Refer to: HSA-10/WZ-109

Mr. Matthew G. Schindler

Regional Manager

Qwick Kurb, Inc.

1916 Tamiami Trail

Ruskin, FL 33570

Dear Mr. Schindler:

Thank you for your letters of December 31, 2001, and February 8, 2002,
requesting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of your
company's "Qwick Kurb" longitudinal channelizer as a crashworthy traffic
control devices for use in work zones and in permanent installations on
the National Highway System (NHS). Accompanying your letter was a report
of impact testing conducted by the Transportaion Research Center, Inc.,
and a video of the tests. 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."

**Introduction**

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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: Crash Tested Work Zone Traffic Control
Devices." This later memorandum lists devices that are acceptable under
Categories I, II, and III.

**Longitudinal Channelizers**

Your product is a system composed of two common roadway elements - curbs
and road tubes. The effects that permanent curbs have on the trajectory
of impacting vehicles has been the subject of crash testing and computer
simulations for many years. Modular curbs, such as the Qwik Kurb, had
not been subject to crash testing, although there were the same
questions relative to vehicle trajectory. There are additional concerns
regarding modular curbs with respect to their ability to remain attached
to each other and to stay in alignment, and to remain on the pavement in
the event of an impact. These questions must be answered on a
product-by-product basis.

Road tubes have long been considered so benign as to not require crash
testing when affixed to the pavement. Your combination device creates an
entirely new device or system, a longitudinal channelizer, that is
covered neither by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
nor NCHRP Report 350. Because of our concerns about the performance of a
device in this new category of longitudinal channelizers we developed a
crash test matrix that you agreed to follow.

**Testing**

A brief description of the tested device follows:

The Qwick Kurb is a series of individual, one-meter long, raised
separator units that are interconnected to form a continuous
longitudinal appearance. Vertical channelizers mount integrally into the
raised separator units, and reflectors in the shape of an arc depict the
raised character of the separator at night. A drawing of the system is
enclosed for reference.

Full-scale automobile testing was conducted on your company's devices. A
unique crash test matrix was developed for this device to answer
concerns FHWA expressed in our letter of

May 21, 2001. Our first concern was that the curb could cause errant
vehicles to be redirected or thrown out of control upon impact with the
raised separator. Our second concern was that the individual sections of
the modular system might be dislodged by an impacting vehicle and become
airborne and potentially hazardous to other traffic.

Four tests were performed to address these concerns. In all cases a live
driver drove a1996 Honda Civic over the test installation at a speed of
approximately 65 miles per hour (mph). As the Qwick Kurb system has no
significant effect on the speed of the test vehicle, no speed change
instrumentation was used.

[Travel Test 1A-Vaulting while crossing]{.underline}

At an approach angle of approximately 14°, the car was driven, at 65
mph, over the separator with the right front tire making first contact
with the separator. The steering wheel was maintained in the
straight-ahead position, using a light touch. There was no input
required to maintain directional control of the car. The tire and rim
was not damaged. The event was recorded using a high-speed digital
camera and a high-speed film camera. Review of the

high-speed digital image and the high speed film showed no vaulting
occurred, unloading of the tire did occur and the tire did not follow
the backside contour of the separator.

## [Travel Test 1B -- Crossing a Vee in front of an Attenuator]{.underline} 

Phase 1:

The car was driven, at 65 mph, across a 30-degree Vee of separators. The
steering wheel was maintained in the straight-ahead position using a
light touch. There was no input required to maintain directional control
of the car. The tire and rim was not damaged. Review of the

high-speed images show no vaulting occurred, unloading of the tire did
occur and there were no control problems with this car.

Phase 2:

The car was then driven through a Styrofoam cutout representing an
Attenuator, and the height of the contact was determined to be 20
inches, by reviewing the digital image. Then the car was driven over the
Vee at 65 mph and through another Attenuator placed 30 feet beyond the
Vee. The steering wheel was maintained in the straight-ahead position
using a light touch. There was no input required to maintain directional
control of the car. The tire and rim was not damaged. Review of the
high-speed images did not show any vaulting occurred. The contact point
of the car with the Attenuator was determined to be 21 inches, after
crossing the Vee, as demonstrated by viewing the digital image. Although
the test requirements specify that the contact heights remain unchanged
by passing over the Vee, it is apparent that the one-inch difference
creates no adverse reaction by this car.

### [Travel Test 2 -- Vaulting end-treatment]{.underline} 

Approaching the end of the separator, at a zero degree angle and at 65
mph, the left front tire was allowed to ride up onto and along the
separator for a distance of 2 meters. The steering wheel required only
light contact and no correction was required. The car traveled the
entire 100 feet length of the separator and the driver removed his hands
from the steering wheel for the last half of the length. The tire and
rim was not damaged. No vaulting occurred.

[Travel Test 3 -- Returning to the proper lane]{.underline}

100 feet of separators were installed in a straight line. The car
approached, at 65 mph, along the right side of the separator. The angle
of approach was 2° as determined by review of a still photo taken from
the video showing the tire marks on the lane separator. Light steering
pressure was applied to the left, and the left front tire was allowed to
climb over the separator. The tire remained in contact with the
separator during the entire event. The driver's subjective comment
concerning the effort required to cross the separator while maintaining
control of the vehicle was that some effort was required but that it was
well within the normal range and there was never a concern about
maintaining control of this car.

**Findings**

The results of the testing showed that there was no tendency for the
curb to cause the driver to loose control of the vehicle, nor was there
any movement of the curb sections that could lead to separation.
Therefore, the devices described above and shown in the enclosed
drawings for reference are acceptable for use on the NHS under the range
of conditions tested, when proposed by a State.

Please note the following standard provisions, which apply to FHWA
letters of acceptance:

-   Our acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of
    the devices and does not cover their structural features, nor
    conformity with the MUTCD.

-   Any changes that may adversely influence the crashworthiness of the
    device will require a new acceptance letter.

-   Should the FHWA discover that the qualification testing was flawed,
    that in-service performance reveals unacceptable safety problems, or
    that the device being marketed is significantly different from the
    version that was crash tested, it reserves the right to modify or
    revoke its acceptance.

-   You will be expected to supply potential users with sufficient
    information on design and installation requirements to ensure proper
    performance.

-   You will be expected to certify to potential users that the hardware
    furnished has essentially the same chemistry, mechanical properties,
    and geometry as that submitted for acceptance, and that they will
    meet the crashworthiness requirements of FHWA and NCHRP Report 350.

-   To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of acceptance,
    designated as number WZ-109 shall not be reproduced except in full.
    This letter, and the test documentation upon which this letter is
    based, is public information. All such letters and documentation may
    be reviewed at our office upon request.

-   The Qwick Kurb may include patented components and if so are
    considered \"proprietary.\" The use of proprietary work zone traffic
    control devices in Federal-aid projects is generally of a temporary
    nature. They are selected by the contractor for use as needed and
    removed upon completion of the project. Under such conditions they
    can be presumed to meet requirement \"a\" given below for the use of
    proprietary products on Federal-aid projects. On the other hand, if
    proprietary devices are specified for use on Federal-aid projects,
    except exempt, non-NHS projects, they: (a) must be supplied through
    competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented items; (b) the
    highway agency must certify that they are essential for
    synchronization with existing highway facilities or that no equally
    suitable alternative exists or; (c) they must be used for research
    or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short
    sections of road for experimental purposes. Our regulations
    concerning proprietary products are contained in Title 23, Code of
    Federal Regulations, Section 635.411, a copy of which is enclosed.

> Sincerely yours,
>
> A. George Ostensen

Program Manager, Safety

Enclosure

FHWA:HSA-10:NArtimovich:tb:x61331:4/9/02

File: WZ109QuikKurbApril.wpd

cc: HSA-10 (Reader, HSA-1; Chron File, HSA-10;

N. Artimovich, HSA-10)