1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 March 19, 2009 

In Reply Refer To: HSSD/B-141D 

Mr. Brian Smith 

Trinity Highway Products, LLC 

P.O. Box 568887 

Dallas, TX 75356-8887 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

This letter is in response to your request for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

acceptance of modifications to your CASS cable barrier roadside safety system for use on the 

National Highway System (NHS). 

 Name of system: Trinity’s CASS 3-Cable Barrier 

 Variations: Test Level 4 on 1:6 slopes or flatter, 3 Cables 

 Test Level 3 on 1:4 slopes, 4 Cables 

 Test Level 4 on 1:6 slopes or flatter, 4 Cables 

 Type of system: Three or four cable barrier system 

 Test Levels: NCHRP Report 350 TL-3 and TL-4 

 Testing conducted by: Texas Transportation Institute 

 Date of requests: October 20 and December 11, 2008 

 

You requested that we find these systems 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.” 

Requirements 

Roadside safety systems should meet the guidelines contained in the NCHRP Report 350. The 

FHWA Memorandum “Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features” of July 25, 1997, 

provides further guidance on crash testing requirements of longitudinal barriers. 

Description 

The FHWA has accepted the CASS 3-cable system to test level 3 (TL-3) criteria in the following 

FHWA Acceptance Letters: 

B-119 (3m / 8 ft post spacing), dated May 13, 2003 

B-119A (5m / 16.5 ft post spacing), dated May 13, 2003 

B-119B (2m / 6.5 ft post spacing), dated August 28, 2003 
2

The FHWA acceptance letter B-141C Revised (dated November 14, 2008) found the Trinity 

CASS 3-cable barrier system acceptable for use on a 1:4 slope per NCHRP Report 350 TL-3

conditions. The 19 mm (3/4-inch) diameter standard cables were set at heights of 445 mm, 

745 mm, and 1060 mm (17.5, 29.3, and 41.7 inches) above the ground surface, measured to the 

center of each cable. Tension of the cables was set at 24.9 kN (5600 pounds force) for the tests. 

Your first request is for this TL-3 barrier to be used as a TL-4 barrier on slopes of 1:6 or flatter. 

This system differs from the previously accepted TL-4 system (see FHWA Acceptance Letter 

B-157 dated April 23, 2007) only in the heights of the cables and how the bottom cable is 

attached to the post. As the proposed spread of the three cables is wider than the previously 

accepted system we concur that these changes should have no adverse affect on the 

crashworthiness of the barrier system. 

Your second request is to add a fourth cable (between the top and middle cables) to the TL-3 

barrier accepted in B-141C. Because the addition of the fourth cable at a height of 949 mm 

(37.375”) above the ground surface, measured to the center of the cable is not considered to be 

detrimental to the performance of the crash tested system, and is indeed likely to increase the 

capacity and improve the performance, the CASS system described in Letter B-141C with the 

added cable is acceptable. It is understood that the added cable will have its own anchorage just 

like the other cables. 

Your third request is to add a fourth cable (between the top and middle cables) to the TL-4 

barrier on 1:6 or flatter slopes discussed above. Because the addition of the fourth cable at a 

height of 949 mm (37.375”) above the ground surface, measured to the center of the cable is not 

considered to be detrimental to the performance of the crash tested system, and is indeed likely 

to increase the capacity and improve the performance, this CASS system with the added cable is 

acceptable. It is understood that the added cable will have its own anchorage just like the other 

cables. 

Finally you requested that these CASS Systems be acceptable with post spacings from 2.0 m 

(6.5 feet) to 5.0 m (16.5 feet) and with the same range of post embedment types (direct driven, 

set in driven tube, set in tube sleeve in concrete foundation). These variations have been shown 

to be crashworthy in earlier testing and will be acceptable for these systems. The end terminal 

acceptance for these systems was included in acceptance letter B-157, dated 

April 23, 2007. 

CASS System Variations 

Date FHWA 

Letter 

CASS System Description Cable Heights 

inches 

Drawing 

November 17, 2005 B-141 3-Cable TL-4 on 1V:6H 

Slopes 

20.9", 30.5", 38.1 SS-740 

April 23, 2007 B-157 4-Cable TL-4 on 1V:6H 

Slopes 

20.9", 26.2", 

30.5", 38.1" 

SS-740-740-4

November 14, 2008 B-141C 

(Revised) 

3-Cable TL-3 on 1V:4H 

Slopes 

17.5", 29.5", 

41.7" 

SS-730-4:1-3C 

This letter B-141D 3-Cable TL-4 on 1V:6H 

Slopes 

17.5", 29.5", 

41.7" 

SS-730-4:1-3C 

TL3 on 1V:4H 

Slopes 

This letter B-141D 4-Cable 

TL4 on 1V:6H 

Slopes 

17.5", 29.5", 

37.4", 41.7" 

SS-730-4:1-4C 
3

Findings 

The 3- and 4-cable barrier systems described above are acceptable for use on the designated or 

flatter slopes under NCHRP Report 350 TL-3 or 4 conditions as noted. The systems are detailed 

in the enclosed drawings and are acceptable for use on the NHS when such use is acceptable to a 

highway agency. 

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

 This acceptance 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 acceptance 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 our 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, 

and that it will meet the crashworthiness requirements of the FHWA and the NCHRP 

Report 350. 

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

B-141D 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. 

 The CASS barriers are patented products and considered proprietary. If proprietary systems 

are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal-aid projects, except exempt, non-NHS 

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 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. 

 This acceptance 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 acceptance letter 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, 

David A. Nicol, P.E. 

Director, Office of Safety Design 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures