Ezy-Guard HC – Bridge Barrier Side Mounted (2m post spacing)

Report No. ICPLG1247

Prepared by Luke Gallagher

10 September 2021
DOCUMENT CONTROL

Author: Luke Gallagher, Senior Product Manager, MBA, BEng (Mech), PgDip Sci.

---------------------------------------

Checker: Vitor Becker, Products Engineer, BS Mech. Eng.

---------------------------------------

Revision Date Description

0

2
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4
2. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................. 6
3. VEHICLE MODEL SPECIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 7
4. VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION – EZY-GUARD HC Test 3-11 ........................................................ 8
5. BASEPLATED POST MODEL VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION ........................................................ 9
5.1 BASEPLATED POST DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 9
5.2 FE POST MODEL VALIDATION ............................................................................................... 10
5.3 SIDE-MOUNT UC SUPPORT FE MODEL DESIGN .................................................................... 11
6. BARRIER MODEL SPECIFICATION .................................................................................................. 14
7. SIMULATION REPORT – MASH 2-11 – AS5100.1 Low PL .............................................................. 18
7.1 PART 2: ANALYSIS SOLUTION VERIFICATION ........................................................................ 19
7.2 PART 3: PHENOMENA IMPORTANCE RANKING TABLE ......................................................... 20
7.3 SIMULATION CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 23
8. SIMULATION REPORT – 2270P – 100km/h @ 15˚......................................................................... 24
8.1 PART 2: ANALYSIS SOLUTION VERIFICATION ........................................................................ 25
8.2 PART 3: PHENOMENA IMPORTANCE RANKING TABLE ......................................................... 26
8.3 SIMULATION CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 29
9. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 30
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 31
APPENDIX 1 – MASH 2-11 – AS5100.1 Low PL ADDITIONAL INFO ........................................................ 32
A1.1 ACCELEROMETER TIME HISTORIES ....................................................................................... 32
A1.2 POST IMPACT VEHICLE PHOTOS ........................................................................................... 33
A1.3 PRE/POST IMPACT BARRIER PHOTOS ................................................................................... 34
A1.4 VEHICLE/BARRIER ENGAGEMENT PHOTOS........................................................................... 35
APPENDIX 2 – 2270P 100km/h @15˚ – ADDITIONAL INFO ................................................................... 37
A2.1 ACCELEROMETER TIME HISTORIES ....................................................................................... 37
A2.2 POST IMPACT VEHICLE PHOTOS ........................................................................................... 38
A2.3 PRE/POST IMPACT BARRIER PHOTOS ................................................................................... 39
A2.4 VEHICLE/BARRIER ENGAGEMENT PHOTOS........................................................................... 40
APPENDIX 3 – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING ............................................................................ 42
APPENDIX 4 – 250 UC 72.9 Material Spec ............................................................................................ 43
APPENDIX 5 – UC PLATFORM DRAWING .............................................................................................. 44

3
1. INTRODUCTION
The Ezy-Guard High Containment (HC) system is a thrie-beam guardrail system compliant with MASH
Test Level 4, this is the containment of a 10,000kg truck at 90km/h. The typical installation method for
a guardrail system like this is by driving the posts into the ground with a hydraulic pile driver. On
occasion, an underground conflict can inhibit the driving of posts to the required depth. In these
instances, an approved solution is to install a concrete strip footing and anchor baseplated posts to
this.

Many bridges and culverts on secondary roads use a similar post and rail configuration for edge
protection. However, most have never been evaluated under the MASH impact conditions.

This report details the evaluation of the Ezy-Guard HC system as edge protection to meet the
requirements of AS5100.2 Low Performance Level. Table 12.2.2 of this standard details the ultimate
design loads and load distribution lengths for the various performance levels. This table also notes an
equivalent MASH containment level to be attained, with Test Level 2 being nominated for Low
Performance Level. The capacity test for MASH TL2 is test 2-11, this is the containment of a 2270kg
pick-up truck at 70km/h.

The performance evaluation took a modified form to that presented in NCHRP-179 Procedures for
Verification and Validation of Computer Simulations Used for Roadside Safety Applications. All crash
test simulations were conducted on the nonlinear transient dynamic finite element analysis software
LS-DYNA and the accelerometer datasets were processed in the Test Risk Assessment Program (TRAP).

The physical crash test used for validation of the finite element model was the MASH 3-11 conducted
by Holmes Solutions. As all posts in this test were driven into AASHTO Standard Soil, the finite element
model for our baseplated post was validated against physical destructive tests previously conducted.

The 3-11 crash test conducted on the standard configuration of the system with posts at 2m centres,
recorded a deflection of 1.16m. From discussions with various stakeholders in the bridge barrier
industry, conserving lane/shoulder width was critically important. To accommodate this, the
baseplated posts have been mounted on a side structure, bringing the face of barrier in line with the
edge of the structure. This side structure offers two main benefits, these are to maximise the lane
width on the structure, and to reduce damage to the concrete from vehicle impacts. The side
structures are designed to significantly exceed the bending capacity of the barrier posts, therefore, all
plastic deformations will be limited to the posts in an impact. After an impact, repairing the barrier
would just require the damaged post being unbolted and replaced with a new post.

Two test simulations were conducted to evaluate the performance of the barrier, the first was MASH
test 2-11 as per AS5100.2, and the second was a modified MASH 3-11 test. Many secondary roads
have posted speeds higher than 70km/h, however, they are rarely wide enough for an errant vehicle
travelling at 100km/h to achieve an impact angle of 25˚. A method calculating the encroachment angle
of an errant vehicle is suggested in the Austroads Guide to Road Design – Part 6 (AGRD-6), Figure 5.8.
Taking a 2m shoulder width as a conservative estimate for a secondary road bridge, 3.5m lane width

4
and a friction coefficient of 0.7, an encroachment angle of 14.8˚ is suggested. The 3-11 modified
simulation used an impact angle of 15˚ to better represent a conservative but more representative
upper limit for real world conditions.

5
2. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The Ezy-Guard High Containment (HC) guardrail system has been subjected to a series of full scale
compliance crash testing in accordance with the requirements of MASH Test Level 4, in order to
validate its suitability for use on the highway network. MASH requires the completion of three
compliance tests in order to verify performance of a guardrail system, namely:

 Test 4-10 – 1100 kg (1100C) car impacting the barrier at a nominal 100 km/hr at an angle of
25 degrees.
 Test 4-11 - 2270 kg (2270P) pick up impacting the barrier at a nominal 100km/hr at an angle
of 25 degrees.
 Test 4-12 – 10,000 kg (10,000S) single unit truck impacting the barrier at a nominal 90km/hr
at an angle of 15 degrees.

The Ezy-Guard HC guardrail system was subjected to all three tests and found to meet all evaluation
criteria detailed in MASH for TL4 containment level. The results of the full scale compliance testing is
published in Holmes Solutions report 131395.01 (v1.2).

The system has also successfully undergone the following full scale crash testing:

 Test TB52 in accordance with EN1317-2, this is the containment of a 13,000kg bus impacting
the barrier at a nominal 70km/hr and an angle of 20 degrees.
 Test 4-12 with post at 2m centres in accordance with NCHRP-350 – this is the containment of
an 8,000 kg (8000S) single unit truck impacting the barrier at a nominal 80km/hr at an angle
of 15 degrees.
 Tests 4-10, 4-11 and 4-12 with posts at 4m centres in accordance with NCHRP-350.

From this we can see the Ezy-Guard HC system has proven to be a very robust roadside barrier.

6
3. VEHICLE MODEL SPECIFICATION
In the crash testing conducted by Holmes Solutions, the 2270P vehicle used in test 3-11 was a 2011
Dodge RAM 1500 Quad Cab. A finite element model of the Dodge RAM 1500 is not currently available.
The vehicle finite element model used in our simulations was the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 built by
the Centre for Collision Safety and Analysis (CCSA) at George Mason University in the USA.

Dimensions and characteristics of the vehicle are as follows. The gross static mass of the test vehicle
used by Holmes Solutions was 2229kg.

Test Vehicle FEA Vehicle MASH Spec Tolerance

Length [m] 5.826 5.84 6.02 ± 0.325
Width [m] Vehicle
1.965 Vehicle
2.03 Specification
1.95 ± Tolerance
0.05
Wheel track (front) [m] 1.727 1.73
Model 1.7 ± 0.038
Wheel track (rear) [m] 1.724 1.67 1.7 ± 0.038
No of axles 2 2 n/a n/a
Wheel radius [m] 0.419 0.39 n/a n/a
Wheel base [m] 3.566 3.64 3.76 ± 0.3
Test Inertial Mass [kg] 2265 2265 2270 ± 50
Gross Static Mass 2341 2341 2270 ± 50

dfg
Locations of vehicle center of gravity can be seen in the following table.

Test Vehicle FEA Vehicle MASH Spec Tolerance

CGx [m] 1.600 1.597 n/a n/a
CGy [m] Vehicle
N.A. Vehicle Model
0.007 Specification
n/a Toleranc
n/a
CGz [m] 0.711 0.761 0.710 Min
e

7
4. VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION – EZY-GUARD HC Test 3-11
A comprehensive and robust procedure for the verification and validation (V&V) of road safety
hardware computer simulations is detailed in NCHRP Report 179. The evaluation comprises three
main parts.

The first part is solution verification, this involves global checks to make sure the numerical solution
appears to be stable and conforming to the conservation laws. The outcome of this part is recorded
in Table E-1. The table requires information about the total energy, energy balance, hourglass energy,
shooting nodes and other computational characteristics of the model. The purpose of this part is to
provide information to the decision maker that indicates that the numerical solution obeyed basic
physical laws (e.g., conservation of energy, mass and momentum) and that the solution is numerically
stable.

The second part is a quantitative comparison of the time histories of the vehicle dynamics. The
quantitative evaluation metrics are generated by the RSVVP program. The objective of this part in the
process is to compare the baseline crash test time histories to the simulation time histories in an
objective, quantifiable manner. The data sets for this evaluation are taken from the accelerometers
in the physical testing and the FE Model.

The third part of the verification and validation report compares the phenomena observed in both the
crash test and the numerical solution. Table E-4 contains the Report 350/MASH crash test criteria
with the applicable test numbers. Tables E-5a through E-5c detail the comparison between the
physical crash test and the numerical solution in terms of Structural Adequacy, Occupant Risk and Post
Impact Vehicle Trajectory.

The physical crash test used in the V&V of the proposed bridge barrier model is the MASH 3-11 test
conducted as part of the TL4 compliance testing series. The FE model was built by Ingal Civil Products
and the V&V in accordance with NCHRP-179 was conducted by GDTech Engineering, refer report
number 21.VTR.014 which is included with this document. The conclusion to their report is as follows:

The numerical simulation of the TL4-11 test on the EzyGuard Thrie Beam system fits the
real crash test both in general behaviour of the impact and in performance assessment.

GDTech considers the numerical model and simulation presented in this report as
validated with respect to the TL4-11 crash test report, according to the NCHRP179.

8
5. BASEPLATED POST MODEL VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
5.1 BASEPLATED POST DESIGN
Dux Engineering Pty Ltd (Dux) were commissioned by Ingal Civil Products (ICP) to complete a design
review and a series of push-over tests on a proposed baseplated post, refer Dux report number
R00128. The proposed design is used as an alternative to the standard driven HC Z-post in conjunction
with the Ezy–Guard High Containment (HC) thrie-beam safety barrier system. A preliminary design
was submitted to Dux to analyse and review the design via structural static analysis. The proposed
design is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Proposed Surface Mount Design for Ezy−Guard HC post

Following the design review, a series of the proposed post design were bolted to a concrete test pad
to simulate real life conditions and subjected to an applied horizontal load in the “strong axis”
direction. All posts failed through a combination of torsional buckling and then a tensile failure of the
Z section at or near the base of the post. The final solution resulted in a surface mount system which
behaved stiffer than a soil driven post. Table 1 shows a summary of the results obtained from the
testing.

Post Configuration Max kg Peak Load (N) Peak Moment (kNm)

Surface Mount Average 2440 23936.4 20.35
In-ground Average 2125 20846.3 16.6
Table 1 – Summary of results for push over tests

The conclusion of the experimental testing and comparison to full scale compliance testing indicate
that the Ezy-Guard HC baseplated posts, as designed, should be capable of meeting the required
evaluation criteria for a longitudinal guardrail system by adequately redirecting an errant vehicle
without causing an undue hazard to the vehicle occupants or any other road users.

9
The proposed design was submitted to ASBAP as a variant of the Ezy-Guard HC system and was
subsequently recommended for acceptance. The variant was then accepted by all road agencies in
Australia and NZ, excluding WA.

5.2 FE POST MODEL VALIDATION

To validate the FE model of the baseplated post for use in the LSDyna crash simulations, we recreated
the post push-over testing previously conducted. The post was modelled with the appropriate steel
properties and the resistance tabs were removed for simplification and improved processing time. The
load applicator was replicated and a velocity of 0.1m/s was applied in the x-direction, i.e. strong axis
of the post.

Figure 2 FE model of post pre and post loading.

Post Configuration Peak Load (N) Peak Moment (kNm)

Surface Mount Average 23936 20.35
FE Baseplated Post Model 24561 20.95
% difference 2.9% increase
Table 2 – Summary of results for FE model push tests

The peak load recorded in the simulation was 24561 newtons, this represented a 2.9% increase on the
average value recorded in the physical testing. The typical tolerance on the structural adequacy
criteria given in NCHRP-179 is ±20% for deflection, working width and contact length. Therefore, we
believe this 2.9% increase is satisfactory for this evaluation.

10
 Figure 3 – Post resistance to load over time of loading.

5.3 SIDE-MOUNT UC SUPPORT FE MODEL DESIGN

The side mounted support structure was designed to offer easy installation and to be significantly
more robust than the barrier post, whereby limiting any plastic deformations to the post and rail
components in an impact. A 250 UC 72.9 section – Grade 300 was chosen for this component.

Below is a repeat of the above push over simulation showing the load capacity of the post is unchanged
when mounted on the UC Support. Further analysis on the effective plastic strain under the loading
from the vehicle impact show all plastic deformations are limited to the Z-Post of the barrier.

11
12
Time 0:00 Time 0:035

Time 0:70 Time 0:105

13
6. BARRIER MODEL SPECIFICATION
The barrier model specification was determined from the Holmes Solutions test report with the
characteristics copied form the test report number 131395.01.

Characteristics Holmes Solutions 3-11 Install Barrier Model

Install Length (m) 55.8 55.8
Barrier Height (m) 0.98 0.98
Barrier Width (m) 0.25 0.25
Post Spacing (m) varies varies
Used transitions YES YES
Used terminals YES YES

All post, rail and fastener material properties were copied from the validated model in report number
21.VTR.014. The baseplated post model was validated as detailed in section 5.1 The steel components
have been modelled as deformable with an elastic-plastic material law. The Carriage has been
modelled as rigid as no meaningful deformation of the carriage has been observed in physical testing.

The rail splice bolts have been modelled as rigid elements (rupture is not implemented), again, no bolt
rupture has ever been observed in physical crash testing of the Ezy-Guard systems. The bolt is rigidly
connected to the edges of the corresponding hole.

The bolts connecting the carriage and the rail are modelled as rigid. A numerical rigid constraint links
the bolt to the rail and the carriage.

Element description Dimensions [mm] Material Mass [kg]

W-Beam Rail 4m NLL 312x83x2.7 L=4318 HA350 46
Thriebeam Rail 2.7mm 505x83x3.5 L=4128 HA350 63
Ezy-Guard HC Post 60x1400x4.3 L=2000 HA300 20.4
Ezy-Guard HC post baseplate 200x150x16 HA250 13.5 incl. post
I-Beam Post 1829 100x150x4.9 L=1829 ASTM A992 22.9
Asymmetric Transition Rail 505x83x3.5 L=2223 HA350 59.2
Thriebeam Terminal 507x83x3.4 L=762 HA350 22.9
Ezy-Carriage
Connector 51x60x84 AS1831 G450-10 0.7
250-UC-72.9 Support 254x254x490 Appendix 5 36.0

Web=
The barrier model has been anchored with a typical anchoring terminal used in previous testing of the
Ezy-Guard systems for the upstream and downstream anchor. The components have been modelled
with the same technique just illustrated for the barrier. The cable is modelled with a rigid material and
it is numerically constrained at both its edges to the terminal components.

14
Soil properties were a derivation of the FHWA Nebraska Soil Command as detailed in LS-DYNA Manual
Volume II – Material Properties. The posts are embedded in this soil which is modelled as deformable.
For the vehicle contact purposes, the ground is modelled as a rigid surface.

15
16
17
7. SIMULATION REPORT – MASH 2-11 – AS5100.1 Low PL
To evaluate the crash performance of the Ezy-Guard HC Bridge Barrier for the requirements of
AS5100.2 Low Performance Level, the nominated MASH containment level is Test Level 2. This is the
containment and redirection of a 2270kg vehicle impacting the barrier at 70km/h with an impact angle
of 25˚.

The CIP was chosen as per MASH Figure 2-1, with the centre of the vehicle aimed at the third
baseplated post on the structure. Excluding the reduced post spacing upstream and downstream of
the structure, no other changes were made to the model.

General Information Analysis Solution

Performing Organization Ingal Civil Products
Test/Run Number: Ezy-Guard HC Bridge Barrier 2-11
Vehicle: Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Vehicle Mass: 2270 kg
Speed: 70 km/h
Angle: 25°
Impact Point: 460mm upstream of post 14

The crash performance of the connection is detailed in sections 7.1 and 7.2, and the accelerometer
time histories and post impact vehicle trajectories can be found in Appendix 1.

18
 7.1 PART 2: ANALYSIS SOLUTION VERIFICATION
The purpose of this table is to ensure that the numerical solution produces results that are numerically
stable and conform to the conservation laws (e.g., energy, mass and momentum).

Table 7-1. Analysis Solution Verification Table.

Change
Pass?
Verification Evaluation Criteria (%)
Total energy of the analysis solution (i.e., kinetic, potential, contact, etc.) must not vary
E1-1 0.0 Y
more than 10 percent from the beginning of the run to the end of the run.
Hourglass Energy of the analysis solution at the end of the run is less than five percent of
E1-2 0.0 Y
the total initial energy at the beginning of the run.

Hourglass Energy of the analysis solution at the end of the run is less than ten percent of
E1-3 0.0 Y
the total internal energy at the end of the run.

The part/material with the highest amount of hourglass energy at the end of the run is less
E1-4 8.2 Y
than ten percent of the total internal energy of the part/material at the end of the run.

E1-5 Mass added to the total model is less than five percent of the total model mass at the 0.0 Y
beginning of the run.

E1-6 The part/material with the most mass added had less than 10 percent of its initial mass 6.3 Y
added.

E1-7 The moving parts/materials in the model have less than five percent of mass added to the 0.0 Y
initial moving mass of the model.
E1-8 There are no shooting nodes in the solution? 0 Y
E1-9 There are no solid elements with negative volumes? 0 Y

The Analysis Solution (check one) ☒ passes ☐ does NOT pass all the criteria in Table E-1
☐ with ☒ without exceptions as noted.

19
 7.2 PART 3: PHENOMENA IMPORTANCE RANKING TABLE
Table 7-2. MASH Evaluation Criteria Test Applicability Table.

Evaluation Applicable Tests

Evaluation Criteria
Factors
Structural Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle; the vehicle should
Adequacy A not penetrate, under-ride, or override the installation although 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22,
controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable. 35, 36, 37, 38
The test article should readily activate in a predictable manner by
B 60, 61, 70, 71, 80, 81
breaking away, fracturing or yielding.
Acceptable test article performance may be by redirection, controlled 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39,
C
penetration or controlled stopping of the vehicle. 40, 41,
Occupant Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52,
Risk should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant 53
D All
compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians
or personnel in a work zone.
Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article, or
E vehicular damage should not block the driver’s vision or otherwise 70, 71
cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle. (Answer Yes or No)
The vehicle should remain upright during and after the collision All except those listed
F
although moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. in criterion G
12, 22 (for test level 1
It is preferable, although not essential, that the vehicle remain upright
G – 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
during and after collision.
35, 36, 37, 38,
Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
Occupant Impact Velocity Limits (m/s) 10, 20, 30,31, 32, 33,
34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43,
Component Preferred Maximum
50, 51, 52, 53,
H Longitudinal and
9 12 80, 81
Lateral
Longitudinal 3 5 60, 61, 70, 71
Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following:
Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g’s) 10, 20, 30,31, 32, 33,
34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43,
I Component Preferred Maximum
50, 51, 52, 53,
Longitudinal and
15 20 60, 61, 70, 71, 80, 81
Lateral
Vehicle The occupant impact velocity in the longitudinal direction should not
Trajectory L exceed 40 ft/sec (12.2m/s) and the occupant ride-down acceleration in 11, 21, 35, 37, 38, 39
the longitudinal direction should not exceed 20 G’s.
The exit angle from the test article preferable should be less than 60
M percent of test impact angle, measured at the time of vehicle loss of 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22,
contact with test device. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39,
N Vehicle trajectory behind the test article is acceptable.
42, 43,
44, 60, 61, 70, 71, 80,
81

20
 Table 7-3. Roadside Safety Phenomena Importance Ranking Table (Structural Adequacy)

Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Result

Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle; the vehicle should
A1 not penetrate, under-ride, or override the installation although YES
controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable.

A2 Maximum dynamic deflection: 0.68 m

Structural Adequacy

A3 Length of vehicle-barrier contact: 6.2m

A A4 The relative difference in the number of broken or significantly bent N/A

posts is less than 20 percent.

A5 The rail element did not rupture or fail (Answer Yes or No). YES

A6 There were no failures of connector elements (Answer Yes or No). YES

A7 There was no significant snagging between the vehicle wheels and YES
barrier elements (Answer Yes or No).

A8 There was no significant snagging between vehicle body components YES

and barrier elements (Answer Yes or No).

B1 The test article should readily activate in a predictable manner by N/A

B
breaking away, fracturing or yielding. (Answer Yes or No)

C1 Acceptable test article performance may be by redirection, controlled N/A

penetration or controlled stopping of the vehicle. (Answer Yes or No)

C2 The relative difference in maximum system stroke is less than 20 N/A

percent.

C C3 The relative difference in the number of broken or significantly bent N/A

posts is less than 20 percent.
C4 The rail element did not rupture or tear N/A
(Answer Yes or No).
C5 There were no failures of connector elements (Answer Yes or No). N/A

21
 Table 7-4. Roadside Safety Phenomena Importance Ranking Table (Occupant Risk)

Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Result

Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article should
not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant YES
D compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians or
personnel in a work zone. (Answer Yes or No)

Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article, or

vehicular damage should not block the driver’s vision or otherwise cause N/A
E the driver to lose control of the vehicle. (Answer Yes or No)

The vehicle should remain upright during and after the collision although
Occupant Risk

F1 moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. (Answer Pass or Not Pass
pass)

F2 Maximum roll of the vehicle: 8.4

F F3 Maximum pitch of the vehicle is: 7.4

F4 Maximum yaw of the vehicle is: -34.0

It is preferable, although not essential, that the vehicle remain upright

G during and after collision. N/A

22
 Table 7-5. Roadside Safety Phenomena Importance Ranking Table (Vehicle Trajectory)

Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Result

Occupant impact velocities:

Longitudinal OIV (m/s) 4.0

L1
Lateral OIV (m/s) 3.7
THIV (m/s) 5.4
Occupant accelerations:
L
Longitudinal ORA (g) -16.2
Vehicle Trajectory

L2 Lateral ORA (g) -6.6

PHD (g) 16.2
ASI 0.65
The exit angle from the test article preferable should be less than
60% of test impact angle, measured at the time of vehicle loss of 31.2%
M1 contact with test device.

M2 Exit angle at loss of contact: 7.8˚

M
M3 Exit velocity at loss of contact: 10.8 m/s
One or more vehicle tires failed or de-beaded during the collision
M4 event (Answer Yes or No). No

N Vehicle trajectory went behind the test article (Answer Yes or No) N/A

The Analysis Solution (check one) ☒ passes ☐ does NOT pass all the criteria in Table E-5
☐ with ☒ without exceptions as noted.

7.3 SIMULATION CONCLUSION

The numerical simulation of the 2-11 test on the Ezy-Guard HC Bridge Barrier demonstrates acceptable
vehicle behaviour and meets all the criteria for MASH Test 2-11.

23
8. SIMULATION REPORT – 2270P – 100km/h @ 15˚
Many secondary roads with an AS5100.2 Low Performance Level barrier specified have a posted speed
higher than 70km/h. However, these roads are rarely wide enough for an errant vehicle travelling at
100km/h to achieve an impact angle of 25˚. To better represent real world conditions, a modified 3-
11 test was simulated with an impact angle of 15˚, refer section 1 for determination of this angle. The
test vehicle was the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 with a mass of 2270kg. No changes were made to the
barrier model and the same CIP was used as in the 2-11.

General Information Analysis Solution

Performing Organization Ingal Civil Products
Test/Run Number: Ezy-Guard HC Bridge Barrier 3-11 modified
Vehicle: Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Vehicle Mass: 2270 kg
Speed: 100 km/h
Angle: 15°
Impact Point: 180mm downstream of post 14

The crash performance and evaluation criteria of the test simulation are detailed in the following
sections and the accelerometer time histories and impact images can be found in Appendix 2.

24
 8.1 PART 2: ANALYSIS SOLUTION VERIFICATION
The purpose of this table is to ensure that the numerical solution produces results that are numerically
stable and conform to the conservation laws (e.g., energy, mass and momentum).

Table 8-1. Analysis Solution Verification Table.

Change
Pass?
Verification Evaluation Criteria (%)
Total energy of the analysis solution (i.e., kinetic, potential, contact, etc.) must not vary
E1-1 0.0% Y
more than 10 percent from the beginning of the run to the end of the run.
Hourglass Energy of the analysis solution at the end of the run is less than five percent of
E1-2 0.0% Y
the total initial energy at the beginning of the run.

Hourglass Energy of the analysis solution at the end of the run is less than ten percent of
E1-3 0.0% Y
the total internal energy at the end of the run.

The part/material with the highest amount of hourglass energy at the end of the run is less
E1-4 5.4% Y
than ten percent of the total internal energy of the part/material at the end of the run.

E1-5 Mass added to the total model is less than five percent of the total model mass at the 0.0% Y
beginning of the run.

E1-6 The part/material with the most mass added had less than 10 percent of its initial mass 4.7% Y
added.

E1-7 The moving parts/materials in the model have less than five percent of mass added to the 0.0% Y
initial moving mass of the model.
E1-8 There are no shooting nodes in the solution? 0 Y
E1-9 There are no solid elements with negative volumes? 0 Y

The Analysis Solution (check one) ☒ passes ☐ does NOT pass all the criteria in Table E-1
☐ with ☒ without exceptions as noted.

25
 8.2 PART 3: PHENOMENA IMPORTANCE RANKING TABLE
Table 8-2. MASH Evaluation Criteria Test Applicability Table.

Evaluation Applicable Tests

Evaluation Criteria
Factors
Structural Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle; the vehicle should
Adequacy A not penetrate, under-ride, or override the installation although 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22,
controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable. 35, 36, 37, 38
The test article should readily activate in a predictable manner by
B 60, 61, 70, 71, 80, 81
breaking away, fracturing or yielding.
Acceptable test article performance may be by redirection, controlled 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39,
C
penetration or controlled stopping of the vehicle. 40, 41,
Occupant Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52,
Risk should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant 53
D All
compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians
or personnel in a work zone.
Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article, or
E vehicular damage should not block the driver’s vision or otherwise 70, 71
cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle. (Answer Yes or No)
The vehicle should remain upright during and after the collision All except those listed
F
although moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. in criterion G
12, 22 (for test level 1
It is preferable, although not essential, that the vehicle remain upright
G – 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
during and after collision.
35, 36, 37, 38,
Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
Occupant Impact Velocity Limits (m/s) 10, 20, 30,31, 32, 33,
34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43,
Component Preferred Maximum
50, 51, 52, 53,
H Longitudinal and
9 12 80, 81
Lateral
Longitudinal 3 5 60, 61, 70, 71
Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following:
Occupant Ridedown Acceleration Limits (g’s) 10, 20, 30,31, 32, 33,
34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43,
I Component Preferred Maximum
50, 51, 52, 53,
Longitudinal and
15 20 60, 61, 70, 71, 80, 81
Lateral
Vehicle The occupant impact velocity in the longitudinal direction should not
Trajectory L exceed 40 ft/sec (12.2 m/s) and the occupant ride-down acceleration in 11, 21, 35, 37, 38, 39
the longitudinal direction should not exceed 20 G’s.
The exit angle from the test article preferable should be less than 60
10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22,
M percent of test impact angle, measured at the time of vehicle loss of
35, 36, 37, 38, 39
contact with test device.
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39,
N Vehicle trajectory behind the test article is acceptable.
42, 43,
44, 60, 61, 70, 71, 80,
81

26
 Table 8-3. Roadside Safety Phenomena Importance Ranking Table (Structural Adequacy)

Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Result

Test article should contain and redirect the vehicle; the vehicle should
A1 not penetrate, under-ride, or override the installation although YES
controlled lateral deflection of the test article is acceptable.

A2 Maximum dynamic deflection: 0.74 m

Structural Adequacy

A3 Length of vehicle-barrier contact: 11.6m

A A4 The relative difference in the number of broken or significantly bent N/A

posts is less than 20 percent.

A5 The rail element did not rupture or fail (Answer Yes or No). YES

A6 There were no failures of connector elements (Answer Yes or No). YES

A7 There was no significant snagging between the vehicle wheels and YES
barrier elements (Answer Yes or No).

A8 There was no significant snagging between vehicle body components YES

and barrier elements (Answer Yes or No).

B1 The test article should readily activate in a predictable manner by N/A

B
breaking away, fracturing or yielding. (Answer Yes or No)

C1 Acceptable test article performance may be by redirection, controlled N/A

penetration or controlled stopping of the vehicle. (Answer Yes or No)

C2 The relative difference in maximum system stroke is less than 20 N/A

percent.

C C3 The relative difference in the number of broken or significantly bent N/A

posts is less than 20 percent.
C4 The rail element did not rupture or tear N/A
(Answer Yes or No).
C5 There were no failures of connector elements (Answer Yes or No). N/A

27
 Table 8-4. Roadside Safety Phenomena Importance Ranking Table (Occupant Risk)

Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Result

Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article should
not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant YES
D compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians or
personnel in a work zone. (Answer Yes or No)

Detached elements, fragments or other debris from the test article, or

vehicular damage should not block the driver’s vision or otherwise cause N/A
E the driver to lose control of the vehicle. (Answer Yes or No)

The vehicle should remain upright during and after the collision although
Occupant Risk

F1 moderate roll, pitching and yawing are acceptable. (Answer Pass or Not Pass
pass)

F2 Maximum roll of the vehicle: 4.3˚

F F3 Maximum pitch of the vehicle is: 3.1˚

F4 Maximum yaw of the vehicle is: -21.5˚

It is preferable, although not essential, that the vehicle remain upright

G during and after collision. N/A

28
 Table 8-5. Roadside Safety Phenomena Importance Ranking Table (Vehicle Trajectory)

Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Result

Occupant impact velocities:

Longitudinal OIV (m/s) 3.1

L1
Lateral OIV (m/s) 3.6
THIV (m/s) 4.7
Occupant accelerations:
L
Longitudinal ORA (g) -12.4
Vehicle Trajectory

L2 Lateral ORA (g) -8.2

PHD (g) 12.4
ASI 0.5
The exit angle from the test article preferable should be less than
60% of test impact angle, measured at the time of vehicle loss of 21.3%
M1 contact with test device.

M2 Exit angle at loss of contact: 3.2 ˚

M
M3 Exit velocity at loss of contact: 21.2 m/s
One or more vehicle tires failed or de-beaded during the collision
M4 event (Answer Yes or No). No

N Vehicle trajectory went behind the test article (Answer Yes or No) N/A

The Analysis Solution (check one) ☒ passes ☐ does NOT pass all the criteria in Table E-5
☐ with ☒ without exceptions as noted.

8.3 SIMULATION CONCLUSION

The numerical simulation of the 3-11-modified on the Ezy-Guard HC Bridge Barrier demonstrated
acceptable vehicle behaviour and meets all the evaluation criteria for MASH test 3-11 as a redirective
barrier. Vehicle stability would be considered Good.

29
9. CONCLUSION
The Ezy-Guard HC system has demonstrated compliance to MASH Test Level 4 through a series of full
scale crash tests. A numerical FE model of the 3-11 crash test has been built with verification and
validation in accordance with NCHRP-179. To validate the systems performance in accordance with
the nominated containment level of TL2 for Low Performance Level of AS5100.2, the FE model was
modified with a series of baseplated posts secured to the side of rigid structure to represent a bridge
or culvert. The baseplated post FE model was validated through a series of destructive tests on
physical posts. The side support structure was a 250mm universal column with a capping plate to
support the barrier Z-Post.

A series of two crash simulations were conducted, a MASH 2-11 and a modified MASH 3-11 with an
impact angle of 15˚. Both simulations satisfied the criteria for NCHRP-179 and MASH 16 for a
longitudinal barrier, with a clean containment and redirection of the vehicle in both tests.

Minor encroachment of the vehicle’s wheels over the edge of the structure was observed in both
simulations but this was not detrimental to the vehicle stability and it was seen to return to the
travelled way in both simulations.

This support structure was shown to be significantly more robust than the barrier posts and exhibited
no plastic deformations in either simulation.

30
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Compliance testing of the Ezy-Guard High Containment TL4 Thrie Beam Barrier, Holmes
Solutions LP, Report number: 131395.01, Oct 2016.
 LS-DYNA® KEYWORD USER'S MANUAL - VOLUME II Material Models, Livermore Software
Technology Corporation (LSTC), LS-DYNA R7.1, May 2014. Available from
https://ftp.lstc.com/anonymous/outgoing/jday/manuals/LS-DYNA_manual_Vol_II_R7.1.pdf
 Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, Second Edition, American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials, 2016.
 NCHRP-179 - Procedures for Verification and Validation of Computer Simulations Used for
Roadside Safety Applications, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2011. https://doi.org/10.17226/17647.
 Virtual testing report INGAL – EzyGuard barrier – TL4-11 Numerical validation, GDTech s.a.,
Report number 21.VTR.014, 16 February 2021.

31
APPENDIX 1 – MASH 2-11 – AS5100.1 Low PL ADDITIONAL INFO
A1.1 ACCELEROMETER TIME HISTORIES

32
A1.2 POST IMPACT VEHICLE PHOTOS

33
A1.3 PRE/POST IMPACT BARRIER PHOTOS

34
A1.4 VEHICLE/BARRIER ENGAGEMENT PHOTOS

35
36
APPENDIX 2 – 2270P 100km/h @15˚ – ADDITIONAL INFO
A2.1 ACCELEROMETER TIME HISTORIES

37
A2.2 POST IMPACT VEHICLE PHOTOS

38
A2.3 PRE/POST IMPACT BARRIER PHOTOS

39
A2.4 VEHICLE/BARRIER ENGAGEMENT PHOTOS

40
41
APPENDIX 3 – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

42
APPENDIX 4 – 250 UC 72.9 Material Spec

43
APPENDIX 5 – UC PLATFORM DRAWING

44