View Q&A

MwRSF tried to incorporate steel posts within an elongated version of the MGS long-span system a few years ago. In this configuration, the wooden CRT posts were replaced with Universal Steel Breakaway Posts, and the unsupported span length was increased from 25 ft to 31.25 ft. Unfortunately, the system did not pass MASH TL-3.  This testing with an elongated span was the only attempt that I am aware of which tried to incorporate steel posts within the MGS long span.  As such, we currently do not have a steel post long span system.  I have provided a couple links to reports dealing with this project

https://mwrsf.unl.edu/researchhub/files/Report328/TRP-03-339-17.pdf

https://mwrsf.unl.edu/researchhub/files/Report341/TRP-03-362-17.pdf

With the top-mounted posts on low-fill culverts, thre currently is not a maximum embedded distance for the posts.  The top mounted posts within shallow fill depths should be stiffer/stronger that standard posts embedded 40-in. in to the soil.  However, as the embedment depth is increased, the post stiffness becomes closer and closer to the stiffness of the standard post in soil.  We currently don’t have the testing necessary to identify embedment depths less than the nominal 40 in. that would result in crashworthy system.  Thus, our current recommendation has been to use top mounted posts until an embedment depth of 40 in. can be achieved.

Posts embedded directly into concrete have created problems in the past.  The concrete does not allow the post to rotate back through the soil and results in a very stiff system.  Crash tests into such guardrail configurations have resulted in failures due to rail tearing, loss of containment, and excessive vehicle decelerations.  Thus, embedding posts directly into concrete is not recommended.  To place posts within an concrete or asphalt pavement, leave-outs should be utilized around the post to allow post movement.  The currently approve leave-outs measure 18-in. x 18-in. and are filled with a very low strength grout (200-300 psi) after the post is installed.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks for the clarifications.  As a follow up I thought I would send a detail sheet showing a typical situation we run in to.  In these situations we are not dealing with a headwall and a vertical drop, but rather a 2:1 slope down to the top surface of a much longer box culvert.  Now that we are typically installing MGS rail at 31” height, we want to make sure we handle these situations correctly.  Top mounted rail seems to be a good fit.

I’ve also attached a detail that we used before switching over to MGS.  This system doesn’t seem a lot different than the top mounted system.  When the top mounted system is impacted, how do the posts react – do they break away or do they deform?  Also, wondering if you observed any damage to the concrete structure when the rail was impacted during the testing?

In case you are interested, we typically install guardrail at the top of 2:1 slopes.  Our preferred cross section would include 18” of level terrain behind the 7 foot posts.  Alternatively we will often use 6” of level terrain behind 8 foot posts.  The longer posts would account for variable soil types with less than 2 feet of level terrain behind the posts.  This seems to fit with what you are recommending.

Thanks again for your help.  I really appreciate you taking the time to respond!

Atlee

The top-mounted posts for MGS that we have been discussing will not breakaway. The posts will plastically deform near the baseplate as the post is deflected backward.  Occasionally, a post flange or 2 will tear, but the post has remained attached to the baseplate.

We have not observed significant damage to the concrete slabs during our testing of guardrail with top-mounted posts. We have evaluated both through bolt and epoxy anchored bolts.  Neither pulled out during testing.  Note, the concrete slabs were all reinforced and at least 8” thick.  Thinner slabs or unreinforced slabs may be subjected to concrete damage.

We have successfully tested a standard MGS at the slope breakpoint of a 2:1 slope to MASH TL-3 criteria.  See the following link for the report: https://mwrsf.unl.edu/researchhub/files/Report325/TRP-03-320-16.pdf

That said, we have never evaluated top mounted W6x9 posts adjacent to a 2:1 slope.  The top mounted posts should provide a little more stiffness than a standard 6-ft post (as discussed previously), so the deflections should be held to within the tested bounds of the MGS.  Thus, I think this configuration should perform as intended.  However, I have no support to prove that it would be crashworthy.

I hope this helps.