I S. - '(C..:.~ l' I t ! 

of Tronspo-t' 1t1or 

Federal Highway 


Administration 


1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

November 1, 2017 In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1 /B-252A 

Mr. John Wheatland 

Midwest Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd 

KSI Global Australia Pty Ltd 

61 Foskew Way 

Namgulu WA 6532 

Australia 

Dear Mr. Wheatland: 

This letter is in response to your September 25, 2017 request for the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHW A) to review a roadside safety device, hardware, or system for eligibility 

for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. This FHWA letter of eligibillty is 

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

FHWA that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

The following device is eligible within the length-of-need, with details provided in the form 

which is attached as an integral part of this letter: 

• Safety Roller Barrier TL3 Transition to W-Beam 

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 of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials'(AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). 

However, the FHWA, 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, certification or endorsement of the 

device for any particular purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by the FHW A, 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. 

This finding of eligibility is limited to the crashworthiness of the system and does not cover other 

structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 
2 

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 AASHTO's MASH. Therefore, the device is eligible for 

reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program if installed under the range of tested 

conditions. 

Name of system: Safety Roller Barrier TL3 Transition to W-Beam 


Type of system: Longitudinal Barrier 


Test Level: MASH Test Level 3 (TL3) 


Testing conducted by: Holmes Solutions 


Date of request: September 26, 2017 


Date initially acknowledged: September 27, 2017 


FHWA concurs with the recommendation of the accredited crash testing laboratory on the 

attached form. 

Full Description of the Eligible Device 

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

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

form. 

Notice 

This eligibility letter is issued for the subject device as tested. Modifications made to the device 

are not covered by this letter and will need to be tested in accordance with all recommended tests 

in AASHTO's MASH as part of a new and separate submittal. 

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 

and evaluation criteria of AASHTO's MASH. 

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

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

correct. We reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter if: (1) there are any inaccuracies in 

the information submitted in support of your 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 information about the crash worthiness of the system. 
3 

Standard Provisions 

• 	 To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of eligibility designated as FHW A 

control number B-252A 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 upon request. 

• 	 This letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHW A to use, 

manufacture, or sell any patented system for which the applicant is not the patent holder. 

• 	 Ifthe 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 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 Titie 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 63 5 .411. 

Sincerely, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

of Highway Safety Hardware 

Date of Request: March 14, 2017 I 

Name : Ben Poulter 

.... 

QI Company: Holmes Solutions LP ...


... 
 ·e Address: 7 Canterbury St, Hornby, Christchurch, 8042 

..c 

::I Country: Vl New Zealand 

Michael S. Griffith, Director To: FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies 

r. New (' Resubmission 

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

highway program. 

Device & Testing Criterion - Enter from right to left starting with Test Level I,' -' -' I 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Rigid/Semi-Rigid Barriers 

(Roadside, Median, Bridge 

(e' Physical Crash Testing 

(' Engineering Analysis 

Safety Roller Barrier TL3 

Transition to W-Beam 

AASHTO MASH TL3 

Railinas\ 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1 of 5 

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. 

Individual or Organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: John Wheatland Same as Submitter 0 

Company Name Midwest Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd trading as KSI Global Australia : Same as Submitter 0 n.1. .. I .1...J 

Address: 61 Foskew Way, Narngulu WA 6532 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: Australia Same as Submitter 0 

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 25LT0815 100 (vl .0). 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 2 of 5 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

\e New Hardware or (' Modification to 

• Significant Modification Existing Hardware 

Safety Roller Barrier TL3 Transition to W-Beam 

CRASH TESTING 

By signature below, the Engineer affiliated with the testing laboratory, agrees in support of this submission that 

all of the critical and relevant crash tests for this device listed above were conducted to meet the MASH test 

criteria. The Engineer has determined that no other crash tests are necessary to determine the device meets 

the MASH criteria. 

Engineer Name: Emerson Ryder 

Digitally signed by Emerson Ryder Engineer Signature: Emerson Ryder Date: 2017.09.2612:54:26+13'00' 

Address: 7 Canterbury St, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Same as Submitter D 

Country: New Zealand Same as Submitter D 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 

Required Test Narrative Evaluation 

Number Description Results 

3-1 0 ( 1 1 OOC) Already Approved for Eligibility B-252 Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

3-1 1 (2270P) Already Approved for Eligibility B-252 Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 3 of 5 

Required Test Narrative Evaluation 

Number Description Results 

Test 20 for a transition section is an optional 

test to evaluate the occupant risk and postimpact trajectory criteria for all test levels. It 

should be conducted if there is reasonable 

uncertainty regarding the impact 

performance of the system for impacts with 

small passenger vehicles. The primary 

concerns with respect to the small vehicle 

testing is the increased occupant hazard 

associated with high ride down 

accelerations, vehicle underride and/or 

vehicle snagging. 

With respect to vehicle underride and/or 

vehicle snagging, it was determined that 

the likely worst case location for this to 

occur, is the location of the first stiffness 

change, namely the interface of the Wbeam and the Transition section. 

This is also the largest distance between the 

road surface and lower rail height. The 

interface at this location is the same as the 

previously evaluated and FHWA approved 

transition, and as such, when determining 

whether to run test 3-20, this transition was 

reviewed. Specifically: STGOl W-Beam To 

Thrie-Beam Transition 

Furthermore; standard transitions with 

Asymmetrical transition sections with three 

posts across the transition section, were 

3-20 (1100() considered the same or worse with respect Non-Critical, not conducted 

to vehicle underride and potential 

snagging, when compared to a symmetric 

transition STGOl and as such were also 

reviewed. Specifically: STG02 MGS W-Beam 

to Thrie-Beam Transition - (MASH TESTED, 

FHWA refB187 and STG03 a-b MGS W-Beam 

to Thrie-Beam Transition with Standard 

Posts (MASH TESTED, FHWA refB-231 

(REVISED)) 

The result of these reviews determined that 

the impact performance, with respect to 

potential for vehicle underride and/or 

vehicle snagging, had been adequately 

determined and so it was considered 

unnecessary to run Test 3-20. 

With respect to the occupant ride downs, 

the Safety Roller Ba rrier LON was 

considered to be the stiffer of the two 

systems, (namely the ''Transition" and the 

"Safety Roller Barrier LON.") As such, the 

testing undertaking on the Safety Roller 

LON with the small vehicle, namely test 4-10 

was considered worst case with respect for 

occupant ride downs and so it was 

considered unnecessary to undertake 

further evaluation with the small vehicle to 

evaluate the potential for occupant ride 

downs. 
Digitally signed by Ben Poulter 

Submitter Signature*: Date: 201 7.09.26 12:58:34 

+13'00' 

Submit Form 

The Transition zone between a W-beam 

guardrail system or W-Beam terminal end 

and the KSI Global Australia Pty Ltd Safety 

Roller Longitudinal barrier system when 

installed in AASHTO Standard Soil 

successfully contained and redirected a 

2270P test vehicle impacting the test article 

at 25.0 degrees with a velocity of 102.3km/ 

hr. 

No debris or detached elements penetrated 

or showed potential to penetrate the 3-21 (2270P) PASS 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. 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 4 of 5 

Full Scale Crash Testirig 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 Solutions 

Laboratory Signature: Emerson Ryder Digitally signed by Emerson Ryder 

Date: 2017.09.2612:54:47+13'00' 

Address: 7 Canterbury St, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Same as Submitter D 

Country: New Zealand Same as Submitter D 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Dates of current 

Accreditation period : 

ISO/ IEC 17025:2005; IANZ Certificate Number: 1022 (23/07 /2009 thru Present) 

ATTACHMENTS 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 5 of 5 

Attach to this form: 

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

2) A copy of the 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 conform to the Task Force-13 Drawing Specifications 

[Hardware Guide Drawing Standards]. For proprietary products, a single isometric line drawing is 

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

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

are relevant to understanding the dimensions and performance of the device should also be submitted 

to facilitate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter 

Number Date Key Words 
 LUTI ON S.COM

Moderate 

34. l metres 

minor 

None 

0.3 m/s at 0.1129 sec 

6 .9 m/s at 0 .1129 sec 

T I 

r ,' M1

r . m: - L 

~-·::: ~;,', ~ ~ ... II 

OCCUPANT RIDEDOWN DECELERATION 

x-direction ............... ... 


y-direction .. 


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


PHO (optional) .... .. ... ... .... .... 


• TEST ARTICLE DAMAGE ..... . 

• TEST ARTICLE DEF'LECTIONS 

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


Permanent........ . 


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


• VEHICLE DAMAGE • E X TERIOR 

VOS ... . 


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


Max. Deformation 


0 .6 g (0.1369 - 0.1469 s) 

7.8 g (0.1811 - 0 .1911 s) 

5.8 m / s at 0 .1079 sec 

7.8g(0.1811-0.1911 s) 

moderate 

0.609 m 

0.260 m 

0.609 m 

11-LFQ-4 

11FLEE3 

145mm 

REPO'RT l 
- - - -

0.000 sec 0.072 sec 0.184 sec 0.246 sec 

iiesl~ .......... ··- •. _ .. .Mwlt.~ 

]"e;JNmobe:r..•...•..•.. ·-- - ·- .. !>m;n.P-'.! 

• 	 Dim --·· ......• ·-·-· ·--···--- 7.'7 OS 

}!.~jest De51gl13licm. - -· ' - - - .. ·- -.. . . ·- --·· ..··-- --- . -· . ·- 3-:l 

Ten •.!lmtle.... ·--··- ...... __ ··--·· •.. Tramttioob.Nta!>lG5:cid 

Tun<! BumTJ:!ll3Jrio:i 

TatiL~-tb ---···-··------·-·- _ .. ........•.. &1ft 6t!l.(~6 7zaj 

~toTopafEW!. ..........•....•. ---·· ····---· ..• .....•. 31 m. (7g7mm,"l 

Key C~- Stffi W-&!m C:lmrdr:u: 

"J:!llc!m!SL••..•-. ·-·-··- - ······-···-·· ·-·· .. __ \2 μa;l!(!.6\Sa:m) 

Keye~ -5~ W-Bmc. Tl> Thne 3amTr.mi:tion 

:-i!dclmtsL•• --·---·· ...•• •.... ··---······ ·-·-·- 10 ~'! (3 42 a:m) 

~~-·-··-·-··· ·---· ...... -·-··- ... _ 75:n.(l.905a:m) KeyC~-5t~lbneBem. 

!blclmesL--------··· ---·------................•...• !! e (!615c::m) 

KeyCcmp.illEllS - 5te!J Pail!. 

Post N0<. .> - 15 .... -·-·-. 72 m. (l ,1!:9 mm)~ W~ (W15'.!xlH) 

Po!.t~ . 16 - Ul ••...•.... E-t :n.(2 134mm,"ll~ W6'.'tl.5 (Wl5~3) 

Post:!\ 19-21 •. ·-- ~· • :in. (:r:'.! mm,) I~ \\0<!L"'O (\\15~ ) 

Po>1 5pa~ 

PostN0<. l-fU9-'.!L --- -·-· .. .. 75:n.(l.905c::m) 

Jlo>rl\cs. &-l'.!. l6-J9 .. _...... ---·· ..... --··- .... 31 ' ,m.(953a:m) 

Jlo>TN0<. U-16 ..•.... ·------- - .......... . _ .... 1&¥.m. (476mm'.) 

• 	 l)~afSoo:. .. •..•....••.. ·-···--· ... C:ir.1~3 AA5JITO!v!l41-65 

\"el::icle 

::l.!Ue aDd ).!~ ... .. 2C-)2n:xlgeP.:m1500QuadCab 

Curb ---··---··-..... . ·- ....... •.... 5.l~Slb(.?,33lkg) 

Tslmiml _·-.. ·- ..•.... ·-········· ___ .4.993 lb l-~65 V.> 

Gl!oss5tm:ic --·--··-·-·· - --· ' 5.lst [b ~.340 Ilg) 

hllp:lo Coodu:m:s 

~]>'ed .. ·---·-- ··--·-··-·------- ...• ---- -· .... 6lla:;ih (9S.5 kmb) 

-~ -- -·-----·--·--····--··- --· .......... -··-·-. -··- --· :!63 ~ b:up:io Lcc.mcr.i ...• . .. _ .... •. _ 75 tl1 (1$05 mm) U5 ofPo;.; No 9 

Ex:! CCJxbl:iom 

SPffd --····-·-·--·- -------···-··-··-·-···-··----··· ;;3 a:;ill. (60.-0 kmbl 

-· --···-····-····-··--·-- ·--····· ·--·· -··-···· -·-. -- - . '.!:!.Od!:; 

Vebltle Str.li:y..... .. _ . .. --··- ..• ···-· •.. • .• .. .. .. •. . S:nis!act."lty 

.EsaBcotCcten21._.__ •....•.... ·-···----- · _ .. ........•. _ ... ··- . P:l;sed 

Vehicle D.ama~ ·--- ...•.. - ·-·-··· - ... ---· .• .... - ...• ···-········- • · ·- ·- _)>(ode!rJiu 

"l.lllS""'····-·-- ·-------·-···--···- . - . .... ................ l-RFQ-5 

CDC'''" -····· ----·-· ··-····-·--- •.... ·-··. ···-····--- - ..•...Ol-RFEW2 

~-~· [10.0 =~·-· ,·, 


J:~ J" -6·-~· [S.1 m) 

:i J 	 • • • 1,.a 10 u n1• m :n ----il ...l , 

~ Veil:de 5tqi;!:D~ DisWJCe :!63 fi (S O ~ m,) D5 o-~In::;: ' 

43 o:: •:::; .3 a:) l.1-:u..illy B~:l 1M 5ys:e.:u 

est Amrle~~---·--·· ).lode:;1~ 

Test . .\ritt..i. Defltcnali 

l'enrmti!lltSE!I :!5' . :!l. (654 = · Dymn:ic 3~ g :I:. ~S3 3 =n: 

Wad.'.:n; Wt±h . 51.6 l:l 0 .310 = ' 

).1xI:imum.°'11:-u!M Dup'3cmEi:> 

Rllll. 13e ; 5o 

Pr..cll .. 10' o· 

::· c Y:iw 

• lmpGrt Se\'ml)" . '.. . - . i:6 s;;:;:>-=: ( 171.9 l:J) ll'ti b '.'-ft (l44 10";

• 	 Tra::isduca Dalli 

T=dute ~!A.s ::ramoonCmfi"..a :=DR-: illP.-l DT5 :.:.::::1 -~ 1.21 4{• OI\' ~ :A ~f.!... (-6.46) fl :::.::: ' ft:s -16.91 4{1 fms) L.aw:iJ -.\ ~(A

r-~ 15) n:::.:-.

~"'Ud:ml -~ ~ o: :A ~A :o..;!' OR.\ - 1{s L:ne:ral -9.87 ..\ ~;A :::o49 -

:let: 1HIV - fts (m\) 

,

~:

.

A 

. ~A 

~ 

......""\ I ~ A I ::o: PHD-g's 

. A I ~ A I d ASI 91 

?.: 

7­

'J. 

7­

'· 

t 

- ! ' 

! ' 

Figure 64. Summ.."Uy ofTest Results and Sequential Photographs. Test No. M\1/TSP-2 
Level 2, 254 Montreal Street 

Christchurch Centrol 8013 

PO Box 6718 

Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8442 

holmessolutions.com 

CORRESPONDENCE 

To: John Weatland Project No.: 102350.25 

Companir KS! Global Australia Pty Ltd Pages: 2 

From: Emerson Ryder 

Date: 26/09/2017 

Subject: RE: Clarification of KSI Safety Roller Transition Test Matrix 

Dear John 

Thank you for sending us your request for additional information from the transition testing we completed 

on the Safety Roller TL3 Transition system. We understand that this request was initiated by Will Longstreet 

at the Office of Safety Technology, Federal Highways Administration. In particular, additional information 

is sought relating to Safety Roller TL3 transition and the associated test matrix used to evaluate this safety 

feature. 

The following information relates to the testing Holmes Solutions undertook for KS! Globalon the Safety 

Roller TL3 transition in December 2012. Details of this testing can be found in Holmes Test Report 

102350.25-2-1A (v1.2) 

The final test matrix for this system was developed in accordance with MASH 09. Specifically the tests 

utilised to evaluate transitions to Test level 3, can be found in TABLE 2-2A - Recommended Test Matrices for 

Longitudinal Barriers. These are. 

Test 3-21 : 2270P Pickup truck impacting the barrier at 25 degrees@ 70 km/hr 

Test 3-20 (Optional): 1100C Small Passenger vehicle impacting the barrier at 25 degrees@ 70 

km/hr 

Test 20 for a transition section is an optional test to evaluate the occupant risk and post-impact trajectory 

criteria for all test levels. It should be conducted if there is reasonable uncertainty regarding the impact 

performance of the system for impacts with small passenger vehicles. The primary concerns with respect to 

the small vehicle testing is the increased occupant hazard associated with high ride down accelerations, 

vehicle underride and/or vehicle snagging. 

Furthermore, MASH (2.2.1.1 General) states that "when two adjacent barriers have drastically different 

stiffness, the transition design often incorporates two significant stiffness changes, one from the more 

flexible barrier to the transition section and the other from the transition section to the more rigid barrier, 

both of which con produce vehicle rollover, pocketing, or rail rupture (109). In this situation, the user should 

conduct transition testing at both locations" 

When considering the transition section between the Safety Roller Barrier and the W -beam, the two 

locations with significant stiffness changes are as follows: 

Location 1: From the Standard W-Beam guardrail (flexible barrier) to the Transition section and; 

Location 2: From the Nested Thrie-Beam section to the Safety Roller Barrier (rigid barrier). 

With respect to vehicle underride and/or vehicle snagging, it was determined that the likely worst case 

location for this to occur is the location of the first stiffness change, namely the interface of the W-beam 

and the Transition section (Location 1) . This is also the largest distance between the road surface and 

lower rail height. The interface at this location is the same as the previously evaluated and FHWA approved 

102350.25LT25917 Page 1of2 
transition, and as such when determining whether to run test 3-20, this transition was reviewed. 

Specifically: 

STG01 W-Beam to Thrie-Beam 

Furthermore; standard transitions with Asymmetrical transition sections with three posts across the 

transition section, were considered the same or worse with respect to vehicle underride and potential 

snagging, when compared to a symmetric transition STG01 and as such were a lso reviewed. Specifically: 

STG02 MGS W-Beam to Thrie-Beam Transition - (MASH TESTED, FHWA ref 8187 _ 


STG03 a-b MGS W-Beam to Thrie-Beam Transition with Standard Posts (MASH TESTED, FHWA ref 


B-231 (REVISED)) 


The result of these reviews determined that the impact performance, with respect to potential for vehicle 

underride and/or vehicle snagging, had been adequately determined and so it was considered 

unnecessary to run Test 3-20. 

With respect to the occupant ride downs, the Safety Roller Barrier LON was considered to be the stiffer of 

the two systems, (namely the "Transition" and the "Safety Roller Barrier LON.") As such, the testing 

undertaking on the Safety Roller LON with the small vehicle, namely test 4-10 was considered worst case 

with respect for occupant ride downs and so it was considered unnecessary to undertake further 

evaluation with the small vehicle to evaluate the potential for occupant ride downs. 

When evaluating the second stiffness change (Location 2) , namely the interface between the Nested Thriebeam and the Safety Roller Barrier (Location 2), it is noted that this transition section has been specially 

designed to accommodate the Safety Roller Barrier. As such, the performance at this location was 

unknown. In this regard, MASH guideline, with respect to the evaluation of transitions, were utilised. 

Specifically Test 3-21 was selected as this represented the highest energy and most likely to produce 

vehicle rollover, pocketing, or rail rupture. 

All test results for the Transition were evaluated in accordance with MASH and where found to successfully 

meet with the evaluation criteria set out in the Standard. 

I trust this letter provides you with the information you require, however please feel free to contact me 

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

contained above. 

Regards, 

Emerson Rtj d er 

SENIOR ENGINEER 

102350.25L T25917 Page 2 of 2 
WWW.H OLMESSO LUTIONS.COM 

NOTES: 

1. ALL HOLES AAE 20 0. 

M360x25.6 OR W360x32 .9 

STRUCTURAL SHAPE 

TOP 

60 

~ t--1 

30 . I 30 .i , .j 

1 •• . I I . 

I , . I 

, I I 

0\ 

~ 

<D 

'°N 

OPTIONAL 

HOLES 

w 

, 

I 

e 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

I 

I 

.. 

'° '° 

POST FACE SIDE TRAFFIC FACE 

1994 

THRIE BEAM BLOCKOUT 

PWB03 

SHEET NO. REF'. NO. 

1 of 2 

Figure 0-3 : Modified Thrie-beam blockout 

REPORT 102350. 25·2·1A(Vl.1 • Vl.1

RELEASED).OOC 

MASH TL3 COMPLIANCE TEST DECEMBER 20 1 2 ING OF 

TRANSITION FROM W-BEAM INTO THE PAGE 1 1 SAFETY ROLLER BARRIER LONGITUDINAL 

BARRIER SYSTEM 
 
W WW.H OLMESSOLUTI ONS . COM 

lfl 

0 

!!) 

1994 

----­ ""' ·-·­ ....J 

0 

CD 

w 

S:? - ....J a_ a_ 

Vl >­

t: 0 ..... -'-­ )( 0 

....J -

Vl 

°' 

~ 8 ·- ­8 

x-­

~ 

.H 

0 

0 

0 

lO ;n 0 •I 

lfl~ 

0 

0 

I 

I 

t 

I 

' 

:O 

't0 

..... 

....J 

0 

al 

..... Vl a_ ­ 0 >­ a_ ..... 

lfl 

q_j ,__ 

lO ..... )( 0 0 ....J N Vl 

( -· 

N 

I') 

.0 

' 

c::< 

lfl 

Vl ..... (.!) 

Vl z 

~ a_ ~ 

Vl 

:I: 

<! t; ..... z Ow 

..... ....J 

<! Vl ..... Vl WW 

:::i; z w~ 

~~ CD ta:: 

0 

..... 

<( 

z 

(.!) 

Vi 

w 

0 

-

lfl 

N 

N 

N 

..... 

~ 

N 

0 

, 

0

..... 

a:: 

- N N 

lfl 0 0 N 

N ~ N ... ..;­

N ..... I') 

... ~ ..;­

,.,-; N ,.,-; 

.t:> 0 .t:> 

0 N N 0 0 , :::i; , ..... ..... ..... cr er er 

GUARDRAIL 

RTM 01a-02b 

SHEET NO. REF. NO. 

1 o f 4 RE-63-76 

Figure 0-5: Thrie-beam 

Vl. 1 REPORT 102350.ZS-Z·lA (V l.l ­

RELE A SEOLDOC 

D ECE MBER 2 01 2 MASH TL3 COMPLIANCE TESTING OF 

TRANSITION FROM W-BEAM INTO THE P AGE 13 SAFETY ROLLER BARRIER LONGITUDINAL 

BARRIER SYSTEM 
WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM 

N 

lfl 

·-· a o o o o o 

---­ o I• • o 

I< 

BEAM TRANSITION SECTION 

RWT01a-b 

SHEET NO. 

1 of 2 

REF . NO. 

RE · 69 · 76 

-./. Vl .... Vl WW 

::i; z i.J:..:: 

CD,_ ~ 

ct: 

0 

.... 

<{ 

z 

~ 

Vi 

i.J 

a 

1994 

r--­

IC! 

N 

0 

0 

.... 

~ 

ct: 

I') 

'<T 

,,; 

.Cl 

0 

;t" 

.... 

er 

.... 

-' 0 

CD 

(.)w_ a. :::; >­ 0.. 1­ Vl ~ 

0 Vl I') .... 

)( 0 '<T _, 

N Vl 

Figure 0-6: W-Thrie-beam transition section 

REPORT 102350. 25-2- lA (Vl.1 • Vl.1

RELEASEO).ODC 

MASH TL3 COMPLIANCE TESTING OF' DECEMBER 20 l 2

TRANSITION F'ROM W-BEAM INTO THE 

SAF'ETY ROLLER BARRIER LONGITUDINAL PAG E 14 

BARRIER SYSTEM 
WWW.HOLM ESSO LUTIO NS.COM 

760 

~~r--~- -- ------~,- ----~ 

c 24x45 SPLICE SOLT 

SLOT CTYP> 

OPTIONAL 20x65 POST---; 20 0 HOLES 

BOL T SLOT CTYP l 

<D 

'!1 

<D ~ ..i0 ;!! \() .. 

<D 

'!1 

0 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

~ 

0 

'· THE CROSS -SECTIO AL 5 'CTYP.> 

DIMENSIONS FOR THIS PART IN FLAT I 

ARE TO FIT OVER OR UNDER ~75;;-.j.,.__; a__.,._;:10:..::a:..-i._...:2::..c1:.:: 6 __..._..:.:10::..:1_.._,:.::o.::.2_..,, ·s'-"o'-lPART RTM01o CSHT 3 of 4). 

BASE METAL DESIGNATOR THICKNESS 

RTE01b 3.43 

1994 

CONNEC TOR 

RTE01b 

SHEET NO. REF . NO. 

1 of 2 RE-67 - 76 

Figure 0-7: Thrie-beam connector plate 

R E PORT 102350.25·2-lA (Vl.l • Vl.l

RELEASE O) . OOC 

MASH TL3 COMPLIANCE TESTING OF DECEMB ER 20 l 2 

TRANSITION FROM W·BEAM INTO THE 

SAFETY ROLLER BARRIER LONGITUDINAL PAGE 15 

BARRIER SYSTEM 
WWW.HOLMESSO LUTIONS.COM 

Safety Roller (Transition- TL3) 

I I 


I Thrie-Beam '/ Termmal Connector-lEA / 

Be~m lhil-EA 

I 

Rotter-Bum 

Terminal (onnedor - 1EA 

~ 

I - ~ ... I l op VieN 

I~ "" ,,j1 I 0 ? l I ·j 

<I hoot View 

___,___~_J 

Rotler-6eam 

Terminal Connector-1EA 

Thrie-Beam 

Terminal Cormec tor- 1EA 

Ci) Ro i!er fransi 1Ion Aai 1 

PRQ.£Cl TITU: owe nru: GSI Ltd. CONSUL! J_ CH£1>. _ ~~~·- DR WN _i_ !>AT£ SC<\U OAA~.NC .. ---+- ~fl i fiRfaty Ao!le1 (Ttansilion-TL3) www.ks048€. .com 

Figure 0-8: Test Article Technical Details 

REPORT l 02350.25·2·1 A (Vl . 1 - RELEASEDLDOC Vl.1

MASH TL3 COMPLIANCE TESTING OF TRANSITION FROM W·BEAM J~ 

~ ··~····· ..,

o0 

A DECEMBER 20 1 2 

INTO THE SAFETY ROLLER BARRIER LONGITUDINAL BARRIER .;:-:,,._~l -.,,,Q,v l•ffrat'"'Y 

--

SYSTEM PAGE 16 
 Level 2. 254 Montreal Street

Christchurch Central 8013 

PO Box 6718 

Upper Riccarton. Christchurch 8442 

holmessolutions.com 

CORRESPONDENCE 

To: John Wheatland Project No.: 102350.25 

Company: KSI Global Australia Pty Ltd Pages: 6 

From: Emerson Ryder 

Date: 16/10/2017 

Subject: RE: Test Vehicle utilised in KSI Safety Roller Transition 3-21 Test 

Dear John 

Thank you for sending us your request for additional information from the transition testing we completed 

on the Safety Roller Barrier TL3 Transition system. We understand that this request was initiated by Will 

Lon·gstreet at the Office of Safety Technology, Federal Highways Administration. In particular, additional 

information is sought relating to age of the vehicles utilised in the Safety Roller TL3 transition testing. 

The following information relates to the testing Holmes Solutions undertook for KSI Global on the Safety 

Roller TL3 transition in December 2012. Details of this testing can be found in Holmes Test Report 

102350.25-2-1A ( v1.2) 

By way of background, this project was initiated in 2012 (Proposa l 102350FE.25.100 (v1.0) dated July 2012) 

and all testing for the project was conducted in accordance with MASH 2009 standard. Accordingly, the 

following information is provided on the basis that it was the industry-accepted interpretation of the 

Standard at the time of this project's initiation and a recognised practice employed in accredited 

laboratories around the world. Due to revision of the Standard since this time, the USA's recent adoption of 

MASH, and the subsequent clarifications by the FHWA on the guidelines within the Standard, this may no 

longer be reflective of the current interpretation of the Standard or current practice at the time of writing 

this correspondence. The recent legal matters affecting the industry have caused significant tensions and 

are ultimately resulting in a less consolatory working environment, particular with the FHWA in the USA. 

The information provided in this letter includes a comparative assessment between the vehicles used and 

their more modern variants. The vehicle requirements in MASH 2009 states; 

"It is recognized that some research projects can experience extensive delays. To eliminate the potential for 

these delays to require replacement of test vehicles purchased in anticipation of testing, it is acceptable to 

utilize test vehicles that are within 6 mode/ years of the date when the original research project was 

initiated." 

To clarify, the accepted definition of a model year at the time of the project is the last year of production 

for a vehicle model before it undergoes a significant change to the structural characteristics. Accordingly, 

the model year and the actual calendar year of a production vehicle rarely coincide. Simply put, a vehicle 

that is considerably older than 6 calendar years can still be less than 6 model years old. 

At the time of any project's initiation, we ensure that all vehicles to be used in the project are industry 

acceptable standards and comply with the requirements of MASH and the accepted variations. If the 

vehicles fall outside of the recommended age range, we ensure that they comply with the more stringent 

dimensional and weight limitations. It is common practice for testing laboratories to use vehicles outside of 

this age range and the FHWA have continued to support this practice, whereby it is shown that the use of 

an older vehicle will not influence the results of the testing that is completed. The primary reason for using 

older vehicles is to reduce the cost of the testing for clients and thereby encourage the completion of full 

testing matrices. The practice of using older vehicles had become sufficiently common that the FHWA had 

Au~trolio Netherland~ New Zealand USA 102350.25LT131017 Page 1 of 6 
stopped asking for any supporting information; however, we understand that due to recent changes in the 

FHWA process that they are revising their stance in this area. 

For every project undertaken at Holmes Solutions, we undertake a detailed assessment of the vehicles we 

use to ensure its compliance. This is a requirement of our internal quality assurance procedures and is 

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

on the vehicles used in the testing of the Safety Roller Barrier TL3 Transition and we were satisfied that all 

vehicles were suitable for use. 

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

specifications to ensure that it remains compliant with 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 the 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. 

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 than 6 model years old on the day of project 

initiation. Where any difference does exists a more detailed review is undertaken to ensure this 

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

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

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

It is our testing laboratories preference to utilise a consistent vehicle fleet for the majority of our testing , as 

is the common practice across all testing laboratories. Before settling on this f leet we completed an 

extensive review of the recommended vehicle models in MASH conforming to Section 4.2.1 and Appendix H. 

Consu ltation was also held with other accredited testing facilities at the Task Force 13 meetings regarding 

their preferred vehicles. From this review we settled on the use of the following vehicles as our preferred 

vehicle stock at the time of the Safety Roller TL3 Transition testing; 

2270P - Dodge Ram 1500 Quadcab (2002-2005/2006) 

The vehicles used in the testing completed on the Safety Roller Barrier TL3 Transition System complied with 

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

Test 3-21 - 2270P - Model selected Dodge Ram Quad cab 2005: 

Our preferred 2270P vehicle is the Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab. This model is recommended in MASH 09 

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

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

have completed a regular assessment of the models when updates occur, spanning the previous 10 years. 

These assessments include a comparison of the critical vehicle dimensions, weights, and centre of mass. In 

addition, a review of the structural integrity of the vehicles is completed for each model upgrade. As noted 

in the previous section, the requirement for vehicle age in MASH is related to the model year of the vehicle. 

102350.25LT131017 Page 2 of 6 
We have completed a detailed review of the dimensional and weight requirements from various Dodge Ram 

1500 Quad cabs models, as shown in Table 3. The actual veh icle used in the testing for the Safety Roller 

Barrier TL3 Transition System is shown in the table as the 2005 production model [highlighted in blue). As 

shown in Table 3, there is no significant difference in physical vehicle parameters between the difference 

model years. The mass, centre of mass location, and general dimensions for the models surveyed are all 

within the allowable tolerance of MASH (with exception to the vehicle width and track width - A and M). 

Similarl!:J, no significant differences were found in the structural integrity of the vehicles that would affect 

the performance of the S!:JStem in a transition test. 

Table 3 Comparison of suitable 2270P vehicles. 

MASH 
 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab Production year 

Critical 
 Requirements 


Measurements 
 2005 2002 2006 2011 

(model used) 

Weight 2270 ± 50 2248.5 kg 2260 kg 2215 kg 2210.5 kg 

A(mm) 1950 ±50 2025 2050 2070 2030 

B (mm) n/a 1890 1930 1910 1180 

C (mm) 6020 ±325 5725 5720 5780 5720 

D(mm) n/a 1195 1180 1180 1190 

E (mm) 3760 ±300 3550 3570 3570 3580 

F (mm) 1000 ± 75 980 970 1030 950 

G(mm) 710 min 720 760 739 735 

.H (mm) 1575 ±100 1455 1430 1510 1495 

l(mm) n/a 380 290 380 280 

J (mm) n/a 690 680 690 660 

M(mm) 1700 ±38 1700 1740 1740 1715 

N (mm) 1700 ±38 1720 1740 1720 1715 

O(mm) 1100 ± 75 1100 1110 1090 1120 

P(mm) n/a 50 80 70 110 

O(mm) n/a 815 840 820 780 

R(mm) n/a 470 545 475 475 

Table 4 presents a direct comparison between 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 Ouadcab model used complies with all recommendations of MASH with the exception of 

"vehicle width" that has 25 mm of excess body width on each side and the "track vyidth " that has 1 mm of 

excess width on each side. The extra vehicle width is a known variance and is accepted by industry. 

Furthermore the small variation in track width for the test vehicle utilised, was considered so small it was 

not likel!:J to effect on the outcome of any testing. As such this variance was also considered acceptable for 

this project. 

102350.25LT131017 Page 3 of 6 
Table 4 Comparison of MASH Requireme11ts and actual 2270P vehicle pararneter·s 

DODGE RAM 

PROPERTY MASH 2270P USED in SAF ETY COMPLIANT 

REQUIREMENT ROLLER (Y/N) 

TRANSITION 

MASS 

Test Inertia (kg) 2270±50 2260 YES 

Dummy (kg) Optional . YES 

Max. Ballast (kg) 200 33 YES 

Gross Static (kg) 2270±50 2260 YES 

DIMENSIONS 

Wheelbase (mm) 3760±300 3570 YES 

Front Overhang (mm) 1000±75 970 YES 

Overall Length (mm) 6020±325 5720 YES 

Overall Width (mm) 1950±50 2050 NO 

Hood Height (mm) 1100±75 1110 YES 

Track Width (mm) 1700±38 1740 NO 

LOCATION OF ENGINE Front Front YES 

LOCATION OF DRIVE AXLE Rear Rear YES 

TYPE OF TRANSMISSION Manual/Auto Auto YES 

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

various models. It was noted that the suspension configuration had minor alterations in the 2006 model, 

however all subsequent models used an identical set up until 2009. Key dimensions of the critical elements 

used in the set up are noted in Table 5 below. Photographs of the suspension set ups for the 2005 model 

(vehicle used in testing) and 2006 model are also shown in Figure 1. 

102350.25LT131017 Page 4 of 6 
Table 5 Suspension measur·ements f 01 D d o ge Ram rnoc I l e s 

Critical 

Production !:Jear 

Measurements 2002 2005 

rmodel used] 2006 2011 

Springs 

Outside 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 diameter (mm) 34 33 33 33 

Upper A arm Pivot-Pivot (mm) 240 240 240 240 

Upper A arm Pivot-Pivot (mm) 440 440 440 440 

27 7JP suspe115i.on set 11p 

Based on t he investigations completed on the vehicle dimensions, handling characterist ics, and suspension 

set up it was confirmed that the minor c hanges to the components wou ld have negligible effect on 

performance of the vehicle during a transitions testing undertaken. As such, it was considered acceptable 

to use a 2005 model Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab in the evaluation of the Safety Rol ler Barrier Tl3 

Transition. 

102350.25LT131017 Page 5 of 6 
I trust this letter provides you with the information you require, however please feel free to contact me 

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

contained above. 

Regards, 

Emerson Ryder (approved signatory) 

SENIOR ENGINEER 

102350.25LT131017 Page 6 of 6 
Laboratory Accreditation Programmes 

Schedule to 

CERTIFICATE OF ACCREDITATION 

Authorised: 

General Manager , ~ ~ - Issue 15 Date: 25/09/17 Page 1 of 3 

Laboratory Holmes Solutions LP 

Vehicle Crash Testing Facility 

PO Box 6718, Upper Riccarton , Christchurch , 8442 

Level 2, 254 Montreal Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch, 8013 

Address 

Telephone 03 363-2180 

Fax 03 379-2169

URL www.holmessolutions.com 

Authorised Representative Ms Irina Sestakova 

Quality Manager 

Client No. 	 7559 

Programme Mechanical Testing Laboratory 

Accreditation Number 1022 

Initial Accreditation Date 23 July 2009 

Conformance Standard 	 NZS ISO/IEC 17025:2005 

General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration 

laboratories 

Testing Services 

Summary 4.30 Safety Equipment 

4.31 Motor Vehicle Safety Tests 

4.76 Metals and Metal Products 

Signatories 

Dr Chris Allington 4.30, 4.31 , 4.76 

Mr Aaron Carson 

Mr Chris Diehl 

Mr Emerson Ryder 

4.30, 4.76 

4.76 

4.31 

International Accreditation New Zealand - Private Bag 28908 - Remuera - Auckland 


Telephone 09-525 6655 - Facsimile 09-525 2266 


www.ianz.govt.nz 

....._~;,. 

ilac Laboratory Accreditation Programmes IANZ 

Schedule to 

CERTIFICATE OF ACCREDITATION 

Holmes Solutions LP 

Mechanical Testing Laboratory 

SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION 

Accreditation No 1022 

4.30 Safety Equipment 

(f) Other safety products 

ANSl/ASSE Z359.4:2007 Safety requirements for Assisted Rescue and Self Rescue systems, 

subsystems and components (part of the fall protection code) 

4.3.5 

BS EN 341 :1993 

BS EN 364: 1993 

CSA Z259.2.3: 1999 

Descent devices qualification testing 

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height ­

Descender devices 

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height ­

Test methods 

Descent control devices 

The following tests in accordance with AS 1891 .1 :2007- Industrial Fall-Arrest systems and 

Devices 

Part 1 Harnesses and ancillary equipment 

Appendix B 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

Appendix E 

Appendix F 

Appendix G 

Appendix H 

Static breaking strength of load-bearing webbing 

Static loading test attachment points of harness 

Dynamic loading test attachment points of harnesses 

Dynamic loading test harness and pole-strap 

Static strength test harness with a pole-strap 

Static loading tests for Lanyard 

Dynamic test for Lanyards 

The following tests in accordance with AS 1891.3:1997- Industrial Fall-Arrest systems and 

Devices 

Part 3 Fall-arrest devices 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

Appendix E 

Endurance Test 

Locking performance after conditioning of anchorage lines in oil 

Dynamic Performance Test 

Strength Test 

Lanyard Dynamic Test 

4.31 Motor Vehicle Safety Tests 

(s) Other tests 

ASTM F2656-07 Standard Test Method for Vehicle Crash Testing of Perimeter Barriers 

PAS:68 (2010) - Impact Test Specifications for Vehicle Security Barriers 

Authorised: 

General Manager Issue 15 Date: 25/09/17 Page 2 of 3 

International Accreditation New Zealand - Private Bag 28908 - Remuera - Auckland 


Telephone 09-525 6655 - Facsimile 09-525 2266 


www.ianz.govt.nz 

Laboratory Accreditation Programmes 

Schedule to 

CERTIFICATE OF ACCREDITATION 

Holnies Solutions LP 

Mechanical Testing Laboratory 

SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION 

Accreditation No 1022 

(t) Highway Safety Products 

NCHRP Report 350 

Recommended procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of 

Highway Features (excluding Appendix G) 

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH 09) 

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH 16) 

Recommended procedure for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features 

(excluding Appendix H) 

BS EN 1317-1 :2010 

BS EN 1317-2:2010 

BS EN 1317-3:2010 

BS EN 1317-4:2010 

BS EN 1317-7:2010 

Road Restraint Systems - Terminology and general criteria for test 

methods 

Road Restraint Systems - Performance classes, impact test 

acceptance and test methods for safety barriers including vehicle 

parapets 

Road Restraint Systems - Performance classes , impact test 

acceptance criteria and test methods for crash cushions 

Road Restraint Systems - Performance classes impact test 

acceptance criteria and test methods for transitions and removable 

barrier sections 

Road Restraint Systems - Performance classes impact test 

acceptance criteria and test methods for terminals of safety barriers 

4.76 Metals and Metal Products 

Testing methods as defined by the following standards and , with AS/NZS 4671 , as modified b~ 

Verification Method B1NM1 Clause 14. 

(a) Tension tests in accordance with the following methods in the load range 5 kN to 

600 kN 

AS 1391 :2007 

ASTM A370:2012 

ASTM E8/E8M-11 

ISO 6892-1 :2009 

ISO 15630-1 :2010 Clause 5 

ISO 15630-2:2010 Clause 5 

ISO 15630-3:2010 Clause 5 

(h) Other tests in accordance with the following standards 

ISO 15630-2:2010 Clause 7 (Weld shear test) 

AS/NZS 4671 Appendix C3.3 Mass per unit length of reinforcing steels 

Authorised : 

General Manager Issue 15 Date: 25/09/17 Page 3 of 3 

International Accreditation New Zealand - Private Bag 289.08 - Remuera - Auckland 


Telephone 09-525 6655 - Facsimile 09-525 2266 


www.ianz. govt.nz 

Federal Highways Administration 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C 

20590 

United States of America 

holmessolutions

21August2015 

Attention: Nick Artimovich 

Testing activities completed for KSI Global Australia 

I am writing to you regarding the financial interest disclosures requested by the Federal Highways 

Administration. 

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

service we receive payment in the form of Professional Fees. In no circumstances are the fees we 

received linked to the performance of the product nor the outcome of the tests. In accordance with the 

requirements of our ISO 17025 accreditation, I can confirm that all of our testing activities are 

completed free from undue commercial influence. 

Holmes Solutions does not have, nor ever had, any financial interest in KSI Global Australia or any of 

the products that they develop and sell. Holmes Solutions does not receive any research funding (or 

other forms of research support) from KSI Global Australia. We have no patents, copyrights or other 

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

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

Global Australia. 

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 has, and has previously 

held, ownership in a series of ventures, all of which are operated as separate legal entities. Holmes 

Solutions has no financial interest in any of the other Holmes Group entities or any of the products 

that they develop and sell. Holmes Solutions does not receive any research funding or other forms of 

research support from the other Holmes Group entities. We have no patents, copyrights, or other 

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

entities. 

I trust tl1is letter provides you with the information you require, however please feel free to contact 

me directly should yo u need any additional information or wish to seek clarification on tl1e 

information contained above. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Dr Chris Allington, 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 3 363 2180 F + 64 3 379 2169 WWW.HOLMESSOLUTIONS.COM