|Logged in as: Public User|
We are replacing some expansion joints on bridges on I-80 where we have 42-inch single slope barrier both on the bridge decks and in approach of the bridge. The approach barrier has a 10-inch deep footing and the barrier is fairly heavily reinforced. The bridge barrier is tied into the deck and should have adequate end condition support. Several years ago we decided to use the New York Portable Concrete Barrier Key to connect the approach barrier to the bridge barrier at expansion joints to provide transfer of the lateral forces from one barrier to the next. It appears New York modified the key cap before MwRSF did some recent testing for New York.
Now days, we use a deeper footing similar to what MwRSF developed for the 42” nearly vertical barrier with head-slap consideration to provide full end condition support. It is not practical to replace the footing for these installations while only replacing the expansion joints. My question is, do you think this existing key style connection is adequate to provide sufficient support at the end of the approach barrier given the depth of the footings and reinforcing?
|Date||August 5, 2013|
|Attachment||Old Details (Approx yr2000).pdf|
|Response||First off, your median barrier drawing shows a reduced stirrup/transverse steel space within 5 ft of the end. Assuming that the dowels between the barrier and the foundation slab are placed at every stirrup location, I think that the end of the barrier could perform as a TL-3 barrier on its own. The key connection would only strengthen the joint. As for TL-4 and TL-5, you would probably need a connection to transfer the load across the expansion joint.
The key connection shown in the drawing concerns me in that it may not transfer load between the two sides until a significant deflection occurs. The slots in the tubes are oversized by 1/2" and the I-shaped key can rotate within the tubes as the barrier is deflecting. Thus, this connection may not load right away causing significant deflections and damage tot he barrier prior to load transfer (unless the tubes are very close together). However, the connection is still better than having nothing at all.
In looking at the connection, I would make a few changes to tighten up the joint to load quicker in shear (narrower slots in the tubes, wider flanges on the drop in I-section, things like that). However, I have not seen any testing of this type of connection between two permanent barriers, so it is difficult to say how well it performs and how much load it can take. Therefore, I defer to you and your State's crash records as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the connection.
If you feel that the connection is in need of improvement, a number of states have utilized a design that resembles a steel plate/shell that is bent to the shape of the barriers, placed over the top of the adjacent barrier ends, and bolted down on both sides. Of course, the bolts are placed in slots so that the joint can expand and contract. This type of connection would ensure a quicker load transfer as well as prevent vehicle snagging on the barrier ends if the expansion joint opens up.
|Date||August 23, 2013|
130 Whittier Research Center
2200 Vine Street
Lincoln, NE 68583-0853
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.