|Logged in as: Public User|
|Description Text||We are rehabbing some box culverts and attempting to incorporate the recently developed MGS Low Cost Box Culvert/Bridge Rail Design as a replacement railing. The particular box culvert in question will require adding a taller headwall to provide a 1V:10H slope into the face of the side mounted MGS Railing. Our Bridge Personnel would like to know if it is better to design the sockets so that the bottom connection is into the top of the box, rather than the headwall since it is rather tall. This design is shown in the attached drawing. Or is it O.K. just to stay with the standard design? In any case we would like to standardize the length of the posts.|
|Other Keywords||culvert, MGS, socket|
|Date||May 19, 2014|
|Attachment||Question to Pooled Fund.docx|
Your proposed design, shown in the PDF "Preliminary Design", should work great as a retrofit to the original weak-post guardrail to culvert attachment system. By extending the length of the socket with the height of the headwall, you will limit/reduce the lateral load transferred into the headwall by the top anchor rod (longer moment arm between tension at top of socket and compression at bottom of socket equals lower loads with same bending strength in post). Since it sounds like you are retrofitting the headwall to an existing box culvert, limiting the loads imparted to the headwall and the connection to the culvert is probably the best course of action.
|Date||May 23, 2014|
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.