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

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

May 21, 2014 In Reply Refer To: 

HSST/CC-1 OOC 

Mr. Brian Smith 

Trinity Highway Products, LLC 

2525 North Stemmons Freeway 

Dallas, Texas 75207 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

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

review a roadside safety system for eligibility for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway 

program. 

Name ofsystem: Slotted Rail Terminal 31-inch (SRT-3J)Wood Post 

Type ofsystem: Terminal End Section 

Test Level: NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 3 (TL-3) 

Testing conducted by: Texas Transportation Institute 

Task Force 13 Designator: SEW12c 

Date of request: February 13, 20 14 

Date of completed package: May 9, 2014 

Decision: 

The following device is eligible, with details provided: 

• SRT-31 Wood Post 

This correspondence is in conjunction with the existing eligibility letter CC-I OOB dated 

December 5, 2012 for the above described system. Based on a comparison to both SRT-27 Wood 

Post (SRT-27W) Eligibility Letter CC-72 dated December 18, 2000 and SRT-31 Steel Post 

system Eligibility Letter CC-100 dated August 30, 2007, the accredited crash test house 

identified within the attached eligibility form has determined the device described herein meets 

the crash test and evaluation criteria ofthe American Association of State Highway and 

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

for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. Eligibility for reimbursement under 

the Federal-aid highway program does not establish approval or endorsement by the FHWA for 

any particular purpose or use. 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
2 

The FHW A, the Department ofTransportation, and the United States Government do not 

endorse products or services and the issuance of a reimbursement eligibility letter is not an 

endorsement of any product or service. 

Requirements 

To be found eligible for Federal-aid funding, 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). 

Description 

The device and supporting documentation are described in the attached form. 

Summary and Standard Provisions 

Therefore, the system described and detailed in the attached form is eligible for reimbursement 

and may be installed under the range of conditions previously tested. 

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

• 	 This letter 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 existing Task Force 13 

drawing for posting on the on-line ' Guide to Standardized Highway Barrier Hardware' 

currently referenced in AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. 

• 	 This finding of eligibility does not cover other structural features of the systems, nor 

conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

• 	 Any changes that may influence system conformance with NCHRP Report 350 criteria 

will require a new reimbursement eligibility letter. 

• 	 Should the FHWA discover that the qualification testing was flawed, that in-service 

performance reveals safety problems, or that the system is significantly different from the 

version that was crash tested, we reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter. 

• 	 You are expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design and 

installation requirements to ensure proper performance. 

• 	 You are expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has the same 

chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for review, and that it 

will meet the crash test and evaluation criteria of the NCHRP Report 350. 

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

CC- I OOC 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 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. 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
3 

• 	 The FHW A does not become involved in issues concerning patent law. Patent issues, if 

any, are to be resolved by the applicant. 

Sincerely yours, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.2 (03/14) 

Page 1 of 5 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

Of Highway Safety Hardware 

Date of Request: April 4, 2014 I \New r. Resubmission 

Name: Don Gripne 

... 

Cll 

= 

Company: Trinity Highway Products, LLC 

·e 

.0 

:I 

V'l 

Address: 

Country: 

5216 Brassfield Dr. SE, Olympia, WA 98501 

USA 

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. 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'CC': Crash Cushions, 

Attenuators, & Terminals 

{e Physical Crash Testing 

(' FEA & V&V Analysis 

SRT-31WP 

NCH RP Report 350 TL3 

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

that th e product(s) was (were) tested in conformity with the NCHRP Report 350 (Report 350) and that 

the evaluation result s meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the Report 350. 

Identification of the individual or organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Greg Neece Same as Submitter 0 

Company Name: Trinity Highway Products, LLC Same as Submitter 0 

Address: 2525 Stemmons, Freeway, Dallas, TX 75207 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: USA Same as Submitter 0 

Modification to Existing Hardware Non-Significant - Effect is positive or Inconsequential I 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.2 {03/14) 

Page 2 of 5 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

The Slotted Rail Terminal (SRD 6 Post straight flare for W-beam Guardrail @TL-3 (herein referred to as SRT-27 

Wood Post or SRT-27WP) was accepted by FHWA on December 18, 2000, FHWA letter CC-72. The system 

consisted of slotted rails, two Hinge Breakaway Posts at post locations 1 and 2, followed by 5 Controlled Release 

Posts (CRT). It was 37.5 feet long with a straight flare and a four foot end offset. 

On August 30, 2007, FHWA letter CC-100 was issued for the SRT-31. The SRT-31 is an all steel post system, with a 

4 foot offset over 37.5 feet with a straight flare. A steel Cable Release Post (CRP) is used at Post 1 and Steel 

Yielding Terminal Posts (SYTP) are used at posts 2 through 6. The rail is detached from the support posts 2 

through 5. A shelf angle at Post 2 provides rail support. The SRT-31 and SRT-27SP systems are similar other 

than for the difference in height, and the rail splices being on the posts for the SRT-27SP. 

On June 3, 2008, FHWA letter CC-101 was issued for the SRT-27 Steel Post (SP) terminal. The SRT-27SP is an all 

steel post system, 37.5 feet long with a straight flare and a 4 foot end offset. A steel Cable Release Post (CRP) is 

used at Post 1 and Steel Yielding Terminal Posts (SYTP) 2 through 6. The rail is detached from the support posts 

2 through 5. A shelfangle at Post 2 provides rail support. 

This request is to accept a wood post version of the SRT-31 (SRT-31 WP) with the following details: 

1. Straight flare with 4-ft end offset over the 37.5-ft terminal length (similar to SRT-27WP, SRT-27SP, and 

SRT-31). 

2(a). Wood BCT posts in 6 foot soil tubes or 4 ft-6 inch soil tubes with soil plates at post locations 1 and 2 

2(b). Cable Release Post (CRP) at post location 1 and 6-ft long Steel Yielding Terminal Post (SYTP) at post 

location 2 (similar to SRT-27SP and SRT-31 ). 

3. Four (4) 6-ft long Controlled Release Terminal (CRT) Posts connected to rail at post locations 3 through 6 with 

post spacing of 6 ft-3 inches (similar to SRT-27WP). 

4. No blockouts between rail and post at post locations 1 and 2 (simi lar to SRT-27WP, SRT-27SP, and SRT-31 ). 

5. 8 inch or 12 inch wood or composite blockout at post locations 3 through 6. 

6. Two 12.5 ft (3.8 m) slotted W-beam panels between posts 1 and 5 (similar to SRT-27WP, SRT-27SP, and 

SRT-31 ). 

7. Special 9.375 ft (2.86 m) or 15.625 ft (4.76 m) long W-beam panel beginning at post 5 to provide mid-span rail 

splices for connected 31-inch guardrail system (similar to SRT-31 ). 

8. Shelf angle is used at post location 2 (similar to SRT-27SP and SRT-31 ). 

9. Standard line post at post location 7 and beyond (similar to SRT-27WP, SRT-27SP, and SRT-31 ). 

This modification is considered Non-significant, Effect is Positive or Inconsequential. The Testing Laboratory's 

signature concurs that these modifications are considered Non-significant and the effect is Positive and 

inconsequential. 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description Evaluation Results 

3-30 (820C) 

This test has been conducted on 27-inch (SRT-27WP) and 31-inch 

(SRT-31) systems. Equivalent or improved behavior is expected for 

the proposed SRT-31 WP compared to the tested SRT-27WP. The 

SRT-27WP incorporated sim ilar wood Controlled Release Terminal 

(CRD posts, and the increased rail height will reduce the probability 

of rail climbing or override during the gating process. 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

S3-30 (700C N/ A WAIVER REQUESTED 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.2 (03/14) 

Page 3 of 5 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description Evaluation Results 

3-31 (2000P) 

This test has been conducted on 27-inch (SRT-27WP) and 31-inch 

(SRT-31 ) systems. Equivalent or improved behavior is expected for 

the proposed SRT-31 WP compared to the tested SRT-27WP. The 

SRT-27WP incorporated similar wood Controlled Release Terminal 

(CRT) posts, and the increased rail height will reduce the probability 

of rail climbing or override during the gating process. 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

3-32 (820C) This test is considered less severe than test 3-30. WAIVER REQUESTED 

S3-32 (700C) N/ A 

3-33 (2000P) This test is considered less severe than test 3-31 WAIVER REQUESTED 

3-34 (820C) 

This test was conducted on previous wood post versions ofthe SRT 

with a parabolic (rather than linear) flare. The parabolic flare 

creates a more critical effective impact angle at post 2 than the 

straight flare ofthe proposed SRT-31 WP. Further, Test 3-34 was 

performed on the 31 -inch tall SRT-MASH system, which is 

considered to be more critical from a snagging perspective than 

the proposed SRT-31 WP. The SRT-MASH incorporates steel posts 

at a reduced post spacing. Steel posts are generally considered to 

be more critical from a snagging perspective than wood posts due 

to interaction ofthe vehicle wheel with the flanges ofthe post, and 

the reduced post spacing puts more posts in the path of the 

vehicle, thereby increasing snagging potential. Further, post 

snagging at 31 inch rail height is no longer considered a significant 

concern given the successful testing of 31 -inch guardrail systems 

(Trinity Guardrail System and MGS) with standard steel posts and 

no blockouts under more severe impact conditions (i.e., 20 degrees 

with 820C vehicle and 25 degrees with 11 OOC vehicle under test 

3-10 compared to a 15-degree impact angle under test 3-34). 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

S3-34 (700C) N/A 

3-35 (2000P) 

This test has been conducted on both 27-inch (SRT-27WP) and 31­

inch (SRT-31 ) systems. The anchorage demand on the Cable 

Release Post (CRP) was more critical in the SRT-31 than the 

proposed SRT-31 WP, because the rail was not attached to the steel 

yielding terminal posts and thus more load was transferred to the 

anchorage system. Further, equivalent or improved redirection 

performance is expected with the Controlled Release Terminal 

(CRD posts at 31 inches compared to the same CRT posts tested at 

27 inches in the SRT-27WP. 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

3-36 (820C) N/ A 

S3-36 (700C) N/A 

3-37 (2000P) N/A 

3-38 (2000P) N/ A 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.2 (03/14) 

Page 4 of 5 

CRASH TESTING 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 

This test (2000P, reverse hit, 20 degrees) will be a non-discerning 

test for the straight flared SRT system as the impact angle of the 

2000P relative to the rail will occur at 14 degrees(20 degrees minus 

6 degrees flare rate) and therefore will be of relatively low severity. 

Some additional factors further justify the waiver request for this 

test. The Controlled Release Terminal (CRT) posts used in the 

system perform similarly in both the downstream and reverse 3-39 (2000P) WAIVER REQUESTED direction. Further, the post bolt slot in the rail at the post location 1 

is slotted out the upstream end to the free edge of the rail. 

Therefore, in a reverse hit the rail offers no resistance to the release 

ofthe CRP or fracture ofthe wood BCT post at Post location 1. Also, 

the activation of the CRP in the reverse direction has been 

demonstrated in both pendulum tests and in crash testing of cable 

guardrail terminals. 

3-40 (2000P) N/A 

S3-40 (700C) N/A 

3-41 (2000P) N/A 

3-42 (820C) N/A 

S3-42 (700C) N/A 

3-43 (2000P) N/A 

3-44 (2000P) N/A 

Full Scale Crash Testing was done in compliance with Report 350 by the following accredited crash test 

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

Testing Laboratory's signature concurs that these modifications are considered Non-Significant and the 

effect is positive or inconsequential. 

Laboratory Contact Signature: 11oo ..... ._.. -~...~· Bligh, Roger P - ..... ­ -· ·-- · ........_,,_,,_,.,,h_ .... · ­ ...~·---,.. -·.. 

Laboratory Name: Texas Transportation Institute 

Laboratory Contact: Roger Bligh Same as Submitter 0 

Address : 3135 TAMU, College Station, TX 778543-3135 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: USA Same as Submitter 0 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Date: 

ISO 17025-2005; A2LA Certificate 2821.01 

~1~b10on . ,c.roorw 

Submitter Signature*: Don Jay Gripne :.:'.:::..':;"..:;:;;;~:::-;~~·""·' ....,....~.,.,,,.,.,...~t.c•V\ 

0111t 1fll• M091•0IO l .OIOO 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.2 (03/ 14) 

Page 5 of 5 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 

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

support ofthis request. 

2) A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that confonn 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 key to understanding the performance ofthe device should also be submitted to facilitate our 

review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter AASHTO TF13 

Number Date Designator Key Words 

CC-1 OOC May 19, 2014 SEW12c Slotted Rail Terminal, NCHRP Report 350, TL3, Wood 

Post 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only