Village Hall Fire & Police Departments

19 East Chicago Avenue 121 Symonds Drive

Hinsdale, Illinois 60521-3431 Hinsdale, Illinois 60521-3744
630-789-7000 Fire 630-789-7060
Police 630-789-7070
villageofhinsdale.org

January 31, 2024

Via Email
david.giuliani@patch.com

RE: Village of Hinsdale –Response to FOIA Request #2024-19

Dear Mr. Giuliani:

On behalf of the Village of Hinsdale (the “Village”), I am responding to your January 24, 2024
request for records, made pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et
seq. (“FOIA”). Your FOIA request seeks a copy of:

Village’s Response:
Attached are the responsive records to your FOIA request. Certain information was redacted
pursuant to the below sections of FOIA:
• Section 7(1)(b) of FOIA: Certain private information, as defined in Section 2(c-5) of FOIA
is exempt. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b). Private information, as defined by FOIA, includes a
person’s home address, home phone number, driver’s license number, license plate
number and personal financial information. 5 ILCS 140/2(c-5).
• Section 7(1)(C) of FOIA: Exempts from inspection and copying “[p]ersonal information
contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless disclosure is consented to in writing by
the individual subjects of the information.”
You have a right to have your request reviewed by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) at the
Office of the Illinois Attorney General. 5 ILCS 140/9.5(a). You can file your Request for Review
with the PAC by writing to:

Public Access Counselor

Office of the Attorney General
500 South 2nd Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Fax: 217-782-1396
E-mail: publicaccess@atg.state.il.us

If you choose to file a Request for Review with the PAC, you must do so within sixty (60) calendar
days of the date of this denial letter. 5 ILCS 140/9.5(a). Please note that you must include a copy
of your original FOIA request and this denial letter when filing a Request for Review with the PAC.
Sincerely,
Emily Tompkins
Village of Hinsdale
Emily Tompkins

From: David Giuliani <david.giuliani@patch.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 5:49 AM
To: Emily Tompkins
Subject: Public Records Request-Brian Richards Emails

Hello,

This is a public records request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I am seeking any emails or other correspondence since Jan. 20, 2024, from Hinsdale resident Brian Richards to Village
President Tom Cauley or any other Hinsdale official. At Tuesday's Village Board meeting, Mr. Cauley, the meeting's
presiding officer, mentioned an email from Mr. Richards, whose son was killed in a crash outside Fuller's Car Wash. This
request is also for any responses to Mr. Richards' emails since Jan. 20.

If you have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

--
David Giuliani
Reporter
Patch.com
505-426-5067
Covering Elmhurst, La Grange, Hinsdale, Darien, Western Springs, Burr Ridge, Clarendon Hills

1
From: Thomas Cauley
Subject: Fwd: Questions regarding Fuller's Car Wash Operations

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Thomas Cauley <tcauley@villageofhinsdale.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 9:27:35 AM
To: Richards, Brian F. < >; Brian King <bking@villageofhinsdale.org>
Cc: Kristine Richards >
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Fuller's Car Wash Operations

Brian, as Village President, I’m never been involved in the in issuance of citations to specific Hinsdale
businesses by the Police Department or the Village’s Code enforcement officer, or in tracking citations
to specific businesses. I will ask someone on the Village staff if they can gather the information you
request. Tom

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Richards, Brian F. < >
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:54 AM
To: Brian King <bking@villageofhinsdale.org>; Thomas Cauley <tcauley@villageofhinsdale.org>
Cc: Kristine Richards < >
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Fuller's Car Wash Operations

Gentlemen

I am following up on the email below from 2 weeks ago tomorrow. Brian, I appreciate the phone call
and discussion that we had shortly after my email.

I am still waiting to hear from Tom regarding the permit and any citations or actions taken by the
village against Fuller’s.

As Brian knows from photographs that we sent to him on Sunday, in at least two instances on Sunday,
Fuller’s employees drove around the bollards that they had installed for safety and parked cars either on
the sidewalk or drove across the sidewalk and parked cars on the parkway, which is public property. A
citizen drove to the police department and registered a complaint and showed the photographs to the
officer on duty. My understanding is that Fuller’s was not ticketed for their actions because, by the time
the complaint was received and investigated, the vehicles had been moved.

If the village’s position is that not only does Fuller’s need to be caught in the act but the act must be
continuing until a police officer arrives at the scene, then Fuller’s will continue to get away with
breaking the law. Everybody knows that, when the weather turns nice, the car wash will be busy (and
Fuller’s will be breaking the law).

I took the train downtown this morning. The village had multiple police officers at the Garfield train
track crossover, protecting the public from hazardous conditions. Shouldn’t the village be taking the
same precautions given the hazardous conditions at Fuller’s Car Wash? To my knowledge, there have
not been any non-suicide deaths at the Garfield train track crossover in recent memory.

Sincerely
Brian
____________________________________________________________________________

Brian Richards |

On Jan 10, 2024, at 3:40 PM, Richards, Brian F. > wrote:

Gentlemen

A few thoughts and then a few questions:

- The below photograph of the Fuller’s Car Wash site is from Google Maps. The link is available at:
Google Maps<https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8033772,-
87.9312336,87m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu>. We do not know the date, but this is obviously before the
current bollards were placed on the site.

- Note the wear on the sidewalk, right of way and street on the east side of the car wash. The right of
way and sidewalk are clean to the south of the path of the car wash exit. From the tire wear and tear you
can plainly see that Fuller’s utilizes the sidewalk, the public right of way and the oncoming traffic lane
(southbound) to store and move northbound cars.

- Based on the wear and tear evident from the photograph as well as residents’ observations, Fullers has
been operating in this manner for years.

- We have heard from numerous Hinsdale residents that, notwithstanding the bollards, Fuller’s
continues to utilize the public right of way in the same manner, driving around the bollards to do so.
When confronted, Fuller’s response was that they had nowhere else to put the cars.

Questions:

- Does Fuller’s permit authorize it to operate in such a manner?

- How many citations has Fuller’s received, either from the Hinsdale Police Department or the Village,
for operating in this manner?

We are available to discuss live if you wish.

Sincerely

Brian and Kristine

From: Richards, Brian F. < > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 3: 05
PM To: Michael S. Brackin, Ph. D. , P. E. | Beason Brackin < >
Subject: Village President Thomas Cauley

<image001.jpg>

***********************************************************************************
*******
From: Richards, Brian F. <
Sent time: 01/23/2024 04:43:27 PM
To: Brian King; Thomas Cauley
Cc: Kristine Richards Esq. >
Subject: RE: Cones

Resending as I received a bounce-back message with regard to Tom.

From: Richards, Brian F. < >

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 4:23 PM
To: Brian King <bking@villageofhinsdale.org>; Tom Cauley <tcauley@villageofhinsdsle.org>
Cc: Kristine Richards Esq.
Subject: Cones

Brian

I was on the train home when I received your email. Got off and walked over to fullers. Just took these
3 pictures. The first picture shows that there are no cones to the south of the exit of the car wash bay.
That is where the cars have been going around the bollards. There are two rubber very movable cones
just to the north of the bollards on the Lincoln side (second photo). There are a total of 4 cones along
the entire north side of the property spaced about 18 feet apart (third photo). This is what is going to
keep employees from using the public parkway?

Also, I note that none of these cones were up on Sunday when at least two cars were parked on the
public parkway and a citizen reported such violation to the police department.

Sincerely

Brian.
From: Brian King
Sent time: 01/23/2024 03:49:28 PM
To: Richards, Brian F. < >; Thomas Cauley
Cc: Kristine Richards < >
Subject: RE: Questions regarding Fuller's Car Wash Operations

Greetings Brian,

I spoke with Doug Fuller last week and he indicated that they would have cones on the property to eliminate
employees moving vehicles onto the public way. I conducted a check on Monday and saw that they were up.

At this point, as with any other complaint, we will be conducting compliance checks with our parking control
officer. Future violations will result in a violation.

In terms of records, Rob McGinnis is checking to see if there are any pre-bollard violations. I will let you know.

Brian

From: Richards, Brian F. < >

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:54 AM
To: Brian King <bking@villageofhinsdale.org>; Thomas Cauley <tcauley@villageofhinsdale.org>
Cc: Kristine Richards <
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Fuller's Car Wash Operations

Gentlemen

I am following up on the email below from 2 weeks ago tomorrow. Brian, I appreciate the phone call and
discussion that we had shortly after my email.

I am still waiting to hear from Tom regarding the permit and any citations or actions taken by the village against
Fuller’s.

As Brian knows from photographs that we sent to him on Sunday, in at least two instances on Sunday, Fuller’s
employees drove around the bollards that they had installed for safety and parked cars either on the sidewalk or
drove across the sidewalk and parked cars on the parkway, which is public property. A citizen drove to the police
department and registered a complaint and showed the photographs to the officer on duty. My understanding is
that Fuller’s was not ticketed for their actions because, by the time the complaint was received and investigated,
the vehicles had been moved.

If the village’s position is that not only does Fuller’s need to be caught in the act but the act must be continuing
until a police officer arrives at the scene, then Fuller’s will continue to get away with breaking the law.
Everybody knows that, when the weather turns nice, the car wash will be busy (and Fuller’s will be breaking the
law).

I took the train downtown this morning. The village had multiple police officers at the Garfield train track
crossover, protecting the public from hazardous conditions. Shouldn’t the village be taking the same precautions
given the hazardous conditions at Fuller’s Car Wash? To my knowledge, there have not been any non-suicide
deaths at the Garfield train track crossover in recent memory.
Sincerely

Brian
____________________________________________________________________________

On Jan 10, 2024, at 3:40 PM, Richards, Brian F. < > wrote:

Gentlemen

A few thoughts and then a few questions:

- The below photograph of the Fuller’s Car Wash site is from Google Maps. The link is available at: Google
Maps<https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8033772,-87.9312336,87m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu>. We do not
know the date, but this is obviously before the current bollards were placed on the site.

- Note the wear on the sidewalk, right of way and street on the east side of the car wash. The right of way and
sidewalk are clean to the south of the path of the car wash exit. From the tire wear and tear you can plainly see
that Fuller’s utilizes the sidewalk, the public right of way and the oncoming traffic lane (southbound) to store
and move northbound cars.

- Based on the wear and tear evident from the photograph as well as residents’ observations, Fullers has been
operating in this manner for years.

- We have heard from numerous Hinsdale residents that, notwithstanding the bollards, Fuller’s continues to
utilize the public right of way in the same manner, driving around the bollards to do so. When confronted,
Fuller’s response was that they had nowhere else to put the cars.

Questions:

- Does Fuller’s permit authorize it to operate in such a manner?

- How many citations has Fuller’s received, either from the Hinsdale Police Department or the Village, for
operating in this manner?

We are available to discuss live if you wish.

Sincerely

Brian and Kristine

From: Richards, Brian F. Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 3: 05 PM To:
Michael S. Brackin, Ph. D. , P. E. | Beason Brackin < > Subject: Village
President Thomas Cauley

<image001.jpg>
 From: Richards, Brian F. >
Sent time: 01/23/2024 04:46:55 PM
To: Thomas Cauley
Cc: Kristine Richards Esq. < >
Subject: FW: Review of Bollards Proposed for Fuller's Service Center
Attachments: CV Michael S. Brackin 8-16-2022.pdf

Tom

This was sent to your work email. I am forwarding to your Hinsdale email. Michael is available to speak to you,
the Board, any committee thereof or any engineering firm that you wish. Thank you.
Sincerely

Brian

From: Michael S. Brackin, Ph.D., P.E. | Beason Brackin <m >

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 3:12 PM
To:
Cc: Richards, Brian F. < >
Subject: [EXT] Review of Bollards Proposed for Fuller's Service Center

Good Afternoon Mr. Cauley, My name is Michael Brackin and I am a Professional Engineer that specializes in the structural design, testing, and development of roadside safety barriers, physical security barriers, and safety barriers. I have

Good Afternoon Mr. Cauley,

My name is Michael Brackin and I am a Professional Engineer that specializes in the structural design,
testing, and development of roadside safety barriers, physical security barriers, and safety barriers. I
have been fortunate to be involved in both the development and promulgation of testing specifications
for vehicle barriers such as AASHTO , AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specification, ASTM F2656
and was the lead author of ASTM F3016
, that aims to help in the design of barriers to protect
pedestrians and storefront patrons from errant vehicle intrusions.
I have also been fortunate to work with numerous manufacturers of proprietary vehicle barriers to
develop products capable of redirecting or arresting errant vehicles. In addition, I’ve worked with many
of the large grocery, retail, and convenience store companies to develop non-proprietary barriers
capable of protecting their customers and storefronts from errant vehicle impacts.
This email regards the bollards currently being discussed for the Fuller’s Service Center located at 102
W. Chicago Ave. in Hinsdale, IL. I’ve been asked by Mr. Brian Richards to review the design
calculations that were provided by HRGreen and provide feedback on my opinion regarding the
expected performance of these bollards. While I do intend to provide a more in-depth report on this
issue, this email provides a brief summary of the most important issue on the matter.
First, Section 13 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, which HRGreen used, applies to
the design of various types of bridge railings such traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, etc. In particular, traffic
railings that are intended to redirect vehicles, such as concrete parapets or continuous steel railings. In
addition, these barriers are designed according one of six Test Levels whereby the design Test Level is
selected as a function of the road’s speed, volume, type of traffic, etc. These six Test Levels are
derived from AASHTO .
Perhaps the most important point to make is that it is not correct to use Section 13 of AASHTO LRFD
for the design of bollards or other types of vehicle barriers that are intended to arrest an errant or threat
vehicle in a short distance. More specifically, the design criteria laid out in Section 13 is intended for
redirective, crashworthy vehicle barriers according to the criteria set forth by MASH. In general, these
types of barriers are designed for impact angles between 15 and 25 degrees. They are evaluated
based on performance factors that include structural adequacy, risk to the vehicle occupants, and the
post-impact trajectory/behavior of the vehicle. The post-impact trajectory of the vehicle means that it is
redirected back onto the roadway and doesn’t have excessive roll behavior, among other factors. This
is not the case for a bollard as it does not redirect a vehicle. As such, the design criteria outlined in
Section 13 is wholly irrelevant to the design of bollards. The impact loads for bollards will be much
higher than that specified in Section 13 of AASHTO LRFD, if you are considering static load conditions.
I can state, unequivocally, that one bollard as-installed (assuming 6-inch diameter by 1/8-inch wall
pipe) would not be sufficient at arresting a typical passenger pickup travelling 20-mph. I can also state,
unequivocally, that two bollards as-installed would not be sufficient at arresting a typical passenger
pickup travelling 30-mph. These statements are based on full-scale crash testing that I’ve performed
over the years for product development. They are not based on calculations. At this link
(https://beasonbrackin-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/p/michael_brackin/EihKERQY-
stOnbPCwr13cMUBIECYtA1rytG-BHzty_hbmw?e=GT5jOx) to my companies shared drive I have
included three full-scale crash tests to show this point. One test shows a 6-inch pipe bollard impacted
at 20 mph. This particular bollard has a larger diameter and a wall thickness twice that of the proposed
bollard for Fuller’s Service Center. In addition, this bollard has an inner stiffener to add more strength.
As shown, this particular design would not be capable of arresting a vehicle travelling much faster than
20 mph. The second test shows a bollard design that is more than 6 times the strength of the bollard
proposed being impacted at 20 mph. As shown, this particular design would not be capable of arresting
a vehicle travelling much faster than 30 mph. Simply put, you would need to engage at least 6 bollards
of the current design to match the performance of this one bollard.
These full-scale tests provided were performed using is a performance-
based test specification for full-scale crash testing that applies to safety devices aimed at stopping
errant or accidental impacts by passenger pickups travelling at speeds less than or equal to 30 mph.
According to a protective device can be rated according to one of three designated
condition levels: S10, S20, and S30. The Condition Designations are intended to ensure that a
protective device will provide a specified level of vehicle impact resistance as a function of impact
speed whereby S10, S20, and S30 are associated with 10, 20, and 30 mi/h impacts, respectively. The
surrogate test vehicle shown in these tests represents the 90th percentile, in terms of vehicle weight, for
all passenger vehicles sold in the United States in 2002. This surrogate test vehicle also has a similar
weight and center of gravity as a large SUV. Thus, it well represents the fleet of larger passenger
vehicles available on the roadway today in the US.
The third video shows the typical behavior of concrete-filled bollards during a dynamic impact. It is a
common misnomer that concrete-filled bollards are stronger than their non-filled counterparts.
Concrete-filled bollards do not allow the bollard to deform in a manner that more-efficiently absorbs
energy (i.e. develop a plastic hinge at grade). The concrete fill causes the typical failure mechanism
shown below. Hopefully watching these crash test videos provides some context that this “snapping”
failure mechanism is not preferable to allowing the bollard to plastically deform and absorb energy
during an impact. Once the bollard “snaps”, the vehicle passes right over it. In addition to the strength
concerns, the concrete holds moisture against the interior lining of the bollard and increases the
deterioration rate of the bollard.
Based on the information I have reviewed, the performance of two of the specified bollards acting
simultaneously would likely only be able to arrest a design vehicle travelling 10-15 mph. It certainly
would not be capable of arresting a design vehicle travelling 30 or 35 mph. While I’m confident these
bollards would be capable of arresting a design vehicle travelling 10 mph, the only way to know if they
would be capable of working at greater speeds would be to perform a full-scale crash test.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-18725

3000 Hummingbird Circle | Bryan, TX 77807-3223

| www.beasonbrackin.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual or

entity to whom it is addressed. Its contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents.
If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete and destroy the message.
 Curriculum Vitae of
Michael S. Brackin, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Engineer

Beason Brackin & Associates, LLC

12903 State Highway 30, STE 100
College Station, TX 77845
(979) 985-2090
michael.brackin@beasonbrackin.com
Texas Firm No. 18725

EDUCATION
Ph.D., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 2017
M.S., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 2010
B.S., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 2008
Cum Laude

SUMMARY OF EXPERTISE
Michael S. Brackin is a Principal Engineer for Beason Brackin & Associates, LLC in College Station,
Texas. Dr. Brackin is a licensed Professional Engineer primarily in the state of Texas (No. 115516),
Missouri, Nevada, Utah, and West Virginia. He holds Doctorate of Philosophy, Master of Science, and
Bachelor of Science degrees in Civil Engineering from Texas A&M University. Dr. Brackin is
specialized in the field of architectural glass design, roadside safety, physical security, and computational
mechanics.

Dr. Brackin previously served as an Assistant Research Engineer for Texas A&M Transportation
Institute's (TTI) Roadside Safety and Physical Security Division and an Instructional Assistant Professor
for the Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Texas A&M University in College
Station, TX. Dr. Brackin began his tenure with TTI and Texas A&M studying heavy vehicle impacts
with bridge piers and abutments through the use of finite element analyses under TTI's Center of
Excellence for Transportation Computational Mechanics. Dr. Brackin worked with other TTI researchers
to develop guidelines for the design of bridge piers for heavy-vehicle collisions. His research on this topic
culminated in revisions included in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

More recently, Dr. Brackin has been actively involved in the design, analysis, development, and
evaluation of roadside safety appurtenances and physical security barriers using basic mechanics, statics,
dynamics, finite element analyses, and full-scale crash testing. Dr. Brackin has contributed to the design
and analysis of several roadside safety appurtenances including concrete median barrier systems,
guardrail end treatments, guardrail tension anchors, wire rope median barrier anchors, work-zone barriers,
and energy absorbing crash cushions. Additionally, Dr. Brackin has contributed to the design and
analysis of several physical security devices including wedge barriers, wire rope perimeter fences,
bollards, and anti-ram retaining walls.

Dr. Brackin has witnessed or been involved with in excess of 800 full-scale vehicular crash tests during
his career. Dr. Brackin has extensive experience in analyzing crash test data. He has performed dynamic
analyses to determine design guidelines for loads imposed on structures during collisions by passenger,
medium, and heavy-duty vehicles. Most notably, Dr. Brackin was the lead author for ASTM F3016 titled
“Standard Test Method for Surrogate Testing of Vehicle Impact Protective Devices at Low Speeds”, a
standard designed to help protect pedestrians and storefront patrons from errant vehicle intrusions.

Page 1 of 4 Rev. 8/16/2022

Michael S. Brackin, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Engineer

Selected areas of expertise for Dr. Brackin are listed below:

• Structural Design, Analysis, and Testing of Architectural Glass

• Finite Element Analyses and Computational Mechanics
• Structural Engineering and Design
• Research and Development of Low-Speed Pedestrian Impact Protective Devices
• Thermal Analyses and Heat Transfer
• Full-scale Crash Testing of Roadside Safety and Physical Security Barriers
• Performance of Wire Rope Barriers and Bollards for the Roadside and Physical Security
• Research and Development for New and Existing Crashworthy Roadside Safety Hardware and
Physical Security Products
• Structural Behavior and Dynamic Loading of Passenger, Medium, and Heavy Vehicle Collisions

AFFILIATION
2006 – Present, Phi Eta Sigma, Tarleton State University
National Honor Society

2007 – Present, Chi Epsilon, Texas A&M University

The Civil Engineering Honor Society

2008 – Present, Tau Beta Pi, Texas A&M University

The Engineering Honor Society

2011 – Present, ASTM International (Formerly American Society of Testing and Materials)
Committee Member E06
Committee Co-chair F12

2015 – Present, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Associate Member

HONORS AWARDS
1. TAMU, Dick and Joyce Birdwell Award for Teaching Excellence, 2018

2. TTI, New Researcher Award, TTI/Trinity Industries, 2015

3. TTI, Outstanding Master’s Program Student Award, TTI/Trinity Industries, 2009

EXPERIENCE
2017 – Present, Beason Brackin & Associates, LLC, College Station, TX
Principal Engineer

2017 – 2020, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

Instructional Assistant Professor

2007 – 2017, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX

Curriculum Vitae Page 2 of 4 Rev. 1/10/2020

Michael S. Brackin, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Engineer

Assistant Research Engineer

2007 – 2016, W. Lynn Beason, Ph.D., P.E.

Engineering Consultant

2009 – 2016, Safety Quest Inc., Bryan, TX

Engineering Consultant

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Formal Papers
1. Brackin, M.S.,“Development of a Procedure to Evaluate the Shear Modulus of Laminated Glass
Interlayers”, Master’s Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. May 2010.

2. Brackin, M.S.,“Development of a General Procedure to Evaluate the Probability of Breakage for Glass
Plates in Insulating Glass Units Due to Thermal Stresses Induced by Solar Irradiance”, Ph.D.
Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. May 2017.

Journal Papers
1. C. Silvestri Dobrovolny, D.R. Arrington, M.S. Brackin, R.P. Bligh, A. Hangul, P.E. Design and
Finite Element Analysis of Single Slope Median Wall for Grade Separation. Transportation Research
Board Annual Meeting. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2014.

2. Brackin, M.S., Abu-Odeh, A., Buth, C.E., Williams, W.F., Fry, G., Freeby, G., “Impact Forces from
Heavy-Vehicle Collisions with Bridge Piers”, Structures 2012, Transportation Research Record 2313.
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. 2013, pp.42-51.

Presentations
1. Brackin, M.S., Beason, W.L., Bligh, R.P., Odell, W., Meza, A., Bostic, M., “Development and
Compliance Testing of a Non-Pinned End Treatment for the Low-Profile Portable Concrete Barrier”,
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC., January 2014.

2. Brackin, M.S., “Dynamic Impact Forces and Position Involving Heavy Vehicles Colliding with Bridge
Piers”, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC., January 2012.

Technical Reports
1. C. Silvestri Dobrovolny, M.S. Brackin, P. Betancourt. Best Practices for Barrier Protection of Bridge
Ends. 405160-38. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX. February 2014.

2. W.L. Beason, M.S. Brackin, R.P. Bligh, W.L. Menges. Development and Testing of a Non-Pinned
Low-Profile End Treatment. 9-1002-12-7. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX.
October 2013.

3. C.E. Buth, M.S. Brackin, W.F. Williams, G. Fry. Collision Loads on Bridge Piers: Phase 2. Report of
Guidelines for Designing Bridge Piers and Abutments for Vehicle Collisions. 9-4973-2. Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, TX. March 2011.

4. C.E. Buth, W.F. Williams, M.S. Brackin, D. Lord, S.R. Geedipally, A. Abu-Odeh. Analysis of Large
Truck Collisions with Bridge Piers: Phase 1. Report of Guidelines for Designing Bridge Piers and

Curriculum Vitae Page 3 of 4 Rev. 1/10/2020

Michael S. Brackin, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Engineer

Abutments for Vehicle Collisions. 9-4973-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX. May
2010.

PATENTS
1. Michael S. Brackin et al. 2015. Surface Mount Wedge Barrier. U.S. Patent 8956072, filed October
1, 2013, and issued February 17, 2015.

2. Dean C. Alberson et al. 2016. Methods for the Manufacture of a Module for use in a Crash Barrier
and Assembly of the Crash Barrier. U.S. Patent 20160305080, filed June 27, 2016, and issued
October 20, 2016.

3. Dean C. Alberson et al. 2016. Module for use in a Crash Barrier and Crash Barrier. U.S. Patent
9404231, filed July 31, 2015, and issued August 2, 2016.

4. Michael S. Brackin et al. 2019. Single Anchor Terminal. U.S. Patent 20160194889, filed March 4,
2019, and issued June 27, 2019.

5. Kumar et al. 2020. Flotation Apparatus for Providing Buoyancy to Tubular Members. International
Patent WO2020/150083 A1, filed January 10, 2020 and issued July 23, 2020.

6. William L. Beason et al. 2021. Bollard Assembly with Stress Control Device. U.S. Patent
11124934B2, filed October 21, 2019 and issued September 21, 2021.

7. Michael Kempen et al. 2021. Vehicle Escape Ramp Safety Arresting System. U.S. Patent
20210332541A1, filed April 26, 2021, and issued October 28, 2021.

Curriculum Vitae Page 4 of 4 Rev. 1/10/2020