U.S. Department 

of Transportatim 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

May 17, 2011 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST/B-221 

Mr. Robert Bielenberg 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

527 Nebraska Hall 

P. O. Box 880529 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0529 

Dear Mr. Bielenberg: 

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

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

Name of system: TL-3 Upstream Anchorage for F-shape Temporary Concrete Barrier 

Type of system: Portable Longitudinal concrete Barrier End Anchorage 

Test Level: AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 

TL-3 

Testing conducted by: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Date of request: December 20, 2010 

Date initially acknowledged: December 22, 2010 

Task Force 13 Designator: SWC17 

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 devices are found acceptable, with details provided below: 

• Upstream Anchorage for F-shape Temporary Concrete Barrier 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

Description 

The as tested barrier consisted of 156.5 feet (47.7 meter) long test installation consisting of the 

following two major components: 

I. 12 reinforced concrete segments of 32 inches (813 millimeters) high F-shape, temporary 

barrier installed on a concrete surface. 

II. 1 anchorage system composed of two 3/4-inch (19 millimeters) diameter wire cables and 

2 anchor posts assemblies. 

The concrete barrier utilized Iowa’s Concrete Barrier Mix, which was configured with a 

minimum 28 day concrete compressive strength of 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa). A minimum concrete 

cover varied at different rebar positions within the barrier. A minimum concrete cover of 

2 inches (51 millimeters) was used along the top of the vertical stirrup rebar and at the bottom of 

the longitudinal rebar. Minimum concrete cover of 1-3/4 inches (44 millimeters) and 1 inch 

(25 millimeters) were used along the sides of the vertical stirrup rebar and at the rebar around the 

anchor bolt block, respectively. All steel reinforcement in the barrier conformed to ASTM A615 

Grade 60 rebar, except for the loop bars which were ASTM A706 Grade 60 rebar. Barrier 

reinforcement consisted of three Number 5 and two Number 4 longitudinal bars, 

twelve Number 4 bars for the vertical stirrups, and six Number 6 bars for the anchor bolt block 

reinforcement loops. Each of the 5 longitudinal rebars was 12 feet 2 inches (3.71 meters) long. 

The vertical spacing of the lower, middle, and upper longitudinal bars were 6-1/2 inches 

(165 millimeters), 14-1/2 inches (368 millimeters), and 29-1/8 inches (780 millimeters) from the 

ground to their centers, respectively. The vertical stirrups were 72 inches (1,829 millimeters) 

long and were bent into the shape of the barrier and the spacing is varied longitudinally. The 

reinforcing steel loops used around the tie-down anchor holes in the barrier were 35 inches 

(889 millimeters) long, were bent into a U-shape, and were used to reinforce the anchor bolt 

area. 

The barriers used a pin and loop type connection comprised of two sets of three rebar loops on 

each barrier interconnection. Each loop assembly was configured with three ASTM A706 Grade 

sixty Number 6 bars that were bent into a loop shape. The vertical pin used in the connection 

consisted of a 1-1/4 inches (32 millimeter) diameter x 28 inches (711 millimeter) long round bar 

comprised of ASTM A36 steel. The pin was held in place using one 2-1/2 inches wide x 

4 inches long x 1/2 inch thick (64 millimeters x 102 millimeters x 13 millimeters) ASTM A36 

steel plate with a 1-3/8 inches (35 millimeters) diameter hole centered on it. The plate was 

welded 2-1/2 inches (64 millimeters) below the top of the pin. A gap of 3-5/8 inches 

(92 millimeters) between the ends of two consecutive barriers was formed from the result of 

pulling the connection taut. 

The upstream-most barrier segment was installed with 36 inches of the downstream end placed 

on the concrete surface and the remainder of the barrier segment resting on soil. This end barrier 

was anchored by two cable assemblies that connected the end connector pin to two driven, steel 

pile, anchor posts. Each of the two anchor posts was a 8 feet (2,438 millimeters) long, W6 x 25 

(W152 x 37.2) steel section with a 24 inches x 24 inches x 1/2 inch thick (610 millimeters x 

610 millimeters x 13 millimeters) soil plate welded to the front flange and a 1/2 inch 

(13 millimeters) thick plate welded to the top of the post. The anchor posts were placed in soil 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

with an embedment depth of 8 feet (2,438 millimeters). One post was located along the 

longitudinal axis of the system, 45-3/8 inches (1,153 millimeters) upstream of the edge of the 

first barrier. The second post was located 29-3/8 inches (746 millimeters) upstream of the first 

barrier and offset 11-1/2 inches (292 millimeters) laterally from the traffic side face of the 

barrier. 

The soil pit underneath the asphalt surface was comprised of a crushed limestone aggregate soil 

satisfying the standard soil requirements of MASH. Cable brackets were bolted to the top of the 

anchor posts. 

The cable brackets were assembled using multiple 1/2 inch (13 millimeters) thick A36 steel 

plates welded together. The cable assemblies were comprised of a 3/4 inch (19 millimeters) 

diameter, 7 x 19 wire rope, BCT cable end fitting, a Crosby heavy-duty HT thimble, and a 

115-HT mechanical splice. It should be noted that the wire ropes were ordered as 6 x 19 IWRC 

IPS wire ropes in order to be consistent with the wire rope specifications for W-beam guardrail 

cable anchorages. However, the manufacturer substituted the 7 x 19 wire rope as an equivalent 

to the 6 x 19 IWRC IPS. The substitution was not determined until the wire ropes were 

disassembled after the full-scale crash test. One 54-3/4 inches (1,391 millimeters) long cable 

assembly was aligned with the longitudinal axis of the barrier system. This cable assembly was 

attached with one end fixed between the lower barrier loops on an additional connection pin on 

the upstream end of the barrier and the other end attached to the anchor post. The end connector 

pin utilized a second 2-1/2 inches wide x 4 inches long x 1/2 inch thick (64 millimeters x 

102 millimeters x 13 millimeters) ASTM A36 steel plate and a 1⁄2 inch diameter x 10 inches long 

(13 millimeters diameter x 254 millimeters long) Grade 8 hex bolt and nut at the bottom of the 

pin to prevent the pin from pulling out of the barrier loops when the anchorage was loaded. 

The second cable assembly measured 48 3/8 inches (1,229 millimeters) long, and it was attached 

from just below the top barrier loop on the connector pin on the end of the barrier to the offset 

anchor post. A pin sleeve, made from 1-1/2 inches (38 millimeters) Schedule 40 pipe, was used 

to keep the anchor cables in the correct vertical positions. The use of the pin sleeve also allowed 

the cable anchorages to be attached at the same vertical position on the end pin regardless of 

which end of the F-shape barrier was used. Thus, if the barrier ends were reversed, the offset 

cable would attach to the connection pin between the top two barrier loops, and the in-line cable 

would attach to the connection pin between the pin sleeve and lower barrier loop. 

However the as-built physically crash tested system details as described herein slightly vary from 

the following Test House recommended variances. 

A. The Test House indicated the anchor posts used in the physical crash test were placed 

before the entire system was configured and were not in an optimal position. 

Therefore the anchor post positions are moved slightly from those evaluated by 

physical crash test as follows. 

The anchor posts were placed in soil with an embedment depth of 8 feet 

(2,438 millimeters). The first post is located along the longitudinal axis of the 

system, 41-1/4 inches (1,048 millimeters) upstream the edge of the first barrier. The 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

second post is located 23-1/4 inches (591 millimeters) upstream of the first barrier 

and offset 7-1/4 inches (184 millimeters) laterally from the traffic side face of the 

barrier. 

The Test House indicated this change in anchor positions is not believed to negatively 

affect the system’s safety performance. 

B. The repositioning of the anchor posts resulted in the following modification of the as 

tested lengths of the cable assemblies. 

1. One 51-1⁄4 inches (1,302 millimeters) long cable assembly was aligned with the 

longitudinal axis of the barrier system. This cable assembly was attached with 

one end fixed between the lower barrier loops on an additional connection pin on 

the upstream end of the barrier and the other end attached to the anchor post. 

2. The second cable assembly measured 44 inches (1,118 millimeters) long, and it 

was attached from just below the top barrier loop on the connector pin on the end 

of the barrier to the offset anchor post. 

3. The barrier system was installed at an angle to one of the Test House’s existing 

soil test pits in order to provide an achievable tow distance and impact angle for 

use in the crash test. As such, the end barrier in this test installation was placed 

with approximately three quarters of the barrier resting on the same soil 

foundation that surrounded the anchor posts. Actual field installations of the 

termination and anchorage system would not require the same soil area for use in 

placing the first barrier segment nor the anchorage posts. It is therefore 

recommended the anchor posts be installed in a soil foundation. However, the 

required size of the soil area must be sufficient for the anchors to be embedded in 

the soil and resist the dynamic loads imparted through the cable assemblies. The 

maximum longitudinal overlap of end barrier on soil is 112-1/2 inches 

(2,858 millimeters), while the minimum lateral distance between the top plate of 

the anchor post and the pavement edge is 10-3/4 inches (273 millimeters). Larger 

lateral offsets are allowed. The minimum longitudinal length of the soil leave out 

for the anchor posts is a length defined by the upstream end of the first barrier 

segment and 12 inches (305 millimeters) upstream of the in-line anchor post. 

Crash Testing 

The barrier was crash tested at the test facilities at the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility. 

Terminals and crash cushions, such as temporary concrete barrier terminations, must satisfy 

impact safety standards provided in the MASH, in order to be accepted by the FHWA for use on 

the NHS for new construction projects or as a replacement for existing designs not meeting 

current safety standards. According to Test Level 3 of MASH, non-gating terminals and crash 

cushions must be subjected to the following 9 full-scale vehicle crash tests: 

1. Test Designation 3-30 consists of a 2,425 pounds (1,100 kilograms) passenger car 

impacting the terminal at a 1/4-pont offset, head-on manner at a nominal speed and angle 

of 62 mph (100 km/h) and 0 degrees, respectively. 
 

 

 

 

5 

2. Test Designation 3-31 consists of a 5,004-lb (2,270 kg) pickup truck impacting the 

terminal head-on at a nominal speed and angle of 62 mph (100 km/h) and 0 degrees, 

respectively. 

3. Test Designation 3-32 consists of a 2,425-lb (1,100-kg) passenger car impacting the 

terminal head-on at a nominal speed and angle of 62 mph (100 km/h) and 5-15 degrees, 

respectively. 

4. Test Designation 3-33 consists of a 5,004-lb (2,270-kg) pickup truck impacting the 

terminal head at a nominal speed and angle of 62 mph (100 km/h) and 5-15 degrees, 

respectively. 

5. Test Designation 3-34 consists of a 2,425-lb (1,100-kg) passenger car impacting the 

terminal at the critical impact point (CIP) location transitioning between gating or 

capturing and redirection at a nominal speed and angle of 62 mph (100 km/h) and 

15 degrees, respectively. 

6. Test Designation 3-35 consists of a 5,004-lb (2,270-kg) pickup truck impacting the 

terminal at the beginning of the length of need at a nominal speed and angle of 62 mph 

(100 km/h) and 25 degrees, respectively. 

7. Test Designation 3-36 consists of a 5,004-lb (2,270-kg) pickup truck impacting the 

terminal at the CIP for the transition to a rigid backup structure at a nominal speed and 

angle of 62 mph (100 km/h) and 25 degrees, respectively. 

8. Test Designation 3-37 consists of a 5,004-lb (2,270-kg) pickup truck impacting the 

terminal at the CIP for the reverse direction at a nominal speed and angle of 62 mph 

(100 km/h) and 25 degrees, respectively. 

9. Test Designation 3-38 consists of a 3,307-lb (1,500-kg) intermediate car impacting the 

terminal head-on at a nominal speed and angle of 62 mph (100 km/h) and 0 degrees, 

respectively. 

The temporary concrete barrier termination and anchorage system, as described herein was 

designed with the intention of either placing an approved impact attenuator, such as sand barrels, 

in front of the anchorage posts or placing the anchorage system outside of the clear zone. 

However, most of the crash tests for terminals and crash cushions that are required in the MASH 

test matrix do not need to be conducted because they have been previously addressed in the prior 

successful compliance testing programs. Placement of the termination and anchorage system 

outside of the clear zone would also negate the need for the majority of the required terminal and 

crash cushion tests. Tests 3-30 through 3-33 and 3-38 are used to evaluate vehicle stability and 

containment issues related to impacts at the head of a crash cushion. Tests 3-34 and 3-36 

evaluate the front end of crash cushions for either their behavior when impacted at a critical 

impact point or for transitioning to rigid barriers, respectively. Thus, both tests are not intended 

to evaluate the safety performance of the concrete barrier or termination anchor system. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

Therefore, Test 3-35 is only crash test recommended for this test with further recommendation to 

waive the remaining tests. 

Findings 

The analysis of the test results showed that the temporary concrete barrier termination and 

anchorage system adequately contained and redirected the vehicle. There were no detached 

elements or fragments which neither showed potential for penetrating the occupant compartment 

nor presented undue hazard to other traffic. The deformation of, or intrusion into, the occupant 

compartment was minimal and did not pose a threat to cause serious injury. The test vehicle did 

not penetrate nor ride over the barrier and remained upright during and after the collision. 

Vehicle roll, pitch, and yaw angular displacements were within tolerable limits of the MASH. 

The occupant impact velocities and ridedown accelerations were within the recommended limits 

for the impacting vehicle. There was no significant deformation of the roof, windshield or 

occupant compartment. After impact, the vehicle exited the barrier at an angle of 15.9 degrees 

and did not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes. 

The system described in the request 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. 

Crash Test Summary details of this system are provided as enclosures to this correspondence. 

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

• This acceptance provides a AASHTO/ARTBA/AGC Task Force 13 designator that 

should be used for the purpose of the creation of a new and/or the update of an existing 

Task Force 13 drawing. The drawing should emphasize to designers the requirement of 

placing an approved impact attenuator, such as sand barrels, in front of the anchorage 

posts or placing the anchorage system outside of the clear zone. 

• This acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the systems and does 

not cover its 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. 
 

 

 

 

7 

Michael S. Griffith 

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

B-221 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. 

Sincerely yours, 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
 
 

 

 

 

1 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 
57 

• Test Agency ............................................................................ MwRSF • Test Number ........................................................................... TTCB-1 • Date ........................................................................................ 6/27/07 • MASH Test Designation............................................................... 3-35 

• Test Article ..................... Termination of Temporary Concrete Barrier 

• System Length ................................................................. 156 ft – 6 in. • Temporary Concrete Barriers 

Type...................................................... Precast Kansas F-Shape Quantity .................................................................................. 12 Length ...................................................................... 12 ft – 6 in. Base Width ..................................................................... 22.5 in. Height ................................................................................ 32 in. 

• Anchorage Components 

Cables....................... 0.75 in. Diameter 6x19 IWRC Wire Rope 

Cable Assembly Lengths .......................................... 51 & 46 in. Post Type ......................................................................... W6x25 Post Length (Embedment) ..................................................... 8 ft 

• Vehicle Make and Model ............... 2003 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab. 

Curb .............................................................................. 4,988 lbs Test Inertial .................................................................. 4,991 lbs Gross Static .................................................................. 4,991 lbs 

• Impact Conditions 

Speed ........................................................................... 62.9 mph 

Angle ............................................................................. 25.5 deg Impact Location.......... 108 5/8 in. DS from US End of Barrier 1 

• Exit Conditions 

Speed ........................................................................... 36.1 mph 

Angle ............................................................................. 15.9 deg 

• Vehicle Stability .................................................• Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (10 msec avg

Longitudinal............................................. -Lateral .......................................................

• Occupant Impact Velocity (EDR-3) 

Longitudinal..............................................Lateral .......................................................

• Occupant Ridedown Acceleration (10 msec avg

Longitudinal............................................. -Lateral .......................................................

• Occupant Impact Velocity (EDR-4) 

Longitudinal..............................................Lateral .......................................................

• THIV (not required) ............................................• PHD (not required) .............................................

• Vehicle Damage .................................................

VDS[15] ......................................................

CDC[16] ............................................. 01-FR

Maximum Interior Deformation............. 4

• Vehicle Stopping Distance....... 175.25 ft DS of i• Test Article Damage ...........................................• Test Article Deflections 

Permanent Set ...........................................Dynamic....................................................

• Working Width..........................................• Maximum Roll Angle ....................................... 1

Figure 26. Summary of Test Results and Sequential Photographs, Test No. TTCB-1