|Logged in as: Public User|
Extra Block outs
On the link above it discusses the use of double and triple
Restricted Length Bridge
A question that arises often is one related to placing
|Date||June 15, 2015|
First, the blockouts guidance below is based on 8” blockouts. Thus, we believe that 6” blockouts are acceptable as we have used them in certain special applications without a problem. 24” blockouts are allowed in limited locations as noted in the response.
This holds true for the standard MGS system as well.
For the short-radius document, I have a couple of comments.
1. We have provided guidance for attachment of terminals and minimum system lengths for the approach guardrail system and terminals. I would review that relative to the guidance on the first page, as I believe that some of them may be in conflict.
“Thus, the following implementation guidelines should be followed:
1. A recommended minimum length of 12 ft – 6 in. (3.8 m) for standard MGS is to be installed between the upstream end of the asymmetrical W-beam to thrie beam transition section and the interior end of an acceptable TL-3 guardrail end terminal. This segment includes one half-post spacing for Design K and three half-post spacings for Design L.
2. A recommended minimum barrier length of 46 ft – 10½ in. (13.3 m) is to be installed beyond the upstream end of the asymmetrical W-beam to thrie beam transition section, which includes standard MGS, a crashworthy guardrail end terminal, and an acceptable anchorage system. This segment includes one halfpost spacing for Design K and three half-post spacings for Design L.
3. For flared guardrail applications, a minimum length of 25 ft (7.6 m) is recommended between the upstream end of the asymmetrical W-beam to thrie beam transition section and the start of the flared section (i.e. bend between flare and tangent sections). This segment includes one half-post spacing for Design K and three half-post spacings for Design L.”
2. When discussing the radius options for the short-radius guardrail, we would suggest a minimum radius of 8’. No radius smaller than that has ever been crash tested.
3. It appears that you are using the Washington short-radius design. This is likely based on the FHWA memo that previously recommended that design for use until a better, crash-tested system is developed. Recently, TTI got TL-2 approval for the Yuma County short-radius design. Some states have moved to this design, and I just wanted to bring it up in case you were unaware. http://www.roadsidepooledfund.org/files/2010/11/T-Intersection-final_2010-08-17.pdf
4. TTI has also done some recent research into a MASH TL-3 short-radius system. The system did meet the crash test criteria, but we have some concerns about impacts on the system in locations not specified in the crash test matrix. I thought you might want to look at that information as well.
5. On page three, you discuss an area for breakaway posts for capture of errant vehicles. You have chosen an area from 5-15 degrees. We have recently been doing research with NDOR on a new safety treatment for intersecting roadways and have looked into similar issues of necessary capture area. We believe that the angle of impact in the capture area may vary from 0-25 degrees. We defined the potential impact area for errant vehicles based on a runout length calculation. NDOR liked this approach because it provided for a more justifiable definition. The report on this research should be out in a month, but I have attached a draft of the chapter describing this for your review.
|Date||June 17, 2015|
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.