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

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration February 2, 2017 In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1/B-136A 

Nathan Binette 

Evonik Cyro LLC 

1796 Main Street 

Sanford, Maine 04073 

Dear Mr. Binette: 

This letter is in response to your December 22, 2015, request for the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHW A) 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 FHW A control number B-13 6A and is valid until a subsequent letter is issued by 

FHW A that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

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

integral part of this letter: 

• ACRYLITE Soundstop TL-4 Noise Barrier System 

Scope of this Letter 

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

crash test and evaluation criteria contained in the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) Report 350. 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 ofthe device for any particular purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by the FHW A, 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 ofthis 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. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
2 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

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

pending request. Your pending request now identifies a modification to that roadside safety 

system. 

The original roadside safety device information is provided here: 

Name of system: Paraglas Soundstop Noise Wall TL-4 

Type of system: Noise Wall atop concrete barrier 

Date of original request: April 12, 2005 

Original eligibility letter date: May 18, 2005 

FHWA Control number: B-136 

Date of current request: December 22, 2015 

Complete submission received: December 2, 2016. 

The modification(s) consists of the following changes: 

1) Connection details of horizontal rails to posts. 


2) Replacement of four 3/4" diameter anchors with four 7/8" diameter anchors. 


3) Modification of noise barrier panel inserts to reduce snag potential of vehicle 


components. 

4) Replacement of fabricated splice sleeves with commonly available tube sections. 

5) Clarification of allowable horizontal rail positions for concrete bridge rails of varying 

depths. 

6) Clarification of allowable expansion joint details and associated splice connections. 

7) Clarification of lowest horizontal rail position for parapets of different heights. 

8) Clarification of allowable heights ofthe system and associated top horizontal rail 

position. 

9) Alternate anchorage details to address variability in parapet shapes. 

FHW A concurs with the recommendation of the accredited crash testing laboratory as stated 

within the attached form. We also note the change in the name of the "Paraglas" material to 

"Acrylite" with no change in the product design or characteristics. 

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. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
3 

Notice 

If a manufacturer makes any modification to any of their roadside safety hardware that has an 

existing eligibility letter from FHW A, the manufacturer must notify FHW A 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. 

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 to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 

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

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

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 the NCHRP Report 350. 

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. 

Standard Provisions 

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

control number B-136A 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 FHW A to use, 

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

• 	 Ifthe 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 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
4 

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 ofroad for experimental purposes. Our regulations concerning proprietary 

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

Sincerely, 

Scott T. Johnson 

Acting Director, Office of Safety 

Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1 of 4 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

of Highway Safety Hardware 

Date of Request: December 22, 2015 I (' New r. Resubmission 

Name: Nathan Binette 

... 

QI

....

.... ·e 

Company: 

Address: 

Evon ik Cyro LLC 

1796 Main Street Sanford, ME 04073 

..c 

::s 

VI 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 I ' -' -' I 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Rigid/Semi-Rig id Barriers 

(Roadside, Median, Bridge 

Railinas) 

(' Physical Crash Testing 

(9 Engineering Analysis 

ACRYLITE"' Soundstop 

TL4 Noise Barrier System 

NCH RP Report 350 TL4 

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. 

Individual or Organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Nathan Binette Same as Submitter ~ 

Company Name: Evonik Cyro LLC Same as Submitter ~ 

Address: 1796 Main Street Sanford, ME 04073 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. 

Evonik Cyro licenses intellectual property used in the sale of the ACRYLITE® Sound stop TL4 noise barrier system 

from Nutech Ventures (related to the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility). The royalty is based on the sale of 

Evonik Cyro's acrylic noise barrier panel component typically representing 1 % to 2% of the overall ACRYLITE"' 

Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system sales price. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 2 of 4 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

(' New Hardware or 

Significant Modification 

(e' Modification to 

• Existing Hardware Non-Significant 

The ACRYLITE"' Soundstop TL4 system is a noise barrier system for attachment to a crash worthy concrete 

bridge rail. The system was crash-tested in accordance with NCH RP 350 criteria in 2004 and originally 

approved by the Federal Highway Administration in 2005, reference eligibility letter Bl 36. 

This request seeks approval for multiple modifications summarized as follows: 

1) Connection details of horizontal rails to posts (mod001 per RON 's suggestion) 

2) Replacement of four 3/4" diameter anchors with four 7 /8" diameter anchors. 

3) Modification of noise barrier panel inserts to reduce snag potential of vehicle components. 

4) Replacement of fabricated splice sleeves with commonly available tube sections. 

5) Clarification of allowable horizontal rail positions for concrete bridge rails of varying depths. 

6) Clarification of allowable expansion joint details and associated splice connections. 

7) Clarification of lowest horizontal rail position for parapets of different heights. 

8) Clarification of allowable heights of the system and associated top horizontal rail position. 

9) Alternate anchorage details to address variability in parapet shapes. 

Additional details for each proposed modification are attached. 

CRASH TESTING 

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

the Modification to Existing Hardware is deemed Non-significant for the device listed above to meet the MASH 

criteria. 

Engineer Name: 

Engineer Signature: 

Ronald K. Faller 

Ronald Faller Digitally signed by Ronald Faller 

ON: cn=Ronald Faller, o=University of Nebraska-Lincoln, ou=Midwest 

Roadside Safety Facility, email=rfalterl @unl.edu, c=US 

Date: 2016.09.20 18:06:46 -05'00' 

Address: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, University of I_ I 1 -,,,.. • 1 • n _l -

Same as Submitter D 

Country: 2200 Vine Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0853 Same as Submitter D 

A brief description ot each crasn test ana its result: 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 3 of 4 

Required Test Narrative 
 Evaluation 


Number Description 
 Results 


The ACRYLITE® Soundstop TL4 Noise Barrier 

System was developed for use on rigid 

bridge railings and other rigid structures. 

The system, tested in 2004 (reference 

TRP-03-160-05) as CYRO's PARAGLAS 

SOUNDSTOP TL4 Noise Barrier System, 

consisted of a 34.56-m (113-ft 4 %-in.) long 

noise wall system supported by eighteen 

steel posts. 

Two full-scale crash tests were conducted 

and reported in accordance with the 

requirements specified in the NCHRP Report 

No. 350, Recommended Procedures for the 

Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway 

Features. The first test (4-12, 8000S) 

consisted of an 8,092-kg (17,840-lb) singleunit truck impacting at a speed of 82.4 km/ h 

(51.2 mph) and at an angle of 17.7 degrees. 

Although minor vehicle snag was observed, 

it did not pose any occupant risk concerns. 

The second test (4-11, 2000P) consisted of a 

2,013-kg (4,439-lb) pickup truck impacting 

at a speed of 99.0 km/h (61.5 mph) and at 

an angle of 25.0 degrees. During this test, 

the hood snagged on a post, thus resulting 

in minor engine hood penetration through 4-10, 4-11 , 4-12 Modification has no effect on crashworthiness the lower corner of the windshield. 

Although minor windshield penetration was 

observed, it was not believed to pose 

significant risk to the vehicle occupants. 

Therefore, the safety performance of the 

system was determined to be acceptable 

according to the Test Level 4 (TL-4) 

evaluation criteria specified in NCHRP 

Report No. 350. 

During the design phase of the barrier 


system, special attention was given to 


prevent geometric features of the noise wall 


design that would cause the small car test 


(4-10, 820C) to fail due to excessive 


snagging resulting from the small car's 


lateral extent over the concrete parapet. 


Therefore, due to the prior successful small 


car testing on concrete parapets and the 


attention given to the geometric features in 


the design, the 820-kg small car crash test 


was deemed unnecessary for this project. 


Optional test S4-10 (for the 700C vehicle) 


was not conducted. 


Transition section tests 4-20, S4-20, 4-12, & 


4-22 were not tested for this system. 


Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 4 of 4 

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

Laboratory Name: Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

Laboratory Signature: Ronald Faller Digitally signed by Ronald Faller 

ON: cn=Ronald Faller, o=University of Nebraska-Lincoln, ou=Midwest 

Roadside Safety Facility, email=rfallerl @unl.edu, c=US 

Date: 2016.09.20 18:09:01 -05'00' 

Address: 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln, 130 Whittier Research Center, 

2200 Vine Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0853 

Same as Submitter D 

Country: USA Same as Submitter D 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Dates of current 

Accreditation period : 

Certificate No. 2937.01 - Valid Through November 30, 2017 

Digit.lily signed by Nclth<tn Bmette 

Submitter Signature*: Nathan Binette :~;:;;:,,";'.:;:;:~;~;·,~·•<'"''c tma1h\oltlw'l.bir.etteflevOl"llk.com. c- US 

Datec2016.09.2208:S4:07-04'00 

Submit Form 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 


I) 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 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
ModOOl 


Modification benefits fabrication and on-site assembly. Affects connection of horizontal rails to posts. 


Submitted system utilized 1" x 1-1/8" slotted holes in the angles to which the rails attach and 1" x 1-1/8" 


slotted holes in the horizontal rails . Proposed modifications are: 


1) Use 1" diameter holes in angles to which the rails attach in lieu of 1" x 1-1/8" slotted holes; 


2) Use 1" x 1-3/8" slotted holes in the horizontal rails, increased from 1" x 1-1/8" slotted holes. 


Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
AS-TESTED DESIGN PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

H 

4•

FRONT VIEW i 4•! ! t FRONTVIEW i------t

H 

-=t------t 

H 

4•

01 "x1){," SLOT SLO

~ TOP 

·­ f1 "xHi" T 

~ +­' ' TOP VIEW VIEW 

~ ·~ =i 

CRASH RAIL CONNECTION CRASH RAIL CONNECTION 1· = 1·-0· 1· = 1·-0· 

7" 7" 

1" MIN . 1" MIN. 

(TYP.) (TYP .) 

~LJ=== 

01"x1){," SLOT (TYP.) 

i4== 111" HOLE (TYP.) 

HORIZONTAL RAIL ATIACHMENT HORIZONTAL RAIL ATIACHMENT 

ANGLE (L6"x4"~") ANGLE (L6"x4 ~") 

VERTICAL SUPPORT POST VERTICAL SUPPORT POST 

(W8x40) (W8x40) 

CLIP ANGLE CONNECTION CLIP ANGLE CONNECTION 1· = 1·-0· 1· = 1·-0· 

TITLE: PROJECT NO: FILE NAME: 

HORIZONTAL RAIL POST CONNECTION 16P0007 16f'OOl7-Tl4 llocifmoos Q DRAWN BY: 

t om, PROJECT: 

arm ec MJR APRIL 5, 2016 VISION I BUILT 

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS CHECKED BY: REV?SED: DWG. NO: 

FOR FHWAAPPROVAL GJS SK-1 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
Mod002 

Modification to help error proof installation and simplify supply. Affects the eight epoxy set anchors 

connecting the vertical posts to the concrete parapet. Submitted system utilized four 7/8" diameter 

anchors for the upper anchorage plate and four 3/4" diameter anchors for the lower anchorage plate. 

Proposed modification is to replace the 3/4" diameter anchors for the lower anchorage plate with 7 /8" 

diameter anchors. Result is a net improvement in the connection to the concrete parapet. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
AS-TESTED DESIGN 


~ 

':.,. 

00 

:,, 

00 

I. 1· 1~· • I 

(4) ~~· ANCHORS 

(4) ~· ANCHORS 

~ 

ED SECTION THRU WALL ~i:~~ ?N 1· = 1·- 0· 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 


(WITH CYRO MODIFICATIONS) 


~ 

00 (8) '7Ai" ANCHORS 

:,, 

00 

I. 1·-1~· • I ~ 

CD SECTION THRU WALL ~i:~~~?N 1· = 1'-o· 

TITLE: IPROJECT NO: 

ANCHOR ARRANGEMENT I 16P0007

DRAWN BY: 

PROJECT: MJR 

TL-4 MODIFICATION ORAWINGS CHECKED BY: 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL GJS 

FILE NAME: 

16POOl7-1l4 lbifartions Q DATE: armtec APRIL 5, 2016 VISION I BUilT

REVISED: DWG. NO: 

APRIL 13, 2016 SK-2

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
Mod003 

Modification to reduce snag potential of vehicle components versus the crash tested configuration. 

Affects the implementation of the noise barrier panels within the posts, behind the crash rails. 

Submitted system utilized framed noise barrier panels with anti-intrusion cover plates to minimize snag 

potential of peripheral vehicular components which might protrude in beyond the 7" wide x 4" high 

horizontal crash rails. 

Proposed modification is to replace the framed noise barrier panels which produce an approximate 2.5" 

offset from the post flange to the noise barrier panel surface with 'unframed' noise barrier panels 

installed flush to the inside face of the post flange. Support for unframed noise barrier panels is 

provided by steel angles attached to the post web for the vertical noise barrier panel edges and a paired 

angle connection spanning a gusset plate inside the post for the bottom noise barrier panel edge. 

Effect of this modification is thought to be a net improvement to I reduction of the snag potential and 

irrelevant to the crash tested nature of the system since the noise barrier panels reside behind the 

horizontal crash rails which (along with the concrete parapet) bear the vehicular impact. Vehicular 

components which may extend beyond the crash rails have little impact value and any snag potential of 

such protrusion is reduced by this modification. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
APPROVED DESIGN 

~ ) 

~,_ 

_,_ 

~ ) 

I I 

l l I I 

l l I I 

READY-FIT FRAME 1· = 1·-0· 

( 

--­

--­

( 

ELASTOMERIC PAD, IF REQUIRED, 

GLUED TO FLANGE USING 

APPROVED AOHESIVE 

SEAL WITH JOINT SEALNG 

MATERIAL OR CAULKING COMPOUND 

BACKER ROO - =7Z7DZJf _,, READY-FIT FRAME 

(IF REQUIRED) ~ ACRYLITE SOUNOSTOP• 

NOISE BARR IER SHEET 

EPDM GASKET 

%" ELASTOMERIC PAD GLUED TO 

FLANGE USING APPROVED 

ADHESIVE 

READY-FIT PANEL DETAIL 1· = 1·-0· 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

EPOM GASKET 

ACRYLITE SOUNDSTOP• 

NOISE BARRIER SHEET 

~· ASTM A325 GALV. BOLT 


c/w NUT ANO WASHER . (MAX. 24" SPACING) 


VERTICAL CLAMPING ANGLES 

(L3"x3 "x1(,") 

VERTICAL SUPPORT POST 

(W8x40) 

VERTICAL CLAMPING ANGLES 1· = 1·-0· 

ACRYLITE SOUNDSTOP• 

NOISE BARRIER SHEET 

L3"x2"x1(," UPPER CLAMPING ANGLE 

~· ASTM GALV. 

WASHER. 

A325 L4"x~·~· LOWER CLAMPING ANGLE 

BOLT c/w NUT AND 

7)f,"x4"x1(," GUSSET PL. (TYP.) W8x40 	GALV. VERTICAL 


SUPPORT POST 


HORIZONTAL CLAMPING ANGLES 1· = 1·-0· 

ACRYLITE SOUNDSTOP• 

NOISE BARRIER SHEET 

TOP OF BARRIER 	 EPDM GASKET 

~~ L3"x2"x1(," UPPER CLAMPING ANGLEL4"x~·~· LOWER CLAMPING ANGLE

~· ASTM A325 GALV. 

BOLTS c/w NUT AND WASHER . 

CD ~~~~~9 N 

ITTLE: IPROJECT NO: 

ACRYLITE MOUNTING 	 I 16P0007

DRAWN BY: 

PROJECT: MJR 

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS CHECKED BY: 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL GJS 

FILE NAME: 

16l'0007-ll4Wocffcctiono Q 

DATE: armtec 

VISION I BUl. T 

REVISED: 

APRIL 5, 2016 

DWG. NO: 

JUNE 3, 2016 SK-3

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
Mod004 

Modification to simplify the fabrication of splice sleeves and on site assembly issues. As originally 

designed the splice sleeves used to connect horizontal crash rails were constructed of four 1/2" thick 

steel plates welded together to make a tubular sleeve. The dimensions of the fabricated sleeve for the 

lower rail with 5/16" wall thickness are 6 1/8" x 3 1/8" x 16" (see attached detail). This leaves a planned 

1/4" of fit space for both the width and the length. 

Proposed modification is to replace fabricated splice sleeves with readily available 6" x 3" tube steel in 

the same 16" length. Tube sections for the lower rail with 5/16" wall thickness would create an 

additional 1/8" of fit space for both the width and length, an important feature since installations made 

with the fabricated sleeve have been subject to interference with the as produced weld seam inside the 

horizontal crash rails. 

Splice sleeves for the middle and upper (3/16" wall thickness) horizontal crash rails would similarly be 

constructed of 6" x 3" x 16" tube steel segments but would also include welded plates on two sides to 

achieve a fit similar to the outgoing fabricated splice sleeve. See attached details, note gap between 

plates on bottom of 6" x 3" tube to avoid interference with weld seam inside horizontal crash rail. 

Proposed splice sleeves use tube with 1/2" wall thickness and have greater structural strength than the 

fabricated sleeves. Result is a modification to benefit fabrication with no change to the crashworthiness 

of the system. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
AS-TESTED DESIGN 

1'-4" 

1 • I

J1 I I I I 1

T SIDE V IEW 

~ 

CRASH RAIL )UJ3 

SPLICE CONNECTION 1" = 1'-D" 

rlYP. 

tttf~ END VIEW 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

~-a: 1 : 1 . 1 '.~'.:1. 1 : 1~-~­

~J~3~:~-; =:==t=»W'i... • <'IS 

TOP VIEW N 

~ I · 1·-4· · I 

~ I ::: :: i i: I 

cone " 'cw '--HSS 6"x3·~· 

%"BUILD-UP 

PLATE 

HSS 6"x3·~· 

SPLICE TUBE 1· = 1·-0· 

~ 

CRASHRNL ~3 

SPLICE CONNECTION 1· = 1·-0· 

~­ 1"-6" 

1•-5•' lYP. ~­

%" BUILD-UP PLATE 

END VIE W 

TITLE: 

SPLICE CONNECTION 

PROJECT NO: 

16P0007 

FILE NAME: 

16POOJ7-Tl4 Wocifocxrlions 

D•TE, 

APRIL 5, 2016 

Q t arm ec VISIONIBUILT 

DRAWN BY: 

PROJECT: MJR

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL 

CHECKED BY: 

GJS 

REVISED: 

APRIL 13, 2016 

ICHIC . NO : 

SK-4 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
Mod005 


Modification for ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system application on a thicker concrete parapet. 


As tested, the parapet section was 9.5" thick at the top. The leading edge of the 7" x 4" horizontal crash 


rail is 3.25" behind the top corner (accounting for the 3/4" setback of the post due to the 3/4" 


anchorage plate). 


In accordance with HSA-10/B-136, the ACRYLITE Soundstop noise barrier system is acceptable for use on 


single slope, NJ, and F shape type parapets. However, parapets of different thicknesses can create a 


variable setback of the horizontal crash rails. In such cases, it is desirable to maintain a horizontal rail 


setback similar to the condition during the crash test. 


It is proposed to: 


1) allow the horizontal crash rail setback to range from plus 2" and minus 1" from the as-tested 


configuration. This results in an allowable range from 2.25" to 5.25" (for clarity it is noted this proposed 


change to the horizontal rail setback does not change the anchorage requirements. Any proposal for 


modification of anchorages would require a separate modification request); 


2) in situations where the concrete parapet is substantially thicker than the as-tested parapet and to 


position the horizontal crash rails within the acceptable range by using strong tube supports between 


the horizontal crash rail and the vertical posts (reference Mod005 Weld Doc.pdf); 


3) in situations where there are existing allowed noise barrier walls with a position that is closer to 


roadway than the allowable range of this system's horizontal crash rails, allow the leading edge of the 


horizontal crash rails to match the position of the existing allowed noise barrier wall (reference Mod005 


Details View.pdf which shows this system in conjunction with a Caltrans approved Masonry wall 


system). 


An evaluation of the extended horizontal crash rail attachment angles is attached as Mod005 Weld 


Doc.pdf to show that the welded connections have adequate lateral and vertical capacity to support the 


longer angles. 


The primary requirement relating to the position of the crash rails is to avoid a scenario where a vehicle 


colliding with the parapet and ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system would act differently than 


the as-tested condition. This is most likely to occur if a vehicle is allowed to roll more than the as-tested 


condition and thus act in a less predictable manner than if the rails are maintained close to the 3.25" as­


tested setback location. 


In the two cases where the rails would be moved slightly toward the roadway, vehicular roll would be 


slightly reduced versus that observed in the crash-tested condition. In this case, an increased chance of 


rail contact with a vehicle occupant in a head ejection scenario is acknowledged, but it is further noted 


that such consideration is outside the scope of the prior NCH RP 350 crash-test criteria . 


In the case where the rails would be allowed to be positioned 2" farther back from the top corner of the 


parapet, vehicular roll would be slightly increased versus the as-tested condition but still expected to 


perform in a similar manner to the crash-tested condition. 


Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
AS-TESTED DESIGN 

lCI:" 

~· . 7• 

13'!" 

L6"x4"xl!," ANGLEtB: ~·~ I 

ROUND Hdri ~i~AIZNED SLOTIED -rr-1--n- D WASHERS 

AND TRl-LOC NUTS 

CRASH RAIL I 

W8x40 GALV. VERTICAL ~I , II SUPPORT POST I ~ , TOP OF BARRIERh,,-r 

r 

STANDARD RAIL CLIP ANGLES 1· - 1'-0" 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

VARIES 

FRONT OF RAIL OFFSET = 2;<"-5)4" g• 

LB"x4",.li" ANGL£ 

~. ~07 GALVANIZED SLOTIED 

ROUND HEAD BOLTS AND WASHERS CRASH RAIL AND TRl-LOC NUTS SUPPORT HSS 

CRASH RAIL 

W8x40 GALV. VERTICAL~! . II SUPPORT POST I -~ 

, TOP OF BARRIERhll r 

I r 

CRASH RAIL SUPPORT HSS 

(AS REQUIRED) 1· = 1·-0· 

TITLE: 

VARYING PARAPET WALL DEPTHS 

PROJECT NO: 

16P0007 

FILE NAME: 

16P<XXl7­lUMociflCCltions 

DATE, 

APRIL 5, 201 6 

Q t 

arm ec VISION IBU<T 

DRAWN BY: 

PROJECT' MJR

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL 

CHECKED BY: 

GJS 

REVISED: 

APRIL 13, 2016 

[ owe. NO : 

SK-5 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
l:l2.ll.:!..;_ 

1. For Sect ion 8-8, see ·~o scel laneous Oetai Is 1• 

sheet. HSS - 4 X 4 X 14 Ra i I 

2. 	 No mechanical rail splices In transition section. bocking tube w/ 3 x 4 x 


5;8 we I ded to bock side 


as shown. Tock weld tube 

to clip angle SPLICE DETAILS' 

DETAIL C No Scale I I , I Soundwa I I 

See ' Transit Ion Rel I 

Attachment Detai I'. For al I 

other detoi Is refer to 

'Sect ion B-e·~ 

~ Cone barrier 

Type 736 mod ~ b 

ELEVATION 

No Scale 

D i rection of traffic ~ Transit ion 

ong I e 

BB 

frame 

4'-0" 

See "RAIL TRANSITION 

WELDING DETAIL" 

8 '-o• max a·-o• max 

EB 

Face of Cone 

typ 0 ends Typ Typ 	 Typ ct_ ver t Ii_ ver t 	 ver t 

~~~fort ~~~fort ~~~fort 

Cone PLAN type No Scale 

SECTION A-A No Scale 

I 

.,,,_ 

'io 

I 

:... 

"'I 

;.. 

'io 

·' 

':.o-L..:·~---

b 

I 

;., 

barrier 

736 mod 

~ ~ 

~ 

~ 

\) 

~) 

Desjgo Crjt,ujg· 

1. Provide materials and perform work in 

accordance with Division 11 of the A>SffO/AWS 

01.!Hlridge We lding Cade (use f>NSl/l'JIS 01 .1 f< 

weld ing not covered in f>NSl/AASHTO/AWS 01.5) 

2. Design Specif icot ions: 

- Steel Frane Carponents: 

1989 M91TO Guide Speci 1icol ions for 

Str uctural Design of Sound Barriers (includin~ 

1999 & 2000 MSHTO Standard Specifications for 

Highway Bridges (17th edition), as m:>dified b: 

CALTRANS Criteria. 

- Poroglos Soundstop GSCC Noise Barrier Shef 

Refer to product speci t icot ion by Cyro 

Industries 

100 Enterprise Drive, Rockaway, NJ 07866 

3. Design Loads : 

Group 1 : D + E + SC 


Group 2: D + W + SC + E 


Group 3: D + ECll/1 .4 + E 


'Miere D =Dead load 

E ,., Lateral Earth Pressure (=C 

SC =Live load surcharge (:0) 

W - Wind lood (=46 psi) EOO =Seismic dead load 

4. Design is in accordance with Working Stff 

Des I gn (WSD) 

5. Steel frane mEnbers hove not been desigm 

for a vehicle lrrvoct load. 

6. Horizontal frcrne deflection limited to H 

span length of the trane divide by 240. 

7. Alternate anchorage devices/methods may t 

used for the connect Ion of the vert lcol SUPP< 

post to the barrier, including cost in place 

steel anchorage plates or inserts. The 

devices/methods rrust provide o tens I le copacll 

equal to or greater than the system shown and 

rrust be designed by the engineer of record 101 

the Individual structure. 

8. Al I connections ore designed as bearing 

connections, unless Indi cated otherwise . 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
Mod006 

Modification for ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system to increase the separation of posts at 

expansion bays. It is noted that the as-tested configuration did not include an expansion bay but, by 

necessity, expansion bay details were added to the submission culminating in approval HSA-10/8-136. 

The expansion bay details per HSA-108/8-136 included posts connected to the parapet on each side of 

the expansion joint. The posts are separated 24" from post center to post center, which positions the 

22" wide post to parapet anchorage plates of these posts only 2" apart. 

It is proposed to allow the space between posts spanning an expansion joint to increase from 24" to 96". 

The 96" dimension between posts would match the maximum span allowable for the ACRYLITE 

Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system per the HSA-10/8-136 approval. Details to include an ACRYLITE 

Soundstop panel in lieu of the polymeric expansion joint strip seal are provided in Mod006 proposed 8 ft 

expansion joint details.pdf. 

The expansion joint includes a detail for splice sleeves in the horizontal crash rail to allow the intended 

expansion. This splice sleeve for the expansion bay is 16.5" long with eight 7 /8" x 11/2" slots to connect 

the splice to the horizontal crash rails (see Mod006 expansion joint splice detail.pdf). It is noted that the 

splice is connected using 5/8" diameter bolts, which would allow a maximum range of movement of 

±1.75". In addition to the proposal to widen the expansion bay from 24" to 96", the following changes 

are also proposed for the expansion bay splice sleeves I connections: 

1) When the expansion bay is 28" to 48" long, a 20" long splice tube with four 7/8" x 1-1/8" slots is to 

connect to one horizontal crash rail only, with no intended connection to the other horizontal crash rail 

other than a long inserted end, may be substituted for the existing (as-tested) 16.5" long splice sleeve 

with eight 7 /8" x 1-1/2" slots intended to connect to both horizontal crash rail ends. 

2) When the expansion bay is >48", up to 96" wide, a 20" long splice tube with eight 7 /8" x 2" slots may 

be substituted for the 16.5" long splice sleeve with eight 7 /8" x 1-1/2" slots. This longer rail would 

connect to both sides in the same manner as the 16.5" long splice but would allow for a maximum range 

of movement of 2.75". 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
APPROVED DESIGN 

TOP VIEW 

I ' VARIES ' I 

~+-1 I I I 1­ SIDE VIEW 

~ 

~ 

~rTYP. 

tt!14 

END VIEW 

EXPANSION SPLICE TUBE 1· = 1·-0· 

VERTICAL SUPPORT POST 

(W8x40) 

· ASH.1 AJ25 GALV. BOLT 

c/w NUT ANO WASHER . 

(MAX. 24" SPACING) 

VERTICAL CLAMPING ANGLES 

(L3"x3".%") 

EPDM RUBBER GASKET 

ACRYLITE SOUNDSTOP• 

NOISE BARRIER SHEET 

POST SPACING = 2' -0" 

4'-0" MAX. 

1·-0· 1·-0· 

2'-0" MAX . 2'-0" MAX. 

2· 

STANDARD EXPANSION BAY 1· - 1·-0· 

2'1" 7'Xo" 

TOP VIEW 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

VARIES 

(4) •13/16' 

HOLES THRU 

%' BUILD-UP 

PLATE 

(2) '1~1'x5'X1' SLOTS THRU HSS 6'xJ'xJ!,' 

,..~ 1'-6' 

'4' 1·-s•(TYP. 

%" BUILD-UP PLATE A- I • VARIES I HSS 6'xJ'xl!z' 

"tI : "'L~ ::: ~E TUBE 

END V IEW 

1· = 1·-0· 

~ ANCHOR PLATE 

ACRYUTE SOUNDSTOP• 

NOISE BARRIER SHEET 

L3"x2·~· UPPER CLAMPING ANGLE 

L4 "x31!1xl!z" LOWER CLAMPING ANGLE 

7J&"x4·~" GUSSET PL. 

HORIZONTAL CLAMPING ANGLES 1· = 1·-0· 

VERTICAL SUPPORT POST 

(W8x40) 

~· ASTM AJ25 GALV. BOLT 

c/w NUT ANO WASHER. 

(MAX. 24' SPACING) 

VERTICAL CLAMPING ANGLE 

(L3"x3".%") 

EPDM RUBBER GASKET 

ACRYLITE SOUNDSTOP• tE---------------ifr----ETS , INOISE BARRIER SHEET 

~:~~~~:::::::: I 

I 20· + EJ. MOVEMENT 1

1 I ' MIN . OVERLAP : , EJ . MOVEMENT 

(2" MIN.) 

SPLICE CONNECTION 1· = 1·-0· 

TITLE: 

EXPANSION JOINT SPLICE DETAILS 

PROJECT NO: 

16P0007 

FILE NAME: 

16P0007-ll4 Woclf<Otion• 

DATE, 

APRIL 5, 2016 

Q t arm ec VISION IBU<T 

DRAWN BY: 

PROJECT: MJR

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL 

CHECKED BY: 

GJS 

REVISED: 

JUNE 6, 2016 I 

I OWC . NO : 

SK-6 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
SUBJECT [) V R} .lo L HO D tJO{p SHEET NO. OF 

GannettFleming JOB NO.

BY R'f S DATE (o/10 CHKD. BY DATE 

( 

,, 

8~ 

__._..._____, ~-~ '-)_-'-...--~ ( T 'f P .) 

'"' 

b ~ l 

-

-

,, 

-' 

____ x 

--' -.

--.

' ' 

-

N 

I 	 ,, ._. ll LbJ,,., f.-:::: ~~ 5 s i< 4 'f. 1

J4 -:: 12,':>I 	U./rt x o_sg3 = ') Lbs )< 2.S 

Lb/Ff.,._ 8 ' :: 144 5 l 't. 1'-'"' P1 ~ I~ 0 1 J( 4y 51i~ "" '2 /. 7..1 	 170 lb.!; 'I e.s·· "' J 

p :: 2· MC12 )!4c -= 2'f. L\ L~}ft '1' 0,':,83 I 

-· •fl Lbs )I. <;,''(±) 28 L Lbl-. "' 3 I Bo4 Lb 1:... f "' 2 2 f.a Lb.s 	 f'rf-::. I 

2: If 

'"' Fl'-lH WEL[) C~PAcPi 

o:nF..,-::. .z.1~10Ks ; -.c0,7 o l1" 5!t;,'-= 4.J8'<fr,l .. .. AA l-4'rn£~ , 1c 12) 

0 . 0 3 11. f'!./) 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Mod007 

Modification for ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system for use on taller parapets. 

The ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system was crash tested on a 32" high single slope concrete 


parapet. with horizontal crash rails at 38", 60", and 128". Horizontal crash rail locations are measured 


from top of deck to the center of the 4" high vertical face of a particular horizontal crash rail. The intent 


of the horizontal crash rails are to bear contact and safely redirect the vehicle to prevent substantial 


impact and snag with the vertical posts and panels. 


With the bottom rail centered at 38", the traffic facing surface of this rail vertically extends from 36" to 


40" with 4" of clearance between the lowest edge of the rail and the top of the parapet (less considering 


the attachment angle below the rail). Due to potential interference between the attachment angle and 


the concrete parapet it is necessary to maintain the 4" clearance from the top of the parapet for 


parapets that are taller than the 32" high as-tested parapet. When the parapet height however reaches 


40", the same height as the top surface of the lowest rail as-tested, the lowest rail may be omitted. 


The following is a partial list of appropriate locations for the lowest rail based on parapet height: 


32" high parapet (as-tested), lowest rail centered at 38" 


34" high parapet, lowest rail centered at 40" 


36" high parapet, lowest rail centered at 42" 


38" high parapet, lowest rail centered at 44" 


40" high parapet, minimum parapet height where lowest rail not required. 


Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
AS-TESTED DESIGN 

1·-0· 

5• r 

:,, 

"«> I 

;,, 

,_ 

r 

" w 

r 

"' I 

W8x40 GALV. VERTICAL 

SUPPORT POST 

"' I 

"' 

,_ 

r 

" w 

r 

~ 

"' w 

~ 

AS-TESTED LOWER RAIL HEIGHT 1· = 1·-0· 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

L6"x4"~" ANGLE 

~· "307 GALVANIZED SLOTIED 

ROUND HEAD BOLTS AND WASHERS 

AND TRl-LOC NUTS 

CRASH RAIL 

TOP OF BARRIER 

1·-0· 

5· • r 

311• 

BARRIER HEIGHT 

~LIA:> .".. '4 

·'" ·'A" 

40 (MIN.) 

W8x40 GALV. VERTICAL 

SUPPORT POST 

f ~ 

~ 

ii l:l 

en 

~I ~ Q

w 

!;: :i:: 

....I !2 

w 

:i:: 

ii: 

IS ~ g ~ 

LOWER RAIL HEIGHT 

38 

4 

47 

44 

NOT REQUIRED 

ALTERNATE LOWER RAIL HEIGHT 1· = 1·-0· 

ffiLE: 

LOWER RAIL PLACEMENTS FOR 

VARYING HEIGHT BARRIER WALL 

PROJECT NO: 

16P0007 

FILE NAME: 

16P0007-ll4 Wodf..UO.s 

DATE, 

MAY 13, 2016 

Q t 

arm ec VISION IBUU 

DRAWN BY: 

PROJECT: MJR

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL 

CHECKED BY: 

GJS ·:[:, 16, 2016 IDWC. NQ , SK-7 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
Mod008 

Modification for ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system to establish appropriate overall heights. 

The ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system was crash tested on a 32" high single slope concrete 

parapet with with horizontal crash rails at 38", 60", and 128". Horizontal crash rail locations are 

measured from top of deck to center of 4" high vertical face of horizontal crash rail. The overall tested 

height was 229" inches (19'-1"). The intent of the horizontal crash rails are to bear contact and safely 

redirect the vehicle to prevent substantial contact and snag with the vertical posts and panels. 

Shorter overall heights are allowable and straightforward when the overall wall height remains high 

enough to position the uppermost horizontal crash rail at the as-tested position of 128". Note that the 

minimum overall wall height including the uppermost horizontal crash rail centered at 128" is 135" 

(+7"), which includes the upper half of the 4" high rail plus 5" for attachment of the horizontal crash rail 

support angle. 

The 5" extension of the post beyond the top edge of the 7" wide horizontal crash rail creates an angle of 

54.5 degrees from the top of the horizontal crash rail to the top of the post (reference attached Mod008 

sketch.pdf). This is noteworthy as it would require an extreme vehicular lean to create contact with the 

section of post above the horizontal crash rail. 

Wall heights shorter than 135" require that the uppermost crash rail be moved down yet maintained at 

the top of wall, specifically 7" from top of wall to the center of the uppermost horizontal crash rail. This 

is acceptable as the uppermost rail is still expected to prevent substantial vehicular contact with the 

posts, as intended. 

The uppermost horizontal crash rail may be moved down from the crash-tested position of 128" (overall 

height of 135") to a minimum height of 70" (overall height of 77"). Lowering this horizontal crash rail 

any farther would result in interference with the horizontal crash rail centered at 60". 

For wall heights shorter than 77" overall, it is acceptable to omit the uppermost horizontal crash rail 

while maintaining the horizontal crash rail centered at 60". This results is an overall wall height of 67''. 

Wall heights less than 67" as well as wall heights between 67" and 77" are not considered by this 

request. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
I 

in 

!;: 

<.:> 

GJ 

I 

Ul 

UJ 

~ 

:JI < "'I ;. 0 

. 

<X> 

I 

"' 

0 

I 

"' 

AS-TESTED DESIGN 

W8x40 GALV. VERTICAL 

SUPPORT POST 

L6"x4·~" ANGLE 

~· "307 GALVANIZED SLOTIED 

ROUND HEAD BOLTS AND 

WASHERS AND TRl-LOC NUTS 

N 

I 

;., <X> 

I 

'N 

CRASH RAIL 

TOP OF BARRIER 

·rn 

STANDARD UPPER RAIL PLACEMENT 1· - 1·-0· 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

N 

I 

-

I 

v 

~1 ~ ~ ~ 

~ I I 

"' g 

lo 

f!l 

~ 

0 

I 

"' 

W8x40 GALV. VERTICAL 

SUPPORT POST 

1o'-e· STANDARD HEIGHT 

OF 3RO RAIL REDUCED IF 

TL- 4 WALL HEIGHT IS 

LESS THAN 11 '-2", 

MAINTAINING 6"-8" FROM 

TOP OF WALL 

L6"x4"~" ANGLE 

~· A307 GALVANIZED SLOTIED 

ROUND HEAD BOLTS AND 

WASHERS AND TRl-LOC NUTS 

N 

I 

;., "' I 

'N 

CRASH RAIL 

TOP OF BARRIER 

ALTERNATE UPPER RAIL PLACEMENT 1· = 1'-0" 

TITLE: 

UPPER RAIL HEIGHT FOR 

VARYING HEIGHT OF TL-4 BARRIER 

PROJECT NO: 

16P0007 

FILE NAME: 

16P0007-TU MOOfications 

DATE, 

APRIL 5, 2016 

Q t 

arm ec VISIONIBUU 

DRAWN BY: 

PROJECT: MJR

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL 

CHECKED BY: 

GJS 

REVtSEO: 

APRIL 13, 2016 

Iowe. NO: 

SK-8 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
....... 

en 

0 

~~1 Cl.. 

\ 

\ '< -·­ ~ \ 

\ cu

.¢ \ 

Li) \ 0:: \ 

\ 

I 

0 

,...: 

_l 

('10[) oar 


Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Modification for ACRYLITE Soundstop TL4 noise barrier system to provide alternative post-to-barrier 

anchorage details. 

The need to provide an alternative connection option relates to system attachment to differing parapet 

geometries, which do not allow for the full development of anchor bolt capacities as the as-tested 

configuration. In this specific case, the concrete parapet may not be thick enough to provide the 

minimum 7 1/2" anchor embedment that was used in the as-tested installation. For this reason, the 

anchor plates have been re-configured and used in combination with larger diameter anchors set with a 

5 5/8" minimum embedment. The net impact of the modification results in greater anchor bolt capacity 

as compared to the as-tested configuration. The engineering analysis is attached as Mod010 Evonik TL-4 

Alternate Anchorage Comparison .pdf. 

This proposal requests eligibility to use the alternative connection option to anchor the posts to the 

parapet as well as future modifications on the basis that an engineering analysis is performed to 

similarly show that the anchorage configuration results in greater anchor bolt and anchor plate capacity 

as compared to the as-tested configuration. 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
l:l 

~ 

«> 

~ 

«> 

APPROVED DESIGN 

TOP OF BARR IER ~ 

(4) •W ANCHORS 

(4) '°*" ANCHORS 

I 1 ·- 1 ~· I ....I 

@ ~~~~~9N SECTION THRU WALL 1· = 1·-0· 

PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 

~ 

~ 

VARIES 

VARIES 

@ ~~~~ 9N 

TOP OF BARRIER ~ 

c::::::::: 

c:::::::::: 

~ 

SECTION THRU WALL 1· - 1·-0· 

TITLE: 

ALTERNATE ANCHORAGE DETAILS 

FOR VARYING BARRIER WALLS 

PROJECT NO : 

16P0007 

FILE NAME: 

161'aXl7-1L4 Mocifocotions 

DATE, 

APRIL 5, 2016 

Q t 

arm ec VISION IBUU 

OAAWN BY: 

PROJECT: JR

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS 

FOR FHWA APPROVAL 

CHECKED BY: 

GJS 

REVISED: 

APRIL 13, 2016 I 

IOWC . NO : 

SK-10a 

s 


~ 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol
PROPOSED CHANGE IN DESIGN 


~~ 

c:::::::::: 

VARIES 

~~~~~9 N 

....I 

SECTION THRU WALL 1· - 1·-0· 

TITLE: 

ALTERNATE ANCHORAGE DETAILS 

FOR VARYING BARRIER WALLS (CONT'D) 

PROJECT NO: 

16P0007 

DRAWN EN: 

FILE NAME: 

16PIXX>7-Tl4MoclflCGlions Q t DATE, arm ec PROJECT: MJR APRIL 5, 2016 VISIONIBU<T 

TL-4 MODIFICATION DRAWINGS CHECKED BY: REVtSED: I DWC. NO: 

FOR FHWAAPPROVAL GJS APRIL 13, 2016 I SK-10b 

~ 

~ 

~ 

Archived - 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Ol