Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
October 25, 2007
In Reply Refer To: HSSD/WZ-260
Mr. Peter J. Connors
Remcon Plastics Inc.
208 Chestnut Street
Reading, PA 19602-1809
Dear Mr. Connors:
In your letter received September 2007 you requested the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) acceptance of your company’s AddGard barricade system as a crashworthy traffic control device for use in work zones on the National Highway System (NHS). Accompanying your letter were a report from E-TECH Testing Services, Inc. and a video of the crash test. You requested that we find this barricade, with interchangeable signage, acceptable for use on the NHS under the provisions of the 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.
The AddGard barricade system uses interchangeable sign panels and depending on use and system configuration it may be considered a Type I, Type II, Direction Indicator, and a Longitudinal Channelizing type of barricade (LCB) when the system links barricades together to create an enclosure or minimize openings between barricades that interlock. The individual barricades are injection molded High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) plastic. Each barricade weighs approximately 10 lbs (4.5 kg) and is 36 inches tall by 40 inches wide and 1.25 inches deep (914 by 1016 by 32 mm).
The AddGard barricade system was tested and evaluated using NCHRP 350 Test 3-71 impact conditions of 62 mph (100 km/h) using the standard 820C small car. The test article assembly consisted of two sets of four interlocking barricades in a complete enclosure equipped with interchangeable sign panels, one LED warning light, and one plastic ballast mat. The total mass of the four barricades (40 pounds) with the interchangeable panels (1 pound), light (3 pounds), and ballast (13 pounds) was 57 pounds (25.9 kg). Enclosed with this letter is the summary of test results and a drawing that shows the barricade configuration tested. The AddGard was tested in both normal and rotated (45 degrees) orientations since the configuration is symmetrical.
Upon impact the barricade system buckled and the plastic AddGard panels landed flat against the hood and shattered. Debris was distributed into the air and alongside the vehicle. The light remained attached to the panel. Overall, the test article damage was classified as not being repairable and risk to the occupant compartment was minimal. There was no damage to the windshield.
Based on the information submitted we agree that the AddGard barricade system as described above meets the appropriate evaluation criteria for NCHRP 350 Test Level 3 devices, and is accepted for use on the NHS as a barricade categorized as a Type I, Type II, Direction Indicator, and a LCB each with one light (not to exceed 3 pounds) when selected by a contracting authority, subject to the provisions of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411 as they pertain to proprietary devices.
Please note the following standard provisions that apply to the FHWA letters of acceptance:
This acceptance letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHWA to use, manufacture, or sell any patented device for which the applicant is not the patent holder. The acceptance letter is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the candidate device, and the FHWA is neither prepared nor required to become involved in issues concerning patent law. Patent issues, if any, are to be resolved by the applicant.
George E. Rice, Jr.
Safety Home | FHWA Home | Feedback