nue
[ss 241

yl

tee) och wm aw

rl

a
wv

ssn oat Fe som

x om ars sme
1 Ru Ont not

es

wren BS

es

os
Arno
is

es,

BB Oe ecco

conan atten be 73

rea

roemmAled

FF


a OR Bw Guten

Hh Oe

Bp 4-6 — te

SF Soe RUE

wir sen ne |

SECON "8-8"
om

wor
Sw aa 5 sueat @ ros 13
CDT na WOT alae

H
it i
[a
sf
oP
pate
ae
:
zs
[a
| >
} ok
:
2
cm
Taree
Ey
Wbeesu sirens

we

Bil OF MAlenAL

£1 2a —
LEANING otters EO
OPN A wad
SiRD Tes ComPant



Q

US Department i igcs

of Transportation AUG 22 iS35 Wasnngan 3c Soest
Federal Highway

Administration ‘ Refer to: HNG-14

Mr. Don H. Johnson
President

Syro Steel, Inc.
2525 Stemmons Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75207

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Your August 9 letter to Mr. William A. Weseman requested the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) to concur in your assertion that the ET-2000 guardrail
terminal has satisfied the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 350 evaluation criteria for a test level 3 (TL-3) terminal. To
support this request, you provided copies of appropriate test reports,
drawings, photographs, and videotapes of the full-scale crash tests. The
summary results of the NCHRP Report 350 certification tests are enclosed for
ready reference. In response to questions raised by my staff, you submitted
supplemental information with your letter dated August 14 and identified three
specific ET-2000 designs for which you sought FHWA acceptance under the NCHRP
Report 350 criteria. This second letter also stated that you were not seeking
acceptance of the ET-2000 as modified per Mr. Jerry L. Poston’s April 26
letter (copy enclosed) as an NCHRP Report 350 terminal at this time.

Based on our review of the information presented, we have concluded that the
ET=2000 designs designated as Option A and Option B (drawings enclosed)
satisfy the NCHRP Report 350 evaluation criteria for a TL-3 terminal and that
either or both of these designs may ‘continue to be used on the National
Highway System (NHS) when selected by a highway agency. These two designs are
identical except that posts five through eight are shortened wood posts in
steel tubes in Option A, whereas these posts are full-length CRT posts in
Option B. Since the ET-2000 is proprietary, all regulations regarding its use
on Federal-aid projects (except non-NHS projects) remain applicable.

You will note we have not accepted the modified Option B design (Texas
Department of Transportation version) which uses weakened round wood posts in
lieu of CRT posts at post positions five through eight. Based on our review
of Test 9429A-2 (NCHRP Report 230 test number 40) which was conducted with a
2,000-kg passenger car, we have concerns that this particular design would not
pass the NCHRP Report 350 test 3-35. These concerns are based on the facts
that the rear wheel of the passenger car in test 9429A-2 contacted and rode up
on a post, creating some instability, the round wood posts are approximately
half as strong as the CRT posts and deflect considerably more on impact,
increasing the likelihood of pocketing and the 2000-kg pickup truck has proven

CC ld -}


relatively unstable in several recent length-of-need and strength tests. If
you chose to conduct test 3-35, or have additional information to offer, we
will be please to review our current position.

We also noted that in test 3-39 (reverse direction hit), the extruder head was
detached from the w-beam and slid 64 m from its original location and 3.5 m
nearer the traffic lane. While such a trajectory might pose a hazard to other
vehicles, we agree with your analysis that such an event is unlikely.
Nonetheless, user agencies should be made aware of this occurrence so that
each can make an objective assessment of the appropriateness of the ET-2000 at
a specific location.

A copy of this letter and enclosures will be sent to the FHWA field offices
for information.

Sincerely yours,

Jerry L. Poston, Chief
Federal-Aid and Design Division

3 Enclosures

Supplement to Geometric and Roadside Design Acceptance Letter CC-12


NCHRP 350
Test No.

3-30

SUMMARY OF ET-2000 COMPLIANCE TESTS FOR TEST LEVEL 3 OF NCHRP REPORT 350

Deseription

820C head-on on nose
w/15" offset, 0° approach

a

TTI Test
No.

6001-1

Test Report and
Test Article

See Ref 1 and
drawing SS 215

a

Description (m/sec) (G‘s)

Results Meet
All Report 350
Requirements?

Yes

3-31

2000P head-on on nose,
0° approach

220510-
5

See Ref 2 and
drawing SS 241T

Yes

3-32

820C head-on on nose,
15° approach

220510-
3

See Ref 2 and
drawing SS 241T

Yes

3-33

2000P head-on on nose,

15° approach

220510-

4

See Ref 2 and

drawing SS 2417

Yes

3-34

820C between nose and
beginning of LON, 15° approach
(at post #2)

9429A-1

See Ref 3 and
drawing SS 230

Max OIV | Max RA
9.3 17.3
8.1 13.0
9.0 7.4
5.5 4.0
5.2 10.3

Yes

2000P at beginning of LON, 220510- See Ref 2 and 7.6 8.2 Yes
20° approach (at post #3) 2 drawing SS 241T

3-39 2000P reverse hit midway 220537- See Ref 2 and 6.0 10.5 Yes
along length of terminal, 20° 6 drawing SS 241T

approach (at post #5)