U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration January 30, 2017 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1/B-274 

Mr. Aris Stathopoulos, P.E. 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 

Bridges and Tunnels 

2 Broadway, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY, 10004 

Dear Mr. Stathopoulos: 

This letter is in response to your November 29, 2016 request for the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHW A) to review a roadside safety device, hardware, or system for eligibility 

for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. This FHWA letter of eligibility is 

assigned FHWA control number B-274 and is valid until a subsequent letter is issued by FHWA 

that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

The following devices are eligible, with details provided in the form which is attached as an 

integral part of this letter: 

• Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) Bridge Rail 

Scope of this Letter 

To be found eligible for Federal-aid funding, new roadside safety devices should meet the crash 

test and evaluation criteria contained in the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials' Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). However, the 

FHW A, the Department of Transportation, and the United States Government do not regulate the 

manufacture of roadside safety devices. Eligibility for reimbursement under the Federal-aid 

highway program does not establish approval, certification or endorsement of the device for any 

particular purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by the FHW A, the Department of Transportation, or the United 

States Government that a vehicle crash involving the device will result in any particular outcome, 

nor is it a guarantee of the in-service performance of this device. Proper manufacturing, 

installation, and maintenance are required in order for this device to function as tested. 

This finding of eligibility is limited to the crashworthiness of the system and does not cover other 

structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 
2 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

Based solely on a review of crash test results and certifications submitted by the manufacturer, 

and the crash test laboratory, FHW A agrees that the device described herein meets the crash test 

and evaluation criteria of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials' Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). Therefore, the device is eligible for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program if installed under the range of tested 

conditions. 

Name of system: TBTA Bridge Rail 


Type of system: Bridge Barrier 


Test Level: MASH Test Level 5 (TL5) 


Testing conducted by: Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TamTI) 


Date ofrequest: November 4, 2016 


Date initially acknowledged: November 6, 2016 


Date of completed package: November 29, 2016 


FHW A concurs with the recommendation of the accredited crash testing laboratory as stated 

within the attached form. 

Full Description of the Eligible Device 

The device and supporting documentation, including reports of the crash tests or other testing 

done, videos of any crash testing, and/or drawings of the device, are described in the attached 

form. 

Notice 

If a manufacturer makes any modification to any of their roadside safety hardware that has an 

existing eligibility letter from FHW A, the manufacturer must notify FHW A of such modification 

with a request for continued eligibility for reimbursement. The notice of all modifications to a 

device must be accompanied by: 

o 	 Significant modifications - For these modifications, crash test results must be 

submitted with accompanying documentation and videos. 

o 	 Non-signification modifications - For these modifications, a statement from the 

crash test laboratory on the potential effect ofthe modification on the ability of 

the device to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 

FHW A's determination of continued eligibility for the modified hardware will be based on 

whether the modified hardware will continue to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 

Any user or agency relying on this eligibility letter is expected to use the same designs, 

specifications, drawings, installation and maintenance instructions as those submitted for review. 
3 

Any user or agency relying on this eligibility letter, is expected to ensure that the hardware used 

has the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for review, and 

that it will meet the test and evaluation criteria of the AASHTO MASH. 

Issuance ofthis letter does not convey property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege. This 

letter is based on the premise that information and reports submitted by you are accurate and 

correct. We reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter if: (1) there are any inaccuracies in 

the information submitted in support of your request for this letter, (2) the qualification testing 

was flawed, (3) in-service performance or other information reveals safety problems, (4) the 

system is significantly different from the version that was crash tested, or (5) any other 

information indicates that the letter was issued in error or otherwise does not reflect full and 

complete information about the crashworthiness ofthe system. 

Standard Provisions 

• 	 To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of eligibility designated as FHW A 

control number B-274 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 upon request. 

• 	 This letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHW A to use, 

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

• 	 Ifthe subject device is a patented product it may be considered to be proprietary. If 

proprietary systems are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal-aid 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, 

_xldo o(;J.;~ 

Scott T. Johnson 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1 of 5 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

of Highway Safety Hardware 

Date of Request: 11 -4-2016 I le New (' Resubmission 

Name: Michael Zdenek, P.E. 

... 

QI

....

.... ·e 

..c 

:J 

VI 

Company: 

Address: 

Country: 

HNTB Corporation 

Empire State Building, 56th Floor, New York, NY, 10118 

United States of America 

To: Michael S. Griffith, Director 

FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies 

I request the following devices be considered eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid 

highway program. 

Device & Testing Criterion - Enter from right to left starting with Test Level I ' -' -' I 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Rigid/Semi-Rigid Barriers 

(Roadside, Median, Bridge 

Railinasl 

le Physical Crash Testing 

(' Engineering Analysis 

TBTA Bridge Rail 

AASHTOMASH TLS 

By submitting this request for review and evaluation by the Federal Highway Administration, I certify 

that the product(s) was (were) tested in conformity with the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware and that the evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the MASH. 

Individual or Organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Aris Stathopoulos, P.E. Same as Submitter 0 

Company Name: MTA Bridges and Tunnels Same as Submitter 0 

Address: 2 Broadway, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10004 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: United States of America Same as Submitter 0 

Enter below all disclosures of financial interests as required by the FHWA ' Federal-Aid Reimbursement 

Eligibility Process for Safety Hardware Devices' document. 

HNTB: HNTB Corporation is a paid consultant for MTA-TBTA for this project and eligibility request. HNTB has no 

further financial interest in the use of this barrier system. 

TII:Texas A&M Transportation Institute was contracted by HNTB to perform analysis and full-scale crash testing 

of the TBTA VN Bridge Rail design. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 2 of 5 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

le' New Hardware or (' Modification to 

• Significant Modification Existing Hardware 

The test installation was a 132 ft long (post to post) steel bridge rail with four rail tubes mounted on 17 posts. 

The bridge rail was comprised of four HSS steel tubes. The rail measured 3 ft-6 inches in height above the 

bridge deck, and the posts were equally spaced at 8 ft-3 inches along the length of the installation. The 

centerlines of the rails were located 40Yi inches, 30 inches, 18 inches, and 7V2 inches above the paved surface 

of the bridge deck. Seventeen fabricated steel posts, each 3 ft-7% inches in overall height, supported the four 

rails at equal post spacing of 8 ft-3 inches along the length of the rail. Each railing post was a built up welded 

structure that was comprised of a W8x28 beam, 3 ft 6 inches tall, that was beveled at the top 1%-inch 

downward to the field side. 

The first two posts (right to left) were attached to a concrete foundation. Posts 3-9 were attached to a 49 ft-6 

inch long surrogate composite bridge span. Posts 10­17 were also mounted on a concrete foundation. Since 

the surrogate deck adds significant cost to testing, the bridge deck was limited to a length that would take 

most of the loading from the vehicle impact. The remaining length of the rail, which sustains much less load, 

was attached to a concrete foundation to reduce installation cost. 

CRASH TESTING 

By signature below, the Engineer affiliated with the testing laboratory, agrees in support of this submission that 

all of the critical and relevant crash tests for this device listed above were conducted to meet the MASH test 

criteria. The Engineer has determined that no other crash tests are necessary to determine the device meets 

the MASH criteria. 

Engineer Name: 

Engineer Signature: 

Nauman Sheikh, P.E. 

Nauman Sheikh Digitally signed by Nauman Sheikh 

ON: cn=Nauman Sheikh, o=Texas A&M Transportation Institute, ou, 

email=n-sheikh@tti.tamu.edu, c:::US 

Date: 2016.11 .07 16:44:19-06'00' 

Address : TII, TAMUS MS 3135, College Station, TX 77843-3135 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: USA Same as Submitter 0 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 3 of 5 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation 

Results 

5-10 (11 OOC) 

Test 603911 -1, June 7, 2016, Report 

603911-1-3 

A 2010 Kia Rio test vehicle, traveling at an 

impact speed of 62.5 mi/ h, contacted the 

the TBTA Bridge Rail 3.1 ft upstream ofthe 

splice between posts 4 and 5 at an impact 

angle of 24.7 degrees. The TBTA Bridge Rail 

contained and redirected the 11 OOC vehicle. 

The vehicle did not penetrate, underride, or 

override the installation. Maximum 

dynamic deflection during the test was 1.5 

inches. No detached elements, fragments, 

or other debris were present to penetrate or 

show potential for penetrating the 

occupant compartment, or to present 

hazard to others in the area. Maximum 

occupant compartment deformation was 

2.25 inches in the right front floor pan area 

and 2.0 inches in the right front firewall 

area. The 11 OOC vehicle remained upright 

during and after the collision event. 

Maximum roll and pitch angles were 9 

degrees and 8 degrees, respectively. 

Occupant risk factors were within the limits 

specified in MASH. The TBTA steel bridge 

rail performed acceptably for MASH Test 

5-10. 

PASS 

5-11 (2270P) 

Test 603911 -2, June 9, 2016, Report 

603911 -1-3 

A 201 ODodge RAM 1500 pickup truck, 

traveling at an impact speed of 64.3 mi/h, 

contacted the TBTA steel bridge rail 4.0 ft 

upstream of the splice between posts 4 and 

5 at an impact angle of 24.8 degrees. The 

TBTA Bridge Rail contained and redirected 

the 2270P vehicle. The vehicle did not 

penetrate, underride, or override the 

installation. Maximum dynamic deflection 

during the test was 2.0 inches. No detached 

elements, fragments, or other debris were 

present to penetrate or show potential for 

penetrating the occupant compartment, or 

to present hazard to others in the area. 

Maximum occupant compartment 

deformation was 5.0 inches in the right 

front firewall area. The 2270P vehicle 

remained upright during and after the 

collision event. Maximum roll and pitch 

angles were 10 degrees and 4 degrees, 

respectively. Occupant risk factors were 

within the limits specified in MASH. The 

TBTA steel bridge rail performed acceptably 

for MASH Test 5-11 . 

PASS 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 4 of 5 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation 

Results 

5-1 2 (36000V) 

Test 603911-3, June 17, 2016, Report 

603911-1-3 

A 2006 International 8600 tractor with 1997 

Stoughton AVW 5357-S-C-AR van trailer, 

traveling at an impact speed of 49.9 mi/h, 

contacted the bridge rail 6.0 inches 

downstream of the splice between posts 4 

and 5 at an impact angle of 15.1 degrees. 

The TBTA Bridge Rail contained and 

redirected the 36000V vehicle. The vehicle 

did not penetrate, underride, or override 

the installation. Maximum dynamic 

deflection during the test was 2.0 inches. 

No detached elements, fragments, or other 

debris were present to penetrate or show 

potential for penetrating the occupant 

compartment, or to present hazard to 

others in the area. No occupant 

compartment deformation or intrusion was 

noted. The 36000V vehicle remained 

upright during and after the collision event. 

Maximum roll and pitch angles were 11 

degrees and 14 degrees, respectively. The 

TBTA steel bridge rail performed acceptably 

for MASH Test 5-12. 

PASS 

5-20 (1100() Device is not a transition Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

5-21 (2270P) Device is not a transition Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

5-22 (36000V) Device is not a transition Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

Full Scale Crash Testing was done in compliance with MASH by the following accredited crash test 

laboratory (cite the laboratory's accreditation status as noted in the crash test reports .): 

Laboratory Name: Texas AM Transportation Institute 

Laboratory Signature: 

Digitally signed by Darrell L. Kuhn 

D.v»tll ef2.Kd.. ON: cn=Darrell l. Kuhn, o=Texas A&M Transportation lnsitute, ou=Proving 

Ground, email=d-kuhn@tti.tamu.edu, c=US 

Date: 2016.11.08 10:15:53 -06'00' 

Address : TII, TAMUS MS 3135, College Station, TX 77843-3135 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: USA Same as Submitter 0 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Dates of current 

Accreditation period : 

Certificate Number: 2821 .01 

Valid To: April 30, 2017 

Digitally signed by Michael 

Submitter Signature*: Michael Zdenek Zdenek 

Date: 2016.1 1.09 09:34:39 -05'00' 

Submit Form 

ATTACHMENTS 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 5 of 5 

Attach to this form: 

I) Additional disclosures ofrelated financial interest as indicated above. 

2) A copy of the full test report, video, and a Test Data Summary Sheet for each test conducted in 

support of this request. 

3) A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that conform to the Task Force-13 Drawing Specifications 

[Hardware Guide Drawing Standards]. For proprietary products, a single isometric line drawing is 

usually acceptable to illustrate the product, with detailed specifications, intended use, and contact 

information provided on the reverse. Additional drawings (not in TF-13 format) showing details that 

are relevant to understanding the dimensions and performance of the device should also be submitted 

to facilitate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter 

Number Date Key Words 
...., 

;;o 

z 

0 

0\ 

0 

w 

'-0 

I 

w 

N 

0 

N 

0 

0\ 

I 

0 

'-0 

I 

w 

0 

;i J_,. 

· ~ 

0.100 s 0.200 s 

1!3::)~:)' 

..- a3· 

"'1 .... 3 1 '.24 I 

""!' ' .~,.,...,

~ l 1 --­-­'-'-l··Jt' ' q I) ~ 

EY1t Ariq e B:::~ 

1.l c ;. 32 :2 

ln1i.:;a~t Pa'.h 

E• tFc.ith 

0.300 s 

~;Pru~ 

rt:~ Ul~l~w;;;Ni LOQ( • .\SHEJt/TVP ! 

'~ ) DETAIL 

\•.,-1] '\ 

General Information 

Test Agency ................. .. .... 

Test Standard Test No . ..... . 

TTI Test No. 

Test Date 

Test Article 

Type 

Name ................................ . 

Installation Length ............. . 

Material or Key Elements ... 

Soil Type and Condition ..... 

Test Vehicle 

Type/Designation ............... 

Make and Model 

Curb ............. .. .... ............... . 

Test Inertial. ... ....... ............ . 

Dummy 

Gross Static 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) 

MASH Test 5-10 

603911-1 

2016-06-07 

Bridge Rail 

TBTA Bridge Rail 

132 ft long (post to post) 

Quadruple rail steel bridge rail 3 ft-6 

inches in height mounted on 17 posts 

attached either to a 49 ft-6 inch bridge 

span (posts 3-9), or to a concrete 

foundation up to the bridge span and 

beyond the bridge span 

Concrete Bridge Deck 

1100C 

2010 Kia Rio 

24781b 

24251b 

1651b 

25901b 

Impact Conditions 

Speed ...................... .. ..... ... 62.5 mi/h 

Angle ....... .. ........ ........ ........ 24.7 degrees 

Location/Orientation ........... 3.1 ft upstrm of 

splice btw 4 & 5 

Impact Severity............. ....... 55 kip-ft 

Exit Conditions 

Speed 48.3 mi/h 

Angle 9.6 degrees 

Occupant Risk Values 


Longitudinal OIV ................ 22.0 ft/s 


Lateral OIV ......................... 34.8 ft/s 


Longitudinal Ridedown ....... 4.1 g 


Lateral Ridedown ............... 10.9 g 


THIV .................................. 44.8 km/h 


PHD ........... ........................ 10.9 g 


ASI ....... ....... ....................... 2.82 


Max. 0.050-s Average 

Longitudinal .................... -13.1 g 

Lateral. .......... .................. -21 .2 g 

Vertical.. .......................... -3.2 g 

Post-Impact Trajectory 

Stopping Distance ..................... 

Vehicle Stability 

Maximum Yaw Angle 

Maximum Pitch Angle 

Maximum Roll Angle 

Vehicle Snagging 

Vehicle Pocketing 

Test Article Deflections 

Dynamic.................................... 

185 ft dwnstrm 

6.5 ft twd traffic 

74 degrees 

8 degrees 

9 degrees 

No 

No 

1.5 inches 

Permanent ................................ 0.5 inch 


Working Width ... ..... .. ..... .. .......... 15.5 inches 


Vehicle Damage 

VOS .. .......................... .............. 01RFQ4 

CDC ....... ................................... 01FREW3 

Max. Exterior Deformation ......... 10.5 inches 

OCDI ......................................... RF0013000 

Max. Occupant Compartment 

Deformation 2.25 inches 

Figure 5.7. Summary of Results for MASH Test 5-10 on TBTA Bridge Rail. 
--l 

:;io 

z 

0 

0\ 

0 

\.;.) 

"° 


I 

\.;.) 

N 

00 

N 

0 

0\ 

I 

0 

"° 


Test Agency ........... ........... . 

Test Standard Test No....... 

TTI Test No. 

Test Date 

Test Article 

Type 

Name ... ..................... .... .... . 

Installation Length .............. 

Material or Key Elements ... 

Soil Type and Condition .. .. . 

Test Vehicle 

Type/Designation ... .......... .. 

Make and Model 

Curb ............. .. .................... 

Test Inertial 

Dummy 

Gross Static 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) 

MASH Test 5-11 

603911-2 

2016-06-09 

Bridge Rail 

TBTA Bridge Rail 

132 ft long (post to post) 

Quadruple rail steel bridge rail 3 ft-6 

inches in height mounted on 17 posts 

attached either to a 49 ft-6 inch bridge 

span (posts 3-9), or to a concrete 

foundation up to the bridge span and 

beyond the bridge span 

Concrete Bridge Deck 

2270P 

2010 Dodge RAM 1500 Pickup Truck 

50091b 

50521b 

1651b 

52171b 

Speed ..... ........................... 64.3 mi/h 

Angle ......................... ........ 24.8 degrees 

Location/Orientation ...... .. ... 4.0 ft upstream of 

splice btw 4 and 5 

Impact Severity .................... 123 kip-ft 

Exit Conditions 

Speed 51 .9 mi/h 


Angle 
 8. 5 degrees 

Occupant Risk Values 

Longitudinal OIV .......... ...... 17.4 ft/s 

Lateral OIV ......................... 28.5 ft/s 

Longitudinal Ridedown .. .. ... 6.0 g 

Lateral Ridedown .......... .. ... 10.7 g 

THIV .................................. 37.1 km/h 

PHO ................................... 10.8 g 

ASI ..................................... 1.92 

Max. 0.050-s Average 

Longitudinal .. .................. -8.5 g 

Lateral.... .. ............... ........ -15.2 g 

Vertical.. .......................... 2.8 g 

~P .mK 

!'£~~,~~:~ LOO< •.-$H[M 

Stopping Distance ..................... 205 ft dwnstrm 

50 ft twd traffic 

Vehicle Stability 

Maximum Yaw Angle 43 degrees 

Maximum Pitch Angle 4 degrees 

Maximum Roll Angle 10 degrees 

Vehicle Snagging No 


Vehicle Pocketing No 


Test Article Deflections 

Dynamic ................................ .... 2.0 inches 

Permanent ................................ 0.75 inch 

Working Width ........................... 15.8 inches 

Vehicle Damage 

VOS .......................................... 01RFQ4 

CDC ...... .................................... 01FREW4 

Max. Exterior Deformation .... .. ... 16.0 inches 

OCDI ..... .. ............ ...................... RF0030000 

Max. Occupant Compartment 

Deformation 5.0 inches 

0.000 s 

~ General Information 

0.100 s 0.200 s 

20' 

1 · R' 

.......... -,\f' 24 8' 

I 

~ " (I __ :~L__________ _ ~0 J 

' , F~11 p~-=h 

r ;(!t A'1~!~ Ho>< 

1.; _-::• ( ~p / 

rrr-nct P;rt· 

Impact Conditions 

0.300 s 

fTVP I 

1__) DETAIL 

" ' 

Post-Impact Trajectory 

\.;.) Figure 6.7. Summary of Results for MASH Test 5-11 on TBTA Bridge Rail. I 

0 
- -

---

-l 

M

! TYl' I 

TTI Test No. 603911-3 Location/Orientation ........... 6.0 inches dwnstrm Vehicle Stability 

Test Date 2016-06-17 of splice btw 4 & 5 Maximum Yaw Angle 40 degrees 

Test Article Impact Severity.. .................. 450 kip-ft Maximum Pitch Angle 14 degrees 

Type Bridge Rail Maximum Roll Angle 11 degrees 

Name ......... ....................... . TBTA Bridge Rail Exit Conditions Vehicle Snagging No 

Installation Length ............. . 132 ft long (post to post) Speed 43.1 mi/h Vehicle Pocketing No 

Material or Key Elements ... Quadruple rail steel bridge rail 3 ft-6 Angle 6.4 degrees 

inches in height mounted on 17 posts Occupant Risk Values Test Article Deflections 

attached either to a 49 ft-6 inch bridge Longitudinal OIV ...... ... ....... 12.1 ft/s Dynamic................. ................... 2.0 inches 

span (posts 3-9) , or to a concrete Lateral OIV ........ ................. 16.7 ft/s Permanent .................. .............. 0.6 inches 

foundation up to the bridge span and Longitudinal Ridedown ....... 8. 7 g Working Width ... ....... ................. 62.0 inches 

beyond the bridge span Lateral Ridedown ............ ... 10.4 g 

Soil Type and Condition .. ... Concrete Bridge Deck THIV .... ..... ......................... 23.1 km/h Vehicle Damage 

Test Vehicle PHD ................................... 11.0 g CDC ............................ ...... ....... . 

N 

0 

Type/Designation .... .......... . 

Make and Model 

36000V 

2006 International 8600 tractor 

ASl .................................. ... 1.46 

Max. 0.050-s Average 

Max. Exterior Deformation .. .. .... . 20.0 inches 

Max. Occupant Compartment _.. 

O'I 

I 

0 

'° Curb ........ ...................... .. .. . 

with 1997 Stoughton AVW 5357-S-C-AR 

van trailer 

29,870 lb 

Longitudinal .................... -6.6 g 

Lateral. ............................ -8.5 g 

Vertical.. .......................... 9.1 g 

Deformation None 

I 

w Gross Static & Inertial ....... . 79,620 lb 

0 Figure 7.9. Summary of Results for MASH Test 5-12 on TBTA Bridge Rail. 

;::io 

z 

0 

O'I 

0 

w 

'° 

I 

w 

0.000 s 0.400 s 0.800 s 

-4 c:'C' 

,.... 2·12 .... C, ~ .-r-' 6" Oownsrr·earn o• Jo rn 

' ,.,J ! ! ' ---------- -J._;__~:rr- - ~ >5 1• 

, " Impact Pat,.., 

w 

O'I 

General Information Impact Conditions 

Test Agency .... .. ................ . Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) Speed ................................ 49.9 mi/h 

Test Standard Test No. ...... MASH Test 5-12 Angle ............................ ..... 15.1 degrees 

1.200 s 

S3 ~•3•1/o 

~;,.~ll6X~ 

~~~~~~ 

~~~%~l£ > J DETAIL 1•0.' 

\ 'i 

Post-Impact Trajectory 

Stopping Distance ..... ... ............. 320 downstream 

50 ft twd traffic 
c 

D 

B 

A 

: .: f !~~ 

CL RAILING SPUCE 

%" DIAM. EXPANSION 

ANCHORS CTYP.> 

CL POS T 

RAILING ELEVATION 

2'-0" MIN. DETAIL 

, -

L_ 

Cl SPLICE -1 ,- -1 r:- CL -~O~TI - I _,,. I - ' CL 1"x2" SLOTS IN 

TOP AND BOTTOM 

OF TUBE <TYP.l 

¥~" DIAM . H.S. BOLT WITH 2 WASHERS 

AND HEAVY HEX NUT . NUT TO BE 

FINGER TIGHT AND THE FIRST THREAD 

BELOW THE NUT TO BE DAMAGED 

A.0.B.E. <TYP.1 

(K\ SECTION 2" OVERLAY 

o/a" DECK PL u

SPLICE ELEVATION FLANGE 


CTYP.> 
 NOTES: 

$- 1. ANCHOR SOL TS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM EMBEOMENT 

DECK PL. 1 LENGTH OF ~ "· 31

/,'; 6" sYi,.. 5°Yi6" 6" I 3 /f LI Ya" DIAM. HOLE 

I I IN SPLICE TUB/BAR 1 

2 . ALL BOLTS FOR THE GALVANIZED STEEL R.AJLING ____T ____ <TYP.l AND RAILING CONNECTION SHALL BE GALVAN I ZED 'Vs (.\ SECTION , INCH DIAMETER HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS CONFORMING 

v TO ASTM AJ25 TYPE I, WITH THREADS EXCLUDED FR OM 1!/;r". 1'-0" THE SHEAR PLANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL 

NUTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A56J GRADE DH OR RAILING DETAI HSS 6X6X¥,i FOR l.AIDDLE RAILS L , EXPANSION SPLICE HSS sxsx¥e FOR MID[ ASTM A194 GRADE 2H. ALL WASHERS SHALL BE ANO HSS 5X3XY2 FOR TOP ANO RAILS AND BAR 1'/2X31

f2 WITH CHAMFEREC HARDENED STEEL WASHERS CONFORMING TO ASTM BOT. RAILS. CORNERS FOR TOP AND BOT. RAILS F436. f3\ DETAIL 

u 3 . RAILING SPLICE LOCATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED ANO VERIFIED BY THE ENGINEER . 

%"FILL PL 

CBY OTHERS> 

%" DIA. ROUND HEAD 

BOLT WITH HEX NUT, 

WASHER AND SPRING 

LOCK WASHER tTYP.l 

~ 

~I~ 

E. COVlNGlCM.C 


DESIGNE08Y E. 
 ~NTB ::l'.""" ss-01 DAT! I APP'O. l'-"l.l,.UUDT M. ZDE,.,EK STEEL RAILING DETAILS - 1 SHEET I Of'1 

DATE FEBt!U~RY .L 2016 ,~ ~~ ~r~• r:.~.:'~~tT~&.~.~d:C:"-~c:..~~~..m~.=~~~, :s DECK DETAILS TL-5 CRASH TESTING riit:~'t~;. M~"'i~il:r~l:C,UIM~~l~T=~ar.~IX MISIM(JI SEAi. -TM( ClilJCll ' il.Ttllf.f 11' SCAL( : OF 4 RAIL STEEL BARRER 

D 

B 

A 

c 
~TexasA&M Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

3135 TAMU 

Transportation College Station, TX 77843-3135

979-845-6375 Institute Fax: 979-845-6107 Proving Ground 

http://tti.tamu.edu/crashtesting 

Test Report No. 603911-1-3 

Test Report Date: September 2016 

Crash Test No. 6039 1 l-3-.MASHTest2-12 

RE: Fuel Tank Damage 

Excerpt from report: 

7.6 VEHICLE DAMAGE 

Figures 7.6 through 7.8 shows the damage sustained by the vehicle. The front bumper, 

hood, front axle, right front springs and U-bolts, right front tire and rim, right fuel tank, and right 

steps of the tractor were damaged. Maximum exterior crush to the tractor was 20.0 inches in the 

side plane at the right front corner at bumper height. No occupant compartment deformation or 

intrusion was noted. Figure 7.8 shows the interior of the vehicle. The trailer broke apart near the 

fifth wheel and all of the tires and rims on the right side were damaged. 

TTI Proving Ground Response 2017-01-17: 


The fuel tank was only deformed/dented. No punctures or seam ruptures were noted. 


If additional information is needed, please contact 


!J~d?Xr Wanda L. Menges 

Research Specialist 

TTI Proving Ground 

I

TTI Proving Ground 

..'A. 6etterjo6 dime safer amfsooner. 3100 SH 47, Bldg. 7091 

Bryan, TX 77807