April 29, 2003
Refer to: HSA-10/WZ-151
Mr. Peter Speer
Vice President, Sales
Davidson Traffic Control Products
Bunzel Extrusion Tacoma
3110 70th Avenue East
Tacoma, Washington 98424
Dear Mr. Speer:
This is in response to your letter of January 15, 2003, requesting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of your company's T3B TM Type III Barricade with the YetiTM rubber foot as a crashworthy traffic control devices for use in work zones on the National Highway System (NHS). You requested that we find these devices acceptable for use on the NHS under the provisions of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 "Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features."
The FHWA guidance on crash testing of work zone traffic control devices is contained in two memoranda. The first, dated July 25, 1997, titled "INFORMATION: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features," established four categories of work zone devices: Category I devices were those lightweight devices which could be self-certified by the vendor, Category II devices were other lightweight devices which needed individual crash testing, Category III devices were barriers and other fixed or massive devices also needing crash testing, and Category IV devices were trailer mounted lighted signs, arrow panels, etc. The second guidance memorandum was issued on August 28, 1998, and is titled "INFORMATION: Crash Tested Work Zone Traffic Control Devices." This later memorandum lists devices that are acceptable under Categories I, II, and III.
A brief description of barricade components follows:
|Yeti Barricade Foot||Rubber and Steel||28 x 17 5/8 x 3 5/8 "||38 pounds|
|X-Tube upright||Thermoplastic||1 ¾ x 1 ¾ x 64"||3.5 pounds|
|T3B 8 - inch panel||Thermoplastic||¾ x 8 ¼ x 96"||5.25 pounds|
Testing and Findings
Your company's Type III barricade using steel legs was tested and found acceptable in FHWA Acceptance Letters WZ-39 (dated June 29, 2000) and WZ-63 (dated December 6, 2000). A similar rubber base unit was crash tested and accepted in a letter to Traffix Devices dated July 21, 2000 (WZ-46.) You have requested that the Bunzl Type III barricade be found acceptable when used with a rubber base unit. Ordinarily the successful performance of the barricade frame/rails on one type of base, and the successful performance of a barricade base similar to the one you wish to use with your barricade frame/rails would not be sufficient reason to find the "new" combination crashworthy. However, in this case, the Traffix Devices Type III barricade used your company's square "X-Tube" uprights. The rails used in the Traffix testing were also similar to the Bunzl extruded plastic rails. Therefore, believe we have enough successful test results on the components in various configurations and combinations to concur with your assertion that the Bunzl TB3 ™ Type III Barricade with the Yeti™ rubber foot will be acceptable for use on the NHS under the range of conditions that the original TB3 ™ was tested, when proposed by a State.
Please note the following standard provisions that apply to FHWA letters of acceptance:
/Original Signed by/
Michael S. Griffith
Acting Director, Office of Safety Design
Office of Safety