|Logged in as: Public User|
As I indicated earlier, we are being directed to accelerate
We plan on installing a MASH terminal and then transition
Thanks for your continued assistance.
|Date||October 31, 2016|
|Attachment||MGS Standard Transition.pdf|
I recently provided recommendations in a draft report (out soon hopefully) that were related to this issue. I just finished evaluated of a transition from guardrail to PCBs. The transition uses MGS, but would need to transition back to G4(1S) in many cases.
I have attached that section of the draft report. It appears that your detail matches up with the second option we had listed.
You may want to consider allowing for some additional MGS between the terminal and the transition to the original guardrail. We have seen that many of the terminals have stopping distances longer than their stated length. For example, some designs have stopping distances for test 3-31 of 50’, but the terminal length is listed as 37.5’. Conservatively, we have recommended not transitioning the height within known stopping distances. It may not be an issue, but it may be simpler just to account for it.
Take a look at the section I sent and let me know if you need anything else.
|Date||November 1, 2016|
|Attachment||MGS to G41S transition.pdf|
130 Whittier Research Center
2200 Vine Street
Lincoln, NE 68583-0853
The information contained on the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) website is subject to change without prior notice. The University of Nebraska and the MwRSF is not responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use or misuse of or reliance upon any such content, goods, or services available on this site.