Mr. Anthony J. Carey 

President 

Barriers USA, Incorporated 

5850 Sawmill Road 

Paradise, California 95969 

Dear Mr. Carey: 

In September, you sent Mr. Richard Powers of my staff copies of an August 2004 test report 

prepared by Dr. Roger Zou and Professor Raphael Grzebieta in the Department of Civil 

Engineering at Monash University in Victoria, Australia. This report detailed the results of 

two National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 crash tests into a 

water-filled plastic barrier/W-beam rail design called the Guardliner System and you requested 

formal acceptance of its use in the United States. Mr. Powers has reviewed the report as well 

as additional information on the Monash University crash test facility that was subsequently 

provided by Professor Grzbieta and has concluded that the tests were conducted in 

conformance with the NCHRP Report 350 test and evaluation procedures and can be accepted 

as such. 

The Guardliner Barrier is comprised of polyethylene segments 2000-mm long x 960-mm high. 

Each is 600-mm wide at the base and 530-mm wide across the top, weighing approximately 

50 kg when empty and 630 kg when filled with water. Units are connected at each end by 

30-mm diameter steel bolts 200-mm long. A W-beam guardrail complying with the American 

Associaton of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ M 180 specification for steel beam 

guardrail is attached to the traffic face using special steel linkage brackets. Enclosure 1 is a 

schematic drawing of the Guardliner design. 

To certify this barrier as meeting the NCHRP Report 350 test level 2 (TL-2) evaluation criteria, 

test 2-10 and 2-11 were conducted. Enclosure 2 contains the summary test sheets for each test. 

The maximum reported deflection for test 2-11 was 2640 mm and occurred when the pickup 

truck impacted near the joint between segments 12 and 13. The test installation was comprised 

of 30 units and the ends were free-standing. As with all unanchored barrier installations, 

impacts nearer either end would have resulted in greater deflections. Impacts very near the 

ends may not have contained or redirected the vehicles. Since there is currently no 

crashworthy terminal for the Guardliner, its ends should be flared away from approaching 

traffic or adequately shielded. Based on the performance of the Guardliner, it may be 

400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590

In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/B-129 

November 1, 2004
2

considered an NCHRP Report 350 TL-2 temporary traffic barrier and used at appropriate 

locations on National Highway System (NHS) when selected by the contracting authority. 

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

• Our acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the Guardliner Barrier 

and does not address its structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices.

• Any changes to the tested design that may adversely influence its crashworthiness will 

require a new acceptance letter.

• 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 optimal performance.

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

same chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as the design that was crash tested. 

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

B129 shall not be reproduced except in full. This letter, and the test documentation upon 

which this letter is based, is public information. All such letters and documentation may 

be reviewed at our office upon request. 

• The Guardliner Barrier is considered a proprietary product. The use of proprietary 

hardware in a work zone on Federal-aid projects is generally of a temporary nature. 

These features are usually selected by the contractor for use as needed and removed upon 

completion of the project. Under such conditions they can be presumed to meet 

requirement (a) given below for the use of proprietary products on Federal-aid projects. 

On the other hand, if proprietary devices are specified by a highway agency for use on 

Federal-aid projects, except exempt, non-NHS projects, they: (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. 

• In accordance with Section 635.410 of Title 23, Code of federal Regulations, any 

products containing steel that are permanently incorporated into a highway project must 

use steel products manufactured in the U.S. from U.S. steel. Assuming your product will 

be used as a temporary barrier only, this restriction should not apply. 

Sincerely yours, 

 /Original Signed by/ 

John R. Baxter, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

2 Enclosures 

 Department of Civil Engineering

Guardliner Barrier System Crash Test Results 

0.000 s 0.156 s 0.496 s 

20 deg

LOC 8650 300

780

General Information  Test Agent................... Department of Civil Engineering  Monash University  Test No....................... BR 210T1  Date........................... Dec 9th, 2003 

Test Article  Type........................... Guardliner



 Installation Length (m) .... 60  Material of key elements .... 925-mm tall water-filled plastic 

 section with W-beam attached 

Road surface and condition ... Asphalt surface, Dry Test Vehicle  Type............................ Production Model  Designation.................... 820 C  Model........................... 2002 Daihatsu Cuore  Mass (kg)  Curb ......................... 816  Test inertial................... 816  Dummy(s)................... 75  Gross Static................. 891 

Impact conditions  Speed (km/h)................... 70  Angle (deg)..................... 20.5 Exit conditions  Speed (km/h).................... 0  Angle (deg)...................... 78.1 Occupant Risk Values  Impact velocities (m/s)  x-direction...................... 6.22  y-direction..................... -4.17  THIV (km/h) ................... 26.9  Ridedown Acceleration (g’s)  x-direction...................... -6.79  y-direction....................... -3.21  PHD (g’s)......................... 6.82  ASI ................................ 0.46 Max. 0.050-s Average (g’)  x-direction...................... -6.93  y-direction...................... -5.71  z-direction ..................... -1.83 

Test Article De Dynam Perman WorkinVehicle Damag

Exterio VDS  CDC Maxim VehicInterior  VCDIMax. O Defor

Post-Impact Veh (during  Maxim Maxim Maxim

Figure 1. Summary of results – Guardliner Barrier System NCHRP Report 350 Test BR_
 Department of Civil Engineering

Guardliner Barrier System Crash Test Results 

0.000 s 0.170 s 0.370 s 

25 deg

LOC 29000

1000

2640

General Information  Test Agent................... Department of Civil Engineering  Monash University  Test No....................... BR_211T1  Date........................... Aug 2rd, 2004 

Test Article  Type........................... Guardliner



 Installation Length (m) .... 60  Material of key elements .... 925-mm tall water-filled plastic 

 section with W-beam attached 

Road surface and condition ... Asphalt surface, Dry Test Vehicle  Type............................ Production Model  Designation.................... 2000P  Model........................... 2000 Chevrolet C2500 Pickup  Mass (kg)  Curb ......................... N/A  Test inertial................... 2170  Dummy(s)................... None  Gross Static................. 2170 

Impact conditions  Speed (km/h)................... 70.0  Angle (deg)..................... 25.0 Exit conditions  Speed (km/h).................... 0  Angle (deg)...................... 3 Occupant Risk Values  Impact velocities (m/s)  x-direction...................... 4.04  y-direction..................... -3.19  THIV (km/h) ................... 18.5  Ridedown Acceleration (g’s)  x-direction....................... -2.85  y-direction....................... 3.67  PHD (g’s)......................... 3.68  ASI ................................ 0.43 Max. 0.050-s Average (g’)  x-direction...................... -3.73  y-direction...................... 2.86  z-direction ..................... -2.87 

Test Article De Dynam Perman WorkinVehicle Damag

Exterio VDS  CDC Maxim VehicInterior  OCDIMax. O Defor

Post-Impact Veh (during  Maxim Maxim Maxim

Figure 6. Summary of results – Guardliner Barrier System NCHRP Report 350 Test BR_