Refer to: HSA-10/WZ-102

Mr. Chuck Bailey

Plastic Safety Systems, Inc.

2444 Baldwin Road

Cleveland, OH 44104

Dear Mr. Bailey:

Thank you for your letter of February 19, 2002, requesting Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of a number of your company's
work zone traffic control device. We also appreciate receiving
additional information as provided in your letters of February 4, 2002,
January 21, 2002, October 1, 2001, and August 9, 2001 (items 1-4 below):

(Item 1) PSS - Type III barricade with a lightweight light attachment,
and with a variation in the panel spacing;

(Item 2) the Navigator lighted vertical panel channelizer;

(Item 3) a Type II barricade with A-frame legs and with lights; also
with material variations;

(Item 4) "Life Vest^TM^" version of a directional barricade, consisting
of an attachment to a conventional plastic drum. A video of informal
crash testing accompanied this request

You requested that these be found acceptable as crashworthy traffic
control devices for use in work zones on the National Highway System
(NHS). Accompanying your October 1, 2001, letter was a report of crash
testing conducted by the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility and a CD video
of the tests. You requested that we review these devices and variations
under the provisions of National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 350 "Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance
Evaluation of Highway Features."

The Type III barricade (item 1) without lights was initially found
acceptable in our letter

WZ-61 dated December 13, 2000. In your October 1, 2001, letter you
requested that lightweight warning lights be acceptable with this
barricade. In your February 4, 2002, letter you requested a variation in
the spacing of the horizontal rails.

In your February 19, 2002, letter you requested that our review of your
Type II barricade

(item 3) be extended to cover a variety of materials and sizes that
could be considered acceptable based on your testing of the "worst case"
scenario.

.

**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.

A brief description of the devices follows:

[(1) PSS Type III Barricade with Lights]{.underline}

The horizontal rails, or "legs," are 1217-mm (48 in) long and are placed
1225 mm (48 in) apart. Underneath each end of the legs rubber pads are
attached to increase friction with the pavement. On the top center of
each leg is bolted a 127 mm x 76 mm (5 x 3 in) steel plate, to which is
welded a 72 mm diameter x 3.06 mm wall x 200 mm long (2.8 x 1/8 x 8 in)
steel tube. These steel tubes support the vertical upright masts which
are 88 mm square x 5.08 mm wall x 1521 mm long (3.5 x 0.2 x 60 in) High
Density Polyethelene (HDPE) plastic. To these vertical masts are bolted
(with 1/4 - 20 bolts and nuts with washers) three 205 mm wide x 22.75 mm
thick x 2435 mm long (8 in x 0.9 in x 8 ft) HDPE honeycomb extrusions. A
"ballast board" was also used to connect the legs. This 130 mm wide x
29.83 mm thick x 1225 mm long (½ in x 1 1/8 in x 4 ft) HDPE extrusion
with a wall thickness of 6.1 mm (1/4 in) was installed as a safer
location to place sandbags. To the top of each vertical uprights is
bolted a lightweight warning light, or a detachable head warning light
having the battery at the base.

[(2) "Navigator" Plastic Vertical Panel, with light]{.underline}

This device consists of a 1118 mm (44 in) tall cone with a 152 mm (6 in)
tall handle to which is attached a "TrafLite" warning light (mass of 1.8
kg, or 4 pounds, with batteries). To the face of the cone is 914 mm long
and 311 mm wide (36 x 12 in) panel of reflective sheeting. It was tested
with a 13.6 kg (30 lb) rubber ballast. A drawing of the tested device is
enclosed for reference.

In your February 19, 2002, letter you requested that this device be
considered acceptable with a 7.25 kg (16 lb) rubber ballast, and 305 x
610 mm, 203 x 915 mm, and 203 x 610 (12x24 in,

8x36 in, and 8x24 in) panels.

[(3) Plastic Type II Barricade with lights]{.underline}

This type II barricade consists of two plastic "A-frame" supports that
are 708 mm (28 inches) wide at the base and measure 1133 mm (44.6
inches) along the side. When deployed, the top of these supports are at
an elevation of 1126 mm (44.3 inches) above the pavement. Inserted
between the two A-frame supports are two 210-mm (8 1/4 inch) wide
plastic panels that are

3667 mm (12 feet) long. Bolted atop each support was a "TrafLite"
warning light. A drawing of the tested device is enclosed for reference.

In your February 19, 2002, letter you requested that this device be
considered acceptable in the following variations:

1\. With or without the 11.3 kg (25 lb) of sand ballast in the legs.

2\. Using 3660 mm, 3050 mm, 2440 mm, 1830 mm, 1220 mm (12 ft, 10 ft, 8
ft, 6 ft, and 4 ft) extruded HDPE (1x8 in) boards.

3\. Use of other extruded HDPE boards. The weight of the tested board is
1 kg/m (0.66 lbs per foot). The other boards weigh 1.12 kg/m (0.75 lbs
per foot) and 1.39 kg/m (0.93 lbs per foot) and are shown in the
enclosure for reference.

4\. Attachment of signs. (The Type II barricades with signs were only
tested with a bogie vehicle. Because the signs and/or barricade panels
impacted the bogie at the location where we would expect the windshield
would be, we cannot determine with certainty what would have happened to
the windshield. Therefore, we recommend full-scale crash testing at both
zero and 90 degrees.)

[(4) Plastic Drum with "Life Vest^TM^" Type II attachment]{.underline}

This attachment consists of a LDPE band with a quick-release ratcheting
buckle. Two molded HDPE sign mounts are permanently attached to the
band. Sign panels (arrow or diagonal stripe panels) are bolted to the
mounts using 6.5 mm (1/4 inch) diameter bolts. The weight of the belt
assembly is (2 pounds). A drawing of the Type II attachment is enclosed
for reference.

**Testing**

Full-scale automobile testing was conducted on your company's (Item 2)
Navigator Vertical Panel and the (Item 3) F&A-Frame Type II barricade.
Informal testing was conducted on the (Item 4) "Life Vest^TM^"
attachment on a drum. As mentioned earlier, the (Item 1) Type III
barricade was tested previously. In the current test program two
stand-alone examples of your vertical panel and your Type II barricade
were tested in tandem, one head-on and the next placed six meters
downstream turned at 90 degrees, as called for in our guidance
memoranda. The crash tests are summarized in the table below:

  ------------------------ -------------------- -------------------------
  Test Number              PSS-2 (Item (2))     PSS-3 (Item 3))

  Test Article             Navigator Vertical   F&A-Frame Type II
                           Panel                Barricade

  Height to Top of Panel   1118 mm (44 in)      921 mm (36 1/4 in)

  Height to Top of Light   1448 mm (57 in)      1365 mm (53 3/4 in)

  Flags or lights          1 TrafLite           2 TrafLites

  Test Article Mass (each) 4.69 kg (10.4 lbs)   11.4 kg (25 lbs)

  Ballast Mass             13.61 kg (30 lbs)    22.6 kg (50 lbs) sand in
                           base                 legs

  Vehicle Inertial Mass    821 kg (1810 lbs)    812 kg (1790 lbs)

  Impact Speed, Head-on    105.6 km/hr (65.6    103.6 km/hr (64.3 mph)
                           mph)                 

  Impact Speed, 90 Deg.    102.5 km/hr (63.4    95.0 km/hr (59.0 mph)
                           mph)                 \*\*

  Velocity Change,         0.89 m/sec (2.92     2.4 m/sec (7.87 fps) \*\*
  Head-on\*                fps)                 

  Velocity Change, 90 deg. N/A                  N/A

  Vehicle crush            Minor dents and      Dents and scrapes
                           scrapes              

  Occupant Compart.        None                 None
  Intrusion                                     

  Windshield Damage        Localized cracking   No damage
  ------------------------ -------------------- -------------------------

\* The vehicle's velocity change was only measured between impacts. The
velocity change while impacting the second device would have been
comparable to the first impact.

\*\* The test vehicle's brakes were activated accidentally between
impacts exacerbating the vehicle velocity change. Even so the delta V
was acceptable.

Informal bogie testing was also conducted on the A-frame type II
barricade with 1220 mm x 1220 mm (48x48 in) plywood and Endurance sign
panels affixed to the two rails.

**Findings**

Items (2) and (3). Windshield damage was limited to localized spider
cracking during the test of the vertical panel. The results of the
testing met the FHWA requirements and, therefore, the Navigator Vertical
Panel and the F&A-Frame Type II Barricade 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.

Item (1) We also note that the use of warning lights on the PSS Type III
barricade is covered by our Acceptance Letter WZ-85 (copy enclosed.)
This memorandum states:

> The Type III barricades discussed above may be used with one or two
> lightweight warning lights \[mass of "lightweight" warning lights is
> 1.5 kg maximum\]. The lights should be attached atop the backside of
> the upright supports. As an alternative, removable head warning lights
> may be mounted on the supports, with the battery pack located at the
> base.

Although this section applies specifically to "generic" steel framed
type III barricades, we agree that it is applicable to PSS Type III
barricades as well. We also concur that the 16 1/4 inch centers will be
acceptable in addition to the tested 20 inch centers.

**Findings - Supplemental request of January 31:**

Item (4) The informal crash testing shows that the "Life Vest^TM^"
attachment on a conventional plastic drum has little effect on the safe
trajectory of the drum itself. Also, the attachment remains with the
drum and does not become a hazard in and of itself. Therefore, it will
be considered acceptable for use.

**Findings - Supplemental requests of February 19**:

(Item 2) ["Navigator" Plastic Vertical Panel, with light]{.underline} is
considered acceptable with a 7.25 kg (16 lb) rubber ballast, and with
305 x 610 mm, 203 x 915 mm, and 203 x 610 (12x24 in, 8x36 in, and 8x24
in) panels as long as the overall height of the device remains the same.

(Item 3) [Plastic Type II Barricade with lights]{.underline} is
acceptable in the following variations:

1\. With or without the 11.3 kg (25 lb) of sand ballast in the legs.

2\. Using 3660 mm, 3050 mm, 2440 mm, 1830 mm, 1220 mm (12 ft, 10 ft, 8
ft, 6 ft, and 4 ft) extruded HDPE 25.4 mm x 203 mm (1x8 in) boards.

3\. Use of other extruded HDPE boards, the cross sections of which are
shown in the enclosure for reference. The greater weight of the
additional boards is not expected to affect the impact performance of
the Type II barricade as both board are impacted by the front of the
vehicle and put into motion.

As mentioned earlier, the use of rigid sign panels will not be
acceptable without full-scale crash testing. There are two separate
issues that cause us concern. First, the tests were conducted using a
bogie vehicle. The FHWA has not accepted any work zone traffic control
devices that have been tested using bogie vehicles. We have discussed
the use of such surrogate devices with one of the crash test houses, and
have tentatively agreed to review such tests if the results show that
the test article is either knocked ahead of the bogie, or the test
article is propelled upward and over the bogie so that there is no
impact in the area of the windshield. The impact locations seen in the
bogie tests of your Type II barricade with signs are right in the area
of the windshield. Since we have no way of estimating the amount of
glass damage, we are unable to judge whether the results would be
successful. Our second concern is with the 90 degree impact. The sign
panel adds a significant mass to the lightweight barricade panels and
performance is likely to be affected.

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 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

-   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-102 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 Plastic Safety Systems traffic control devices 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:x61331:4/8/02

File: WZ102PSSMarchFin.wpd

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

N. Artimovich, HSA-10)