In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/B-141B

400 Seventh St., S.W. 

May 8, 2006 Washington, D.C. 20590

 

 Mr. Stephen L. Brown 

 President 

 Trinity Highway Safety Products, Inc. 

 P.O. Box 568887 

 Dallas, Texas 75356-8887 

Dear Mr. Brown: 

In my November 17, 2005, acceptance letter B-141, I agreed that a 3-rope CASS cable barrier 

using weakened S4 x 7.7 structural steel posts set in concrete footings on 20-foot centers met 

the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 evaluation criteria 

as a test level 3 (TL-3) traffic barrier. In your April 28, 2006 letter to Mr. Richard Powers, you 

requested that the same system with the posts set on 32.5-foot centers also be accepted as an 

NCHRP Report 350 TL-3 design. To support this request, the Texas Transportation Institute 

conducted a test on the modified system on March 10, 2006, and detailed the results in an April 

2006 report, “NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-11 of the CASS-TL3 with Posts in Sockets Spaced at 

9.9 M.” For this test, the three 3/4-inch diameter cables were set at the same heights as in the 

earlier test (i.e., 21.0, 25.2, and 29.5 inches above the ground surface, measured to the center of 

each cable) and each line post was weakened by adding two 11/16-inch diameter holes through 

each flange at ground. The cables were not pre-stretched, but were tensioned to 5,600 pounds 

force for the test. The dynamic deflection for the 330-foot long test installation was 11.2 feet. 

By comparison, the deflection in your earlier test with a 20-foot post spacing was 7.7 feet. As 

can be seen in the attached test summary sheet, all Report 350 evaluation criteria for test 3-11 

were satisfactorily met. I would be remiss, however, if I did not express my concern for the 

performance of this design when it is installed under typical field conditions. Although the 

barrier performed well under ideal test impact conditions with the pickup truck, the likelihood 

of passenger car underrides of any cable system may increase as the post spacing increases, 

particularly when the barrier is installed on non-level or slightly irregular terrain and the cables 

are not restrained from lifting at each post. With fewer posts, the dynamic deflection of the 

barrier is also likely to increase when it is installed along the convex sides of horizontal curves. 

Consequently, some transportation agencies have limited post spacing to approximately 20 feet 

for cable barriers. 

 
2

In spite of the above caveat, the CASS TL-3 design described above may be used as either a 

roadside or median barrier on the National Highway System (NHS) when such use is 

acceptable to the contracting agency. Although the cables used in the test were not prestretched, this acceptance is also valid if and when pre-stretched cables are used, assuming that 

the recommended post-tensioning is applied to the cables. 

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

• Our acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the CASS TL-3 design 

under the reported test conditions and does not cover its structural features, durability, or 

maintenance characteristics. 

• Any additional design or material changes that may adversely affect the crashworthiness 

of the barrier 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 barrier 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 submitted for 

acceptance. 

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

B-141B, 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. 

• The CASS Cable Barrier includes patented components and is considered proprietary. 

When proprietary devices are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal-aid 

projects, except exempt, non-NHS projects, they: (a) must be supplied through 

competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented items; (b) the highway agency must 

certify that they are essential for synchronization with 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. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 /original signed by/ 

 John R. Baxter, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

Enclosure 
18 

0.000 s 0.147 s 0.293 s 

General Information Test Agency............................... Test No. .................................... Date ...........................................Test Article Type........................................... Name .........................................

Installation Length (m)...............

Material or Key Elements ..........

Soil Type and Condition.............Test Vehicle Type........................................... Designation................................ Model......................................... Mass (kg) Curb........................................ Test Inertial............................. Dummy ................................... Gross Static............................

Texas Transportation Institute 400001-TCR12 03-10-2006 Cable Barrier CASS-TL3 100.6 3 Wire Ropes with S4x7.7 Posts in Concrete Sockets Spaced at 9.9 m Concrete Sockets in Standard Soil, DryProduction 2000P 2000 Chevrolet C2500 2131 2102 None 2102 

Impact Conditions  Speed (km/h) ............................. Angle (deg) ................................Exit Conditions Speed (km/h) ............................. Angle (deg) ................................Occupant Risk Values

Impact Velocity (m/s) 

 Longitudinal ............................ Lateral .................................... THIV (km/h) ...............................

Ridedown Accelerations (g’s) 

 Longitudinal ............................ Lateral .................................... PHD (g’s) ................................... ASI ............................................Max. 0.050-s Average (g’s)  Longitudinal ............................ Lateral .................................... Vertical ...................................

102.6  24.9 N/A N/A  2.0  3.2 12.9 3.9 6.7 6.9 0.40 -1.4  3.6 -1.2 

Test Article Deflections  Dynamic ..................... Permanent.................. Working Width............Vehicle Damage Exterior  VDS......................... CDC ........................ Max. Exterior 

 Vehicle Crush (mm

 Interior  OCDI ....................... Max. Occupant Com

 Deformation (mm)

Post-Impact Behavior

(during 1.0 sec after im

 Max. Yaw Angle (de

Max. Pitch Angle (deMax. Roll Angle (deg

Figure 12. Summary of results for NCHRP Report 350 test 3-11 on the CASS-TL3 spaced at 9