View Q&A

As a sample, I did check into our original MASH testing on project no. 22-14(2) with 2270P and 1100C vehicles as well as later MASH testing on MGS Long Span with 2270P vehicles. For that testing, and likely some more after that period, we were using the C6x8.2 channel section for trailing-end anchorage systems that developed the tensile capacity for the guardrail used in those tests.

Years later, we switched to or starting receiving a folded plate design in lieu of the C section. For example, we used the folded plate in the MASH MGS Minimum Length Guardrail Study for the Wisconsin DOT based on photographs, report content, and CAD details. The cert is also attached, although it just says strut and not actual size back in the day. The plans within the report specified a 6x3 by 10 gauge folded section.

Overall, I believe that the C-section would work in trailing-end anchorage terminal based on the many MASH 2270P full-scale crash tests that have been performed over the years and which have loaded up the end anchorages with high tension.

Thanks for the preliminary information, we look forward to any other guidance that could be offered and we could share with the Georgia DOT folks.

Would you please clarify this sentence?
“Overall, I believe that the C-section would work in trailing-end anchorage terminal based on the many MASH 2270P full-scale crash tests that have been performed over the years and which have loaded up the end anchorages with high tension.”

By “C-Section” are you referring to the C6 x 8.2# Structural Channel Strut or the 10ga x 6” x 3” Formed Channel Strut? Currently the Georgia spec requires the C6 x 8.2# … and MwRSF has ran several tests with the 10ga x 6” x 3” Formed.

The inquiry was to obtain guidance on whether the 10ga x 3” x 6” Formed Channel Strut could be used instead of the C6 x 8.2# Structural Channel Strut.

Please respond as you time permits and please have a safe and GREAT weekend.

We appreciate your assistance in regards to the “interchangeability” of the Structural C6x8.2# Channel Strut and the 10ga x 6” x 3” Formed (or Folded) Channel Strut – as both have been used in MASH testing with 2270P vehicles in various MGS systems.

We have been approached by another state DOT and asked if we could provide a short listing of relevant MASH tests for each of the two products (struts). Would this be something that we could ask of MwRSF – a listing of a few of the MASH tests in which the two interchangeable channel struts were utilized on?

Trinity’s hope is to provide this information to this state (and perhaps others going forward) in an effort to encourage “Standardization” of products which have been MASH tested – instead of each state creating a product (in this case a strut) of their own and which may or may not have been utilized within a MASH test.

In that regard – IF MwRSF can provide us with a few examples of MASH tests which have been conducted using each of these struts – may we in turn supply this information to various DOT agencies? To include this email string?

We understand that MwRSF is NOT endorsing one strut over the other (and we note that both struts are non-proprietary) – instead MwRSF is just providing information that can be utilized by the State DOT specifiers.