The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 230-254

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 230... ... 230 CHAPTER 9 – EFFECTS OF ANCHOR STRENGTH ON PERFORMANCE OF THE G4(2W) Finite element analysis was used to simulate NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 impact conditions on the G4(2W) Read the entire page →
From page 231... ... 231 Figure 175. Generic end-terminal used in full-scale crash test 2214-WB1 of a strong-post guardrail system.[Polivka06a] Read the entire page →
From page 232... ... 232 Figure 176. Example – finite element model for computing force-deflection response of the standard two-post guardrail anchor system.[Plaxico03] Read the entire page →
From page 233... ... 233 response of the anchor, only those components directly related to the anchor system were included in the test assembly. Figure 177. Read the entire page →
From page 234... ... 234 Figure 178. Photograph of anchor tubes with soil plates during installation. Read the entire page →
From page 235... ... 235 Equipment and Instrumentation Force Transducer The load on the cable was measured using an Interface Model 1220 standard load cell, rated at 25-kip. With the 2:1 mechanical advantage of the cable-pulley system, the load on the test article was two times the load measured by the load cell. Read the entire page →
From page 236... ... 236 Results The loading on the anchor system was applied in two steps. In the first step, a displacement of 1 inch was applied to the end of the rail at a displacement rate of approximately 1 inch per second. Read the entire page →
From page 237... ... 237 Figure 182. Force-displacement response of the anchor system measured at the load point on the end of the rail. Read the entire page →
From page 238... ... 238 Figure 184. Sequential views of Test 13011B. Read the entire page →
From page 239... ... 239 As the rail element was pulled during the test, the vertical force on the foundation tube (resulting from the vertical component of force of the anchor cable) was greater than the friction forces between the ground and foundation tube. Read the entire page →
From page 240... ... 240 Figure 186. Measured and approximated force-deflection response for the end-anchor. Read the entire page →
From page 241... ... 241 Results The analysis model used for the evaluations is shown in Figure 187. Post 4 through Post 21 were modeled using MAT143; while the posts located upstream of the impact zone were modeled using a less computationally demanding material model, MAT13. Read the entire page →
From page 242... ... 242 Table 56. Summary of barrier damage evaluation from analyses of undamaged G4(2W) Read the entire page →
From page 243... ... 243 Figure 189. Summary of anchor displacement at rail height from analyses of undamaged G4(2W) Read the entire page →
From page 244... ... 244 Table 57. Summary of occupant risk measures from analyses of undamaged G4(2W) Read the entire page →
From page 245... ... 245 Figure 191. Summary of occupant ridedown accelerations (ORA) Read the entire page →
From page 246... ... 246 Figure 193. Summary of maximum effective plastic strains occurring at the splice-bolt locations at Post 16. Read the entire page →
From page 247... ... 247 Table 58. Summary of barrier damage evaluation from analyses of G4(2W) Read the entire page →
From page 248... ... 248 Figure 195. Summary of anchor displacement at rail height from analyses of G4(2W) Read the entire page →
From page 249... ... 249 Table 59. Summary of occupant risk measures from analyses of G4(2W) Read the entire page →
From page 250... ... 250 Figure 197. Summary of occupant ridedown accelerations (ORA) Read the entire page →
From page 251... ... 251 Figure 199. Summary of maximum effective plastic strains occurring at the splice-bolt locations at Post 16. Read the entire page →
From page 252... ... 252 This result may differ for the G4(1S) guardrail. Read the entire page →
From page 253... ... 253 posts upstream of the impact point carrying the tensile load of the rail such that the loading on the anchor was negligible. However, consideration should be given to the possibility of impact occurring at a point nearer to the anchor which would significantly increase the loading on the anchor. Read the entire page →
From page 254... ... 254 Future work should include analyses of the G4(2W) at impact points nearer to the anchor system. Read the entire page →

From page 230...

... 230 CHAPTER 9 – EFFECTS OF ANCHOR STRENGTH ON PERFORMANCE OF THE G4(2W) Finite element analysis was used to simulate NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 impact conditions on the G4(2W)