1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

 Washington, D.C. 20590

December 23, 2011

FHWA: HSSI: WLongstreet: ms: x60087:7/12/11

UPDATED: 11/8/11 by MS Revised 12/20/11 by SF

File: h: //directory folder/HSST/ CC-54ITRACC to Vulcan Transition.docx

cc: HSST Will Longstreet 

In Reply Refer To:

HSST/ CC-54I

Mr. Barry D. Stephens, P.E.

Sr. Vice President Engineering

Energy Absorption Systems, Inc.

3617 Cincinnati Avenue

Rocklin, CA 95678

Dear Mr. Stephens:

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 device: TRACC to VULCAN Bi-directional Transition

Type of device: Attenuator to barrier Transition

Test Level: NCHRP Report 350 TL-2 and TL-3

Testing conducted by: N/A; By comparison to successfully crash tested QuadGuard to 

Vulcan Transition testing as previously conducted by E-Tech 

Testing Services Inc.

Date of request: December 18, 2010

Date initially acknowledged:

Date of final package:

Task Force 13 Designator:

December 20, 2010

October 17, 2011

SWM 18

Based on a review of the analysis 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 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.

Decision

The following device is eligible, with details provided below:

• TRACC to VULCAN Bidirectional Transition
2

Requirements

Roadside safety devices should meet the guidelines contained in the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program Report 350 or the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware. The FHWA Memorandum “ACTION: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety 

Features” of July 24, 1997, provides further guidance on crash testing requirements of 

longitudinal barriers.

Description

The TRACC to Vulcan Bi-directional Transition (BT) is designed to connect between an 

anchored TRACC system and downstream steel Vulcan Barrier. This transition is necessary to 

prevent pocketing and/or snagging of vehicles impacting the Vulcan Barrier immediately 

downstream from the rigid connection point. The fabricated galvanized steel transition measures 

2.03 meters (6.6 feet) long x 0.8-meter (31.5 inches) high. One end of the BT matches the

profile of the Vulcan Barrier while the other transitions smoothly to the shape of the TRACC 

backup. As with the previously tested QuadGuard to Vulcan transition, there are no vehicle snag 

points. The interface to the TRACC is designed to provide support to the TRACC during headon and angled impacts. The proposed BT has the same structural integrity as the QuadGuard to 

Vulcan Transition that was previously tested successfully.

Crash Testing

The TL-3 QuadGuard to Vulcan transition was successfully crash tested as per NCHRP Report 

350 and accepted by the FHWA on November 17, 2005 (ref. HSA-10/B-134A). The following 

table provides a comparison commentary on results of this test and the submitted report of 

proposed TRACC to VULCAN Bidirectional Transition.

System

Component

No.▲

Proposed

TRACC to VULCAN

(Components)

Successfully Crash Tested

QUADGUARD to VULCAN

(Components)

Justification

1 Backup Diaphragm Backup Diaphragm

See

component

comparison

commentary

below

2 Backup Support Post Backup Support Post

3 X-Brace Support X-Brace Support

4 Stiffener Plate Stiffener Plate

5 Attenuator Anchor Attenuator Anchor

6 Base Plate Base Plate

7 Transition Anchors Transition Anchors

8 Support Diaphragm Support Diaphragm

▲ System drawing comparison of both proposed TRACC to VULCAN and existing 

QUADGUARD to VULCAN is included in this correspondence as enclosure ‘B’.

Component comparison commentary as follows:

Component 1:

The last diaphragm for the QuadGuard is integrated into the QuadGuard backup. The last

diaphragm for the TRACC is integrated into the new Transition. This keeps the last Fender

Panels on both systems from moving laterally during side impacts. It should be noted that the

TRACC system previously passed NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-39, a wrong-way impact test at 

20 degrees from a 2000 kg pickup truck. The new TRACC to Vulcan Transition has no 
3

exposed vehicle snag points other then the attachment of the last TRACC Fender Panels. 

Since the attachment of this last Panel is identical to what was previously successfully tested, 

the transition can be expected to perform in a similar manner to the crash-tested version under 

the wrong-way redirect impact conditions. 

The crash test summary sheet of NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-39 is included in this 

correspondence as an enclosure.

Component 2:

The QuadGuard Backup consists of a large support post which provides structural support for

head-on and angled impacts. The original TRACC design did not incorporate a similar 

structural support post, therefore to duplicate the same rigidity characteristics as the 

QuadGuard, one was added into the proposed TRACC transition.

Components 3&4:

The previously tested QuadGuard to Vulcan Transition mid-section incorporates a short 

Quad-beam panel that requires backside reinforcement to resist collapse during impacts. 

Reinforcement is achieved via lower x-brace supports and an upper stiffener plate. A finite 

element analysis was conducted after testing to calculate the total deformation. Based on the 

crash test data and the analysis of crash video of the Test 3-21 a resultant force of 400,000N 

was placed on the front half of the transition. A deformation structural analysis was performed 

and the deformation values ranged from 8.14 millimeters (0.32 inches) to 9.86 millimeters 

(0.388 inches).

The proposed TRACC Transition mid-section incorporates w-beam panels that also must be 

reinforced to resist impact loads. Reinforcement is achieved via lower x-bracing on both the 

upper and lower halves. A finite element analysis was conducted to calculate the total 

deformation. Based on the Test 3-21 crash test data of the Quadguard to Vulcan transition, an 

analysis of this crash using the same resultant force of 400,000N was placed on the front half 

of the transition. A deformation structural analysis was performed and the deformation values 

ranged from 4.43millimeters (0.174 inches) to 6.56 millimeters (0.258 inches).

Components 5, 6 &7:

The QuadGuard and TRACC Transitions both require anchoring to a rigid surface using the

same anchoring-bolt system. The number of anchors (12) and moment arm (distance) from the

unit's centerline is the same. The only difference is that the TRACC base plate was extended 

to allow enough space to integrate the structural support post and the last diaphragm. Thus, 

the TRACC Transition can be expected to perform the same as the tested and accepted 

QuadGuard Transition.

Component 8:

The QuadGuard and the TRACC transitions are both designed with an internal support

diaphragm that supports mid transition impacts. In summary, the structural integrity and 

anchoring of the new TRACC to Vulcan Transition is equal-to or better-than the tested and 

accepted QuadGuard Transition.

The system drawing of proposed TRACC to VULCAN Bidirectional Transition is included in 

this correspondence as enclosure ‘A’.
4

Findings

Based on the successfully crash tested TL-3 QuadGuard to Vulcan transition and provided 

component comparison and commentary, the proposed TRACC to VULCAN Bidirectional 

Transition as described in this request and detailed in the enclosed drawings is eligible for 

reimbursement under the federal-aid highway program under the range of conditions as 

previously successfully crash tested TL-3 QuadGuard to Vulcan transition, when such use is 

acceptable to a highway agency.

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 is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the systems 

and does not cover their structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. 

• Any changes that may adversely influence the crashworthiness of the system will require 

a new letter. 

• Should the FHWA discover that the qualification testing was flawed, that in-service 

performance reveals unacceptable safety problems, or that the system being marketed is 

significantly different from the version that was crash tested, we reserve the right to 

modify or revoke this letter. 

• You will be expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design and 

installation requirements to ensure proper performance. 

• You will be expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has 

essentially the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for 

review, and that it will meet the crashworthiness requirements of the FHWA and the 

NCHRP Report 350. 

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

CC-54I 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 finding of eligibility is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the candidate 

system, and the FHWA is neither prepared nor required to become involved in issues 

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

Sincerely yours,

Michael S. Griffith

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety