail systems embedded in asphalt vegetation barriers in accordance with GDOT design specifications

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 16-26 FINAL REPORT
CRASH TESTS ON GUARDRAIL SYSTEMS EMBEDDED IN ASPHALT VEGETATION
BARRIERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GDOT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
15 KENNEDY DRIVE FOREST PARK, GA 30297-2534

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.: FHWA-GA-18-1626

2. Government Accession No.:

3. Recipient's Catalog No.:

4. Title and Subtitle:
Crash Tests on Guardrail Systems Embedded in Asphalt Vegetation Barriers in Accordance with GDOT Design Specifications

5. Report Date: October 2018
6. Performing Organization Code:

7. Author(s): D.W. Scott, L.K. Stewart, D.W. White

8. Performing Organ. Report No.: 16-26

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Georgia Institute of Technology School of Civil and Environmental Engineering 790 Atlantic Drive NW Atlanta, GA 30332

10. Work Unit No.: 11. Contract or Grant No.:

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Performance-based Management and Research 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2534

13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Final; July 2016 August 2018
14. Sponsoring Agency Code:

15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract:

The Georgia Department of Transportation authorized a series of tests to be performed on guardrails installed in accordance with GDOT Standard Detail S-4-2002, which was used in Georgia prior to 2017 and includes an asphalt mow strip with nearby curb. The University of Nebraska's Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) was selected to perform the tests in accordance with AASHTO's Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH 2016). A single crash test was performed using Test Vehicle 1100C, a small passenger car. The crash test results exceeded multiple MASH safety evaluation criteria, including occupant compartment deformation, windshield crushing, and maximum allowable Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (ORA). Thus, the Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) installed in an asphalt mow strip with a curb placed behind the barrier was deemed to be unacceptable according to the TL-3 safety performance criteria for test designation no. 3-10 provided in MASH 2016.

17. Key Words: Guardrails, mow strip, MASH testing,

19. Security Class (this report):
Unclassified
Form DOT 1700.7 (8-69)

20. Security Class (this page):
Unclassified

18. Distribution Statement:
21. Number of Pages: 22. Price: 183

GDOT Research Project No. 16-26
Final Report
CRASH TESTS ON GUARDRAIL SYSTEMS EMBEDDED IN ASPHALT VEGETATION BARRIERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GDOT DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS
By David Scott, Associate Professor Lauren Stewart, Assistant Professor
Donald White, Professor
Georgia Tech Research Corporation Atlanta, Georgia Contract with
Georgia Department of Transportation In cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
January 4, 2019
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. vii

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................... 1

1.1

Problem Statement ................................................................................. 1

1.2

Project Objectives................................................................................... 2

1.3

Background ............................................................................................ 3

1.4

Report Organization ............................................................................... 7

MASH TEST SCOPE AND TEST SETUP............................................ 8

2.1

Selection of MASH Test Location and Scope of Testing ...................... 8

2.2

Test Site Design and Construction ......................................................... 9

2.3

Test Conditions and Evaluation Criteria .............................................. 13

2.4

Test Vehicle / Simulated Occupant / Instrumentation.......................... 14

FULL-SCALE CRASH TEST GAA-1 UNDER TEST CONDiTION TL 3-10.......................................................................... 17

3.1

Test Description and Results ................................................................ 17

3.2

Posttest Analysis of Asphalt Layer Characteristics.............................. 21

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................... 25

REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX

RESEARCH REPORT TRP-03-377-17 FROM THE MIDWEST ROADSIDE SAFETY FACILITY ...................................................... 31

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1. MASH Test Level 3 Crash Test Conditions.............................................................. 13 2. MASH Evaluation Criteria for Longitudinal Barrier ................................................ 14 3. Weather Conditions for Test GAA-1 on 02/14/2017 ................................................ 17 4. Sequential Description of Impact Events for Test GAA-1........................................ 20 5. Summary of Safety Performance Evaluation Results for Test GAA-1..................... 21

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1. Guardrail Installations: (a) Typical Installation in Georgia; (b) Installation Incorporating Grout Leave-outs as Recommended in the Roadside Design Guide ........................................................................................................................... 1
2. Test Installation Layout for MASH Test 3-10 ............................................................ 9 3. GDOT Drawing Detail S-4-2002 .............................................................................. 10 4. Test Bed Site View Showing Area Directly Behind the Post ................................ 11 5. Typical Post Installation Procedure in Georgia......................................................... 12 6. Typical Post Installation at MwRSF Test Site .......................................................... 12 7. 2011 Kia Rio Used as Test Vehicle for GAA-1, TL 3-10......................................... 15 8. Simulated Occupant in Test Vehicle for GAA-1, TL 3-10 ....................................... 16 9. Sequential Photographs for Test GAA-1, TL 3-10 on 2/14/17 ................................. 19 10. Buckled Post from Test GAA-1 ................................................................................ 22 11. Test Results from Asphalt Cores Taken from MwRSF Site After Test GAA-1 ....... 24

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Steel guardrail is the most common roadside barrier installed along Georgia's 20,000 miles of interstates and state routes. The objective of this multiphase research program is to evaluate the structural behavior of guardrail posts embedded through asphalt layers. Phase I of this research focused on static evaluation and numerical simulation of the structural performance of guardrail posts installed in accordance with current Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) procedures to include a mow strip as well as alternative installation options developed in consultation with GDOT. A subset of the most promising alternative installation methods was selected for further evaluation under subcomponent dynamic loading in the Phase II effort. The results from the dynamic tests were used to refine and expand the results of finite element analysis (FEA) of both the subcomponent tests as well as full-scale crash test simulations. Phase III of the research program presents the results of a Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH 2016) full-scale crash test performed on a standard guardrail system installed with an asphalt mow strip; the results of this test are the subject of the present report.
The Georgia Department of Transportation authorized a series of tests to be performed on guardrails installed in accordance with GDOT Standard Detail S-4-2002. The University of Nebraska's Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF), located in Lincoln, Nebraska, was selected to perform the tests in accordance with AASHTO's MASH 2016. A single crash test was performed using Test Vehicle 1100C, a small passenger car, on February 14, 2017.
The crash test results exceeded multiple MASH safety evaluation criteria, including occupant compartment deformation, windshield crushing, and maximum allowable
v

Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (ORA). Thus, the barrier installation in test GAA-1 exhibited unacceptable safety performance. There were some minor discrepancies between the test site and the GDOT S-4-2002 drawing detail. However, the failure of test GAA-1 to satisfy MASH criteria cannot be attributed to those discrepancies.
The GDOT S-4-2002 mow strip configuration is no longer in use by GDOT. Beginning March 15, 2017, GDOT directed that all new guardrail construction projects on Georgia roadways use asphalt layers that are paved up to the face of the post, leaving the post itself and the area behind unrestrained.
vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals at GDOT provided many valuable suggestions throughout this study: Mr. Brent Story, State Design Policy Engineer; Mr. Daniel Pass, Assistant State Design Policy Engineer; Mr. Beau Quarles, Assistant Construction Engineer; and Mr. David Jared, Assistant Office Head (Research), Office of Performancebased Management and Research. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent the opinions, conclusions, policies, standards, or specifications of GDOT or of other cooperating organizations. The MASH testing described herein was performed at the University of Nebraska's Midwest Roadside Safety Facility in Lincoln, Nebraska. Ron Faller, John Reid, Karla Lechtenberg, Michael Sweigard, and Erin Urbank facilitated the setup and completion of the testing, and submitted the final report detailing the crash test results. The authors express their profound gratitude to all of these individuals for their assistance and support during the completion of this research project.
vii

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Problem Statement
Prior to March 2017, the preferred procedure for steel guardrail installation in the state of Georgia [1,2] employed a post-installation machine, which is typically hydraulic, to drive the posts through a layer of asphalt (i.e., a "mow strip") placed to retard vegetation growth around the system (Figure 1a). This procedure was outlined in Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Standard Detail S-4-2002 (referred to hereafter as GDOT S-4-2002). However, to avoid undesirable restraint at the ground line, the Fourth Edition of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide [3] recommends a post installed incorporating grout leave-outs (LOs) (Figure 1b). This recommendation is based on research performed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) [4,5].
FIGURE 1 Guardrail Installations: (a) Typical Installation in Georgia; (b) Installation Incorporating Grout Leave-outs as Recommended in the Roadside
Design Guide [3]
1

1.2 Project Objectives The objective of this research program was to evaluate the structural behavior of
guardrail posts embedded through asphalt layers. Phase I of this research focused on static evaluation and numerical simulation of the structural performance of guardrail posts installed in accordance with current GDOT procedures that include a mow strip [6], as well as alternative installation options developed in consultation with GDOT. A subset of the most promising alternative installation methods was selected for further evaluation under subcomponent dynamic loading in the Phase II effort [7]. The dynamic tests' results were used to refine and expand the results of finite element analyses (FEAs) of both the subcomponent tests as well as full-scale crash test simulations. Phase III of the research program entailed a Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) [8] full-scale crash test performed on a standard guardrail system installed in accordance with GDOT S-4-2002; the results of this test are the subject of the present report.
Steel guardrail is the most common roadside barrier installed along Georgia's 20,000 miles of interstates and state routes [9]. This multiphase research program addresses a specific concern raised by GDOT personnel relating to the safety and efficacy of current state guardrail installation procedures in comparison to guidelines found in the Roadside Design Guide. The safety and effectiveness of the guardrail systems installed using these procedures must be rigorously evaluated to ensure compliance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines.
2

1.3 Background A large volume of work exists in the literature regarding the testing and evaluation
of guardrail posts and systems. Summaries of representative work specifically related to crash testing on longitudinal barriers are presented below.
1.3.1 Full-scale Crash Testing Using NCHRP 350 Guidelines Mak et al. [10] classified the most frequently used guardrail systems into six
categories (i.e., Cable, W-beam weak post, W-beam strong post, Box-beam, Thrie-beam, and Modified Thrie-beam) and performed eight full-scale crash tests in accordance with National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 [11] guidelines. The purpose of their experimental study was to evaluate the crash performance of all existing guardrail systems and to inform if the devices in the systems need to be redesigned to improve their crash performance. Bullard et al. [12] tested a modified W-beam guardrail system replacing W69 (W15013.5) steel flange blockouts (also known as "rail spacer" or "offset block") with nominal 6-in.8-in. (152 mm 203 mm) timber blockouts. The guardrail system showed a satisfactory crash performance under the same test conditions as the previous study. Bligh et al. [13] tested a combination of shorter (5 ft 6 in.) steel posts with less embedment depth (38 in. [965 mm]) and reduced-size (6-in.6-in.) timber blockouts compared to those same parameters (6 ft 0 in., 44 in. [1118 mm], and 6-in.8-in., respectively) of the previous study by Bullard et al. [12].
Researchers have performed multiple experimental studies evaluating specific design modifications that incorporate alternative components of the guardrail system. Bligh and Menges [14] tested guardrail systems with standard steel posts and recycled
3

polyethylene blockouts. Buth et al. [15] tested a modified guide rail in conjunction with the current W-beam guardrail system.
W-beam guardrail systems under specific roadside conditions were also investigated. Bullard and Menges [16] tested a guardrail system consisting of wood posts installed with 4-inch-high asphaltic curb under the rail. Rohde and Herr [17] investigated the performance of guardrail systems when steel posts were installed in rock foundation.
The Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) [18], tested and evaluated under NCHRP 350, is a non-proprietary guardrail system developed by the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF). Several full-scale crash tests [1921] demonstrated that design modifications improved the crash performance of the system, compared to the performance and failure modes observed in previous crash test results performed by TTI [10,15]. Polivka et al. [22] performed a total of six full-scale crash tests to investigate the alternative design of the guardrail system with reduced post spacing (half and quarter) and a design configured with 6-inch-tall concrete curbs under the rail. Bielenberg et al. [23] performed two full-scale crash tests to investigate the application of the MGS with long-span culverts.
1.3.2 Full-scale Crash Testing Using MASH Guidelines Wiebelhaus et al. [24] tested the performance of the MGS (Midwest Guardrail
System) placed adjacent to steep roadside slopes in accordance with the MASH guidelines. The system, incorporating 9-ft-long steel posts with a standard post spacing of 75 in., showed satisfactory performance under the MASH full-scale crash test criteria as well as under NCHRP 350 criteria.
Bligh et al. [25] reviewed the W-beam guardrail standards and installation methods of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) using MASH. This research group
4

evaluated a 31-in.-tall W-beam guardrail system incorporating conventional 8-in.-deep offset blocks, and the system met all required MASH performance criteria.
Williams and Menges [26] performed a research study testing the W-beam guardrail on a low-fill box culvert in accordance with MASH. This study incorporated the use of standard W69 steel posts with welded base plate details and an epoxy anchoring system for a simplified installation. The guardrail system was tested under the MASH Test 3-11 conditions and performed acceptably.
Stolle et al. [27] evaluated the MGS with two different mounting-height and embedment-depth combinations and then established the maximum mounting height of the system under MASH. While there had been a recommended minimum top rail mounting height of 27 in. according to the full-scale tests in compliance with NCHRP 350, no maximum height recommendation existed. This research group performed two full-scale crash tests on the different MGS setups: (1) 34-in. height and 37-in. depth and (2) 36-in. height and 35-in. depth. Both system heights/depths were found to meet the MASH evaluation criteria.
Schrum et al. [28] evaluated the MGS without offset blocks. Since a narrow roadside condition hinders the use of standard 12-in. offset blocks in the W-beam guardrail system, several state departments of transportation requested the development of a nonproprietary, non-blocked MGS, which can be a comparable option to the proprietary guardrail systems with higher costs. Accordingly, the non-blocked MGS was modified to have additional rail components, and the modified MGS was successfully tested using a small passenger car (MASH Test 3-10) and a pickup truck (MASH Test 3-11). The research
5

showed an alternative for W-beam guardrail installation when the roadside width is restricted.
Weiland et al. [29] investigated the minimum effective guardrail length for the MGS. Compared to the recommended standard minimum length of 175 ft based on crash testing in accordance with NCHRP 350 and MASH, the research group showed a reduced 75-ft-long MGS performing satisfactorily under the MASH 3-11 full-scale test condition. The researchers also suggested by computer simulation results the possible use of the shorter length of 50-ft and 62-ft 6-in. MGS configurations, but no crash tests were performed on those configurations.
Rosenbaugh et al. [30] performed a series of dynamic impact tests on weak steel posts (S35.7) embedded in different ground restraint conditions including concrete mow strips, asphalt mow strips, and steel sockets with shear plates. A total of 11 bogie vehicle tests were run and one test configuration with 6-in.-thick asphalt mow strip and 30-in. embedment depth of the socket was successfully tested under MASH Test 3-11. The research team showed a weak-post, W-beam guardrail system with mow strip is crashworthy when properly designed and installed.
Jowza et al. [31] investigated the performance of wood guardrail posts encased in asphalt mow strips and placed on slopes. Dynamic bogie vehicle tests were performed on wood posts encased in 2-in. asphalt mow strip. In the majority of the tests, wood posts could rotate backward and break the asphalt layer but with an increase in post-soil resistance as compared to tests conducted without the asphalt mow strip.
6

1.4 Report Organization Chapter 2 of this report summarizes the planning and setup of the MASH test
program used to evaluate the performance of a standard guardrail system installed in accordance with GDOT S-4-2002.
Chapter 3 summarizes the results from this test program carried out in February 2017. Key findings from the tests are presented.
Chapter 4 contains the conclusions for Phase III of this research program. Chapter 5 contains the references cited in this report. The Appendix contains the full report submitted by the University of Nebraska Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) for the MASH crash test performed at their facility.
7

MASH TEST SCOPE AND TEST SETUP
2.1 Selection of MASH Test Location and Scope of Testing To provide a more definitive assessment of the dynamic performance of steel
guardrails installed in asphalt layers without leaveouts, the Georgia Department of Transportation authorized a series of tests to be performed on guardrails installed in accordance with GDOT S-4-2002. After a thorough background investigation by the research team, the University of Nebraska's Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, located in Lincoln, Nebraska, was selected to perform the tests. This organization was selected based on its extensive experience with both NCHRP 350 and MASH testing on a broad range of roadside safety hardware.
In consultation with GDOT personnel in the Office of Design Policy and Support along with MwRSF technical experts, the following intial scope of work was agreed upon:
1. Development of 3-D CAD details and 2-D plans for the 175-ft-long MGS barrier installation with asphalt mow strip and curb
2. Acquisition of construction materials, mill certifications, material specifications, and Certificates of Conformity
3. Construction of test article at MwRSF's outdoor proving grounds 4. Execution of one test level 3 (TL-3) full-scale vehicle crash test with an 1100C
small passenger car at 62 mph and 25 degrees into the barrier system according to MASH Test 3-10 5. Execution of one TL-3 full-scale vehicle crash test with a 2270P pickup truck at 62 mph and 25 degrees into the barrier system according to MASH Test 3-11 6. Analysis and evaluation of crash test results
8

7. Removal of damaged hardware from barrier and asphalt systems, as well as disposal of debris and site restoration
8. Documentation and preparation of summary research report 2.2 Test Site Design and Construction
A test installation site approximately 182 ft in length was constructed at the MwRSF proving grounds beginning in December 2016, with completion in February 2017. The general layout for the test installation is shown in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2 Test Installation Layout for MASH Test 3-10 9

A detailed description of the test bed construction is given in Chapter 3 of the MwRSF report found in the Appendix. In general, the installation of the test site appeared to adhere to the material specifications and dimensions found in GDOT S-4-2002. One variation was noted in that the GDOT detail indicates a graded slope located approximately 42 in. behind the face of the guardrail, as shown in Figure 3. As can be seen in Figure 4, the area behind the post in the test installation was graded horizontal, with an additional pad/test bed located behind the test bed.
FIGURE 3 GDOT Drawing Detail S-4-2002 [2]
10

FIGURE 4 Test Bed Site View Showing Area Directly Behind the Post One other variation was noted in the test bed compared to a standard installation on Georgia roadways. As shown in Figure 5, in Georgia, posts are installed by driving them through the asphalt using a hydraulic post driver. However, for the test bed installation at the MwRSF proving grounds, the ends of each post were first heated using a torch to a high temperature. The heated posts were then driven through the asphalt layer, effectively melting the asphalt around the installation location. As such, there was no fracturing in the asphalt layer around the post, as is commonly seen in installations in Georgia. A typical installed post on the test bed site is shown in Figure 6.
11

FIGURE 5 Typical Post Installation Procedure in Georgia
FIGURE 6 Typical Post Installation at MwRSF Test Site 12

2.3 Test Conditions and Evaluation Criteria Detailed information on the test conditions and evaluation criteria can be found in
Chapter 2 of the MwRSF report located in the Appendix. A summary of pertinent details is presented in this section. Longitudinal barriers such as W-beam guardrails must satisfy impact safety standards set forth in the guidelines and procedures found in the MASH criteria. To satisfy test level 3 of MASH, the barriers must be subjected to two full-scale vehicle crash tests, as summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 MASH Test Level 3 Crash Test Conditions

Test Test Article Designation
No.

Test Vehicle

3-10 Longitudinal
Barrier 3-11

1100C 2270P

1 Evaluation criteria explained in Table 2.

Vehicle Weight
(lb)
2425
5000

Impact Conditions

Speed (mph)

Angle (deg)

Evaluation Criteria1

62.0

25

A,D,F,H,I

62.0

25

A,D,F,H,I

Evaluation criteria for full-scale vehicle crash testing are based on three appraisal areas: (1) structural adequacy; (2) occupant risk; and (3) vehicle trajectory after collision. Criteria for structural adequacy are intended to evaluate the ability of the barrier (i.e., W-beam guardrail system installed in an asphalt mow strip with a curb placed behind the barrier) to contain and redirect impacting vehicles. In addition, controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable. Occupant risk evaluates the degree of hazard to occupants in the impacting vehicle. Post-impact vehicle trajectory is a measure of the potential of the vehicle to result in a secondary collision with other vehicles and/or fixed objects, thereby increasing the risk of injury to the occupants of the impacting vehicle

13

and/or other vehicles. These evaluation criteria used for the test at MwRSF are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 MASH Evaluation Criteria for Longitudinal Barrier

A. Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle or bring the

Structural

vehicle to a controlled stop; the vehicle should not penetrate,

Adequacy

underride, or override the installation although controlled lateral

deflection of the test article is acceptable.

D. Detached elements, fragments, or other debris from the test article should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the occupant compartment should not exceed limits set forth in Section 5.2.2 and Appendix E of MASH 2016.

F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision. The maximum roll and pitch angles are not to exceed 75 degrees.

Occupant Risk

H. Occupant Impact Velocity (OIV) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following limits:
Occupant Impact Velocity Limits

Component

Preferred

Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral 30 ft/s (9.1 m/s) 40 ft/s (12.2 m/s)
I. The Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (ORA) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following limits:

Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits

Component

Preferred

Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral

15.0 g's

20.49 g's

2.4 Test Vehicle / Simulated Occupant / Instrumentation Detailed information on the test vehicle setup and instrumentation can be found in
Chapter 4 of the MwRSF report located in the Appendix. A summary of pertinent details is presented in this section. The first test to be performed was labeled by MwRSF as GAA-1. The vehicle used in this test was a 2011 Kia Rio as shown in Figure 7. A Hybrid II
14

50th-Percentile Adult Male Dummy, equipped with clothing and footware, was placed in the right-front of the test vehicle as shown in Figure 8.
FIGURE 7 2011 Kia Rio Used as Test Vehicle for GAA-1, TL 3-10
15

FIGURE 8 Simulated Occupant in Test Vehicle for GAA-1, TL 3-10
A wide range of sensors and instrumentation was used in the test, including accelerometers, rate transducers, retroflective optics, load cells, and high-speed digital photography and video. Detailed descriptions of sensor types, locations, and data acquisition procedures may be found in Section 4.5 of the MwRSF report located in the Appendix.
A reverse-cable tow system with a 1:2 mechanical advantage was used to propel the test vehicle. The distance traveled and the speed of the tow vehicle were one-half that of the test vehicle. The test vehicle was released from the tow cable before impact with the barrier system. A digital speedometer on the tow vehicle increased the accuracy of the test vehicle impact speed. A vehicle guidance system was used to steer the test vehicle. A guide flag, attached to the left-front wheel and the guide cable, was sheared off before impact with the barrier system.
16

FULL-SCALE CRASH TEST GAA-1 UNDER TEST CONDITION TL 3-10

Detailed information on the crash test and the resulting evaluation of results may be found in Chapter 5 of the MwRSF report located in the Appendix. Pertinent results from this test are presented in this chapter. Test GAA-1 was conducted on February 14, 2017, at approximately 2:15 p.m. The weather conditions at the time of the test are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3 Weather Conditions for Test GAA-1 on 02/14/2017

Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Wind Direction Sky Conditions Visibility Pavement Surface Previous 3-Day Precipitation Previous 7-Day Precipitation

53F 32% 17 mph 320 from True North Overcast 10 Statute Miles Dry 0 in. 0.01 in.

3.1 Test Description and Results The small car, with a test inertial weight of 2,392 lb, impacted the strong-post,
W-beam guardrail system installed with posts driven into an asphalt mow strip with a curb placed behind the barrier at a speed of 62.8 mph and at an angle of 25.1 degrees. Damage to the barrier was extensive, and consisted of rail deformation, contact marks on the front face of the guardrail, guardrail disengagement from posts, deformed steel posts, buckling of numerous posts at the groundline, and asphalt gouging. Damage to the vehicle was also
17

extensive, with the majority concentrated on the right-front corner and the front side of the vehicle. A series of sequential photographs is shown in Figure 9. A sequential description of impact events is given in Table 4. A summary of the safety performance evaluation for the test is given in Table 5. The occupant compartment deformation for the roof was 5.125 in., which exceeded the MASH limit of 4 in. The windshield was crushed inward 7.125 in., which exceeded the MASH limit of 3 in. The maximum longitudinal ORA value of -21.80 g's exceeded the MASH limit of 20.49 g's. Thus, the barrier installation in test GAA-1 exhibited unacceptable safety performance. Based on this test result, the second planned test using test vehicle 2270P (pickup truck) was cancelled.
18

FIGURE 9 Sequential Photographs for Test GAA-1, TL 3-10 on 2/14/17 19

TABLE 4 Sequential Description of Impact Events for Test GAA-1

Time (s) 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.024 0.028 0.038 0.041 0.052 0.062 0.064 0.068 0.074 0.082 0.092 0.098 0.104 0.120 0.136 0.138 0.182
0.186
0.202
0.207
0.220 0.285 0.348 0.360 0.526 0.648 1.217

Event Vehicle's right front bumper contacted rail between posts 12 and 13. Post no. 13 deflected backward. Post no. 11 twisted clockwise. Vehicle's right headlight shattered. Vehicle's right front door contacted rail and deformed. Vehicle's right A-pillar deformed. Vehicle's right front tire contacted post no. 13. Vehicle underrode rail. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 13. Vehicle's right-side airbag deployed. Vehicle pitched downward and left-side airbag deployed. Vehicle's windshield shattered from right-side airbag deployment. Post no. 14 deflected downstream. Vehicle's front bumper contacted post no. 14. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 10. Vehicle's right mirror contacted rail and deformed. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 14, along with vehicle's bumper. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 6. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 8. Rail disengaged from bolt at post nos. 4 and 7. Vehicle's left front tire became airborne. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 12. Vehicle's left-front bumper disengaged. Vehicle's front bumper contacted post no. 15. Blockout no. 15 disengaged from rail at post no. 15. Vehicle's left-front headlight disengaged and blockout no. 15 disengaged from post no. 15. Vehicle's right A-pillar contacted rail. Vehicle underrode rail and rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 16. Vehicle contacted post no. 16. Vehicle's roof underrode rail. Vehicle contacted post no. 17. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 17. Vehicle came to rest.

20

TABLE 5 Summary of Safety Performance Evaluation Results for Test GAA-1

Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Criteria

A. Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle or bring

Structural Adequacy

the vehicle to a controlled stop; the vehicle should not penetrate, underride, or override the installation although controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable.

D. Detached elements, fragments, or other debris from the test article should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the occupant compartment should not exceed limits set forth in Section 5.2.2 and Appendix E of MASH 2016.

F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision. The maximum roll and pitch angles are not to exceed 75 degrees.

Occupant Risk

H. Occupant Impact Velocity (OIV) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following limits:
Occupant Impact Velocity Limits

Component

Preferred Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral

30 ft/s (9.1 m/s)

40 ft/s (12.2 m/s)

I. The Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (ORA) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following limits:

Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits

Component

Preferred Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral

15.0 g's

20.49 g's

MASH 2016 Test Designation No.

1 S Satisfactory

Final Evaluation (Pass or Fail)

U Unsatisfactory

NA Not Applicable

Test No. GAA-11
S
U S
S
U 3-10 Fail

3.2 Posttest Analysis of Asphalt Layer Characteristics It was noted that many of the posts impacted during test GAA-1 did not translate at
all in the asphalt layer, with a hinge forming right at the groundline and the post buckling

21

as shown in Figure 10. This behavior differed significantly compared to static and dynamic subcomponent testing done at Georgia Tech during Phases 1 and 2 of this research program, where significant post translation at the groundline was typically observed.
FIGURE 10 Buckled Post from Test GAA-1 At the request of the Georgia Tech research team, a number of these posts were excavated and the resulting holes examined. Rough estimates using hand rulers indicated that the asphalt layer may have been slightly thicker than the 3.5 inches specified in GDOT S-4-2002. As such, three cores were recovered from the test site asphalt layer for
22

analysis and testing. To determine a representative strength, each specimen was taken from a different location: (1) near the impact point of the crash vehicle, (2) the upstream section, and (3) the downstream section. Based on the heights of the cores taken from the test site, the asphalt strip at the site ranged from 3.75 to at least 4.25 inches in thickness. Though this was higher than the value specified in the GDOT detail, asphalt mow strips of this thickness and more are routinely encountered in Georgia. Compression tests on the cores were performed at the Structural Engineering Mechanics and Materials (SEMM) Laboratory on the Georgia Tech campus. All test protocols were based on ASTM D1074-09: "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Bituminous Mixtures" [32]. Figure 11 includes compression test results and other test information including specimen dimension, test condition, and photographs taken during the test. All specimens showed a similar failure mode represented by lateral expansion and vertical cracks. The average compressive strength from the 3 cores was approximately 400 psi. This value was higher than the average value of approximately 250 psi found for the asphalt used in the laboratory testing, but asphalt strengths in Georgia could reasonably be expected to approach this value in cold weather months. In addition, the cylinders from the MwRSF test site did fail in a manner similar to that seen in cores from asphalt used in Phases 1 and 2 of the research program. As such, the asphalt layer was not considered to be significantly unrepresentative of mow strips found on Georgia roadways.
23

Specimen Core location

N-01 Near the impact point

N-02 Upstream section

N-03 Downstream section

Test picture (setup)

Test picture (failure)

Actual diameter Thickness (height) Test temperature Age of specimen
Compressive strength

3.70 in.

3.70 in.

3.70 in.

4.25 in.

3.75 in.

3.80 in.

70F

71F

67F

76 days (curing time from asphalt placement)

371.0 psi

396.5 psi

430.6 psi

Average compressive strength = 399.4 psi

FIGURE 11 Test Results from Asphalt Cores Taken from MwRSF Site After Test GAA-1

24

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from the Phase 3 research project:
1. The guardrail installation including an asphalt layer used in Test GAA-1 at the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility in Lincoln, Nebraska, on 02/14/17 failed to satisfy safety performance criteria as designated in the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 2016 edition.
2. There were some discrepancies between the test site and the GDOT S-4-2002 drawing detail. These discrepancies included a lack of a sloped region behind the layer installation, and a slightly thicker asphalt layer than that specified. In addition, the posts were installed by melting through the asphalt layer instead of being driven through as they are in Georgia. The asphalt used on the test site also had a higher compressive strength than that used in laboratory testing during this research program, but the average compressive strength determined from test site cores would not be considered unusual compared to asphalt used on Georgia roadways. As such, the failure of test GAA-1 to satisfy MASH criteria cannot be attributed to these discrepancies.
3. The GDOT S-4-2002 mow strip configuration is no longer in use by GDOT. Beginning March 15, 2017, all new GDOT guardrail construction projects on Georgia roadways were directed to use asphalt layers that were paved up to the face of the post, leaving the post itself and the area behind unrestrained. As such, new guardrail post installations will not be subject to additional restraint by asphalt layers.
25

REFERENCES
1. Georgia Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications: Section 641 Guardrail. http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Business/Documents/GDOT_SpecBook_2013. pdf. (Accessed Aug. 25, 2015)
2. Georgia Department of Transportation. Construction Standards and Details: No. 4381 and S-4, 2002. http://mydocs.dot.ga.gov/info/gdotpubs/ConstructionStandardsAndDetails/Forms/A llItems.aspx. (Accessed Aug. 25, 2015)
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, D.C., 2011.
4. Bligh, R.P., N.R. Seckinger, A.Y. Abu-Odeh, et al. Dynamic Response of Guardrail Systems Encased in Pavement Mow Strips. Research Report FHWA/TX-04/0-41622, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2004.
5. Arrington, D.R., R.P. Bligh, and W.L. Menges. Alternative Design of Guardrail Posts in Asphalt or Concrete Mowing Pads. Research Report 405160-14-1, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2009.
6. Scott, D., D. White, L. Stewart, et al. Evaluating the Performance of Guardrail Systems for Installation in Georgia by Driving Through Asphalt Layers. Research Report FHWA-GA-15-1321, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia, 2015.
7. Scott, D., L. Stewart, D. White, et al. Dynamic Subcomponent Testing and Finite Element Simulation of Guardrail Systems with Alternative Post Installation Methodologies. Research Report FHWA-GA-18-1508, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia, 2018.
8. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), Second Edition. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2016.
27

9. Pass, D. Office of Design Policy and Support, Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013 (personal communication).
10. Mak, K., R. Bligh, and W. Menges. Testing of State Roadside Safety Systems-- Volume XI: Appendix J--Crash Testing and Evaluation of Existing Guardrail Systems. Research Report FHWA-RD-98-046, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 1998.
11. Ross, Jr., H., D. Sicking, and R. Zimmer. Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features. NCHRP Report 350, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 1993.
12. Bullard, D., W. Menges, and D. Alberson. NCHRP Report 350 Compliance Test 3-11 of the Modified G4(1S) Guardrail with Timber Blockouts. Research Report FHWA-RD-96-175, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 1996.
13. Bligh, R., W. Menges, and B. Butler. Evaluation of a Modified Steel Post W-Beam Guardrail System. Research Report 439637-1, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 1997.
14. Bligh, R., and W. Menges. Testing and Evaluation of Modified Steel Post W-Beam Guardrail with Recycled Polyethylene Blockouts. Research Report 400001-MPT, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 1997.
15. Buth, C., W. Menges, W. Williams, et al. NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 on the Modified PennDOT Type 2 Guide Rail Test 3. Research Report RF473750-3, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2000.
16. Bullard, D., and W. Menges. NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 on the G4(2W) Strong Post W-beam Guardrail with 100 mm High Asphaltic Curb. Research Report 404201-1, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2000.
17. Rohde, J., and J. Herr. "Development of Guidelines for Placement of Guardrail Posts in Rock." Transportation Research Record, No. 1890, 2004, pp. 4248.
18. Sicking, D., J. Reid, and J. Rohde. "Development of the Midwest Guardrail System." Transportation Research Record, No. 1797, 2002, pp. 4452.
28

19. Polivka, K., R. Faller, D. Sicking, et al. Performance Evaluation of the Midwest Guardrail System Update to NCHRP Report 350 Test No. 3-11 (2214MG-1). Research Report TRP-03-170-06, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2006.
20. Polivka, K., R. Faller, D. Sicking, et al. Performance Evaluation of the Midwest Guardrail System Update to NCHRP Report 350 Test No. 3-11 with 28" C.G. Height (2214MG-2). Research Report TRP-03-171-06, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2006.
21. Faller, R., D. Sicking, R. Bielenberg, et al. "Performance of Steel-Post, W-Beam Guardrail Systems." Transportation Research Record, No. 2025, 2007, pp. 1833.
22. Polivka, K., D. Sicking, J. Rohde, et al. Development of the Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) for Standard and Reduced Post Spacing and in Combination with Curbs. Research Report TRP-03-139-04, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2004.
23. Bielenberg, R., R. Faller, J. Rohde, et al. Midwest Guardrail System for Long-Span Culvert Application. Research Report TRP-03-187-07, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007.
24. Wiebelhaus, M., K. Lechtenberg, R. Faller, et al. Development and Evaluation of the Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) Placed Adjacent to a 2:1 Fill Slope. Research Report TRP-03-185-10, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2010.
25. Bligh, R., A. Abu-Odeh, and W. Menges. MASH Test 3-10 on 31-Inch W-Beam Guardrail with Standard Offset Blocks. Research Report 9-1002-4, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2011.
26. Williams, W., and W. Menges. MASH Test 3-11 of the W-Beam Guardrail on LowFill Box Culvert. Research Report 405160-23-2, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2011.
29

27. Stolle, C., K. Lechtenberg, J. Reid, et al. Determination of the Maximum MGS Mounting Height Phase I Crash Testing. Research Report TRP-03-255-12, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2012.
28. Schrum, K., K. Lechtenberg, R. Bielenberg, et al. Safety Performance Evaluation of the Non-Blocked Midwest Guardrail System (MGS). Research Report TRP-03-26212, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2013.
29. Weiland, N., J. Reid, R. Faller, et al. Minimum Effective Guardrail Length for the MGS. Research Report TRP-03-276-13, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2013.
30. Rosenbaugh, S., R. Faller, K. Lechtenberg, et al. Development and Evaluation of Weak-Post W-Beam Guardrail in Mow Strips. Research Report TRP-03-322-15, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2015.
31. Jowza, E., R. Faller, S. Rosenbaugh, et al. Safety Investigation and Guidance for Retrofitting Existing Approach Guardrail Transitions. Research Report TRP-03266-12, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2012.
32. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Bituminous Mixtures (ASTM D1074-09). 2009.
30

APPENDIX RESEARCH REPORT TRP-03-377-17 FROM THE MIDWEST ROADSIDE SAFETY FACILITY
31

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 32

Research Project Number RH099-S1
MASH 2016 TEST NO. 3-10 OF MGS INSTALLED IN AN ASPHALT MOW STRIP WITH NEARBY
CURB (TEST NO. GAA-1)

Submitted by

Michael E. Sweigard Undergraduate Research Assistant

Karla A. Lechtenberg, M.S.M.E., E.I.T. Research Engineer

Ronald K. Faller, Ph.D., P.E. Research Associate Professor
Director, MWRSF

John D. Reid, Ph.D. Professor

Erin L. Urbank, B.A. Research Communication Specialist

MIDWEST ROADSIDE SAFETY FACILITY
Nebraska Transportation Center University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Main Office Prem S. Paul Research Center at Whittier School
Room 130, 2200 Vine Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0853
(402) 472-0965 Submitted to

Outdoor Test Site 4630 NW 36th Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68524

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
790 Atlantic Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30332

MwRSF Research Report No. TRP-03-377-17

December 14, 2017

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

2.

TRP-03-377-17

4. Title and Subtitle MASH 2016 Test No. 3-10 of MGS Installed in an Asphalt Mow Strip with Nearby Curb (Test No. GAA-1)

7. Author(s) Sweigard, M.E., Lechtenberg, K.A., Faller, R.K., Reid, J.D., and Urbank, E.L.

3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date December 14, 2017 6.
8. Performing Organization Report No. TRP-03-377-17

9. Performing Organization Name and Address Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) Nebraska Transportation Center University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Main Office: Prem S. Paul Research Center at Whittier School Room 130, 2200 Vine Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0853
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Georgia Institute of Technology 790 Atlantic Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30332

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

Outdoor Test Site: 4630 NW 36th Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68524

11. Contract or Grant (G) No. RH099-S1

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report: 2016 2017

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract The objective of this research study was to evaluate the performance of a Georgia Department of Transportation's (GDOT)
strong-beam, W-beam guardrail system with posts driven through an asphalt mow strip with the inclusion of a nearby curb. The Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) conducted one full-scale crash test on the standard Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) installed in an asphalt shoulder with a nearby asphalt curb in accordance with GDOT Standard Detail S-42002. The test was conducted and evaluated according to test designation no. 3-10 using the Test Level 3 (TL-3) criteria found in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, Second Edition (MASH 2016).
Test no. GAA-1 consisted of a 2,392-lb (1,085-kg) small car impacting the MGS at a speed of 62.8 mph (101.1 km/h) and at an angle of 25.1 degrees for an impact severity of 56.8 kip-ft (77 kJ). The vehicle was contained, but it did not redirect the vehicle as it came to rest within the system. A 1-in. (25-mm) long tear was found in the vehicle's left-rear floor pan, the occupant compartment deformation limit for the roof exceeded the MASH 2016 limit, and a maximum longitudinal ORA value of -21.80 g's exceeded the MASH 2016 limit of 20.49 g's. Thus, the MGS installed in an asphalt mow strip with a curb placed behind the barrier was deemed to be unacceptable according to the TL-3 safety performance criteria for test designation no. 3-10 provided in MASH 2016.

17. Document Analysis/Descriptors
Highway Safety, Crash Test, Roadside Appurtenances, Compliance Test, MASH 2016, Asphalt, Mow Strip, Paved Shoulder, Curb, MGS, Midwest Guardrail System, Guardrail

18. Availability Statement
No restrictions. Document available from: National Technical Information Services, Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages

Unclassified

Unclassified

132

22. Price

i

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT This report was completed with funding from the Georgia Institute of Technology (GT). The contents of this report reflect the views and opinions of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Institute of Technology. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, regulation, product endorsement, or an endorsement of manufacturers.
UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT STATEMENT The Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) has determined the uncertainty of measurements for several parameters involved in standard full-scale crash testing and non-standard testing of roadside safety features. Information regarding the uncertainty of measurements for critical parameters is available upon request by the sponsor and the Federal Highway Administration.
INDEPENDENT APPROVING AUTHORITY The Independent Approving Authority (IAA) for the data contained herein was Scott K. Rosenbaugh, Research Engineer.
ii

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge several sources that made a contribution to this project: (1) Georgia Department of Transportation and Georgia Institute of Technology for sponsoring the project and (2) MwRSF personnel for constructing the barrier and conducting the crash test.
Acknowledgement is also given to the following individuals who made a contribution to the completion of this research project.
Midwest Roadside Safety Facility
J.C. Holloway, M.S.C.E., E.I.T., Assistant Director Physical Testing Division R.W. Bielenberg, M.S.M.E., E.I.T., Research Engineer J.D. Schmidt, Ph.D., P.E., Research Assistant Professor C.S. Stolle, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor M. Asadollahi Pajouh, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Research Associate S.A. Ranjha, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Research Associate A.T. Russell, B.S.B.A., Testing and Maintenance Technician II S.M. Tighe, Construction and Testing Technician I D.S. Charroin, Construction and Testing Technician I M.A. Rasmussen, Construction and Testing Technician I E.W. Krier, B.S., Construction and Testing Technician II M.T. Ramel, B.S.C.M., Construction and Testing Technician I R.M. Novak, Construction and Testing Technician I J.E. Kohtz, B.S.M.E., CAD Technician Undergraduate and Graduate Research Assistants
Georgia Department of Transportation
Beau Quarles, P.E., Assistant State Construction Engineer Brent Story, P.E., State Design Policy Engineer David M. Jared, P.E., Assistant Office Head / Research Section Head, Office of Performance-based Management and Research
Georgia Institute of Technology
David Scott, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Don White, Ph.D., Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Jeremy Mitchell, Facility Manager, Civil and Environmental Engineering
iii

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ................................................................... i
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... ii
UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT STATEMENT.............................................................. ii
INDEPENDENT APPROVING AUTHORITY............................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective/Scope ............................................................................................................ 1
2 TEST REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................... 2 2.1 Test Requirements ........................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Soil Strength Requirements .......................................................................................... 3
3 DESIGN DETAILS ..................................................................................................................... 4
4 TEST CONDITIONS................................................................................................................. 27 4.1 Test Facility ................................................................................................................ 27 4.2 Vehicle Tow and Guidance System ............................................................................ 27 4.3 Test Vehicles............................................................................................................... 27 4.4 Simulated Occupant .................................................................................................... 32 4.5 Data Acquisition Systems ........................................................................................... 32 4.5.1 Accelerometers ............................................................................................ 32 4.5.2 Rate Transducers.......................................................................................... 32 4.5.3 Retroreflective Optic Speed Trap ................................................................ 32 4.5.4 Load Cells .................................................................................................... 33 4.5.5 Digital Photography ..................................................................................... 33
5 FULL-SCALE CRASH TEST NO. GAA-1 .............................................................................. 36 5.1 Static Soil Test ............................................................................................................ 36 5.2 Weather Conditions .................................................................................................... 36 5.3 Test Description .......................................................................................................... 36 5.4 Barrier Damage ........................................................................................................... 38 5.5 Vehicle Damage.......................................................................................................... 39 5.6 Occupant Risk ............................................................................................................. 40 5.7 Load Cells ................................................................................................................... 41 iv

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
5.8 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 41 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 64 7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 66 8 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A. Georgia DOT Standard Details - 2002 Revision ...................................... 68 Appendix B. Asphalt Core Test Results......................................................................... 72 Appendix C. Material Specifications ............................................................................. 77 Appendix D. Vehicle Center of Gravity Determination .............................................. 104 Appendix E. Static Soil Tests....................................................................................... 106 Appendix F. Vehicle Deformation Records ................................................................. 109 Appendix G. Accelerometer and Rate Transducer Data Plots, Test No. GAA-1 ........ 115
v

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Test Installation Layout, Test No. GAA-1 .......................................................................5 Figure 2. Post and Curb Detail, Test No. GAA-1 ............................................................................6 Figure 3. Splice Detail, Test No. GAA-1.........................................................................................7 Figure 4. End Anchorage Detail, Test No. GAA-1..........................................................................8 Figure 5. Anchorage Component Details, Test No. GAA-1............................................................9 Figure 6. Post Nos. 3 through 29 and Plastic Blockout Details, Test No. GAA-1 ........................10 Figure 7. Additional Plastic Blockout Details, Test No. GAA-1...................................................11 Figure 8. BCT Timber Posts and Foundation Tube Details, Test No. GAA-1..............................12 Figure 9. BCT Anchor Cable and Load Cell Detail, Test No. GAA-1..........................................13 Figure 10. Modified BCT Anchor Cable Detail, Test No. GAA-1................................................14 Figure 11. Shackle and Eye Nut Detail, Test No. GAA-1 .............................................................15 Figure 12. BCT Post Components and Anchor Bracket Details, Test No. GAA-1 .......................16 Figure 13. Ground Strut Details, Test No. GAA-1 ........................................................................17 Figure 14. Rail Section Details, Test No. GAA-1 .........................................................................18 Figure 15. Guardrail Hardware Details, Test No. GAA-1 .............................................................19 Figure 16. Bill of Materials, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................................20 Figure 17. Bill of Materials, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................................21 Figure 18. Test Construction, Test No. GAA-1.............................................................................22 Figure 19. Test Construction Soil and Asphalt Heating, Test No. GAA-1 ................................23 Figure 20. Test Installation, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................................24 Figure 21. Test Installation, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................................25 Figure 22. End Anchorages, Test No. GAA-1...............................................................................26 Figure 23. Test Vehicle, Test No. GAA-1 .....................................................................................28 Figure 24. Test Vehicle's Interior Floorboards, Test No. GAA-1.................................................29 Figure 25. Vehicle Dimensions, Test No. GAA-1.........................................................................30 Figure 26. Target Geometry, Test No. GAA-1 ..............................................................................31 Figure 27. Location of Load Cell (Downstream Anchorage) ........................................................34 Figure 28. Location of Load Cell (Upstream Anchorage) .............................................................34 Figure 29. Camera Locations, Speeds, and Lens Settings, Test No. GAA-1 ................................35 Figure 30. Summary of Test Results and Sequential Photographs, Test No. GAA-1 ...................42 Figure 31. Additional Sequential Photographs, Test No. GAA-1 .................................................43 Figure 32. Additional Sequential Photographs, Test No. GAA-1 .................................................44 Figure 33. Documentary Photographs, Test No. GAA-1...............................................................45 Figure 34. Impact Location, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................................46 Figure 35. Vehicle Final Position and Trajectory Marks, Test No. GAA-1 ..................................47 Figure 36. Vehicle Final Position, Test No. GAA-1......................................................................48 Figure 37. System Damage, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................................49 Figure 38. System Damage Post Nos. 4 through 15, Test No. GAA-1 ......................................50 Figure 39. System Damage Post Nos. 16 through 27, Test No. GAA-1 ....................................51 Figure 40. Post No. 12 Damage, Test No. GAA-1 ........................................................................52 Figure 41. Post No. 13 Damage, Test No. GAA-1 ........................................................................53 Figure 42. Post No. 14 Damage, Test No. GAA-1 ........................................................................54 Figure 43. Damage to Post Nos. (a) 15 and (b) 16, Test No. GAA-1............................................55 Figure 44. Upstream End Anchor Movement, Test No. GAA-1 ...................................................56 Figure 45. Downstream End Anchorage Movement, Test No. GAA-1.........................................57
vi

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 46. Post Nos. 28 and 29, Downstream End Anchorage, Test No. GAA-1.........................58 Figure 47. Vehicle Damage, Test No. GAA-1...............................................................................59 Figure 48. Vehicle Damage, Test No. GAA-1...............................................................................60 Figure 49. Occupant Compartment Deformation, Test No. GAA-1..............................................61 Figure 50. Vehicle Undercarriage Damage, Test No. GAA-1.......................................................62 Figure 51. SAE CFC60 Longitudinal Acceleration (SLICE-1 and SLICE-2), Test No.
GAA-1................................................................................................................................63 Figure A-1. Georgia DOT Construction Detail S-4.......................................................................69 Figure A-2. Georgia DOT Construction Detail S-4.......................................................................70 Figure A-3. Georgia DOT Asphalt Curb Detail.............................................................................71 Figure C-1. Asphalt Mix, Test No. GAA-1 ...................................................................................79 Figure C-2. W-beam Guardrail at Post Nos. 1 through 26, 28, and 29, Test No. GAA-1.............80 Figure C-3. W-Beam Guardrail at Post No. 27, Test No. GAA-1 .................................................81 Figure C-4. W6x8.5 Posts, Post Nos. 3 through 9, 13 through 14, and 16 through 27, Test
No. GAA-1.........................................................................................................................82 Figure C-5. W6x8.5 Posts, Post Nos. 10 through 12, Test No. GAA-1 ........................................83 Figure C-6. W6x8.5 Posts, Post No. 15, Test No. GAA-1 ............................................................84 Figure C-7. Composite Blockout, Test No. GAA-1 ......................................................................85 Figure C-8. BCT Timber Post, Post Nos. 1 and 2, Test No. GAA-1.............................................86 Figure C-9. BCT Timber Post, Post Nos. 28 and 29, Test No. GAA-1.........................................87 Figure C-10. Foundation Tubes, Test No. GAA-1 ........................................................................88 Figure C-11. Ground Strut Assembly, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................89 Figure C-12. BCT Post Sleeve, Test No. GAA-1 ..........................................................................90 Figure C-13. Anchor Bearing Plate and Bracket Assembly, Test No. GAA-1 .............................91 Figure C-14. BCT Cable Anchor Assembly, Test No. GAA-1 .....................................................92 Figure C-15. BCT Cable Anchor Assembly, Test No. GAA-1 .....................................................93 Figure C-16. 10-in. (254-mm) Post Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 .........................................................94 Figure C-17. -in. (16-mm) Dia. Nut, Test No. GAA-1 ...............................................................95 Figure C-18. 1-in. (32-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 .......................................................96 Figure C-19. 10-in. (254-mm) Hex Bolts, Test No. GAA-1..........................................................97 Figure C-20. 1-in. (38-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 .......................................................98 Figure C-21. 1-in. (38-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 .......................................................99 Figure C-22. 1-in. (38-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 .....................................................100 Figure C-23. -in. (16-mm) Dia. Hex Nut, Test No. GAA-1 .....................................................101 Figure C-24. -in. (22-mm) Dia., 8-in. (203-mm) Long Hex Bolt, Test No. GAA-1 ................102 Figure C-25. -in. (22-mm) Dia. Hex Nut, Test No. GAA-1 .....................................................103 Figure D-1. Vehicle Mass Distribution, Test No. GAA-1 ...........................................................105 Figure E-1. Soil Strength, Initial Calibration Tests, Test No. GAA-1.........................................107 Figure E-2. Static Soil Test, Test No. GAA-1 .............................................................................108 Figure F-1. Floor Pan Deformation Data Set 2, Test No. GAA-1 ............................................110 Figure F-2. Occupant Compartment Deformation Data Set 2, Test No. GAA-1 .....................111 Figure F-3. Exterior Vehicle Crush (NASS) - Front, Test No. GAA-1.......................................112 Figure F-4. Exterior Vehicle Crush (NASS) - Side, Test No. GAA-1 ........................................113 Figure F-5. Windshield Crush, Test No. GAA-1.........................................................................114 Figure G-1. 10-ms Average Longitudinal Deceleration (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1 ...............116 Figure G-2. Longitudinal Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1 ...................117 Figure G-3. Longitudinal Occupant Displacement (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1 .......................118
vii

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure G-4. 10-ms Average Lateral Deceleration (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1.........................119 Figure G-5. Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1 ............................120 Figure G-6. Lateral Occupant Displacement (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1 ................................121 Figure G-7. Vehicle Angular Displacements (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1 ................................122 Figure G-8. Acceleration Severity Index (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1 ......................................123 Figure G-9. 10-ms Average Longitudinal Deceleration (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1 ...............124 Figure G-10. Longitudinal Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1 .................125 Figure G-11. Longitudinal Occupant Displacement (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1 .....................126 Figure G-12. 10-ms Average Lateral Deceleration (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1.......................127 Figure G-13. Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1 ..........................128 Figure G-14. Lateral Occupant Displacement (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1 ..............................129 Figure G-15. Vehicle Angular Displacements (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1 ..............................130 Figure G-16. Acceleration Severity Index (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1 ....................................131
viii

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. MASH 2016 TL-3 Crash Test Conditions for Longitudinal Barriers................................2 Table 2. MASH 2016 Evaluation Criteria for Longitudinal Barrier................................................3 Table 3. Weather Conditions, Test No. GAA-1.............................................................................36 Table 4. Sequential Description of Impact Events, Test No. GAA-1............................................37 Table 5. Maximum Occupant Compartment Deformations by Location ......................................39 Table 6. Summary of OIV, ORA, THIV, PHD, and ASI Values, Test No. GAA-1 .....................40 Table 7. Summary of Safety Performance Evaluation Results......................................................65 Table C-1. Bill of Materials, Test No. GAA-1 ..............................................................................78
ix

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is currently investigating the performance of a strong-beam, W-beam guardrail system with posts driven through an asphalt mow strip, which may also be referred to as a paved shoulder, with the inclusion of a nearby curb. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) was contracted to conduct a full-scale crash test on the standard Midwest Guardrail System (MGS) installed in an asphalt mow strip with a nearby curb in accordance with GDOT Standard Detail S4-2002 and typical curb detail, shown in Appendix A. 1.2 Objective/Scope
The objective of this research study was to evaluate the safety performance of the MGS with shoulder paving and surfacing under the barrier as well as a curb placed behind the barrier. The system was to be evaluated according to the Test Level 3 (TL-3) criteria found in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, Second Edition (MASH 2016) [1]. One full-scale crash test was conducted according to MASH 2016 test designation no. 3-10. Data obtained from this crash test was analyzed, and the results were utilized to make conclusions and recommendations.
1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
2 TEST REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
2.1 Test Requirements
Longitudinal barriers, such as W-beam guardrails, must satisfy impact safety standards in order to be declared eligible for federal reimbursement by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for use on the National Highway System (NHS). For new hardware, these safety standards consist of the guidelines and procedures published in MASH 2016 [1]. Note that there is no difference between MASH 2009 and MASH 2016 for most longitudinal barriers, such as the guardrail system tested and evaluated in this project. According to TL-3 of MASH 2016, longitudinal barrier systems must be subjected to two full-scale vehicle crash tests, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. MASH 2016 TL-3 Crash Test Conditions for Longitudinal Barriers

Test Article

Test Designation
No.

Test Vehicle

Longitudinal

3-10

1100C

Barrier

3-11

2270P

1 Evaluation criteria explained in Table 2.

Vehicle Weight,
lb (kg)
2,425 (1,100) 5,000 (2,268)

Impact Conditions

Speed, mph (km/h)

Angle, deg.

62.0 (100.0)

25

62.0 (100.0)

25

Evaluation Criteria 1
A,D,F,H,I A,D,F,H,I

2.2 Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria for full-scale vehicle crash testing are based on three appraisal areas: (1) structural adequacy; (2) occupant risk; and (3) vehicle trajectory after collision. Criteria for structural adequacy are intended to evaluate the ability of the barrier (i.e., W-beam guardrail system installed in an asphalt mow strip with a curb placed behind the barrier) to contain and redirect impacting vehicles. In addition, controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable. Occupant risk evaluates the degree of hazard to occupants in the impacting vehicle. Post-impact vehicle trajectory is a measure of the potential of the vehicle to result in a secondary collision with other vehicles and/or fixed objects, thereby increasing the risk of injury to the occupants of the impacting vehicle and/or other vehicles. These evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 2 and defined in greater detail in MASH 2016. The full-scale vehicle crash test was conducted and reported in accordance with the procedures provided in MASH 2016.
In addition to the standard occupant risk measures, the Post-Impact Head Deceleration (PHD), the Theoretical Head Impact Velocity (THIV), and the Acceleration Severity Index (ASI) were determined and reported. Additional discussion on PHD, THIV and ASI is provided in MASH 2016.

2

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
2.3 Soil Strength Requirements
In accordance with Chapter 3 and Appendix B of MASH 2016, foundation soil strength must be verified before any full-scale crash testing can occur. During the installation of a soil dependent system, additional W6x16 (W152x23.8) posts are installed along the barrier system in critical regions, such as near the impact point and the end anchorages, utilizing the same installation procedures as the system itself. Prior to full-scale crash testing, a dynamic impact (i.e., bogie) test must be conducted to verify a minimum dynamic soil resistance of 7.5 kips (33.4 kN) at post deflections between 5 and 20 in. (127 and 508 mm) measured at a height of 25 in. (635 mm). If dynamic testing near the system is not desired, MASH 2016 permits a static test to be conducted in lieu of the bogie test, where the new results are compared to the results from a previously-established baseline test. In this situation, the soil must provide a resistance of at least 90% of the static baseline test at deflections of 5, 10, and 15 in. (127, 254, and 381 mm). Further details can be found in Appendix B of MASH 2016.

Table 2. MASH 2016 Evaluation Criteria for Longitudinal Barrier

A. Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle or bring the vehicle

Structural

to a controlled stop; the vehicle should not penetrate, underride, or

Adequacy

override the installation although controlled lateral deflection of the

test article is acceptable.

D. Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the occupant compartment should not exceed limits set forth in Section 5.2.2 and Appendix E of MASH 2016.

F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision. The maximum roll and pitch angles are not to exceed 75 degrees.

H. Occupant Impact Velocity (OIV) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of

MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following

Occupant

limits:

Risk

Occupant Impact Velocity Limits

Component

Preferred

Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral

30 ft/s (9.1 m/s)

40 ft/s (12.2 m/s)

I. The Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (ORA) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following limits:

Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits

Component

Preferred

Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral

15.0 g's

20.49 g's

3

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
3 DESIGN DETAILS
The test installation measured 182 ft 3 in. (55.6 m) long and consisted of standard MGS installed in an asphalt mow strip and with a curb placed behind the barrier, as shown in Figures 1 through 17. A second guardrail system was installed behind the primary system (test no. GAA-1) for the subsequent test in this series that was not conducted. Photographs of test construction and installation are shown in Figures 18 through 22. Material specifications, mill certifications, and certificates of conformity for the system materials are shown in Appendix C.
Standard 12-gauge (2.7-mm) thick W-beam rail segments were supported by 72-in. (1,829mm) long, W6x8.5 (W152x12.6) steel posts. The W-beam rail was mounted with a top-rail height of 32 in. (813 mm). Rail splices were located at midspans between posts, as shown in Figure 3. The lap splice connections between the rail sections were configured to reduce the potential for vehicle snag at the splice during impact. The posts were spaced at 75 in. (1,905 mm) on center. Holes 36 in. (914 mm) wide were cored and filled with densely-compacted, coarse crush limestone strong soil at post locations before asphalt was laid, as recommended by MASH 2016 [1]. Post nos. 10 through 21 were driven through the approximately 3-in. (89-mm) thick asphalt mow strip to an embedment depth of 39 in. (991 mm). A Mondo Polymer MGS14SH [2] blockout was used to offset the rail away from the front face of each steel post.
The upstream and downstream ends of the guardrail installation were configured with a trailing-end anchorage system. The guardrail anchorage system was utilized to simulate the tensile strength of other crashworthy end terminals. Each anchorage system consisted of timber posts, foundation tubes, anchor cables, bearing plates, rail brackets, and channel struts, which closely resembled the hardware used in the Modified BCT system and was consistent with hardware used in a crashworthy, downstream trailing end terminal [3-6]. Load cell assemblies were spliced into the upstream and downstream anchorage anchor cables to measure the loads experienced during full-scale crash testing.
A one-layer 75-ft (22.9-m) long by 3-in. (89-mm) thick asphalt mow strip was located below the guardrail system. A 5-in. (127-mm) tall by 8-in. (203-mm) wide asphalt curb was placed 39 in. (991 mm) behind the front face of the guardrail or 14 in. (359 mm) behind the back face of the posts. The total width of the asphalt mow strip behind the back face of the post was approximately 23 in. (584 mm). According to GDOT specifications, 12.5 mm Superpave asphalt should be used. This was substituted with NE SPR Binder PG 64-22 asphalt. Asphalt cores were taken from the downstream end, upstream end, and impact region of the system to evaluate asphalt thickness. Testing at the Structural Engineering Mechanics and Materials Laboratory at Georgia Institute of Technology found that core thickness ranged from 3 in. (95 mm) to 4 in. (108 mm) and the asphalt demonstrated an average compressive strength of approximately 400 psi. Further details are provided in Appendix B.
A heating system was used to ensure that the soil was not frozen during construction and before the full-scale crash test was conducted, as seen in Figure 19. The heating system is capable of thawing 18 in. (457 mm) of soil over a 12-hour period. Holes were drilled through the asphalt and into the frozen soil. Soil temperature was taken at a depth of 3 ft (914 mm) using an infrared thermometer probe. Prior to conducting the crash test, the soil temperature at bottom of the holes was approximately 60 degrees.
4

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
5

Figure 1. Test Installation Layout, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
6

Figure 2. Post and Curb Detail, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
7

Figure 3. Splice Detail, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
8

Figure 4. End Anchorage Detail, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
9

Figure 5. Anchorage Component Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
10

Figure 6. Post Nos. 3 through 29 and Plastic Blockout Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
11

Figure 7. Additional Plastic Blockout Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
12

Figure 8. BCT Timber Posts and Foundation Tube Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
13

Figure 9. BCT Anchor Cable and Load Cell Detail, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
14

Figure 10. Modified BCT Anchor Cable Detail, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
15

Figure 11. Shackle and Eye Nut Detail, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
16

Figure 12. BCT Post Components and Anchor Bracket Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
17

Figure 13. Ground Strut Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
18

Figure 14. Rail Section Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
19

Figure 15. Guardrail Hardware Details, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
20

Figure 16. Bill of Materials, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
21

Figure 17. Bill of Materials, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
22

Figure 18. Test Construction, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
23

Figure 19. Test Construction Soil and Asphalt Heating, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
24

Figure 20. Test Installation, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
25

Figure 21. Test Installation, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
26

Upstream Anchorage Figure 22. End Anchorages, Test No. GAA-1

Downstream Anchorage

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
4 TEST CONDITIONS
4.1 Test Facility
The Outdoor Test Site is located at the Lincoln Air Park on the northwest side of the Lincoln Municipal Airport and is approximately 5 miles (8.0 km) northwest of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
4.2 Vehicle Tow and Guidance System
A reverse-cable, tow system with a 1:2 mechanical advantage was used to propel the test vehicle. The distance traveled and the speed of the tow vehicle were one-half that of the test vehicle. The test vehicle was released from the tow cable before impact with the barrier system. A digital speedometer on the tow vehicle increased the accuracy of the test vehicle impact speed.
A vehicle guidance system developed by Hinch [7] was used to steer the test vehicle. A guide flag, attached to the left-front wheel and the guide cable, was sheared off before impact with the barrier system. The -in. (9.5-mm) diameter guide cable was tensioned to approximately 3,500 lb (15.6 kN) and supported both laterally and vertically every 100 ft (30.5 m) by hinged stanchions. The hinged stanchions stood upright while holding up the guide cable. As the vehicle was towed down the cable line, the guide flag struck and knocked each stanchion to the ground.
4.3 Test Vehicles
For test no. GAA-1, a 2011 Kia Rio was used as the test vehicle. The curb, test inertial, and gross static vehicle weights were 2,326 lb (1,055 kg), 2,392 lb (1,085 kg), and 2,552 lb (1,158 kg), respectively. The test vehicle is shown in Figures 23 and 24, and vehicle dimensions are shown in Figure 25.
The longitudinal component of the center of gravity (c.g.) was estimated using the measured axle weights. The vertical component of the c.g. for the 1100C vehicle was determined utilizing a procedure published by SAE [8]. The location of the final c.g. is shown in Figures 25 and 26. Data used to calculate the location of the c.g. and ballast information are shown in Appendix D.
Square, black- and white-checkered targets were placed on the vehicle for reference to be viewed from the high-speed digital video cameras and aid in the video analysis, as shown in Figure 26. Round, checkered targets were placed on the c.g. on the left-side door, the right-side door, and the roof of the vehicle.
The front wheels of the test vehicle were aligned to vehicle standards except the toe-in value was adjusted to zero so that the vehicle would track properly along the guide cable. A 5B flash bulb was mounted under the vehicle's left-side windshield wiper and was fired by a pressure tape switch mounted at the impact corner of the bumper. The flash bulb was fired upon initial impact with the test article to create a visual indicator of the precise time of impact on the highspeed digital videos. A remote-controlled brake system was installed in the test vehicle so the vehicle could be brought safely to a stop after the test.
27

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 23. Test Vehicle, Test No. GAA-1 28

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
29

Figure 24. Test Vehicle's Interior Floorboards, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 25. Vehicle Dimensions, Test No. GAA-1 30

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 26. Target Geometry, Test No. GAA-1 31

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
4.4 Simulated Occupant
For test no. GAA-1, a Hybrid II 50th-Percentile, Adult Male Dummy, equipped with clothing and footwear, was placed in the right-front seat of the test vehicle with the seat belt fastened. The dummy, which had a final weight of 160 lb (73 kg), was represented by model no. 572, serial no. 451, and was manufactured by Android Systems of Carson, California. As recommended by MASH 2016, the dummy was not included in calculating the c.g. location.
4.5 Data Acquisition Systems
4.5.1 Accelerometers
Two environmental shock and vibration sensor/recorder systems were used to measure the accelerations in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions. Both of the accelerometers were mounted near the c.g. of the test vehicle. The electronic accelerometer data obtained in dynamic testing was filtered using the SAE Class 60 and the SAE Class 180 Butterworth filter conforming to the SAE J211/1 specifications [9].
The two systems, the SLICE-1 and SLICE-2 units, were modular data acquisition systems manufactured by Diversified Technical Systems, Inc. (DTS) of Seal Beach, California. The SLICE-2 unit was designated as the primary system. The acceleration sensors were mounted inside the bodies of custom-built SLICE 6DX event data recorders and recorded data at 10,000 Hz to the onboard microprocessor. Each SLICE 6DX was configured with 7 GB of non-volatile flash memory, a range of 500 g's, a sample rate of 10,000 Hz, and a 1,650 Hz (CFC 1000) anti-aliasing filter. The "SLICEWare" computer software program and a customized Microsoft Excel worksheet were used to analyze and plot the accelerometer data.
4.5.2 Rate Transducers
Two identical angle rate sensor systems were mounted inside the bodies of the SLICE-1 and SLICE-2 event data recorders and were used to measure the rates of rotation of the test vehicle. Each SLICE MICRO Triax ARS had a range of 1,500 degrees/sec in each of the three directions (roll, pitch, and yaw) and recorded data at 10,000 Hz to the onboard microprocessors. The raw data measurements were then downloaded, converted to the proper Euler angles for analysis, and plotted. The "SLICEWare" computer software program and a customized Microsoft Excel worksheet were used to analyze and plot the angular rate sensor data.
4.5.3 Retroreflective Optic Speed Trap
The retroreflective optic speed trap was used to determine the speed of the test vehicle before impact. Five retroreflective targets, spaced at approximately 18-in. (457-mm) intervals, were applied to the side of the vehicle. When the emitted beam of light was reflected by the targets and returned to the Emitter/Receiver, a signal was sent to the data acquisition computer, recording at 10,000 Hz, as well as the external LED box activating the LED flashes. The speed was then calculated using the spacing between the retroreflective targets and the time between the signals. LED lights and high-speed digital video analysis are only used as a backup in the event that vehicle speeds cannot be determined from the electronic data.
32

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
4.5.4 Load Cells Load cells were installed on the upstream and downstream anchor cables for test no. GAA1. The load cells were Transducer Techniques model no. TLL-50K with a load range up to 50 kips (222 kN). During testing, output voltage signals were sent from the transducers to a National Instruments PCI-6071E data acquisition board, acquired with LabView software, and stored on a personal computer at a sample rate of 10,000 Hz. The positioning and set up of the transducers are shown in Figures 27 and 28. Note that the load cell data was deemed to be erroneous and was not used, as detailed in Section 5.7. 4.5.5 Digital Photography Five AOS high-speed digital video cameras, eight GoPro digital video cameras, and four JVC digital video cameras were utilized to film test no. GAA-1. Camera details, camera operating speeds, lens information, and a schematic of the camera locations relative to the system are shown in Figure 29. The high-speed videos were analyzed using ImageExpress MotionPlus and RedLake MotionScope software programs. Actual camera speed and camera divergence factors were considered in the analysis of the high-speed videos. A digital still camera was also used to document pre- and post-test conditions for the test.
33

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 27. Location of Load Cell (Downstream Anchorage)
Figure 28. Location of Load Cell (Upstream Anchorage) 34

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
35

No.

Type

Operating Speed (frames/sec)

Lens

AOS-2 AOS-5

AOS Vitcam CTM AOS X-PRI Gigabit

500

KOWA 25 mm Fixed

500

VIVITAR 135 mm Fixed

AOS-6

AOS X-PRI Gigabit

500

SIGMA 28-70

AOS-8 AOS-9

AOS S-VIT 1531 AOS TRI-VIT

500

SIGMA 28-70 DG

500

KOWA 12 mm Fixed

GP-3

GoPro Hero 3+

120

GP-4

GoPro Hero 3+

120

GP-5

GoPro Hero 3+

120

GP-6

GoPro Hero 3+

120

GP-7

GoPro Hero 4

120

GP-8

GoPro Hero 4

120

GP-9

GoPro Hero 4

240

GP-10

GoPro Hero 4

240

JVC-1

JVC GZ-MC500 (Everio)

29.97

JVC-2 JVC-3

JVC GZ-MG27u (Everio) JVC GZ-MG27u (Everio)

29.97 29.97

JVC-4

JVC GZ-MG27u (Everio)

29.97

Figure 29. Camera Locations, Speeds, and Lens Settings, Test No. GAA-1

Lens Setting
70 70 -

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
5 FULL-SCALE CRASH TEST NO. GAA-1
5.1 Static Soil Test
Before full-scale crash test no. GAA-1 was conducted, the strength of the foundation soil was evaluated with a static test, as described in MASH 2016. The static test results, as shown in Appendix E, demonstrated that the post-soil resistance was above the baseline test limits. Thus, the soil provided adequate strength, and full-scale crash testing could be conducted on the barrier system.
5.2 Weather Conditions
Test no. GAA-1 was conducted on February 14, 2017 at approximately 2:15 p.m. The weather conditions as per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (station 14939/LNK) were reported and are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Weather Conditions, Test No. GAA-1
Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Wind Direction Sky Conditions Visibility Pavement Surface Previous 3-Day Precipitation Previous 7-Day Precipitation

53 F 32 % 17 mph 320 from True North Overcast 10 Statute Miles Dry 0 in. 0.01 in.

5.3 Test Description
The small car, with a test inertial weight of 2,392 lb (1,085 kg), impacted the strong-post, W-beam guardrail system installed with posts driven into an asphalt mow strip with a curb placed behind the barrier at a speed of 62.8 mph (101.1 km/h) and at an angle of 25.1 degrees. A summary of the test results and sequential photographs are shown in Figure 30. Additional sequential photographs are shown in Figures 31 through 32. Documentary photographs of the crash test are shown in Figure 33. Note that a second guardrail system was installed behind the primary barrier system (test no. GAA-1) for the subsequent test in this series that was not conducted. The second system is visible in the sequential, documentary, and damage photographs.
Initial vehicle impact was to occur 111 in. (2,835 mm) upstream from the centerline of post no. 14., as shown in Figure 34, which was selected using the CIP plots found in Section 2.3 of MASH 2016 to maximize vehicle pocketing, wheel snag, and the propensity for rail rupture. The actual point of impact was 104.3 in. (2,649 mm) upstream from the centerline of post no. 14. A sequential description of the impact events is contained in Table 4. The vehicle came to rest underneath the guardrail approximately 296 in. (7,518 mm) downstream from the impact point. The vehicle's trajectory and final position are shown in Figures 30, 35, and 36.
36

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

Table 4. Sequential Description of Impact Events, Test No. GAA-1

TIME (sec) 0.000
0.005 0.010 0.024 0.028 0.038 0.041 0.052 0.062 0.064 0.068 0.074 0.082 0.092 0.098
0.104
0.120 0.136 0.138 0.182
0.186
0.202
0.207
0.220 0.285 0.348 0.360 0.526 0.648 1.217

EVENT
Vehicle's right-front bumper contacted rail between post nos. 12 and 13 and deformed. Post no. 13 deflected backward. Post no. 11 twisted clockwise. Vehicle right headlight shattered. Vehicle's right-front door contacted rail and deformed. Vehicle's right A-pillar deformed. Vehicle's right-front tire contacted post no. 13. Vehicle underrode rail. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 13. Vehicle's right-side airbag deployed. Vehicle pitched downward and left-side airbag deployed. Vehicle's windshield shattered from right-side airbag deployment. Post no. 14 deflected downstream. Vehicle front bumper contacted post no. 14. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 10. Vehicle's right mirror contacted rail and deformed. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 14. Vehicle's right-front bumper disengaged. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 6. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 8. Rail disengaged from bolts at post nos. 4 and 7. Vehicle's left-front tire became airborne. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 12. Vehicle's left-front bumper disengaged. Vehicle's front bumper contacted post no. 15. Blockout no. 15 disengaged from rail at post no. 15. Vehicle's left-front headlight disengaged and blockout no. 15 disengaged from post no. 15. Vehicle's right A-pillar contacted rail. Vehicle underrode rail and rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 16. Vehicle contacted post no. 16. Vehicle's roof underrode rail. Vehicle contacted post no. 17. Rail disengaged from bolt at post no. 17. Vehicle came to rest.
37

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
5.4 Barrier Damage
Damage to the barrier was extensive, as shown in Figures 37 through 44. Barrier damage consisted of rail deformation, contact marks on the front face of the guardrail, guardrail disengagement from posts, deformed steel posts, and asphalt gouging. The length of vehicle contact along the barrier was approximately 27 ft 7 in. (8.4 m), which spanned from 38 in. (975 mm) downstream from the centerline of post no. 12 through 5 in. (127 mm) upstream from the centerline of post no. 17. The maximum vehicle pocketing angle was 20 degrees.
The bottom corrugation of the rail was flattened, starting 25 in. (635 mm) upstream from the centerline of post no. 14 and extending downstream 54 in. (1,372 mm). The post bolt holes in the rail tore at post nos. 12 through 16. A 2-in. (51-mm) long kink was found on the top edge of the rail at the centerline of post no. 12. Vertical kinks, 3 in. (76 mm) and 1 in. (25 mm) long, were located 1 in. (25 mm) downstream from the centerline of post no. 12 on the middle corrugation and at the bottom edge of the rail, respectively. Contact marks on the guardrail began at the centerline of the impact target and extended continuously downstream to 5 in. (127 mm) upstream from the centerline of post no. 17. A 3-in. (76-mm) long kink was found 8 in. (203 mm) upstream from the centerline of post no. 13. Additional kinking with lengths of 2 in. (51 mm), 3 in. (76 mm), and 6 in. (152 mm) was located at 5 in. (127 mm), 26 in. (660 mm), and 34 in. (864 mm) downstream from the centerline of post no. 13, respectively. A 14-in. (356-mm) long kink was located 7 in. (178 mm) downstream from the centerline of post no. 14 on the top edge of the rail. An 8-in. (203-mm) long kink was found on the bottom edge of the rail at the centerline of post no. 15. A 5-in. (127-mm) long kink was located 3 in. (76 mm) downstream of post no. 16. A 10-in. (254-mm) long bend occurred on the top corrugation at the centerline of post no. 17. A 2-in. (51mm) long kink was found on the bottom edge of the rail 10 in. (254 mm) downstream from the centerline of post no. 17. The rail at the centerline of post no. 18 had a -in. (13-mm) long kink on the top edge.
Post nos. 13 through 17 buckled at the groundline. Post nos. 9 and 17 through 27 twisted counterclockwise. Post nos. 14 and 15 had full blockout disengagement, and post no. 13 had the bottom half of the blockout disengaged. At the groundline, post no. 13 had a 1-in. (38-mm) horizontal tear on its front upstream flange and a -in. (13-mm) horizontal tear on the downstream edge of the front flange. Contact marks were found on post no. 13 starting 3 in. (76 mm) above the groundline on the front flange and extended vertically 18 in. (457 mm). The post bolt for post no. 13 was bent. Contact marks were found on post no. 14 on the edge of the upstream flanges extending vertically the height of the post and on the front face of the upstream flange starting 3 in. (76 mm) above the groundline and extending 16 in. (406 mm) upward. The front upstream flange of post no. 14 was bent backward 3 in. (76 mm) starting at the groundline and extending vertically 8 in. (203 mm). A 2-in (51-mm) long horizontal tear was found on the upstream flanges of post no. 15 just above the groundline. Two 1-in. (38-mm) tears were located 1 in. (25 mm) above the groundline on the upstream flanges of post no. 16. Contact marks were found on post no. 17 beginning 9 in. (229 mm) above the groundline and extending 7 in. (178 mm) upward. Gouging was found on the front upstream and downstream edges of the blockout at post no. 17.
Post no. 1 had a 5-in. (140-mm) soil gap on the upstream side and a 37-in. (940-mm) diameter by 4-in. (114-mm) tall soil heave on the downstream side. Post no. 2 had a soil gap of 4 in. (114 mm) on the upstream side and a 29-in. (737-mm) diameter by 5-in. (127-mm) tall soil
38

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
heave on the downstream side. Post nos. 13, 14, 15, and 17 also had minor gaps in the asphalt. For the downstream BCT wood posts and foundation tubes, no longitudinal movement or damage was observed, as documented in Figure 45. More specifically, the wood posts were not cracked or split at the post bolt locations, as depicted in Figure 46.
The maximum lateral permanent set of the rail and post deflection were 17 in. (448 mm) at the rail at post no. 14 and 12 in. (311 mm) at post no. 13, respectively, as measured in the field. The maximum lateral dynamic rail and post deflection were 28 in. (712 mm) at post no. 14 and 22.3 in. (566 mm) at post no. 13, respectively, as determined from high-speed digital video analysis. The working width of the system was found to be 59.3 in. (1,507 mm), also determined from high-speed digital video analysis.
5.5 Vehicle Damage
The damage to the vehicle was extensive, as shown in Figures 47 through 50. The maximum occupant compartment deformations are listed in Table 5 along with the deformation limits established in MASH 2016 for various areas of the occupant compartment. The MASH 2016-established deformation limit for the roof was violated with a maximum deformation of 5 in. (130 mm). Complete occupant compartment and vehicle deformations and the corresponding locations are provided in Appendix F.

Table 5. Maximum Occupant Compartment Deformations by Location

LOCATION
Wheel Well & Toe Pan Floor Pan & Transmission Tunnel
A-Pillar A-Pillar (Lateral)
B-Pillar B-Pillar (Lateral) Side Front Panel (in Front of A-Pillar) Side Door (Above Seat) Side Door (Below Seat)
Roof Windshield

MAXIMUM DEFORMATION
in. (mm)
1 (41) (10) (22) (19) (6) (6) (22) (6) (6) 5 (130) 7 (181)

MASH 2016 ALLOWABLE DEFORMATION
in. (mm) 9 (229) 12 (305) 5 (127) 3 (76) 5 (127) 3 (76) 12 (305) 9 (229) 12 (305) 4 (102) 3 (76)

The majority of the damage was concentrated on the right-front corner and the front side of the vehicle. The radiator was crushed and bent inward approximately 6 in. (152 mm). The front bumper, right and left headlights, and right hood attachment disengaged from the vehicle. The roof was crushed, while the windshield was deformed and shattered, as shown in Figures 48 and 49.
39

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Further windshield crush details are provided in Appendix F. The hood was dented and buckled in numerous locations, as shown in Figure 48. The entire right side had contact and scrape marks and dents. The right-side mirror had contact marks and broke, but remained attached. Contact and scrape marks, denting, and buckling were found along the right-side fender. A -in. (6-mm) gap was found at the bottom between the right fender and right-front door. A -in. (6-mm) overlap occurred near the center between the right-front door and the right fender. A -in. (13-mm) long gap was found between the right-front door and the roof and a -in. (16-mm) gap was found at the top of the right-front and right-rear doors. The right-side A-pillar was crushed at the front. The right-front tire rim was bent inward approximately 3 in. (76 mm). A -in. (6-mm) gap was found between the left fender and the A-pillar of the vehicle. The left forward frame element of the vehicle was bent inward 6 in. (152 mm). A 1-in. (25-mm) long tear was found in the right-rear floor pan, and a tear was found in the oil pan, as depicted in Figures 49 and 50. The peak SAE CFC60 longitudinal acceleration was found to be approximately -35.87 g's and -21.09 g's for SLICE-1 and SLICE-2, respectively, as shown in Figure 51.
5.6 Occupant Risk
The calculated occupant impact velocities (OIVs) and maximum 0.010-sec average occupant ridedown accelerations (ORAs) in both the longitudinal and lateral directions are shown in Table 6. The longitudinal ORA exceeded the suggested limits provided in MASH 2016. The calculated THIV, PHD, and ASI values are also shown in Table 6. The results of the occupant risk analysis, as determined from the accelerometer data, are summarized in Figure 30. The recorded data from the accelerometers and the rate transducers are shown graphically in Appendix G.

Table 6. Summary of OIV, ORA, THIV, PHD, and ASI Values, Test No. GAA-1

Evaluation Criteria

OIV ft/s (m/s)

Longitudinal Lateral

ORA g's

Longitudinal Lateral

MAX. ANGULAR
DISPL. deg.

Roll Pitch Yaw

THIV ft/s (m/s)
PHD g's

ASI

Transducer

SLICE-1

SLICE-2 (primary)

-27.02 (-8.23) -26.19 (-7.98)

-12.70 (-3.87) -22.60 8.89 -8.46 -5.90 -11.31

-13.28 (-4.05) -21.80 -7.88 -9.66 -6.15 -12.59

27.79 (8.47) 27.53 (8.39)

23.27

22.52

1.04

0.98

MASH 2016 Limits
40 (12.2) 40 (12.2)
20.49 20.49
75 75 not required not required not required not required

40

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
5.7 Load Cells The pertinent data from the load cells was extracted from the bulk signal and analyzed
using the transducer's calibration factor. After analysis, it was observed that the upstream and downstream loads were inconsistent and could not be correlated with the observed end anchor deflections. Therefore, the load cell data was deemed to be erroneous and was not used. 5.8 Discussion
The analysis of the test results for test no. GAA-1 showed that the barrier system adequately contained the 1100C vehicle with controlled lateral displacements of the barrier. There were no detached elements or fragments that presented undue hazard to other traffic, however, deformations of, or intrusions into, the occupant compartment that could have caused serious injury did occur. The test vehicle did not penetrate nor ride over the barrier and remained upright during and after the collision. Vehicle roll, pitch, and yaw angular displacements, as shown in Appendix G, were deemed acceptable, because they did not adversely influence occupant risk safety criteria nor cause rollover. The maximum longitudinal ORA value of -21.80 g's recorded by SLICE-2 (the primary data recorder) exceeded the MASH 2016 limit of 20.49 g's. Therefore, test no. GAA-1 was determined to be unacceptable according to the TL-3 MASH 2016 safety performance criteria provided for test designation no. 3-10.
41

0.000 sec

0.070 sec

0.160 sec

0.270 sec

0.648 sec

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
42

Test Agency .........................................................................................................MwRSF Test Number.......................................................................................................... GAA-1 Date.......................................................................................................................2/14/17 MASH Test Designation ............................................................................................3-10 Test Article......................................................... MGS with Asphalt Mow Strip and Curb Total Length ............................................................................... 182 ft 3 in. (55.6 m) Key Component W-Beam Guardrail
Thickness.................................................................................... 12 gauge (2.66 mm) Top Mounting Height ....................................................................... 32 in. (813 mm) Key Component Steel Post (Driven) Shape ....................................................................................... W6x8.5 (W152x12.6) Length ........................................................................................... 72 in. (1,829 mm) Embedment Depth ............................................................................ 39 in. (991 mm) Spacing .......................................................................................... 75 in. (1,905 mm) Soil Type ......... 3-in. (89-mm) thick Asphalt Mow Strip on coarse, crushed limestone Vehicle Make /Model..........................................................................2011 Kia Rio 1100 Curb..............................................................................................2,326 lb (1,055 kg) Test Inertial...................................................................................2,392 lb (1,085 kg) Gross Static...................................................................................2,552 lb (1,158 kg) Impact Conditions Speed ......................................................................................62.8 mph (101.1 km/h) Angle ............................................................................................................ 25.1 deg Impact Location..........104.3 in. (2,649 mm) upstream from centerline of post no. 14 Impact Severity (IS) ...... 56.8 kip-ft (77 kJ) > 51 kip-ft (69.1 kJ) limit from MASH 2016 Exit Conditions Speed .................................................................................................................. N/A Angle .................................................................................................................. N/A Exit Box Criterion .................................................................... N/A (Did not exit system) Vehicle Stability............................................................................................. Satisfactory Vehicle Stopping Distance ..................... 24 ft 8 in. (7.3 m) Downstream within system Vehicle Damage ................................................................................................ Extensive VDS [10] ....................................................................................................... 1-FR-7 CDC [11] ................................................................................................01-FDAW-9 Maximum Interior Deformation ...................................................... 5 in. (130 mm)

Test Article Damage ..........................................................................................Extensive

Maximum Test Article Deflections

Permanent Set ................................................................................17 in. (448 mm)

Dynamic............................................................................................28 in. (712 mm)

Working Width............................................................................ 59.3 in. (1,507 mm)

Transducer Data

Evaluation Criteria

Transducer

SLICE-1

SLICE-2 (Primary)

MASH Limit

OIV ft/s (m/s)

Longitudinal Lateral

-27.02 (-8.23) -12.70 (-3.87)

-26.19 (-7.98) -13.28 (-4.05)

40 (12.2) 40 (12.2)

ORA g's

Longitudinal Lateral

-22.60 8.89

-21.80 -7.88

20.49 20.49

MAX ANGULAR
DISP. deg.

Roll Pitch Yaw

THIV ft/s (m/s)

PHD g's

ASI

-8.46 -5.90 -11.31 27.79 (8.47) 23.27 1.04

-9.66 -6.15 -12.59 27.53 (8.39) 22.52 0.98

75
75
not required
not required
not required
not required

Figure 30. Summary of Test Results and Sequential Photographs, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

0.000 sec

0.000 sec

0.038 sec

0.044 sec

0.064 sec

0.084

0.148 sec

0.182 sec

0.382 sec

0.382 sec

0.526 sec Figure 31. Additional Sequential Photographs, Test No. GAA-1
43

0.526 sec

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

0.000 sec

0.000 sec

0.064 sec

0.064 sec

0.148 sec

0.104 sec

0.202 sec

0.202 sec

0.420 sec

0.404 sec

1.120 sec Figure 32. Additional Sequential Photographs, Test No. GAA-1

0.726 sec

44

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 33. Documentary Photographs, Test No. GAA-1 45

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 34. Impact Location, Test No. GAA-1 46

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 35. Vehicle Final Position and Trajectory Marks, Test No. GAA-1 47

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
48

Figure 36. Vehicle Final Position, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
49

Figure 37. System Damage, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 38. System Damage Post Nos. 4 through 15, Test No. GAA-1 50

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 39. System Damage Post Nos. 16 through 27, Test No. GAA-1 51

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 40. Post No. 12 Damage, Test No. GAA-1 52

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 41. Post No. 13 Damage, Test No. GAA-1 53

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure 42. Post No. 14 Damage, Test No. GAA-1 54

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
55

(a)

(b)

Figure 43. Damage to Post Nos. (a) 15 and (b) 16, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
56

Figure 44. Upstream End Anchor Movement, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
57

Figure 45. Downstream End Anchorage Movement, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
58

Figure 46. Post Nos. 28 and 29, Downstream End Anchorage, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
59

Figure 47. Vehicle Damage, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
60

Figure 48. Vehicle Damage, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
61

Figure 49. Occupant Compartment Deformation, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
62

Figure 50. Vehicle Undercarriage Damage, Test No. GAA-1

Longitudinal CFC 60 Filtered Acceleration SLICE-1 and SLICE-2 Comparison
GAA-1
20

10

Longitudinal CFC 60 Filtered Acceleration (g's)

0

-10

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
63

-20

-30

-40

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Tim e (sec)

DTS SLICE 1 Longitudinal CFC 60 Filtered Acceleration (g's)

DTS-SLICE 2 Longitudinal CFC 60 Filtered Acceleration (g's)

Figure 51. SAE CFC60 Longitudinal Acceleration (SLICE-1 and SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS An MGS was installed in an asphalt mow strip with an asphalt curb placed behind it, as shown in Figures 2 and 20. The barrier system was crash tested and evaluated according to MASH 2016. One full-scale crash test was performed according to the TL-3 safety performance criteria, specifically test designation no. 3-10. Test no. GAA-1 consisted of a 2,392-lb (1,085-kg) small car impacting the MGS at a speed of 62.8 mph (101.1 km/h) and at an angle of 25.1 degrees for an impact severity of 56.8 kip-ft (77 kJ). The vehicle was brought to a stop while in contact with the system. A 1-in. (25-mm) tear was found in the left-rear floor pan. The occupant compartment deformation for the roof was 5 in. (130 mm), which exceeded the MASH 2016 limit of 4 in. (102 mm), and the windshield was crushed in 7 in. (181 mm), which exceeded the MASH 2016 limit of 3 in. (76 mm). The maximum longitudinal ORA value of -21.80 g's recorded by SLICE-2 (the primary data recorder) exceeded the MASH 2016 limit of 20.49 g's. Note, the secondary data recorder value also exceeded the maximum longitudinal ORA value. Thus, the MGS that was installed in an asphalt mow strip with a curb placed behind it was unacceptable according to the safety performance criteria presented in MASH 2016. A summary of the safety performance evaluation is provided in Table 7.
64

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

Table 7. Summary of Safety Performance Evaluation Results

Evaluation Factors A. Structural
Adequacy D.
F. H. Occupant Risk
I.
S Satisfactory

Evaluation Criteria

Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle or bring the vehicle to a controlled stop; the vehicle should not penetrate, underride, or override the installation although controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable.

Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or personnel in a work zone. Deformations of, or intrusions into, the occupant compartment should not exceed limits set forth in Section 5.2.2 and Appendix E of MASH 2016.

The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision. The maximum roll and pitch angles are not to exceed 75 degrees.

Occupant Impact Velocity (OIV) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following limits:

Occupant Impact Velocity Limits

Component

Preferred

Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral

30 ft/s (9.1 m/s)

40 ft/s (12.2 m/s)

The Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (ORA) (see Appendix A, Section A5.2.2 of MASH 2016 for calculation procedure) should satisfy the following limits:

Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits

Component

Preferred

Maximum

Longitudinal and Lateral

15.0 g's

20.49 g's

MASH 2016 Test Designation No.

Final Evaluation (Pass or Fail)

U Unsatisfactory

NA - Not Applicable

Test No. GAA-1
S
U S
S
U 3-10 Fail

65

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
7 REFERENCES
1. Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), Second Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C., 2016.
2. Lechtenberg, K.A., Bielenberg, R.W., Albuquerque, F.B., and Faller, R.K., Performance Analysis of the Mondo Polymer Blockout for Use in MGS Installations, Report No. TRP-03289-13, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, May 23, 2013.
3. Mongiardini, M., Faller, R.K., Reid, J.D., Sicking, D.L., Stolle, C.S., and Lechtenberg, K.A., Downstream Anchoring Requirements for the Midwest Guardrail System, Report No. TRP03-279-13, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, October 28, 2013.
4. Mongiardini, M., Faller, R.K., Reid, J.D., and Sicking, D.L., Dynamic Evaluation and Implementation Guidelines for a Non-Proprietary W-Beam Guardrail Trailing-End Terminal, Paper No. 13-5277, Transportation Research Record No. 2377, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, TRB AFB20 Committee on Roadside Safety Design, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2013, pages 61-73.
5. Stolle, C.S., Reid, J.D., Faller, R.K., and Mongiardini, M., Dynamic Strength of a Modified W-Beam BCT Trailing-End Termination, Paper No. IJCR 886R1, Manuscript ID 1009308, International Journal of Crashworthiness, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 20, Issue 3, Published online February 23, 2015, pages 301-315.
6. Griffith, M.S., Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Eligibility Letter HSST/B-256 for: Trailing-End Anchorage for 31" Tall Guardrail, December 18, 2015.
7. Hinch, J., Yang, T.L., and Owings, R., Guidance Systems for Vehicle Testing, ENSCO, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, 1986.
8. MacInnis, D., Cliff, W., and Ising, K., A Comparison of the Moment of Inerita Estimation Techniques for Vehicle Dynamics Simulation, SAE Technical Paper Series 970951, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1997.
9. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Instrumentation for Impact Test Part 1 Electronic Instrumentation, SAE J211/1 MAR95, New York City, NY, July, 2007.
10. Vehicle Damage Scale for Traffic Investigators, Second Edition, Technical Bulletin No. 1, Traffic Accident Data (TAD) Project, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois, 1971.
11. Collision Deformation Classification Recommended Practice J224 March 1980, Handbook Volume 4, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1985.
66

8 APPENDICES

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

67

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Appendix A. Georgia DOT Standard Details - 2002 Revision
68

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
69

Figure A-1. Georgia DOT Construction Detail S-4

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
70

Figure A-2. Georgia DOT Construction Detail S-4

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure A-3. Georgia DOT Asphalt Curb Detail
71

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Appendix B. Asphalt Core Test Results
72

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
February 22, 2017
Compressive Strength of Asphalt Cores Taken from MASH Test Site
Overview: A series of compression tests were performed on cylindrical asphalt specimens cored
from the site prepared for full-scale Manual of Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) crash tests. The crash test site is located at the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) in Lincoln, NE. Based on the heights of the cores taken from the test site, the asphalt strip at the site ranges from 3.75 to at least 4.25 inches in thickness.
The compression tests on the cores were performed at the Structural Engineering Mechanics and Materials (SEMM) Laboratory on the Georgia Tech campus. All test protocols are based on ASTM D1074 09: "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Bituminous Mixtures." The recommended specimen size is 4 by 4 in. (nominal height and diameter) and loading rate is 0.2 in./min. This loading rate is slow enough to observe the failure shape and the propagation of cracks in specimens.
For reference, also presented are representative test results from cores taken at Georgia Tech during the Phase 1 (static) and Phase 2 (dynamic) subcomponent experimental investigations.
MwRSF specimen test: Three specimens cored from asphalt mow strip at MwRSF test site were tested on 2/21/2017.
To determine a representative strength, each specimen was taken from different location: (1) near the impact point of crash vehicle, (2) upstream section, and (3) downstream section. Table 1 includes compression test results and other test information including specimen dimension, test condition, and photographs taken during the test. All specimens showed a similar failure mode represented by lateral expansion and vertical cracks. The average compressive strength from the 3 cores was approximately 400 psi.
73

Specimen Core location

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

Table 1. MwRSF Specimen Test Sheet

N-01

N-02

Near the impact point

Upstream section

N-03 Downstream section

Test picture (setup)

Test picture (failure)

Actual diameter Thickness (Height)
Test temperature
Age of specimen Compressive strength

3.70 in.

3.70 in.

3.70 in.

4.25 in.

3.75 in.

3.80 in.

70 F

71 F

67 F

76 days (curing time from asphalt placement)

371.0 psi

396.5 psi

430.6 psi

Average compressive strength = 399.4 psi

74

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Georgia Tech core tests (reference): In the Phase 1 GDOT research project involving static tests of guardrail posts driven through
an asphalt layer, a total of 35 compression tests were performed to investigate the effect of aging/curing on asphalt strength (from 11/12/2014 to 4/17/2015). Figure 1 shows the trend of asphalt strength gain over time.
Figure 1. Average Compressive Strength Versus Age (specimens from Georgia Tech static test site)
In the Phase 2 GDOT research project focusing on dynamic testing of guardrail posts driven through an asphalt layer, a modified asphalt mix design was used for a fast-track repetition of dynamic test and asphalt mow strip placement in given project duration. By using a specific type of mix, the reference compressive strength was achieved in approximately 2 weeks from the asphalt placement.
Table 2 shows a summary of all specimen test information performed at Georgia Tech. Vertical cracks and horizontal expansion was similarly observed in most of the tested specimens. The average compressive strength values were approximately 240 psi.
75

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

Type
Description of mix

Table 2. Georgia Tech Specimen Test Summary Sheet

Reference asphalt mix in Georgia

Modified asphalt mix

Hot mix asphalt, PG 76-22 binder, 19 mm max. aggregate

Portland cement added (10% by weight) Cold mix asphalt, 9 mm max. aggregate

Test picture (failure)

No. of tested specimen
Test temperature Age of
specimen Average compressive strength

9 68 F 124 days
240.5 psi (60.2% of MwRSF)

Prepared by:

David W. Scott

Principal Investigator

Seo-Hun Lee

Graduate Research Assistant

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

10 66 ~ 71 F (average: 68.2) 11 ~ 14 days (average: 12.9)
239.3 psi (59.9% of MwRSF)

76

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Appendix C. Material Specifications
77

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
78

Table C-1. Bill of Materials, Test No. GAA-1

Item No.

Description

-

Asphalt

-

Curb

a1

12'-6" [3,810] 12 gauge [2.7] W-Beam MGS Section

a2

12'-6" [3,810] 12 gauge [2.7] W-Beam MGS End Section

a3

6'-3" [1,905] 12 gauge [2.7] W-Beam MGS Section

a4

W6x8.5 [W152x12.6] or W6x9 [W152x13.4], 72" [1,829] Long Steel Post

a5

5 1/8"x8"x14" [130x203x356] Composite Recycled Blockout

b1

BCT Timber Post - MGS Height

b2

72" [1829] Long Foundation Tube

b3

Ground Strut Assembly

b4 2 3/8" [60] O.D. x 6" [152] Long BCT Post Sleeve

b5 8"x8"x5/8" [203x203x16] Anchor Bearing Plate

b6

Anchor Bracket Assembly

b7

BCT Cable Anchor Assembly

d1

5/8" [16] Dia. UNC, 10" [254] Long Guardrail Bolt and Nut

d2

5/8" [16] Dia. UNC, 10" [254] Long Guardrail Bolt and Nut

d3

5/8" [16] Dia. UNC, 1 1/4" [32] Long Guardrail Bolt and Nut

d4

5/8" [16] Dia. UNC, 10" [254] Long Hex Head Bolt and Nut

d5

5/8" [16] Dia. UNC, 1 1/2" [38] Long Hex Head Bolt and Nut

d6

7/8" [22] Dia. UNC, 8" [203] Long Hex Head Bolt and Nut

e1

5/8" [16] Dia. Plain Round Washer

e2

7/8" [22] Dia. Plain Round Washer

Material Specification
GA 12.5 mm Superpave GA 4.75 mm or 9.5 mm Superpave Level A
Mixture
AASHTO M180
AASHTO M180
AASHTO M180
ASTM A992
Mondo Polymer MGS14SH or Equivalent
SYP Grade No. 1 or better (No knots +/- 18" [457] from ground on tension face)
ASTM A500 Gr. B
ASTM A36
ASTM A53 Gr. B Schedule 40 ASTM A36 ASTM A36 -
Bolt - ASTM A307 Gr. A Nut - ASTM A563A
Bolt - ASTM A307 Gr. A Nut - ASTM A563A
Bolt - ASTM A307 Gr. A Nut - ASTM A563A
Bolt - ASTM A307 Gr. A Nut - ASTM A563A
Bolt - ASTM A307 Gr. A Nut - ASTM A563A
Bolt - ASTM A307 Gr. A Nut - ASTM A563A ASTM F844 ASTM F844

References Project No. NH-STP-92-6(121), Design No. 2016-2 Project No. NH-STP-92-6(121), Design No. 2016-2
H#9411949
H#9411949
R#12-0368 RedPaint WB2 Post#3-9,13,14,16-27 H#55044258; Post#10-12
H#2413988; Post#15 H#55028671 L#160428/1000
Post#1-2 Ch#22215, Post#28-29 Ch#22927
H#0173175
R#090453-8, BOL#43073
H#E86298 H#6106195 H#4153095 North: H#DL15103032, South: SO#1210536, BOL#79448 Bolt: H#150424L Nuts: H#10446960 Bolt: H#150424L Nuts: H#10446960 Bolt: H#20337380 Nuts: H#10446960 Bolt: H#DL15107048 Nuts: R#16-0217 P#36713 C#210101526
Bolt: H#7366484, 7367052, 7368369 Nuts: R#16-0217 P#36713 C#210101526
Bolt: H#2038622 Nuts: H#NF12101054
n/a n/a

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-1. Asphalt Mix, Test No. GAA-1 79

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-2. W-beam Guardrail at Post Nos. 1 through 26, 28, and 29, Test No. GAA-1 80

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
81

Figure C-3. W-Beam Guardrail at Post No. 27, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
82

Figure C-4. W6x8.5 Posts, Post Nos. 3 through 9, 13 through 14, and 16 through 27, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
83

Figure C-5. W6x8.5 Posts, Post Nos. 10 through 12, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
84

Figure C-6. W6x8.5 Posts, Post No. 15, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-7. Composite Blockout, Test No. GAA-1 85

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-8. BCT Timber Post, Post Nos. 1 and 2, Test No. GAA-1 86

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-9. BCT Timber Post, Post Nos. 28 and 29, Test No. GAA-1 87

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
88

Figure C-10. Foundation Tubes, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
89

Figure C-11. Ground Strut Assembly, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-12. BCT Post Sleeve, Test No. GAA-1 90

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
91

Figure C-13. Anchor Bearing Plate and Bracket Assembly, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-14. BCT Cable Anchor Assembly, Test No. GAA-1 92

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
93

Figure C-15. BCT Cable Anchor Assembly, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-16. 10-in. (254-mm) Post Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 94

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-17. -in. (16-mm) Dia. Nut, Test No. GAA-1 95

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-18. 1-in. (32-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 96

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-19. 10-in. (254-mm) Hex Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 97

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-20. 1-in. (38-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 98

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-21. 1-in. (38-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 99

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-22. 1-in. (38-mm) Splice Bolts, Test No. GAA-1 100

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure C-23. -in. (16-mm) Dia. Hex Nut, Test No. GAA-1 101

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
102

Figure C-24. -in. (22-mm) Dia., 8-in. (203-mm) Long Hex Bolt, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
103

Figure C-25. -in. (22-mm) Dia. Hex Nut, Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Appendix D. Vehicle Center of Gravity Determination
104

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure D-1. Vehicle Mass Distribution, Test No. GAA-1 105

Appendix E. Static Soil Tests

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17

106

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure E-1. Soil Strength, Initial Calibration Tests, Test No. GAA-1 107

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure E-2. Static Soil Test, Test No. GAA-1 108

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Appendix F. Vehicle Deformation Records
109

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure F-1. Floor Pan Deformation Data Set 2, Test No. GAA-1 110

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure F-2. Occupant Compartment Deformation Data Set 2, Test No. GAA-1 111

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure F-3. Exterior Vehicle Crush (NASS) - Front, Test No. GAA-1 112

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure F-4. Exterior Vehicle Crush (NASS) - Side, Test No. GAA-1 113

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Figure F-5. Windshield Crush, Test No. GAA-1 114

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
Appendix G. Accelerometer and Rate Transducer Data Plots, Test No. GAA-1
115

Longitudinal CFC-180 10-msec Extracted Average Acceleration - SLICE-1
GAA-1
5

0

-5

Acceleration (g's)

-10

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
116

-15

-20

-25 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec) CFC-180 Extracted 10 msec Average Longitudinal Acceleration (g's)

Figure G-1. 10-ms Average Longitudinal Deceleration (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

Longitudinal Change in Velocity - SLICE-1
GAA-1
5

0

-5

-10

Velocity (m/s)

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
117

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec) CFC-180 Extracted Longitudinal change in velocity (m/s)

Figure G-2. Longitudinal Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

Longitudinal Change in Displacement - SLICE-1
GAA-1
5

0

-5

Displacement (m)

-10

-15

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
118

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Time (sec)

1.2

1.4

1.6

CFC-180 Extracted Longitudinal Displacement (m)

Figure G-3. Longitudinal Occupant Displacement (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

Lateral CFC-180 10-msec Extracted Average Acceleration - SLICE-1
GAA-1
10

5

Acceleration (g's)

0

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
119

-5

-10

-15 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec)

CFC-180 Extracted 10 msec Average Lateral Acceleration (g's)

Figure G-4. 10-ms Average Lateral Deceleration (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

Lateral Change in Velocity - SLICE-1
GAA-1
1

0

-1

-2

Velocity (m/s)

-3

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
120

-4

-5

-6

-7

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec)

CFC-180 Extracted Lateral change in velocity (m/s)

Figure G-5. Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

Lateral Change in Displacement - SLICE-1
GAA-1
0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Displacement (m)

-2

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
121

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec)

CFC-180 Extracted Lateral Displacement (m)

Figure G-6. Lateral Occupant Displacement (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
122

Euler Angular Displacements - SLICE-1
GAA-1 6

4

2

Angular Displacements (deg)

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Time (sec)

Euler Yaw (deg)

Euler Pitch (deg)

Euler Roll (deg)

Figure G-7. Vehicle Angular Displacements (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

Roll Pitch

Yaw

1.4

1.6

Acceleration Severity Index (ASI) - SLICE-1
GAA-1
1.2
Maximum ASI = 1.037454171
1

0.8

0.6

ASI

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
123

0.4

0.2

0

-0.2 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Time (sec) ASI

Figure G-8. Acceleration Severity Index (SLICE-1), Test No. GAA-1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Longitudinal CFC-180 10-msec Extracted Average Acceleration - SLICE-2
GAA-1
5

0

-5

Acceleration (g's)

-10

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
124

-15

-20

-25 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec) CFC-180 Extracted 10 msec Average Longitudinal Acceleration (g's)

Figure G-9. 10-ms Average Longitudinal Deceleration (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

Longitudinal Change in Velocity - SLICE-2
GAA-1
5

0

-5

-10

Velocity (m/s)

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
125

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec) CFC-180 Extracted Longitudinal change in velocity (m/s)

Figure G-10. Longitudinal Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

Longitudinal Change in Displacement - SLICE-2
GAA-1
5

0

-5

Displacement (m)

-10

-15

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
126

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Time (sec)

1.2

1.4

1.6

CFC-180 Extracted Longitudinal Displacement (m)

Figure G-11. Longitudinal Occupant Displacement (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

Lateral CFC-180 10-msec Extracted Average Acceleration - SLICE-2
GAA-1
10

5

Acceleration (g's)

0

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
127

-5

-10

-15 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec)

CFC-180 Extracted 10 msec Average Lateral Acceleration (g's)

Figure G-12. 10-ms Average Lateral Deceleration (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

Lateral Change in Velocity - SLICE-2
GAA-1
1

0

-1

-2

Velocity (m/s)

-3

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
128

-4

-5

-6

-7

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec)

CFC-180 Extracted Lateral change in velocity (m/s)

Figure G-13. Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

Lateral Change in Displacement - SLICE-2
GAA-1
1

0

-1

Displacement (m)

-2

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
129

-3

-4

-5

-6

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Time (sec)

CFC-180 Extracted Lateral Displacement (m)

Figure G-14. Lateral Occupant Displacement (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
130

Euler Angular Displacements - SLICE-2
GAA-1 6

4

2

Angular Displacements (deg)

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Time (sec)

Euler Yaw (deg)

Euler Pitch (deg)

Euler Roll (deg)

Figure G-15. Vehicle Angular Displacements (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

Roll Pitch

Yaw

1.4

1.6

Acceleration Severity Index (ASI) - SLICE-2
GAA-1
1.2
Maximum ASI = 0.977106336
1

0.8

0.6

ASI

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
131

0.4

0.2

0

-0.2 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Time (sec) ASI

Figure G-16. Acceleration Severity Index (SLICE-2), Test No. GAA-1

1.2

1.4

1.6

December 14, 2017 MwRSF Report No. TRP-03-377-17
END OF DOCUMENT
132