U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington , D.C. 20590 

AUG - 9 2019 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1/B-322 

Mr. Adrian Bullock 

Highway Care Ltd. 

The Highlands, Detling, Maidstone, Kent, 

ME14 3HT 

United Kingdom 

Dear Mr. Bullock: 

This letter is in response to your March 27, 2019 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 FHW A letter of eligibility is assigned FHW A 

control number B-322 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: 

• HighwayGuard LDS 

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 FHWA, 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: HighwayGuard LOS 

Type of system: Longitudinal Barrier 

Test Level: MASH Test Level 3 (TL3) 

Testing conducted by: HORIBA-MIRA Ltd 

Date of request: March 27, 2019 

FHW A 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. Any modifications to this device should be submitted to the user 

(i.e., state DOT) as per their requirements. 

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-322 shall not be reproduced except in full. This letter and the test 

documenfation 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. 

• This FHWA eligibility letter is not an expression of any Agency view, position, or 

determination of validity, scope, or ownership of any intellectual property rights to a 

specific device or design. Further, this letter does not impute any distribution or licensing 

rights to the requester. This FHW A eligibility letter determination is made based solely 

on the crash-testing information submitted by the requester. The FHW A reserves the 

right to review and revoke an earlier eligibility determination after receipt of subsequent 

information related to crash testing. 

• 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 for research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short 

sections of road for experimental purposes. Our regulations concerning proprietary 

products are contained in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411. 

Sincerely, 

. Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
Ve rsion 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1 of 5 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

of Highway Safety Hardware 

Date of Request: March 27, 2019 I (i' New (' Resubmission 

Name: Adrian Bullock 

... 

....

.... 

QJ

·e 

.0 

:I 

Ill 

Company: 

Address: 

Country: 

Highway Care Ltd 

The Highlands, Detling, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 3HT 

UK 

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. 

Device & Testing Criterion - Enter from right to left starting with Test Level Fl 

System Type Submission Type Device Name / Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

'B': Rigid/Semi-Rigid Barriers 

(Roadside, Median, Bridge 

Railinasl 

(i' Physical Crash Testing 

(' Engineering Analysis HighwayGuard LDS 

AASHTO MASH TL3 

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: Adrian Bullock Same as Submitter (8J 

Company Name: Highway Care Ltd Same as Submitter (8J 

Address: The Highlands, Detling, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 3HT Same as Submitter (8J 

Country: UK Same as Submitter (8J 

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

Eligibility Process for Safety Hardware Devices' document. 

HORIBA-MIRA Ltd was the accredited independent test laboratory used for the physical crash testing of this 

product for this eligibility application. HORIBA-MIRA Ltd has no financial interests in HighwayGuard LDS and has 

no ownership of the product IP. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 2 of 5 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

(e New Hardware or 

Significant Modification 

(' Modification to 

Existing Hardware 

HighwayGuard LDS is a steel barrier formed from two profiled, thin gauge sheets of steel being welded 

together along the join at the top, and to feet at the base, to form a long hollow section, the overall dimensions 

of the barrier section is 540mm wide at the base, 250mm wide at the top and 800mm high and 6000mm long. 

Each longitudinal section can be joined together using a unique T-connector which engages with vertical pins 

at the end of each section. These barrier sections are joined together and laid out along the road surface to 

create a longitudinal barrier system (wall). 

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: Dave Johnstone 

Engineer Signature:  Digitally signed by Dave Johnstone

Date: 2019.03.27 12:00:21 Z 

Address : Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU Same as Submitter D 

Country: UK Same as Submitter D 

A brief description ot each crash test and its result: 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 3 of 5 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation 

Results 

3-10 (1100() 

This test was conducted by HORI BA MIRA 

Ltd on January 23, 2019 under H-M Ltd Test 

number W0207 

The HighwayGuard LDS satisfied the 

MASH-16 structural adequacy criteria for its 

intended function as a longitudinal barrier. 

The test article redirected the 11 00C vehicle 

in a controlled manner. The vehicle did not 

penetrate, underride, or override the 

installation. The test article exhibited 

controlled permanent and dynamic 

deflection in the test. 

All of the occupant risk criteria were 

satisfied in testing the HighwayGuard LDS. 

Theoretical occupant impact velocities in 

the longitudinal and lateral directions were 

well below the preferred limit of 30.0ft/ s 

(9.1 mi s) . Ridedown accelerations in the 

longitudinal and lateral directions were well 

below the preferred limit of 15.0g. There 

was no test article debris detached during 

the test. 

There was no deformation to the occupant 

compartment of the 11 OOC test vehicle. 

There were no intrusions into the occupant 

compartment. The test vehicle remained 

upright during and after the collision with 

minor roll, pitch and yaw. 

The HighwayGuard LDS was judged as 

satisfying the applicable MASH-16 vehicle 

trajectory criteria. 

The barrier was judged to have successfully 

met all of the evaluation criteria for 

MASH-16 Test 3- 10. 

PASS 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 4 of 5 

Required Test 

Number 

Narrative 

Description 

Evaluation 

Results 

3-1 1 (2270P) 

This test was conducted by HORI BA MIRA 

Ltd on January 24, 2019 under HM Ltd Test 

number W0208. The HighwayGuard LDS 

satisfied the MA-SH-16 structural adequacy 

criteria for its intended function as a 

longitudinal barrier. The test article 

redirected the 2270P vehicle in a controlled 

manner. The vehicle did not penetrate, 

underride, or override the installation. The 

test article exhibited controlled permanent 

and dynamic deflection in the test. 

All of the occupant risk criteria were 

satisfied in testing the HighwayGuard LDS. 

Theoretical occupant impact velocities in 

the longitudinal and lateral directions were 

well below the preferred limit of 30.0 ft/s 

(9.6 mi s) . Ridedown accelerations in the 

longitudinal and lateral directions were well 

below the preferred limit of 15.0g. There 

was no test article debris detached during 

the test. 

There was no deformation to the occupant 

compartment of the 2270P test vehicle. 

There were no intrusions into the occupant 

compartment. The test vehicle remained 

upright during and after the collision with 

minor roll, pitch and yaw. 

The HighwayGuard LDS was judged as 

satisfying the applicable MASH-16 vehicle 

trajectory criteria. 

The barrier was judged to have successfully 

met all of the evaluation criteria for 

MASH-16 Test 3-11 

PASS 

. 

3-20 (11 00C) Test not relevant to this submission Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

3-21 (2270P) Test not relevant to this submission Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

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: HORIBA-MIRA Ltd 

Laboratory Signature: I ' f-l l-_/1. ,;r--. Digitally signed by Dave Johnstone 

Date: 2019.03.27 12:00:00 Z 

Address: Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CVlO 0TU Same as Submitter D 

Country: UK Same as Submitter D 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Dates of current 

Accreditation period : 

UKAS accreditation to ISOl 7025 Ref: 1105 Latest Issue Date 26/ 10/2018 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 5 of 5 

Adrian Bullock 

2019.03.27 12:42:33 Z Submitter Signature*: 

Submit Form 

ATTACHMENTS 

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 faci litate our review. 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter 

Number Date Key Words 
HORIBA MIRA- 1218725-004-03 W0207 Highway Care HighwayGuard 3-10 

-· . . • • :..~--, lll t • i- • • . TestAqency HORIBA MIRA Ltd Vehicle Stability Satisfactorv 

Test no. W0207 Stopping distance ft. (m) Braked to a halt 238 (72m) downstream 

Test Date 23/01/2019 and 118 (36m) in front of the traffic face. 

,.. '" . Type HiqhwayGuard Impact Velocity ft.ls (mis) I X-direction 21 .2 (6.45) 

Installation Lenqth, ft. (ml 196.9 (60) I Y-direction -3.3 (-1 .00) 

Size and/or dimension and Barrier Width: 21 .3 (540), Barrier Height: 31 .5 (800), Barrier Unit Length: 236.2 

material key elements, in. (mm) (6000). Ground fixings: 5 pairs of M24x330 threaded rod drilled into asphalt THIV (optional), ft/s {km/h) 20 (22) 

staggered along front and rear of system fixed with grout. 

-.111•1,1 11 t1u11ur, Occupant Ride down I X-direction -2 

Test surface/Ground Tarmac (roadway construction) Acceleration (g) I Y-direction -5 

PHO (q) (optional) 5 

Desiqnation 11 00C (Small Passenqer Carl ASI (optional) 0.9 

Make/ Model Nissan Note (VIN: SJNTAAE12U1001327) • •-• ,.,.. o;w1 . 111 t: • • 

Mass, lb (kal Kerb 2337.3 (1060) Minor damage to barrier front face with some denting and bending. Bending to barrier 

Test Inertial 2418.9 (1097) anchor plate at IP and ground anchor rod at IP lifting 3.34in (85mm) 

1111• ..... . • i- •'l">lr.11 ~,r:.1, - " ' ·- Dvnamic top of barrier, in. (ml 8.7 (0.22) 

Speed, mile/h (km/hl 62.0 (99.8) Dynamic base of barrier, in. (m) 3.5 (0 09) 

Angle (deg) 24.4 Permanent Set, in. (m) 1.6 (0.04) 

Location Vehicle Centreline aligned to anchor bolt point close to halfway along barrier Working Width, in. (m} 24.8 (0.63) 

··- 1110111 1, . I r. . , . -·- Speed, mile/h (km/h} 54.3 (87.4) Airbags deployed during impact. Damage to vehicles front longitudinal beams, 

Damage to RHF vehicle body, wing and inner wheel arch. Extensive damage to RHF 

Angle (deg) 9.7 wheel assembly, ball joint detached and wishbone folded back. Wheel and hub 

remained attached via the suspension strut. 

Exit Box Compliant 

Test Results : Page 3 of 37 Highway Care Ltd 

Commerc,al ,n Confidence 
HORIBA MIRA- 1218725-005-03 W0208 Highway Care HighwayGuard 3-11 

-· e1 11 r; 111111 I -. -~ ; 11• 1111,. 

Test Agency HORIBA MIRA Ltd Vehicle Stability Satisfactory 

Test no. W0208 Stopping distance ft. (m) Halted 174 (53) downstream and 161 

Test Date 22/01/2019 (49) in front of the traffic face. 

• 1- • i lT.iil • • -~- Tyoe HiqhwayGuard Impact Velocity ft.ls I X-direction 15.2 (4.64) 

Installation Lenoth, ft. (ml 196.9 (60) (km/h) I Y-direction 17.1 (520) 

Size and/or dimension and Barrier width: 21 .3 (540), Barrier Height: 31 .5 (800), Barrier Unit Length: 236.2 

material key elements, in. (mm) (6000). Ground fixings: 5 pairs of M24x330 threaded rod drilled into asphalt and THIV (optional), ft.ls (km/h) 21 .9 (24) 

staggered along front and rear of system fixed with grout - -· 1 11 1111 Ill 11111, Occupant Ride down I X-direction 6 

Test surface/Ground Tarmac (roadway construction) Acceleration (g) I Y-direction 9 

PHO (q) (optional) 10 

Desiqnation 2270P (4-door Pickup Truck) ASI (optional) 1.0 

Make/ Model Dodge Ram (VIN1C6RR6FT8ES278634) .. ;w1 • . , . 

Mass, lb (kg) Kerb 5056.1 (2293) There was deformation to the barrier at impact point and the system on the traffic face 

had moved back 450mm (static) as measured. There was some tearing of the steel 

Test Inertial 5007.8 (2271 .5) structure on the rear of the barrier at the joint. The ground fixing studs had also been 

twisted and some slight tearing around the welds near the ground fixings. 

a :,. 1111• . 1••011 .... "!.WI . . Dynamic top of barrier, in. (ml 26.8 (0.68) 

Speed, mile/h (km/hl 61 .3 (98 6) Oynamic base of barrier, in. (ml 26.8 (0 68) 

Anole (deq) 24.8° Permanent Set, in. (m) 25.5 (0.647) 

Location Vehicle centreline to the midpoint of installed barrier length Working Width, in. (m) 48.0 (1 22) 

11111111, ... ... Speed, mile/h (km/h) 51 .2 (82.4) Damage to the whole RHS of the vehicle including bumper, front wing and some 

damage to the front chassis rail. The front RHS wheel control arm was sheared in the 

Angle (deg) 13.4 impact. The rear quarter panel and rear light were also damaged. Some cosmetic 

damage was caused by the vehicle suffering secondary imoact with obstruction on site. 

Exit Box Compliant 

Test Results : Page 3 of 35 Highway Care Ltd 

Commercial in Confidence 
IHWl.fllgh'Nilycare.co