ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF TEXAS BRIDGE RAILS TO CONTAIN BUSES AND TRUCKS

Similar documents
s MEDIAN BARRIERS FOR TEXAS HIGHWAYS

1962: HRCS Circular 482 one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle for crash tests.

Evaluating The Relevancy Of Current Crash Test Guidelines For Roadside Safety Barriers On High Speed Roads

Structural Optimization of Strong-Post W-Beam Guardrail

Crash Testing Growth Common Roadside Hardware Systems Draft FHWA and AASHTO Requirements for Implementing MASH 2015

TRACC. Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion

Development of Combination Pedestrian-Traffic Bridge Railings

EVALUATION OF TENNESSEE BRIDGE RAIL DESIGNS

AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015

DIFFERENT BUSSES -COMPARISON-

i i i = TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

Performance Level 1 Bridge Railings

DISTRIBUTION: Electronic Recipients List TRANSMITTAL LETTER NO. (15-01) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. MANUAL: Road Design English Manual

Updated: March 2012 TXDOT ENGINEERING SOFTWARE SUPPORT INFORMATION. UT Curved Girder Analysis Tools (UTCGAT)

DEFLECTION LIMITS FOR TEMPORARY CONCRETE BARRIERS

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware

Advances in Simulating Corrugated Beam Barriers under Vehicular Impact

MASH 2016 Implementation: What, When and Why

PARAPETS / RAILS / MEDIANS / SIDEWALKS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25

November 16, 1998 Refer to: HNG-14. Mr. David Allardyce Mechanical Engineer B&B Electromatic Main Street Norwood, Louisiana 70761

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION. X-Tension DS. is suitable for all road types: Motorways, country roads, city streets for speed categories up to 110 km/h.

Improving Roadside Safety by Computer Simulation

Traffic Safety Facts. School-Transportation-Related Crashes Data. Overview. Person Type. Key Findings

PARAPETS / RAILS / MEDIANS / SIDEWALKS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25

April 22, In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/WZ-206. Mr. Jan Miller TrafFix Devices 220 Calle Pintoresco San Clemente, California Dear Mr.

Median Barriers in North Carolina

White Paper. Compartmentalization and the Motorcoach

CRASH TEST OF MILE POST MARKER. T. J. Hirsch Research Engineer. and. Eugene Buth Assistant Research Engineer. Research Report Number 146-8

PATRICK D. STADLER. Stadler Accident Reconstruction Graduated from Highland High School, Cowiche, Washington.

Development of a Low-Profile Portable Concrete Barrier

TSI TRUCKING, LLC 1618 Fabricon Blvd. Jeffersonville, IN DRIVER'S APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT. Applicant name: Date of application

Traffic Safety Facts Research Note

Where are the Increases in Motorcycle Rider Fatalities?

Performance Based Design for Bridge Piers Impacted by Heavy Trucks

SMART CUSHION INNOVATIONS

CRASH TEST EVALUATION OF THRIE BEAM TRAFFIC BARRIERS

Enhancing School Bus Safety and Pupil Transportation Safety

DRIVER S APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT

Vehicle Crash Tests of Concrete Median Barrier Retrofitted with Slipformed Concrete Glare Screen

What action is expected to take place in the foreseeable future in ADRs with regard to seat belts on school buses?

Petition for Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection

Development and Validation of a Finite Element Model of an Energy-absorbing Guardrail End Terminal

Evaluation and Design of ODOT s Type 5 Guardrail with Tubular Backup

SMART CUSHION INNOVATIONS

PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE TOTAL LOAD EXPERIENCE OF A HIGHWAY AS CONTRIBUTED BY CARGO VEHICLES

WP5 - Computational Mechanics B5 - Temporary Vertical Concrete Safety Barrier MAIN REPORT Volume 1 of 1

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY EQUIPMENT EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development of a Heavy Containment Level Bridge Rail for Istanbul

LAWRENCE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION ANALYSIS 9 TH STREET & ROCKLEDGE ROAD / 21 ST STREET & IOWA STREET LAWRENCE, KANSAS

BRE/TSLAB Vulcan Comparisons. Roger Plank Anthony Abu & Ian Burgess

Railroad Impact Study

National Center for Statistics and Analysis Research and Development

Heavy Truck Safety. Heavy Truck Safety. Luke W. Loy U.S. DOT-FMCSA

CNG Fuel System Integrity

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY HONDA MOTOR COMPANY 2007 HONDA ACCORD 4-DOOR SEDAN

Progress of NCAP. Total (42 vehicles) : 31 Passenger cars, 9 RV, 2 Buses. Some of the popular cars sold in Korea. Brake test RV(6) Frontal impact

Evaluation of Barriers for Very High Speed Roadways

IH 35 FEASIBILITY STUDY

SUMMARY CHANGES FOR NCHRP REPORT 350 GUIDELINES [NCHRP (02)] Keith A. Cota, Chairman Technical Committee on Roadside Safety June 14, 2007

Median Barriers in North Carolina -- Long Term Evaluation. Safety Evaluation Group Traffic Safety Systems Management Section

Working Paper. Development and Validation of a Pick-Up Truck Suspension Finite Element Model for Use in Crash Simulation

Premiere Crash-Test Facility

Air Brake and Regulation Update Paul Johnston. March 14, 2005

Development of Turning Templates for Various Design Vehicles

TITLE: EVALUATING SHEAR FORCES ALONG HIGHWAY BRIDGES DUE TO TRUCKS, USING INFLUENCE LINES

PN /21/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Overview of International HDV Efficiency Standards

EFFECT OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ON FUEL CONSUMPTION, TIRE WEAR AND REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

TEMPORARY & PERMANENT CONCRETE VEHICLE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

Guardrail/Bridgerail Recommendations for Very Low Volume Local Roads in Kansas

A MASH Compliant W-Beam Median Guardrail System

Development of a Finite Element Model of a Motorcycle

Using Fleet Safety Programs to Impact Crash Frequency and Severity Session # S772

Preliminary Analysis of LED Enhanced Signs at a Passive Rural Level Crossing

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

Bennett Pit. Traffic Impact Study. J&T Consulting, Inc. Weld County, Colorado. March 3, 2017

To prevent future occurrences of similar incidents, the following recommendations have been made:

1999 Missouri State Highway System. Missouri Department of Transportation - Transportation Management Systems

Fuel System Integrity

Effect of Police Control on U-turn Saturation Flow at Different Median Widths

TEST REPORT No. 2 ALUMINUM BRIDGE RAIL SYSTEMS. Prepared for. The Aluminum Association Inc. 818 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D.C.

Log Truck Accidents in the United States

Highway 18 BNSF Railroad Overpass Feasibility Study Craighead County. Executive Summary

Vibration and Impact in Multigirder Steel Bridges

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Vehicles and Road Safety Policy Number: Effective Date: May 20, 2012 Revision Approval Date: Jun. 28, 2015

Traffic Accident Statistics

VULCAN BARRIER TL-3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

100% Effective Natural Hormone Treatment Menopause, Andropause And Other Hormone Imbalances Impair Healthy Healing In People Over The Age Of 30!

SANTA ROSA TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC HWY 287 EAST P.O. BOX 2128 VERNON, TX 76385

Type I School Bus means a school bus with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 10,000 pounds. (IVC Section )

Wyoming Road Closure Gate

Damaging Effect of Static and Moving Armoured Vehicles with Rubber Tires on Flexible Pavement

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

THE USE OF PERFORMANCE METRICS ON THE PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE

Over-Dimensional Vehicle Restriction Study for US 129 in TN

Technical Report Documentation Page 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-09/

PERFORMANCE ACTIVITY 603 SIGNS

ONE YEAR ON: THE IMPACTS OF THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGING SCHEME ON VEHICLE EMISSIONS

Transcription:

ANALYTCAL EVALUATON OF TEXAS BRDGE RALS TO CONTAN BUSES AND TRUCKS SUMMARY REPORT of Research Report Number 23-2 Study 2-5-78-23 Cooperative Research Program of the Texas Transportation nstitute and the State Department of Highays and Public Transportation n cooperation ith the U. S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highay AdmidhtratioJ;l August. 1978 TEXAS TRANSPORTATON NSTTUTE Texas A&M University College Station. Texas

Analytical Evaluation of Texas Bridge Rails to Contain Buses and Trucks by T. J. Hirsch The recent multiple fatality anhydrous ammonia truck-bridge rail accident in Houston, Texas, and school bus-bridge rail accident near Martinez, California, emphasize the need for q bridge rail to contain heavy trucks and buses. Present bridge rails are only designed to restrain and redirect passenger cars up to 45 lb (241 kg) in eight traveling 6 mph (97 kph) and impacting the rail at a 25 angle. The current bridge rails must be at least 27 in. (69 cm) high and be able to resist a static load of 1, lb (4536 kg) ithout exceeding a specified alloable orking stress based on an elastic analysis. Bridge rails designed in accordance ith the present criteria have in general performed ell in restraining passenger cars. Recent truck and Concrete Median Barrier (CMB) crash tests have indicated that some of our traffic rails designed by the present criteria have considerable reserve strength and are capable of redirecting heavy buses and trucks. The objective of the report summarized in these pages is to present an analytical evaluation of the capabilities of six standard Texas bridge rails to contain automobiles, buses and trucks. This evaluation consisted of an analysis of the strength of the bridge rails to determine if they ere strong enough to resist the impact forces. n addition, an analysis as made to determine if they are high enough to prevent high center-of-gravity buses and trucks from rolling over the rails. See Figure 1. This analytical evaluation considered four sizes or types of vehicles as follos: 1. passenger cars up to 45 lb (241 kg) ith a center of gravity about 2 to 24 in. (51 to 61 cm) above the road; 2. vans, recreational vehicles, and school buses up to 2, lb (972 kg) ith a center of gravity of from 5 to 6 in. (127 to 153 cm); 3. large intercity buses up to 4, lb (18,144 kg) ith a center of gravity of from 52 to 64 in. (132 to 163 cm); and 4. large tractor-trailers up to 72, lb (32,659 kg) ith a center of gravity from 45 to 78 in. (114 to 198 cm).

6 +--------- ---- 5 6mph mph O mpact 1.69 km /hr 4 1 i t!passenger Car C.G. 1 s C. 1 s o~-~~-~--~--~--~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VEHCLE CENTER OF GRAVTY HEGHT- NCHES ( lin. 2.54cm) Tonk Truck i so 9 Figure. Comparison of required effective height to vehicle center of gravity height for four selected vehicles (large passenger car, school bus, intercity bus. and HS2-44 truck). All impact forces ere based on a 6 mph (97 kph) impact at 15 degrees for the heavy buses and trucks and 25 degrees for the passenger car. See Figure 2. One metal rail. the Texas TlOl steel rail, three concrete parapet rails (Texas T21, T22, and T5), and to combination concrete parapet and metal rails (Texas T4 steel and C4 steel) ere evaluated. See Figure 3. Since concrete bridge decks in Texas vary in thickness from 6. 75 in. (17.1 cm) to 8. 75 in. (22.2 cm) and in amount of reinforcement, the deck as not considered at this time to limit the capacity of the bridge rail. From this analysis it appears that the folloing conclusions can be dran. 1. All six rails (TlOl, T21, T22, T5, T4, and C4) can restrain and redirect 45 lb (241 kg) passenger cars at 6 mph (97 kph) and 25-degree angle. 2. The combination metal rail and concrete parapet C4 and concrete parapet T5 bridge rails should restrain and redirect a school bus at 6 mph (97 kph) and 15 degrees. The eaker and loer combination T4 rail and the TlOl metal rail are also probably capable of restraining and redirecting a school bus. 3. The combination C4 and concrete parapet T5 bridge rails

3 25 Car School Bus ntercity Bus ~ 2 " a:: u.. 15 t-- "- ~ 1..J u 'i: > 5 o~---~---~---~---~---~---~----~--~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 VEHCLE WEGHT- KPS Figure 2. Summary of rigid traffic rail impact forces at SO mph (96.5 km/hr) and 15-degree angle. 1 () L " >- t-- "- 9 8..J..J 7 ~ "' Cl ii 6 m 5 4 1 2 3 4 EFFECTVE HEGHT OF RAL - in. Figure 3. Summary of strength and effective height evaluation of Texas bridge rails.

have a chance of redirecting a large intercity bus at 6 mph (97 kph) and 15 degrees. 4. None of the six rails evaluated appear to have a chance of redirecting a loaded, high center of gravity, HS2-44 tractortrailer at 6 mph (97 kph) and 15 degrees. All of these conclusions should be confirmed by full-scale crash tests since they are based on relatively simple theory applied to a very complex problem. The published version of this report may be obtained by addressing your request as follos: Phillip L. Wilson, State Planning Engineer Transportation Planning Division State Department of Highays and Public Transportation - File D-1 OR P.. Box 551 Austin, Texas 78763 (Phone: (512) 475-743 or TEX-AN 822-743)