Refer to: HSA-10/WZ-117

Mr. Henry Ross 

United Rentals Highway Technologies 

880 North Addison Road 

P.O. Box 7050 

Villa Park, Illinois 60181-7050 

Dear Mr. Ross: 

This is in response to letters from your company requesting Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) acceptance of Type III Barricades as crashworthy traffic control devices for use in 

work zones on the National Highway System (NHS). These barricades are variations to 

barricade designs that have already been crash tested by others and accepted by the FHWA. 

The letter dated January 18, 2002, was written by David E. Gingrey of Fargo, North Dakota, 

and the letter dated February 28, 2002, was from your Villia Park, Illinois, location. 

Accompanying these letters were drawings of the barricades or the modified barricade 

elements. These drawings are enclosed for reference. You requested that we find these 

devices acceptable for use on the NHS under the provisions of National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 “Recommended Procedures for the Safety 

Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.” As you are the coordinator for United 

Rentals on NCHRP Report 350 matters you have requested that we respond directly to you 

for both letters. 

Introduction 

The FHWA guidance on crash testing of work zone traffic control devices is contained in 

two memoranda. The first, dated July 25, 1997, titled “INFORMATION: Identifying 

Acceptable Highway Safety Features,” established four categories of work zone devices: 

Category I devices were those lightweight devices which could be self-certified by the 

vendor, Category II devices were other lightweight devices which needed individual crash 

testing, Category III devices were barriers and other fixed or massive devices also needing 

crash testing, and Category IV devices were trailer mounted lighted signs, arrow panels, etc. 

The second guidance memorandum was issued on August 28, 1998, and is titled 

“INFORMATION: Crash Tested Work Zone Traffic Control Devices.” This later 

memorandum lists devices that are acceptable under Categories I, II, and III. 

A brief description of the devices follows: 
2

January 18, 2002, request. 

Type III barricade using extruded aluminum panels similar to the one tested at Midwest 

Roadside Safety Facility for the State of Minnesota, which was found acceptable in FHWA 

letter WZ-55 (dated December 18, 2000). The overall height of the barricade is 60-1/2 

inches, and uses three 8-inch wide rails bolted to the frame. The vertical members of the 

frame are 72 inches on center leaving a one-foot overhang of the rails. The frame of the 

United Rentals barricade differs from the Minnesota design only in that the square steel tubes 

are not perforated or galvanized. The overall length of the United Rentals barricade is 8 feet 

rather than the 6 foot barricade tested for Minnesota. 

February 28, 2002, request. 

Type III barricade using hot-rolled high-carbon steel “angle-iron” frame similar to the 

“generic Type III” barricade found acceptable in FHWA letters WZ-54 (September 15, 2000) 

and WZ-85 (November 15, 2001). The difference is the use of 1-1⁄2 inch x 2 inch angles (of 

ASTM A-499 steel) rather than the tested 1-1⁄2 inch x 1-1⁄2 inch angles. The result of this 

change will be to add minimal weight to the barricade but to stiffen the structure so that it is 

more resistant to separating on impact. 

Findings 

The Type III barricades described above and illustrated in the enclosed drawings for 

reference are similar to barricades that have been crash tested and accepted by the FHWA. 

We concur that the modifications detailed above are not likely to adversely affect the 

crashworthy performance of the barricades, and therefore are acceptable for use on the NHS 

under the range of conditions tested, when proposed by a State. 

Please note the following standard provisions that apply to FHWA letters of acceptance:

• Our acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the devices 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 device will 

require a new acceptance letter. 

• Should the FHWA discover that the qualification testing was flawed, that 

in-service performance reveals unacceptable safety problems, or that the device 

being marketed is significantly different from the version that was crash tested, it 

reserves the right to modify or revoke its acceptance. 

• 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 
3

submitted for acceptance, and that they will meet the crashworthiness 

requirements of FHWA and NCHRP Report 350. 

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

number WZ-117 shall not be reproduced except in full. This letter, and the test 

documentation upon which this letter is based, is public information. All such 

letters and documentation may be reviewed at our office upon request. 

 Sincerely yours, 

A. George Ostensen 

 Program Manager, Safety 

Enclosure