Mr. Frank J. Dvoracek 

Three D Traffic Works, Incorporated 

430 North Varney Street 

Burbank, California 91502 

Dear Mr. Dvoracek: 

This is in reply to Mr. Kevin King’s letter of September 18, 2003, requesting the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of your company’s barricades and panel system 

with attached warning lights as crashworthy traffic control devices for use in work zones on the 

National Highway System (NHS). Accompanying the letter was a letter report of bogie crash 

testing conducted by the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) and video of the tests. 

Mr. King requested that we find these devices acceptable for use on the NHS under the 

provisions of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 

“Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.” We 

provided a preliminary response in December of 2003, and you recently asked that this 

acceptance be formalized. 

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: Identifying Acceptable 

Highway Safety Features,” established four categories of work zone devices: Category I 

devices are those lightweight devices which are to be self-certified by the vendor, Category II 

devices are other lightweight devices which need individual crash testing but with reduced 

instrumentation, Category III devices are barriers and other fixed or heavy devices also 

needing crash testing with normal instrumentation, and Category IV devices are trailer 

mounted lighted signs, arrow panels, etc. for which crash testing requirements have not yet 

been established. The second guidance memorandum was issued on August 28, 1998, and is 

titled “INFORMATION: Crash Tested Work Zone Traffic Control Devices.” This later 

memorandum lists devices that are acceptable under Categories I, II, and III. 

400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590

In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/WZ-33B 

January 18, 2005 
2

A brief description of the devices follows: 

Three D Traffic Works TD2100 plastic Type I/Type II barricades were found acceptable as 

Test Level 3 devices in our letter WZ-33 dated May 24, 2000, and WZ-33A dated June 20, 

2003, having passed full-scale crash testing. Your present request is for combinations of these 

barricades supporting 12-foot long 1x8 inch extruded plastic rails, and affixed with warning 

lights. 

Testing 

Full-scale automobile testing was conducted on your company’ devices. Two stand-alone 

examples of the device 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 tests are summarized in the table below: 

Test Number 3D-1 3D-2 

Barricade Tested 3 Barricades, 2 Boards 2 Barricades, 1 Board 

Orientation Head-on End – on 

Weight of Tested Device 39.3 kg (86.7 lbs) 24.1 kg (53.3 lbs) 

Height to top of 

Barricade 

960 mm (37.8 in) 972 mm (38.25 in) 

Height to top of Board 908 mm (35.75 inches) 908 mm (35.75 in) 

Flags? Lights? 3 at 1.2 kg (2.64 lbs) 2 at 1.2 kg (2.64 lbs) 

Barricade spacing 3.7 m (12 feet) 3.7 m (12 feet) 

Mass of Test Vehicle 929 kg (2049 lbs) 

Impact Speed 100.7 km/hr (62.6 mph) 101.4 km/hr (63.0 mph) 

Velocity Change 2.9 km/hr (0.8 m/s) 5.5 km/hr (1.5 m/s 

Extent of contact Warning light assembly 

contacted “windshield” 

Board and 1 barricade 

contacted “windshield) 

Windshield Damage Only minor cracking 

expected 

Only minor cracking 

expected 

This crash-testing program used a hard-nosed bogie vehicle of a mass larger than the standard 

820C test vehicle. There are significant constraints involved in using such a non-standard testing 

device, some of which are: 

1. The potential vehicle velocity change must be considered insignificant. 

2. The crush characteristics of an automobile bumper must not be expected to have a significant 

affect on the trajectory of the test article. 

3. The profile of the bogie vehicle must be configured to replicate the outline of a production 

vehicle. The MwRSF bogie was configured to replicate the outline of a Geo Metro, a vehicle 

commonly used in testing of work zone devices. 

4. No part of the test article may intrude into the windshield area of the vehicle after impact. 

The testing met the first 3 criteria but parts of the barricade and panel system contacted the bogie 

vehicle in the windshield area. In test 3D-1 a warning light detached from its barricade, reflected 

off the hood, and struck the windshield. In test 3D-2 the lens broke from one light and contacted 
3

the center of the windshield. Also in this test the 12 foot long board made glancing contact with 

the top of the “windshield”, and the downstream barricade rotated up and over the hood of the 

car such that the top of the light impacted in the windshield area. The MwRSF researchers are of 

the opinion that these contacts would not have caused substantial damage to the windshield 

should an 820C automobile have been used. Upon reviewing the films of the test we concur in 

that assessment. 

Findings 

The results of the testing met the FHWA requirements and, therefore, the devices described 

above and detailed in the enclosed drawings are acceptable for use on the NHS under the range 

of conditions tested, when proposed by a State. 

Please note the following standard provisions that 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 the FHWA and 

the NCHRP Report 350. 

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

WZ-33B 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. 

• Three-D Traffic Works Barricades are patented devices and 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 by a highway 

agency for use on Federal-aid 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. These 

provisions do not apply to exempt non-NHS projects. Our regulations concerning 

proprietary products are contained in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 

635.411, a copy of which is enclosed. 
4

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

use, manufacture, or sell any patented device. Patent issues are to be resolved by the 

applicant and the patent owner. 

Sincerely yours, 

 

 /Original Signed by/ 

John R. Baxter, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

Enclosure 

FHWA:HSA-10:NArtimovich:tb:x61331:1/13/05 

File: h://directory folder/artimovich/WZ33B3D-TrafficFIN 

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

 N.Artimovich, HSA-10)