US. Depor1menf 

of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Mr. Barry Stephens 

Trinity Higbway Products 

3617 Cincinnati Ave. 

Rocklin, CA 95765 

Dear Mr. Stephens: 

June 26, 20 l 3 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST/ B-97C 

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 of system: Yodock TL-2 & TL-3 Barrier Rail Kit 

Type of system: Portable BaITier 

Test Level: National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 

Test Level 3 

Testing conducted by: n/a 

Task Force 13 Designator: SWM19 

Date of request: April 2, 2013 

Date of completed package: May 6, 20 13 

Decision: 

The following device is eligible, with details provided in the attached form which is an integral 

part of tl1is letter: 

• Yodock TL-2/TL-3 BaITier Rail Kit 

Based on a review of original crash test results and computational analysis submitted by the 

manufacturer certifying the device described herein meets the crash test and evaluation criteria of 

Lhe National Cooperative Highway Re~earch Program (NCHRP) Report 350, 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 FH WA for any particular purpose or use. 

The FHWA, the Department of Transportation, 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 National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

(NCHRP) Report 350 or 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 tested. 

Please note the following standard provisions that apply to FHW A 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 

B-97C 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 FHW A to use, 

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

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

any, are to be resolved by the applicant. 

• The Yodock TL-2 & TL-3 Barrier Rail is a patented product and considered 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. 

• Because some water ballasted barriers and channelizers are similar in appearance, the 

FHW A recommends labeling each unit or module to indicate limitations on use. When 

2 
3 

used as a barrier all hardware, both internal and external that was used in the crash 

testing, shall be installed per the manufacturer's instructions. Recommended guidance for 

such labels may be found on the web site of the AASHTO/AGC/ARTBA Task Force 13 

at http://www.aashtotfl 3 .org. 

• Because it is a steel product, the Yodock TL-2 & TL-3 Barrier Rail is subject to Section 

635.410 (Buy America) of Title 23, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and cannot be 

permanently incorporated into any federally funded project unless it is made in the U.S. 

from U.S. steel. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely yours, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 
Version 7.0 (3/13) 

Page 2 of 4 

Request for Federal Aid Reimburse1nent Eligibility 

Of Highway Safety Hardware 

Signature: JI,.. .. ~ ,£-- .. f 

Cll 

.~ 

E 

.Q 

:s 

&I) 

Date of Request: Aprll02,2013 r. New I r Resubmission - .. .. Name: Bret Eckert, P.E. r-5 ..:}- 7,. 

Company: Trinity Highway Products ' ' 

Address: 

Country: 

3617 Cincinnati Ave., Rocklin, CA 95765 

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. 

fHelPl 

Test 

Level System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion 

NCHRP Report 350 TL3 'B': Barriers (Roadside, 

Median, Bridge Railings) 

r. Physical Crash T estlng 

\ FEA & V&V Analysis 

YodockTL-2fTL-3 Barrier 

Rail Kit 

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 NCH RP Report 350 (Report 350) and that 

the evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria In the Report 350. 

Identification of the individual or organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Bret Eckert, P.E. Same as Submitter 181 

Company Name: Trinity Highway Products Same as Submitter 181 

Address: 3617 Cincinnati Ave., Rocklin, CA 95765 Same as Submitter 181 

Country: USA Same as Submitter 181 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

\ New Hardware Modification to r. E i ti H d x s ng ar ware 

I Non-Significant - Effect Is positive or Inconsequential 

This modification Is for an improved Yodock TL-2/TL-3 Barrier Rail kit. The modification consists of improved 

brackets that connect the two load bearing longitudinal rails on each side of the Yodock Barrier. The current 

longitudinal rails, end connector channels and end connector hardware will be unchanged and continue to be 

made from 31/2" x 31/2" x 1/4" ASOO structural tubing, 3/8" A36 plate, and 3/4" Grade 8 fasteners, respectively. 

The current brackets are made from a combination of 3/8" thick A36 steel plates and 3/8" thick x 4" x 3• A36 

steel angle that are welded to each longitudinal rail, and the two rail assemblies joined using two (2) 112" 

diameter Grade S fasteners. The proposed brackets are made from 112· thick A36 formed steel angles also 

welded to each longitudinal rail, and the two rail assemblies are also joined using two (2) 1 /2" diameter Grade S 

fasteners. The longitudinal rails are maintained at the exact elevation as tested In the original NCH RP 350 TL-2/ 

TL-3 qualification testing. The overall weight of the current version is 192 lbs. and the weight ofthe proposed 

version Is 218 lbs. See the attached drawings for exploded Isometric drawings of each Yodock TL-2/Tl-3 Barrier 

Rail kit example. We certify that the Improved Yodock TL-2/TL-3 Barrier Rall kit Is a non-significant and positive 

modification and request FHWA provide certification for continued Federal-aid reimbursement ellglblllty. 
Version 7.0 (3/13) 

Page 1 of 3 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

Of Highway Safety Hardware 

Date of Request: April 09, 2013 (i' New 

Name: Bret Eckert, P.E. Signature: 

.. 

E 

.a 

:i 

en 

Company: Trinity Highway Products 

Address: 3617 Cincinnati Ave., Rocklin, CA 95765 

Country: USA 

Michael S. Griffith, Director 

FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies To: 

r Resubmission 

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 

'B': Barriers (Roadside, 

Median, Bridge Railings) 

(i' Physical Crash Testing 

\ FEA & V&V Analysis 

Yodock TL-2/TL-3 Barrier 

Rail Kit 

NCHRP Report 350 TL3 

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 NCH RP Report 350 (Report 350) and that 

the evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the Report 350. 

Identification of the individual or organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Bret Eckert, P.E. Same as Submitter 1:8] 

Company Name: Trinity Highway Products Same as Submitter 1:8] 

Address: 3617 Cincinnati Ave .• Rocklin, CA 95765 Same as Submitter 1:8] 

Country: USA Same as Submitter 1:8] 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

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

This modification is for an improved Yodock TL-2/TL-3 Barrier Rail kit. The modification consists of improved 

brackets that connect the two load bearing longitudinal rails on each side of the Yodock Barrier. The current 

longitudinal rails, end connector channels and end connector hardware will be unchanged and continue to be 

made from 3 1/2"x3 1 /2" x 1 /4" A500 structural tubing, 3/8" A36 plate, and 3/4" Grade 8 fasteners, respectively. 

The current brackets are made from a combination of 3/8" thick A36 steel plates and 3/8" thick x 4" x 3" A36 

steel angle that are welded to each longitudinal rail, and the two rail assemblies joined using two (2) 1/2" 

diameter Grade 5 fasteners. The proposed brackets are made from 1 /2" thick A36 formed steel angles also 

welded to each longitudinal rail, and the two rail assemblies are also joined using two (2) 1/2" diameter Grade 5 

fasteners. The longitudinal rails are maintained at the exact elevation as tested in the original NCH RP 350 TL-2/ 

TL-3 qualification testing. The overall weight of the current version is 192 lbs. and the weight of the proposed 

version Is 218 lbs. See the attached drawings for exploded isometric drawings of each Yodock TL-2m-3 Barrier 

Rail kit example. We certify that the improved Yodock TL-2/TL-3 Barrier Rail kit is a non-significant and positive 

modification and request FHWA provide certification for continued Federal-aid reimbursement eligibility. 
CRASH TESTING 

A brief descript ion of each crash test and its result: 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description Evaluation Results 

Test 3-1 O was originally conducted as Test No. 400001 -YWCB on 

1 /28/02 and reported in TII Crash Test Report No 40001-YWCB per 

3-10 (820C) NCHRP 350 Test 3-10, Tl-3 test level requirements. Test 3-10 is WAIVER REQUESTED 

requested to be waived for this modification in lieu of the positive 

results as provided on the attached engineering analysis. 

Test S3-10 is an optional test and was wa ived in the original FHWA 

S3-10 (700C) acceptance letter HSA-10/897. Test S3-10 is requested to be also 

waived for this modification in lieu of the positive results as 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

provided on the attached engineering analysis. 

Test 3-11 was originally conducted as Test No. 400001-YWC6 on 

9/14/01 and reported in TII Crash Test Report No 400001-YWC6 per 

3-1 1 (2000P) NCHRP 350 Test 3-11 , Tl-3 test level requirements. Test 3-11 is WAIVER REQUESTED 

requested to be waived for this modification in lieu of the positive 

results as provided on the attached engineering analysis. 

3-20 (820C) Not Applicable 

S3-20 (700C) Not Applicable 

3-21 (2000P) Not Applicable ,,,, - _, I I - l,j' 77" - 1 .... <1'1 f(l f :> 

Version 7.0 (3/13) 

Page 2 of 3 

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

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

with ~ 

laboratory Name: Texas Transportation Institute 

Laboratory Contact: Eugene Buth Same as Submitter D 

The Texas A&M University System 

College Station, TX 77843-3135 

USA 

Address: Same as Submitter D

Country: Same as Submitter D 

Accreditation Certifica te 

Number and Date: 2821.01, 4/30/2015 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 

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

support of this request. 

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

review. 
FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter AASHTOTF13 

Number Date Designator Key Words 

Work Zone Barrier; portable energy disbursement 

cell; blow molded high-density polyethylene; Barrier 

Wall Kit; water 

ballasted 

897( May 17,2013 SWM19 

Version 7.0 (3/13) 

Page 3 of 3 
~TRINITY ~ ,,,. HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 

ENERGY ABSORPTION SYSTEMS 

3617 Cincinnati Ave, Rocklin, CA 95765 

(916) 645-8181 Fax No (916) 645-3495 

Engineering Analysis 

Of Improved 

TL-3 Rail Kit For 

Y odock Longitudinal Barrier 

Energy Absorption Systems Inc. 

3617 Cincinnati Ave. 

Rocklin, CA, 95765 

March 28, 2013 

Keith Wilson 

Applications Engineer 
Figure 7. Model 2001 Yodock 

Barrier equipped with new Rail Kit Figure 8. New Rail Kit- uninstalled 

COMPONENT ANALYSIS- MOUNTING BRACKET: 

The simplification of the mounting bracket design, located within the forklift pocket, is 

the basic change to the rail kit. There are 2 areas to analyze with the new bracket design: 

• Strength of Bracket Assembly 

• Snag Potential 

Each area will be discussed in detail below: 

Strengtlt of Bracket Assembly 

When considering the strength of the new bracket assembly we compare the weakest 

element of each assembly. Version I's weakest element is the (2) 3/4" diameter bolts 

which extend through the rail, through the wood spacers and finally through the cchannel below; see Figure 9 for reference. With version 3 we evaluate the three following 

modes of failure to determine the weakest element compared to version l: 

a) Mounting bracket failure 

b) Bolted mounting bracket connection 

c) Strength of weld at mounting bracket to rail tube 

6 
Figure 9. Evaluating (2) 3/4" bolts 

At version 1. 

DETAIL A 

Figure 10. Evaluating smallest crosssectional area of version 3 

First we evaluate the shear strength of the (2) 3/4" bolts at version I: 

= 

F 

T .577<J = -2A 

Where: 

Area = .344 in2 (Tensile stress area of a 3/4-10 bolt) 

a= 120,000 psi 

We solve to the find the maximum force allowable from version 1: 

.. F = .577(120,000) * 2(. 344) 

:. F = 46,252 lbs 

a) Mounting bracket failure 

Refer to Figure 10 above. Evaluating the shear strength of the base material of the version 

3 bracket we have: 

F 

T = .577a = -A 

Where: 

Area= smallest cross-sectional area of bracket= 3.SOin x .Sin thick= l.75in2 

CJ = ultimate stress of A36 steel = 58,000 psi 

:. F = .577(58,000)(1.75) 

:. F = 58,570 lbs 

7 
NEW BRACKET ASSY /-' .. 

REF 

3-1/2 X 3-1/2 X 1/4 THK 

STEEL TUBE 

(WELD AREA) 

PLAN VIEW 

Figure 11. Strength of weld evaluation at underside of rail kit to mounting bracket 

b) Bolted mounting bracket connection 

As mentioned previously, the version 3 rail kit will use (2) 3/4" diameter grade 5, hex 

head bolts to assemble the two rail kits together at each barrier. Therefore identical to the 

evaluation above we have: 

F 

T = .577a =-2A 

Where: 

Area = .344 in2 

er = 120,000 psi 

We solve to the find the maximum force allowable from version I: 

.. F = .577(120,000) * 2(. 344) 

:. F = 46,252 lbs 

c) Strength of weld at mounting bracket to rail tube 

As mentioned previously the version 3 rail kit mounting bracket is now welded to the 

underside of the rail tube. Evaluating the strength of weld for maximum force we have: 

8 
APPROXIMATE SNAG AREA 

3.15 

_j_ 

3.50 2t- I 

0.25 ' fi'" 

_J_ 6.38 

1.oa 0.733J~ 0.90 

SNAG AREA SW.GAREA 

VERSION I VERSION3 

1&.11n' 13.22fn1 

SIMPUAEDAREAOF A'IALYSIS SHOWN IN BOlDOUTUNE (SHOWN SEPARATE ASO\'E FOR Cl.AAITY) 

BARRIER KIT. VERSION I BARRIER KIT. VERSION 3 

SHOWN ON YODOCK 2001 SHOWN ON YODOa< 2001 

Figure 12. Evaluating Snag Area Potential, version 1 vs. version 3 

F Average Shear Stress 

T = 0.707hl 

Where: t = 36,000 psi A36 Steel Shear Strength 

h = .250in Height of Weld 

l = 10.25in Total Length of Weld 

Evaluating for max force:. F = 36,000(0.707)(.25)(10.25) 

.. F = 65,220 lbs 

Upon analyzing the three modes of failure we see the weakest element of the version 3 

bracket assembly, failure mode "b ", is equally as strong as the weakest element of 

version 1. Failure mode "a" and "c" are greater in strength compared to version 1. 

Snag Potential 

When evaluating the snag potential of the new design with the tested and approved 

design of version l, it can be seen from the figures below that the snag potential area is 

less than it was with the version I kit, therefore qualifying the version 3 kit. See Figure 

12 below: 

9 
COMPONENT ANALYSIS - ADDITIONAL AREAS OF IMPORTANCE: 

Beyond the analysis of the mounting bracket and areas affected by its change, we can 

now look at other key elements and areas of importance when comparing all three 

vers10ns. 

• Rail Height 

• Strength of hardware and other components 

• Overall Weight 

Rail Heigltt 

The centerline height of the rail above grade is dependent upon which barrier the rail kit 

is mounted to. However, as shown above in Figure 12, the relative height between 

version I and version 3 is identical at 27. 75" above grade. 

Strengtlt of Hardware and oilier comp011e11ts 

All hardware used at the splice location of the version 3 barrier kit is grade 8 steel and 

will be identical in strength and size to the hardware used on version 2. The tube rails and 

splice bracket itself will also be identical to the approved version 2 rail kit, see Figure 4 

above for reference. 

Weigllt 

Due to all materials being either very similar or identical in size, type and shape the 

overall weight of the barrier kit is virtually unchanged. Total unit weight of version 3 is 

to be comparable to version 2, which is approximately 200 lbs. 

CONCLUSION: 

Given the fact that the core design of the barrier kit (i.e. impact rails, splice connector, 

hardware material, size and grade) is identical to one or both of the previously approved 

rail kit versions, and given the analysis shown herein qualifying the revised brackets, it 

would be expected that the integrity of the design is maintained and the barrier kit will 

still perform as designed. tested and approved by FHW A for TL-2 & TL-3 applications 

as for which they were originally intended. 

10 
~ 

YODOCK BARRIER ~ 

SHOWN FOR REF. ' 

/ 

N' 1 ()) 

N 

·o 

..,.., 

' 

~ 

19 . 75" (502] 

e ~ 

END VIEW 

':;::;' 

0 

r--

.,.., 

r--

r--

N 

YODOCK LONGITUDNAL BARRIER STEEL REINFORCEMENT KIT 

SWM19 [ij] YODOCK. SHEET NO. DATE: 

;"'; A TRINITY INDUSTRIES. INC. COMPANY 1 of 2 04/0 1/2013 
INTENDED USE 

The Yoclock Longitudinal Barrier Steel Reinforcement Kit is a connection system for use with the 

Yodock Barrier. Yoclock Barriers are typically a channeling device, however if assembled with the 

Longitudinal Barrier Steel Rein forcement Kit, the system will meet NCH RP 350 cri teria for TL2 and 

TL3 applications as ind icated below: 

TL-2 

• Model 200 IM - Yodock Barrier w/Re in fo rcement Kit 

• Model 200 I MB - Yodock Barrier w/Reinforcement Kit 

TL-3 

• Model 200 I - Yoclock Barrier w/Reinforcement Kit 

The Reinforcement Kit runs para I lei along the sides of each Yodock Barrier and consists of a set 

longitudinal steel tube members with a c-channel splice connector which connects each adj acent 

barrier/rein fo rcement kit to one another over the length of the system. 

APPROVALS 

FH WA Acceptance Letter HAS- I 0/B97. March 27111 2002. 

FH WA Acceptance Letter HAS-I 0/8 97 A, January 27, 20 I 0 

REFERENCES 

H.E. Ross, Jr., D.L. Sicking, R.A. Zimmer, and J.D. Michie, Reco111111ended Procedure f or the Safe ty 

Pe1for111ance Evaluation of Highway Features, National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

(NCHRP ) Report Number 350, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 1993 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

Corporate Offices: 

2525 North Slemmons Freeway 

Da llas, TX 75207 

Telephone: (888) 323-63 74 

Fax: (800)770-6755 

http://www.vodock.com 

YODOCK LONGITUDNAL BARRIER STEEL REINFORCEMENT KIT 

SWM19 

SHEET NO. DATE YODOCK" 2 of2 04/0 1/2013 ~ A TRINITY INDUSTRIES. INC. COMPANY 
iiitiii!Hl 

A 

SCCTION A-A 

Gonoral lnronnaUon 

Test Agency .... . 

Test No ...... . 

Dato. 

Tos1 A111clo 

Texas Transportation Institute 

400001·YWCS 

09/13/01 

Type . .. . . . . . . . . . . Median Banier 

Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy DispelllOment Cell 

lnslllllaUcn Length (m)..... 45.75 

Material or Key Bemonts . . 813 mm tau Yodock Energy 

SoU Typo and CondlUon .... 

Tosi Vohlclo 

Type ........... . 

Dosignaucn .... . 

Model ................. . 

Mass(kg) 

Curt> .......... . Test Inertial . . . 

Dummy " .... 

Gloss Stalie .. 

Dispersoment Cells 

Conaete Pavemen~ Ory 

Production 

2000P 

1998 Cllovrolet 2500 Pickup Truck 

2136 

2042 

No Dummy 2042 

Impact CondlUons 

Speed (kmlh) .. 

Angle (deg) ... 

EllH Cond!Uons 

Spead (kmlh) .. . 

Anglo (dog) ... . 

Occupant Rlak Valuos 

Impact Velocity (mis) 

x-<llrection ....... . 

y-<ltrodicn .. . 

THIV (kmlh) ... . 

Ridedown Aa:eleraUcns (g'B) 

x-<lirodion ...... . 

y-<liroeticn ....... . 

68.S 

240 

300 

4.7 

.. " 3.7 

3.2 

154 

PHD(g's) ................. .. 

·5.4 

8.2 

8.2 

ASI ......... .. 0.37 

Max. O 050-s Averago (g's) 

x-<llredicn ..... 

y-<lirodion .. 

z-<lll'8C!IOn .......... . 

-3.4 

2.9 

1.7 

Tes1 Artlclo Dcnectlons (m) 

Dynamic 

Permanent. 

Wor1<ingWcllh 

Vohlclo 01m190 

Exterior 

VOS ............ . 

CDC ........... . 

Maximum Exterior 

3.68 

368 

411 

11LFQ2 

11LFEW2 

Vehido Crush (mm) 300 

Intoner 

OCDI . . . . . . . . . .. . LFOOOOOOO 

Max. Occ. Compart. 

Oeformauen (mm) . . . . 0 

PosMmpac1 Bohavlor 

(during 1.0 softer impact) 

Max. Yrm Angle (dog) . . . . . . 18 

Max. Pitch Angle (deg) .. .. ·1 

Max. Ro!I Angle (deg) .. . .. 3 

Summary of results for test 400001-YWCS, NC/IRP Reporl 350 test 2-11. 
Gonoral lnfonn1Uon 

Test Agency 

ToatNo ..... . 

Dote ..... . 

Toat Artlclo 

TJPO .. . Name ..... . 

Installation Length (m) ..... 

Matorlal or Koy Elements 

Son Type and CondlUon . 

To1t Vehlclo 

Typo ..... 

Designation . 

MocWI .. 

Mass(kg) 

Cutt> ..... 

Test lnerllal .. 

Dummy .. ' .. 

GtossSUllic ....... . 

Texas Transportation lnstiMe 

400001-YWCS 

09114/01 

Median Bomer 

Energy Dispersement Cell 

45.75 

1160 mm tall Enorgy Oisperaomcnt Cells 

with Tullular Steel Rall Elements 

Conaoto Pavemon~ Dry 

Producticn 

2000P 

1996 Chevrolet 2500 PicXup TNCI< 

2137 

2041 

No Dummy 2041 

Impact Condlllona 

Speed (kmhl) .. 

Angle (dog) 

Exit Condlllon1 

Speed (kmhl) ... 

Exit Trajadary Anglo (deg) ... 

Vehido Hoading Angla (clog) .. 

Occupant Risk Valuos 

Impact Voladty (mis) 

x-diredlon . 

y-(!iroclion . 

THIV (km/h) .. 

Ridadown AcceleraUcns (g's) 

x-dtractlon . 

y-(!irodion ... 

PHO (g's). 

ASI 

Max. O 050-s Average (g's) 

x-d!nldlon 

y-(!Jredion 

z-(!1rec1Jon . . . . .......... . 

984 

24.8 

11.6 

27.5 

80.5 

11.6 

2.3 

42.6 

-10.0 

-6.1 

10.5 

1.11 

-133 

4.2 

-4.7 

To1t Artldo DoftocUons (m) 

Oynamlc .. . 

Permanent ... . 

Wor1dng \Mdlll 

Vehlclo Dam1190 

Ex!onor 

VOS .... . 

CDC ................ . 

Maximum Exlonor 

Vehide Crush (mm) 

lnlencr 

OCDI ... 

Max. Occ. Compatt 

Defonnabon (mm) .. 

Post-Impact Bohlvlor 

(during 1.6 s ofter Impact) 

Max. Yaw Anglo (deg) 

Max. Pitch Angle (deg) 

Max. Rell Anglo (dog) . 

Summary of results for test 40000 I· YWC6, NCH RP Report 350 test 3-11. 

4.28 

4.02 

4.62 

11LFQ5 

11FLEK3 

&11LYEW4 

840 

LF0010000 

72 

-147 

-4 

21 
Goneral Information Impact Conditions Toal Anlclo Oeftectlona (m) 

TostAgency Texas Transportation ln,i,tute SJ>Qed (kmlh) ..... . 97.7 Dynamic ... 1.230 

Test No ......... . 400001·YWC8 Angle (deg) .. 19.8 Ponnanent. ............. 1.195 

Date ............ .. 01128102 Exit Condition• Wor1<ing IMdlh 1.845 

TestAnlclo Spood (kmlh) . 262 Vohlcle Dam1go 

T)'l>Q ••. 

Name ..... 

lnstaJlatlon Length (m) ..... 

Material Of Koy Bemcnta .. 

Soll Type and CondlUon .... 

Toil Vohlclo 

T)'l>Q . 

Oe5ignation .. 

Modal ...... . 

Mass(kg) 

Cum .. 

Test Inertial .. . 

Dummy ..... . 

GrossSllltic ... . 

fl.eclion Barrier 

Yodock Modllf 2001 Energy 

Dispersement CaU 

36.58 

1170 mm Toll Energy Dispersement Cells 

\Mlh Tubular Steel Roil Elements 

Canaote Povcmen~ Ory 

Production 

820C 

1996 Geo Motro 

820 

820 

76 

896 

Ang!e(deg) 

Occupant Risk Valuoa 

lmpad Velocity (mis) 

x-diredion 

y-diredion 

THIV (km/h) ............ .. 

Rldadown Accelerations (g's) 

x-diredion . . . . . . . . . . 

y-diredion 

PHO(g's). . ......... . 

ASI ..................... . 

Max. 0.050-s Average (g's) 

x-direction 

y.Creclion 

z-diroctian 

95.9 

11.0 

3.7 

41.4 

·10.4 

2.7 

10.7 

1.03 

·11.0 

5.3 

·2.1 

ExtenOf 

VOS ............ 

CDC ........... 

Maximum ExtOtiOf 

Veltido Crush (mm) .,., 

lnter10f 

OCDI ............ 

Max. Oc:c:. Compart. 

Oilfcnnalion (mm) . 

Post-Impact Behavior 

(during 1.0 softer impad) 

Max. YWN Angle (deg) .. 

Max. Pitch Angle (deg) 

Max. Rell Anglo (deg) . 

11FL3 

11FLEW3 

390 

LF0011000 

46 

·174 

-4 

·14 

Summary of results fortest 400001-YWC8, NCI/RP Report 350 test 3-10.