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

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

September 29, 20 16 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-l/B-266 

Ms. Karl a Lechtenberg 

Mid west Roadside Safety Facility 

130 Whitti er Research Center 

22 00 Vine Street 

Lincoln, NE 68583-0853 

Dear Ms. Lechtcnbcrg, 

This letter is in response to your December 31. 20 15. request for the Federal Highwe:1y 

Administration (FH WA) to review a roadside safety device, harchvarc. or system for eligibil ity 

fo r reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. This FHW /\ letter of eligibility is 

assigned FHWA control number B-266 and is valid unti l a subsequent letter is issued by FHWA 

that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

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

integral part or this letter: 

• Modified U.S. Standard and Ari zona G4(2W) W-beam Guardrail Systems with 8%-in. anti 

8'h-in. Nominal Diameter Ponderosa Pine Posts, respecti vely 

Scope of this Letter 

To be fo und eligible for Federal-aid funding, modified roadside safety devices should meet the 

crash test and evaluation cri teria contained in the National Cooperati ve Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) Report 350. However, FHWA, the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT), and the U.S. Government do not regulate the manufacture of roadside safety devices. 

Eligibility fo r reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program does not establish 

approval, certifica tion or endorsement of the device for any particul ar purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by FHWA, DOT, or the U.S. Government that a vehicle crash 

involving the device will result in any particular outcome, nor is it a guarantee of the in-service 

perfo rmance 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. 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
2 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

The fHWA previously issued an eligibility letter for the roadside safety system described in your 

pending request. Your pending request now identifies a modifi cation to that roadside safety 

system. 

The ori ginal roadside safety device informat ion is provided here: 

Name of system: Modified U.S. Standard and Arizona G4(2W) W-bearn Guardrail 

Systems with 8%-in. and 8 Y2-in. Nominal Diameter Ponderosa Pine 

Posts, respectively 

Type ofsystem: Longitudinal Barrier 

Test Level: NCHRP350 Test Level 3 (TL3) 

Testing conducted by: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Date or request: December 3 1, 20 15 

Date initi all y acknowledged: January 7, 201 6 

Date of completed package: May 26. 20 16 

The pending modification(s) U.S. Standard G4(2W) W-beam guardrail system consists ofthe 

follovving changes: 

I. 	 8%-in. nominal diameter Pondcrosa Pine (PP) wood posts (SGR04d) 

2. PP wood posts 65 in. long (PDE22) and set at 75-in. centers 

3. posts are embedded 36 inches in the ground. 

4. 6-in. x 8-in. x 14Y4-in. routed wood blacko ut (PDB24) 

The pending modification(s) Arizona G4(2W) W-beam guardrail system consists of the 

fo llowing changes: 

1. 8 Y2-in. nominal diameter Ponderosa Pine (PP) wood posts (SGR04e) 

2. PP wood posts that are 64 in. long (PDE2 1) and set al 75-in. 

3. posts are embedded 35 inches in the ground. 

4. 6-in. x 8-in. x 14Y4-in. routed wood blackout (PDB24) 

The FHWA concurs with the recommendati on 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 manufactu rer makes any modification to any of their roadside safety hardware that has an 

existing eligibility letter from FHWA, the manufacturer must notify FHWA 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. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
3 

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

laboratory on the potential effect of the modification on the ability of the device lo meet the 

relevant crash test criteria. 

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

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

You are expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design, install ation and 

maintenance 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 reviev,1, and that it \,viii meet the test 

and evaluation criteria of the NCH RP Report 350. 

Issuance of this letter docs not convey property rights or any so rt or any exclusive privilege. 

This letter is bused on the premise that information and reports submitted by you arc accurate 

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

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

was fl awed; (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 lull and 

complete information about the crashworthincss of the system. 

Standard Provisions 

• 	 To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of eligibility designated as FHWA control 

number B-266 shall not be reproduced except in ful l. 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 const rued as authorization or consent by FHWA to use, manufacture. 

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

• 	 If the 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 faci lities or that no equally suitable alternative exists; or (c) they must be 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
4 

used for research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively sho1t sections of road 

for experimental purposes. Our regulations concerning proprietary products are contained 

in Title 23, Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 635.41 1. SE: your~ 9J____ 

,-~	 Michael S iffith .::. 	 Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

\

Enclosures 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 1 of 5 

Request for Federal Aid Rei1nburse1nent EJigibility 

of Highway Safety Hardware 

.... 

QJ 

.... 

.~ 

E 

Date of Request: May 26, 2016 I \ N ew le Resubmission 

Name: Karla Lechtenberg 

Company: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Address: 130 Whittier Research Center, 2200 Vine Street, Lincoln, NE 68583-0853 

.0 

:i 

VI Country: USA 

To: 

M ichael S. Griffith, Director 

FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies 

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

highway program. 

Fl 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Barriers (Roadside, 

Median, Bridge Railings) 

(' Physical Crash Testing 

le Engineering Analysis 

Modified U.S. Standard 

and Arizona G4(2W) Wbeam Guardrail Systems 

NCHRP Report 350 TL3 

with 85/s-in. and 8112-in. 

Nominal Diameter 

Ponderosa Pine Posts, 

respectively 

By submit ting this request for review and eva luation by th e Federal Highway Ad ministration, I ce rtify 

that the product(s) was (were) t ested in conformity w ith the NCH RP Report 350 (Report 350) and that 

the evalu ation results m eet the appropriat e eva luation criteria in the Report 350. 

Identificatio n of the individual or organization responsible fo r the product : 

Contact Name: Karla Lechtenberg Same as Submitter ~ 

Company Name: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility Same as Submitter ~ 

Address: 130 Whittier Research Center, 2200 Vine Street, Lincoln, NE 68583­ Sa me as Submitter ~ 

Country: USA Sa me as Submitter ~ 

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

Eligibility Process for Safety Hardware Devices' document. 

The Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (Mw RSF) and its employees are requesting a letter of eligibility on behalf of 

the (1 )Arizona Stat e Forestry, (2) U.S. Department of Ag riculture - Forest Service, and (3) Arizona Log & 

Timberworks. 

MwRSF's financial interests are as follows: 

(i) No compensation, including wages, salaries, commissions, professional fees, or fees for business referrals; 

(ii) Consulting relationships consist ofanswering design and implementation questions; 

(iii) Research funding or other forms of research support include continuing t o fund research projects with 

MwRSF; 

(iv) No patents, copyrights, or other intellectual property interests for this system; 

(v) No licensesor contractual relationships for this system; and 

(vi) No business ownership and investment interests for this system. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 2 of 5 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

r New Hardware or /".::' Modification to IN s· "f" \ . . . . . . \• . . on­ 1 ni 1cant S1gn1f1 cant Mod1f1cat1on Ex1st1ng Hardware g 

The modified U.S. Standard G4(2W) W-beam guardrail system supported by 85/s-in. nominal diameter 

Ponderosa Pine (PP) wood posts (SGR04d) consists of standard 12-gauge W-beam sections (RWM02a) installed 

with the top of the rai l set at a nominal height of 273.hi inches. The rail is mounted on 85/s-in. nominal round PP 

wood posts that are 65 in. long (PDE22) and set at 75-in. centers. The posts are embedded 36 inches in the 

ground. A 6-in. x 8-in. x 141/.i-in. routed wood blockout (PDB74) is used to block the rail away from the front fa ce 

of the PP wood post. 

The modified Ari zona G4(2W) W-beam guard rail system supported by 8V1-in. nominal diameter Ponderosa Pine 

(PP) wood posts (SGR04e) consists of standard 12-gauge W-beam sections (RWM02a) installed with the top of 

the rail set at a nominal height of 28 inches. The rail is mounted on 8V2-in. nominal round PP wood posts that 

are 64 in. long (PDE2 1) and set at 75-in. centers. The posts are embedded 35 inches in the ground. A 6-in. x 8-in. 

x 141/.i-in. routed wood blackout (PDB23) is used to block the rail away from the front face of the PP wood post. 

In both systems, the rail splices are located at post locations. Standard guardrail bolts or ASTM A307 S/s-in. 

diameter x 18-in. long guardrai l bolts and nuts (FBB04) are used to attach the rail to the posts. 

CRASH TESTING 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 3 of 5 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation Results 

3-10 (820C) 

Based on the success of prior small car t esting on strong-post, 

W-beam guardrail systems, the 1,808-lb (820-kg) small car 

crash test was deemed unnecessary for this demonstration 

project and a sampling of pertinent crash tests is conta ined 

herein. 

In test no. GR-1 found in TRR 1024, a G4(2W) guardrail system 

that was configured with 6-in. x 8-in. x 14-in. long timber 

blackouts and supported by 6-in. x 8-in. x 6-ft long timber 

posts spaced on 6 ft - 3 in. centers was successfully impacted 

by a 1,989-lb small car at 60.1 mph and 15.5 degrees 

according to the NCH RP Report No. 230 safety performance 

criteria. 

Two tests in TII report no. 114 7-1 F were conducted on strongpost, W-beam guardrail systems according to the NCHRP 

Report No. 230 safety performance criteria. In test no. 1147- 1, 

a W-beam guardrail system configured with 7-in. diameter 

round wood posts without the use of spacer blocks, 

embedded 38 in., and spaced on 8 ft - 4 in. centers was 

successfully impacted by a 1,967-lb small car at 61.7 mph and 

20.7 degrees. In test no. 1147-3, a modified G4(1 S) W-beam 


guardrail system configured with steel posts with offset 


blocks, and spaced on 8 ft - 4 in. centers was successfully 


impacted by a 1,968-lb small car at 61.5 mph and 20.5 


degrees. Significant whee l snag on the posts was observed in 

both tests. 

In test no. 1862-2-89 found in FHWA report no. FHWARD-93-082, a G4(1 S) guardrail with steel posts and offset 

blocks spaced on 6 ft - 3 in. centers and positioned on a 

1, 192-ft radius curve with flat terrain was successfu lly 

impacted by a 1,964-lb small car at 62.2 mph and 20.0 degrees 

according to the NCH RP Report No. 230 safety performance 

criteria. 

In test no. 99F003 found in FHWA report no. FHWARD-01-048, a modified G4(1 S) guardrail system configured 

w ith steel posts and 6-in. x 8-in. offset blocks, using a 6-ft 3-in. 

post spacing was successfully impacted by a 2,002-lb small car 

at 62.4 mph and 20.5 degrees according to the NCHRP Report 

No. 350 criteria. Some wheel snag was observed on the posts. 

In test no. GR-6 found in NCH RP Report No. 289, a G4(2W) 

guardrail system configured with 6-in. x 8-in. x 14-in. long 

timber blackouts and supported by 6-in. x 8-in. x 6-ft long 

timber posts spaced on 6 ft - 3 in. centers was successfully 

impacted by 1,928-lb small car impacting at 61.9 mph and 

21.7 degrees according t o the NCH RP Report No. 230 safety 

performance criteria. 

Non-Critical, not conducted

53-10 (700C) This t est is not applicable for this type of system. Non-Critical, not conducted 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 4 of 5 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation Results 

3-1 1 (2000P) 

The modified U.S. Standard and modified Arizona G4(2W) Wbeam guardrail systems supported by 8%-in. and 8%-in. 

nominal diameter Ponderosa Pine (PP) wood posts are 

adaptations of the U.S. Stand ard and Arizona G4(2W) W-beam 

guardrail systems with rectangular SYP posts. If the new 

components (which are the round PP posts) are shown to 

withstand equivalent strength and soil rotation resistance to 

the 72-in. long, rectangu lar SYP post embedded 43% inches 

and the 64-in. long, rectangu lar SYP post embedded 35 

inches, the modified U.S. Standard and modified Arizona G4 

(2W) W-beam guardrail systems supported by 85/s-in. and 8V2­

in. nominal diameter Ponderosa Pine (PP) wood posts, 

respectively, would perform similarly to the original U.S. 

Standard and Arizona G4(2W) W-beam guardrail systems with 

rectang ular SYP posts. The original G4(2W) W-beam guardrail 

system has been tested, satisfies the NCH RP Report 350 

testing criteria, and has an FHWA Eligibility Letter (B-64). 

Dynamic component t esti ng consisted of a lateral impact (90­

degree impact angle) on the posts at a height of 21.65 in. (550 

mm), res ulting in strong-axis bending. This is believed to be a 

critical loading condition which matches the height to the 

center of the W-beam rail and represents maximum lateral 

loading into the guardrail system. The results of test nos. 

AZSYP-1 through AZSYP-3, AZPP-2, AZPP-4, AZPP-5, AZPP-7, 

and AZPP-8 are found in MwRSF report no. TRP-03-287-13. 

The results of test nos. PPUS-1 through PPUS-3 are found in 

MwRSF report no. TRP-03-315-14. The results of these posts 

installed in strong soils showed that there was less than a 2 

percent difference in ultimate strength and the post sections 

were deemed to have equivalent strengths. The results of lest 

nos. PPW-1, PPW-2, PPSYPW-1, and PPSYPW-2 are found in 

MwRSF report no. TRP-03-3 15-14. The results of these post s 

installed in moderately compacted soil showed that the 

average forces and absorbed energies between the t wo post 

types were within 6 percent at deflections between 5 in. and 

20 in. and the post sections were deemed to have equivalent 

soil resistance. Based on the results ofthe dynamic 

component tests, an 85/a-in. nominal diameter PP post with a 

65-in. post length and a 36-in. embedment depth was found 

to provide strength and soil rotation resistance equivalent to 

the 72-in. long, rectangular SYP post embedded 43% inches 

for use in the modified U.S. Standard G4(2W) W-beam 

guardrail syst em. The results of test nos. AZSYP-4 through 

AZSYP-6 and AZPP-1 through AZPP- 11 are found in MwRSF 

report no. TRP-03-287-13. The results of these posts installed 

in strong soils showed that the round PP posts provided a 

greater average force and energy dissipation than the SYP 

posts. In addition, it was determined the 8Vi-in. nominal 

diameter PP post with a 64-in. post length and a 35-in. 

embedment depth was a closer match to the soil resistance of 

the rectangular SYP post. Based on the results of the dynamic 

component tests, an 8Y2-in. nominal diameter PP post with a 

64-in. post length and a 35-in. embedment depth was found 

to provide strength and soil rotation resistance equivalent to 

the 64-in. long, rectangular SYP post embedded 35 inches for 

use in the modified Arizona G4(2W) W-beam guardrail 

systems. 

Non-Critical, not conducted 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 5 of 5 

3-20 (820C) This test is not applicable for this type of system. Non-Critical, not conducted 

S3-20 (700C) This test is not applicable for this type of system. Non-Critical, not conducted 

3-21 (2000P) This test is not applicable for this type of system. Non-Critical, not conducted 

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

crash test Laboratory. By signature below, the Laboratory agrees in support of this submission that all 

critica l and relevant crash tests for the device listed above were conducted. (cite the laboratory's 

accreditation status as noted in the cras h test reports.): 

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

Laboratory Name: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Laboratory Signature: Karla Lechtenberg O.g11alty s.gned bt ).,,11.1 Ltchltnltt19 

ON en Ka1l.t l rchlt"nbrrg o-Mu:tv.t\I Rllid$K'I(' S.llt:) .wti1 yl ·~wRSO. 

ou. ema•I polr. ..il ... Jnl ..du c u<. D.11t_• 201etos111~os·21 os·oo 

Address: 

130 Whittier Research Center, 2200 Vine Street, 

Lincoln, NE 68583-0853 Same as Submitter ~ 

Country: USA Same as Submitter ~ 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Dates of current 

Accreditation period : 

A2LA Certificate Number: 2937.01, Valid to November 30, 2017 

. . Karla O•)'U~t\..y.. ·lf,tll.'"''•lf'<t-.'rr,I<"~ 

S u b m1tter Signatu re": L h b Ofl '" ~1•11l t< hl<'t'l<i>t< ? o- M•d"~'I

ec ten erg '"'""'I 

i~l .,, •'-J '~t1f1 •l1, •1.•..,J1Y1ov 

1.:il · •l.1 '1u-n!..O~_,-U\

0•1, 1f!.&n1• 1 UC\6.'46 0~00 

Submit Form 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 

I) Additional disclosures of related financial interest as indicated above. 

2) A copy of the ful I test report. video. and a Test Data Summary Sheet for each test conducted in 

support of this request. 

3) A drawing or drawi ngs of the device(s) that conform to the Task Force- 13 Drawing Specilications 

fHardware Gu ide Drawini; 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 

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

to fac il itate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter AASHTO TF13 

Number Date Designator Key Words 

Archived -

For

Research

and

Historical

Purposes

Only