U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

August 14, 2020 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1/B-346

Mr. James Fu 

State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation 

601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 611 

Kapolei, HI 96707 

USA 

Dear Mr. Fu: 

This letter is in response to your March 31, 2020 request for the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to review a roadside safety device, hardware, or system for eligibility for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. This FHWA letter of eligibility is 

assigned FHWA control number B-346 and is valid until a subsequent letter is issued by FHWA 

that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

The following device is eligible within the length-of-need, with details provided in the form 

which is attached as an integral part of this letter: 

• HDOT 42” Tall Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail

Scope of this Letter 

To be found eligible for Federal-aid funding, new roadside safety devices should meet the crash 

test and evaluation criteria contained in the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials’(AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). 

However, the FHWA, the Department of Transportation, and the United States Government do 

not regulate the manufacture of roadside safety devices. Eligibility for reimbursement under the 

Federal-aid highway program does not establish approval, certification or endorsement of the 

device for any particular purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by the FHWA, the Department of Transportation, or the United 

States Government that a vehicle crash involving the device will result in any particular 

outcome, nor is it a guarantee of the in-service performance 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. 
 

 

2 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

Based solely on a review of crash test results and certifications submitted by the manufacturer, 

and the crash test laboratory, FHWA agrees that the device described herein meets the crash test 

and evaluation criteria of the AASHTO’s MASH. Therefore, the device is eligible for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program if installed under the range of tested 

conditions. 

Name of system: HDOT 42” Tall Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail

Type of system: Longitudinal Barrier 

Test Level: MASH Test Level 3 (TL 3) 

Testing conducted by: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Date of request: March 31, 2020 

FHWA concurs with the recommendation of the accredited crash testing laboratory on 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 

This eligibility letter is issued for the subject device as tested. Modifications made to the device 

are not covered by this letter. Any modifications to this device should be submitted to the user 

(i.e., state DOT) as per their requirements. 

You are expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design, installation 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 review, and that it will meet the test 

and evaluation criteria of AASHTO’s MASH.

Issuance of this letter does not convey property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege. This 

letter is based on the premise that information and reports submitted by you are accurate and 

correct. We reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter if: (1) there are any inaccuracies in 

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

was flawed, (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 full and 

complete information about the crashworthiness of the system. 
3 

Standard Provisions 

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

control number B-346 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 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. 

• This FHWA eligibility letter is not an expression of any Agency view, position, or 

determination of validity, scope, or ownership of any intellectual property rights to a 

specific device or design. Further, this letter does not impute any distribution or licensing 

rights to the requester. This FHWA eligibility letter determination is made based solely 

on the crash-testing information submitted by the requester. The FHWA reserves the 

right to review and revoke an earlier eligibility determination after receipt of subsequent 

information related to crash testing. 

• 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 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. Our regulations concerning proprietary 

products are contained in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411. 

Sincerely, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1 of 6 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

of Highway Safety Hardware 

Submitter 

Date of Request: March 31, 2020 New Resubmission 

Name: James Fu, S.E. 

Company: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation 

Address: 601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 611, Kapolei, HI 96707 

Country: 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. 

Device & Testing Criterion - Enter from right to left starting with Test Level 

System Type Submission Type Device Name / Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

Physical Crash Testing 

Engineering Analysis 

HDOT 42'' Tall Aesthetic 

Concrete Bridge Rail 

AASHTO MASH TL3 

! - ! - ! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I r. r 

I I 

r. 

r 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

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

that the product(s) was (were) tested in conformity with the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware and that the evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the MASH. 

Individual or Organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: James Fu, S.E. Same as Submitter 

Company Name: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Same as Submitter 

Address: 601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 611, Kapolei, HI 96707 Same as Submitter 

Country: USA Same 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 (MwRSF) and its employees were asked to perform crash testing and 

evaluate the device named herein for the Hawaii Department of Transportation. 

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 of answering design and implementation questions; 

(iii) Research funding or other forms of research support include continued funding for roadside safety research 

projects with MwRSF; 

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

(v) No licenses or contractual relationships for this system; and 

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

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 2 of 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i' r 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 3 of 6 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

New Hardware or Modification to 

Significant Modification Existing Hardware 

The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) 42-in. tall aesthetic concrete bridge rail had a total length of 

88 ft and measured 42 in. tall and 10 in. wide. The barrier had a vertical front face with aesthetic recessed 

panels spaced 12 in. apart, measuring 6 in. wide and 14 in. tall with a 3-in. top-edge radius. Three 1⁄2-in. tall x 1⁄2-

in. deep V-shaped horizontal bevel cuts were etched into each face, 8, 15, and 35 in. above the tarmac. The top 

edge of the barrier on each side was chamfered at a 45-degree angle, measuring 3⁄4 in. wide. The barrier system 

consisted of five distinct segments separated with 1⁄2-in. wide expansion joints. Expansion joints were spaced 

22 ft apart, and the upstream expansion joint between segment nos. 1 and 2 was located 10 ft – 113⁄4 in. from 

the upstream end of the barrier system. The spacing between the expansion joints was limited to 22 ft, which 

was the smallest rail segment length between joints noted by HDOT. Larger rail segment lengths between 

expansion joints were considered less critical. Filler and sealant compounds were used to fill the gap between 

segments at expansion joints. The concrete mix for the bridge rail sections required a minimum 28-day 

compressive strength of 4,000 psi. 

Steel reinforcement consisted of ASTM A615 Gr. 60 rebar. Eight No. 5 longitudinal rebars were located 2-15/16 

in. from the outer surface of each segment, with four on each side. The longitudinal rebar were 2591⁄2 in. long 

for the longer barrier segments, 1273⁄4 in. long for the shorter barrier segments, and were located 21⁄8, 141⁄8, 

261⁄8, and 381⁄8 in. above the tarmac. Vertical stirrups were also provided using No. 5 rebar, which were spaced 

on 12-in. centers on the back-side face and on 6-in. centers on the traffic-side face. Vertical reinforcement bars 

were anchored to an existing concrete tarmac on both the traffic-side and backside faces to a depth of 8 in. 

and epoxied with Hilti HIT RE-500 V3 in order to develop the full tensile strength of the bar. All rebar had a 2-in. 

concrete clear cover. 

The barrier was constructed to be consistent with a 2-in. deep wearing surface. To represent the wearing 

surface, the tarmac was milled to a width of 16 in. and depth of 2 in. The barrier system was constructed with a 

44-in. height relative to the milled depth and 2 in. of low-strength concrete fill was added to the front side of 

the barrier to produce a rail height of 42 in. on the traffic-side face, while keeping the overall height of the rail 

consistent with construction on a bridge deck as in the HDOT standard plans. No concrete fill was added to the 

back side of the barrier. 

At each expansion joint, shear continuity was maintained using a pin-and-receiver casting, 12-in. long x 11⁄4-in. 

diameter, Schedule 80 PVC pipe with a 11⁄4-in. diameter along the vertical centerline of one barrier segment. 

Four No. 8 smooth rebar pins were inserted into each PVC tube, which were subsequently cast into adjacent 

concrete barrier segments. The pins were spaced 10-11/16 in. apart, and the top pin was located 6 in. from the 

top surface along the midplane of the barrier. 

Note, HDOT's 42-in. tall, Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail was fabricated for evaluation of the length of need 

(LON) of the interior barrier segments of the bridge rail. Therefore, the crashworthiness of the end segments 

and the transition buttresses were not evaluated in this testing program. It is recommended that end sections 

and buttresses be designed with similar or greater capacity to the bridge rail. 

CRASH TESTING 

By signature below, the Engineer affiliated with the testing laboratory, agrees in support of this submission that 

all of the critical and relevant crash tests for this device listed above were conducted to meet the MASH test 

criteria. The Engineer has determined that no other crash tests are necessary to determine the device meets 

the MASH criteria. 

Engineer Name: Ronald Faller Ronald K. Faller ou=Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, email=rfaller1@unl.edu, c=US 

Digitally signed by Ronald K. Faller 

DN: cn=Ronald K. Faller, o=University ofNebraska-Lincoln, Engineer Signature: Date: 2020.04.17 08:53:24 -05'00' 

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

Country: USA Same as Submitter 
 

 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 4 of 6 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation 

Results 

3-10 (1100C) 

Lab test no.: H42BR-1 

Date of test: July 17, 2019 

Crash test report no.: TRP-03-424-20 

A 2,421-lb small car with a simulated 

occupant seated in the front passenger seat, 

impacted the HDOT 42-in. Tall Aesthetic 

Concrete Bridge Rail at a speed of 63.2 mph 

and an angle of 24.9 degrees, resulting in an 

impact severity of 57.4 kip-ft. Impact 

location was 47.1 in. upstream from the 

expansion joint between barrier nos.3 and 

4. At 0.170 sec after impact, the vehicle 

became parallel to the system with a speed 

of 44.3 mph. At 0.274 sec the vehicle exited 

the system at a speed of 42.8 mph and an 

angle of 5.6 degrees. The vehicle was 

successfully contained and smoothly 

redirected. 

Exterior vehicle damage was moderate and 

the interior occupant compartment 

deformations were moderate, with a 

maximum of 4.7 in., consequently not 

violating the limits established by MASH 

2016. Damage to the concrete bridge rail 

was minimal, consisting of contact marks 

and concrete gouging on the front face of 

the barrier. The maximum lateral dynamic 

barrier deflection, including tipping of the 

barrier along the top surface, was 0.2 in. at 

barrier no. 3. The working width of the the 

system was found to be 10.2 in. All vehicle 

decelerations, occupant compartment 

deformations, occupant ridedown 

accelerations (ORAs), and occupant impact 

velocities (OIVs) fell within the 

recommended safety limits established in 

MASH 2016. The test vehicle showed no 

tendency for rollover and did not penetrate 

or ride over the barrier. 

PASS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 5 of 6 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation 

Results 

3-11 (2270P) 

Lab test no.: H42BR-2 

Date of test: August 19, 2019 

Crash test report no.: TRP-03-424-20 

A 5,007-lb quad cab pickup with a 

simulated occupant seated in the front 

passenger seat, impacted the HDOT 42-in. 

Tall Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail at a 

speed of 62.7 mph and an angle of 25.1 

degrees, resulting in an impact severity of 

118.5 kip-ft. Impact occurred 48.9 in. 

upstream from the expansion joint between 

barrier nos. 2 and 3. At 0.194 sec after 

impact, the vehicle became parallel to the 

system with a speed of 47.5 mph. At 0.366 

sec, the vehicle exited the system at a speed 

of 46.3 mph and an angle of 7.8 degrees. 

The vehicle was successfully contained and 

smoothly redirected. 

Exterior vehicle damage was moderate and 

the interior occupant compartment 

deformations were moderate, with a 

maximum of 5.5 in., consequently not 

violating the the limits established in MASH 

2016. Damage to the barrier was minimal 

consisting of contact marks and concrete 

spalling on the front face of the barrier. The 

maximum lateral dynamic barrier 

deflection, including tipping of the barrier 

along the top surface, was 0.5 in. at barrier 

no. 3. The working width of the system was 

found to be 10.5 inches. All vehicle 

decelerations, occupant compartment 

deformations, occupant ridedown 

accelerations (ORAs), and occupant impact 

velocities (OIVs) fell within the 

recommended safety limits established in 

MASH 2016. The test vehicle showed no 

tendency for rollover and did not penetrate 

or ride over the barrier. 

PASS 

3-20 (1100C) Test no. 3-20 is not applicable for this type 

of system. Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

3-21 (2270P) Test no. 3-21 is not applicable for this type 

of system. Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

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

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

 

 

 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 6 of 6 

Laboratory Name: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Laboratory Signature: Karla Lechtenberg DN: cn=Karla Lechtenberg, o=MwRSF, ou, email=kpolivka2@unl.edu, c=US 

Digitally signed by Karla Lechtenberg 

Date: 2020.04.17 10:00:36 -05'00' 

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, 2019 (Currently, 

valid to November 30, 2021) 

Submitter Signature*: 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 

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

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

support of this request. 

3) A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that conform 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 relevant to understanding the dimensions and performance of the device should also be submitted 

to facilitate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter 

Number Date Key Words 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

INTENDED USE

The Hawaii 42” [1067] Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail is non-proprietary concrete bridge rail that is anchored to a 

concrete bridge deck with a 2-in. [51] thick concrete or asphalt finishing surface applied on the traffic-side face of

the bridge rail. This bridge rail has aesthetic recessed panels on the traffic-side and back-side surfaces. These 

aesthetic recessed panels measure 6 in. [152] wide, 14 in. [356] tall, and 1⁄2 in. [13] deep with an inclination angle of

60 degrees. Expansion joints using smooth dowels are typically located at 22-ft [6706] intervals in the bridge rail. 

End sections measuring 3 ft – 6 in. [1067] long are placed at the end of the bridge rail adjacent to an end buttress

structure and should have similar or greater capacity as the bridge rail. The concrete used for the Hawaii 42” [1067]

Bridge rail should have a minimum nominal compressive strength of 4,000 psi [27.6 MPa]. The Hawaii 42” [1067]

Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail should be used in location where a maximum dynamic deflection of 0.5 in. [12] at

the top of the barrier or less is acceptable and where a working width of 10.5 in. [266] is provided. The Hawaii 42” 

[1067] Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail should be used with the Modified Hawaii Thrie Beam Approach Guardrail

Transition when transitioning to 31” [787] tall strong-post, W-beam guardrail such as Midwest Guardrail System 

(SGR20). The Hawaii 42” [1067] Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail has been crash tested under Test Level 3 (TL-3) 

conditions and deemed crashworthy according to the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, Second Edition

(MASH 2016) performance criteria.

COMPONENTS 

Unit Length = 264” [6706] 

DESIGNATOR COMPONENT NUMBER

c1 1” [25] Dia. Smooth 24” [610] Long Rebar 3 

c2 1 1/4" [32] Dia. PVC Pipe 3 

c3 1 1/4” [32] PVC Cap 3

--- Concrete, Minimum 4,000 psi f’c -

--- See Bill of Bars -

ELIGIBILITY

Eligibility will be pursued. 

REFERENCES 

Bielenberg, R. W., Dowler, N.T., Faller, R. K., and Urbank, E. L., Crash Testing and Evaluation of the HDOT 42-

in. Tall, Aesthetic Concrete Bridge Rail: MASH Test Designation Nos. 3-10 and 3-11, Report to Hawaii Department 

of Transportation, Transportation Report No. TRP-03-424-20, Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln, January 2020. 

CONTACT INFORMATION

Hawaii Department of Transportation 

Aliiaimoku Building 

869 Punchbowl St. 

Honolulu, HI 96813

HAWAII 42" AESTHETIC CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL

XXX##

SHEET NO. DATE:

2 of 5 4/20/2020