DOCSLIB.ORG

Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditionsâ•fla Synthesis Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditionsâ•fla Synthesis Study Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs JTRP Technical Reports Joint Transportation Research Program 2012 Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditions—A Synthesis Study Erdong Chen Purdue University, [email protected] Jennifer Brown Purdue University, [email protected] Andrew Tarko Purdue University, [email protected] Recommended Citation Chen, E., J. Brown, and A. Tarko. Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditions—A Synthesis Study. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/08. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2012. doi: 10.5703/ 1288284314670. This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY USE OF BARRIERS IN RURAL OPEN Road Conditions— A SYNTHESIS STUDY Erdong Chen Graduate Research Assistant School of Civil Engineering Purdue University Jennifer Brown Graduate Research Assistant School of Civil Engineering Purdue University Andrew P. Tarko Professor of Civil Engineering School of Civil Engineering Center for Road Safety Purdue University Corresponding Author SPR-3515 Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/08 DOI: 10.5703/1288284314670 RECOMMENDED CITATION Chen, E., J. Brown, and A. P. Tarko. Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditions—A Synthesis Study. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/08. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2012. doi: 10.5703/1288284314670. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Professor Andrew P. Tarko School of Civil Engineering Purdue University (765) 494-5027 [email protected] JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM The Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education institutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning, design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure. https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html Published reports of the Joint Transportation Research Program are available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/ NOTICE The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/IN/JTRP‐2012/08 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditions—A Synthesis Study May 2012 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Erdong Chen, Jennifer Brown, Andrew Tarko FHWA/IN/JTRP‐2012/08 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Joint Transportation Research Program Purdue University 550 Stadium Mall Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907‐2051 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR‐3515 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Indiana Department of Transportation State Office Building Final Report 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract The use of wide medians and clear zones that do not require median and roadside barriers is the current design practice for new and reconstructed rural highway facilities. Constructing or reconstructing roads with full‐width medians and clear zones is much more expensive today compared to when the design standards were developed. Considerable costs can be accrued in additional overhead bridge length, earthwork and ROW in new construction projects, and widening of existing right–of‐way and bridge structures in reconstruction projects. This synthesis study focuses on the use of median barriers and roadside barriers and it identifies: (a) the current design practice and the existing body of knowledge, (b) (b) design conditions where adding extra traffic lanes without widening the ROW is acceptable from the point of view of safety and costs if barriers and guardrails are installed, and (c) future research needs. One of the practical outcomes of the project is a set of Crash Cost Modification Factors (concept found in the German design guidelines) estimated based on the past research for Indiana and simulation experiments executed with the Roadside Safety Analysis Program. These factors can be used to evaluate the safety benefit produced by a modified cross‐section of a rural freeway. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the rural freeway, clear zone, roadside barrier, median barrier, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 road safety 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 62 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8‐69) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. Identify research needs to accomplish the second objective, if it is not attainable with the documented current knowledge. USE OF BARRIERS IN RURAL OPEN ROAD CONDITIONS—A SYNTHESIS STUDY Findings Introduction The efforts presented in this report were conducted by the Purdue research team in order to understand the mechanism of Although sufficiently wide medians and clear zones improve roadway departure crashes and to identify the effects of several roadside safety, the AASHTO Design Policy allows for the use of potential strategies. This report provides an overview of the barriers under restricted conditions. Recent experience with statistics at the national level, a literature review from both the Indiana’s I-69 corridor challenges the current design practice with United States and other countries where a narrow or no clear zone regard to medians and clear zones in rural areas. Significant is used, and a simulation study. Potential strategies for restricted savings could be realized by the Indiana Department of ROW scenarios were identified, as well as the limitations of the Transportation (INDOT) if the medians and clear zones on new study and future research directions. and reconstructed facilities were narrower than prompted by the The results of this study are applicable to depressed medians current design standards. Modern protective devices, such as high- with a width of about 45 feet and without barriers. The findings tensioned cable barriers, offer protection with a lower risk of are summarized in the table below. vehicle damage and personal injury than do traditional concrete The limitations of this study apply primarily to the simulation barriers and guardrails. Although the increased cost of right of way study executed with the Roadside Safety Analysis Program (ROW) is the primary reason for this synthesis study, rapidly (RSAP). Some of our concerns with RSAP might have been growing personal injury medical costs must also be considered. The addressed in its new version, which became available after we practice of making investments in road infrastructure is based on completed our research. Future research should address the benefit-cost analysis, which includes both ROW and medical costs. limited understanding of the mechanism of vehicle encroach- The objective of this synthesis study is to identify if the existing ment and rollover, and current knowledge of the safety effect of design guidelines and research reports can support a new practice the barrier offset needs to be confirmed and further extended. of narrowing the median and the clear zones of an existing rural The presented results are based on past research and our four-lane interstate to accommodate two additional traffic lanes simulation experiments. A statistical analysis of the safety without widening the current ROW. The study follows three performance of the existing Indiana barriers should complement research steps leading toward the study objective: our findings. 1. Identify the existing body of knowledge pertaining to the safety impact of the median and clear zone width and the Implementation presence of median and roadside barriers and guardrails. 2. Identify the design conditions and corresponding solutions The design recommendations and corresponding tables will be involving barriers and guardrails that are acceptable from the discussed by the INDOT Division of Highway Design and point of view of safety and costs. This objective will be Technical Support and considered for implementation where accomplished only if sufficient knowledge exists to allow feasible by means of appropriate revisions to the Indiana Design making such assertions. Manual. Recommended Design Solutions for Adding Two Traffic Lanes to Four-Lane Rural Freeways Hazard Recommended Median Clear Zone Outside Recommended New Recommended Clear Zone Width (ft) Width (ft) Clear Zone Lanes Placement Median Barrier Barrier Crashes Cost Remarks 44 26 No Both in median Barrier None Increases Requires benefit- cost analysis 44 26 Yes One in median; one in clear zone Barrier Barrier Reduces 44 32–44 No One in median; one in clear zone Barrier None Reduces 44 32–44 Yes One in median; one in clear zone Barrier
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UDOT Supplemental Specifications
    UDOT Supplemental Specifications Table of Contents Section No. Title – Type 1. 01355 Environmental Compliance – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 2. 01455 Material Quality Requirements – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 3. 01456 Materials Dispute Resolution – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 4. 01554 Traffic Control – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 5. 01557S Maintenance of Traffic – Special Provision (04/19/16) 6. 01571 Temporary Environmental Controls – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 7. 01721 Survey – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 8. 02056 Embankment, Borrow, and Backfill – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 9. 02221 Remove Structure and Obstruction – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 10. 02316 Roadway Excavation – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 11. 02610 Drainage Pipe – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 12. 02701 Pavement Smoothness – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 13. 02742S Project Specific Surfacing Requirements – Department Special Provision (06/30/15) 14. 02744S Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) – Materials Special Provision (06/30/15) 15. 02748 Prime Coat/Tack Coat – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 16. 02765M Pavement Marking Paint – Materials Special Provision (10/05/15) 17. 02768 Pavement Marking Materials – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 18. 02822 Right-of-Way Fence and Gate – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 19. 02841 W-Beam Guardrail – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 20. 02842 Delineators – Supplemental Specifications (01/01/17) 21. 02843 Crash Cushions and Barrier End Treatments – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 22. 02844 Concrete Barrier – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 23. 02890 Retroreflective Sheeting – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 24. 02891 Traffic Sign – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 25. 13557 Variable Message Sign – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) Supplemental Specification 2017 Standard Specification Book SECTION 01355 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 SECTION INCLUDES A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cable Barrier Submission
    Washington State Cable Median Barrier In-Service Study Doug McClanahan Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47329 Olympia Washington 98504-7329 Tel: (360) 705-7264 Fax: (360) 705-7330 [email protected] Richard B. Albin Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47329 Olympia Washington 98504-7329 Tel: (360) 705-7451 Fax: (360) 705-7330 [email protected] John C. Milton Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47329 Olympia Washington 98504-7329 Tel: (360) 705-7299 Fax: (360) 705-7330 [email protected] Submitted for presentation at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the National Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2004. Estimated word count: 4080 text. November 2003 Washington State Cable Median Barrier In-Service Study Doug McClanahan Washington State Department of Transportation Richard B. Albin Washington State Department of Transportation John C. Milton Washington State Department of Transportation ABSTRACT Since 1989, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Engineers (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide has contained information on a cable median barrier design that mounts the middle cable on the back side of the posts so that it can contain and redirect vehicles that strike the system from either side. Cable median barrier has been tested in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 3. However, there are only a couple of studies that have been performed on the in-service performance of this system. This report documents Washington’s experience with cable median barrier by analyzing its initial installation cost, maintenance costs, maintenance experiences, and accident history before and after installation. The report is based on accident and maintenance report data associated with 24.4 total miles of cable median barrier located in three distinct locations along Interstate 5 (I-5).
    [Show full text]
  • Research Spotlight
    RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION Bureau of Field Services Michigan Department of Transportation Research Spotlight Cable median barriers: Project Information REPORT NAME: Study of High- A cost-effective means Tension Cable Barriers on Michigan Roadways to save lives START DATE: October 2011 Median-crossover crashes are among the most hazardous events that can occur on freeways, often leading to serious injury or death. In recent REPORT DATE: October 2014 years, high-tension cable median barriers have emerged as a cost- RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER: effective alternative to conventional barriers in preventing such crashes. RC-1612 MDOT began installing them on state freeways in 2008. This research TOTAL COST: $223,895 project confirmed that cable median barriers are effective at reducing crossover crashes and improving freeway safety in Michigan, produced COST SHARING: 20% MDOT, 80% guidelines to help identify the best locations to install them, and FHWA through the SPR, Part II, developed content for public outreach materials explaining their benefit. Program MDOT Project Manager Problem Carlos Torres, P.E. Freeway median barriers made of concrete, steel Geometric Design Unit guardrail or high-tension Design Division cable are all effective at Michigan Department of preventing crossover Transportation crashes, but they can be 425 West Ottawa Street costly to install and main- Lansing, MI 48909 tain. Cable median barriers [email protected] have lower installation costs 517-335-2852 than concrete or guardrail Since their installation on selected Michigan highways beginning in alternatives, though they 2008, cable median barriers have reduced crossover crash rates in are more easily damaged these highway segments by 87 percent. by vehicle strikes, leading to higher maintenance and repair costs.
    [Show full text]
  • NDOT Statewide Integrated Transportation Reliability Program ______
    ______________________________________________ NDOT Statewide Integrated Transportation Reliability Program _____________________ DRAFT Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Performance Measurement Plan Prepared by: October, 2009 092202013 Copyright © 2009, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PLAN 1. OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PLAN ................................................................. 1 1.1 What is Performance Measurement and Why Use it? ......................................................... 1 1.2 How Performance Measurement is Used in Other States .................................................... 2 1.3 How Can Performance Monitoring Benefit NDOT and its Partners? ................................ 4 1.4 How is Transportation Performance Currently Being Monitored? .................................... 4 1.5 What is the Best Way to Measure Reliability in Nevada? ................................................... 5 1.6 How Do Performance Measures Relate to ITRP Strategies?............................................. 10 2. OUTCOME-BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES .......................................................................... 11 3. ACTIVITY-BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................................................................... 23 4. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORTING ............................................................................ 33 1.1 Overview of the Process and Progress ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feature 215 Medians
    Chapter 7. RCI Features & Characteristics Feature 215 FEATURE 215 MEDIANS Roadway Side Allows Tie LRS Package Feature Type Interlocking Secured C Yes Yes Length Yes Yes Responsible Party for District Planning Data Collection Definition/Background: Denotes type of medians and median barriers on divided highways. MDBARTYP | TYPE OF MEDIAN BARRIER Who/What uses this Offset Offset HPMS MIRE Information Required For Direction Distance 35 Planning, Maintenance, Work All functionally classified N/A N/A Program, Traffic Operations, roadways on the SHS, all HPMS HPMS standard samples off the SHS, Active Exclusive roadways, all SIS related roadways, and all managed lanes. Definition/Background: Denotes type of median barrier. Important When Gathering: A barrier is defined as any longitudinal and vertical physical structure between roadbeds preventing motorists from crossing to the other side of the travelway. How to Gather this Data: Record appropriate code. Special Situations: When more than one barrier type exists, use Code 20-Other. Codes Descriptions 03 Cable Barrier 04 Guardrail (all types) 05 Fence 06 Barrier Wall 20 Other 28 Canal, river, or other waterway 7-172 | RCI Handbook Feature 215 EXAMPLES EXAMPLES OF CODING COMBINATIONS RCI Handbook | 7-173 Chapter 7. RCI Features & Characteristics Feature 215 MEDWIDTH | HIGHWAY MEDIAN WIDTH Who/What uses this Offset Offset HPMS MIRE Information Required For Direction Distance 36 Planning, Maintenance, Work All functionally classified N/A N/A Program, Traffic Operations, roadways on the SHS, all HPMS HPMS standard samples off the SHS, Active Exclusive roadways, all SIS related roadways, and all managed lanes. Definition/Background: Denotes the median width in feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminar Presentation
    2014 SPECIFICATIONS UPDATE Book Cover for the 2014 Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges Hierarchy of Organizational Elements 3 TXDOT SPECIFICATION FORMAT 2004 Format 2014 Format 4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ITEMS 1 – 9 Roxana Garcia, P.E. ITEM 1 – Definitions of Terms New Definitions: . Concrete Construction Joint. A joint formed by placing plastic concrete in direct contact with concrete that has attained its initial set. Intelligent Transportation System. An integrated system that uses video and other electronic detection devices to monitor traffic flows. Monolithic Concrete Placement. The placement of plastic concrete in such a manner and sequence to prevent a construction joint. Replacement Alternate. A bid item identified in the proposal form that a Bidder may substitute for a specific regular item of work. Suspension. Action taken by the Department or federal government pursuant to regulation that prohibits a person or company from entering into a Contract, or from participating as a subcontractor, or supplier of materials or equipment used in a highway improvement Contract as defined in Transportation Code, Chapter 223, Subchapter A. 6 ITEM 2 – Instructions to Bidders . Incorporated the current special provisions for Item 2. Clarifies that a bid proposal form will not be issued to a Bidder who is suspended or debarred by the Commission, Department, or any federal agency. Separates the language regarding confidential questionnaire and bidder’s questionnaire. Separates the language for electronic and manual bids. Updates the section regarding Home State Bidding Preferences with the latest legislative requirements. 7 ITEM 3 – Award and Execution of Contract . For projects with railroad requirements, the Contractor submits the right of entry agreement and associated insurance during contract execution.
    [Show full text]
  • ATTACHMENT D02 Table of Guidance, Gaps & Needs in The
    ATTACHMENT D02 Table of Guidance, Gaps & Needs in the RDG NCHRP 15-65 DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE BASED GUIDELINES FOR THE ROADSIDE DESIGN GUIDE January 2018 Christine E. Carrigan, P.E., Ph.D. Malcolm H. Ray, P.E., Ph.D. P.O. Box 312 12 Main Street Canton, Maine 04221 RDG Guidance Summary Table Version: 3-12.2017 Author: EMR Table or Type of Decision Making Section Section Title Description of Guidance Ref? Figure Guidance Basis From NCHRP 2 Economic Evaluation of Roadside Safety Gap: Work recently completed but not implemented - The Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAPv3) Update Gap 20-07(360) 22-27 From Roadside Topography and Drainage Gap: Work recently completed but not implemented - Guidelines for Cost-effective Safety Treatment of Roadside NCHRP 3 Gap 20-07(360) Features Ditches 16-05 From Roadside Topography and Drainage NCHRP 3 Gap: Work recently completed but not implemented - Development of Clear Recovery Area Guidelines Gap 20-07(360) Features 17-11(02) From Roadside Topography and Drainage NCHRP 3 Gap covered by recently initiated research - Guidelines for Slope Traversability Gap 20-07(360) Features 17-55 3.1 The Clear-Zone Concept Old guidance: high-speed highways, 30 ft. clear zone allows 80% of errant vehicles to recover Y(6) Out-Dated Eng. Judgement 3.1 Tab. 3-1 The Clear-Zone Concept Table of recommended clear zone by speed, ADT, & fore/back slope severity No Design 3.1 Tab. 3-2 The Clear-Zone Concept Table of horizontal curve adjustment factor to clear-zone by radius and speed No Placement From Gap: push the forgiving roadside concept more.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 1 ATP Project List (PDF)
    ATTACHMENT 1 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Project List District January 1 - March 31, 2019 PPNO Approved ATP Approved Actual Current Award County Budget Budget Expended EAC Finish Finish Finish Amount No . Route Title Location and Type of Work Phase ($1,000 s) ($1,000 s) ($1,000 s) ($1,000 s) Milestone Date Date Date ($1,000 s) 1 01 Humboldt Bay Trail The project is located along the NCRA and Caltrans Highway PAED 0 0 0 0 Baseline 0 2391 South 101 corridor between Eureka and Brainard Slough (~2 miles PSE 0 0 0 0 PAED 08/29/18 HUM south of Arcata) with Humboldt Bay to the west and north. RW Sup 0 0 0 0 RW Cert 05/01/20 Construction of 4.2 mile Class I bike path along the N. Coast Con Sup 0 0 0 0 RTL 07/23/20 Railroad Authority and Hwy 101 transportation corridor RW Cap 0 0 0 0 Begin Const 10/15/20 between Eureka and Arcata, and construction of cable barrier Con Cap 13 ,296 13 ,296 0 0 End Const 07/07/22 Total 13 ,296 13 ,296 0 0 2 01 McKinleyville Safe The McKinleyville Safe Routes to School Program will be PAED 25 25 0 25 Baseline 0 2504 A Routes to School located in McKinleyville, an unincorporated community within PSE 40 40 0 0 PAED 06/28/20 HUM Program Humboldt County, California. Specifically, the project focuses RW Sup 0 0 0 0 RW Cert 03/02/21 on McKinleyville Avenue, from Gassaway Avenue to the south Con Sup 0 0 0 0 RTL 04/01/21 entrance of McKinleyville High School and Bates Roads from RW Cap 12 12 0 0 Begin Const 05/01/21 Fernwood Drive to Morris Elementary School.
    [Show full text]
  • Suggested Maintenance Practices for Roadside Weed and Brush Problems
    Suggested Maintenance Practices for Roadside Weed and Brush Problems Circular E-958 January 2017 Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University Clayton Hurst Extension Associate Oklahoma State University Lydia Calhoun Extension Assistant Oklahoma State University Dennis Martin Turfgrass Specialist Oklahoma State University Recommendations in this publication are based on research supported by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Suggested Maintenance Practices for Roadside Weed and Brush Control Right-of-way vegetation management is a very important grass), brush, switchgrass, total vegetation control and aquatic part of the overall roadside maintenance program. The veg- weeds. With respect to recommended timing of applications, etation adjacent to the road surface is a functional part of the refer to the spray zone map (Figure 1) based on your location road. In addition to mechanical methods, herbicides are used within Oklahoma. for managing right-of-way vegetation. When used correctly, Please remember these are only suggestions and the follow- herbicides can selectively control undesirable weeds and leave ing information is for preliminary planning. There is no substitute nearby beneficial plants unharmed. for an applicator scouting roadside areas regularly to note the This Extension circular summarizes herbicides, amounts conditions of the desired species, weeds present, and their of product per acre, water carrier rates, timing of application, stage of development. Be sure to follow the manufacturer’s and important comments regarding vegetation management directions, not withstanding the information contained in this programs. These programs include control of Johnsongrass, circular. Read and follow all label directions. annual grasses and broadleaves, silver bluestem (silver beard- Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Cable Median Barrier Failure Analysis and Prevention
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Final Reports & Technical Briefs from Mid- America Transportation Center Mid-America Transportation Center 2012 Cable Median Barrier Failure Analysis and Prevention Dean L. Sicking University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Cody S. Stolle University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/matcreports Part of the Civil Engineering Commons Sicking, Dean L. and Stolle, Cody S., "Cable Median Barrier Failure Analysis and Prevention" (2012). Final Reports & Technical Briefs from Mid-America Transportation Center. 45. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/matcreports/45 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mid-America Transportation Center at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Final Reports & Technical Briefs from Mid-America Transportation Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Nebraska Transportation Center Report # TRP-03-275-12 Final Report 25-1121-0001-428 Cable Median Barrier Failure Analysis and Prevention Dean L. Sicking, Ph.D., P.E. Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska-Lincoln Cody S. Stolle, Ph.D., E.I.T. Postdoctoral Research Associate 2012 NTC Nebraska Transportation Center 262 WHIT 2200 Vine Street Lincoln, NE 68583-0851 (402) 472-1975 “This report was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration [and Federal Transit Administration], U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the authors [or agency] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U. S. Department of Transportation.” MATC University Transportation Center Research Program Fiscal Years 2010-2012 CABLE MEDIAN BARRIER FAILURE ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION Submitted by Cody S.
    [Show full text]
  • CDOT Cable Barrier Guide 2017
    August 18, 2017 CDOT Cable Barrier Guide COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CABLE BARRIER GUIDE 1.0 SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 Summary High-tension cable barrier consists of steel wire cables mounted on weak steel posts and is used to prevent vehicles from crossing medians into opposing traffic lanes or to contain roadside departures. Cable barrier is cost effective to install compared to rigid or semi-rigid barrier systems and tends to result in less severe damage to the impacting vehicle. Cable barrier does not act as a windbreak, and therefore will not cause snow drifting. 1.2 Description CDOT uses a type of high-tension cable barrier that consists of pre-stretched cables mounted on lightweight steel posts and tightened to several thousand pounds of tension. High-tension cable barrier can be placed in long run lengths. The run length is the distance of cable barrier between end anchors. The run length may be limited by the presence of median openings or obstacles such as structures, median columns, etc. High-tension cable barrier is installed by CDOT using concrete footings in which metal tubes are cast to form sockets for the posts. The socket allows a post to be replaced with relative ease during repairs. The damaged post is removed from the socket and replaced with a new post. This eliminates the need for specialized post driving equipment and subsurface utility location for each repair. High-tension systems can be used on slopes of 4:1 and flatter. CDOT requires FHWA approved cable barrier meeting performance criteria in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350, Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features, for Test Level 3 to be allowed on high speed highways.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Manual Chapter 1610 Traffic Barriers
    Chapter 1610 Traffic Barriers 1610.01 Introduction Exhibit 1610-6 Barrier Length of Need 1610.02 Barrier Impacts Exhibit 1610-7 Barrier Length of Need on Curves 1610.03 General Barrier Design Considerations Exhibit 1610-8 Beam Guardrail Trailing End Placement for 1610.04 Beam Guardrail Divided Highways 1610.05 High-Tension Cable Barrier Exhibit 1610-9 Beam Guardrail Post Installation 1610.06 Concrete Barrier Exhibit 1610-10 Guardrail Connections 1610.07 Bridge Traffic Barriers Exhibit 1610-11 Transitions and Connections 1610.08 Other Barriers Exhibit 1610-12 Median Cable Barrier Placement 1610.09 References Exhibit 1610-13 Roadside Cable Barrier Placement Exhibit 1610-14 Cable Barrier Placement: Overlap on Divided Highways Exhibit 1610-1 Concrete Barrier Placement Guidance: Assessing Impacts to Wildlife Exhibit 1610-15 Cable Barrier Placement: Cable Barrier Termination/Overlap with Beam Guardrail Exhibit 1610-2 Traffic Barrier Locations on Slopes Exhibit 1610-16 Concrete Barrier Shapes Exhibit 1610-3 Longitudinal Barrier Deflection Exhibit 1610-17 Type 7 Bridge Rail Upgrade Criteria Exhibit 1610-4 Longitudinal Barrier Flare Rates Exhibit 1610-18 Thrie Beam Rail Retrofit Criteria Exhibit 1610-5 Barrier Length of Need on Tangent Sections Chapter Organization: The first sections (Introduction and Barrier Impacts) present information to consider when deciding whether to install a barrier. The next section (General Barrier Design Considerations) contains guidance common to ALL barrier types, such as deflection distance, length of need and sight distance. The remaining sections present design information organized by specific barrier type (beam guardrail, cable barrier, etc.). Refer to the Glossary for many of the terms used in this chapter.
    [Show full text]