1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

 Washington, D.C. 20590

FHWA: HSST: WLongstreet: ms: x60087:3/9/11

File: h://directory folder/HSST/ B216_Cumberland Barrier.docx

cc: HSST Will Longstreet 

March 10, 2011

In Reply Refer To:

HSST/B- 216

Mr. Gary D. Miracle, President

Cumberland Barrier, Inc.

7685 Old Woods Court

Springboro, OH 45066

Dear Mr. Miracle:

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

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

Name of system: Cumberland Barrier, Inc. Emergency Median Access Barrier System 

(EMA)

Type of system: Permanent Barrier

Test Level: AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH)

Test Level 3 (TL-3)

Testing conducted by: Transportation Research Center (TRC)

Date of request: December 21, 2010

Date initially acknowledged: December 22, 2010

Task Force 13

Drawing Designator: SGM31

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:

• EMA

Description

The Cumberland Barrier, Inc. EMA allows access through a 50-inch concrete median barrier. 

The gate is an 18 feet long continuous steel fabrication with no splices except at the extreme 
2

ends where the gate’s horizontal members slide up and down between the flanges of the 

W12 x 40 end posts. The gate has an embedded concrete foundation roughly 26 feet long and 

9 feet deep.

The EMA units for concrete barrier walls will include a concrete transition wall. The transition 

wall has the same profile as the median barrier and runs 10 feet past Cumberland’s median 

access gate. The last 6 feet of transition wall are constructed to the state’s median barrier 

specifications. For this test, the wall constructed was a Kentucky standard 50-inch wall, a 

Type C new flexible pavement barrier which is 12 inches at the top, with a Kentucky 

Foundation, which has an 8-inch thick aggregate base with a minimum 3-inch thick asphalt cap. 

The aggregate base and asphalt cap were 5 feet wide on either side of the wall. To meet the 

MASH minimum wall length for testing, an additional 7 feet of Kentucky standard 50-inch wall 

was installed downstream of the 10 feet transition wall. 

TRC’s vehicle tow cable has a sub-surface pit for cable turn-around sheaves that prohibits 

upstream wall construction. This was further discussed with Mr. Nick Artimovich, FHWA 

Office of Safety on January 10, 2010. After this discussion it was decided that due to this 

physical limitation of available space upstream of the median gate, the upstream end of the gate 

was to be securely braced with lateral and longitudinal supports as though it were attached to a 

concrete wall.

Details of the Cumberland Barrier, Inc. EMA are provided as enclosure to this correspondence.

Crash Testing

Physical crash test for TL-3 as per MASH requires that longitudinal barrier systems be subjected 

to the following two full-scale vehicle crash tests:

1. Test Designation 3-20. An 1,100-kg (2,425-lb) passenger car impacting at a nominal

 speed and angle of 100.0 km/h (62.1 mph) and 25 degrees, respectively.

2. Test Designation 3-21. A 2,270-kg (5,004-lb) pickup truck impacting at a nominal

 speed and angle of 100.0 km/h (62.1 mph) and 25 degrees, respectively.

A single test was requested and discussed with Mr. Artimovich on January 4, 2010. After this 

discussion it was decided that this situation is the same as that described in the first sentences of 

MASH 2.3.2 were the splice is coincident with the hard point and a single test is recommended 

to evaluate both Critical Impact Points (CIP’s). Therefore, only test designation 3-21 was 

conducted for the free-standing temporary barrier system described within the description section 

of this correspondence.

The EMA was positioned such that the right front corner of the impacting 2270P vehicle struck 

the gate at the CIP of 4.3 feet upstream from the inside edge of the downstream steel end post.

Findings 

The analysis of the MASH Test Designation 3-21 showed there were no detached elements from 

the impacting vehicle or gate system that penetrated the occupant compartment of the impacting 

vehicle or presented hazards to others in the area. There was no significant deformation of the 
3

roof, windshield or occupant compartment. The occupant impact velocities and ridedown 

accelerations were within the recommended limits for the impacting vehicle. The maximum 

occupant impact velocities were 4.76 m/s longitudinally and 9.28 m/s laterally. The maximum 

ridedown accelerations were 6.43 g longitudinally and 10.64 g laterally.

Therefore, 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.

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

• 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 

B- 216 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,

Michael S. Griffith

Director, Office of Safety Technologies

Office of Safety 

Enclosures
1. Sequential photographs 

0.000 s 0.025 s 0.50 s 0.75 s 

2. Plan View 3. Cross-sectional View

OriginalImpactPoint 69.6 meters

Pre-Test

Post-Test

5.5 meters

4. General Information:

• Test Agency Transportation Research Center Inc.

3-2

• Test Number 101015 • Date October 15, 2010 

5. Test Article: Emergency Median Access 

• Type Longitudinal Barrier Gate • Installation Length 18 feet• Key Elements Steel Barrier Gate, concrete foundation 

6. Soil Conditions: 

• Type of Soil Not applicable• Soil Strength Not applicable

7. Test Vehicle: 

• Type/Designation Production Model 2270P • Make and Model 2004 Dodge Ram 1500 • Test Inertial 2294.2 kg • Gross Static 2294.2 kg 

8. Impact Conditions: 

• Speed 100.1 km/h • Angle 25 degrees • Location/Orientation 1.3 m upstream from the inside edge of

the gate’s steel end post 

9. Exit Conditions: 

• Speed 100.1 km/h (estimated

Page 41 of 76 101015 Rev. 1 

• Angle 5 degrees (estimated) • Exit Box Criterion Met 

10. Post-Impact Trajectory: 

• Vehicle Stability Satisfactory• Stopping Distance 69.6 m downstream; 5

11. Occupant Risk: 

• Longitudinal OIV 6.43 g • Lateral OIV 10.64 g • Longitudinal RA 4.76 m/s • Lateral RA 9.28 m/s 

12. Test Article Damage: Slight13. Test Article Deflections: 

• Permanent Set 0.0 mm • Dynamic 0.0 mm • Working Width 762 mm 

14. Vehicle Damage: Moderate 

• VDS N/A • CDC 01FZEW2 • Maximum Deformation 329 mm 

Figure 35. Summary of results for test 101015