U.S. Deportment 

of Tronsi:xxtotioo 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration J\pri I 20, 2016 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST/B-252 

Mr. Clayton Fredericks 

KSI Global Australia 

61 Foskew Way 

Narngulu WA 6532 

Australia 

Dear Mr. Fredericks: 

This letter is in response to your May 9. 2014 request for the Federal l lighway Administration 

(FH W /\)to review a roadside safety device. hardware. or system for eligibility for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. This flIW A letter of eligibility is 

assigned fHWA control number B-252 and is valid until a subsequent letter is issued by FHW /\ 

that expressly reforcnccs this device. 

Decision 

The following devices arc eligible, with details provided in the l'orm which is attached as an 

integral part of this letter: 

• KSI Global Safety Roller roadside and median barrier. 

Scope of this Letter 

To be found eligible for Federal-aid funding, new roadside safety devices should meet the crash 

test and evaluation criteria contained in the American Association or State Highway and 

Transportation Officials' Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). However, the 

FI-IW/\,the Department of Transportation. and the United States Government do not regulate the 

manufacture of roadside safety devices. Eligibility for reimbursement under the federal-aid 

highway program does not establish approval, certi Iication or endorsement of the device for any 

particular purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by the FH WA, the Department of Transportation, or the United 

States Government that a vehicle crash involving the device will result in any particular 

outcome, nor is it a guarantee of the in-service performance of this device. Proper 

manufacturing, installation, and maintenance are required in order for this device to function as 

tested. 
2 

This finding of eligibility is limited to the crash worthiness ofthe system and does not cover other 

structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

Based solely on a review of crash test results and certifications submitted by the manufacturer, 

and the crash test laboratory, FHWA agrees that the device described herein meets the crash test 

and evaluation criteria of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials' Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). Therefore, the device is eligible for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program if installed under the range oftested 

conditions. 

Name of system: KSI Global Safety Roller roadside and median barrier 
 

Type ofsystem: Longitudinal Barrier 
 

Test Level: MASH Test Level 4 
 

Testing conducted by: Holmes Solutions 
 

Date ofrequest: May 9, 2014 
 

Date of completed package: December 23, 2015 
 

Full Description of the Eligible Device 

The device and supporting documentation, including reports ofthe crash tests or other testing 

done, videos of any crash testing, and/or drawings of the device, are described in the attached 

form. 

Notice 

If a manufacturer makes any modification to any oftheir roadside safety hardware that has an 

existing eligibility letter from FHWA, the manufacturer must notify FHW A of such modification 

with a request for continued eligibility for reimbursement. The notice of all modifications to a 

device must be accompanied by: 

o 	 Significant modifications - For these modifications, crash test results must be 

submitted with accompanying documentation and videos. 

o 	 Non-signification modifications - For these modifications, a statement from the 

crash test laboratory on the potential effect ofthe modification on the ability of 

the device to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 

FHW A's determination of continued eligibility for the modified hardware will be based on 
 

whether the modified hardware will continue to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 
 

You are expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design, installation and 
 

maintenance requirements to ensure proper performance. 
 

You are expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has the same chemistry, 
 

mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for review, and that it will meet the test 
 
3 

You are expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has the same chemistry. 

mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for review, and that it will meet the test 

and evaluation criteria of the MAS H. 

Issuance of this letter does not convey property rights of any sort or any exclusive pri vilege. This 

letter is based on the premise that information and reports submi tted by you are accurate and 

correct. \Ve reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter if: (I) there arc any inaccuracies in 

the information submitted in support ofyour request for this letter, (2) the qualification testing 

was flawed, (3) in-service performance or other information reveals safety problems, (4) the 

system is significantly different from the version that was crash tested, or (5) any other 

information indicates that the letter was issued in error or otherwise does not reflect full and 

complete infomrntion about the crashworthiness of the system. 

Standard Provisions 

• 	 To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of eligibility designated as FH\VA 

control number B-252 shall not be reproduced except in fulI. This letter and the test 

documentation upon which it is based are public information. All such letters and 

documentation may be reviewed upon request. 

• 	 This 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. 

• 	 If the subject device is a patented product it may be considered to be proprietary. If 

proprietary systems are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal-aid 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 fo r research or for a distinctive type of construction on relati vely short 

sections of road for experimental purposes. Our regulations concerning propri etary 

products are contained in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.4 11. 

Sincerely yours, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 1 of 3 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

ofHighway Safety Hardware 

... 

QI 

i 

~ 

:I 

.,,

Date of Request: March 29, 2016 I l-New (' Resubmission 

Name: Clayton Fredericks 

Company: Midwest Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd, Trading as KSI Global Australia 

Address: 61 Foskew Way, Namgulu WA 6532 

Country: Australia 

To: Michael S. Griffith, Director 

FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies 

I request the following devices be considered eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid 

highway program. 

rT+il 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Barriers (Roadside, 

Median, Bridge Ralllngs) 

Ci' Physical Crash Testing 

(' Engineering Analysis Safety Roller 

AASHTOMASH TL4 

By submitting this request for review and evaluation by the Federal Highway Administration, I certify 

that the product(s} was (were) tested In conformity with the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware and that the evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the MASH. 

Identification of the individual or organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Clayton Fredericks Same as Submitter ~ 

Company Name: Midwest Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd, Trading As l<SI Global Australia Same as Submitter ~ 

Address: 61 Foskew Way, Narngulu WA 6532 Same as Submitter ~ 

Country: Australia Same as Submitter ~ 

Enter below all disclosures of financial Interests as required by the FHWA 'Federal-Aid Reimbursement 

Eligibility Process for Safety Hardware Devices' document. 

See attached letter titled 102350 2SLT081 S100 (vl .O). 
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 2 of 3 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

r. New Hardware or r Modification to I 

• Significant Modification Existing Hardware 

Safety roller Is a roadside barrier that Is designed to prevent serious accidents and maximize driver safety by 

translating shock absorption and Impact energy generated at vehicle crashes Into rotational energy. 

CRASH TESTING 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description Evaluation Results 

4-10(11000 

2S.Odeg 97.Skph 

No debris or detached elements penetrated or showed 

potential to penetrate the occupant compartment. No 

fragments were distributed outside of the vehicle trajectory 

and therefore did not present any undue hazard to other 

traffic, pedestrians or work zone personnel. 

The vehicle remained upright during and after the impact and 

vehicle stability was considered satisfactory. Occupant risk 

factors satisfied the test criteria and the vehicle exit trajectory 

remained within acceptable limits. 

PASS 

4-11 (2270P) 

25.0 deg 98.4 kph 

No debris or detached elements penetrated or showed 

potential to penetrate the occupant compartment. No 

fragments were distributed outside of the vehicle trajectory 

and therefore did not present any undue hazard to other 

traffic, pedestrians or work zone personnel. 

The vehicle remained upright during and after the impact and 

vehicle stability was considered satisfactory. Occupant risk 

factors satisfied the test criteria and the vehicle trajectory 

remained within acceptable limits. 

PASS 

4-12 (36000V) 

1S.O deg 89.8 kph 

No debris or detached elements penetrated or showed 

potential to penetrate the occupant compartment. No 

fragments were distributed outside of the vehicle trajectory 

and therefore did not present any undue hazard to other 

traffic, pedestrians or work zone personnel. 

The vehicle remained upright during and after the Impact and 

vehicle stablllty was considered satisfactory. Occupant risk 

factors satisfied the test criteria and the vehicle exlttrajectory 

remained within acceptable limits. 

PASS 

4-20 (1100C) Test 20 is an optional test for a transition section. This test Is 

covered under a separate submission. Non-Critical, not conducted 

4-21 (2270P) Test 21 Is a test for a transition section. This test Is covered 

under a separate submission. Non-Critical, not conducted 

4-22 (lOOOOS) Test 22 ls a test for a transition section. This test is covered 

under a separate submission. Non-Critical, not conducted 
Version 9.1 (11/15) 

Page 3 of 3 

Full Scale Crash Testing was done In compliance with MASH by the following accredited crash test 

laboratory (cite the laboratory's accreditation status as noted In the crash test reports.): 

Laboratory Name: Holmes-~utions /\ 

Laboratory Signature: j) tJ ~ 

Address: Unit Five, 295 Blenheim Road, Christchurch 8042 Same as Submitter O 

Country: New Zealand Same as Submitter O 

Accreditation Certificate 150/IEC 17025:2005; IANZ Certificate Number: 1022 (23/07 /2009 thru Number and Dates of current 19/06/2016) Accreditation period : 

Submitter Signature•: 

Submit Form 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this fonn: 

1) Additional disclosures of related financial interest as indicated above. 

2) A copy ofthe full test report, video, and a Test Data Summary Sheet for each test conducted in 

support of this request. 

3) A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that confonn to the Task Force-13 Drawing Specifications 

[Hardware Guide Drawing Standard§]. For proprietuy products, a single isometric line drawing is 

usually acceptable to illustrate the product. with detailed specifications, intended use, and contact 

infonnation provided on the reverse. Additional drawings (not in TF-13 fonnat) showing details that 

are relevant to understanding the dimensions and perfonnance ofthe device should also be submitted 

to facilitate our review. 

EHWA Official Business Only: 

Ellglblllty Letter AASHTOTF13 

Number Date Designator Key Words 
holmessolutions

Federal Hig hways Administration 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C 

20590 

United St<1 tes of Americ;i 

21 August 2015 

Attention: Nick Artimovich 

Testing <1c tivilies completed fo r KSI Glob<1 l Austr<1 lii1 

I ;im writi ng to you regard ing the fin<1ncial interest disclosures requested by the r:cdcral Highw;iys 

Administration. 

Holmes Solutions completes testing activities for the KSI Global Australia. for the completion of lhis 

service we receive payment in the form of Professioni\I Fees. In no circumstances Mc the fees we 

received linked to the performance of the product nor the o utcome of the tests. In nccorda nce with the 

requirements of our ISO 17025 ;iccred itation, l can confirm tha t <1ll of our testing nc livities are 

completed free from undue commercial influe nce. 

Holmes Solutions d oes not have, nor ever had, any fi nancial interest in KSI Glob;il Australia or any of 

the products tha t they d evelop and sell. Holmes Solu tions does not receive a ny research funding (or 

other fo rms of research su pport) from KSI Global Australia. \\le have no pa tents, copyrights or other 

intellectual property rights on any of the KSI products. \Ve have no business ownership or investment 

interest in KSI Global Australia. No licencing agreements exist behveen Holmes Solutions and KSI 

Global Austmli<1. 

The corporate structure of Holmes Solutions is part of the wider Holmes Group of entities, the parent 

company being Holmes Group Limited. Holmes Group Limited currently h<1s, and has previously 

held, ownership in <1 series of ventures, all of which a rc opernted as separate legnl entities. Holmes 

Solutions h<1s no financi al interest in any of the other I lolmcs Group entities or <1 ny of the products 

that U1ey develop a nd sell. Holmes Solutions does not receive any research fund ing or other forms of 

research su pport from lhe other Holmes Group entities. \'\le have no patents, copyrights, or o ther 

intellectual property rights on any of the products sold or distributed by any of the Holmes Group 

en tities. 

I trust lhis le tter provides you wilh lhe info rmation you require, however please feel free to contact 

me directly s hould you need any additional info rm<1 lion or wish to seek clarific<1 tion on the 

informa tion conta ined above. 

Yours Sincerely, 

(!_)_ 

Dr 01ris Alling ton, B.E (Hons}, PhD (Civil) 

CEO 

Holmes Solutions LP 

UNIT FIVE. 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RICCARTON. PO BOX 6718. CHRISTCHURCH 8442. NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 36J 2180 F + 64 3 379 2169 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 
WWW.HOLMESSO L UTI O N S .COM 

0.15 sec 0.3 sec 0.45 sec 

['g)J 

KS! Global Australia PTY LTD Safety Roller • TCST ART ICLE Barrier System POOT IMPACT VCHICL.C BEHAVIOUR 

• TOTAL LCNOTH 60 m Vehicle Stability ................. . Good 

• K EV ELCMENTS - BARRICR 
 Vehicle Stopping Distance.. . 30 m 

Description........................ . 
 Roller Barrier with box rail and steel line posts VCMICLC S NAOOINO ................. 
 None 

1..cngth .............................. . 
 60.0 metre LON VCHICLI: POCKCTIND •••••·•••·•••••• None 

Rail HeighL ..... .................. . 
 970mm OCCUPANT IMPACT VELOCITY 

Post Spacing ..................... 
 667 mm nominal Longitudinal ......... ............ . 
 0.2 m/s nt 0.0867 sec 

• TcsT VEHICLE: Lateml {optional)............... . 
 8.9 m/s nt 0.0867 sec 

Designation............... , ....... . 
 llOOC OCCUPANT RtOltOOWN DECELERATION 

Make /Model..................... . . 
 2003 Kia Rio x·direction ....... ................. . 
 0.6 g (0.0976-0 1076 seconds) 

Dimensions (lwhj ...... ......... . 
 4225 x 1685 x 1420 mm y-dircction ................... ..... . 
 7.0 g (0.0868-0.0968 seconds) 

Curb Weight ..... ............ .... . 
 1060 kg Tl !IV (optional) ............... .... . 
 7.8 m/ s at 0.0836 seconds 

Test Inertial weight .......... .. . 
 1082 kg PllD (optional) .................... . 
 7.9 g (0.0836-0.0936 seconds 

Gross Static weight ........... . 
 1157 kg TCBT ARTICLE 0AMAG£ ....... .... 
 Low 

• IMPACT CONDITIONS TCST AATICLC Or:r&..ECTICNS 

Speed .. . ... ... ......... .. . ........... 
 97.5 kph Dynamic.......... .............. ... . 0. 135m 

Angle................................. 
 25° PcrmMCnl........................ . 0.060 m 

Impact Point.............. ....... . 
 1.0 m upstream of line post 22 Working Width .................. . 0. 135 m 

• EXI T CONOI TIONO V C HICL.l! 0AMAOC • EXTERI OR 

Exit Speed ...................... ... 
 est. 67.0 kph VOS ........................... ...... . 
 I l·LFQ-3 

Exit Angle............. ... ..... .. ... 
 14.2" CDC ................................. . 
 11F'LEE2 

Mox. Deformation ... ........... . 
 95 mm 

RttPCRT 1023S0.25·1·1A (Vl.3) Vl.3 

MASH Tl.4 COMPl.CANCE TESTING OF" THE SAF"ETY ROI.I.ER BARRIER OECEMBER 201 2 

SYSTEM 

PAGC 22 
WWW. HOLMESSOLU T I ONS. COM 

Resting 

Position 

---+ 

Exit Box 

POOT I MPACT V C H ICLE BEHAVIOUR 

Vehicle Stability.................. 
 

Vehicle Stopping Distance.. .. 
 

• VCHICLC 9NAOOINO ... .............. 
 

• VCHICLC POCKCTINO •••••·•·•••··· •• 

• CCCUP.ANT IMPACT VELOCITY 

Longitudinal .... .................. 
 

Lateral (optional) ............... . 
 

• OCCUF'tANT RIOEOOWN DECELERATION 

x-dircction ............ ............. 
 

y-d1rection ................ ........ . 
 

THIV (optional)................... . 
 

PllD (optional) ...... .............. . 
 

• T COT AR:TICL.C 0AMACC . .... . ... • . 

• TEST ARTICLC OE~LCCTIONS 

Dynamic............ ................ 
 

Pcnnanent......................... 
 

Working Width.... .. ....... .... .. 
 

VCHICLC 0AMAOE • EXTEJ<tlOR 

VOS ... ...................... ....... .. 
 

CDC ..... ... .................. ....... . 
 

Max. Dcfonnation ..... ........ . . 
 

26.5 m 

0.8 sec 

• T ICfl T ARTIOL..E. 

TOTAL LC NDTH 

• Kev ELCMENTn - BAARI C R 

Description ............ ............ . 
 

Length ............................... 
 

Rail Height.. ...................... . 
 

Post Spacing ..................... 
 

TC8T VCHICLC 

Designation.................. ..... . 
 

Make/Model. ... .... ............. .. 
 

Dimensions (lwh) ............... . 
 

Curb Weight ...... ...... ......... . 
 

Test Inertial weight ............. 
 

Gross Static weight ........... . 
 

IMPACT CONDITICND 

Speed ................................ 
 

Angle ................................. 
 

Impact Point ..................... . 
 

• EXIT CONOtTIONB 

~it Speed ....... .. ................ 

Exiti\nglc ........ ................ .. 

KS! Global Australia PTY LTD Safety Roller 

Barrier System 

60m Good 

26.5 met.res 

Roller Barrier with box rail and steel line posts None 

60.0 metre LON None 

970mm 

667 mm nominal 0. 1 m/s at 0 .1309 sec 

5.9 m/ s at 0.1309 sec 

2270P 

2005 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 1.1 g (0. 1606 - 0.1706 s) 

5720 x 2050 x 1930 mm 9.7 g (0.1477 - 0 . 1577 s) 

2260 kg 5.6 m/s at 0.1278 sec 

2282 kg 9.7 g (0 .1477- 0.1577 S) 

2282 kg Low 

98.4 kph 0.458 m 

25° 0.270 m 

0.7 m upstream ofline post 22 0 .293 m 

est. 48.3 kph 11-LFQ-3 

21° 1 IFLEE2 

145mm 

Rl!:PORT 1 02350.25- l •lA (v l .31 Vl.3 

MASH TL4 CO M PLIANCE TESTING OF" TH E SAF" ETY ROLLER BARRIER DECEMBER 20 l 2 

SYSTEM 

PAQC 32 
WWW. HDLMESSOLUTION S .C OM 

0.0 sec 

-

Post 22 

/ 

0.8 sec 

Resting 

in 

-

position 

line with barrier 

--

48 m from impact, 

·----+ · 
 

Exit Box 

KSI Global Australia PTY LTD Safety Roller • TCST ARTICL.E Barrier System • PO O T IMPACT V CHICL.C BEHAVIOUR 

• TOTAL. LENGTH 60 m Vehicle StabiHty.......... .. ..... . 
 Low 

• KE:Y ELEMENTS - BARRIER Vehicle Stopping Distance... . 
 48 metres 

Description................ ........ . 
 Roller Barrie r with box rail and steel line posts • V E: H ICLII SNAGG ING ......... ........ 
 None 

Length .............................. . 
 60.0 metre LON • VCHICLE POCKETIN ctl ... ............ , 
 None 

Rail Height......................... 
 970 mm OCCUPANT IMPACT VCLOCITY 

Post Spacing ..................... 
 667 mm nominal Longitudinal ............... ....... 
 0.5 m/s at 0.2483 sec 

• T EST VEHICLE. Lateral (optional)................ 
 2.8 m/s at 0.2483 sec 

Designation............... ........ . 
 10,000S • OCCUPANT R ID E OOWN D CCCL..ERATICN 
 

Make/Model. .............. ........ 
 2001 Mitsu bishi Fuso Fighter x-direction......... ........ ... ..... 
 0.6 g (l.4851-1.4951 seconds) 

Dimensions (lwh).... ...... ...... 
 7665 x 2040 x 3100 mm y-direction.......... ............... 
 4.3 g (0.3585-0.3685 seconds) 

Curb Weight ........... .......... . 
 5760 kg THIV (optional)................. ... 
 2.5 m/s at 0.2359 seconds 

Test Inertial weight ............. 
 9960 kg PHO (optional)............... ...... 
 4 .3 g (0.3585-0.3685 seconds) 

Gross Static weight .... ........ 
 9960 kg • T E:ST ARTICLC D AMAGE: .... ....... 
 Mild 

• I M P ACT CCNOITIONS • Tl!OT ARTICLE: 0 Cf"Llt CTIONO 

Speed................................ 
 89.8 kph Dynamic................... ......... 
 0.215 m 

Angle.......................... ....... 
 15° Permanent......................... 
 0.190 m 

Impact Point ................ .... .. 
 0.7 m upstream ofline post 22 Worl..-ing Width.. ................. 
 4.85m 

• E X I T C O NDITIONS • V l!HI C L. Er 0AMAGC • EXT E R I O R 

Exit Speed ..................... .... 
 est. 8.0 kph VOS ........................ .......... 
 11-LFQ-5 

Exit Angle .. ....... ... ...... ........ 
 0.0° CDC ... ... ............... ............ . 
 11FLEE2 

l\la.x. Deformation ............... 
 280mm 

R CPORT 102350.2 5·1 - l A (Vl.3) Vl . :J 

MAS H T L.4 C OMPLI ANCE T E STING OF" TH E SAF"ETY R O L L ER BARRIER DECEMBER 20 1 2 

SYST EM 

PAGC 42 
Safety Roller (GS-G506-TL4} 

~ 370 ..,. /r'!:f' 

II. ~ I 5 .. ) I=! i­ ,_,J ~ I 

--·­ 0 

;;; 

- 0 

9 ... ~ = • 1 -,a ~ ... 

~ 

...._ - Q Right View 

0165 

I I 

0 ['EV·:• P.P Plpo 

N E!I 

~ 

~ 370 

....

...

... 

.., 

;;; 

Q Shock Absorbing Roi ler Oetal I View 

~ J • 

. 

J 

' 

([) Stopper Board(9T) 

- llU 

Safety Roller (GS-GS06-TL4) 

888.7 I 

= = 

• • - -­

- - ' 

·­ -

• • 

"---® 

* . . .a • : .d .... .. !' 

.. • .d . 

. .. ... " 

Q Front View ' I/ 

6 

Loll Ylow 

115 245 245 115 

0 0 ~ Front YIOll 

@Sleeve Detai I View 

Front v1 .. 

@Sleeve Oetal I View 

GSI Ltd. 

w-.lcs0488.com 

= ~ = \ 

• I • ~ I • • I J 

- - -· \ 

-· ·-.. -· - . • • • I • • ) 

~ ' 

... .. .. .•. .. . 4 ... .... .,·.. .:. ..... ~· .d•

•. •, . 4 . . 

100 ~ 

Q Sleeve Connect Detai I View ([) Rai I Cover Call 

Material List 

( 1 SPAN : 211) 

NO mooucr ST,IJll/ffJ lfjlf Cl.llNTITY H1 .::! 

(!J l'ml(SS«lO) Cll 139.B X 221D. X 4.5T E'A 2 ltillll!lll*. 

© l'ml(SS«lO) Cll 139.8 xl!lll. x4.5T E'A 2 ltillll!lrdl. 

(!) ,...., ...., lsso:Dl <111211 um.1u1 E'A 2 1t1111w w.. 

0 -~bll'GRollot <11310 I 210 E'A II E.Y.A 

P.P PIP> Clltli& X210 xBl E'A II P.P 

lllllloctlw Band SOX 125!l E'A II lll'!lcllltSllll 

(!) Saloty lbl I (SS«IO) 123X100X5,9!l!51Cl.OT II 8 ltillll!lll*. 

® Sl""'8 lbll (SS«lO) 10BIC751C90Cll5.0T E'A 0.117 ltilllWll*. 

© SI..,.. lbl I (SS«lO) IOllX15IClllOl3.0T E'A D.117 ltil °"WI. 

@ SI...,.. Bovd <112!0 I Ill E'A 12 P.E 

® IHIOl I/DJ I/IHb!.htr C111ll 12m. E'A II ltil °"WI. 

® IHIOl 1/DJl/IHl!.llOr <1118 xco. E'A 2.117 ltilllWll*. 

® l'ml Coo <11139.BH E'A 3 ... "'WI. @ Rall COwo1 c... Bil x45 E'A 13 P.E 

® Ploo (SS«lO) ~3411'51..14.af E'A 3 ltillll!IW.. 
Components 

Shock-Absorbing Rail 

Guard Rail 

Round Rail (for end rail) 

Shock-Absorbing 

Barrel (Recyclable) 

PVC Pipe 

(for sninnino) 

Reflective Band 
holmessolutions 

KSI Global Australia PTY LTD 

304 Place Rel 

Geraldton, WA, 6531, Australia 

23rd January 2016 

Attention: John Wheatland 

Testing activities completed for KSI Global Australia 

Dear john 

Thank you for sending us your request for additional information on the lest vehicles from the recent 

impact tests we completed on your Safety Roller Barrier system. We understand that this request was 

initiated by Mr N Artimovich at the Office ofSafety Technology, Federal Highways Administration. 

In particular, additional information is sought relating to the age of the vehicles that were utilised by 

completing a comparative assessment between the vehicles used and more modern variants. 

Additionally, we understand that Mr Artimovich has requested commentary from Holmes Solutions 

on the propensity of the Safety Roller system to induce roll, pitch, and yaw into the test vehicles and 

the sensitivity of the vehicle stability and trajectory as it relates to the vehicle age. 

We can confirm that U1e 11OOC vehicle used in this project did not comply with Lhe recommended age 

lin1itation of 6 model years from the date of testing. However this vehicle model remained 

structurally unchanged from 2002 until 2005, wiU1 this later date being within the 6 year model year 

age recommendations. The 2270P does comply with the 6 model year age requirement on the date the 

project was initiated. 

As a general note, wherever practical we try and source vehicles that are no more than 6 model years 

old, however if older vehicles are to be used we will undertake a detailed assessment of the vehicles to 

ensure its compliance. This is a requirement of our internal quality assurance procedUies and is 

mandated in our ISO 17025 accreditation policy. ln accordance with this policy, a review was 

completed on the vehicles used in the Safety Roller Barrier assessment and I can confirm that all 

vehicles were found suitable for use. 

111e internal review process adopted by Holmes Solutions LP includes a full analysis of the vehicle 

specifications to ensure that it remains compliant wiU1 the key criteria in MASH. Furthermore, we 

also complete an inspection of the structural integrity of the various vehicles models to investigate if 

any changes would influence the performance of U1e system during an impact. Key aspects of the 

review process includes: 

a) 	 The key vehicle specifications remain in accordance within the parameters outlined in the 

Table 4.1 MASH. 

b) 	 The vehicle model remains in accordance with MASH Appendix Hand is recommended on 

Table H-2. 

UNIT FIVE, 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RICCARTON. PO BOX 6718. CHRISTCHURCH 8442, NEW ZEALAND 
 

T + 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3 379 2169 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 
holmessolutions 

c) 	 The vehicles physical parameters falls within the guidelines outlined in Section MASH 4.2 

Test Vehicle Description. 

d) 	 The vehicles physical and dimensional parameters do not significantly differ from an identical 

model from the same manufacturer which is no more 6 model years old on the day the test. 

Where any difference does exists a more detailed review will be undertaken to ensure this 

would have a negligible influence on ll1e outcome of any testing. 

e) 	 Variations in the structural integrity of the vehicle that would be likely to influence l11e 

outcome of the test to be completed. Specific attention is paid to the type of test being 

completed particularly wilh regards to length of need testing verse terminal ends or crash 

cushions. 

It is our testing laboratories preference to utilise a consistent vehicle fleet for l11e majority of our 

testing. Before settling on this fleet we completed an extensive review of the reconm1cnded vehicle 

models in MASH conforming to Section 4.2.1 and Appendix H. Consultation was also held with our 

other accredited testing facilities al the Task Force 13 meetings regarding their preferred vehicles. 

From this review we setlled on the use of the following vehicles as our preferred vehicle stock; 

1100C - Kia Rio sedan (2002-2005) 

2270P - Dodge Ram 1500 Quadcab (2003-2010) 

10000S- Mitsubishi Fuso fighter (1991-2008) 

The vehicles used in the testing completed on the Safety Roller Barrier system complied with these 

requirements. A more detailed description of each vehicle used is provided below. 

Test 4-10- llOOC - Model selected KIA RIO 2003 (3 years over maximum age limit): 

Our preferred 1100C vehicle is the Generation 1 Kia Rio. This model is recommended in MASH Table 

H-2 and has been widely adopted as the vehicle of choice by the accredited testing laboratories. The 

Kia Rio was maintained as a constant model from 2001-2005 after which it was updated to a 

Generation 2 model. The Safety Roller Barrier project was initiated in June 2011 and thereby the later 

years of this model vehicle do comply with the specific requirement in MASH, namely 

" fl is rl!cognized tlml some resenrclr projects cmrexperie11ce exle11sive delmJS. To eliminnle the pole11linl for lltese 

delnys lo require rep/nce111e11I oflest ve/iicles p11rc11nsed i11 n11ticipnlio11 of lesli11g, it is ncceptnble lo utilize lest 

vehicles tlrnl nre wil11i11 6 model years ofthe dnle when the origi11nl resenrc/1 project was initialed." 

Towards the end of 2005 U1e Kia Rio was updated to the Generation 2 model, however this model lies 

outside MASH Specifications in a critical dimension; il is 4.3" (110 mm) shorter than allowable. Given 

the criticality of the vehicle length the updated model was not considered a suitable s ubstitute for the 

previous Generation 1 model. 

UNIT FIVE. 295 BLENHEIM ROAD, UPPER RICCARTON. PO BOX 6716. CHRISTCHURCH 8442, NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3 379 2169 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 

2 
holmessolutions 

When the Kia Rio model was updated, a critical assessment was completed between the older 

Generation 1 model (2003) and other readily available makes and models recommended in MASH 

Table H-2. It was determined that the pre 2005 model Kia Rio achieved the most consistent fit against 

key physical dimensions and the centre of mass requirements of MASH. A series of comparisons with 

other models is provided below in Table 1. All figures which are outside of the MASH limita tions are 

shown in Red. We noted lhat the actual vehide used in the testing for the Roller Barrier System is 

shown in U1e table as the 2003 production model Qtighlighted). 

Table 1 Comparison ofsuitable nooc vehicles. 

Critical 

Measurements 

Kia Rio 

(Lift back) 

model u.wd 

l(ja Rio 

(Hatch) 

Honda 

Gvic 

(Sedan) 

N issan 

Tiida 

(Hatch) 

Toyota 

Corolla 

(sedan) 

Production yea r 2003 2005 2005-2007 2009 2009 

Weight (kg) 1060 1079 1240 1120.5 1237 

A(mm) 1685 1755 1755 1685 1760 

B (mm) 830 - - 850 -

C (mm) 2420 2500 2700 2600 2600 

D (mm) 1420 1470 1440 1510 1165 

E(mm) 975 - - 770 -

F (mm) 4225 3990 11540 4220 4538 

G(mm) 970 - - 966 -

H(mm) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

J(mm) 700 - - 700 -

K (mm) 560 - - 560 -

L(mm) 80 - - 60 -

M(mm) 230 155 150 200 150 

N (mm) 1470 1470 1500 1475 1529 

0 (mm) 1450 1460 1525 1475 1534 

P(mm) 580 570 615 615 615 

Q(mm) 390 390 420 420 420 

An assessment was also completed on the structural integrity of the Generation 1 model (2003) and 

the Generation 2 model (2005). The resul ts indicated that minimum structural changes were made 

UNIT FIVE. 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RICCARTON, PO BOX 6718. CHRISTCHURCH 8442. NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3 379 2169 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 

3 
holmessolutions 

and U1at the two models were generally equivalenL BoUl models used similar suspension set up and 

had near identical handling characteristics. Overall, Ule review or Ule determined Ule models to be 

compatible when assessing Ule performance against occupant risk, vehicle trajectory, and structural 

integrity or boUl Ule vehicle, particularly when used in a redirective length of need test. 

A final comparison or the Kia Rio model used and Ule MASH requirements for the 1100C are provided 

in Table 2. It is evident Ulat Ule Kio Rio vehicle used in testing programme complied with aU 

measurement requirements of MASH. 

Table 2 Comparison of MASH Requirements and actual 1100C vehicle parameters 

PROPERTY MASll 1100C 

REQUIREMENT 

KIA RlO USED COMl'UM'T 

(Y/N) 

MASS 

Tesl Inertia (kg) 

Dummy (kg) 

Max. Ballast (kg) 

Gross Static (kg) 

1100±25 

75 

80 

1175±25 

1082 

75 

0 

1152 

YES 

YES 

YE.5 

YE.5 

DIMENSIONS 

Wheelbase (mm) 

Front Overhang (mm) 

Overall Length (mm) 

Overall Width (mm) 

Hood Height(mm) 

Track Widlh (mm) 

2500!125 

900±100 

4300±200 

1650±75 

600::.:100 

1425±50 

2420 

830 

4225 

1685 

700 

1460 

YES 

YE.5 

YES 

YES 

YE.5 

YES 

LOCATION Of ENGINE Front Front YES 

LOCATION OF DIUVE AXLE Front Front YES 

TYPE OF TRANSMISSION Manual/Auto Manual YES 

Based on U1e information obtained from our critical vehicle assessment, it was deemed Ulat Ulc Kia 

Rio Generation 1 model (2002-2005) was a suitable vehicle for use inTest 10. This model of vehicle fits 

within Ule recommended 6 age limitation given Ule project initiation date ofJune 2005, albeit Ulat Ule 

actuaJ age of Ule vehicle used in Ule Roller Barrier System tests does nol. Across all measures 

employed in our review, Ule 2003 Kia Rio model complied with aU MASH requirements. 

UNIT FIVE, 295 BLENHEIM ROAD, UPPER RICCARTON. PO BOX 6718. CHRISTCHURCH 8442, NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3 379 2169 WWW.HOtMESSOLUllONS.COM 
 

4 
holmessolutions 

Test 4-11- 2270P - Model selected Dodge Ram Quad cab 2005 (1 year over maximum age limit): 

Our preferred 2270P vehicle is the Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab. This model is recommended in MASH 

Table H-2 and has been widely adopted as the vehicle of choice by the majority of accredited testing 

laboratories. We note that the vehicle used in the Safety RoUer Barrier system assessment was a 2005 

model and therefore complied with the recommended age limitation when the testing project was 

initiated in June 2011, as allowed in MASH: 

"//is recog11ized lltnl some research projecls cn11 experience exle11sive delays. To e/iminale ll1e polential for lliese 

delays to require replacc111e11t of test vellic/es purchased i11 a11ticipatio11 oftesting, it is acceptable to utilize tcsl 

vellicles I/tat are witlli11 6 model years of tlte dale when Ille origi11al researcll project was initialed" 

The Dodge Ram 1500 Quad cab has undergone a number of face lifts since inception. We have 

completed a regular assessment of lhe models when updated occur, spanning the previous 10 years. 

These assessments include a comparison of the critical vehicle dirnensi.ons, weights, and centre of 

weights. In add ition a review of the structural integrity of the vehicles is completed for each model 

upgrade. The de ta ils of the dimensional and weight comparative analysis can be seen in Table 2. We 

noted that the ach.1aJ vehicle used in the Testing for Lhe Roller Barrier System is shown in the table as 

the 2005 production model (highlighted). 

As shown in Table 2, there is no significant difference in physical vehicle parameters for the various 

models. 111e mass, centre of mass, and general dimensions for the models surveyed are all within the 

allowable tolerance of MASH. Similarly, no significant differences was found in the structural 

integrity of the vehicles that would affect the performance of the system in a length of need test. 

When considering the minor differences in model specifications over the model various years 

investigated, it was determined that the change in model year would have negligible effect on 

performa nce of a length of need test. As such, it was considered acceptable to use a 2005 model 

Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab in the evaluation of the Safety Roller Barrier system. We believe the use 

of this vehicle would have negligible effect on the vehicles roll, pitch, or yaw in the completed tests. 

Table 4 presents a direct comparison behveen the Recommended Properties of the 2270P vehicle in 

MASH (detailed in Table 4-1 of MASH) and the actual properties of the vehicle used in the testing. As 

noted, the Dodge Ram 1500 Quadcab model used complies wiU1 all recommendations of MASH with 

the exception of vehicle width which has 25 mm of excess body width on each side. 

UNIT FIVE, 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RtCCARTON. PO BOX 6718. CHRISTCHURCH 8442. NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3379 2169 WWW.HOLM ESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 

5 
holmessolutions 

Critical 

Production year 

Measurements 

2002 2005 

{model used) 2006 2011 

Weight 2301 kg 2260kg 2215 kg 2210.5 kg 

A(mm) 20.JO 7.050 2070 2mo 

B(mm) 990 960 1030 950 

C (mm) 3570 3565 3570 3580 

D (mm) 1855 1930 1910 11 80 

E(mm) 1205 1190 1180 1190 

F(mm) 5765 5720 5780 5720 

. G(mm) 1571 1560 1510 1495 

H(mm) 748 730 739 735 

] (mm) Jl()() 1075 1090 11 20 

K(mm) 625 670 690 660 

L(mm) 110 70 70 110 

M (mm) 220 350 380 280 

N(mm) 1735 1730 1740 1715 

O(mm) 1720 1720 1720 1715 

P(mm) 790 780 820 780 

Q(mm) 465 470 475 '175 

A detailed inspection was also completed on the handling characteristics and suspension setup of the 

various models. It was noted that the suspension configuration was altered from the 2002 model to 

the 2005 model, however all subsequent models used an identical set up as the 2005 system. Key 

dimensions of lhe critical elements used in the set up are noted in Table 3 below. Photographs of the 

suspension set ups for the 2002 model and 2005 model (vehicle used in testing) are also shown in 

Figure 1. 

UNIT FIVE, 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RICCARTON. PO BOX 6718, CHRISTCHURCH 8442. NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3363 2180 F+ 64 3 379 2169 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 

6 
holmessolutions 

Table4 Comparison of MASH Requirements and actual 2270P vehicle parameters 

PROPERTY MASll 2270l' 

REQUlREMENT 

DODGE RAM 

USED 

COMPLIANT 

(Y/N) 

MASS 

Test Inertia (kg) 

Dummy (kg) 

Max. Ballast (kg) 

Cross Static (kg) 

2270±50 

Optional 

200 

2270.t50 

2282 

-

-

2282 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

DIMENSIONS 

Wheelbase (mm) 

Front Overhang (mm) 

Overall Length (mm) 

Over-all \VidUl (mm) 

Hood Height (mm) 

Track WidUl (mm) 

3760±300 

1000±75 

6020±325 

1950150 

1100±75 

1700±38 

3565 

960 

5720 

2050 

1075 

1725 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

LOCATION O F ENGINE Front Front YES 

LOCATION OF DRIVE AXLE Rear Rear YES 

TYPE OF TilANSMISSION Manual/Auto Auto YES 

Based on U1e investigations completed on the vehicle handling characteristics and suspension set up il 

was confirmed that the minor change to lhe components would have negligible effect on performance 

of the vehicle during a redirective length of need test. As such, it was considered acceptable to use a 

2005 model Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab in the evaluation of the Safety Roller Barrier system. This 

model not only conformed to the 6 model year age limitation imposed by MASH bul was also 

determined to be representative of later model year vehicles. Overall it was determined that ilie use of 

this vehicle would have negligible effect on the vehicles roll, pitch, or yaw in the completed tests. 

UNIT FIVE, 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RICCARTON, PO BOX 6718. CHRISTCHURCH 8442. NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3379 2169 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 

7 
holmessolutions 

Tables Suspension measurements for Dodge Ram models 

Critical 

Production yea r 

Measurements 2002 2005 

(moclt-1 used) 2006 2011 

Springs 

O utside diameter (mm) 140 140 140 140 

Coil diameter (mm) 19.5 19 19 19 

Overall spring length (mm) 370 350 350 350 

Set-up 

Roll Bar outside diame te r (mm) 34 33 33 33 

Uppe r /\ om1 Pivot-Pivot (mm) 240 240 240 240 

Upper/\ a rm Pivot-Pivot (mm) 440 440 440 440 

a) 2002 model suspension set up b) 2005 model suspension set up 

Figure 1 22.70P suspension set up 

UNIT FIVE, 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RICCARTON. PO BOX 67 t8. CHRISTCHURCH 8442. NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3 379 2t69 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 

8 
holmessolutions 

Test 4-12 -100005 - Model Selected Mitsubishi Fuso fighter 2001 

As stated in MASH "Althouglz it is cost-prohibitive lo apply the 6-year li111il lo heavy lnick lest uelzicles, it is 

desirable to utilize vehicles ofrecent vi11lage. Hemn; tnick lest vehicles s/1011ld be represe11tntive ofwidely used 

designs" 

As noted in MASH, the 6 year model requirement does not apply to U1e heavy tmck test, and the lTUck 

that was used was of a recent vintage. It is noted tllC\t the model of trnck used was a cab-over engine 

model However, as per previous advice obtained from tl1e FHWA Department ofSafety, the use of 

Ulis model was considered an acceptable substitute. All other dimensions and vehicle physical 

parameters are within the MASJ-I specificalions. 

I trust this letter provides you wiU1 the information you require, however please feel free lo contact 

me directly should you need any additional information or wish to seek clarification on the 

information contained above. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Dr Otris Allington, B.E (Hons), PhD (Civil) 

CEO 

Holmes Solutions LP 

UNIT FIVE. 295 BLENHEIM ROAD. UPPER RICCARTON. PO BOX 6716, CHRISTCHURCH 8442. NEW ZEALAND 
 

T+ 64 3 363 2180 F+ 64 3 379 2169 WWW .HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 
 

9