WORK ZONE INTRUSION ALERT TECHNOLOGIES: ASSESSMENT AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE Final Report SPR 790 WORK ZONE INTRUSION ALERT TECHNOLOGIES: ASSESSMENT AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FINAL REPORT SPR 790 by John A. Gambatese Hyun Woo Lee Chukwuma Aham Nnaji School of Civil and Construction Engineering Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Section 555 13th Street NE, Suite 1 Salem OR 97301 and Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-0003 June 2017 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-OR-RD-17-14 4.Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Work Zone Intrusion Alert Technologies: Assessment and Practical June 2017 Guidance 6. Performing Organization Code 7.Author(s) 8. Performing Organization John A. Gambatese; Hyun Woo Lee; Chukwuma Aham Nnaji Report No. SPR 790 9.Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (trais) Oregon State University School of Civil and Construction Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No. Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2302 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Oregon Dept. of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Covered Research Unit Federal Highway Administration Final Report 555 13th Street NE, Suite 2 400 Seventh St., SW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Salem, Oregon 97301-4178 Washington, D.C. 20590 15.Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract A work zone intrusion alert technology is a type of safety system that is used in a roadway work zone to alert field workers and secure time for them to escape when errant vehicles intrude into the work zone. Although such technologies have potential to significantly improve the overall safety of construction work zones, previous studies reported mixed findings, resulting in limited application of intrusion alert technologies. In response, the primary goal of this research study is to scientifically assess the effectiveness of currently available work zone intrusion alert technologies, and to provide recommendations for use of the technologies in future ODOT construction and maintenance work zones. To fulfill this goal, the research gathered information about work zone intrusion alert technologies, gained experiential input and advice from ODOT staff and industry practitioners, and tested technologies under controlled conditions and in active work zones. While sample sizes were limited, the findings from the study indicate that aspects of intrusion alarms via visual, audio, and haptic means can be effective warning mechanisms in a work zone. To improve the potential impacts of these technologies, this report identifies recommended minimum standards for each of the aforementioned means of alert. Implementation of the research results is expected to assist ODOT with enhancing the safety of motorists and workers in construction work zones on high-speed roadways. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Work Zone, Safety, Intrusion Alert Technologies. Copies available from NTIS, and online at Construction http://oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/Pages/Researc h-Publications.aspx 19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification 21. No. of Pages 22. Price (of this report) (of this page) 203 Unclassified Unclassified chnical Report Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Printed on recycled paper i ii SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbo When You Multiply Symbo Symbo When You Multiply To Find To Find Symbol l Know By l l Know By LENGTH LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA AREA millimeters millimeters in2 square inches 645.2 mm2 mm2 0.0016 square inches in2 squared squared ft2 square feet 0.093 meters squared m2 m2 meters squared 10.764 square feet ft2 yd2 square yards 0.836 meters squared m2 m2 meters squared 1.196 square yards yd2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac kilometers kilometers mi2 square miles 2.59 km2 km2 0.386 square miles mi2 squared squared VOLUME VOLUME iii fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters ml ml milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal ft3 cubic feet 0.028 meters cubed m3 m3 meters cubed 35.315 cubic feet ft3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 meters cubed m3 m3 meters cubed 1.308 cubic yards yd3 NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3. MASS MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb short tons (2000 short tons (2000 T 0.907 megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.102 T lb) lb) TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact) (F- 1.8C+3 °F Fahrenheit Celsius °C °C Celsius Fahrenheit °F 32)/1.8 2 *SI is the symbol for the International System of Measurement ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the input of the ODOT Research Unit and Technical Advisory Committee established for this research study: Travis Brouwer, ODOT Dean Chess, ODOT Nick Fortey, FHWA Justin King, ODOT Ron Larson, ODOT Jon Lazarus, ODOT Tyson Lindekugel, ODOT Scott McCanna, ODOT Jarvis Pennington, ODOT John Rakowitz, AGC Eric Standley, ODOT Additional appreciation is expressed to Ali Karakhan, Ali Jafarnejad, Ding Liu, Kasim AlOmari, Ziyu Jin, and Fan Zhang, graduate students at OSU, who assisted with data collection on the case study projects. As well, Prof. van den Wymelenberg, Stephanie Luiere, and Alen Mahić of the Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory at the University of Oregon assisted in providing the instruments used for the day time luminance assessment. The research team is also grateful to the many construction industry partners who volunteered their time and effort to participate in the survey, focus groups, and case study projects. DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Oregon and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Oregon Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. The State of Oregon and the United States Government do not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 STUDY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 RESEARCH SCOPE ............................................................................................................. 4 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 6 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Work Zone Intrusions............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ................................. 9 2.3 PREVIOUS INTRUSION ALERT TECHNOLOGIES ................................................ 10 2.4 AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................ 11 2.5 POINT OF DEPARTURE ............................................................................................ 14 3.0 SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICE ......................................................................... 15 3.1 SURVEY STRUCTURE .............................................................................................. 15 3.2 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................. 15 3.3 SURVEY DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................. 15 3.4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.5 SUMMARY OF CURRENT PRACTICES .............................................................................. 22 4.0 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ............................................................................ 25 4.1 ODOT 14821 TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (TRNWR) TURN LANE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................ 26 4.3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................