View Q&A

AGT minimum length

Question
State	OH
Description Text	Good Morning, We are looking for a clarification of the implementation guidelines as stated in report no. *TRP-03-243-11 Development of Alternative Wood-Post MGS Approach Guardrail Transition.* From page 90: "1. A recommended minimum length of 12 ft - 6 in. for standard MGS is to be installed between the upstream end of the asymmetrical W-beam to thrie beam transition section and the interior end of an acceptable TL-3 guardrail end terminal... 2. A recommended minimum barrier length of 46 ft - 10.5 in. is to be installed beyond the upstream end of the asymmetrical W-beam to thrie beam transition section...." ODOT includes 46 ft - 10.5" as the length of an MSKT end terminal. Can this unit be directly attached to AGT or is a 12.5 ft panel required between the AGT and the end terminal? Thanks!

Question

State

Description Text

Good Morning,

We are looking for a clarification of the implementation guidelines as stated in report no. TRP-03-243-11 Development of Alternative Wood-Post MGS Approach Guardrail Transition.

From page 90:

"1. A recommended minimum length of 12 ft - 6 in. for standard MGS is to be installed between the upstream end of the asymmetrical W-beam to thrie beam transition section and the interior end of an acceptable TL-3 guardrail end terminal...

2. A recommended minimum barrier length of 46 ft - 10.5 in. is to be installed beyond the upstream end of the asymmetrical W-beam to thrie beam transition section...."

ODOT includes 46 ft - 10.5" as the length of an MSKT end terminal. Can this unit be directly attached to AGT or is a 12.5 ft panel required between the AGT and the end terminal?

Thanks!

System Performance Evaluation

System Types
Approach Guardrail Transitions (AGTs)

Applications

System Features

Date December 5, 2018
Previous Views (195) Favorites (0)

Attachment Ohio AGT.pdf Attachment MSKT shop drawing.pdf

Response
Response (active)	Based on the FHWA eligibility letter and the MASH 3-31 test (pickup truck at 0 degrees) conducted on the MSKT, the stroke length of the the MSKT was found to be 50.5 ft. If only 46'-10.5" of W-beam were installed upstream of the W-to-thrie transition segment, the impact head of the MSKT would be sliding over the transition segment. This transition segment is made from 10-ga. steel and has an increasing vertical height and bending strength. It is unlikely that any w-beam end terminal head would perform as intended if it had to interact with this larger and stronger transition piece. Thus, MwRSF would recommend that you add an additional W-beam (MGS) between the terminal and the W-to-thrie segment of the transition. The intent of the first guideline listed in that report and copied in your question was intended to ensure a separation between the terminal and the transition hardware. 12.5' was picked to match standard rail lengths with the understanding that it was likely a conservative length. If this guideline is followed precisely, you would need a minimum of 50.5 + 12.5 = 63 ft of w-beam upstream of the transition. However, a single 12.5-ft long rail would provide enough length to keep the impact head out of the transition hardware - 46.5 + 12.5 = 59 ft, which is greater than the stroke length of 50.5 ft. MwRSF would not have a problem with this installation as it would satisfy the intent. It would just be less conservative than the original guideline. Note, if you are utilizing nested W-beam guardrail upstream of the W-to-thrie transition segment, the critical rail strength location is moved 12.5-ft upstream to the end of the nested section and your required length upstream of the W-to-thrie transition would need to increase by another 12.5 ft.

Response

Response
(active)

Based on the FHWA eligibility letter and the MASH 3-31 test (pickup truck at 0 degrees) conducted on the MSKT, the stroke length of the the MSKT was found to be 50.5 ft. If only 46'-10.5" of W-beam were installed upstream of the W-to-thrie transition segment, the impact head of the MSKT would be sliding over the transition segment. This transition segment is made from 10-ga. steel and has an increasing vertical height and bending strength. It is unlikely that any w-beam end terminal head would perform as intended if it had to interact with this larger and stronger transition piece. Thus, MwRSF would recommend that you add an additional W-beam (MGS) between the terminal and the W-to-thrie segment of the transition.

The intent of the first guideline listed in that report and copied in your question was intended to ensure a separation between the terminal and the transition hardware. 12.5' was picked to match standard rail lengths with the understanding that it was likely a conservative length. If this guideline is followed precisely, you would need a minimum of 50.5 + 12.5 = 63 ft of w-beam upstream of the transition. However, a single 12.5-ft long rail would provide enough length to keep the impact head out of the transition hardware - 46.5 + 12.5 = 59 ft, which is greater than the stroke length of 50.5 ft. MwRSF would not have a problem with this installation as it would satisfy the intent. It would just be less conservative than the original guideline.

Note, if you are utilizing nested W-beam guardrail upstream of the W-to-thrie transition segment, the critical rail strength location is moved 12.5-ft upstream to the end of the nested section and your required length upstream of the W-to-thrie transition would need to increase by another 12.5 ft.

Date December 6, 2018
Previous Views (195) Favorites (0)