July 16, 2004

Refer to: HSA-10/WZ-185

Mr. John I. Lund
Chief Engineer
Cortina Safety Products Group
10706 West Grand Avenue
Franklin Park, Illinois 60131

Dear Mr. Lund:

Thank you for your letter of March 29, 2004, requesting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of your company's M-Cade Plastic Type I and Type II Barricades as crashworthy traffic control devices for use in work zones on the National Highway System (NHS). Accompanying your letter were films of informal bogie crash testing conducted by the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF). 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."

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 are those lightweight devices which are to be self-certified by the vendor, Category II devices are other lightweight devices which need individual crash testing but with reduced instrumentation, Category III devices are barriers and other fixed or heavy devices also needing crash testing with normal instrumentation, and Category IV devices are trailer mounted lighted signs, arrow panels, etc. for which crash testing requirements have not yet been established. 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:

Type I and Type II Barricades
The M-Cade family of barricades uses plastic waffleboard panels. The 12x24 panel is 610x308 mm x 19.05 mm thick. The thickness steps down to 11.43 mm at each end. The panel faces are 3.00 mm thick and the ribs vary from 2.50 to 3.00 mm thick. The mass of the 12x24 panel is 0.80 kg. The 8x24 panel is similar with dimensions of 610x210 mm and a mass of 0.55 kg. The "Sand Bar" is 610x83 mm with a mass of 0.25 kg.

The legs are molded in an "H" cross section and measure 46x61 mm with length either 1118 mm or 1524 mm having masses of 0.76 kg and 0.99 kg respectively. The legs are held together at the pivot point without fasteners by the unique interlocking configuration of the components. An optional 12.7 mm plastic push pin may be used to hold the alignment of the open barricade.

Each panel is factory attached to a pair of legs with 6.35 mm steel/aluminum rivets. The steel center shank of the rivets is 3.80 mm which is slightly less than the 4.15 mm root diameter of the threads used in the ¼ - 20 bolts on the original crash tested barricade cited in the FHWA acceptance letter WZ-6. Individual components are also provided for field assembly. You requested that the M-Cade Type I and II barricades, whether assembled in the factory or field, be acceptable with a lightweight warning light (1.5 kg or less).

Following are the tables you provided which list the details of the various barricades for which you requested acceptance.

Table 1 Specifications of Cortina M-Cade Barricades

Plastic Resin
The molded components (panels and legs) are molded from Sunoco TI-4230G-5 copolymer polypropylene resin, or from equivalent material obtained from another plastic compounder. 100 percent virgin resin is used except for the reground runners and sprues. The UV stabilizers are added in advance by the plastic compounder. The amount of regrind is held to 10 percent or lower for these parts. This material (or its equivalent) was used in the molding of your PlastX Barricades, which have been found acceptable for use in WZ-47 and WZ-17.

Testing
The MwRSF conducted "research and development" style tests of your company's cones using a hard-nosed bogie vehicle of a mass larger than the standard 820C test vehicle. There are significant constraints involved in using such a non-standard testing device, some of which are:

1. The potential vehicle velocity change must be considered insignificant.
2. The crush characteristics of an automobile bumper must not be expected to have a significant affect on the trajectory of the test article.
3. The profile of the bogie vehicle must be configured to replicate the outline of a production vehicle. The MwRSF bogie was configured to replicate the outline of a Geo Metro, a vehicle commonly used in testing of work zone devices.
4. No part of the test article may intrude into the windshield area of the vehicle after impact.

In these tests it was clear that the "M-Cade" and "Excavator M-Cade " barricades would meet our crashworthiness criteria. In addition, the M-Cade barricades (with 44 inch long legs) with warning lights would have met our criteria. We understand you are considering full-scale automobile crash testing of your Excavator M-Cades (with 60inch long legs) to verify their performance with lights.

Findings
The results of the informal testing met the FHWA requirements and, therefore, the devices described in the tables above and detailed in the enclosed drawings 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 the 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 submitted for acceptance, and that they will meet the crashworthiness requirements of the FHWA and NCHRP Report 350.
• To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of acceptance, designated as number WZ-1 85, 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.
• M-Cade channelizers are patented devices and considered "proprietary." The use of proprietary work zone traffic control devices in Federal-aid projects is generally of a temporary nature. They are selected by the contractor for use as needed and removed upon completion of the project. Under such conditions they can be presumed to meet requirement "a" given below for the use of proprietary products on Federal-aid projects. On the other hand, if proprietary devices are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal-aid 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. These provisions do not apply to exempt non-NHS projects. Our regulations concerning proprietary products are contained in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411, a copy of which is enclosed.
• 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,

/Original Signed by/

John R. Baxter, P.E.
Director, Office of Safety Design
Office of Safety