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

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

January 28, 2014 In Reply Refer To: 

HSST /CC-l 20B 

Mr. Gerrit A. Dyke, P.E. 

Barrier Systems, Inc. 

3333 Vaca Valley Parkway, Suite 800 

Vacaville, CA 95688 

Dear Mr. Dyke: 

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 ofsystem: X-Lite Tangent and X-Lite Flared Soil Plate Modification 

Type of system: W-Beam Guardrail Terminal 

Test Level: NCHRP 350 Test Level 3 (TL-3) 

Original Testing conducted by: Safe Technologies, Inc. 

Finite Element Analysis conducted by: Politecnico di Milano, Italy 

Task Force 13 Designator: SEW23B Tangent; SEW24B Flared 

Date of request: July 16, 2013 

Date of completed package: December 17, 2013 

Decision: 

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

integral part ofthis letter: 

• X-Lite Tangent and X-Lite Flared Soil Plate Modification 

Based on a review ofFEA Analysis and Verification and Validation as per FHWA Memorandum 

"Roadside Safety Hardware-Federal-aid Reimbursement Eligibility Process", Dated May 21, 

2012 ofthe modified device compared to original crash test results submitted by the 

manufacturer certifying the device described herein meets the crashworthiness criteria of the 

National Cooperative Highway Research 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 FHWA for 

any particular purpose or use. The FHWA, the Department ofTransportation, 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. 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
2 

Requirements 

Roadside safety devices should meet the guidelines contained in NCHRP Report 350 (Report 

350) iftested prior to January 1, 2011 , or the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials' Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) iftested after that 

date. The FHWA Memorandum "Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features", dated July 

25, 1997, provides further guidance on crash testing requirements of longitudinal barriers. 

Description 

The modified 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 FHWA 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 ofthe systems, 

nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

• 	 Any changes that may influence system conformance with MASH will require a 

new reimbursement eligibility Jetter. 

• 	 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 test and evaluation criteria ofthe MASH. 

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

number CC-l 20B 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 FHWA to use, 

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

holder. The FHWA does not become involved in issues concerning patent law. 

Patent issues, if any, are to be resolved by the applicant. 

• 	 The X-Lite Tangent (TX) Modified, X-Lite Flared (FX) Modified Terminals are 

patented products 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 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
3 

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 ofFederal Regulations, Section 635.411. 

Sincerely yours, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosure 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.0 (3/ 13) 

Page 2 of 5 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

OfHighway Safety Hardware 

... 

QJ 

.E 

=..0 

:l 

II) 

Date of Request: December 17, 2013 C&,~w J,,r Res ubmission 

Name: Gerrit Dyke, P.E. Signature: / /__;tffl - -­ Company: Lindsay Transportation Solutions, Inc. ' -- , -

Address: 180 River Road, Rio Vista, CA 94571 

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. 

IHelPl 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'CC': Crash Cushions, 

Attenuators, & Terminals 

(,Physica l Crash Testing 

(0 FEA & V&V Analysis 

X-Lite Tangent and X-Lite 

Flared Soil Plate 

Modification 

NCHRP Report 350 TL3 

By su bmitting this request for review and evaluation by t he Federa l Highway Administrati on, I certify 

that the product(s) was (were) tested in conformity with the NCH RP Report 350 (Report 350) and t hat 

the eva luati on results m eet the appropriate evaluation criteri a in the Report 350. 

Identification of the individual or organization responsible for t he product: 

Contact Name: Gerrit Dyke, P.E. Same as Submitter [gJ 

Company Name: Lindsay Transportation Solutions, Inc. Same as Submitter [gJ 

Address: 180 River Road, Rio Vista, CA 94571 Same as Submitter [gJ 

Country: USA Sarne as Submitter [gJ 

This request is for a determination of Federal-aid reimbursement eligibili ty using Finite Element 

Analysis and Verification and Validation Analysis [NCHRP Web-Only Document 179] 

(WD-179) for a structural change to previously eligible hardware where the effect on the crash 

test performance of the hardware is unce1tain. 

FEA PRODUCT DESCRJPTION 

FEA PRODUCT DESCRJPTION 

Modification to Existing 

Hardware 

( Non-Significant - Effect is Uncertain 

(0 Non-Significa nt - Effect is Positive or Inconsequential 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.0 (3/13) 

Page 2 of 4 

FEA PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 


The X-Lite Systems use a soil plate mounted to Post 2 to help distribute longitudinal loading ofthe post. The 

soil plate used during the original NCHRP Report 350 testing measured 24in x 24in x 1/4in. The soil plate was 

sized much larger than necessary to maintain proper performance of the X-Lite system in a variety of soil 

conditions including AASHTO grade. Analysis was performed to evaluate, verify, and validate the performance 

of an alternative smaller soil plate. The alternative soil plate measures 18in x 18in x 5/16in and has chamfered 

corners to assist in the installation or driving of the post. The material is equivalent for both soil plate options. 

The analysis utilized FEA models of the Post 2 and soil plate configurations in AASHTO soil. The force vs. 

deflection characteristics were compared for the loading conditions of the post. The performance of the 

alternative soil plate correlates with the original soil plate indicating the modification is inconsequential. Full 

scale push/pull tests were performed on the Post 2 and soil plate to validate the FEA models. Reference report 

by Marco Anghileri of Politecnico Di Milano titled "X-Lite soil plate modification. Finite element evaluation" 

dated December 2013. 

FEA ANALYSIS OF CRASH TESTING 

A brief description of each analysis and its result: 

Required Test 

Number 

3-30 (820() 

S3-30 (700( 

3-31 (2000P) 

3-32 (820() 

S3-32 (700() 

3-33 (2000P) 

3-34 (820() 

S3-34 (700() 

Narrative Description 

Original X-Lite Tangent and Flared tests were 

performed by Safe Technologies, Inc., test 

numbers XTL12 (10/28/ 1 O) and XTL09 

(10/20/10) respectively. FEA analysis was used 

to demonstrate that the load capacity and post 

behavior is equivalent to the original design 

and therefore the soil plate modification does 

not effect the performance of the system and is 

inconsequential. 

Original X-Lite Tangent and Flared tests were 

performed by Safe Technologies, Inc., test 

numbers XTL 14 (11 /3/10) and XTL10 (10/21 / 10) 

respectively. FEA analysis was used to 

demonstrate that the load capacity and post 

behavior is equivalent to the original design 

and therefore the soil plate modification does 

not effect the performance of the system and is 

inconsequential. 

NA 

FEA Analysis Results 

According to Report 

350? 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

WAIVER REQUESTED 

V&V Analysis Results 

in accordance to 

WD-179? 

YES 

YES 

YES 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.0 (3/13) 

Page 3 of 4 

Required Test 

Number Narrative Description 

FEA Analysis results 

according to AASHTO 

MASH? 

V&V Analysis Results 

in accordance to 

WD-179? 

3-35 (2000P) 

Original X-Lite Flared test was performed by 

Safe Technologies, Inc., test number XTL04 

(9/ 28/1 O). FEA analysis was used to 

demonstrate that the load capacity and post 

behavior is equivalent to the original design 

and therefore the soi l plate modification does 

not effect the performance of the system and is 

inconsequential. 

WAIVER REQUESTED YES 

3-36 (820() 

53-36 (700() 

3-37 (2000P) 

3-38 (2000P) 

3-39 (2000P) 

3-40 (2000P) 

53-40 (700() 

3-41 (2000P) 

3-42 (820() 

53-42 (700() 

3-43 (2000P) 

3-44 (2000P) 

The submitted Finite Element Analysis was conducted in compliance with FHWA 

Memorandum ·Roadside Safety Hardware -Federal-Aid Reimbursement Elig ibility Process'. 

dated May 21. 20 12 including all updates to this memorandum by the following accredited 

laboratory (cite laboratory's accreditation status in the FEA Analysis final report): 

FEA & V&V Laboratory Name: Politecnico di Milano, Italy 

FEA & V&V Laboratory Contact: Prof. Ing. Marco Anghileri Same as SubmitterO 

Address: Via La Masa 34 - 20158 Milano Same as SubmitterO 

Country: Italy Same as SubmitterO 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Date: NA 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 

Finite Element Analysis using LS-Dyna that shows the modified hardware will perform in a 

similar manner to the NCHRP Report 350 crash testing that was first used to evaluate roadside 

hardware. 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Version 7.0 (3/13) 

Page 4 of 4 

2) Validation and Verification (V&V) analysis and report conforming to Appendix E as per the 

NCHRP W 179 lliCHRP Web-Only Document 179] shall be submitted for both the original 

model compared to the baseline test and the model ofthe non-significant change compared to 

the baseline test. 

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-1 3 format) showing details that are key to understanding the performance 

ofthe device should also be submitted to facilitate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter AASHTO TF13 

Number Date Designator Key Words 

CCl 208 January 07, 2014 SEW23 Tangent 

SEW24 Flared W-Beam Terminal; soil plate mounted to Post 2 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Date: 2013 12 14 

Finite Element Anal sis Determination of Elibibilit for Reimbursement under the Federal-Aid Hi hwa Pro r am FllWA Memorandum 

System Type: LINDSAY XLITE 

Device Name:Nariant: 

Testing Criterion: Static test Xlite post nr.2 

Test Level: 

FHWA Letter: 

Comparison: Crash tested original design to FEA of original design 

Submissions ype Non gn ficant -- Effect is Uncenain 

Non-Significant -- Effect is Positive 

Non-Signifi cant -- Effect is Inco nsequential 

X Baseline Validation ofCrash Test to FEA Analysis. 

Test FEA 

n/a ' n/a 

n/a n/a 

n/a n/a 

n/a n/a 

n/a n/a 

n/a n/a 

ass 

3. 1 ass 

Test Number: 

Vehicle: 

Vehicle Mass: 

Im act S ed: 

Im act Location: 

Tested Hardware: Ori inal Desi n 

FEA Hardware: Ori inal Desi n 

W-179 Table E-1 : Verifica tion Evaluation Summary 

Total Ener : 2% Pass 

Hour lass Ener y: 3.50% Pass 

Mass Added: 1% Pass 

Shootin Nodes: no Pass 

Negative Volumes: no Pass 

Structural Ade uac 

CI - Acee table erf. ? 

C2 - Dvnamic Deflection: 

C3 - Contact Time 

CS - Com . Failures? 

C6 ­ Connection Failure? 

C7 - Wheel Sna in ? 

CS - Vehicle Sna in ? 

Occu ant Risk 

D - Detached elements? 

F2 - Max. Vehicle Roll 

F3 - Max. Vehicle Pitch 

F4 - Max. Vehicle Yaw 

Test 

es 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

es 

n/a 

n/a 

Test FEA 

Occu 

Vehicle Tra ·ectorv 

K - Intruded into travel lanes? 

N - Travel behind barrier? 

ANOVA Mean 

ANOVA Standard Deviation 

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only
Date- '013 - P- 14 

Finite Element Ana lvsis Determination or Elibibilitv for Reimbursement under the Fed eral-Aid Hi2hwav Pro2ram ll Fll\\'A ~lcm randum 

System Type: LINDSAY XLITE 

Device Name:/Variant: 

Testing Criterion: Static test Xlite post nr.2 

Test Level: 

FHWA Letter: 

i 

~ S! 

~ I l u ... J ... ~ - - .. ·-· I ··-·· ' c 

.2 

~ I i !!: 

-g 

:!! .. Hanline numerical simulation 

Test Number: 


Vehicle: 


Vehicle Mass: 


Impact Speed: 


Impact Location: 


Tested Hardware: 
Ori1tinal desilUI 

FEA Hardware: Modified desil!.fl 

W-179 Table E-1 : Verification Evaluation S ummao: 

Total Ener1tv: 2% Pass 

Hourgla ss Energy: 3.50% Pass 

Mass Added: 1% Pass 

Shootin1t Nodes: no Pass 

Negative Volumes: no Pass 

Modifi cation to Existing Hardware: 

Submissions Type: 

.. -

.. 

x 

Soil plate 

Non-Significant·· Effect is Uncertain 

Non-Significant -- Effect is Positive 

Non-Significant -- Effect is Inconsequential 

Baseline Validation ofCrash Test to FEA Analysis. 

. . ... ·

W-179 Table E-5: Roadside PIRTS 

Structural Adeo uacv Test 

C I - Acccotnble oerf.? ves ves H2 - Lone. OIV n/a n/a 

C2 - Dvnamic Deflection: nla n/a H3 - Lat. OIV n/a n/a 

C3 - Con1ac t Time n/a n/a 12 - Lone. ORA n/a n/a 

CS - Como. Failures? n/a n/a 13 - Lat. ORA n/a n/a 

C6 - Connection Fai lure? yes yes Vehicle T ra iectorv 

C7 - Wheel Sna11.11.in11.• n/a n/a K - Intruded into travel lanes? n/a n/a 

CB - Vehicle Snaggi ng? n/a n/a N - Travel behind barrier? n/a n/a 

Oc<'unant Risk Tt<t Modified W-179 Table E-3 IMulti-Channel M erhodl 

Modified 

D ~ Detached clements? 

F2 - Max. Vehicle Rolll 


F3 - Max. Vehicle Pitch I 
 F4 - Max. Vehicle Yawl 

Occunanr Risk l<onr.\ Tur Modified 

Soraeue-Geer Maenitude < 40 0.4 oass 

Sorn1tuc-Geer Phase < 40 I pass

ANOVA Mean 0.3 pass 

ANOV A Standard Deviation 2.2 pass 

­ ­

Archived 

For 

Research 

and 

Historical 

Purposes 

Only