1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

 Washington, D.C. 20590

August 22, 2011

FHWA:HSSI:NArtimovich:ms:x61331:06/29/11

File: s://directory folder/HSST/CC-118_USR Expeditionary Mobile 

Barrier.docx

cc: HSST (NArtimovich) 

In Reply Refer To:

 HSST /CC-118

Mr. Mark R. Morgan

Director of Engineering

Smith & Wesson Security Solutions

277 Mallory Station Road, Suite 112

Franklin, TN 37067

Dear Mr. Morgan:

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

acceptance of a roadside safety device for use on the National Highway System (NHS).

Name of device: Expeditionary Mobile Barrier 

Type of device: Crash Cushion / Arrester net

Test Level: NCHRP Report Test Level 3

Testing conducted by: Texas Transportation Institute 

Date of request: December 10, 2010

Date of completed package: December 10, 2010

Initially acknowledged: December 14, 2010

You requested that we find this system acceptable for use on the NHS under the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware (MASH).

Requirements

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

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Manual for Assessing 

Safety Hardware (MASH). The FHWA Memorandum “Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety 

Features” of July 25, 1997 provides further guidance on crash testing requirements of 

longitudinal barriers. 

Decision

The following device was found acceptable:

• Expeditionary Mobile Barrier with 14 foot to 40 foot wide net
2

Description

The Smith & Wesson Security Solutions Expeditionary Mobile Barrier (EMB) is a deployable 

net system which may be used as a method of lane closure or temporary access control. The 

EMB consists of four main components: (1) net; (2) lift arms; (3) textile brakes; and (4) anchors. 

The net is constructed of 2 inch polyester webbing woven together. At each joint, the webbing is 

stitched together. The net is 48 ft long, 42 inches tall and weighs approximately 29 pounds. It is 

configurable to provide a barrier width range from 14 ft to 40 ft. Enclosure 1 shows the details of 

the net. 

The net is supported by two lift arms, one on each side of the roadway where the net is to be 

deployed. Each lift arm is constructed of aluminum tubing and contains an electric powered 

actuator that lowers and raises the net (Enclosure 2). Power to each attenuator is provided by a 

12 volt battery that is attached at the base of the lift arm. Each assembled lift arms weighs 

approximately 132 pounds. 

Upon impact by a vehicle, the net releases from the lift arms. Two textile breaks connect the two 

ends of the net to the anchors. Once the net is released from the lift arms, it begins to engage the 

textile brakes. The textile brake is an energy absorption technology that is based on absorbing 

kinetic energy through the tearing action of two textile straps woven together.

In this submission, two separate methods for anchoring the textile brakes were used: (1) earth 

anchors or (2) vehicle anchors. In the earth anchor method, each end of the net is anchored to 

two M.K. Rittenhouse & Sons, Ltd. 88DB1 duckbill earth anchors. Each anchor cable is 42 

inches long and 1⁄4 inch in diameter and is rated for 3000 pounds static holding force. The 

duckbill earth anchors are driven into the ground leaving steel loop above the ground. In the 

vehicle anchor method, each brake is anchored to a standard class III trailer hitch of a vehicle 

that weighs at least 6000 pounds. 

Enclosures 3 and 4 show the earth anchorage system and the vehicle anchorage system 

respectively. Connections between the anchor and the textile brake are accomplished using two 

10,000 pound rated polyester straps with hooks on each end and three shackles. A 1⁄2 inch 

shackle attaches the 10,000 pound straps to each earth anchor while a 3⁄4 inch shackle attaches the 

straps to the textile brake. When the textile brake is anchored to a trailer hitch receiver, a 3⁄4 inch 

shackle is used to connect the two 10,000 pound straps to the receiver. 

Crash Testing

Three full crash tests were conducted on the test article described above according to MASH 

guidelines as shown in the following table: 

ID MASH Test Width of the 

Net (ft) Anchorage Method

USR16 3-40 40 Earth Anchor

USR17 3-41 40 Vehicle Anchor

USR18 3-41 14 Earth Anchor
3

In test 3-40, the centerline of the vehicle (MASH 1100C small car) was aligned with the right 

quarter point of the barrier. In both tests conducted according to test 3-41, the centerline of the 

vehicle (MASH 2270P pickup truck) was aligned with the centerline of the net. 

In all three tests, the test article slowed, captured, and stopped the test vehicle. The post impact 

trajectories of the test vehicles were predictable. In all three tests the Occupant Impact Velocity 

values are smaller than the maximum limits set by MASH and Occupant Ridedown Acceleration 

values are below the preferred limits. Therefore, it is judged that the test article successfully 

passed the three tests. Enclosures 5 through 7 summarize the test results for tests USR16 

through USR18 respectively. 

The stopping distances of vehicles in tests USR16, USR17, and USR 18 were 78 ft, 152.3 ft, and 

138.2 ft respectively.

Findings

According to MASH, test designations 3-40 through 3-45 are to be conducted for non-redirective 

gating crash cushions for Test Level 3 approval. The test article described above was not crash 

tested according to MASH tests 3-42 through test 3-45. You have requested that these tests be 

waived for the EMB system. 

The test article is a symmetric net. Therefore, the oblique impacts are not perceived to be more 

critical than straight impacts (the impacts where the longitudinal axis of the impacting vehicle is 

perpendicular to the net). Therefore, it is judged that test 3-42 will not be more critical than test 

3-40. Also, test 3-43 and 3-44 will not likely to be more critical than test 3-41. 

Test 3-45 is intended to examine the performance of crash cushions during impact by mid-sized 

vehicles. The main concern for the test is that attenuator staging can be tuned to meet the testing 

requirements for small cars and heavy pickup trucks without adequately accommodating midsized vehicles. Due to the design of the EMB, it is not expected that the system will perform 

differently for mid-sized cars than small cars or heavy pickup trucks. 

Therefore, we concur with your request that the tests 3-42 through 3-45 be waived. 

Because the lift arms are substantial structures, they would generally require shielding in an 

actual field installation to prevent errant motorists from striking one and further losing control of 

their vehicles. The same consideration would apply when other vehicles are used to anchor the 

ends of the EMB.

In your letter you requested the approval of the EMB for the following conditions:

• Earth anchor or vehicle anchor, and 

• The net width within the range of 14 ft to 40 ft.
4

The FHWA concurs with your first request on the grounds that the EMB performed as expected 

with both anchorage systems. We also agree with your second request because the test results 

associated with test USR 17 and USR 18 are consistent with each other. The videos of both tests 

also show a consistent behavior of the system. 

According to the results obtained from crash testing, no hazard shall be present within 160 ft 

behind the nets for the net width of 14 ft and 40 ft respectively. No information is available for 

the stopping distance of vehicles for nets with the net width between 40 ft and 14 ft and a 

conservative approach has to be adopted. 

Therefore, the device described in the various requests above and detailed in the enclosed 

drawings is acceptable for use on the NHS under the range of conditions tested, when 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 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, 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 

MASH.

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

CC-118 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 Expeditionary Mobile Barrier systems are patented products and considered 

proprietary. If proprietary devices are specified by a highway agency for use on Federalaid 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.
5

• This acceptance letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHWA to 

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

holder. The acceptance letter is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the 

candidate device, 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 

Enclosures
 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

 Washington, D.C. 20590

August 22, 2011

In Reply Refer To:

 HSST /CC-118

Mr. Mark R. Morgan

Director of Engineering

Smith & Wesson Security Solutions

277 Mallory Station Road, Suite 112

Franklin, TN 37067

Dear Mr. Morgan:

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

acceptance of a roadside safety device for use on the National Highway System (NHS).

Name of device: Expeditionary Mobile Barrier 

Type of device: Crash Cushion / Arrester net

Test Level: NCHRP Report Test Level 3

Testing conducted by: Texas Transportation Institute 

Date of request: December 10, 2010

Date of completed package: December 10, 2010

Initially acknowledged: December 14, 2010

You requested that we find this system acceptable for use on the NHS under the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware (MASH).

Requirements

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

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Manual for Assessing 

Safety Hardware (MASH). The FHWA Memorandum “Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety 

Features” of July 25, 1997 provides further guidance on crash testing requirements of 

longitudinal barriers. 

Decision

The following device was found acceptable:

• Expeditionary Mobile Barrier with 14 foot to 40 foot wide net
2

Description

The Smith & Wesson Security Solutions Expeditionary Mobile Barrier (EMB) is a deployable 

net system which may be used as a method of lane closure or temporary access control. The 

EMB consists of four main components: (1) net; (2) lift arms; (3) textile brakes; and (4) anchors. 

The net is constructed of 2 inch polyester webbing woven together. At each joint, the webbing is 

stitched together. The net is 48 ft long, 42 inches tall and weighs approximately 29 pounds. It is 

configurable to provide a barrier width range from 14 ft to 40 ft. Enclosure 1 shows the details of 

the net. 

The net is supported by two lift arms, one on each side of the roadway where the net is to be 

deployed. Each lift arm is constructed of aluminum tubing and contains an electric powered 

actuator that lowers and raises the net (Enclosure 2). Power to each attenuator is provided by a 

12 volt battery that is attached at the base of the lift arm. Each assembled lift arms weighs 

approximately 132 pounds. 

Upon impact by a vehicle, the net releases from the lift arms. Two textile breaks connect the two 

ends of the net to the anchors. Once the net is released from the lift arms, it begins to engage the 

textile brakes. The textile brake is an energy absorption technology that is based on absorbing 

kinetic energy through the tearing action of two textile straps woven together.

In this submission, two separate methods for anchoring the textile brakes were used: (1) earth 

anchors or (2) vehicle anchors. In the earth anchor method, each end of the net is anchored to 

two M.K. Rittenhouse & Sons, Ltd. 88DB1 duckbill earth anchors. Each anchor cable is 42 

inches long and 1⁄4 inch in diameter and is rated for 3000 pounds static holding force. The 

duckbill earth anchors are driven into the ground leaving steel loop above the ground. In the 

vehicle anchor method, each brake is anchored to a standard class III trailer hitch of a vehicle 

that weighs at least 6000 pounds. 

Enclosures 3 and 4 show the earth anchorage system and the vehicle anchorage system 

respectively. Connections between the anchor and the textile brake are accomplished using two 

10,000 pound rated polyester straps with hooks on each end and three shackles. A 1⁄2 inch 

shackle attaches the 10,000 pound straps to each earth anchor while a 3⁄4 inch shackle attaches the 

straps to the textile brake. When the textile brake is anchored to a trailer hitch receiver, a 3⁄4 inch 

shackle is used to connect the two 10,000 pound straps to the receiver. 

Crash Testing

Three full crash tests were conducted on the test article described above according to MASH 

guidelines as shown in the following table: 

ID MASH Test Width of the 

Net (ft) Anchorage Method

USR16 3-40 40 Earth Anchor

USR17 3-41 40 Vehicle Anchor

USR18 3-41 14 Earth Anchor
3

In test 3-40, the centerline of the vehicle (MASH 1100C small car) was aligned with the right 

quarter point of the barrier. In both tests conducted according to test 3-41, the centerline of the 

vehicle (MASH 2270P pickup truck) was aligned with the centerline of the net. 

In all three tests, the test article slowed, captured, and stopped the test vehicle. The post impact 

trajectories of the test vehicles were predictable. In all three tests the Occupant Impact Velocity 

values are smaller than the maximum limits set by MASH and Occupant Ridedown Acceleration 

values are below the preferred limits. Therefore, it is judged that the test article successfully 

passed the three tests. Enclosures 5 through 7 summarize the test results for tests USR16 

through USR18 respectively. 

The stopping distances of vehicles in tests USR16, USR17, and USR 18 were 78 ft, 152.3 ft, and 

138.2 ft respectively.

Findings

According to MASH, test designations 3-40 through 3-45 are to be conducted for non-redirective 

gating crash cushions for Test Level 3 approval. The test article described above was not crash 

tested according to MASH tests 3-42 through test 3-45. You have requested that these tests be 

waived for the EMB system. 

The test article is a symmetric net. Therefore, the oblique impacts are not perceived to be more 

critical than straight impacts (the impacts where the longitudinal axis of the impacting vehicle is 

perpendicular to the net). Therefore, it is judged that test 3-42 will not be more critical than test 

3-40. Also, test 3-43 and 3-44 will not likely to be more critical than test 3-41. 

Test 3-45 is intended to examine the performance of crash cushions during impact by mid-sized 

vehicles. The main concern for the test is that attenuator staging can be tuned to meet the testing 

requirements for small cars and heavy pickup trucks without adequately accommodating midsized vehicles. Due to the design of the EMB, it is not expected that the system will perform 

differently for mid-sized cars than small cars or heavy pickup trucks. 

Therefore, we concur with your request that the tests 3-42 through 3-45 be waived. 

Because the lift arms are substantial structures, they would generally require shielding in an 

actual field installation to prevent errant motorists from striking one and further losing control of 

their vehicles. The same consideration would apply when other vehicles are used to anchor the 

ends of the EMB.

In your letter you requested the approval of the EMB for the following conditions:

• Earth anchor or vehicle anchor, and 

• The net width within the range of 14 ft to 40 ft.
4

The FHWA concurs with your first request on the grounds that the EMB performed as expected 

with both anchorage systems. We also agree with your second request because the test results 

associated with test USR 17 and USR 18 are consistent with each other. The videos of both tests 

also show a consistent behavior of the system. 

According to the results obtained from crash testing, no hazard shall be present within 160 ft 

behind the nets for the net width of 14 ft and 40 ft respectively. No information is available for 

the stopping distance of vehicles for nets with the net width between 40 ft and 14 ft and a 

conservative approach has to be adopted. 

Therefore, the device described in the various requests above and detailed in the enclosed 

drawings is acceptable for use on the NHS under the range of conditions tested, when 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 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, 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 

MASH.

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

CC-118 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 Expeditionary Mobile Barrier systems are patented products and considered 

proprietary. If proprietary devices are specified by a highway agency for use on Federalaid 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.
5

• This acceptance letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHWA to 

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

holder. The acceptance letter is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the 

candidate device, 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 

Enclosures