Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Crash testing and evaluation of a new generation L1

containment level guardrail
Ali Osman Atahan a,⇑, Ayhan Öner Yücel b, Muhammet Musab Erdem c
a
Mustafa Kemal University, Iskenderun 31200, Turkey
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Adnan Menderes University, 09000 Aydın, Turkey
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Mustafa Kemal University, 31200 Iskenderun, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Guardrails are one of the widely used passive safety devices designed to absorb loads
Received 1 November 2013 applied by impacting vehicles. In this paper, development process of a new lightweight
Received in revised form 14 December 2013 L1 containment level steel guardrail, called AG04-2.0, is explained. A series of full-scale
Accepted 10 January 2014
crash tests were performed for the crashworthiness evaluation of AG04-2.0 system.
Available online 21 January 2014
AG04-2.0 failed to meet the EN1317 criteria at 10,000 kg truck test, called TB42. In the sub-
sequent TB42 test when another brand truck was used the identical system successfully
Keywords:
met the criteria. Additional crash tests, TB11 and TB32, were performed on AG04-2.0 sys-
Safety
Guardrail
tem with 900 and 1500 kg passenger cars, respectively. To determine the effect of rail type
Crash test on crash test performance both A and B type rails were utilized in the tests. Based on the
Europe extensive evaluations AG04-2.0 successfully passed all six crash tests and met L1 contain-
EN1317 ment level requirements for both A and B type rails. Test results show that the difference in
performance for the guardrail incorporating either A or B rail is fairly small. Moreover, it
was concluded that variation in properties of 10,000 kg truck plays an important role in
crash test outcome and thus a more detailed vehicle selection criteria in EN1317 are
recommended.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

European standard EN 1317 defines common testing and certification procedures for newly developed Vehicle Restraint
Systems (VRS), such as barriers, crash cushions and end terminals [1]. This standard describes crash test details, such as vehicle
types, impact velocities and approach angles for a various types of containment levels. It also depicts vehicle specifications,
such as type of vehicle, dimensions, mass and placement of mass. However, variation from vehicle to vehicle within the same
category is significantly different such that the identical longitudinal barrier could fail or pass based on the vehicle type use in
tests. Even though experts are aware of this shortcoming in the standard it is fairly difficult to provide vehicle uniformity within
Europe due to the differences in opinion. In the US, such variations are negligible and crash test results do not vary much [2].
Turkey complies with the EN1317 standard since 2011 and all VRS used in Turkish highways are required to meet product
requirements and evaluation of conformity [3]. In Europe many guardrail manufacturers are still in a transition period and

Abbreviations: VRS, Vehicle Restraint Systems; CEN, European Committee for Standardization (Comite Européen de Normalisation); ASI, acceleration
severity index; THIV, theoretical head impact velocity; EN1317, European standard for evaluation of VRS; N2, normal containment level 2 guardrail; H1,
high containment level 1 guardrail; H2, high containment level 2 guardrail; H4, high containment level 4 guardrail; TB11, testing of barrier using 900 kg car
at 100 kph velocity and 20° angle; TB32, testing of barrier using 1500 kg car at 110 kph velocity and 20° angle; TB42, testing of barrier using 10,000 kg truck
at 70 kph velocity and 15° angle; W4, Working width level 4.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 3266135600; fax: +90 3266135613.
E-mail addresses: ali_atahan@hotmail.com (A.O. Atahan), yucel-1989@hotmail.com (A.Ö. Yücel), m_erdem44@hotmail.com (M.M. Erdem).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.01.003
26 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37

either developing their guardrail designs or receiving licenses for use of existing designs [4–7]. The majority of the guardrail
systems used in Turkey are H1 level guardrail which is an old German design, called EDSP-1.33 [8]. Due to the increased
demands for more roads in Turkey (additional 15,000 km until year 2023) there is an increased interest to develop new gen-
eration lightweight and cost-effective guardrail designs.
This study is carried out for the purpose of developing a lightweight new generation L1 level guardrail design, called
AG04-2.0, as an alternative to EDSP-1.33 system [8]. Note that L1 level guardrail represents a guardrail that meets the
requirements for both H1 and N2 levels. A series of full-scale crash testing were used to evaluate the adequacy of the
AG04-2.0 system. The rest of the paper deals with the development process of this particular guardrail design.

2. Details of European standard – EN1317

The European crash testing standard for VRS, EN1317, was approved by the European Committee for Standardization,
CEN, in March 1998 and is being continuously updated ever since [9]. Similar to the US practice, EN1317 specifies real impact
Table 1
Sections of current EN1317 European standard.

Section Description Status

1 Terminology and general criteria for test methods Revised in July 2010
2 Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers including vehicle Revised in July 2010
parapets
3 Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for crash cushions Revised in July 2010
4 Performance classes and acceptance tests for transitions Draft – June 2012
5 Product requirements and evaluation of conformity for Vehicle Restraint Systems Revised in September
2011
6 Pedestrian road restraint systems Under preparation
7 Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for terminals of safety barriers Draft – June 2012
8 Motorcycle road restraint systems which reduce the impact severity of motorcyclist collisions with safety Under preparation
barriers

Table 2
Details of acceptance criteria and test parameters for barriers in EN1317-2.

Test parameter Requirement

Safety barrier behavior 1. The safety barrier should contain and redirect the vehicle without complete breakage of the principal longitudinal
element of the system
2. No major part of the safety barrier should become totally detached or present an undue hazard to other traffic,
pedestrians or personnel in a work zone
3. Elements of the barrier should not penetrate the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Deformations of, or intrusions
into the passenger compartment that can cause serious injuries are not permitted
Test vehicle behavior 1. The center of gravity of the vehicle should not cross the centerline of the deformed system
2. The vehicle should remain upright during and after impact, although moderate rolling, pitching and yawing are
acceptable
3. The test vehicle should comply with the exit box criterion
Impact severity 1. Evaluation and documentation of impact severity indices, such as acceleration severity index and theoretical head impact
velocity
2. Determination of impact severity level according to impact severity indices
Vehicle deformation 1. Evaluation and documentation of vehicle cockpit deformation index
Deformation of safety 1. Evaluation and documentation of dynamic deflection and working width
barrier 2. Determination of working with class based on measured barrier deformation

Table 3
Impact test descriptions in EN1317-2.

Test Impact speed (km/h) Impact angle (°) Vehicle mass (kg) Type of vehicle
TB11 100 20 900 Car
TB21 80 8 1300 Car
TB22 80 15 1300 Car
TB31 80 20 1500 Car
TB32 110 20 1500 Car
TB41 70 8 10,000 Rigid HGV
TB42 70 15 10,000 Rigid HGV
TB51 70 20 13,000 Bus
TB61 80 20 16,000 Rigid HGV
TB71 65 20 30,000 Rigid HGV
TB81 65 20 38,000 Articulated HGV
 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37 27

Table 4
Containment levels in EN1317-2.

Containment levels Acceptance test

Low angle containment
T1 TB21
T2 TB22
T3 TB41 and TB21
Normal containment
N1 TB31
N2 TB32 and TB11
Higher containment
H1 TB42 and TB11
L1 TB42, TB32 and TB11
H2 TB51 and TB11
L2 TB51, TB32 and TB11
H3 TB61 and TB11
L3 TB61, TB32 and TB11
Very high containment
H4a TB71 and TB11
L4a TB71, TB32 and TB11
H4b TB81 and TB11
L4b TB81, TB32 and TB11

Fig. 1. AG04-2.0 guardrail components (ALKA2011).

Fig. 2. Details of rail types used in this study.

tests to evaluate the crashworthiness of VRS’s designs [10]. According to EN1317-2 the impact severity levels, such as ASI,
THIV must not exceed the determined limits, to secure the safety of drivers and passengers inside lighter weight vehicles
[11]. The level of working width is a further evaluation criterion, which displays the width of the system including displace-
ment caused by the impact.
28 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37

Fig. 3. EDSP-1.33 guardrail components (ALKA, 2011).

Table 5
Details of crash tests performed on AG04-2.0 barrier.

Crash tests CSI-0135 and CSI-0136

Vehicle Impact velocity (kph) Impact angle (°) ASI THIV (kph) Working width (m) Result
A-rail
TB11 883 kg Fiat Uno 102.6 20 0.94 31 – N2–W3–A
TB32 1551 kg Lancia 112.6 20 – – 1.0 H1–W4–A
TB42 9.72 ton Man truck 72.2 15 – – 1.3
B-rail
TB11 917 kg Fiat Uno 102.3 20.2 0.7 27 –
TB32 1433 kg Alfa 114.3 20.1 – – 0.8 N2–W2–A
TB42a 9.95 ton Volvo truck 71.4 15 – – – H1–W4–A
Repeat TB42 9.72 ton Man truck 71.4 14.8 – – 1.3
a
Failed test.

Fig. 4. Picture of AG04-2.0 barrier installation before crash testing.

 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37 29

Table 1 lists the sections of most current EN1317 standard [9]. In Section 1, terminology and general criteria for test meth-
ods are presented. This section also includes recommended vehicle specifications under crash test conditions. After this
introductory section, the next section, EN1317-2 treats the evaluation and acceptance criteria of longitudinal safety barriers
based on the full-scale crash tests. In order to satisfy an acceptance test, the safety barrier and test vehicle must fulfill
requirements regarding general behavior, vehicle occupant impact severity and deformations. These requirements can be
summarized under five items, i.e., safety barrier behavior, test vehicle behavior, impact severity, vehicle deformation and
deformation of safety barrier. Table 2 describes the details for these requirements. The working width class is determined
from the measured lateral deformation of the safety barrier during crash test. These classes range from W1 to W8 for lateral
deformations from less than 0.6 m to more than 3.5 m [11].
Tables 3 and 4 depict the vehicle impact test descriptions and containment levels, respectively. As shown in Table 4, a
900 kg car test (TB11), 1500 kg car test (TB32) and a 10,000 kg truck crash test (TB42) are required to verify the acceptability
of L1 level barriers [11]. The first test, designated as TB11, specifies a nominal 900 kg car impacting the length of need section
of the longitudinal barrier with a speed of 100 km/h and at an angle of 20°. According to the EN1317, vehicle impact point
should be selected no less than at one-third of the length of the barrier measured from the upstream of the barrier.
The second test, designated as TB32, specifies a nominal 1500 kg car impacting the length of need section of the longitu-
dinal barrier with a speed of 110 km/h and at an angle of 20°. This test is performed to assess the structural adequacy of
barrier. Vehicle impact point requirement for this test is similar to that of TB11.
Finally, TB42 specifies a nominal 10,000 kg truck impacting the terminal with a speed of 70 km/h and at an angle of 15°. In
this test the impact point should also be selected no less than at one-third of the length of the barrier measured from the
upstream of the barrier. This test is also intended to assess the structural adequacy of the barrier. As mentioned before only
vehicle dimensions, mass and placement of mass details are described in EN1317-1 for the 10,000 kg truck. Other important
details, such as vehicle age and condition are not addressed in the standard.

Fig. 5. Sequential pictures of TB42 test on AG04-2.0 with A-type rail, (left) front view, (right) top view.
30 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37

3. Details of AG04-2.0 barrier and comparison with EDSP-1.33

As shown in Fig. 1, AG04-2.0 guardrail consists of three components [8]. These are 5 mm thick C12562.5 posts, 2.5 mm
thick standard A or B type rail and rail-to-post connecting bolts. The spacing between the posts and total height of the design
is 2.0 m and 0.75 m, respectively. Initial studies using computer simulations showed that 2.0 m post-spacing was the opti-
mum post-spacing distance to achieve desirable deformation level (W4) and lower severity index value (A). Moreover, sim-
ilar to other H1 level guardrails height of AG04-2.0 was 750 mm from ground. Three different classes of steel, S235JR, S275JR
or S355JR, were used in AG04-2.0 components. Depending upon the request AG04-2.0 guardrail can include A-type or B-type
rail and a picture showing the difference between these two rails are given in Fig. 2. Note that A and B rails are the names of
beams utilized in barrier designs, not barriers themselves. They are attached to C125 post in AG04-2.0 design. Some coun-
tries, such as Germany, Israel and Portugal prefer B-type rail due to esthetic considerations. Previous simulation studies
showed that both rails are considered to be equivalent and they can be used interchangeably without further evaluations
[12]. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons were used to reach this decision. However, no crash test data are available
to prove this finding. This study is also intended to verify this prediction. Note that the weight of AG04-2.0 with A type rail
is only 18.6 kg/m.
As shown in Fig. 3, widely used EDSP-1.33 guardrail is composed of 5 different elements. These elements are selected by
the designer to achieve H1-W4-A performance [8]. EDSP-1.33 uses weak sigma 100 posts to support the barrier. A special cap
is used to connect the post to spacer which is connected to frontal and rear beams. As shown in Fig. 3, spacer with frontal and
rear beams creates a non-collapsing wide beam section. During an impact posts bend and get disconnected from cap allow-
ing wide beam section to contain and redirect the impacting vehicle. The presence of this wide beam is also essential for the

Fig. 6. Sequential pictures of TB11 test on AG04-2.0 with A-type rail, (left) front view, (right) top view.
 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37 31

load distribution and for the prevention of W-beam rupture. In summary due to the presence of weak posts and utilization of
S235JR class steel EDSP-1.33 needed 5 different elements to achieve H1-W4-A performance level. However, recent studies
proved that same performance level can also be achieved with alternative designs, such as AG04-2.0. Moreover, EDSP-
1.33 design has many disadvantages over recently developed AG04-2.0 [8]. These differences are as follows: (1) the weight
of EDSP-1.33 is almost twice as heavy as AG04-2.0, (2) production of spacer for EDSP system is fairly challenging due to its
geometry, (3) width of AG04-2.0 is fairly small allowing its use at locations where EDSP-1.33 cannot be used, (4) field instal-
lation time for EDSP-1.33 takes twice as long time as AG04-2.0 due to its connection complexity [8].

4. Crash testing on AG04-2.0

In this study, a series of crash tests were performed to achieve the following goals: (1) develop a new generation, light-
weight L1 performance level guardrail, (2) determine the EN1317-2 suitability of new developed AG04-2.0 system through
full-scale crash testing and (3) observe and compare the performances of A and B-type rails.
A total of 6 successful and 1 unsuccessful crash tests were performed on AG04-2.0 guardrail system [13,1]. Details of
these tests are depicted in Table 5. As shown in this table results obtained from TB11, TB32 and TB42 tests for A and B type
rails were found to be very similar. A picture illustrating the differences in A and B type rails is shown in Fig. 2.

4.1. A-type rail case

4.1.1. Crash test TB42

TB42 was the first crash test performed on AG04-2.0 using A-type rail. Crash test was carried out at CSI proving ground
facility near Bollate, Italy on December 13, 2011 [13]. The total length of the installation, shown in Fig. 4, was 64 m including

Fig. 7. Sequential pictures of TB32 test on AG04-2.0 with A-type rail, (left) front view, (right) top view.
32 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37

two 12 m long turned down end terminals. A 9720 kg Man brand truck was used for the crash test. Note that this particular
vehicle was one of the options among many available trucks at CSI. After incorporating the electronic setup and ballast to the
vehicle it was accelerated around the test track and directed toward the barrier. Vehicle impacted approximately at a loca-
tion corresponding to first one-third point of the barrier at a velocity of 72.2 kph and at an impact angle of 15°. Soon after
impact, M10 bolts close to the impact point began fracturing in a controlled manner. Posts 13–21, a total of 9 posts, were
detached from the rail allowing rail to contain and redirect the truck. Results obtained from the crash test met the require-
ments outlined in EN1317-2, and AG04-2.0 with A-type rail successfully passed TB42 test [11]. The working with of the bar-
rier was 1.3 m which corresponded to W4 level. Sequential pictures showing the position of the truck and barrier
deformation throughout the crash test are shown in Fig. 5.

4.1.2. Crash test TB11

Two days after performing TB42 test same test track was prepared for TB11 test. After completion of the installation and
preparation of the 882.5 kg Fiat Uno brand car, the vehicle was guided to the barrier using a remote controlled device. The
impact point, vehicle velocity and angle of impact were carefully monitored by the operator. According to the test report
velocity of the vehicle just before impact was 102.6 km/h which is intentionally kept slightly higher than specified [13].
The angle of impact, however, was exactly 20°. Soon after impact, the barrier began to deform and eventually barrier section
between posts 11–17 was affected by the impact. Posts 13–15 were separated from rail after fracturing M10 size connecting
bolts. This controlled failure led to the containment and redirection of the vehicle. Pictures of the TB11 test showing the po-
sition of the vehicle are given in Fig. 6. Barrier successfully contained the vehicle without causing large deceleration forces on
the occupants. After the test ASI and THIV values were calculated from acceleration measurements as 0.94 and 31 km/h,
respectively. Based on the test results the barrier successfully met the requirements outlined in EN1317-2.

Fig. 8. Sequential pictures of TB32 test on AG04-2.0 with B-type rail, (left) front view, (right) top view.
 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37 33

4.1.3. Crash test TB32

After completion of TB11, installation was quickly fixed by replacing three posts and two rails. TB32 test was performed
on the same day as TB11. A Lancia brand passenger car weighing 1551 kg and traveling 112.6 km/h impacted the barrier at
an angle of 20° [13]. As expected, M10 size post to rail connection bolts were fractured at impact region between posts 13–17
allowing rail to develop enough tension to contain the vehicle. No part of the barrier was detached from the installation. The
amount of maximum deflection of the barrier, or working width, was measured as 1.0 m which corresponded to W3 level, as
shown in Table 4. Pictures showing results of TB32 test are depicted in Fig. 7.

4.2. B-type rail case

After successfully completing TB11, TB32 and TB42 tests on AG04-2.0 with A-type rail a similar approach was undertaken
for the B-type rail case. For companies it is not a common practice to test the same design with two different rail types. How-
ever, due to commercial reasons AG04-2.0 with B-type rail was designed and tested. This study is of importance since test
results are expected to provide a chance to compare crash test performance of A and B type rails in a conclusive manner.

4.2.1. Crash test TB32

The first test on AG04-2.0 with B-type rail was a TB32 test and was performed on January 18, 2012 [1]. An 88 m long
guardrail was constructed on the same soil area as previous tests at CSI proving ground facility. An Alfa brand car weighing
1433 kg was used in the test. The vehicle impacted the barrier at 114.3 kph velocity and at an angle of 20.1°. Upon impact
breakaway bolts started to fracture and at the end posts 11–17 were separated from rail. As shown in sequential pictures in

Fig. 9. Sequential pictures of TB11 test on AG04-2.0 with B-type rail, (left) front view, (right) top view.
34 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37

Fig. 8, the vehicle was successfully contained and redirected by the guardrail. The working width measurement was 0.8 m
which corresponded to W2 level. It was surprising to note that the deflection of AG04-2.0 with B-type rail was less than that
of A-type rail. Since the cross-sectional area of A-type rail is 8% larger than that of B-type rail this result was interesting. One
of the logical reasons for this improved performance could be attributed to either variations in crash tests or differences in
steel properties at AG04-2.0 guardrails.

4.2.2. Crash test TB11

After successfully completing TB32 test, AG04-2.0 guardrail was repaired and prepared for the TB11 test for the next day.
A 917 kg Fiat Uno brand car was used for the test. According to the test report velocity of the vehicle just before impact was
102.3 km/h and angle of impact was 20.2° [1]. Soon after impact, the barrier began to deform and the W-rail was discon-
nected between posts 11–14 after fracturing M10 size connection bolts. This controlled failure led to the containment
and redirection of the vehicle. Pictures of the TB11 test showing the position of the vehicle are given in Fig. 9. The barrier
successfully contained the vehicle without causing large deceleration forces on the occupants. After the test ASI and THIV
values were calculated from acceleration measurements as 0.7 and 27 km/h, respectively. Based on the test results the bar-
rier successfully met the requirements outlined in EN1317-2.

4.2.3. Crash test TB42

This test was performed on January 19, 2012 and it was supposed to be the last test of AG04-2.0 design. A 9885 kg Volvo
brand truck was used for the crash test. Based on the geometric properties this truck is one of the eligible vehicles according
to EN1317-2 for TB42 tests. After incorporating the electronic setup and ballast to the vehicle it was accelerated around the

Fig. 10. Sequential pictures of TB42 test on AG04-2.0 with B-type rail, (left) front view, (right) top view.
 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37 35

test track and directed toward the barrier. The vehicle impacted approximately at a location corresponding to first one-third
point of the barrier at a velocity of 71.2 kph and at an impact angle of 15.1° [1]. Soon after impact, M10 size bolts close to the
impact point began fracturing in a controlled manner. Posts 13–21, a total of 9 posts, were detached from the rail. However,
truck overrode the barrier and rail could not contain and redirect the truck. Detailed investigation into the crash test data
revealed that truck impact side corner collapsed inwards which allowed front wheel to climb up on the B-type rail. Sequen-
tial pictures showing the position of truck and barrier deformation throughout crash test are shown in Fig. 10. Comparison
between the TB42 tests of AG04-2.0 design showed that truck properties were the major concern for the failure of TB42 test.

4.2.4. Repeat of crash test TB42

After 2 months of waiting for a Man brand truck to arrive TB42 test was repeated on March 16, 2012. Materials left over
from previous test were used to construct the AG04-2.0 barrier with B-type rail. Man truck weighing 9716 kg impacted the
barrier at a velocity of 71.4 kph and at an impact angle of 14.8° [1]. This time the frontal impact side of the truck did not
collapse and thus front wheel was kept away from the rail preventing any potential override. Just after impact, M10 size bolts
close to the impact point began fracturing in a controlled manner. Posts 12–25, a total of 14 posts, were detached from the
rail allowing rail to contain and redirect the truck. Results obtained from the crash test met the requirements outlined in
EN1317-2 and AG04-2.0 successful passed the TB42 test [1]. The working with of the barrier was 1.25 m which corresponded
to W4 level. Sequential pictures showing the position of truck and barrier deformation throughout crash test are shown in
Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. Sequential pictures of repeat TB42 test on AG04-2.0 with B-type rail, (left) front view, (right) top view.
36 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37

Fig. 12. Comparison of vehicles used in TB42 and TB51 crash tests, (top) 10 ton trucks, (bottom) 13 ton busses.

5. Discussion and recommendation

After performing two TB42 tests, one successful and one unsuccessful, using identical guardrail system and same test
track it became evident that the 10,000 kg truck properties is of importance for a successful test outcome. It is a fact that
truck properties, such as impact side bumper width, clearance from ground, material and geometry vary significantly from
truck to truck and every test house desires to use most convenient truck that is available. This situation significantly hinders
the uniformity that is intended to be achieved among European crash test houses. This, in turn, will also affect the decision of
guardrail manufacturers for choosing best test houses for their crash tests. It should be mentioned here that a similar vehicle
selection problem also exists in 13,000 kg bus case. There are two types of buses that are widely used in crash tests, namely
higher center of gravity coaches and lower center of gravity urban buses. Pictures comparing the differences in trucks and
busses are shown in Fig. 12. So, to clarify the confusion with vehicle selection for tests and provide more uniform evaluation
criteria for VRS designs a revision to EN1317 is strongly recommended.
Another important issue that was addressed in this study is that two widely used rail types actually produced fairly sim-
ilar results. Even though performance of B-type rail is slightly better than A-type rail this difference is insignificant consid-
ering the variations in crash tests and material properties of systems tested. So this study, as a first time, provided conclusive
information on the similarity between A and B type rails. Based on this result it is recommended that lightweight guardrail
systems, such as N2 and H1 levels performed acceptably with A-type rail should also be considered acceptable when B type
rail is utilized and vice versa. No extra crash tests should be required. For the heavier systems, such as H2 and H4 levels, on
the other hand more research data are necessary to reach a similar conclusion.

6. Conclusions

Based on the study, the following conclusions were reached:

1. A new generation, lightweight, and competitive L1 level guardrail, AG04-2.0, was developed using extensive full-scale
crash tests.
2. It was interesting to see that A and B type rails performed very similarly for the AG04-2.0 design. Both achieved H1-W4-A
in H1 performance level. For the N2 level, the difference between test results was not significantly different. This result
suggests that A or B type rails can be used interchangeably for lightweight N2 and H1 level guardrail designs. No extra
crash test should be required when rail is replaced.
3. In lightweight guardrail designs, such as AG04-2.0 performance of breakaway bolted connection between post and rail is
crucial for an acceptable crash test behavior.
 A.O. Atahan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 38 (2014) 25–37 37

4. It was observed that 10,000 kg truck properties had a significant influence on the crash test results. Two trucks meeting
the EN1317 standard with different impact side properties changed the crash test outcome of AG04-2.0 guardrail. It is
well-known that similar concerns also exist for other standard test vehicles, such as buses and cars.
5. Similar to US practice, it is recommended to better control vehicle specifications in EN1317 for more uniform evaluation
criteria.

References

[1] CSI Crash Test Facility. TB11, TB32, TB42 and repeat TB42 crash tests on AG04-2.0 with B-type rail, Test No. 0136, CSI-SPA, Bollate; 2012.
[2] Ross HE, Jr., Sicking DL, Zimmer RA, Michie JD. Recommended procedures for the safety performance of highway features. National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 350, National Research Council, Washington (DC); 1993.
[3] Turkish Standardization Institute (TSE). Regulations for European Norms Department, TS EN1317 Standard, Ankara; 2011.
[4] Atahan AO, Bonin G, Cicinnati L, Yasarer HI. Development of European end-treatment TWINY using simulation and crash testing. J Transport Eng
2008;134(11):467–76.
[5] RAL-RG620. Road restraint systems, Overview of systems tested in accordance with EN 1317-2, Germany; 1998.
[6] Ren Z, Vesenjak M. Computational and experimental crash analysis of the road safety barrier. Eng Fail Anal 2005;12(6):963–73.
[7] Borovinsek M, Vesenjak M, Ulbin M, Ren Z. Simulation of crash tests for high containment levels of road safety barriers. Eng Fail Anal
2007;14(8):1711–8.
[8] ALKA Group. Vehicle Restraint Systems Manufacturing Company, Istanbul; 2011. <http://www.alkagroup.com.tr>.
[9] Committee for European Norms (CEN), EN1317-1. Terminology and general criteria for test methods, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels; 2010.
[10] Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, Washington (DC); 2009.
[11] Committee for European Norms (CEN), EN1317-2. Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels; 2010.
[12] Schliesing A, Schlipper P, Kammel C, Neuenhaus D. Simulation and performance comparison of three guardrail systems incorporating A and B-type
rails. Report No. E10-A11-P01_SGGT-BBV-2010-12, SGGT Straßenausstattungen GmbH, Siegen; 2010.
[13] CSI Crash Test Facility. TB11, TB32 and TB42 crash tests on AG04-2.0 with A-type rail, Test No. 0135, CSI-SPA, Bollate; 2012.