1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

March 3, 2011

FHWA:HSST:WLongstreet:ms:x60087:2/25/11

File: h://directory folder/HSST/ WZ298_Final Acceptance Letter.docx

cc: HSST Will Longstreet 

In Reply Refer To:

HSSD/WZ-298

Mr. Mark Middleton

Rochester Rotational Moldings

1952 East Lucas Street

Rochester, IN. 46975

Dear Mr. Middleton:

This letter is in response to your request for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

acceptance of a roadside safety system for use on the National Highway System (NHS).

Name of system: Rochester Rotational Molding Longitudinal Channelizer

Type of system: Longitudinal Channelizing Device

Test Level: AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 

Test Level 2

Testing conducted by: Texas Transportation Institute 

Date of request: August 2, 2010

Date Final package: January 11, 2011

You requested that we find this system acceptable for use on the NHS under the provisions of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Manual for 

Assessing Safety Hardware” (MASH). 

Requirements 

Roadside safety devices should meet the guidelines contained in the MASH.

Decision

The following device was found acceptable, with details provided below:

• Test Level 2 (TL-2) Water Filled Channelizer

Description

The test installation is the Rochester Rotational Moldings Longitudinal Channelizer (LC). This is 

a low density polyethylene, rotationally molded, water holding container. This LC is 72 inches 

long and 24 inches wide at the base and 10 inches wide at the top. The total height of the LC is 

42 inches. 
2

There is a 6 inch wide rounded slot on one end of the LC that extends full height of the LC and a 

5-3/4 inch wide rounded protrusion on the opposite end that extends full height of the LC. There 

is a lower vertical face on the LC, 6 inches tall. Installation consisted of 20 sections for a total 

length of 120 feet. Water was placed in each of the LC to the top of the lower vertical face. The 

empty weight of each LC was 105 pounds and the tested total weight of each LC was 461 pounds. 

The LC’s were installed with the protrusions pointed to the downstream end of the installation.

Details are provided as enclosure to this correspondence.

Crash Testing

Physical crash test for TL-2 as per MASH requires that longitudinal barrier systems be subjected 

to the following two full-scale vehicle crash tests:

1. Test Designation 3-90: A 1100C vehicle (2,425-lb) passenger car impacting at a nominal

 speed and angle of 100.0 km/h (62 mph) and Critical Impact Angle (CIA) of 0-25 degrees

respectively.

2. Test Designation 3-91: A 2270P vehicle (5,004-lb) pickup truck impacting at a nominal

 speed and angle of 100.0 km/h (62 mph) and CIA of 0-25 degrees respectively.

Only test designation 3-90 was conducted for the LC described within the description section of 

this correspondence. As per Texas Transportation Institute e-mail correspondence dated 

January11, 2011, regarding test designation 3-91, no testing of the 2270P vehicle was conducted 

as part of the MASH testing of the Water Filled Channelizer due to vehicle higher impact energy 

and stability. In addition, the CIA used for testing was reviewed and accepted by Mr. Nicholas 

Artimovich, Highway Engineer, FHWA Office of Safety.

Findings 

The LC allowed controlled penetration of the system by the 1100C vehicle. Units 8 thru 10 

broke apart but did not penetrate nor show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment. 

The 2 largest pieces weighing 60 pounds and 45 pounds slid along the surface of the concrete 

pavement at a fairly low rate of speed with the heaviest piece subsequently coming to rest 60 feet 

downstream and 15 feet toward the field side. No occupant compartment deformation or 

intrusion occurred. The 1100C vehicle remained upright during and after the collision event. 

Occupant risk factors were within the limits specified in MASH. The 1100C vehicle came to 

rest on the field side (behind) the installation. A physical crash test summary is included as 

enclosure to this correspondence.

Therefore, test designation 3-90, as conducted on the Rochester Rotational Molding LC was 

determined to be acceptable according to the TL-2 safety performance criteria found in MASH. 

In addition, the requested waiver of test designation 3-91 and reasoning as provided within this 

correspondence is also accepted.

In addition, the system described in the requests above and detailed in the enclosed drawings is 

acceptable for use on the NHS under the range of conditions tested, when such use is acceptable 

to a highway agency.

Please note the following standard provisions that apply to FHWA letters of acceptance:
3

• This acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the systems 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 system 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 system being marketed is 

significantly different from the version that was crash tested, we reserve the right to 

modify or revoke our 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 it will meet the crashworthiness requirements of the FHWA and the 

AASHTO MASH.

• To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of acceptance is designated as number 

WZ-298 and shall not be reproduced except in full. This letter and the test 

documentation upon which it is based are public information. All such letters and 

documentation may be reviewed at our office upon request. 

• This acceptance letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHWA to 

use, manufacture, or sell any patented system for which the applicant is not the patent 

holder. The acceptance letter is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the 

candidate system, 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.

• Because some water ballasted barriers and channelizers are similar in appearance, the 

FHWA recommends labeling each unit or module to indicate limitations on use. When 

used as a barrier, all hardware, both internal and external that was used in the crash 

testing, shall be installed per the manufacturer’s instructions. Recommended guidance 

for such labels may be found on the web site of the AASHTO/AGC/ARTBA Task Force 

13 at http://www.aashtotf13.org.

• The Rochester Rotational Molding Longitudinal Channelizers are patented products and 

considered proprietary. If proprietary systems are specified by a highway agency for use 

on Federal-aid projects, except exempt, non-NHS projects, (a) they must be supplied 

through competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented items; (b) the highway 

agency must certify that they are essential for synchronization with the 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.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Griffith

Director, Office of Safety Technologies

Office of Safety

Enclosures