131398.01 (v1.2) Prepored For Ingal Civil Products October 2016 holmessolutions MASH compliance testing of the Ezy-Guard high containment TL4 Thtie Bear banierOISCLAIMER This document was prepared by Holmes Solutions Limited Partnership (HS LP) under contract, ‘The information presented in this document relates to impact testing and does not address issues related to environmental durability of the product, nor applications for the product. Itis the responsibility of the user agency to assess performance of the product and determine suitable applications for the use of this product. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. In addition, Holmes Solutions LP assumes no liability for the contents or use of this document. The name of specific products or manufacturers listed herein does not imply endorsement of those products or manufacturers. RevisionNo: _| Date Revision 10 03 Oct 16 Draft for internal review Ma 10 Oct. 16 Draft for client review 12 19 Oct. 16 Final revision 7 RepoH 1SIaVST Raion 1 7y-Guard TL high containment Date: Oct 2016 bbomier Poge |ul 12 2a 22 23 24 3 holmessolutions INTRODUCTION Background. Objectives, TECHNICAL DISCUSSION. Test Parameters... 21.1 Test Facility, a 212. Test Atlicle Design, Constuction and Technical DrowingS.n-ssssn 7 Design Changes during Test Programme. 2.2.1 Test 4-10 and Test 4-12: 22.1 Test 411: Finalised Testing Matrix 23,1 Tes! 410-1100c. 23.2 — Test 4-11-2270P 2.33 Test 4-12-1008 Evaluation Criteria... TEST 4-10 Tes! Conditions and Results... 31.1 Test Vehicle 312. Test Weather Concitions. 7 3.13 Impact Conditions and Vehicle Behaviour. 13, 3.1.4 — Test Article Damage. 4 3.1.5 Test Vehicle Damage... M4 3.1.6 Assessment of Test Results... 20 3.17 Vehicle Deformation Limits. 2 3.1.8 Summary. Se seonnnnnine 20 31.9 — Conclusion. Settee Seances enar a TEST 4-11. oo 22 Tes! Conditions and Results. 22 41.1 Test Vehicle... 22 41.2 _ Test Weather Conditions 22 4.3 Impact Conditions and Vehicle Behaviour en 22 4.1.4 Test Article Damage. 23 41.5 Test Vehicle Damage. pereas: 41.6 Assessment of Test Resulls. vn BD 4.1.7 Vehicle Deformation Limits 30 4.18 Summary. 30 bower Ropar 1s1S5507 Reviion 2 ry-Guaid TU high contoinment IAI IZ Date: Oct 2016 pe Poge 2holmessolutions 41.9 Conclusion 130 5 TEST 4-12 31 5.1 Test Conditions and Results. al 5.1.1 Test Vehicle 7 31 $.1.2. Test Weather Condiifions 31 §.1.3. Impact Conditions and Vehicle Behaviour. 3a 5.14 — Test Article Damage: 32 $1.5 Test Vehicle Damage. 32 5.1.6 — Assessment of Test Results 3B 1,7 Vehicle Deformation Limits 29 $1.8 Summary... 38 5.1.9 — Conclusion... at 39) A. TEST VEHICLE EQUIPMENT AND GUIDANCE METHODS. 40 AQ PHOTOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENTATION, ise 40 A3 ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA PROCESSING. 40 B TEST VEHICLE PROPERTIES AND INFORMATION. 42 8.1 VEHICLE PROPERTIES FOR TEST 4-10 -1100C. 42 B.2 VEHICLE PROPERTIES FOR TEST 4-11 -2270P M4 8.3 VEHICLE PROPERTIES FOR TEST 4-12 ~ 10000... 46 cc. SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS .. 48 G.I SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TEST 4-10 - 1100¢. 48 C2 SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TEST 4-11 - 2270P.. 53 C3 SEQUENTIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TEST 4-12 ~ 100008. $8 D. TRAP SUMMARY REPORT AND GRAPHICAL PLOTS... 63 D.1 TRAP SUMMARY FOR TEST 4-10... 63 0.2 TRAP SUMMARY FOR TEST 4-11 66 D3 TRAP SUMMARY FOR TEST 4-12... gE REFERENCES, Repo 1313950) Revion 13 xy-Guard TU high contoirment & Date: Oct 2016 ‘boner Page 3holrnessolutions 1 Report No. 2. Government Accession No. | 3. Recipients Catalogue No, 131395.01 4 Titleana Subtitle 5. Report Date [MASH compliance testing ofthe Bay-Guard high containment TLé | 19/10/2016 “Thrie Beam barter: 7. Authors) «6, Performing Organisation Code DrChhis Allington, Emerson Ryder 1022 ‘a, Performing Organisation Name and Address 4 Performing Organisation Report Holmes Solutions LP Ne. Unit 5, 295 Blenheim Road 10, Working Unit No. (TRAIS) Chuistchurch 8081, New Zealand Sh, Test Fciliy Adds 11, Contract or Grant No: Ruapuna Path, 107 Hasketts Road Chrisicharch, New Zealane 12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Addeess 13, Type of Report & Period Covered Tngal Givi Products ay = October 201 57-65 Airs Rood eee errr Minio NSW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code PO Box 5262, Minto, NSW Australia 2566 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Almost ‘The objective ofthe test reported herein was to evaluate the safety performance of the Ingal Civil Products high containment guardrail system against the requirements of MASH 09 to Test Level 4. The barrier system was subjected to tests 4-10, 4-11 and 4-12 as defined below; + Tost 4-10 using 2 1100 kg car travelling at 100 km/h impacting atest article at 25 degrees Tost 4-2 using a 2270 kg car travelling at 100 km/h impacting a tost article at 28 degrees + ‘Tost 412 wsing a 10,000 kg Truck travelling at 90 km/h impacting a tost article at 15 degrees ‘The results obtained from the completed tests meet all requirements for a Test Level 4 longitudinal barrier system in accordance with the evaluation criteria of MASH 09, 17. Key Words 18, Distribution Statement 19, Security Classification | 20, Security Classification (page) | 21.No. of Pages | 22. Price Page 4 of 72 Signed A Signed 7 é oo Dr Chris Allington (approved wignatory) Emerson Ryder (approved signatory) Repor TSI Rowan 1 Exy-Guord TL¢ high conloinrnent Date: Oct 2016 bbawier Page 4holmessolutions 1 INTROBUCTION 11 Background After October 1998, United States Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) required all new elements of roadside hardware, including longitudinal barriers, terminals and crash cushions, support structures and work zone attenuation systems, used on the National Highway System (NHS) to have been tested and found acceptable for use. Successfully passing full scale crash testing,in accordance with the recommendations of NCHRP 350 is the mast stringent criteria defining acceptability for use. By undergoing tests to this standard, the sponsoring agency is seeking to demonstrate that their barrier system is compliant with the performance requirements for use on the National Highway System “The Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) was introduced in 2009 to update and supersede NCHRP Report 50 for the purposes of evaluating new safety hardware devices. MASH introduces a number of revisions to test vehicle types, impact conditions and evaluation criteria as well as added features within the test guidelines. These revisions further the guidelines and criteria that have evolved over the last 40 years and provide a comparison basis, for researchers and agencies involved in the evaluation of roadside safety equipment performance. 1.2 Objectives ‘The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Ezy-Guard High Containment (HQ) barrier system to the requirements of Test Level 4 as detailed in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), MASH specifically addresses the performance requirements of longitudinal barrier systems and recommends a series of full scale dynamic impact tests to be completed and the results evaluated against set criteria, The recommended tests are defined for a variety of test levels depending on the specific application of the barrier system. Test Level 3 is considered the standard performance requirements for roading networks, but often roading authorities require a higher level of containment, Test Level 4 (TL-4) provides a higher containment and is conducted with vehicles up toa maximum of a 10,000 kg and speeds of up to 100 km/h ‘There are three tests recommended within the MASH Test Level 4 matrix for longitudinal barriers length of need (LON), namely Test 4-10 utilising an 1,100 kg car impacting the test article at 25°, Test 4-11 utilising a 2,270 kg pick-up impacting the test article at 25° and test 4-12 utilising 2 10,000 kg truck impacting the test article at impacting at 15°, Tests 4-10 and 4-11 have the vehicles impacting at a nominal 100 km/h whereas Test 4-12 has a nominal impact speed of 90 km/h, The primary purpose of Test 4-10, using a small car, i to test the overall performance of the LON with a particular focus on the occupant risk. Test 4-11, utilising a larger passenger vehicle, is designed to evalvate the strength ofthe section in containing and redirecting a large vehicles with difering masses and centres of gravity. Test 4-12, using a heavy truck is designed to validate the strength and containment capacity of the system. “Repor 13139501 Revison: 1.2 ae IANZ nasolutions: ‘This report documents the testing completed on the Ingal Civil Products High Containment (FIC) barrier system. MASH notes and that the safety performance of a highway appurtenance cannot be measured directly but can be judged on the basis of three factors; structural adequacy, ‘occupant risk, and post-impact vehicular response. Based on a review of the barrier system, it was considered necessary to subject the system to all three designated tests; Test 4-10, 4-11 and Test 4-12, ‘Holmes Solutions were independently contracted by the client to conduct the impact testing in accordance with MASH 09, All testing was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of tie ISO 17025 accreditation under the ILAC scheme. Ropar 1313557 Rewion 12 Exy-Guaid TL high containment Date: Ost 2016 Page 6 barierviessolutions 2 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION 2.1 Test Parameters 20.1 Test Facility Testing was conducted at the Holmes Solutions testing factlty, located at the Ruapuna International Raceway, Christchurch New Zealand. The test facility has a series of purpose built asphalt run-in surfaces up to 100 m long. The fecilty has test pads available that consist of AASHTO standard soil, AASHTO weak soil, compacted sub-base, asphalt concrete (AC), and reinforced Portland cement concrete (PCC). ‘The soil profile in the various test regions has been developed and inspected by registered engineers and undergoes regular calibration and compliance audits in accordance with the requirements of MASH, including site specific testing prior to the completion of each test. 2.1.2 Test Article Desion, Constuction and Technical Drawings The Ingal Civil Products High Containment (HC) barrier system consists of Theie Beam guards supported on a heavy duty (HD) Z section steel posts at 2m cents. The height to the top of the guardrail is specified as a nominal 980 mm (385°) with an allowable tolerance of #25/-0 mun The test article was manufactured and installed within the allowable tolerances to the requirements of AS/NZS3845. All posts were driven into the AASHTO standard soil at 2m centres. The Length of Need consisted of 41 steel line posts with a total Length of Need of 82.0 m. The total length ofthe barrier system including terminal ends for Test 4-10 and 4-12 was 94.0 m. For Test TL4-11 the barrier installation was shortened based on a request from our client toa total installed length of 558 m, including 21 steel line posts in the Length of Need (LON). ‘The Thrie-beam rail elements were connected with lap joints at 4 m centres, a the post location. ‘The lap joints were all orientated so as to reduce snagging in the direction of traffic flow, as directed in AS/NZS 3845, All ap joints were formed with 8 x M 16 splice bolts and nuts. The test article was terminated, ater an asymmetric drop down transition panel a the upstream ar downstream ends using, a cable assembly, two driven soil posts with I beam steel line posts for attachment to the guardrail ‘The steel barrier system consists of the following components: Steel Line Posts The stee! line posts were manufactured from Grade 300 steel fabricated into a Z-section approximately 60 mm (2.3”) wide by 140mm @.5”) deep and 2000 mm (78.7") long, All posts were hot dip galvanised and incorporated a series of bent steel tabs for seating of the slider bracket Roper TaSEOT Revion WT £2y-Guard TL4 high coniainment Date: Oct 2016 boner Page?messolutions Slider Carriages ‘The slider carriages were manufactured from ductile iron and consisted of a 73 snm x 63 mm x {60 mm thick section with a single M36 threaded hole, The slider carriage fits down over the flanges of the line posts and is seated an the stopper plate. The threaded hole providing a mounting point for the guardrail via proprietary M16 carriage bolts. ‘Thrie Beam Guardrail ‘The guardrail consisted of Thrie-beam guard rail sections with a 4.0 m nett laying length (NLL). The Thrie Beam is a standard 12g galvanised section conforming to AASHTO M-180 Class A. Fasteners Guardrail sections were joined together with standard M16 x 32 Galvanised mushroom head splice bolts and M16 oversize nuts. Guardrail sections were fixed to the slider carriages with a single machined steel proprietary MI6 bolt with oversize head. End Treatments The test article was terminated, after an asymmetric drop down transition panel, at the upstream, and downstream ends, using a modified cable assembly, two driven soil posts with I beam steel Tine posts for attachment to the W-beam guardrail sections. The steel foundation tubes 200 mm wide x 150 mm deep x 6 mm thick section x 2000 mum long at 1905 centres. A 2.0 m long cable assembly and bearing plate were also incorporated. Two angle struts connected soil tubes 1 and 2 at ground level, ‘The diagonal steel cable assembly was increased in diameter for use with Test 4-11 after a cable fractured in a previous test (reported elsewhere). The replacement cable utilised was a BCT cable anchor assembly (FCAOI-02). The design of the terminal end treatment system, including all ‘components, was chosen by the client. Details of test article are shown in Figure 22 Ropar Ta1SS0T Ravin 2 Exy-Guerd TL¢ high containment Date: Oct 2018 panier Poge 862804 ef 5 be seo juatuuojUD 4By yu piONE-Aey sity 9102 0 9100 ZN 1 sonny orsse1e1 pode 7 > SIE woronaqasnieren £00-OH-AZS-LHA SUOANIOSSeuLyOu309 |UoWUE}LOD YM FL PIOND-Aey suolnjosseusholmessolutions 22 Design Changes during Test Programme Changes were implemented in the testing programme, a5 noted below 221 Test 4-10 and Tes! 4-12: ‘Test 4-10 and Test 4-12 were completed on an installed barrier system with a total installed length ‘0F 94.0 my, including terminal ends. The length of need of the Ezy-Guard HC barvier was 82.0 m ‘with line posts at 2 m centres (total of 41 posts). All posts, including terminal ends were installed in AASHTO standard soil The LON was transitioned down into a w-beam rail section using an asymmetric drop down ‘transition panel. At the request from the client, the installation was terminated with non- standardised terminal end systems comprising of two driven soil tubes with I beam steel ine posts rigidly at ground level. Two angle section ground struts were used to brace between the soil tube sections, at the line of attachment of the I-beamt posts. A diagonal steel cable was attached from the rail to the end post. The attachment of the cable onto the rail was via a non- releasing bolt on cable connection bracket Figure 2-1: Test Article for tests 410 and 4-12 221 Test 411 At the request of the Client, the test article for Test 4-11 was modified from that used for Test 4-10 and Test 4-12, The total installed length of the barrier system, including terminal ends, was reduced to 55.8 m (a reduction of 38.2 m}. The LON of the barrier was reduced by 42 m to provide and installed LON of 43.8 m, this resulted in the use of 21 steel Line posts in the LON. Changes were also made to the terminal end system at the request of the client. The diagonal cable was changed to.a BCT anchor cable, This cable has a larger diameter and increased strength in the swaged fitting, Additionally, a cupped washer detail was placed over the junction of the swaged fitting of the cable and the web of the end I-beam posts in order to protect the threaded. fitting from contacting the web of the I beam and removing the potential for stress concentrations. Report TSN 950 Reviion: 12 Ingat CME TL4 high containment ate: Oct 20168 borisr Page 1hoimessolutions Figure 2-2: Test Article for Test 411 23. Finalised Testing Maliix MASH recommends the completion of 3 tests to validate the performance of a longitudinal barrier system to Test Level 4, All tests were completed on the Ingal Civil Products HC batrier system. 23.1 Test 410 1100¢ Test 4-10 specifies an 1100 kg car (defined as 1100C) impacting the test article at a nominal 100 km/h and at an angle of 25 degrees. 232 Test 4-11~2270P ‘Test 4-11 specifies a 2270 kg pickup (defined as 2270P) impacting the test article at a nominal 100 km/tt and at an angle of 25 degrees. 233. Test 4-12~ 100008 Test 4-12 specifies a 10000 kg track (defined as 100005) impacting the test article ata nominal 99 km/Inand at an angle of 15 degrees, 24 — Evaluation Citeria All crash tests performed were evaluated in accordance with the criteria presented in MASH for Test Level 4, As stated in MASH, “safety performance of a highway appurtenance cannot be measured directly but can be judged on the basis of three factors; structural adequacy, occupant risk, and postimpact vehicular response". The safety evaluation guidelines from Table 5-1 of MASH were used to evaluate the crash test reported herein, Roped 13119505 Ingat Cia TL¢ righ containment bares3 TEST 410 3.1 Test Conditions and Results 3.1.1 Test Vehicle ‘A 2010 Nissan Tiida, also known as a Nissan Versa in the USA, shown in Figure 3-1, was used for the crash test, The test vehicle was in good condition, free of any major body damage, and not, nissing structural parts. The vehicle front bumper and other structural elements were standard equipment and unmodified for the test. Vehicle spare wheel and battery were removed prior to testing, ‘Test Inertial mass of the vehicle was 1108 kg and with the inclusion of the dummy mass the Gross Static weight was 1183 kg. The height to the upper edge of the front bumper was $80 mm and the height to the lower edge of the front bumper was 210 mm. Additional dimensions and information on the vehicle are given in Appendix B. Vehicle tyre size was in accordance with the manufacturer's zecommended size. ‘This vehicle conforms to the recommended properties for an T100C Test Vehicle as outlined in MASH, 312 Test Weather Conditions ‘The Test 4-10 was performed on the afternoon of 2nd June 2016. The weather was clear. Surface conditions were dry. Weather conditions at the time of testing were as follows: Wind Speed: 9 km/h Wind Direction: Northerly Air Temperature: 12°C Relative Humidity: 79% 3.13 Impact Conditions and Vehicle Behaviour The test vehicle impacted the test installation 300 mm upstream of post location 16 at an angle of 255 degrees, and a velocity of 98.0 km/h (60.9 mph). The test vehicle continued into the test article, impacting post location 16 at 0.02 seconds after the initial impact. At 0.09 seconds the test vehicle impacted steel line post 17. At 0.20 seconds the test vehicle impacted fine post 18, and at (0.24 seconds the test vehicle was redirecting along the face ofthe barvier, at 0.35 seconds after initial impact the test vehicle impacted post location 19, and was parallel with the test article. At (0.51 seconds the test vehicle began to yaw to the left and lost contact with the test article at 0.69, seconds when positioned near steel line post 20 ‘After losing contact, the test vehicle continued on its trajectory yawing to the left, and traversing to the right of the barrier system, before coming to rest with the rear of the test vehicle adjacent to steel line post 44, approximately 40.0 m from the traffic face of the barrier and approximately 55.0 m on the angle from the critical impact point (CIP). Raper 13119509 Reaons12 Ingo Ci high conteinment Dole: Oct 2016 Page 13 borersolutions ‘The maximum roll of the vehicle was recorded as 20.1 degrees during the impact. The maximum working width of the system was recorded as 1.02 m @34ft), ‘The maximum dynamic deflection of the system was also recorded as 0.88 m (288!) Details of test article Installation are shown in Figure 3-2, 3.14 Test Arlicle Damage The test article had moderate damage as a result of the impact. Five posts needed replacement and three lengths of Thrie-Beam also required replacement, ‘The slider bracket used on Past 17 had been removed from both the post and rail elements. [twas located approximately 10.5 m directly behind post 17 location. ‘The profile of the guardrail maintained good shape and there was nil evidence of rail tear along the length of the system. All damaged line posts remained in one piece and none lifted from the ground, The maximum permanent deflection of the test article measured at the completion of the test was 0.70 m (2.29.), The guardrail maintained an acceptable height throughout the damaged region, Details of test article damage are shown in Figure 33. 318 Tes! Vehicle Domage ‘The test vehicle suffered moderate damage as a result ofthe impact with the test article, deformation occurred to the front bumper, headlights, front left side panel in addition to minor damage to the vehicle suspension and undercarriage ‘Maximum exterior crush of the vehicle from the impact with the test article was recorded as 150 mm, this being measured in the designated crumple-zone of the vehicle, eamely the left front comer. No articles were thrown from the test vehicle during the impact nor were any penetration observed into the occupant compartment, No damage was observed to the floor pan or the fuel tank of the vehidle. No damage occurred to the interior plastic lining of the glass from the impact with the test article, Details of the test vehicle damage are shown in Figure 3-4. Ropar 1si19500 Ingol Chil TL high containment borerholriessolutions Left Hand Side Front of Test Vehicle Figure 3-1: Test Vehicle for Test 4-10 a - Revlon 12 RSDOH 13119500 Fae ter Oc! 2016 ingot CMI TL high contcinment & Dole: x20 mas GslANZ rasholmessolutions Rear of Impact Post 16 ‘Test Vehicle at Impact Point Figure 3.2: Test Article for Test 4-10 Repo 13119560 Revision 12 Inga CwITL4 righ containment ote: Oct 2016 paler Poge 16helrnessolutions Impact Damage between Post 18 and 19 Figure 3-3; Test Article Damage Test 4-10 Ropar Tai 1950 Revion 7 Ingal CAI TL high conteinment Dore: Oct 2016 eater Poge 17hetmessolutions Front Left Quarter Rear of Vehicle Figure 3-4: Test Vehicle Damage for Test 4-10 Renan 119500 Inga CMI TL¢ high containment bborier Ravens 17 ANZ ote Oot aia 5 HERING ee61 880g Piz 190 :9)00 Zi wosnoy 191109 juauIHO}U09 YEH 7 cose Tee WERT Sir fue ee TRS UR HOT sz 91086 wait gout yeu HIOESL x ML ORBLT OeeE ‘pm ues EEE oot SPRPA RL + a RT RRETE Teg Hay (999 ww ove gs NOISE oze ys ‘vorsuen etmssse sm suog2as puDjeuRD} wt 9 wondeossg 4H prendiza qos wioog UL surg - Susu OY + wate awe eOL SPN SES PTT ARTS PAT RISEShalmessolutions 2.1.6 Assessment of Test Resulis ‘Testing carried out to the requirements of MASH. Test 4-10 was assessed in accordance with ‘Table 51 Safety Evaluation Guidelines - Evaluation Criteria A, D, F, H, and I ‘Structural Adequacy ‘A Test article should contin ad rdirect the voit; the veice should not penetrate, wader vide, or overide the fnstallaticn although controled lateral deflection of the test article i acceptable “The test article contained and redirected the tst vehiele, The vehicle did not penetrate, wnder-ride, ‘or override the installation. Lateral deflection ofthe installation was within acceptable Hints, - PASS. ‘Gecupant Risk Detached elements, fraguents or other debris from, the test alice should wot penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant corppartnent, or present undue hacard lo other if, pedestrians, or personel i he work zone, Deformations of or intrusions int, the ecewpantcompartnent Hat ceuld cause sri injuries should not be permitted. Se discussion in section 5.3 an Appendix E. No detached clements, fragments or other debris from the test article ponctzated or showed potential to penetrate the occupant compartment or presented an undue hazard to other trafic, pedestrians or ‘work zone personnel, Deformations of the accupant compartment were within the imposed limitations. = PASS F The weicleshonld remain wright during ane after the calisionaldhough moderate vl, ptching and yang are acceptable ‘The test vehicle remained upright during and after the col PASS HE Occupant impact velocities (OIV) should satisfy the falling lint: on, Roll, pitch angle were acceptable~ ‘Gecupentinpact Velocity Lil, (R72) ‘Compement Preferred Moxima Longitudinal and Lateral 9.1 me 30 ft/s) 12.2 mie (40,485) ‘Occupant Impact Velocities limits in both longitudinal (x) and lateral (y) directions remained within the proferred limits specified. PASS 1 The occupant Ridedoxn acceleration should satisfy the ellowing hints ‘Ocvupt Ride Down Aceeations (69> Component Preferred Maximon Longitudinal and Lateral 1508 20493 Cecupant Ride Down accelerations remained within the Preferred Limits. - PASS Report 1319500 : Revisor 12 Ingo Civil TL4 high containment IANZ Date: Get 2018 Page 20 barierhalmessolutions 3.17 Vehicle Deformation Limits Area of Vehidle Deformation Limits Measured Deformation | Rating, Root <1 mm ism Good Windshield Wiinor cracking, No tearing | Good ‘of plastic Hiner Window No shattering of side | No damage ‘Goud windows Footwell Area <229 min On Good “Hae Front Panel 305 mam 750mm Good Front Side Door TAbove seat 229 mm | Sm Good =Below seat<305mm — byimay a Floor Pan “C305 mn ‘Omim ‘Good 3.18 Summory ‘The Ingal Civil Products HC barrier system successfully contained and redirected an 1100C test vehicle impacting the fest article at 255 degroes and a velocity of 98 km/h (60.9 mph), No debris or detached elements penetrated or showed potential to penetrate the occupant compartment. No fragments were distributed outside of the vehicle trajectory. The trajectory of the vehicle as it exited the barrier system was outside of the preferred exit box criteria defined in MASH, however itis noted that this criteria forms guidance only and is not part of the official evaluation criteria ‘The vehicle remained upright during and after the impact and vehicle stability was considered satisfactory. Occupant risk factors satisfied the test criteria Evaluation criteria are documented in Section 24 of this report 3.19 Conclusion ‘The test article when installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, and in AASHTO standard soil, successfully contained and redirected the 1100C test vehicle when inypacting at a nominal 100 km/h with an impact angle of 25 degrees. ‘The Ingal Civil Products HC barrier system was judged to have satisfied all of the evaluation criteria for the MASH Test 4-10. Roped 131195100 Revo 12 Ingo Civi TL high confinment 1A Date: Oct 2018 Eas I NZ Page 2! ‘bationhalmessolutions 4 TeST4t) 4.1 Test Conditions and Resulls 4) Test Vehicle ‘A 2011 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab shown in Figure 4-1, was used for the crash test. The test vehicle was in good condition, free of any major body damage, and not missing structural parts. ‘The vehicle front bumper and other structural elements were standard equipment and unmodified fos the test. Vehicle spare wheel and battery were removed prior to testing, ‘Test Inertial mass and Gross Static weight of the vehicle were both 2229 kg, The height to the upper edge of the front bumper was 690 mm and the height to the lower edge of the front ‘bumper was 330 mm, Additional dimensions and information on the vehicle are given in Appendix B, Vehicle tyre size was in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended size ‘This vehicle conforms to the recommended properties for a 2270P Test Vehicle as outlined in MASH. 4.1.2 Test Weather Conditions ‘The Test 4-11 was performed on the morning of 28th September 2016. The weather was cleat, Surface conditions were dry. Weather conditions at the time of testing were as follows: Wind Speed: 13 km/h Wind Direction: Easterly Air Temperature: 13°C Relative Humidity: 84% 4.1.3 Impact Conditions ond Vehicle Behoviour ‘The lest vehicle impacted the test installation 450 mm upstream of post location 12 at an angle of 21.9 degrees, and a velocity of 97.0 km/h (60.2 mph). The test vehicle continued into the test article, impacting post location 12 at 0,02 seconds after the initial impact. At 0.09 seconds the test vehicle impacted stec! line post 13. At 0.20 seconds the test vehicle impacted line post 14, and at 0.22 seconds the test vehicle was redirecting along the face of the barrier, at 0.30 seconds after initial impact the test vehicle impacted post location 16, and was parallel with the test article. At 0.70 seconds the test vehicle began to yaw to the right, with the nose of the test vehicle contacting, along the face of the test article and losing contact with the test article at 1.69 seconds after initial impact. Alter losing contact, the test vehicle continued on its trajectory yawing 116° to the adjacent traffic face of the barrier system, before coming to rest with the rear of the test vehicle adjacent to steet Hine post 25, approximately 2.0 m from the traffic face of the barrier and 26.0 m from the critical impact point (CIP). Repon 13119505 Rewer Ingl Cll TL¢Figh conteinment Dole: Oct 2018 Page 22holmessolutions ‘The maximum rol af the vehicle was recorded as 14.2 degrees during the impact. ‘The maximum working width ofthe system was recorded as 1.16 m (38!) The maximum dynamie deflection of the system was also recorded as 1.16 mG.) Detuils of test article installation are shown in Figure 4-2 4.14 Test Article Damage ‘The test article had moderate damage as a result of the impact. Bight posts needed replacement and four lengths of Thrie-Beam also required replacement, ‘The slider bracket used on Post 13 had been removed from both the post and rail elements. Itwas located approximately 11 m behind the barrier and approximately 28 m from its original positon behind the barrier traffic face. ‘The profile of the guardrail maintained good shape and there was nil evidence of rail tear along, the Iength of the system, All damaged line posts remained in one piece and none lifted from the ground. ‘The maximum permanent deflection of the test article measured at the completion of the test was 0.70 m (2.26). The guardrail maintained an acceptable height throughout the damaged region, Delails of test article damage are shown in Figure 43. 41.5. Test Vehicle Domage ‘The test vehicle suffered moderate damage as a result of the impact with the test article, deformation occurred to the front bumper, headlights, front left side panel in addition to damage to the vehicle suspension and undercarriage. Maximum exterior crush of the vehicle from the impact was recorded as 200 mm, this being ireasured at the left front of the vehicle. No articles were thrown from the test vehicle during the impact nor were any penetration observed into the occupant compartment. No damage occurred to the interior plastic lining of the glass from the impact with the test article. Details of the test vehicle damage are shown in Figure 4-4, Repod 13119500 Revlon 12 Ingal Civt TL high containmant ate: Cct 2016 bbanier Poge 23holrmegsolutions Left Hand Side of Test Vehicle Front Left Hand Quarter Rear Left Hand Quarter Rear Right Hand Quarter Front Right Hand Quarter Figure 4-1: Test Vehicle for Test 4-11 Revidons 12 Date: Oct 2016 Poge 24 Repad 13119500 Ingel CALA high containrnent ‘comer