400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 May 8, 2007 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSSD/B-159 

 

Mr. Owen S. Denman, PE 

President and CEO 

Barrier Systems Inc. 

180 River Road 

Rio Vista, CA 94571-1208 

Dear Mr. Denman: 

Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2006, requesting the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) acceptance of the BarrierGuardTM 800 (BG 800) – Gate of 

Highway Care, Ltd. (a UK company) and Laura Metaal Eygelshoven, BV, for use on the 

National Highway System (NHS) under the provisions of National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 "Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance 

Evaluation of Highway Features". Accompanying your letter was a report on testing of your 

company's BarrierGuardTM 800 - Gate prepared by Safe Technologies Inc, test videos, drawings 

and previously prepared crash test reports providing additional information and background, 

including report on crash testing of regular BarrierGuardTM 800 system of October 2004. 

Requirements

Longitudinal barrier systems should meet the guidelines contained in the NCHRP Report 350, 

"Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features". 

FHWA Memorandum “ACTION: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features” of 

July 25, 1997 provides further guidance on crash testing of longitudinal barriers. 

Product description 

The previously approved BarrierGuardTM 800 system (acceptance letter HSA-10/B131) is high 

containment and low deflection steel barrier designed for both permanent applications and 

temporary use in roadwork situations, preventing penetration of errant vehicles into working 

areas. 

BarrierGuardTM 800 – Gate is designed to be used with regular application of BarrierGuardTM

800 system. In its basic design the gate is a 6 m (20 ft) barrier section that can be unpinned and 

swung open from either end to allow vehicle or pedestrian passage. 6 m (20 ft) gate is positioned 

between two 6 m (20ft) “gate post” connecting sections, making the total length of the basic gate 

system 18 m (60 ft). Larger gate sections, in 6 meter (20 ft) increments are available. Standard 

6 m or 12 m (20 ft or 40 ft) sections of BG 800 can be inserted into the center section of the gate 
2

(i.e. at the splice point). The limitation on gate length is based on handling the mass of the 

section and the equipment available to open and close the system. This limit will be in excess of 

12 m (40 ft). 

The gate and adjacent sections are fitted with a T-top attachment to aid in the redirection and 

stability of the vehicle after impact. The T-top attachment measures 473mm (15 5/8”) wide and 

is 121 mm (4 3/4”) tall and shall begin minimum 12 m (40 ft) prior to the gate and extend past 

the gate a minimum of 12 m (40 ft). The beginning and ending of the T-top has a transition 

attachment element extending additional 1.5 m (4.9 ft). The purpose of this element is to ensure 

that there is no snag potential on either end of the T-top. 

Drawings of the BarrierGuardTM 800 - Gate are provided in Enclosure 1. 

Test article installation 

The system assembly that was tested consisted of different types of barrier sections: 12 m 

(40 ft) end anchor sections, 12 m (40 ft) midsections, 6 m (20 ft) “gate post” connecting sections 

and the 6 m (20 ft) gate section. The total installation length of the barrier was 78 m (256 ft). 

The 6 m (20 ft) gate was positioned between two 6 m (20 ft) “gate post” connecting sections, 

making the total length of the gate system 18 m (60 ft). The 6 m (20 ft) length of the gate section 

was selected for testing as it is the stiffest section and therefore provides the largest differential 

stiffness compared to standard runs of BarrierGuardTM 800. The critical impact point was 

selected to maximize the loading and snagging potential of the transition between the standard 

BG800 section and the gate section. Based on previous testing with the BG800, it was 

determined that this point would be approximately 4 m (13 ft) upstream from the upstream hinge 

point of the gate. 

This installation used two different types of end anchors: asphalt anchors (upstream end) and soil 

anchors (downstream end). At either end of the barrier there were two sets of anchors, one set at 

the very end and one set located 6 meters (20ft) inboard from the ends. 

The test article configuration and layout, including points of intersection and impact, are 

summarized in the drawing provided in Enclosure 1. 

Testing 

Since the profile and section properties of the standard BarrierGuardTM 800 system had already 

been validated in previous tests, and since the gate section is stiffer than the standard section, you 

determined that the “transition” test (3-21) would be more appropriate to evaluate the 

performance of the gate section under direct impact conditions, to evaluate the strength of the 

connection between barrier sections and the gate and to evaluate the functionality of the gate 

after such an impact. 

The NCHRP Report 350 requires that in order for transitions of longitudinal barriers to meet 

NCHRP Report 350 test level 3 (TL-3) criteria they must successfully pass tests 3-20 and 3-21 

while test S3-20 is optional. However, since your company’s BarrierGuardTM 800 system was 

fully tested and approved before (acceptance letter HSA-10/B-131), you ran only test 3-21 on the 

BarrierGuardTM 800 – Gate. 
3

Taking into account that previous 3-10 comparable crash tests on regular BarrierGuardTM 800 

system recorded occupant impact velocities and ridedown accelerations well below the 

maximum limits (6 m/s and 9.6 g, respectively), I agree that test 3-20 on the BarrierGuardTM 

800 - Gate system would be redundant and can be waived. 

The full-scale NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-21 conducted on your company’s BarrierGuardTM 

800 - Gate involved a 2000P vehicle impacting the device at 97.9 km/h and 25.0 degree angle, at 

the point 4 meters (13 ft) upstream from the upstream hinge point of the gate. The vehicle was 

redirected along the length of the barrier with the exit angle essentially parallel to the 

downstream barrier. 

The impacted section and the downstream sections of the barrier received minor to moderate 

damage. The gate section was dented in the impact area, but did not separate or tear. The 

upstream and downstream barrier end section anchors did not lift or significantly damage the 

asphalt. There was no debris expelled from the barrier. The maximum lateral dynamic 

deflection was 1162 mm (46”) and the maximum permanent deflection of the test article was 

1073 mm (42”). The gate remained functional after the test. 

All occupant risk factors were within the limits specified in the NCHRP Report 350. The 

theoretical occupant impact velocity values in the longitudinal and lateral directions were 5.2 m/s 

and 4.9 m/s respectively and the theoretical occupant ridedown acceleration values in the 

longitudinal and lateral directions were 6.1 g and 7.5 g respectively. Summary of test results is 

provided in Enclosure 2. 

Minimum deflection modifications of regular BarrierGuardTM 800 are currently available. 

However, as you indicated during our review process, the BarrierGuardTM 800 - Gate is intended 

to be used with regular application of BarrierGuardTM 800 system (without intermediate anchors) 

only. However, intermediate anchoring may be used upstream or downstream of the gate system 

using proper T-top and anchoring transitions as recommended in the BarrierGuardTM 800 – 

Minimum Deflection System acceptance letter, B-158. 

In summary I agree that BarrierGuardTM 800 - Gate, as described above, meets the appropriate 

evaluation criteria for NCHRP 350 TL-3 longitudinal barriers and may be used at all appropriate 

locations on the NHS when selected by the contracting authority, subject to the provisions of 

Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411 as they pertain to proprietary products. It 

can be used with regular application of BarrierGuardTM 800 or, when properly transitioned, with 

the Minimum Deflection System. This acceptance is based on the reported crash performance of 

the BarrierGuardTM 800 - Gate. Further, I am assuming that production models will be identical 

to the prototype test units. 

Standard provisions 

Please note the following standard provisions that apply to the FHWA letters of acceptance: 

• Our acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the devices. 

• Any changes that may adversely influence the crashworthiness of the device will require a 

new acceptance letter. 
4

• Should the FHWA discover that the qualification testing was flawed, that in-service 

performance reveals unacceptable safety problems, or that the device being marketed is 

significantly different from the version that was crash tested, it reserves the right to modify or 

revoke its acceptance. 

• You will be expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design and 

installation requirements to ensure proper performance. 

• You will be expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has essentially 

the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for acceptance, 

and that they will meet the crashworthiness requirements of the FHWA and the NCHRP 

Report 350. 

• To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of acceptance, designated as number 

B-159 shall not be reproduced except in full. As this letter and the documentation which 

support it become public information, it will be available for inspection at our office by 

interested parties. 

• The BarrierGuardTM 800 - Gate is a patent pending device and is considered "proprietary". 

The use of proprietary devices specified on Federal-aid projects, except exempt, non-NHS 

projects: (a) must be supplied through competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented 

items; (b) the highway agency must certify that they are essential for synchronization with 

existing highway facilities or that no equally suitable alternative exists or; (c) they must be 

used for research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short sections of road 

for experimental purposes. Our regulations concerning proprietary products are contained in 

Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411, a copy of which is enclosed. 

• Since BarrierGuardTM 800 - Gate is a steel product, the provisions of Title 23, Code of 

Federal Regulations Section 635.410 (a copy of which is enclosed) are applicable. Note that 

the “Buy America” provisions apply only to steel products that are permanently incorporated 

into highway projects, not to temporary barriers used only during construction or 

maintenance operations. 

Sincerely yours, 

 George E. Rice, Jr. 

 Acting Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

Enclosures 





Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations 

§ 635.410 Buy America requirements. 

(a) The provisions of this section shall prevail and be given precedence over any requirements of 

this subpart which are contrary to this section. However, nothing in this section shall be construed 

to be contrary to the requirements of §635.409(a) of this subpart. 

(b) No Federal-aid highway construction project is to be authorized for advertisement or 

otherwise authorized to proceed unless at least one of the following requirements is met: 

(1) The project either: (i) Includes no permanently incorporated steel or iron materials, or (ii) if 

steel or iron materials are to be used, all manufacturing processes, including application of a 

coating, for these materials must occur in the United States. Coating includes all processes which 

protect or enhance the value of the material to which the coating is applied. 

(2) The State has standard contract provisions that require the use of domestic materials and 

products, including steel and iron materials, to the same or greater extent as the provisions set 

forth in this section. 

(3) The State elects to include alternate bid provisions for foreign and domestic steel and iron 

materials which comply with the following requirements. Any procedure for obtaining alternate 

bids based on furnishing foreign steel and iron materials which is acceptable to the Division 

Administrator may be used. The contract provisions must (i) require all bidders to submit a bid 

based on furnishing domestic steel and iron materials, and (ii) clearly state that the contract will 

be awarded to the bidder who submits the lowest total bid based on furnishing domestic steel and 

iron materials unless such total bid exceeds the lowest total bid based on furnishing foreign steel 

and iron materials by more than 25 percent. 

(4) When steel and iron materials are used in a project, the requirements of this section do not 

prevent a minimal use of foreign steel and iron materials, if the cost of such materials used does 

not exceed one-tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of the total contract cost or $2,500, whichever is 

greater. For purposes of this paragraph, the cost is that shown to be the value of the steel and iron 

products as they are delivered to the project. 

(c)(1) A State may request a waiver of the provisions of this section if; 

(i) The application of those provisions would be inconsistent with the public interest; or 

(ii) Steel and iron materials/products are not produced in the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantities which are of a satisfactory quality. 

(2) A request for waiver, accompanied by supporting information, must be submitted in writing to 

the Regional Federal Highway Administrator (RFHWA) through the FHWA Division 

Administrator. A request must be submitted sufficiently in advance of the need for the waiver in 

order to allow time for proper review and action on the request. The RFHWA will have approval 

authority on the request. 

(3) Requests for waivers may be made for specific projects, or for certain materials or products in 

specific geographic areas, or for combinations of both, depending on the circumstances. 
(4) The denial of the request by the RFHWA may be appealed by the State to the Federal 

Highway Administrator (Administrator), whose action on the request shall be considered 

administratively final. 

(5) A request for a waiver which involves nationwide public interest or availability issues or more 

than one FHWA region may be submitted by the RFHWA to the Administrator for action. 

(6) A request for waiver and an appeal from a denial of a request must include facts and 

justification to support the granting of the waiver. The FHWA response to a request or appeal will 

be in writing and made available to the public upon request. Any request for a nationwide waiver 

and FHWA's action on such a request may be published in the Federal Register for public 

comment. 

(7) In determining whether the waivers described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be 

granted, the FHWA will consider all appropriate factors including, but not limited to, cost, 

administrative burden, and delay that would be imposed if the provision were not waived. 

(d) Standard State and Federal-aid contract procedures may be used to assure compliance with the 

requirements of this section. 

Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations 

§ 635.411 Material or product selection. 

(a) Federal funds shall not participate, directly or indirectly, in payment for any premium or 

royalty on any patented or proprietary material, specification, or process specifically set forth in 

the plans and specifications for a project, unless: 

(1) Such patented or proprietary item is purchased or obtained through competitive bidding with 

equally suitable unpatented items; or 

(2) The State transportation department certifies either that such patented or proprietary item is 

essential for synchronization with existing highway facilities, or that no equally suitable alternate 

exists; or 

(3) Such patented or proprietary item is used for research or for a distinctive type of construction 

on relatively short sections of road for experimental purposes. 

(b) When there is available for purchase more than one nonpatented, nonproprietary material, 

semifinished or finished article or product that will fulfill the requirements for an item of work of 

a project and these available materials or products are judged to be of satisfactory quality and 

equally acceptable on the basis of engineering analysis and the anticipated prices for the related 

item(s) of work are estimated to be approximately the same, the PS&E for the project shall either 

contain or include by reference the specifications for each such material or product that is 

considered acceptable for incorporation in the work. If the State transportation department wishes 

to substitute some other acceptable material or product for the material or product designated by 

the successful bidder or bid as the lowest alternate, and such substitution results in an increase in 

costs, there will not be Federal-aid participation in any increase in costs. 

(c) A State transportation department may require a specific material or product when there are 

other acceptable materials and products, when such specific choice is approved by the Division 

Administrator as being in the public interest. When the Division Administrator's approval is not 
obtained, the item will be nonparticipating unless bidding procedures are used that establish the 

unit price of each acceptable alternative. In this case Federal-aid participation will be based on the 

lowest price so established. 

(d) Appendix A sets forth the FHWA requirements regarding (1) the specification of alternative 

types of culvert pipes, and (2) the number and types of such alternatives which must be set forth 

in the specifications for various types of drainage installations. 

(e) Reference in specifications and on plans to single trade name materials will not be approved 

on Federal-aid contracts. 

(f) In the case of a design-build project, the following requirements apply: Federal funds shall not 

participate, directly or indirectly, in payment for any premium or royalty on any patented or 

proprietary material, specification, or process specifically set forth in the Request for Proposals 

document unless the conditions of paragraph (a) of this section are applicable. 

[41 FR 36204, Aug. 27, 1976, as amended at 67 FR 75926, Dec. 10, 2002]