Logged in as: Public User

Taper on end of concrete barrier

State MN
Description Text

In April of 2011 staff from MnDOT conducted a conference call with you and Dean Sicking to discuss a wide range of barrier design/geometry and crash testing related issues.  One specific issue we discussed was the taper at the end of concrete barrier sections, where the barrier transitions to a guardrail connection (see issue #3 highlighted in yellow in the first attachment).  The concluding statement for issue #3 includes the language (see first attachment), “End tapers for barriers taller than 34” should be modified to 1V:8H.”  We have adjusted the taper to 1V:8H for most of our barriers that are taller than 34”, but have a question regarding the MnDOT structural tube railing that was crash testing at your facility.  The second attachment is our standard plan sheet for the structural tube barrier, which has a height of 38”.  Please note the portion of the drawing in the upper left hand corner with the red border.  Should the taper on this shape also be modified to 1:8?  The current taper is 5:12, the same taper we use on all of barriers with a height of 34” of less.

Please let me know what you think.


  • Permanent Concrete Barriers
Other Keywords none
Date April 24, 2013
Attachment MnDOTStdFig157.pdf
Attachment MwRSF Mtg 03-31-2011.doc


A couple of comments on the detail you sent.


1.       We do believe that the concrete end section that you have shown in the detail should use the 8H:1V taper that we discussed previously for other concrete rail height transitions.

2.       A second comment should be made regarding the termination of the tubing adjacent to the increased height concrete end section shown. As the detail is currently shown, the vertical face of the concrete barrier at the end of the tube rail section poses a significant vehicle snag hazard for vehicles impacting from right to left as shown on the detail plan. We have been in discussions with other states that use similar end sections with their combination rails and have recommended flaring the vertical face of the barrier back and extending the tube section to mitigate the potential for vehicle snag at that location. I have attached a schematic showing the idea so you can get a picture of the type of modification we are suggesting.


Please contact me with any comments or questions.

Date April 25, 2013
Attachment BR27C_End Section_REVISED_DRAFT04092013.pdf

Contact Us:
130 Whittier Research Center
2200 Vine Street
Lincoln, NE 68583-0853
(402) 472-0965
Email: mwrsf@unl.edu
The information contained on the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility (MwRSF) website is subject to change without prior notice. The University of Nebraska and the MwRSF is not responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use or misuse of or reliance upon any such content, goods, or services available on this site.