STI Project:

MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 1 of 52

MASH Test Report

Lindsay Transportation Solutions

MAX-Tension End Terminal, Tangent
December 2016

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Safe Technologies, Inc. KARCO Engineering, LLC
170 River Road, Rio Vista, CA 94571 9270 Holly Road, Adelanto, CA 92301

Joseph Nagy Alex Beltran

Test Facility Manager Program Manager

Prepared For:
Lindsay Transportation Solutions
180 River Road
Rio Vista, CA 94571

Final Report Date: February, 2017

STI Project: MET015
MASH Test 3-31

This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the prior written approval of Safe Technologies, Inc.

V0.5
020817
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 2 of 52

DISCLAIMER

This document was prepared by Safe Technologies, Inc. under contract to Lindsay
Transportation Solutions. This report reflects the view of Safe Technologies, Inc., who is solely
responsible for the findings and conclusions reported herein. The results presented in this report
relate only to the specific articles that were tested.

DISCLAIMER KARCO Engineering, LLC

The KARCO signature represents that we have been involved with the testing process as a
contractor with Lindsay Transportation Solutions. During this process, we have made
suggestions to the testing practices and reporting based on our experience and expertise. KARCO
reviewed this report for accuracy and correct representation of test parameters and results.
KARCO is not attesting that we been involved in every aspect and therefore, it should not be
interpreted as our approval of the testing or results.
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 3 of 52

CONVERSION FACTORS

To convert from To Multiply by

ACCELERATION

Foot per second squared Meters per second squared 0.304799

(ft/s²) (m/s²)

AREA

Square foot (ft²) Square meter (m²) 0.092903

ENERGY

Foot-pound (ft-lb) Kilojoules (kJ) 0.001356

FORCE

Pound-force (lb) Newton (N) 4.448222

LENGTH

Inch (in) Millimeter (mm) 25.400000

Inch (in) Meter (m) .025400

Foot (ft) Meter (m) .304

MASS

Pound-mass (lbm) Kilogram (kg) .453592

PRESSURE OR STRESS

Pounds per square inch (psi) Pascal (Pa) 6,894.757293

VELOCITY

Miles per hour (mph) Kilometers per hour (kph) 1.609344

Feet per second (ft/s) Meters per second (m/s) .304

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 4 of 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Study Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Scope of Study ............................................................................................................................ 6
II. SYSTEM DETAILS ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Test Article and Installation Details ........................................................................................... 6
2.2 Design Modifications during Tests ............................................................................................. 7
2.3 Material Specifications ............................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Soil Conditions............................................................................................................................ 8
III. TEST REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................................................... 8
3.1 Crash Test Matrix ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 8
IV. TEST CONDITIONS........................................................................................................................ 11
4.1 Test Facility .............................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Vehicle Tow and Guidance System .......................................................................................... 11
4.3 Test Vehicle .............................................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Data Acquisition Systems ......................................................................................................... 15
V. CRASH TEST................................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 Test Designation and Actual Impact Conditions ...................................................................... 16
5.2 Test Descriptions ...................................................................................................................... 16
5.3 Test Article and Component Damage ....................................................................................... 16
5.4 Vehicle Damage ........................................................................................................................ 16
5.5 Occupant Risk Values ............................................................................................................... 22
5.6 Discussions ............................................................................................................................... 22
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 23
6.1 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 23
6.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF TEST ARTICLE ...................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX B. CRASH TEST ................................................................................................................. 38

APPENDIX C. SIEVE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX D. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 52

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 5 of 52

List of Figures
Figure 1 (Test Layout Drawing) ................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2 (Test Vehicle Equipment and Guidance System) ....................................................................... 12
Figure 3 (Pre-Test Vehicle Specifications) ............................................................................................... 14
Figure 4 (Summary of Results) ................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 5 (Pre-Test Article Photographs) ................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6 (Post-Test Article Photographs) ................................................................................................. 19
Figure 7 (Pre-Test Vehicle Photographs) ................................................................................................. 20
Figure 8 (Post-Test Vehicle Photographs) ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 9 (Baseline Soil Test Results)........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10 (Test Specific Soil Test Results) .............................................................................................. 25
Figure 11 B-1 Accelerometer Data Analysis .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 12 B-2 (Plot of X Acceleration at CG) .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 13 B-3 (Plot of Y Acceleration at CG) .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 14 B-4 (Plot of Z Acceleration at CG) .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 15 B-5 (X-Y Resultant Acceleration at CG) ................................................................................. 41
Figure 16 B-6 (X-Y-Z Resultant Acceleration at CG).............................................................................. 41
Figure 17 B-7 (Yaw Rate)......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 18 B-8 (Yaw Angle) ...................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 19 B-9 (ASI) .................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 20 B-10 (Roll, Pitch and Yaw Rates) ............................................................................................ 43
Figure 21 B-11 (Roll, Pitch and Yaw Angles) .......................................................................................... 44

List of Illustrations
Illustration A-1 .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Illustration A-2 .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Illustration A-3 .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Illustration A-4 .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Illustration A-5 .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Illustration A-6 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Illustration A-7 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Illustration A-8 .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Illustration A-9 .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Illustration A-10 ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Illustration A-11 ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Illustration A-12 ........................................................................................................................................ 37

List of Tables
Table 1 (Crash Test Matrix)……………………………………………………………………………...10
Table 2 (Test Results Evaluation Criteria)……………………………………………………………….10
Table 3 (Recommended Properties for MASH 2270P Test Vehicles)………………………………….. 13
Table 4 B.1 Occupant Compartment Deformation……………………………………………………… 38

MAX-Tension
I. INTRODUCTION
Guardrail End Terminals are highway safety
devices intended to improve the occupant
safety of errant vehicles that would
otherwise impact the end of rigid or semi-
rigid barriers or fixed roadside hazards.
They are designed to absorb the kinetic
energy of an impact and decelerate vehicles
in a safe and controlled manner. They are
also intended to function as a re-directive
barrier when struck along the side by
allowing controlled redirection of the
vehicle from roadside or median hazards.
These types of systems are typically
installed in locations where head-on and
angled impacts are likely to occur.
Lindsay Transportation Solutions requested
the testing of MAX-Tension, a new Tangent
Guardrail End Terminal designed to meet
the latest test standards defined in the
Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware
(MASH), Second Edition.
1.1 Problem Statement
The purpose of this series of tests was to
demonstrate acceptable impact performance
of the MAX-Tension, a new Tangent
Guardrail End Terminal developed by
Lindsay Transportation Solutions, per the
recommended testing requirements for
terminals specified in MASH at Test Level
3.
1.2 Study Objectives
The objective of Safe Technologies, Inc.
(STI) test MET015 was to safely crash test,
evaluate and report the results of the testing
of the MAX-Tension to the guidelines
specified for MASH Test 3-31.
STI Project:
MET015
Page 6 of 52
1.3 Scope of Study
The Scope of STI test MET015 was to
evaluate the acceptable performance of the
MAX-Tension system to MASH Test 3-31.
This test is designed to evaluate a systems
ability to absorb sufficient energy to
decelerate and stop a 2270P vehicle in a safe
and controlled manner.
II. SYSTEM DETAILS
2.1 Test Article and Installation Details
The MAX-Tension End Terminal is
designed and constructed to provide
acceptable structural adequacy, minimal
occupant risk and safe vehicle trajectory as
set forth in MASH for End Terminals.
The MAX-Tension End Terminal uses
standard, 4-spaced, 12 gauge w-beam
guardrail panels spliced mid-span between
the posts. The top of the guardrail is
installed at 31 in (787 mm) above ground.
Post 1 is a W6x9 steel post and has a tapered
slot designed to facilitate proper release
from the rail in head-on impacts. It does not
use a blockout. Posts 2 through 9 are
standard W6x8.5 line posts using 8 in (203
mm) composite or timber blockouts. The
posts are spaced 75 in (1,905 mm) apart
except for the spacing between posts 1 and 2
and posts 5 and 6. These are spaced at 37 ½
in (952 mm) and 72 ¾ in (1,848 mm) apart,
respectively. The W-Beam rail is not
connected to the blockout and post at post 6.
The front of the system is anchored with a
one-piece soil anchor with 68 1/8” (1730
mm) embedment. A ground strut connects
the top of the soil anchor to post 1 through a
bolted connection. A pair of galvanized steel
cables are attached to the soil anchor which
are then routed through the ground strut and
the impact head, terminating in the slider
assembly approximately 25 ft (7.62m)

MAX-Tension
downstream. These cables, in conjunction
with the cutting tooth and post yielding, act
as energy absorbing features for head-on
impacts. The cable assemblies are designed
to yield at a prescribed load to control
ridedown accelerations during frontal
impacts.
The impact head is covered by a thin sheet-
metal delineation bracket. The cables are
tensioned by a friction bar inside the impact
head. As the impact head slides downstream,
the friction between the cables and the
friction bar absorbs energy.
A cutting tooth is installed at the end of the
second panel, roughly 25 ft (7.62 m) behind
the impact head. This tooth acts as a
secondary energy absorbing feature during
head-on impacts by slicing the downstream
guardrail in half along its length as the
impact head is pushed downstream.
The test article installed consists of the
MAX-Tension Guardrail End Terminal,
with an effective length of 50.8 ft (15.5 m),
measured from the impact head. The ground
strut and soil anchor extend 55 in (1.4 m) in
front of the impact head. The End Terminal
was attached to 100 ft (30.4 m) of
downstream guardrail, anchored at the end
with an AASHTO trailing end terminal
SEW02a.
Following is a list of all of the components
that were used in the installation tested. The
items highlighted in bold represent
proprietary components.
Unique MAX-Tension components:
o (1) Soil Anchor
o (1) Ground Strut (original, ¼ in)
o (1) Impact Head
o (1) Post 1
o (1) Traffic Side Slider Panel
o (1) Inside Slider Panel
STI Project:
MET015
Page 7 of 52
o (1) Tooth
o (1) Rear Side Slider Plate
o (1) Friction Bar
o (2) Cable Assembly
o (1) Bracket, Delineation
o (1) Washer, Square
o (1) Bolt, HH, 5/8”-11x7”
o (4) Bolt, HH, 3/4”-10x3”
o (2) Washer, 5/8” F436
o (3) Screw, SD, HH, 1/4"-20x3/4”, SS
Standard Guardrail components:
o (23) Line Posts
o (12) W-Beam Guardrail RWM04a
o (23) Composite 8” Blockouts
o (23) 5/8” x 10” Guardrail bolts
o (112) 5/8” x 1 1/4" Guardrail bolts
o (138) Guardrail nuts
o (1) BCT cable and anchor: SEW02a
o (1) Guardrail bolt, 5/8”-11x2”
The test article configuration and layout,
including point of impact is summarized in
Figure 1.
The test article was assembled by a local
guardrail contractor under the supervision of
STI. Details of the assembly procedure,
component drawings and material
specifications are shown in Appendix A.
2.2 Design Modifications during Tests
Evidence during testing resulted in a
modification of the system for Test 3-37. A
rectangular guardrail plate washer was
added to the face of the rail and the bolt was
changed to Grade 5 at the connection of the
rail and impact head to post 1. Tests 3-37, 3-
30 and 3-34 were all performed using the
Grade 5 bolt and the rectangular washer.
This test was run prior to Test 3-37, as a
result it did not use the rectangular plate
washer and used a standard Grade 2
guardrail bolt.
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 8 of 52

Evidence during testing resulted in a 3.2 Evaluation Criteria

modification of the ground strut for Test 3-
35. The original ground strut, used in this Assessments of the MASH evaluation
test, was made of 1/4 in thick material. The criteria are listed in Table 2.
material thickness of the ground strut was
later increased to 3/8 in for Test 3-35.

For this test, the MAX-Tension system was

installed at 30” to show that the system is
able to contain the vehicle at the lowest rail
height of the allowable tolerance.

2.3 Material Specifications

There are 11 proprietary MAX-Tension

components. Material and finish
specifications for each component are
defined on their respective drawings shown
in Appendix A.

2.4 Soil Conditions

The soil used at the STI facility is a readily

available California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) Class II Aggregate
Base that is comparable to the AASHTO
grade A&B soil aggregate material. A sieve
analysis report is shown in Appendix C.

A baseline dynamic (bogie) and static (pull)

soil test was performed for the MAX-
Tension series of tests. Results of these tests
are shown in Figure 9. In addition, a static
pull test was performed on the day of the
test to ensure the soil performance was no
more than 10% below the baseline static soil
test performance. The results of this test are
presented in Figure 10.

III. TEST REQUIREMENTS AND

EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1 Crash Test Matrix

The crash test matrix for this test series is

detailed in Table 1. Details specific to test
MET015 are highlighted in bold.
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 9 of 52

Figure 1 (Test Layout Drawing)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 10 of 52

Table 1 (Crash Test Matrix)

Test Designation Impact Conditions

Nominal Nominal Impact Point
MASH Safe Technologies
Vehicle Speed Angle
Test No. Test No.
(kph) (deg)
3-30 MET161228 1100C 100 0 ¼ Offset

3-31 MET015 2270P 100 0 Front/Center

Test
Level 3 3-32 MET161203 1100C 100 5 Front/Center

3-33 MET161206 2270P 100 5 Front/Center

3-34 MET161229 1100C 100 15 CIP

3-35 MET161212 2270P 100 25 BLON

3-37 MET161220 2270P 100 25 Reverse CIP

Table 2 (Test Results Evaluation Criteria)

MASH Evaluation Criteria Test Results Assessment

Structural Adequacy
Vehicle was brought to a controlled
C. Acceptable test article performance may be by redirection, controlled Pass
stop.
penetration or controlled stopping of the vehicle.
Occupant Risk
D. Detached elements, fragments, or other debris from the test article should not
penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or
No detached debris Pass
present 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 5.3 and Appendix E of MASH.
Occupant Risk Vehicle remained upright.
F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision. The maximum Roll = 4.4 degrees Pass
roll and pitch angles are not to exceed 75 degrees. Pitch = 21.6 degrees

Occupant Risk Longitudinal OIV =

Passed Below
H. Occupant impact velocities (longitudinal and lateral) should satisfy the 7.7 m/s (25.3 ft/s)
Preferred Limit
following limits: Preferred: 9.1 m/s (30.0 ft/s), Maximum: 12.2 m/s (40.0 ft/s) Lateral OIV = 0.1 m/s (0.3 ft/s)
Occupant Risk
Longitudinal RA = 7.6 G Passed Below
I. The occupant ridedown accelerations (longitudinal and lateral) should satisfy
Lateral RA = 2.6 G Preferred Limit
the following limits: Preferred: 15.0 G, Maximum: 20.49 G

Vehicle Trajectory Vehicle contained and brought to a

Pass
N. Vehicle trajectory behind the test article acceptable. controlled stop

MAX-Tension
IV. TEST CONDITIONS
4.1 Test Facility
The reported test was conducted at the Safe
Technologies, Inc., test facility in
conjunction with KARCO Engineering,
LLC. The test facility is located at 170 River
Road, Rio Vista, California. The test facility
features a full-scale crash testing area with
two tracks described in Figure 2.
4.2 Vehicle Tow and Guidance System
The vehicle was towed up to the test speed
and the prime mover was disengaged prior
to impact. The steering mechanism was
disengaged from the towing system prior to
impact and was unconstrained thereafter.
STI Project:
MET015
Page 11 of 52
The prime mover of the system is a sled that
is accelerated by a counter weight pulley
system. The vehicle is coupled to the sled
by a retractable latch and pulled down the
track. The latch assembly is attached to the
undercarrage of the vehicle. The latch is
coupled to the sled by a hook. The prime
mover is disengaged prior to impact,
permitting the vehicle to “free wheel” into
the test article. No brakes are applied during
or after impact. The steering wheel is not
contained and does not effect significant
change in vehicle dynamics during or
immediately after the article colision. The
layout of the testing facility, the attachment
mechanisms and the guidance system are
described in Figure 2.
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 12 of 52

Figure 2 (Test Vehicle Equipment and Guidance System)

Pulley
Test Article System

Retractable Guidance
Latch Sled
Track Disconnect Sled Pulley
Mechanism
Cable

Attachment
Hook

Cable Pulley
System Sled / Track Detail
SLED

Guidance System
Sled Track

Front Tires

Front Springs
(Suspension)

Vehicle Undercarriage View

Retracting Sled Connection Block

Attachment Ring (Welded)
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 13 of 52

4.3 Test Vehicle

A commercially available production model
2010 Dodge Ram 1500 quad cab pickup
crash test vehicle was used to evaluate the
impact performance of the MAX-Tension.
As specified in MASH, a 2270P vehicle was
used in the test. The properties of the test
vehicle recommended in MASH are given in
Table 3. The curb mass of the vehicle was as
specified, 4,935 lbs (2,238.5 kg). The test
inertial mass was 4,848 lbs (2,199.0 kg),
and the gross static mass was 5,002 lbs
(2,269.0 kg).
The test vehicle was in good condition, free
of major body damage and was not missing
structural parts. Vehicle bumpers and other
structural elements were standard equipment
and unmodified for the test. Vehicle tire
sizes were in accordance with the
manufacturer’s suggested sizes. Before
testing, the battery and fluids were removed
for safety and environmental reasons in case
of a leak.
The pre-test vehicle specifications are
shown in Figure 3.

Table 3 (Recommended Properties for MASH 2270P Test Vehicles)

Property 2270P (Pickup Truck)

MASS, lbs (kg)
Test Inertial 5,000 ± 110 (2,270 ± 50)
Dummy Optional
Maximum Ballast 440 (200)
Gross Static 5,000 ± 110 (2,270 ± 50)
DIMENSIONS, in (mm)
Wheelbase 148 ± 12 (3,760 ± 300)
Front Overhang 39 ± 3 (1000 ± 75)
Overall Length 237 ± 13 (6,020 ± 325)
Overall Width 78 ± 2 (1,950 ± 50)
Hood Height 43 ± 4 (1100 ± 75)
Track Width (front and rear axle avg.) 67 ± 1.5 (1,700 ± 38)
CENTER OF MASS LOCATION, in (mm)
Aft of Front Axle 63 ± 4 (1,575 ± 100)
Above Ground (minimum) 28.0 (710)
LOCATION OF ENGINE Front
LOCATION OF DRIVE AXLE Rear

TYPE OF TRANSMISSION Manual or Automatic

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 14 of 52

Figure 3 (Pre-Test Vehicle Specifications)

Date: 11/22/2016 Test Number: MET015 Model: Ram, 1500

Make: Dodge Vehicle I.D. #: 1D7RBIGTIB5515044 Odometer: 70,369 miles
Tire Size: 265/70 R17 Year: 2010

Vehicle Geometry, in. (mm)

a 77 (1,956) b 75.5 (1,918)
c 228 (5,791) d 48 (1,219)
e 141 (3,581) f 40 (1,016)
g 28.33 (720) h 60.37 (1,533)
i 12 (305) j 26.5 (673)
k 21 (533) l 30.5 (775)
m 67.5 (1,715) n 68 (1,727)
o 44 (1,118) p 4.5 (114)
q 31 (787) r 18.5 (470)
s 15 (381) t 76 (1,930)

Wheel Center Height: 15 (381)

Wheel Center height Rear: 15 (381)
Wheel Well Clearance (F): 5 (127)
Wheel Well Clearance (B): 8 (203)
Frame Height (F): 18.5 (470)
Frame Height (R): 26 (660)
Engine Type: V8 Gas
Engine Size: 5.7 Liter
Transmission Type: Automatic
RWD

Mass Distribution
lbs (kg)
LF 1,504 (682.0) RF 1,359 (616.5)
LR 1,026 (465.5) RR 1,113 (505.0)

Weights
lbs (kg) Curb Test Inertial Gross Static
Wfront: 2,916 (1,322.5) 2,863 (1,298.5) 2,863 (1,298.5)
Wrear: 2,019 (916.0) 2,140 (970.5) 2,140 (970.5)
Wtotal: 4,935 (2,238.5) 5,002 (2,269.0) 5,002 (2,269.0)

GVWR Ratings, lbs (kg) Dummy Data

Front: 3,700 (1,679) Type: N/A
Back: 3,900 (1,770) Mass: N/A
Total: 6,700 (3,040) Seat Position: N/A

Note any damage prior to test: N/A


MAX-Tension
4.4 Data Acquisition Systems
As noted in MASH, the electronic
instruments specifications in the publication
SAE J211-1 JUL2007 “Instrumentation for
Impact Test” are used.
A set of MSI Model 4630-100-060 tri-axial
accelerometer and three DTS Model ARS-
1500 angular rate sensors are arranged on a
common lightweight steel bracket and
mounted on the floor inside the test vehicle.
The sensors are placed within +/- 2 in (50
mm) of the center of vehicle mass as
measured in the x-y-z plane with positive
directions corresponding to the sign
convention given in MASH. A Channel
Amplitude Class (CAC) of 100 g’s is
selected so as to maximize the accuracy of
the expected results without exposing the
accelerometers to undue risk of damage.
The electronic instrumentation layout is
shown in the block diagram below.
ONBOARD THE
VIDEO
TEST VEHICLE
ACCELEROMETERS NORMAL SPEED
AND DIGITAL CAMERAS
RATE TRANSDUCER
ANALYSIS
DIGITAL STORAGE
HIGH SPEED DIGITAL
POWER SUPPLY CAMERAS
ANALYSIS
STI Project:
MET015
Page 15 of 52
The output signals from the sensors are
digitized and stored as raw data in the
onboard PC-based data acquisition module.
The data is downloaded from the acquisition
module to a personal computer for
processing. The raw digital data is
processed using the Test Risk Assessment
Program (TRAP) developed by the Texas
Transportation Institute. The software is run
on a personal computer. The raw data is
recorded on the CD that is included in the
final report.
The standardized occupant impact velocity
and ridedown acceleration calculation
procedures recommended in MASH are
followed. The TRAP software calculates
the vehicular accelerations in the x and y
directions and numerically integrates them
to determine the theoretical occupant impact
velocities in the x and y directions.
Appendix B contains the TRAP Summary
Report and graphical plots for each of the
tests.
TRACK
SPEED TRAP
HIGH SPEED
CD ROM DIGITAL VIDEO
TRIGGER
CD ROM

MAX-Tension
V. CRASH TEST
5.1 Test Designation and Actual Impact
Conditions
STI test MET015 was conducted per MASH
Test 3-31, which is described in Section 5.2
below. The summary of results is shown in
Figure 4.
The actual impact conditions were 61.7 mph
(99.3 kph) and 0 degrees. The kinetic
energy was 637 kip-ft (863.2 kJ), which is
above the minimum requirement of 594 kip-
ft (806 kJ)
5.2 Test Descriptions
Test 3-31 (2270P / 0 degrees / 100 kph) is
conducted with the vehicle approaching at 0
degrees to the roadway, where the centerline
of the vehicle impacts the center of the head
of the system.
The vehicle bumper first came to bear on the
system cables and, immediately following,
engaged the impact head. The impact head
and slider assembly were pushed
longitudinally downstream. As the system
moved downstream, the vehicle impact
energy was absorbed as the cables were
pulled through the impact head and the
cutting tooth sliced the downstream panels.
The slider panel moved downstream
approximately 22.6 ft (6.9 m), at which
point it stopped. The impact head remained
engaged with the vehicle as the vehicle
moved downstream. The upper system cable
yielded towards the end of its length. The
vehicle came to a controlled stop between
the fifth and sixth post. It came to rest on all
four wheels with the center of mass 26.6 ft
(8.1 m) downstream of its impact point with
a rotation of 13.2 degrees relative to the
system.
STI Project:
MET015
Page 16 of 52
5.3 Test Article and Component Damage
The system performed in a controlled
manner and brought the vehicle to a safe
stop as intended. The permanent lateral
deflection of the barrier from its original
position was 0.39 ft (0.12 m). The dynamic
lateral deflection of the barrier was 1.21 ft
(0.37 m).
The pre-test article photographs are shown
in Figure 5. As shown in the post-test article
photographs in Figure 6, the impacting
vehicle damaged posts 1-5 and panels 1-4.
The impact head, cables, slider and soil
anchor also sustained damage during the
impact. The downstream system anchor did
not move and there was no sign of damage
to any components other than those
mentioned above. There was no debris
expelled from the barrier.
5.4 Vehicle Damage
The pre-test vehicle photographs are shown
in Figure 7. The post-test vehicle
photographs are shown in Figure 8. The test
vehicle sustained damage to the front
bumper, grill, and fender. The overall
vehicle damage was categorized as 12-FC-5
on the Vehicle Damage Scale (VDS) and as
12FCEN2 on the Collision Deformation
Classification (CDC) Scale. Based on pre-
test and post-test measurements of the
occupant compartment there was no damage
to the interior of the cab.
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 17 of 52

Figure 4 (Summary of Results)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 18 of 52

Figure 5 (Pre-Test Article Photographs)

Looking at impact point from upstream end Looking downstream from behind system

Looking downstream from front of system Looking upstream from downstream, front of system

Looking downstream from impact point Close-up of impact head

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 19 of 52

Figure 6 (Post-Test Article Photographs)

Looking downstream at impact area Looking downstream at impact area

Right Side view from behind the system Left side view from traffic side

Looking at impact from downstream Close-up of front anchor

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 20 of 52

Figure 7 (Pre-Test Vehicle Photographs)

Close-up of impact point View of front end

View of left side and read end aligned with system View of back end

View of right side and rear aligned with system View of instrument placement
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 21 of 52

Figure 8 (Post-Test Vehicle Photographs)

View of front end and right side View of front end

View of front end and left side View of left side

View of rear end and left side View of right side


MAX-Tension
5.5 Occupant Risk Values
The theoretical occupant impact velocity
values in the longitudinal and lateral
directions were 25.3 ft/s and 0.3 ft/s (7.7
m/s and 0.1 m/s) respectively, both well
below the preferred limit of 30.0 ft/s (9.1
m/s). The maximum 10 ms average
ridedown acceleration values in the
longitudinal and lateral directions were 7.6
g’s and 2.6 g’s, respectively. Both are well
below the preferred limit of 15.0 G.
The maximum roll was 4.4 degrees,
maximum pitch was 21.6 degrees and
maximum yaw was 12.2 degrees.
5.6 Discussions
A) The system for Test 3-31 was installed at
30 in unlike the remaining 6 tests. This was
done with the intent to test the worst case
condition for the rail height tolerance for the
2270P vehicle. This lower installation height
did not impact the results of the test.
B) As mentioned in Section 2.2, evidence
during testing resulted in a modification of
the system for Test 3-37 at the connection of
the rail and impact head to post 1. A
rectangular guardrail plate washer was
added to the face of the rail and the bolt was
changed to Grade 5. This test was run prior
to Test 3-37, as a result it did not use the
rectangular plate washer and used a standard
Grade 2 guardrail bolt.
During head-on impacts, the MAX-Tension
is designed to disengage post 1 via the
tapered slot connecting the guardrail to the
post. As a result, STI concluded that using
the above mentioned hardware would have
no impact on the results of this test and re-
running the test with the above mentioned
hardware would not be necessary.
Subsequent Test 3-30 demonstrated proper
release of the rail from post 1 during head-
on impacts with the lighter test vehicle.
STI Project:
MET015
Page 22 of 52
C) As mentioned in Section 2.2, evidence
during testing resulted in a modification of
the ground strut for Test 3-35. The original
ground strut, used in this test, was made of
1/4 in thick material. The material thickness
of the ground strut was later increased to 3/8
in.
Since the 1/4 in thick ground strut showed
no signs of deformation during this test, a
stronger ground strut would have no impact
on the results of this test. As a result STI
determined the test would not need to be re-
run with the 3/8 in thick ground strut.
Subsequent head-on and lateral impact tests
adequately demonstrate the function and
capacity of the ground strut.
D) As mentioned in Section 2.4, the soil
used at the STI facility is a readily available
Caltrans Class II Aggregate Base that is
comparable to the AASHTO grade “A” soil
aggregate material recommended in MASH.
The static soil test performed on the day of
the test delivered results that were initially
higher than those measured during the
baseline static test. During the baseline test
the maximum load reached was 9,212 lbs
(4,178 kg) while on the day of the test the
maximum load reached was 12,380 lbs
(5,615 kg). This higher strength was likely
reached due to improved weather conditions.
That said, once the 12,380 lbs (5,615 kg)
load was reached the winch used to pull the
post reached its maximum capacity.
MASH recommends the static test results on
the day of the test to be no more than 10%
below the results measured during the
baseline test for up to 15 in (381 mm) of
displacement. STI demonstrated the soil was
strong enough to meet the MASH
requirements.
The crash test demonstrated adequate soil
strength as seen in the test videos and

MAX-Tension
photographs taken after the tests. None of
the posts were pulled out of the ground by
the impact and the soil near the posts was
not disturbed. As expected, the soil
maintained its strength and the posts yielded
in line with the top of the soil.
E) During this test LTS felt that the upper
cable may have yielded prior to reaching its
design capacity. A study of the components
revealed that two of the three cable strands
on the upper cable were severed early, as the
vehicle impacted the system. This weakened
the upper cable and as the system was
pushed downstream the final strand of the
cable yielded towards the end of its length.
The issue likely occurred due to the
improper positioning of the cable protection
sleeve and an out of tolerance chamfer on
the inner edge of the sleeve.
While the system performed well within
preferred limits, STI felt it would be
beneficial to demonstrate that the system
performs within acceptable limits when the
cables do not yield prematurely.
This test was later re-run (STI Test No.
MET170105) with the cable protection
sleeves closer to the ground and with the
sharp inner edge of the cable protection
sleeve removed. During that test, the cables
remained intact for the entire duration of the
test. Occupant risk values were well below
preferred ranges.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Summary and Conclusions
Results of the safety performance evaluation
of the MAX-Tension End Terminal are
summarized in Table 2. The Terminal was
judged to have successfully met all of the
evaluation criteria for MASH Test 3-31
STI Project:
MET015
Page 23 of 52
The MAX-Tension End Terminal satisfied
the MASH structural adequacy criteria for
its intended function as an End Terminal.
The test article captured the 2270P vehicle
in a controlled manner. The vehicle did not
penetrate, underride, or override the
installation. The test article exhibited
controlled permanent and dynamic
deflection in the test.
All of the occupant risk criteria were
satisfied in testing the MAX-Tension End
Terminal. Theoretical occupant impact
velocities in the longitudinal and lateral
directions were well below the preferred
limit of 30.0 ft/s (9.1 m/s). Ridedown
accelerations in the longitudinal and lateral
directions were well below the preferred
limit of 15 G. There was no test article
debris detached during the test.
There was no deformation to the occupant
compartment of the 2270P test vehicle.
There were no intrusions into the occupant
compartment. The test vehicle remained
upright during and after the collision with
minor roll, pitch and yaw. The vehicle did
not intrude into adjacent lanes.
The MAX-Tension End Terminal was
judged as satisfying the applicable MASH
vehicle trajectory criteria.
6.2 Recommendations
This report presents the results of a MASH
compliance Test 3-31, conducted on the
MAX-Tension End Terminal. The system
was judged to have successfully met all of
the MASH evaluation criteria. Results of
the safety performance evaluation of the
system are summarized in Appendix B.
The raw data files from the accelerometers,
rate gyros, high speed video files, normal
speed video files and photograph archives
are recorded in digital format and included
as a part of this report on the data disk.
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 24 of 52

Figure 9 (Baseline Soil Test Results)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 25 of 52

Figure 10 (Test Specific Soil Test Results)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 26 of 52

APPENDIX A. DETAILS OF TEST ARTICLE

Illustration A-1
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 27 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-2
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 28 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-3
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 29 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-4
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 30 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-5
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 31 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-6
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 32 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-7
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 33 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-8
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 34 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-9
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 35 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-10
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 36 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-11
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 37 of 52

Appendix A (Continued)
Illustration A-12
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 38 of 52

APPENDIX B. CRASH TEST

There was no visible damage to the occupant compartment. See Table B.1 below.

Table 4 B.1 Occupant Compartment Deformation

Date: __11/22/2016__________ Test #: ____MET015__________ VIN #: ___1D7RB1GT1BS515044___________________________

Make: __Dodge_____________ Model: ____Ram, 1500_____________ Color: _____Black________________

Measurements Taken By: ______Albert________________________________________

a = Distance between the dashboard and a reference point at the rear of the occupant compartment (such as the top of the rear seat or the rear
part of the cab on a pickup)
b = Distance between the roof and the floor panel
c = Distance between the a reference point at the rear of the occupant compartment and the motor panel
d = Distance between the lower dashboard and the floor panel
e = Interior width
f = Distance between the lower edge of the right window and the upper edge of the left window
g = Distance between the lower edge of the left window and the upper edge of the right window

a ____66”_________ / ______66”_______ b _______48”______ / _______48”______ c _______62”______ / _______62”______

d ____13”_________ / ______13”_______ e _______70”______ / _______70”______ f ________74”_____ / ________74”_____

g ____74”_________ / ______74”_______

Note: All pre-impact reference points used in the above measurements should be marked and documented so that post-impact measurements can be made between
the same points. To the extent possible, pre-impact measurements should be made in the area where maximum occupant compartment deformations are expected
to occur. For example, the right-front part of the occupant compartment has the highest potential for damage from an impact with a longitudinal barrier, when the
right-front part of the vehicle makes initial contact. In such a case, a set of a, b, c and d measurements should be made on the right side of the occupant
compartment, near the right door. Another set should probably be made midway between the sides of the occupant compartment. The value of each sub index
should be based on the greatest reduction in each respective set of values. For example, the greatest reduction in c may occur at the center of the compartment and
the greatest reduction in d may occur at the right side of the compartment. For the above longitudinal barrier impact, measurements e, f and g should be made at the
front windows of the vehicle.
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 39 of 52

B.2 Accelerometer Data Analysis

The TRAP Summary Report is an analysis of the accelerometer data recordings from the crash test and is
shown in Figure B-1. The accelerometer data analysis of the crash test is represented in plots in the
following pages.

The plots of vehicle accelerations in the x, y and z directions are shown in Figures B-2 through B-4. The
plot of the resultant vehicle accelerations in the x, y and z directions are shown in Figure B-5 and B-6.

The Yaw Rate, Yaw Angle, ASI, Angular Rates and Angular Displacement charts are shown in Figures B-
7 through B-11 respectively.

Figure 11 B-1 Accelerometer Data Analysis

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 40 of 52

Figure 12 B-2 (Plot of X Acceleration at CG)

Figure 13 B-3 (Plot of Y Acceleration at CG)

Figure 14 B-4 (Plot of Z Acceleration at CG)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 41 of 52

Figure 15 B-5 (X-Y Resultant Acceleration at CG)

Figure 16 B-6 (X-Y-Z Resultant Acceleration at CG)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 42 of 52

Figure 17 B-7 (Yaw Rate)

Figure 18 B-8 (Yaw Angle)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 43 of 52

Figure 19 B-9 (ASI)

Figure 20 B-10 (Roll, Pitch and Yaw Rates)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 44 of 52

Figure 21 B-11 (Roll, Pitch and Yaw Angles)

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 45 of 52

APPENDIX C. SIEVE ANALYSIS

 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 46 of 52

Appendix C (Continued)
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 47 of 52

Appendix C (Continued)
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 48 of 52

Appendix C (Continued)
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 49 of 52

Appendix C (Continued)
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 50 of 52

Appendix C (Continued)
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 51 of 52

Appendix C (Continued)
 STI Project:
MAX-Tension
MET015
Page 52 of 52

APPENDIX D. REFERENCES

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “Manual for Assessing
Safety Hardware, Second Edition” 2016.

2. A Transportation Research Board. “NCHRP Report 350 Recommended Procedures for the
Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features”
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1993

3. Society of Automotive Engineers. “SAE J224 MAR80, Collision Deformation Classification,

SAE Recommended Practice Revised march 1980”
SAE, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1980

4. National Safety Council. “Vehicle Damage Scale for Traffic Accident Investigators”
Chicago, Illinois, 1984