Digest.
The post-to-concrete attachment point is one of the most critical elements of the safety system. It is here that peak impact loads are concentrated, and the reliability of this point largely determines whether the barrier will fulfill its protective function.
Facts every customer, designer, and installer of bridge barriers should know:
Fact 1. In a bridge accident with an impact energy of 30 kJ, conventional chemical anchors are torn out of the concrete, turning the barrier into a cause of tragedy.
Fact 2. Only the elementa ERX 585S + ESE system has undergone full-scale field testing at NAMI, covering four programs and two types of fencing, with confirmation of compliance with paragraphs 6.2 and 6.7.1.1 of GOST 33129-2014.
Fact 3. No competitor has similar full-scale testing protocols.
Test Program #1
Object: Rigid concrete barrier
Vehicle: Passenger car
Weight: 1,000 kg
Speed: 92 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 38 kJ
Retention level: U2
Test Program #2
Object: Rigid concrete barrier
Vehicle: Bus
Weight: 15,000 kg
Speed: 68 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 312 kJ
Retention level: U4
Test Program #3
Object: Deformable metal barrier
Vehicle: Bus
Weight: 20,000 kg
Speed: 67 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 417 kJ
Retention level: U6
Test Program #4
Object: Concrete rigid barrier
Vehicle: Truck
Weight: 22,750 kg
Speed: 77 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 608 kJ
Retention level: U8
Important: In all four cases, the impact was delivered at an angle of 20° between the longitudinal axis of the barrier and the direction of vehicle travel, which creates the most dangerous combined load on the anchor assembly: simultaneous pull-out, shear, and bending forces. This approach allows us to confirm the performance of the elementa system across the entire load range—from a passenger car to a heavy truck.
Full-scale tests are considered valid only if all requirements of sections 6.2, 6.7.1.1, and 6.7.1.2 of GOST 33129-2014 are fully met.
elementa Test Result
The elementa ERX 585S + ESE system successfully passed all four test scenarios, confirming compliance with sections 6.2, 6.7.1.1, and 6.7.1.2 of GOST 33129-2014.
What this means in practice:
Under an impact of 38 kJ (1-ton passenger car, 92 km/h, 20°), the anchor group held the barrier without damage. Under an impact of 312 kJ (15-ton bus, 68 km/h, 20°), the system remained intact and performed its restraining function.
Under an impact of 417 kJ (20-ton bus, 67 km/h, 20°), the anchors did not break free and the studs were not sheared.
Under an impact of 608 kJ (22.75-ton truck, 77 km/h, 20°), the system withstood the maximum load without loss of functionality.
The barrier retained the vehicle within the permissible corridor in all four scenarios.
The vehicle did not overturn or penetrate the barrier.
The system works with both deformable metal barriers and rigid concrete barriers.
Why are competitors coy about their testing? Because no other company except elementa has undergone a similar set of tests at NAMI.
Conclusion: Competitors are choosing a "low price" strategy because they cannot compete on safety, technical support, and compliance with industry standards.
elementa is the choice of those responsible for safety.
Back to news list
elementa ERX 585S chemical anchor and elementa ESE threaded stud: NAMI tests (impact energy of 38, 312, 417, and 608 kJ), technical data sheet, calculations according to SP 513 and STO Avtodor – everything for fastening bridge barriers
11.03.2026
No matter how powerful and modern your barriers, they become useless piles of metal if they are installed on anchors without undergoing appropriate full-scale testing at the NAMI testing ground.
Download (pdf) The post-to-concrete attachment point is one of the most critical elements of the safety system. It is here that peak impact loads are concentrated, and the reliability of this point largely determines whether the barrier will fulfill its protective function.
Facts every customer, designer, and installer of bridge barriers should know:
Fact 1. In a bridge accident with an impact energy of 30 kJ, conventional chemical anchors are torn out of the concrete, turning the barrier into a cause of tragedy.
Fact 2. Only the elementa ERX 585S + ESE system has undergone full-scale field testing at NAMI, covering four programs and two types of fencing, with confirmation of compliance with paragraphs 6.2 and 6.7.1.1 of GOST 33129-2014.
Fact 3. No competitor has similar full-scale testing protocols.
Test Program #1
Object: Rigid concrete barrier
Vehicle: Passenger car
Weight: 1,000 kg
Speed: 92 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 38 kJ
Retention level: U2
Test Program #2
Object: Rigid concrete barrier
Vehicle: Bus
Weight: 15,000 kg
Speed: 68 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 312 kJ
Retention level: U4
Test Program #3
Object: Deformable metal barrier
Vehicle: Bus
Weight: 20,000 kg
Speed: 67 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 417 kJ
Retention level: U6
Test Program #4
Object: Concrete rigid barrier
Vehicle: Truck
Weight: 22,750 kg
Speed: 77 km/h
Impact angle: 20° to the longitudinal axis of the barrier
Impact energy: 608 kJ
Retention level: U8
Important: In all four cases, the impact was delivered at an angle of 20° between the longitudinal axis of the barrier and the direction of vehicle travel, which creates the most dangerous combined load on the anchor assembly: simultaneous pull-out, shear, and bending forces. This approach allows us to confirm the performance of the elementa system across the entire load range—from a passenger car to a heavy truck.
Full-scale tests are considered valid only if all requirements of sections 6.2, 6.7.1.1, and 6.7.1.2 of GOST 33129-2014 are fully met.
elementa Test Result
The elementa ERX 585S + ESE system successfully passed all four test scenarios, confirming compliance with sections 6.2, 6.7.1.1, and 6.7.1.2 of GOST 33129-2014.
What this means in practice:
Under an impact of 38 kJ (1-ton passenger car, 92 km/h, 20°), the anchor group held the barrier without damage. Under an impact of 312 kJ (15-ton bus, 68 km/h, 20°), the system remained intact and performed its restraining function.
Under an impact of 417 kJ (20-ton bus, 67 km/h, 20°), the anchors did not break free and the studs were not sheared.
Under an impact of 608 kJ (22.75-ton truck, 77 km/h, 20°), the system withstood the maximum load without loss of functionality.
The barrier retained the vehicle within the permissible corridor in all four scenarios.
The vehicle did not overturn or penetrate the barrier.
The system works with both deformable metal barriers and rigid concrete barriers.
Why are competitors coy about their testing? Because no other company except elementa has undergone a similar set of tests at NAMI.
Conclusion: Competitors are choosing a "low price" strategy because they cannot compete on safety, technical support, and compliance with industry standards.
elementa is the choice of those responsible for safety.