|
|
To validate the wood material model, several criteria must first be developed in order to determine whether the model is working as desired. To this end, the validation process at the user’s facility consisted of verifying that the results were similar on different computer platforms (chapter 11) by simulating single-element models in order to check basic fundamental behavior (chapter 12), simulating static wood post tests (chapter 13), simulating dynamic wood post tests (chapter 14), checking the sensitivity of the simulation models by varying numerous parameters (throughout chapters 12, 13, and 14), and by simulating wood-cube crushing tests performed in parallel with this project. Because of time constraints, the cube crushing test and simulation were not revisited in this final report. Interested readers are urged to contact the user for details.
In 1995, the user ran a series of static and dynamic post testing for the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR). The series consisted primarily of 152.4-mm by 203.2 mm by 1828.8-mm (6-inch by 8-inch by 72-inch) southern yellow pine of various grades and ages. The wood posts were obtained from previously installed guardrail systems throughout Nebraska. A smaller series of dynamic tests using frozen southern yellow pine and Douglas fir wood posts were also conducted.
Data collected from the 1995 NDOR project were to be used for validating the wood material model. Based on several meetings and discussions, the simulation user community requested that the wood material model have specific options for selecting southern yellow pine of grades DS-65 and 1/1D (among other options). In order to validate the material model for those specific cases, the 1995 NDOR data were completely analyzed to determine the appropriate tests with which to compare the simulation results. The details for the results of this analysis are not presented herein; however, interested readers are urged to contact the user for details. Grades 1 and 1D wood post test results showed very little difference in behavior; thus, this report will use the terminology of grade 1 to represent the combined grades 1 and 1D.
Performance envelopes were constructed using the most typical behavior of the desired wood and grades for both static and dynamic test conditions (see figure 56). Force-deflection and energy-deflection results from the simulations would need to fall within the performance envelopes in order to be considered validated. Photographs from the testing are presented in figures 57 through 61.
 (a) Grade DS-65 force |
 (b) Grade 1 force |
 (c) Grade DS-65 energy |
 (d) Grade 1 energy |
| Figure 56. Performance envelopes from 1995 NDOR testing. | |
Figure 57. Static post setup.
 (a) Post and bogie vehicle |
 (b) Post |
| Figure 58. Dynamic post setup. | |
 (a) DS-65 post |
DS-65 |  (b) DS-65 closeup |
 (c) Grade 1D post |
Grade 1D |  (d) Grade 1D closeup |
 (e) Grade 1 post |
Grade 1 |  (f) Grade 1 closeup |
| Figure 59. Typical static post test results | ||
 (a) DS-65 breakage |
DS-65 |  (b) DS-65 post |
 (c) Grade 1D breakage |
Grade 1D |  (d) Grade 1D post |
 (e) Grade 1 breakage |
Grade 1 |  (f) Grade 1 post |
| Figure 60. Typical dynamic post test results | ||
 (a) Clean break |
 (b) Atypical behavior |
| Figure 61. Other dynamic post test results. |
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
FHWA-HRT-04-096
